How Marvel's Phase 3 Quietly Set Up Infinity War

An aspect of Marvel's Phase 3 that somewhat bugged me was the lack of set-up for Infinity War. It honestly felt like directors kicking the can down the road in favor of telling their largely independent stories, with the post-credits scenes being the only things that pushed the greater story forward. This arguably worked out, as Marvel's Phase 3 is a series of excellent films, but it feels like Marvel dropped the ball here. Or did they? Strap in, folks, I've got a theory. 

Throughout Marvel's Phase 3, we've seen the fall of multiple characters famed for their incredible power. We had the death of the Ancient One at the hands of Kaecilius alongside most of the other sorcerers in Doctor Strange, we had Star-Lord destroying Ego in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and losing his celestial powers, and we had Odin die and Asgard destroyed in Thor: Ragnarok. (Arguably, you could count the burning of the herb garden in Black Panther as another example, as well.) All of these figures and places were incredibly powerful, and each was connected to Earth in a certain way. And guess who shows up to Earth after the last of these is destroyed? 

That's right: Thanos. With all these people gone, Thanos comes knocking literally within days of the fall of Asgard. Clearly, all this biding of time was him waiting for these people to no longer be a threat to his invasion. Granted, it doesn't account for the fact that two out of three of these people were effectively immortal. (Asgardians, contrary to most beliefs, do die of old age eventually.) But, hey, it worked out, because the Allfather, the Sorcerer Supreme, and the Celestial with ties to Earth are all gone, and in their places are the mere table scraps that call themselves the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy. 

Granted, I could be totally wrong, but if this was quiet set-up, it's totally brilliant and proves that Marvel continue to be the masters of set-up. Plus, this being true clearly means Marvel can do Avengers BC, enabling me to get a Ghost Rider that rides a flaming mammoth on the big screen. 

It's all I've ever wanted, really. 

Why is Disney Sleeping On Treasure Planet?

Disney is really ramping up their live-action adaptations. Winnie the Pooh, Mulan, Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King are all going to be getting remakes from a variety of brilliant directors, and while that's all well and good, it feels a bit...pointless? After all, those films are classics of cinema, so remaking them really serves no purpose beyond giving people a chance to see beloved characters in live-action. 

 Plus a chance to see an adaption of this cocaine nightmare disguised as a whimsical dream sequence. 

What would be much more interesting is seeing Disney taking films that failed and adapting them into live-action blockbusters that could theoretically thrive where they once suffered. For my first (and probably best) example of this is Treasure Planet, a 2002 sci-fi adaption of the classic Treasure Island, only with space pirates. The film was well-received critically and was widely seen as a refreshing entry in the Disney Animated Canon, so naturally it bombed, costing Disney nearly $47 million and causing them to shift away from traditional animation. 

And what's frustrating about that is it really shouldn't have, given how much was going for it. A good cast, exciting visuals, and a really good premise, added with one of Disney's best villains in the form of John Silver. Hell, no one can even really tell how it failed, with most guesses coming down to the fact that it came out around the same time as Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, costing it it's target audience. Well, guess what Disney? You can just avoid that next time. 

In an era where sci-fi is once again the top dog, all Disney would need to guarantee success is giving a big budget and a good director. (In my mind, James Gunn would nail it. Just putting it out there.) "But Ryan," you ask, annoyingly, "Would people even remember this film?" To which I reply, full of gusto, do they even need to? If audiences see a cool Disney-produced science fiction movie, they'll see it. 

Besides, who even remembers Dumbo? 

In conclusion, Treasure Planet is an underrated gem, and a live-action adaption could not only do it justice, but maybe turn a new generation of viewers towards the original film as well. It's Disney, for goodness sake, they can take some risks. 

Is FX Becoming the New HBO?

Over the last few years, it's become increasingly clear that FX has become something of a sleeping giant to the television game. A network once primarily known for It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia and showings of films once HBO and Starz were done with them now regularly produces an incredible variety of excellent television, to the point where my favorite shows of the last 4 years (Legion, Atlanta, and Fargo) were all FX programming. It's incredibly surprising to see a network that once offered very little now offer so much in the way of variety. 

Perhaps it's because of the creative control these shows are given. Very little oversight is given into how these shows are made, enabling auteurs like Ryan Murphy, Noah Hawley, and Donald Glover to create works of brilliance of which there is very little on other networks. The recent addition of riskier content, such as profanity and nudity, has given these creators even more free reign than they had before. Even AMC, which prides itself on daring programming, tends to have a specific type of show that it markets, alongside meddling in these projects. (Just ask Frank Darabont.) 

Morally complex white guys, if you were wondering the specific type. 

Much like HBO, FX really has something for everyone. Don't like Legion? Watch Atlanta. Don't like Atlanta? Watch Archer. Don't like Archer? Watch American Horror Story, or it's even better spin-off American Crime Story. It's the wide variety of quality programming that has enabled FX to keep up with the rise of Netflix and other networks in the golden age of television. 

So, yes, I believe that it is in on the way of becoming the next HBO, and will arguably surpass it by having something for everyone. 

Donny Cates's "Thanos" Is An Absolute Thrill Ride

When I wrote about Dark Knights: The Wild Hunt a few weeks back, most of my praise of the book stemmed from it's total embrace of the absurdity of superhero comics to tell an engaging story. Now, with Donny Cates's run on Thanos with God Country collaborator Geoff Shaw coming to an all-too soon close with issue #18 next month, I can happily say that this is that times 1000, and it totally works. 

Cates's run, titled "Thanos Wins", reminds me somewhat of Mark Millar and Steve McNiven's Old Man Logan, in that it uses the storytelling device of being set far in a likely alternate timeline to go absolutely nuts. "Thanos Wins" depicts the titular antihero being dragged into a distant future where he has finally prevailed over the heroes of the Marvel universe and has seemingly wiped out all life in the galaxy. All that remains is an older, world-weary version of the  Mad Titan, an insane Ghost Rider (whose true identity I will not spoil) that works as his herald, and a pet Hulk to whom they apparently fed most of the surviving heroes. 

Yeah, this comic really doesn't mess around. While the previous run by Jeff Lemire and depictions of the character in other comics by the likes of Abnett/Lanning, Starlin, and Hickman often gave Thanos a sympathetic or at least tragic backstory, Cates's Thanos relishes in sheer savagery and domination over others. At no point do you ever forget that Thanos is the villain, and the comic is violent and shocking, but it never feels over-the-top. 

Okay maybe it's a little over the top at points.

While Cates is working on Thanos and Doctor Strange, and Strange is also very good, Thanos absolutely feels like the one that's more fun for him to write and Shaw to draw. The sheer amount of insanity thrown at the reader in every issue feels like it could have gone for thirty issues rather than a mere six, and it's all brought to life with an epic flourish, courtesy of Shaw. The Cosmic Ghost Rider in particular has one of the best character designs I've seen in years, and the antagonist of the story (whom the younger Thanos has been summoned to assist in the fight against) has a warped, but deeply familiar design that makes him all the more menacing. 

With Infinity War on the horizon, there's inevitably going to be a glut of lists recommending endless Thanos stories, and I'm hoping that this one doesn't get passed on as a great showcase of Thanos as the ruthless, terrifying butcher of worlds that the film seems to be playing him up as. It's an absolute shame this run is coming to an end so soon, because it could've been one of the greatest cosmic stories ever told. Instead, it's just an immensely entertaining take on one of Marvel's greatest villains done by one of the best up-and-comers in comics at the moment, and an excellent jumping-on point for anyone wanting to check out the character before Infinity War drops. 

Although the saga will be continuing with this guy's upcoming miniseries, so there's still hope. 

Am I Excited for Ready Player One?

Ready Player One is a film that I have continuously flipflopped on since the first trailer was shown at San Diego Comic Con last year. On one hand, it's an incredibly interesting premise directed by probably the only person who could pull it off. On the other hand, I fear that, much like the book, it may squander it's premise in favor of going for more skin-deep "Hey, I remember that piece of pop culture." moments. So, in other words, it's hard to tell if I'm excited for the film or not, but that may be because of how inconsistent I find the film's marketing. 

For starters, what in the actual fuck are those posters about? Don't get me wrong, I like some of them, particularly the Blade Runner and Bullit ones, but others? Well...

OOF. This legit looks like someone's early 2000s message board chat signature. It also points me towards the fear that the film is just going to be a "Hey, I remember that thing I liked." slideshow that fails to capture why those things are so beloved in the first place. 

For instance, take the film's insistence on parading around the Iron Giant through it's promotion as a massive mecha used for combat. I love the Iron Giant, to the point that it may be my favorite animated film of all time, to the point that I vividly remember the film's message. 

Much like the bullets in the Matrix, I suspect the point may have gone over the filmmakers's head. 

By using the Iron Giant as a weapon throughout the film, I can't help but feel that you're not only misunderstanding why people love the source material, but somewhat tarnishing it as well. To a generation of people who watch the film, the giant hulking mecha that almost certainly uses it's laser cannon to wreak havoc will be their perception of a largely benevolent being who ultimately choose sacrifice over allowing other beings to die. For all the book's flaws, it recognized that the Giant wasn't meant for that and has the main character choose a different giant robot for combat, and the film choosing to ignore that reminds somewhat of Zack Snyder's "Have Batman murder people because it looks cool" way of thinking.

And while the book's more childish flaws are certainly an issue, part of my excitement comes from the hope that maybe, just maybe, Spielberg's better than that. After all, the primary criticism is that the book relies entirely on too much "tell, don't show", which will probably translate better to a visual medium than most expect. Ultimately, this film is the definition of a mixed bag for me, which is a shame because it really shouldn't be. But hey, being angry at things I should love is pretty much nerd culture for you. 

Spoiler Review: "Mister Miracle #7" Is An Unexpected Return

So, I love Tom King and Mitch Gerad's run on Mister Miracle a lot. It was my favorite comic of last year, and I even did a civilian cosplay of Gerad's take on Scott Free at Rhode Island Comic Con. So, when it was announced the series was going on a two-month haitus, I kind of wanted to die, especially after the incredible cliffhanger of #6. So, now that it's back, what did I think of #7? 

Well, I liked it, but I'm a bit let down at the direction it chose to take. Rather than build on the reveal that Darkseid is back and Scott is the new Highfather, the series instead cuts to a few months later, with Scott and Barda on the way to the hospital. Barda is in labor, complete with all the usual drama of contractions, trying to name the child, and awkward appearances by family. (In this case, the family drama comes in the form of the Female Furies, who have called a brief truce.) 

It's a surprisingly intimate issue, focusing on the relationship between Scott and Barda and choosing to go for character beats rather than big action moments like I had suspected would happen. (A particular favorite is the Furies supplying Scott with a knife that can cut through Barda's skin in case they need an emergency c-section, with them making it abundantly clear they intend to kill Scott with it once the truce is over.) What helps is the fact that both King and Gerads are fathers, with Gerards's son only a couple months old at this point, making all the little moments feel rather personal as well. 

Outside of the more combat-focused issues, this is probably the most I've enjoyed Gerads's art on the series as well. The series does such an excellent job of mixing the fantastic with the mundane, with the fact that the Furies never leave the waiting room a particularly surreal touch. 

But despite all this, I can't help but feel a bit letdown by the lack of follow-up from last issue. Sure, there's a few moments where it's clear Scott's ignoring his role in favor of witnessing the birth of his child, but the fact that Scott was borderline broken by Darkseid's reappearance never really comes up in any fashion. I'm certain that it'll come up next issue, but it feels like a missed opportunity. 

Regardless, this was still a very good issue of a very good comic, and everyone should be checking this book out, especially given that the ending of this one is beginning to suggest some definitive answers to the larger questions that the books early issues posed. (I'd talk about them, but I'm still holding out for fear of looking foolish.)

Read The Room, Democrats

Why Democrats Should Go Left, but Not Ditch The Centrists

So, this is going to be a rare political post on this blog. Honestly, this might be the only political post, but I feel like it's something I've wanted to say, but haven't really had the place to say it in a fully fleshed out manner. It surrounds the ongoing (if slowly shrinking) divide within the Democratic Party. On one side, you have the more centrist wing of the party, with the progressive wing that were re-energized by the campaign of Bernie Sanders in 2016. The argument for centrism and moderation is that they can gain more in the center than they would if they took stronger left stances, while progressives argue that Democrats are alienating a solid mass of the voter base by trying to appeal to moderates. After the widespread Democratic defeat that was 2016, it became increasingly clear that Democrats needed to adapt to the times or risk losing again down the road. 

And I, for one, believe that this is the case. Democrats should move forward and be bolder, standing for gun control, single-payer healthcare, marijuana legalization, and every other widely popular idea they've rejected for fear of losing on a national level. But a national level isn't the only level the party is competing on, is it? Democrats can always rely on places like New York, California, and most of the northern states as safe states, but they're also competing in the Midwest and the South, famously conservative regions where Democrats have been getting slaughtered in congressional and local elections for decades. So, what's the solution? Go all the way left and amputate the red states, or stay to the center and hope for the best? My answer is, well, a little bit of both. 

Democrats should absolutely go harder left, especially on things that are pretty much the norm worldwide, but they should still run ideal candidates for every state. From a purely tactical standpoint, running moderates in the South and progressives in the North and West enables the party to cover the most ground with the voter base, so it makes perfect sense. But, somehow, saying that the party should aim for a little bit of both rather than one or the other is a really unpopular opinion. 

Look at the upcoming primary elections in California and the special Senate election in Alabama last year as good examples of optimizing candidates. In California, the Democrats are in the middle of a brutal primary fight between Dianne Feinstein, the 84-year old moderate incumbent who supported mass surveillance (going as far as to deem Edward Snowden a traitor), the Iraq War, and deemed marijuana "a gateway drug", and Kevin De Leon, a 51-year old progressive challenger. Now, California is the most liberal state in the country, so whoever won the Democratic party endorsement for the runoff would almost certainly win the runoff election, meaning it should've been easy for the moderates to let the progressives have this one. But guess what: they didn't. 

De Leon faced an incredible amount of criticism for challenging Feinstein, and ultimately neither candidate was able to win the Democratic Party endorsement for the run-off, meaning both have a fairly even chance of winning (or losing). It was totally boneheaded for Democrats to not give De Leon the shot, especially given how he much better echoes what California stands for than his opponent. Of course, this is a double-bladed sword, so don't worry centrist readers, I'll be throwing shades at progressives now. 

In Alabama, moderate Democrat Doug Jones shocked the country by defeating far-right Republican (and alleged child molester) Roy Moore. The campaign was a tight race, and ultimately came down to moderate Republican voters (on top of incredibly high black voter turnout) choosing to hold their noses and not vote for a guy that might be a pedophile. So what did a (admittedly small) number of progressive Dems do? Simple, they got angry Jones wasn't more progressive, with some DSA members going as far as to sit out the election, risking a Moore win. This is despite the fact that moderate conservatives being willing to vote for him is a major reason for his victory.That kind of "make perfect the enemy of good" thinking is just as dangerous as moderate unwillingness to change with the times. 

Ultimately, Democrats shouldn't play a general rulebook, they should be adaptable. Go progressive nationally, and pick and choose locally, and I have a feeling we could be seeing a lot more Dem wins in the future.