So Brett Ratner Might Direct Justice League

*Blog inspired by a recent e-mail exchange*

At least according to io9: The Most Discouraging Justice League Rumor Imaginable.

Well...

Brett Ratner isn't a paragon of a human being, we know that. Honestly, I don't care. Lots of people are assholes and still make good entertainment.

He's not inspired, but he is a competent, no-surprises director who understands pacing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Ratner was NOT the problem on X-Men: The Last Stand. His directing credits are all pretty watchable, high-concept fluff, with some high points. The Family Man is good, Red Dragon is (surprisingly) quite good (unless you insist on comparing it to Manhunter. I try to take each film on it's own terms), After the Sunset is fun, even if all of those films are clearly "it made money before, make something similar" studio films. And the Rush Hour movies are exactly the kind of high-value, slicky-made entertainments that Marvel is making right now.

The problem with The Last Stand (which is a good comparison, since it's his only other superhero credit) was that Fox was pissed that Bryan Singer (who's, to this day, the ONLY filmmaker who's had a handle on how to do the X-Men) for doing Superman Returns (far better than people give it credit for, but too beholden to Richard Donner's film) and dumped him. They went with a poor script, which Matthew Vaughan- yes, X-Men: First Class (which, it should be noted, had a script co-developed with Singer) Matthew Vaughan, oversaw putting together. A script that checked off fanboy "want list" crap over a cohesive vision. Ratner, was hired VERY late on that film...Fox had a script and a release date, and Vaughan freaked and quit.

I will never call The Last Stand the best X-Men movie, but it is watchable, and the set pieces are well executed and exciting. It also feels connected with Singer's first two films. Ratner understood what he needed to do with that script, not step on the toes of what worked before, what was expected, and keep the shit moving. He's not an auteur, he's not even a "great" director, but he is a workmanlike one. I imagine that if he had come up during the days of the studio system he'd be a "go-to" guy.

Compared to Joss Whedon (if we do a direct Avengers/JLA comparison)...Ratner can't touch him on concepts, scripts, writing, but there's already a script in play. What Warner's wants is a pure director, and on a pure technical level, the nuts and blots of filmmaking, I think Ratner's equal to, or even a bit stronger than, Joss (even if The Avengers was a big step forward for him).

So, yeah...I understand why they're looking at him. I wouldn't even be upset if he got the job, because, if he does it, the chances of it actually getting made probably double. It'll be fun to watch, and probably faithful to what works. The real question is the script, which is what really made The Avengers memorable.


Do I wish they'd find somebody really exciting, with a non-corporate sensibility to really invigorate the JL? Oh. you bet! Justice League's current screenwriter, Will Beall's got a lot of heat coming off Gangster Squad, so I expect it's an exciting script (faithful, "good," or "the right script?" Who knows?).

Ben Affleck (who's a GREAT director waiting for the world to realize it) clearly didn't want it. The Wachowskis are NEVER going to do it. Zack Snyder apparently wants it, but that's because he's exactly what Ratner is, but with visual flair (even if it's cliche visual flair).

Although, that said...the Man of Steel teaser is really awesome.

Look at who Marvel's been using; Jon Favreau, who was fully B-list (if that) before Iron Man, really (and after Cowboys and Aliens, may be again). Kenneth Branagh, who was hardly known for this sort of thing. Joe Johnston, who I think is a fantastic, bordering on genius, workman director, but also has a "hack" label. Whedon, who we know is a genius, but he's a TV guy with one flop film and some internet stuff. Shane Black, a huge screenwriter from 15 years ago, who fell off the map, then made possibly the best film of the 2000's - that nobody saw. They all made great-to-fantastic films.

Honestly, I don't think you can do the shared universe thing with filmmakers with strong visions and things to say. Christopher Nolan, for example, wouldn't want to, and I think, flatly, he couldn't. He wanted to work with themes and psychological elements that would be completely invalidated the second Christian Bale's Batman walked into a JLA meeting room. The saddest thing, to me, is that kind of vision, that kind of pushing at the concept, thanks to Marvel, is dead and gone. Hollywood is fixated on "team 'em up" now.

Yes, Wheadon...who definitely had a strong vision, but what he wanted to say was "gee whiz! The Marvel Universe is neato!!" I think he looks at this like working on a TV show...you can make very, very fun, exciting drama, but, except in VERY rare cases, you're not going to be transcendent. Which is probably the healthiest place to be, and those checks will pay for his Much Ado, and the Dr. Horrible follow-up.

So, yeah...the collective Internet groan may head off Ratner, but the ultimate choice is going to be in the same realm. What I really wish is that Andrew Stanton hadn't so quickly slunk back to PIXAR for Finding Nemo 2 after the pounding he took over John Carter (a top-ten movie for 2012 in my book...screw the box office). He would be an excellent choice for Justice League, or heck, what about Brad Bird? The Incredibles is still one of the best superhero movies ever made, and flat-out the Best fantastic Four movie. I think he proved himself completely with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. These are both mid-tier guys who might take the job as another stepping stone, and represent clear, strong visions of the properties they tackle.

OK, So I Am Adopted

Adopted twice, actually. Once by my mother, and her first husband, at birth, and again by my father when I was about five, after he married my mother. I have 4 half-sisters and a half-brother by adoption, not that we ever really got into the "half" thing growing up.

I have never, ever, not once, found this to be an issue in my life. I, frankly, am unconcerned about the identity or whereabouts of my birth parents. My parents, who raised me, are my parents. It's a TOTAL non-issue in my life. I realize that not everyone has that experience, but I also think that the reason it's a non-issue is because I, and my parents, didn't allow it to be.

Oh, sure a couple of, now highly regretted, "you're not my REAL ________" outbursts, but that's more about being a teenager, than who's loins I emerged from.

I have a general stance about life. It's not where you came from, it's who you are. It's how you use what you're given, rather than what you start with being the whole of your life. It's why I get conflicted about any entitlement programs. From big things like Affirmative Action to the smallest, like the continual argument about how many female, versus male, playwrights get produced. I, personally accept people by their actions, their work, but I'm also not naive enough to think everyone does that. Yet, I think any preferential treatment, no matter how well-intentioned, is ultimately saying that "do your best" is not good enough. That hard work and self-application are, ultimately, irrelevant, and therefore foolish.

Sorry, bit of a digression, there.

This all stems from a online petition (*sigh*) that Jamie Berke, an advocate for the deaf, and, I guess, adopted (a cursory Google search finds mainly deafness issues), put up about an adoption joke in The Avengers. You can find it here. It has made me livid. In as much as, here is a group I am very much a part of, and this petition is a thin-skinned whining response to a single line in a movie that, apparently, SHE HASN'T EVEN SEEN. All of her tweets about the film simply reference a review she read.

For the record, here's the dialogue, per IMDB:

Bruce Banner: I don't think we should be focusing on Loki. That guy's brain is a bag full of cats. You can smell crazy on him.
Thor: Take care how you speak. Loki is beyond reason, but he is of Asgard. And he is my brother.
Natasha Romanoff: He killed eighty people in two days.
Thor: He's adopted. 

OK, it's an adoption joke, and in the film, it's funny. It's also not about Loki being adopted so much as the strained relationship between he and his brother. It's also the ONLY reference to Loki's adoptive status, and Thor's presence in the film is explained by his adoptive family's sense of responsibility to him. I mean, it's not like he's repeatedly called out for his birthright. Hulk doesn't call him "puny adopted kid." Captain America isn't leading the Avengers into battle shouting, "let's get that guy who doesn't know who his real mother is!" The line itself strikes me as exactly the kind of thing an embarrassed brother would say about another.

Also, if you've seen the Thor film (which, I'm sure Ms. Berke hasn't), it's pretty clear that Loki's ambitions have little to do with finding out that Odin isn't his "real" father. A revelation that happens well after Loki's evil actions begin. Since the character's creation in the 60's, Loki's evil has never been simply because he was adopted, as Ms. Berke tries to assert.

Which isn't to say that Loki's actions aren't somewhat tied to his family life. He's overshadowed by his brother at every turn, and insanely jealous of Thor for it. While the revelation of his parentage feeds that, it's not the reason for it. That's brothers, not just adoptive brothers.

Let me put it into the framework of my situation. I always knew there was a difference between myself and my siblings. There was a distance, some jealously on my part for the fact they were brought up together, but that distance had nothing to do with my adoptive status. If I had been the biological child of my mother and father, the situation would be exactly the same. Sure, I could've chose to make my status as adopted the issue, but I didn't.

That's the rather long, geeky, reasoning behind what I'm about to say. Some people may be offended by it, but this is how I feel.

Jamie Berke, you do NOT speak for me, as a child of adoption. I, as a child of adoption, understand the concepts of perspective, context, and, yes, humor. The joke in The Avengers is only offensive if you allow yourself to be so insecure about yourself that you can't hear the word "adoption" without tensing up. Taken as it is presented in the film, it's truly funny, and it illuminates the relationship between Thor and Loki.

There's an old adage that nothing is offensive if it makes you laugh. I think that's true. Comedy, well, GOOD comedy, by it's nature is about approaching difficult subjects with a lightness of heart and a willingness to laugh at yourself. If everyone around you is laughing, and you're not, maybe the issue isn't with the joke, but with you.

So, this adopted child is telling Marvel that they don't owe me an apology, nor anyone else. If Ms. Berke and her crew wish to boycott the movie, more power to them, but they don't deserve an apology. There's nothing to apologize for. 

Marvel's The Avengers

Lord, I hate the "Marvel's" in that title. It typifies much of what troubles me about Marvel's film output. The characters, rather than creative engines, are now commercial money-machines. A situation that I can only see continuing with the ownership by the Disney overlords....

That said, somehow, despite their tight-fisted ways, Marvel has managed to rope truly talented people into their motion picture factory. Artists who are able to work within the company's rather rigid commercial framework and generate truly entertaining material. Perhaps Kevin Feige and his team have learned from the Iron Man 2 stumble, wherein building the shared "Marvel Movie Universe," and laying the groundwork for Marvel's The Avengers, basically overwhelmed the movie.

That's a macro view of the situation, honestly, and sounds much harsher than I mean it. Ultimately, The Avengers is a film that shouldn't really exist, yet it does. Joss Whedon shouldn't be directing a HUGE tent-pole summer blockbuster, but he did. Truth to tell, the film shouldn't be any good. Robert Downey Jr's star power should've overwhelmed the rest of the cast. The Hulk hasn't REALLY worked twice before on film. Too many characters, etc.

But it does. Marvel's The Avengers does work. Like gangbusters.

The film has a spark and energy that is very hard to deny, the performances are all winners, except Samuel L. Jackson,. who, once again, just kind of puts on his "badass" face and wanders around. I was particularly worried that Downey would just bulldoze the rest of the cast, and Whedon's comments about downey's first words to him being "now you know Tony has to drive this thing, right?" didn't ally that fear.  While Stark does still end up pretty central to the proceedings, the rest of the cast wisely realizes that the best defense is to not even run with him. Chris Evans once again is letter-perfect as Steve "Captain America" Rogers, and Chris Hemsworth is possibly even more winning as Thor than he was in his own film. Scarlett Johanssen finally comes into her own as Black Widow, and Jeremy Renner is fine as Clint "Hawkeye" Barton (although the man is a HORRIBLE bowman).

The real winner in this team, aside from Whedon, is Mark Ruffalo as Dr. Bruce Banner, and, for the first time, The Hulk himself. It's no exaggeration to say that the Hulk steals the whole show. Ruffalo's low-key performance just brings the ball home. If there is truth to the rumors that the popularity of the Hulk (and his merchandise - More of that "Marvel's" attitude) may lead to another attempt at a film, you've finally got the star to make it work.

There are things that don't work. I don't think there's any spoiler in saying that an alien invasion occurs, arranged by Thor's adopted brother Loki (the marvelous Tom Hiddleston - a bravura turn). The Chitauri are faceless, bland, and ultimately not all that threatening. Oh, yeah, they cause lots of spectacular destruction and mess, but when you see them getting taken down left and right by a guy with a bow and arrow, and a gal with a couple of semi-auto pistols...it kinda undercuts the threat. Plus, they have ZERO personality. No one seems in charge of what they're doing. Loki doesn't seem like he's commanding the attack. I'd have liked a 3rd act threat that didn't feel like a part of a mass. Perhaps a Chitauri general for Captain America to engage one-on-one?

It's a minor quibble. One that really only came to me after I saw the film a second time. Joss keeps the action fast a furious, and the one-liners flying. It's all so well executed and full of pep that you just have to let the few weak points slide. Marvel's The Avengers is a rousing start to the Summer movie season, and just a ton of fun.

Well worth your time and money, but I can safely say, having seen it both 3-D and 2-D, that 3-D adds nothing to the experience. Save the $5, and don't worry about it. It's no Avatar or Hugo, where the 3-D works wonderfully, and adds to the film.

Fanboy Insecurity Run Rampant

Never underestimate the irrational fanboy need to be "right." It makes sense, honestly. Most of your hard-core fanboys (certainly myself) grew up feeling outside of anything and everything that would be considered "mainstream."

Yet, in recent years, we have this situation where fanboys have become a driving force in pop culture. With Hollywood falling over itself to make big-budget hay out of almost every cartoon series or comic book I grew up with, my generation of nerdy-types are feeling like the belle of the ball. Everybody wants in our pants...to grab our wallet.

The fan reaction to this sort of attention is always the same, and we've seen it over and over, and over again. A sense of entitlement, a sense of ownership. It's good, honestly, in small doses, breeding a deep affinity for these characters and properties. However, I can't think of a single case where this fan-property relationship hasn't turned dark.

Yeah, it's the UK poster, what of it?

The latest place where I see this is over on Rotten Tomatoes, in regards to the critical response to The Avengers (or, I guess the official title is Marvel's The Avengers - there you see Disney ownership in action). At the time I write this blog, on May 1st, 3 days before opening on May 4th, the "tomatometer" rating for the film is 94%. An excellent score, by any rational estimation.

Right now, there are five "rotten" reviews, with 82 "fresh." Now, I look at that and think, "well some people just don't enjoy this kind of entertainment." Part of my growing up as a fanboy made me 100% certain of two things. One is that I like what I like, and I shouldn't ever be embarrassed by that. Secondly, that not everyone is going to like what I do, and...so what?

I love the hell out of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai, Across the Eighth Dimension, and, when that movie came out, virtually no one else did. Trust me, I've rarely felt as alone as I did sitting through that movie - twice - in a 500+ seat Cinerama theater with 3 other people.

But I loved that I was alone. I loved that Buckaroo and the Hong Kong Cavaliers were something for me and just a few others. No internet to connect with those folks. The movie was, and is, quirky, weird, and not for everyone. That's part of why it's awesome.

Now obviously, The Avengers (screw you, Marvel's) is supposed to be a much more populist entertainment. Yet, I still wonder, what the hell happened to the sense of the individual in fandom? Why do we see fans getting in such a twist over the film "losing" it's 100% Tomatometer rating?

Worse yet, we see fandom as a offshoot of our current political discourse. Comments on every, single "rotten" review call for that critic to be "removed" (i.e. censored) from Rotten Tomatoes. Or, long, involved, overly fannish diatribes as to why the review is wrong.

I was particularly annoyed by the responses to Stephanie Zacharek's only barely negative response to the film in at Movieline. Where fans, including "Marvel Fan" (*sigh*) take umbrage with Ms. Zacharek's comparison of the film to the nostalgia-fests The Artist and Midnight in Paris (which, to be fair, it's pretty clear she likes more). Why in God's name would a fan be offended at that? Any mainstream superhero movie is, by it's nature nostalgic! If you're offended by that, then you better be offended by the entire way both Marvel and DC Comics have handled their publishing for the past twenty to thirty years!

Critics are not supposed to make you, or the people who made the film, feel better. They're supposed to honestly tell you how they felt about watching the movie in question. Stop acting like their job is to reinforce your personal self-worth by telling you how right you are.

The silliest damn thing about all of this is that the "94% Fresh" rating is never going to stand. Never. Once the mainstream press reviews start coming hot and heavy on Thursday, that percentage is going to drop like a rock. I don't think it's going to fall into "Rotten" territory (below 50%), but I suspect, ultimately, at a guess, somewhere in the 80% range. Respectable, even great, and the film is gonna make a bazillion dollars. With that pretty much assured, I don't see why people fixate on what Cole Smithey thinks. I mean, he's a pretentious twat, but what difference does that make to me?

I also get somewhat bothered about how this impacts my personal interactions. I am more of a fan of Christopher Nolan's Batman films than I am of the "Marvel Movie Universe," even if I enjoy both of them tremendously. I think Nolan makes insanely commercial art, and Marvel makes extremely artful commerce. I wouldn't miss either, but I'll always prefer the former. Upon seeing the latest trailer for Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises, I shared it, and my excitement about it, on Facebook.

I was particularly hit by comments that I made being labeled divisive. What I wrote was, "I'm gonna be 100% honest with you folks...Every, single time I see something from this, I stop caring about Avengers." That's truth. I didn't say "Avengers sucks." Perhaps I could've elaborated, explained more, I'll admit, but after being really excited to see The Avengers on Thursday, all it took was less than three minutes of The Dark Knight Rises to make me absolutely more excited to see that.

You may disagree. That's perfectly OK by me. I like what I like, and not everyone is going to like what I do.

It Is Kinda Amazing

The Avengers started shooting yesterday.

Yes, an honest-to-God superhero team-up movie is now shooting. With fairly big name stars attached. Tying together a actual Marvel Universe on film.

That is pretty amazing.

Now, I have been pretty vocal about what I think are problems in the Marvel Studios model, and I don't back down from those comments. That said, every fanboy in the world's little heart must've leapt a beat when Writer(?)/Director Joss Whedon blogged about starting. We are actually going to see The Avengers on film. That's undeniably cool, and exciting.

Oh, but Marvel? That picture you released today (see above)? It's pretty uninspiring, sorry.

But, here comes the $64,000 question that no one really wants to ask, and that it seems the assembled fandom doesn't even care about:

Will it be any good?

I actually have very little fear that it will be bad, I tend to have faith in Whedon, but there is a nagging sense of a problem with Marvel Studios and, in particular, how Kevin Feige is pushing this Marvel "cinematic universe." The company has a plan, which is always a good thing, but it also seems the plan is more important to the company than the people who are supposed to execute it.

I mean, we need only look to the whole Edward Norton debacle. Feige and Marvel simply kicked Norton to the curb because he was aggressive about trying to make The Incredible Hulk as good as possible. Sure, I bet Norton was difficult to work with at times, but the director, Louis Leterrier, seemed OK with it, and they even had a "directors cut" they collaborated on, and were apparently happy with...

But Marvel wasn't. Which I suppose is fine, they put up the cash. Still the tone, and vitriol spewed by Feige in his comments about Norton. Weird.

Now, Norton's out, and Mark Ruffalo is in. Which is cool with me, as I really like Ruffalo on film, but I also really liked Norton's Bruce Banner. I will always feel that was a dead-end that didn't have to be.

The whole Avengers cast is solid, and Whedon has lots of experience with ensemble casts that all need to get their moments, so I feel like he'll work that out. It's also been nice to see they way things have been layered in, and layered together, through the Iron Man films, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America: The First Avenger, and Thor to point us into The Avengers. It's been pretty well handled, if a bit too eager to stroke the fanboys.

The problem I see is going forward from this. Feige is out there talking about spinning Black Widow and Hawkeye out of The Avengers into their own films.

Trust me, the only people clamoring for a Hawkeye film are the 10 guys who show up for the "We LOVE Hawkeye" panel at Sand Diego Comi-Con every year, and half of them think it's got something to do with Alan Alda. No one in their right mind would be talking about a movie franchise about a character with A) no memorable villains to speak of, and B) an actor who's already got two other franchises in the gate.

Oh, wait...You can just replace him, and issue snarky press releases, right?

OK, that was a bit snarky of me, as well.

Honestly, the biggest hurdle facing Marvel Studios right now, are the fans themselves. I mean, it's becoming abundantly clear, at this point, that assembled fandom will fall all over themselves at the idea of their favorite comic being turned into a movie. They will do this to the point where they can't even remotely tell if the movie's any damn good or not.

That's the road to ruin, boys and girls.

Feige's comments in D23 just make it clear that your over-enthusiasm has bred an over-confidence. Those cheering fans in Hall H at San Diego are the bread and butter, sure...but they've also shown themselves to be willing to accept garbage. Accept it and lionize it as genius, vehemently, then turn around and call it crap six months later. The burst of excitement at release cannot hold.

For example: I almost got into fist fights upon release of Superman Returns, because I dared to say that, while I liked it (and still do), I thought it was too beholden to the Richard Donner film with Christopher Reeve. Now, the film seems universally reviled. I'd say unfairly.

We've evolved, as fans into "all or nothing" creatures. Everything is either awesome, or it sucks, and everything new is awesome. When, the fact is, almost everything is somewhere in the middle. It's this lack of true critical thinking that, eventually, leads to studios (not just Marvel), shoving out any bit of drivel, and expecting us to love it.

They start pushing a product, a plan, instead of trying to make each film as cohesive, and as good, as possible.

Who's a Hack?

Over on Ain't it Cool News, they put up a version of the Avengers "teaser" from SDCC. I can't say I'm overly impressed.



Now, before somebody crawls down my throat in regards to my blog on Tuesday, conceptually, this is a fine teaser. It gets the idea across, and, while visually it's kinda dull (even the stock footage of flying through clouds in the Superman: The Movie teaser has more visual punch), it's a perfectly acceptable tease to show before bringing out the cast. What else are you gonna show, right?

My issue is with the voice over.

I mean, look...Samuel L. Jackson is a great actor, but it seems that whenever he gets involved with one of these properties he's supposedly excited about (Star Wars the other prime example), the bottom falls out. He suddenly becomes this caricature of himself, and you get the overwhelming feeling he's absolutely not engaged in the process at all.

I can kinda accept that in Snakes on a Plane, because that's the whole joke, but when you talk about how excited you are to be Mace Windu, or Nick Fury? I expect something more than what we've been getting. Jackson's voice-over on this clip is just flatline, phoned in, and, lets be honest, his whole performance in Iron Man 2 wasn't much better.

Anyway, that's not really what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the way superior filmmakers can get maligned and pushed aside because...I don't know...They try to make films outside the "geek strata"

This comment from "loserguy3000" really struck me, specifically the point I've highlighted in bold:

...Forget that the one stumbling block of every major comic book embarrassment (looking right at you, Batman & Robin) is overloading characters into one movie, the unknown element of practically requiring people to have seen EVERY Marvel movie (which Hulk proved isn't happening), two unreleased Marvel movies of questionable quality (Captain America is being directed by a known hack), a potentially embarrassing Thor movie (let's be honest...it looks uneven), and most of all, Mr. Whedon hoping to reign all this in while proving himself against all evidence to the contrary that he can handle such a thing...

Now, loserguy makes some decent points, especially about the multiple characters issue. However, Captain America: The First Avenger (**sigh**...can we let the film stand on it's own, before we start the crossovers, please?) is being directed by one Mr. Joe Johnston. I'd like to invite you to look at his imdb.com page.

Now, look, Johnston hasn't directed a ton of stuff, seven major motion pictures, but I wonder how many "loserguy3000" has under his belt? That aside, take a look at the films Johnston has done. All are pretty old-style "Classic Hollywood" in scope, but also embrace modern film technology. He's also proven that he can adapt his visuals to the style required for the film in question. The Wolfman, good or no (and a troubled production before Johnston ever stepped in to take over), literally drips with gothic horror detail. Hildalgo positively glows. You can feel the coal grime in every frame of October Sky (a personal favorite).

He can also handle action beats, Jurassic Park III is the Jurassic Park sequel that Spielberg couldn't make himself. There are moments when I think it works better than the original. I know, heresy, but whatever.

Still, I'm convinced that Johnston is the absolute best choice I could imagine to direct a World War II-set Captain America movie. When his name was announced, I literally told everyone, "well, they got that one right." Why? Because Johnston has already made a film that's, essentially, everything a movie about Captain America ought to be...



Yeah, I'm talking about The Rocketeer from 1991. A movie that would still, to this day, appear on my "top 5 comic book movie adaptations" list. I mean, look at this:



"I may not make an honest buck, but I'm 100% American." Folks, that's the kind of stuff that a Captain America movie needs, and when Cliff is about to lift off from the observatory, the pose, the "go get 'em kid," it's exactly right. What does it tell us about Johnston? That he understands how to portray that golden age comic book feel on screen.

Yeah, I'd hope he goes a little grittier. I'd like battle sequences to reflect a PG-13 version of Saving Private Ryan, remind the young audiences of today just what was going on and what ordinary men were doing for their country. Is there an element of cheese? Oh, sure...but if you don't embrace what Captain America is, what he represents, the movie will fail. If you go for "cool" instead of "heartfelt," the movie will fail.

Captain America's the living embodiment of everything that is good, and everyone knows is good, about America, like Bruce Springsteen, and, like Bruce Springsteen, a lot of that is pretty damn cheesy. Cheesy in a way that is un-ironic and not sarcastic. It's not Team America, with "America, F*CK YEAH!!," no, it's America as the place with an open hand for those who need it, and strong enough to stand up and say "no" those who would exploit the needy. It's Chris Reeve as Superman, and, unless you go there, it's an utter failure.

You don't need Michael Bay or Zach Snyder, with heart buried under slickness and "cool." You need someone who'll have a gangster toss aside his self-interest when he realizes he's working for a Nazi, and stand as an American. You need a filmmaker who understands that's what this character is about, and can make you believe it. The character is named Captain America, you cannot absolve yourself of the political implications of that, even if Marvel has kinda tried to in the comics over the last decade, or so.

A similar story. I remember when George Miller was going to make a Justice League movie, and there was a kid, probably mid-teens, on one of the message boards I frequented, who kept talking about how they didn't give the film to an "action director," like they should've, but "a guy that made kids films." Obviously, the kid only looked far enough on Miller's imdb page to see Happy Feet and Babe.

Not an action director? He only made...



Which, I think we can all agree, is one of the greatest action films of all time.

People need to take a long, good look at the work people have done in the past (Yes, kids, even from before you were born), and understand exactly what kind of skills and sensibilities they are bringing to table. Sure, you can debate the merits of their work, and if it lends itself to what you, personally, would like to see. Calling Johnston a "hack" is just lazy, and incorrect. It puts him on a level with the likes of Uwe Boll or Albert Pyun (and, really...his Captain America isn't a total loss). Joe Johnston is not a hack.

Marvel found the right guy, I think. If you've been too wrapped up in the idea that Johnston isn't "hot," and maybe you haven't seen his movies, maybe you ought to go check a few out before you start calling the man a hack.

HULK SMASH MONDAY!!!!

NOTICE: I'm putting "Monday with The Boss" on hold until after Comic-Con is over. I can't keep a regular schedule on it until then, and I should've waited until after things died down to start. It's just difficult to make time to listen to/watch something specific and comment right at the moment.

So, there's a bit of a flap in play around Marvel films' The Avengers right now.

It started last Friday when Drew McWeeny, over at HitFix.com reported that, despite the fact that Edward Norton wanted to play Dr. Bruce Banner in The Avengers, Marvel was looking elsewhere. Now, I gotta be frank here, I was surprised they were even talking to Norton at all. His relationship with the studio during post-production on 2008's The Incredible Hulk was decidedly less-than-happy.



Apparently, Norton and director Louis Leterrier had much more they wanted to do and say with the film, but Marvel pulled them from the editing room. Now, Norton was deeply involved with the development of this film, even re-writing the script. Looking at it from my perspective, Norton had firmly committed to making The Incredible Hulk the best movie he could. Marvel, instead of using this input (Norton is a talented actor, and writes and directs...he can make a worthwhile contribution), shuts him out.

Stupid.

I think Marvel was terrified of repeating the failure of Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk. A film which I feel is unfairly crapped upon. Yeah, it could've used more "HULK SMASH!!!!," but it was a thoughtful, adult comic book-inspired movie. Which, after years of telling people "comics aren't just for kids," might've been something to consider more than fandom did.

So, personally, I prefer Lee's film. That said, I think that Leterrier's version has plenty that's good. Prime among that is Norton's performance.

Still, after all that was said and done back in '08, I thought they'd NEVER get Norton back for The Avengers. Now, in Drew's article, Norton is taking meetings, apparently excited to join the ensemble, only to get passed over.

Now, once this went public, Marvel Films' Kevin Feige had to make a statement.

"We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."

And to that I say...Woah. I mean, seriously, that's a press release bitchslap. What the hell happened?

Then, of course, Norton's agent released a statement.

Looking at this, again, from my perspective, Norton's agent, Brian Swardstrom, is absolutely correct. If Marvel was just making a financial decision, so be it. It happens. The fact they went out of their way to be bitchy, and cast a bad light on Norton, is just ridiculous.

But, you see...I think this was inevitable. Marvel Films has made a big splash by trying to run their film productions like a comic book company, unified universes, cast crossovers, etc, etc. This whole plan was pointing to The Avengers, where the franchises they were building would come together in a huge, splashy adventure.

The troubling part, based on this recent development, is that you begin to realize that the selling point of The Avengers is solely on seeing these characters, that you know from other films, together. It's easy to have Iron Man meet Bruce Banner in the comics, you just draw them. Not so easy when established actors are involved.

The fact is, now that Marvel has been pushing the "Marvel Movie Universe," these actors ARE these characters. We have a relationship with Norton's Banner, an established character, and that's what makes it interesting to see him interact with Robert Downey Jr's established Tony Stark. Marvel may be learning that your unified movie universe is a double edged sword. Sure, it's exciting, but it also means we expect things. Things like seeing the same faces as the same characters.

The side issue here is that, by sidelining Norton, Marvel's apparent plan to make a big splash at Comic-Con by introducing Joss Whedon as the director, and having the entire ensemble stand with him, is shot. Swardstrom's press release makes it abundantly clear that Whedon is the director, which Marvel had clearly been holding off until "the right moment" to announce, and that the plan was for a big-deal press op in San Diego. If they go ahead with it, the only people in the San Diego Convention Center that will be truly impressed will be the mainstream press, who are pretty clueless about this stuff.

I really don't have any sympathy for Marvel here, at all. They've pushed an agenda that brought them to this point. They wanted "names" for their characters. Not HUGE names, but actors you've heard of. Actors who are going to understand that their participation is a valuable asset, and are going to use that. Marvel seems to want the cachet of saying "Edward Norton as Dr. Bruce Banner," without accepting the creative input that comes with it.

They wanted a unified universe, where characters will routinely appear in each other's films. Now they find that building that universe can get in the way of the film's primary story, a la Iron Man 2. Also that we, as fans, expect continuity to mean just that...an expectation that we'll see the same faces again. You can pull a Terrance Howard/Don Cheadle switch because, frankly, Howard didn't make that big an impression in the first Iron Man, and Cheadle is, well, Don Cheadle.

Who are they getting to replace Edward Norton? Joaquin Phoenix, maybe. That sound like trading up, to you?

Didn't think so. Not to me, either. No disrespect to Mr. Phoenix, because I like his work, but Norton is, well, Edward Norton.

I just see that Norton finally commented personally, on his Facebook page:

"I am so appreciative of the outpouring of support from fans of the Hulk and The Avengers that I feel it would be rude not to respond," his statement reads in part.

"So here goes: It seems it won't work out for me to continue playing Bruce Banner for Marvel in The Avengers. I sincerely hoped it could happen and be great for everyone, but it hasn't turned out as well as we hoped. I know this is disappointing to many people and that makes me sad. But I am very sincerely grateful to Marvel for extending the offer and even more so for giving me the chance to be a part of the Hulk's long and excellent history."

Now, Norton's clearly playing spin himself, but...compare that statement to Feige's. Tell me who comes off with more class.

My original plan was to skip all the movie panels at SDCC, but, I think this may be too much of a soap opera to miss out on.