Ah, it’s Christmastime, isn’t it? Time for trees, decorations, lights, online shopping, holiday music playing at every store, Bath and Body Works carrying every Christmas-themed candle possible, peppermint tossed into every dessert and Starbucks drink imaginable, ugly sweaters that have now become obnoxious sweaters, Egg Nog (I guess), your annual poinsettia turning green because you left it by the window, figuring out who has the kids and at what times after the divorce, and, finally, the age-old tradition of watching a handful of “Christmas movies” over and over again until they’re packed away or ignored for the other eleven months of the year.

Subscribe now

The topic of which films fit the Christmas rotation is always a controversial one, as everyone has their favorites and everyone is prepared to die on a hill for which one is the best and which one is or isn’t a bonafide “Christmas movie”.

Enter the most controversial of them all: Die Hard.

Directed by John McTiernan (Predator, The Hunt For Red October, The 13th Warrior), Die Hard stars Bruce Willis as hardened New York City Police Detective John McClane, estranged from his wife and kids, who now reside in Los Angeles circa 1988. In an attempt to mend their relationship, McClane flies to LA to spend the holidays with his family, arriving on Christmas Eve day and escorted via limo to Nakatomi Tower, a giant skyscraper where his wife, Holly (played by Bonnie Bedelia) is a top-level executive working for a Japanese company, which is having its annual holiday party on the 30th floor.

Everything goes to hell when a group of thieves disguised as terrorists arrive with the full intent of breaking into the company vault, stealing their bearer bonds, and setting up an elaborate bait-and-switch plan that would see the roof of the building blown up as they escape into a non-extradition country. The only problem is John McClane, who finds himself in a cat-and-mouse game with the thieves (led brilliantly by Alan Rickman in his first-ever film role as mastermind Hans Gruber) that erupts in some beautifully executed action, suspense, character, and humor moments that have led many (myself included) to call Die Hard the greatest action film ever made.

Note: Greatest ACTION film ever made, not the greatest CHRISTMAS movie ever made.

Does Die Hard have Christmas elements in the film? Of course. It takes place during that season. It would be weird for there to be no elements at all. There are people saying “Merry Christmas” or “It’s Christmas” from time to time. There are decorations. There are thematic elements worked into Michael Kamen’s score. McClane kills a terrorist and puts a Santa hat on his head and writes, “Now I have a machine gun. Ho-Ho-Ho” on his shirt. The film ends with the 1946 version of the song “Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!” by Vaughn Monroe. These elements have convinced more than a few people to believe that Die Hard is a Christmas movie by definition and creation.

It isn’t.

Based on the 1979 original novel “Nothing Lasts Forever” by Roderick Thorp, a sequel to his 1966 best-selling novel “The Detective” (made into a film starring Frank Sinatra), Die Hard was adapted by screenwriters Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza. Many details from the novel changed, while still pulling much of the framework into the film, including the setting being on Christmas Eve in an LA highrise with the hero being shoeless, crawling through HVAC tunnels, jumping off an exploding roof with a firehose tied around his waist, and dropping a bundle of C4 plastic explosives down an elevator shaft. The rest was shaped up by the screenwriters and McTiernan, to craft an action thriller with an untested leading man in Willis, that would be ready for release during the holiday season.

Just kidding. Die Hard was released in theaters on July 20th, 1988, five months shy of Christmastime. I was there. I saw it 14 times in theaters. I was a little obsessed. It was, by studio standards, a summer tentpole release, making a successful haul of $143 million worldwide ($381 million adjusted for inflation in 2024), spawning four more sequels starring Willis, one of which saw McTiernan back as director (1995’s Die Hard With A Vengeance). The only sequel to take place during Christmas was 1990’s Die Hard 2: Die Harder, which is also NOT a Christmas movie, but rather an action movie that takes place during Christmas.

Subscribe now

Bruh, why you so worried about it? Who cares if some people say it’s a Christmas movie and some say it isn’t? Well, I care, mostly because there are so many that defend it AS a Christmas movie, when it categorically, thematically, and from inception, was NOT intended to be nor marketed as a Christmas movie. So, why do so many ardently fight for it to be?

To answer that, we must ask: What IS a Christmas movie? Christmas, by its holiday definition, is the annual tradition that celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ (The word itself is derived from “Christ” and “Mass”). It is, as they say, the “reason for the season.” We give gifts at Christmas to loved ones as a way of recreating the three wise men gifting Jesus with gold, frankincense, and myrrh upon his birth in Bethlehem. However, there are plenty of non-religious themes that go with Christmas, including Santa Claus, reindeer, Christmas trees, holiday lights and decor on and in homes, reds, greens, and a partridge in a pear tree. Covered in lights, of course.

Christmas is also liked to themes and traditions of love, selflessness, and family, all of which revolve around getting together during the Christmas season (and on the actual day) to celebrate, feast, exchange gifts, and generally make merry within those traditions.

From 1938’s adaptation of Charles Dicken’s classic “A Christmas Carol” starring Reginald Owen all the way up to 2003’s Elf starring Will Ferrell, we have a smattering of movies that revolve around Christmas and are, by intent and creation, made to be the definition of a “Christmas movie.” One of the most telling signs that a movie is a Christmas movie is the word itself: Christmas. A Christmas Story, Christmas Vacation, Christmas With The Cranks, White Christmas, How The Grinch Stole Christmas, The Nightmare Before Christmas (which I will concede doubles as a Halloween film), A Bad Mom’s Christmas, Arthur Christmas, Surviving Christmas, Office Christmas Party, Four Christmases…you get the idea.

Does that mean every Christmas movie has to have the word Christmas in it? No, of course not, but having it there is the surest sign of what genre it belongs in. Other films that are absolutely Christmas films, again by design, concept, theme, and narrative include Scrooged, The Polar Express, Love, Actually, Home Alone, It’s A Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street, The Holiday, Jingle All The Way, The Family Man, Prancer, Santa Claus: The Movie, and a cavalcade of others. From obscure comedies to Hallmark nonsense, there is no end to Christmas movies that live up to the genre and then some.

Which brings us back to movies like Die Hard. Or Lethal Weapon. Or The Long Kiss Goodnight. Okay, anything written by Shane Black, who admittedly just loves Christmas and can’t help but insert it into the majority of his work (and a reminder that now is a good time to revisit Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang).

These movies, particularly Die Hard, were not made to be Christmas movies. They were not written to have a theme, motif, or design that exemplified or defined them as a holiday movie. In these films, the most important thing that differentiates them is that Christmas is not the reason for the film, but simply the setting that the film happens to take place. For Die Hard, as in the original novel that inspired it, the Christmas Eve party was merely a plot device to get the hero into a high-rise building with a family member. It was not designed to be a celebration of the season with all the usual accouterments that follow it. It was simply a time of the year that the film was set to get the story in motion and maybe add a little flourish. And that’s it.

Die Hard, at its core, is a film about redemption. McClane seeks redemption with his estranged wife. Al Powell, a flatfoot cop played by Reginald VelJohnson, is seeking redemption after having accidentally shot a kid years before while on duty. And, at the end of the day, Die Hard is about good overcoming evil in the face of redemption. It’s not about the Christmas spirit. It’s not about getting a gift you want really bad. It’s not about singing loudly to power Santa’s sleigh. It’s not about the holiday spirit bringing cops and criminals together to let bygones be bygones.

Does Die Hard have overlapping themes? Sure. Love, forgiveness, and redemption could also be seen as Christmas-like themes, but that’s a broad stroke to paint with. Those are human themes, not holiday themes, they just happen to be more prevalent during Christmas, which is frequently seen as the time of the year when you make your last-ditch effort to do something good before the next year rolls around.

Subscribe now

And, yes, I will concede that you can draw your own parallels and make Die Hard’s themes into the Christmas movie category if you want to. By the same rationale, I could make Home Alone an action thriller. Or Titanic a dark comedy. We can, by the very nature of our freedom, think and feel whatever we want, and call any movie whatever the hell we want, Christmas or otherwise. But, what you can’t do is argue with the very factual nature of its creation and whether or not it was made for or intended to be a Christmas movie and Die Hard was not.

In an interview with AFI, director John McTiernan, in a very wordy and confusing way, attempts to make the case that Die Hard has “become” a Christmas movie, but was never made to be one. “We hadn’t intended it to be a Christmas movie,” said McTiernan, “but the joy that came from it is what turned it into a Christmas movie.”

So, you may say that the title of AFI’s video or McTiernan’s lengthy explanation is the final word on the subject, but it’s not. For one, McTiernan explicitly says that Die Hard was NOT intended to be a Christmas movie, thereby it isn’t one by concept and definition. For two, AFI’s video title is manufactured to get you to click, not to give you a full breakdown of McTiernan’s explanation.

In 2022, while on the Empire Podcast, McTiernan doubled down on the fact that Die Hard was not made as a Christmas film, saying, “It wasn’t intended as a Christmas movie, or the fact that it was deliberately built around Christmas, but not intended to be a Christmas movie.”

If a movie, or any work of art, is made to be a certain thing, with a certain intent, theme, or vision, and executed in that good faith, then it will be very clear what it is (and what it isn’t). With that said, I also believe that when an artist, such as McTiernan, makes a work, once said work is released to the public, that work can take on many meanings and interpretations. That’s kind of the point of art. It isn’t meant to be one thing for all people. In that, I cannot say that Die Hard isn’t a Christmas Movie to YOU, but I can say for a fact that Die Hard was NOT made to be a Christmas movie, and by definition, classification, and intention isn’t one.

McTiernan elaborates on this same theme via the Empire podcast, saying: "It’s not for us to say [whether it's a Christmas film], it’s people. It’s for the audience to say. If the audience decides they want to make it a Christmas movie, it’s a Christmas movie. It turns out that way."

Die Hard was meant to be an anti-establishment action movie about an everyday guy fighting against insurmountable odds to redeem himself and save his wife. If that brings out the Christmas spirit in you, so be it, but it doesn’t make Die Hard a Christmas movie any more than it makes Home Alone a horror movie (although I would entertain arguments to the contrary on that one).

So, as you file through your rotation of Christmas movies and get your fill until next year, posting on social media that Die Hard is and always will be a Christmas movie, remember that your opinion isn’t a fact and the fact will always remain that Die Hard was never made to be a Christmas movie, even if you believe it is now.

The one thing we can most certainly agree on, however, is that Die Hard is one of the best films ever made and, in my opinion, still the best action film of the genre. On that, there will be no disagreement from me.

Merry Christmas and Yippie-Ki-Yay.

So, this is a little different, but it’s something I set out to do when planning another trip to The Arnold Sports Festival, aka Arnold Classic. Last year, I went with my son, Dash, who is an aspiring bodybuilder, mostly to get a feel for this world he’s venturing into. It was an eye-opening experience and a fun one at that, but as someone who has chronicled many of his adventures throughout life, it felt a shame not to have this experience on camera for others to see.

With that in mind, I bought the trip for Dash (again) for Christmas, and eventually got a nice camera and mic to boot, so that I could capture these events going forward. I went in with a plan to make a kind of reality show-style piece, one that would emulate the kind of videos people are watching on YouTube, but also something that would capture what I felt was the most interesting, cool, or hilarious aspects of the event.

More than anything, I guess I wanted to capture it for posterity’s sake. I have begun placing more value in experiences than goods when it comes to gift-giving for my son, as these things are far more memorable than some arbitrary item that goes in a closet, on a shelf, or in the trash after a short while. It’s something I’d encourage all parents to consider investing in, as these types of memories last a whole hell of a lot longer and leave a much greater impact than some clothes, cologne, toys, or any other assortment of disposable items.

Subscribe now

That doesn’t mean you have to spend thousands on such memories. Hell a day hike, trip to the zoo, or even a bike ride in the park can have just as much of an impact on your parent-child bond. In the end, you’ll never buy their love or respect, as that means you’re always paying for it. Turn off the spigot and the love goes away. That’s my philosophy, anyway. And yes, my kid is still spoiled. I get the contradiction.

At any rate, this 3-part video series is a labor of love and I hope that you’ll sit down and spend some time with Dashiell and me as we venture to Columbus, Ohio and spend some bonding time over energy drinks, overpriced workout apparel, and half-naked muscle men posing onstage. It was a lot of fun capturing the footage and experience, and a lot of work was put into the editing and presentation. While I always hope that the views will take off on YouTube, it’s been a weird experience over there as the strangest videos take off, while the ones I work hardest on seem to languish.

However, if these languish on views, they’ll still forever remain a living document of time spent bonding with my kid, and nothing can extinguish that.

Take a look at the full series below and if you enjoy it, feel free to share with friends and family (or strangers). I hope it serves as inspiration for you and your own adventures with your offspring, be it at a fitness festival, Disneyland, or a walk around the neighborhood.

PART 1:

PART 2:

PART 3:

That’s a quote from director Zack Snyder, appearing on Joe Rogen’s podcast and discussing his deconstructionist take on the character of Batman, which appeared in both his Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Justice League films for WB. Snyder is no stranger to adapting comic-book properties, having also filmed an adaptation of Frank Miller’s 300, as well as Alan Moore’s Watchmen, before diving into the broader world of DC, which ultimately ended in his exit from the studio (before returning to complete his “Snyder Cut” of Justice League for HBO Max).

Snyder’s words have reverberated through fandom, who have latched onto his words and formulated many different takes, some for and against what the filmmaker shared. It’s not a new argument, and it has continued to rear its head every single time a superhero movie comes out, especially when it’s from a filmmaker that has a more specific vision than, say, a made-by-committee Marvel or DC film. The question constantly arises in these fan spheres of whether or not a superhero character, particularly one of prominence and popularity, should kill their enemies. As mythical beacons of the comic-book page, many of these characters have become larger than life, standing for a model of humanity, rather than a real-life character faced with real-life decisions.

Religion and Mythology: Gods, Monsters, Heroes, and Humans

To understand these larger-than-life characters, we must first understand myth. Per Mirriam-Webster, myth is defined as:

Mythology

noun

my·​thol·​o·​gy mi-ˈthä-lə-jē 

plural mythologies

Synonyms of mythology

1 : an allegorical narrative

2 : a body of myths: such as

a: the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people

b : mythos sense 2 Cold War mythology

3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth

4 : a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something : myth sense 2a defective mythologies that ignore masculine depth of feeling - Robert Bly

The earliest mythological characters were shown in cave paintings, before graduating into a multitude of cultures that include Greek, Norse, Mayan, Native American, and countless others throughout centuries. What all of these mythological tales, characters, and situations represented was some form of commentary or lesson about life which served as both entertainment and guidance, frequently as a cautionary tale.

Religion as well could be seen as a form of myth, be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Many have familiar motifs and recurring themes, all of which add up to a belief in a power greater than oneself as well as a set of “rules” in how to live (and how not to live) as a human being. Be it Jesus, Muhammed, Moses, The Trimurti, Buddha, etc., there is always a figurehead that stands as the representative of humanity (as it pertains to a particular culture), giving hope and value to the often chaotic reality of the human experience.

So, now that we’ve defined mythology on a broad level, let’s take a look at how these mythological (and religious) figures behaved in their historical tales, particularly, whether or not they killed their enemies, despite outlawing such things from their human subjects.

Certainly, the Old and New Testament God of The Holy Bible has killed, vanquishing the entire planet with a flood at one point and taking out various groups and individuals throughout that era, men, women, children, and animals alike. The Ten Plagues of Egypt is another example of God’s Wrath in the Old Testament, which again shows that those we worship can exercise their vengeance in horrific ways.

Jesus, the Son of God, was a peaceful messenger and never inflicted violence upon another that was ever documented. His sermons were filled with love and compassion for humanity, and he performed miracles that brought life and hope, before being crucified. His persona in The Book of Revelation, however, paints the picture of a warrior who returns to Earth, riding upon a white horse wearing a robe dipped in blood and armed with a double-edged sword, ready to battle the demonic forces occupying Earth.

Muhammed, The Prophet and leader of Islam, was constantly at battle throughout his adult life, leading multiple military campaigns against his enemies, resulting in at least a thousand deaths, according to scholars.

In Egyptian mythology, The Myth of the Heavenly Cow has a similar body count to the Old Testament God, in which the sun god, Re, feeling opposition and rebellion from his human subjects, sends the goddess Hathor to destroy his detractors. Hathor enjoyed immense success in killing off the human rebellion, later taking the form of the vengeful lion-headed goddess Sekhmet, who “waded in the blood” of the Egyptian populace she massacred.

When it comes to Greek Gods, the tales are far more fantastical and cinematic, making for a vibrant world of cautionary tales amidst distinct heroes, villains, and monsters. From Zeus to Artemis to Hera and beyond, death was a constant cycle of their existence, which frequently involved some form of long-term torture before the eventual journey to the underworld. The Greek Gods were nothing if not spiteful in their delivery of punishment, which frequently made them appear more frightening than heroic.

Over time, modern-day religious figures took the form of the Greek and Egyptian Gods, as the shifting tide of culture over centuries brought new myths to shore. Only in the last century have pop-culture icons and fictional characters who originally appeared in novels, comic books, movies, and TV shows, become the new gods, so to speak, acting as mythological manifestations of the human experience in the current era.

Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Captain America, Spider-Man, Daredevil, The Punisher, Luke Skywalker, Yoda, Wolverine, Aragorn, Aquaman, The Crow, Guts, Demon Slayer, Samurai Jack, and the list goes on and on. It’s near infinite, at this point, when it comes to fantasy characters set within their own universe, who have created an entire set of rules, idioms, characteristics, icons, and circumstances, all of which exist to reflect the human experience in some way, shape, or form.

Yes, they all share one more thing in common, which is slightly different than any other myth before them: they are primarily made for entertainment and commerce. The creator may well have created their characters and universes out of the desire to make art, but the means to see that art is through commerce, as nearly all of these creations are delivered utilizing a pay-to-see/read/watch format. For the first time, our Gods take credit card payments.

Subscribe now

The Golden Era of Censorship

During the Golden Era of DC Comics, the character of Batman (created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane) was more of a pulp hero akin to The Shadow, even wielding a gun and killing off his enemies by the end of the issue. However, then-editor Whitney Ellsworth stepped in when parents began to complain that their children were reading violent comic books, and instituted the now famous “no-kill” rule for ALL of the DC heroes, saying, "Heroes should never kill a villain, no matter the depths of his villainy."

This led to The Joker being spared after their first encounter, creating a legacy villain that has lasted for decades. As Batman grew more and more popular, his means of justice became much more sanitized and “kid-friendly” which was done, it seems, largely for the benefit of profit, rather than some moral code of righteousness. This is where the aspect of commerce plays a key role in the development of the “no-kill” rule. It wasn’t something built into the character of Batman upon inception, but rather a reaction to his popularity (i.e. sales), not to mention the postwar traditionalist values that were being pushed into the 1950s.

This led to the publication of Fredric Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, in which he argued that comic books led to juvenile delinquency. Parents began to campaign for the censorship of comic books, which led to the creation of the Comics Code Authority, which had a full list of guidelines for comic publishers to follow in creating their stories. This kind of censorship is not unheard of even today, as numerous parental groups attempt to ban a multitude of books, usually as a result of their political beliefs, left or right. There was even a time when parents gathered to protest rap music and attempted to have it outlawed. Surely, we haven’t seen the end of such censorship grabs, which seem to come in waves and in response to whatever form of entertainment is most popular.

Below are the full guidelines for the Comics Code Authority:

Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.

Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, the gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.

Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.

Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.

All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.

No comic magazine shall use the words "horror" or "terror" in its title.

All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.

Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.

In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.

If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.

Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.

Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.

Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.

Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.

Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.

Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes, as well as sexual abnormalities, are unacceptable.

Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.

Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.

Reading this list today, particularly as a creator and artist, is maddening. It’s not only a direct violation of the First Amendment in every single way, but it is, by all accounts, the antithesis of art.

The Comics Code Authority was enforced up until 2011 when DC finally stopped utilizing it altogether, following in the footsteps of Marvel in 2010 and everyone else. Today, there is no Comics Code Authority, but many publishers have instituted a maturity rating for their books, which runs the gamut in terminology from publisher to publisher.

Now, even though the Comics Code Authority was most heavily enforced in the 1950s, the generations that followed began to loosen the reins a bit and start to experiment with darker, grittier, and more realistic themes, with some books taking on a mature rating label. In the time since the Comics Code Authority was instituted, Batman would still find his way into killing off a villain here and there, including KGBeast, but he mostly adhered to this “code” which many writers began to adopt as something built into the character, rather than the censorship flex it was born of.

Subscribe now

The Bat-Bible

One of those writers was Batman writer and editor Denny O’Neil, who served as a writer and editor on various Batman titles throughout the 70s and 80s. O’Neil, along with artist Neal Adams are frequently noted for taking the campier version that Batman had become during his heavily censored era and reinventing and reinvigorating the character in a way that honored the roots that both Finger and Kane had done initially, save for the propensity to kill.

Sometime in the late 80s, O’Neil created what is known as the “Bat-Bible” a living document that’s been handed down over the years as both a manifest and guideline for those creators that took on the mantle of the bat on any of the numerous titles he starred in. While not necessarily something that had to be adhered to, the concept, the principles, and the general breakdown is something that must have resonated during O’Neil’s era, as most of them are prevelant today, save for some deviations here and there.

O’Neil was very particular about Batman’s No-Kill Rule in the Bat-Bible, which I’ve included below (you can read it in its entirety HERE).

First, let us agree that Wayne/Batman is not insane. There is a difference between obsession and insanity. Obsessed the man surely is, but he is in the fullest possession of his mental and moral faculties. Everything with the exception of his friends' welfare is bent to the task he knows he can never accomplish, the elimination of crime. It is this task which imposes meaning on an existence he would otherwise find intolerable.

He is tough, but not brutal. He uses violence willingly and often, but never to excess, and never with pleasure. He does not enjoy it. And he never kills. Let's repeat that for the folks in the balcony: Batman never kills. The trauma which created his obsession also generated in him a reverence for that most basic of values, the sacredness of human life. If he was not consumed with the elimination of crime, he would not be the Batman. And if he did not consider human life inviolable, he would not be the Batman, either.

I think O’Neil had a deep understanding of Batman and his mythological properties. Much of how he outlines the character is very god-like, with everything about the character being beyond the normal scope of a human being, while still being only human (genuis IQ, physical specimen, endless money, skilled in everything, etc.). It’s a common trope amongst many human superheroes and it fits the mold. How else could they do what they do, particularly if they don’t have superhuman or mutant abilities?

If Batman knows that he will be Batman until he retires or dies (as he already knows that crime will never end), and he will be putting himself in harm’s way continuously, forcing a violent altercation a large percentage of the time, fighting against everyone from street thugs to criminal masterminds, many of whom have guns, knives, bombs, toxins, etc. at their disposal and with the full intent to use them, Batman must contend with mass murderers and the possibility that he could be put in a position of having to kill them if all else fails.

If it means the death of innocents, the very people he’s trying to protect, would Batman willingly turn the cheek and let them die so as not to break a rule that would save them otherwise? The easy answer to that is to fall back on the “he’s just a comic-book character” argument, which is the cowardly way out of it. Yes, of course, a writer can write any kind of story they want that would never ever put Batman in such a situation. In a fantasy world, it’s the puppeteers that control the narrative, not the guiding unpredictable force of reality.

In the real world, Batman would face such predicaments regularly and he would have to have an answer long before he faced them.

Subscribe now

While I agree with O’Neil’s Bat Bible in many areas, I think the reasoning behind his Batman No-Kill Rule is contradictory. Batman upholds the rule because he believes every life is sacred due to his own trauma, but would that belief not be tarnished if innocents died under his watch, especially when he had the ability to help them instead of letting a villain get away with murder? To me, that would render Batman futile. If he cannot act decisively, with all that IQ, all those gadgets, as a great detective, a physical specimen, then what good is he really doing?

Now, does that mean Batman should just kill off villains immediately and be done with it? No. That’s The Punisher’s job, and his trauma is born of a multitude of different factors that make his form of justice unique to him. But, by the, say, sixth time Joker has broken out of Arkham and killed hundreds more people (let alone Batman’s own Boy Wonder), wouldn’t it make sense from a societal standpoint that Joker be put down? How is he different than, say, Osama Bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh or any other terrorist that is hellbent on the destruction of innocent lives? And if we can’t seem to keep them locked up, then what other choice is there?

Like Aflred says in The Dark Knight, some people just want to watch the world burn. Does that mean we should just stand idly by and let them burn it?

While Batman certainly doesn’t need to fly off the handle and lead with execution-style tactics (a notion already explored in the multiverse via The Batman Who Laughs: The Grim Knight), as I believe that’s not within his character, I believe that his code should reflect the very vigilante trade in which he employs himself. Sometimes, no matter how much he may not want to, he must do what needs to be done, even if that means killing, so long as he’s exhausted all of his other options or has done so in order to protect innocent life.

Accidental Death

Here’s an area that we simply can’t escape in this argument. Accidental death would would be a regular occurrence in Batman’s life if we are attempting to dissect this argument. You would probably be shocked at how many people are killed or disabled with blunt force trauma, particularly being punched by someone as heavily skilled as Batman.

Beyond the fighting aspect, Batman takes part in high-speed chases that create mass vehicular carnage (how many innocent folks do you think were killed off camera in that epic chase scene in The Batman?), be it in cars, planes, boats, motorcycles, and the like. While he certainly would attempt to operate later at night when most folks are in bed, there’s simply no way around the fact that Batman, by trade and proxy, would have the blood of countless innocents on his hands in any kind of real-world setting.

This is always the part where those arguing for the no-kill rule throw up their hands and say “this isn’t reality!” But, if it’s not reality and it doesn’t count, then why should it count if Batman kills on purpose? It’s a situation where one side puts blinders on to the bigger picture. Batman invites death just by being Batman, on purpose or not. It’s something to consider when executing this argument of whether he kills or not. Batman, it would seem, kills whether he wants to or not.

Batman Evolves: From Comics to Movies and Beyond

As comics began to mature, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, with the children who grew up reading those early books now becoming adults, the stories had to evolve as well, and evolve they did. Certainly, children’s comics were still made and the CCA was followed to a degree, but the cultural revolutions of the 60s, 70s, and 80s paved the way for more violent, more aggressive, and more expressive comics, including Batman.

Batman’s rogues gallery continued to blossom under the no-kill rule: Joker, Bane, Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Clayface, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on, with new rogues popping up every year. If Batman killed them all, then how could they come back later? The easier means to allow a return is to have Batman enforce his rule and end an enemy’s run with a mysterious exit that could mean they were either dead or alive, or, most likely, back in the escapathon that is Arkham Asylum.

The filmed versions of Batman were another story altogether, though. Director Tim Burton had no qualms about violating the “no-kill” rule in 1989’s Batman, nor did his Batman ever state that he operated under such terms. Jack Nicholson’s Joker was ultimately killed by Batman, as was Penguin in the sequel, Batman Returns. Batman may not have shot them in the heart with a pistol, but he was absolutely responsible for their demise, not to mention the numerous hitmen he killed throughout the films via blunt-force trauma, explosions, guns, etc.

The cinematic world of Batman had other plans altogether. However, director Christopher Nolan infused a bit of the “no-kill” rule in his Dark Knight trilogy, but it was more of a “no-guns” rule than “no-kill.” His Batman still let Ras Al Ghul die at the end of Batman Begins, saying to Ra’s: “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you,” before letting him die in a massive train crash. While it may seem like Batman didn’t directly kill Ra’s, he ultimately did. Folks will try to wiggle out of that, but if Batman finds all life precious, then that would never have happened. The same could be said of Two-Face at the end of The Dark Knight. Some will argue that it was the fall that killed Harvey Dent, not Batman jumping into him and knocking him to his death. However, I assure you, it was Batman that killed him, because Batman knocked him to his death.

And, to be clear, I love those aspects of Nolan’s trilogy. I think it shows the way Batman should operate. He goes out of his way not to kill the majority of those he violently grapples with, but in some instances, the only way forward is through and that through is death. If it means stopping a man hellbent on decimating millions of lives or a man about to shoot a child, then whatever means necessary, including death, should be employed, especially if Batman is the only one that can make it happen. It’s not only the right thing to do, but it’s his responsibility to act. Nolan got that, I think. Whether explicity or not, his treatment of the character’s no-kill rule was far more relaxed and realistic.

Enter Zack Snyder, who dismantled the “no-kill” rule, making Batman more no-holds barred in Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. It wasn’t a Punisher-style rampage by any means, but more of a methodical approach to dispensing with violent bad guys and it made perfect sense within that universe. Hell, it makes sense in any universe. Serving as a pseudo-adaptation of Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, Batman’s initial mission was to kill Superman, immediately violating his comic-book code of ethics. But, beyond that, we see Batman branding his enemies, stabbing them, shooting and blowing them up, and even firing a gun into a tank that kills one villain. We saw similar things in Burton’s Batman films, but no one really complained. Of course, we didn’t have the Internet back then either.

Subscribe now

Snyder’s Batman takes on villains in a far more direct and escalating way. He starts with the usual bag of tricks, knocking them over, tying them up with grappling gun wires, hitting them with batarangs, or just plain beating the piss out of them. But, when they start shooting him in the head, stabbing him, throwing grenades, Batman does what needs to be done. He escalates, much like a soldier or police officer. It’s called escalation-of-force, and it’s taught in both fields. You always lead with the most non-violent measures, but escalate as needed given a particular situation. This, more than anything, makes sense for someone like Batman and I felt Snyder’s (and Nolan’s, for that matter) characterizations of Batman captured this well.

Batman V Superman was the first time that I can recall hearing and reading about fans being upset over Batman killing bad guys. Up until that point, as someone who had been reading Batman comics steadily since 1989, I had no issue and heard no issues. But, for others, it appeared to be a sore spot. Why were people upset by this, I wondered? It’s not like Batman was gunning people down, but at the same time, in a theatrical model, it made sense that villains would be killed. Seeing events in motion and on a screen made for a very different delivery of solutions than a comic panel, which can easily subside, write off, or otherwise subvert the real-world ramifications of inflicting violence upon another person.

If you scour the Internet, from Reddit forums, content-farm fansites, and of course, X, you will find all manner of arguments for and against Batman’s no-kill rule. Some of them are pretty stupid, some of them are incoherent, some of them are sensible, and some of them are dismissive.

Knowing what we know about myths, religious or otherwise, the ability, desire, and/or willingness to kill is ever-present with gods or god-like characters. Not only do these myths kill, but they do so in great numbers, with vengeful intention, and with god-like judgment. Does that mean that every myth must follow suit? Not necessarily, but if we’re talking about a fictional/fantasy/religious figure that cannot be proven by science to exist, then I’d say that they are capable of anything and everything.

But, what about their code? What about the rules these gods and myths impose upon themselves and humanity? Well, the short answer is that they just don’t follow those rules. They may have rules for others, but when it comes to themselves, they break them as needed or desired. It’s the old, Do as I say, not as I do, so to speak.

The difference with modern myths, particularly with comic-book characters, is that they are created by an individual(s) to have very specific characteristics, mannerisms, etc. to introduce them to the world, but they then pass the character around to other creators who infuse their own ideas into the character, while adhering to a set of basic guidelines as a means of staying consistent, particularly for characters that are appearing in a monthly book with narratives lasting for decades.

Now, imagine a character like Batman who began as a killer with a gun, who becomes very popular, driving up sales and interest among fans, who is then in turn disrupted by the cultural backlash of the era (traditional values) that push for censorship. Now, in order to exist, the character must adhere not only to an internally-mandated no-kill rule, but also a long list of “rules” (IE Comics Code) that restrict the character from evolving past a base-level superhero with arbitrary characteristics. He simply cannot evolve, as he cannot be challenged in any meaningful way that would test his character.

Subscribe now

The why always matters, and the why of Batman’s no-kill rule boils down to censorship and sales, which were a byproduct of the era, not something ingrained in the character from inception. It wasn’t something that Finger and Kane wanted. They were of the opposite mind, in fact. To keep making the book, attract new readers, calm the minds of censorship-hungry parents (not to mention authors, Congress, and the like), and keep sales rolling, Batman (along with every other character in DC’s library) was no longer allowed to kill in any way, shape, or form. As a result, over time, writers adopted this as a trait and made it part of his identity, eventually even making it a guiding factor in a “Bible” for future creators to follow.

So, now the question becomes, is how Batman adopted his “no-kill” rule valid when it was born of censorship and commerce, rather than some moral standard inherent in his creation? By that same token, if the CCA is no more and the use of maturity-level regulation is self-imposed, is there still an obligation to carry on the tradition of this rule?

Some would say yes, as it has become synonymous with the character, while others say no, as it was never a true characteristic to begin with. Others might say, who gives a shit, it’s a fictional character who dresses up as a bat and beats people up. None of them are right. None of them are wrong. This, ultimately, is the philosophical argument of the character. In the philosophical argument, you can weigh things as they exist in the fantasy world. You can say that Batman should or should not kill given the parameters of the world in which he exists, which is fictional. Compared to reality, it’s another story altogether.

Fiction vs. Reality

When weighing Batman’s code against reality, it simply doesn’t measure up. This tends to be the conflict when it comes to Batman on film, as it’s near impossible to portray Batman not killing someone, even inadvertently. In the latest big-screen endeavor, Matt Reeves’ The Batman, Robert Pattinson’s Dark Knight pushes the “no guns” rule with Jeffrey Wright’s James Gordon, who replies “Hey man, that’s your thing.” This is just after Batman led a high-speed pursuit on a rainy highway at night that no doubt left countless innocent civilians dead. It kind of makes Batman look like an idiot, to be honest, as he really has no right to tell someone not to brandish a gun after destroying Gotham freeway.

In the real world, Batman could not exist. That should seem obvious. I know that we, as humans, want to idolize our myths, and cling to the hope that something mythological could exist outside the realms of scientific reality, but it’s just not possible. Maybe in a Stephen Hawking future where humans are made superhuman by genetic engineering can we see such a feat, but for now, we are flesh and blood, imperfect and flawed, subject to the laws and rules of physics, and Batman and his fantastic, gravity-defying antics are not even remotely possible, at least not on the scale and duration in which he presents them in comic and movie form. He’s a myth, a god, an icon that has endured a lasting legacy of publication and prominence that’s infused us into debating the possibility of his existence, due to an overwhelming sense of infatuation. I say this as someone with hundreds of Batman comics, toys, posters, etc. I say this as someone who is writing a dissertation on whether or not Batman should kill.

The Question of Morality

This leads us to the moral question of Batman killing his enemies. Born of revenge, Bruce Wayne became Batman to avenge the death of his parents, gunned down in front of him by a two-bit criminal named Joe Chill in a Gotham alleyway. He uses his money to train to fight, acquire lavish and intricate gadgetry, and build a bat costume that is functional for all manner of crime fighting. He’s a vigilante with the means to punch the hell out of bad guys, tie them up, and leave a nice little note for the cops, so they can somehow prosecute without witnesses, warrants, or due process, let alone testimony from Batman himself in court for each case.

So, does that mean that Batman should be like The Punisher and just fly from rooftop to rooftop with guns and grenades and dispatch bad guys into bloody heaps? No, that doesn’t fit his aesthetic. But, could he show up in a warehouse of bad guys and put them all down with chemicals, edged weapons, or some other solution that doesn’t involve guns? Sure. Should he? Well, maybe.

The biggest moral question that befalls a character like Batman is whether the justice he serves saves lives. Beating up a few thugs who are trying to rob someone in an alleyway is one thing. Allowing a mass murderer like The Joker to escape prison time and time again to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people is insanity. When terrorists attack, be it a lone perpetrator or a group, the response, in reality, is exponential. They are killed or captured, sentenced to life or death in prison, and anyone associated with their crimes is met with similar measure. You can agree or disagree with that, but that is reality and reality is stranger (and far more brutal) than fiction.

I’ve had people tell me that they “don’t believe in war” as if it were a religious doctrine. War exists whether you believe in it or not. I’ve been there. I’ve got the t-shirt. I’ve heard people say they don’t believe in guns. The same thing applies. Some things are irrefutable, like death. Death is a very real possibility of committing violent crime. Yes, prison is also a possibility, but that’s only if you’re brought in alive (and don’t get the death penalty). Rarely is Batman dealing with white-collar crime where he’s taking on nonviolent criminals. Where’s the fun in that? We ultimately want to see Batman be violent. We want to see him hurt bad guys. It’s part of the mythological lesson of the character: punishment (and vengeance) for being a criminal in our society. Break the rules, we break your teeth.

Subscribe now

Ultimately, Batman represents our desire to see criminals punished. We want to see them punched, kicked, bloodied, and tossed in jail. It’s a base-level state of ignorant fantasy that creates the simple “lock ‘em up!” reaction when seeing or hearing about a crime on the Internet or news. “Sic the Batman on ‘em!” we may as well say, as the reality of these crimes and the prosecution of them is far more intricate, confusing, and drawn out, sometimes leading to an outright failure of the system and lack of true justice. But, not for Batman. Oh, no. He can punch them and make them feel pain. So, we hold onto that. It’s our quick-hit endorphin rush of instant justice.

But, it’s not reality.

In reality, Batman would be blamed for more deaths than he could ever account for, given his long comic-book (and cinematic) history. Batman’s no-kill rule would be responsible for more innocent deaths than any of his life-saving endeavors. Think of the mass carnage inflicted by his many rogues, all of whom have killed hundreds of thousands collectively. That number would be reduced exponentially if Batman had just killed those guys, just as the military or law enforcement would have done themselves. Beyond that, guys like The Joker would not be breaking out of prison every other week. In comic-book land, the most heavily-guarded prison can easily be broken out of, so long as it suits the story. Not so in real life. Read up on ADX Florence the supermax prison in the United States, if you ever need assurance. Ever heard of an escape from there? There’s never been one. Arkham Asylum, take note.

From a moral standpoint, it’s not only unrealistic that Batman wouldn’t kill, but it’s irresponsible. To not kill The Joker or Riddler or any of the violent offenders that continue to haunt the world and claim countless innocent lives, is a disregard for innocent lives altogether. Beyond that, if Batman wasn’t killing these guys, the government, law enforcement, or even a citizen, would get the job done for him. How Batman could continue to suit up and keep doing the same thing over and over again with no new result is pure insanity and would be an indicator that he’s just another weirdo in a costume, rather than a solution to the world’s (let alone Gotham City’s) problems.

Ask yourself if one of your family members was a victim of any of Batman’s countless rogues, would you consider him still to be a hero, knowing that he could’ve ended their reign of crime and numerous breakouts long ago?

Should Batman Kill?

If you came into this looking for a definitive yes or no, then I’ve already lost you. If anything, the complexity of portraying a modern myth, one that is handed off from creator to creator to creator over decades of storytelling creates a conundrum of character. There is no definitive yes or no on whether or not Batman should kill. But, by that token, that means that there’s nothing to say he absolutely should have a no-kill rule. Nor that he shouldn’t.

But, if you want to really break it down, the answer is irrelevent. Batman HAS killed, and he’s done so in every medium that he’s appeared, from comics to film to animation to video games. So the question of whether he should or shouldn’t becomes more like: Should he continue to kill or continue to refrain from it?

Subscribe now

My take on who and what Batman should do, given all of the aforementioned information I’ve presented here, from the definition of myth, the history of the character in print, the censorship that became canon, the bounds of reality vs. fiction vs. morality, and the place he now finds himself in the modern-day cultural landscape is thus:

I don’t think that Batman should kill with guns or on a level of violence that someone like The Punisher does, even if their origins are similar. Batman is without superpowers, but he is a different man, born under different circumstances, and pursuing a different mission than Frank Castle aka The Punisher.

However, I don’t think a no-kill rule is feasible in any regard for Batman, nor should it be. It robs his character of having to make any really tough decisions, because we always know his endgame is that he’ll never kill, so it will always be some kind of moral grandstanding message coupled with a few bloody punches for good measure and off to Arkham the bad guys go. If that’s enough for those wanting some escapism, fine, but those same people need to keep out of the no-kill argument. It really doesn’t concern them, because they aren’t invested beyond the base-level popcorn thrill of the character.

I would propose (and this is how I would write Batman if ever given the opportunity) that Batman takes on this mantra:

What this creates is the chance for Batman to retain his humanity, but also allows him to act decisively if the situation calls for it. He can operate from a place of punching, kicking, gassing, tying up, or otherwise incapacitating his enemies, but if it’s a case of them vs. me, them vs. innocents, or them repeatedly committing acts of violent crime, then he has the authority, obligation, and commitment to put an end to it for good.

By that same token, it allows him to enter a situation with his parameters set. If he must go in bringing death and there’s no other option, then so be it. He can still attempt every possibility to not kill, but if it simply isn’t possible, then he will do what he must, IE Escalation of Force. Batman’s quest for justice within the bounds of his mission has been at the centerpoint of his persona, and my point has already been demonstrated, most notably in The KGBeast storyline by writer Jim Starlin and artist Jim Aparo (See Below):

I have dealt with the decisions of having to kill or not kill as a soldier. When at war, at least in modern warfare, you are given a set of Rules of Engagement (ROE), which dictates what actions you can take in engaging and killing an enemy. A running joke would be how frequently that changes (sometimes weekly). It creates utter chaos in war. One day you can shoot at anything, the next day you can only shoot at certain things from certain distances in certain uniforms, etc. It’s mass confusion and has led to more than a few criminal cases against soldiers. It’s ironic that men in suits that have never stepped on a battlefield are out there making up ROE for those that pull the triggers (and folks wonder why we aren’t “winning” wars).

Batman doesn’t have to deal with that, because he can set his own parameters. Having a clear code to follow would allow Batman to dispense justice in a way that’s measurable. In the end, he is not an officer of the law, nor a soldier, nor any kind of lawful agent of the government or the people. He’s a vigilante. Giving him a “will-kill if necessary” code instead of a “no-kill” makes more sense for his character. It also makes him more interesting, more complex, and provides the means to explore him in a manner that’s unchained to a degree, but still guided by a moral compass.

Since comic-book characters, our new modern myths, have morphed and changed throughout the years, it’s perfectly reasonable for Batman to evolve his code, especially one that was born of censorship and sales anyway. We live in a time where injustices, crimes, war, and terror are thrust upon us instantaneously with social media and 24-hour news cycles. It certainly creates the illusion that it’s more violent than ever (it’s not). A reflection of this and the fact that we can now see the realities and consequences of violence directly, in the palm of our hands, means that the myths we worship need to get with the times as well.

Yes, they may exist in many ways to reflect our desire for a better nature, but if our better nature is inaction, then what are our heroes actually doing for us besides providing mindless, unchallenging entertainment? And if that’s all it is, then why does the debate exist at all? It’s okay to want more from our myths, our heroes, even our entertainment. Perhaps this debate will always exist, and maybe that’s the way it should be. Keeping the debate alive, after all, proves that we still care enough to explore who our heroes should be, how they reflect us, and ultimately, who we want to be vs. who we really are.

Leave a comment

“People in showbiz are idiots. They just go with the trend, they just go with the fashion — it’s a fashion business.” - Oliver Stone

Director Oliver Stone has never been known for mincing his words and that continues to be the case in his latest comments about the state of Hollywood in a piece for Variety. It’s a sentiment that is currently echoing throughout the halls of social media as many long-running studio franchises are starting to show the chinks in their franchise armor and the rumblings of “superhero fatigue” are once again making the rounds.

While many tend to agree that superhero fatigue is a real thing and that it’s something they are most definitely reeling from, some still disagree, including Deadpool creator Rob Liefeld. “There is no comic book super hero movie fatigue,” said Liefeld in a recent Tweet. “Audiences are more sophisticated now than they were a decade back and expect better. If the movie is clever, daring and the characters are engaging, the audience will show up and roar with approval. It’s all in the execution.”

So, what to make of the current state of not just superhero films, but franchise films in general? Is it all falling apart, or have the standards changed for audiences, who will no longer accept mediocre attempts to secure their hard-earned money with schlock that has passed its creative expiration date? It’s something I covered already in my piece about George McFly from 1955 loving Shazam: Fury of the Gods, but audiences in 2023 all but hating it.

But is there more to it than just a standard shift or is it truly a shift from loving to hating cape shit?

Subscribe now

First, you have to look at the monumental success of Marvel Studios, who built a cinematic empire from 2008 through 2019, culminating in Avengers: Endgame becoming the highest-grossing film of all time (before being downgraded to second place after a little Avatar re-release bullshit). That’s no small feat. It also means that it isn’t just a bunch of comic-book nerds flooding the theater to watch it (even though they most definitely went back for multiple helpings). This was a global phenomenon and it reached a precipice in 2019, wrapping up three phases of films with serialized long-form storytelling, the likes of which had never been accomplished in live-action features before.

The only question after that is: What now?

Unfortunately, Marvel Studios is finding out the answer, which is a mostly lackluster showing of all their films post Avengers: Endgame, minus their joint production of Spider-Man: No Way Home with Sony, which managed to reach the same kind of hype levels as Endgame, while cracking the door on new ways to exploit their franchise with a multiverse. However, that exploitation thus far has mostly been met with a slow clap rather than a loud roar as audiences are left to wonder what they should be excited for, especially after the two biggest characters of that successful universe (Tony Stark/Iron Man and Steve Rogers/Captain America, respectively) have vacated the franchise.

Another major setback for Marvel is the advent of Disney+, which at first seemed like a promising venue to expand and explore the MCU, but has instead become a stain on its legacy, suffering from a slew of questionable creatives who seem hellbent on undoing everything cool, interesting, or exciting about the MCU, instead injecting a hefty amount of sluggish, boring, woke, and misdirected content that’s a far cry from the projects that were released in theaters. Budget, talent, and VFX all suffered and, as a result, so did audiences.

WandaVision and Loki aside, two series that seemed to rise to the challenge, the MCU shows have been little more than low-budget snooze fests packed with mediocre takes on characters that deserved far better. Underwhelming is probably the aptest description for everything from The Falcon and The Winter Soldier to Hawkeye to She-Hulk to the latest bore session, Secret Invasion.

Aside from having no clear vision in terms of what the MCU even is after the game-changing finale of Avengers: Endgame, the films have simply struggled to capture the magic, charisma, or creative spirit that came before, leaving audiences chasing the Endgame high and wondering if they should find a new dealer.

Unfortunately, the only other superhero dealer in town is DC, and their track record has been spotty at best, ever since they bet the farm on Zack Snyder to lead the charge, then had a crisis of faith when critics didn’t bow down before Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, and sent him packing. Their knee-jerk course correction resulted in an attempt to “Marvelize” the DC Universe, which blew up in their face with Joss Whedon’s bastardized version of Snyder’s Justice League but was later salvaged in a big way with James Wan’s Aquaman, to date the only DC film to crack the $1 billion mark since Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy.

Aquaman may have marked a high point for DC, but it was short-lived, as the powers that be continued to invest in projects that nobody wanted to see. Or, rather, in projects that people might have wanted to see if they weren’t so terrible. Wonder Woman 1984, a Covid-era release that many were genuinely excited for, turned out to be an abject failure on all fronts, followed by Birds of Prey, which continued the downward trajectory, topped off with James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad (a movie I loved), a film that managed to make just $168 million worldwide, a pretty awful haul considering the talent and IP involved, even in the theatrical turmoil that Covid caused.

Subscribe now

Matt Reeves non-DCEU related The Batman restored some faith amongst fans, but Dwayne Johnson’s long-awaited Black Adam turned out to be a complete dud, which did the opposite of what the megastar promised, which was to change the hierarchy of power in the DCEU. Well, in hindsight, I guess Black Adam DID change the hierarchy of power, just not in the way it was intended. The promise of Henry Cavill’s return as Superman was axed, as was a whole bunch of other DC projects, as the WB/Discovery merger knocked everything into disarray, leading to James Gunn and Peter Safran as the new hierarchy of power in the DCU.

Now, all that’s left are the remaining scraps of the DCEU, the lackluster Shazam: Fury of the Gods sequel, the VFX nightmare that is The Flash (but, hey, I still dug it), and now two more last-ditch efforts to put a cherry on top of the era, Blue Beetle (which nobody wants to see) and Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, a too-little-too-late sequel that could be amazing or terrible, but it won’t even matter, as everything changes in 2025 with James Gunn’s Superman: Legacy, a hard/soft/whatever reboot of the whole DCU.

Okay, great, Paul. You’ve given us a history lesson, but what the hell does any of it amount to? Are we suffering from superhero fatigue or not? Is cape shit coming to an end?

Yes. And no. Also, no, but yes.

Superhero fatigue is just a broad term to cover the fluctuating desire of audiences for a given genre at any point in time. It’s an arbitrary and subjective term that only holds weight if you believe it to be true. I.E. Do YOU have superhero fatigue? Then, yes, superhero fatigue is real. Do ALL audiences have superhero fatigue? Based on the box office? Yeah, a little bit, but not to the point that the ride is over. Far from it.

But, that doesn’t mean that things can stay the same, because if they do, then what you will witness is the gradual decline and eventual replacement of the genre with something else. Just as westerns, musicals, and action movies were replaced by the superhero genre, time, interest, influence, and money from audiences will determine what you’ll see in theaters for the next decade and beyond and it’s far too soon to call what that will be. That said, superhero movies are probably the safest bet in town, so fatigue or no, they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, even if you are absolutely sick of them.

Also, let’s take into consideration that not EVERY superhero movie has to be a massive success to perpetuate more of them. You don’t-and stay with me here-have to LOVE every single superhero movie that hits theaters. I know, it’s a crazy concept, but trust me here. As a kid, my superheroes were Stallone, Schwarzenegger, and Willis and as much as I loved movies like Rambo III, Terminator 2, or The Last Boy Scout, I did NOT love movies like The Specialist, Collateral Damage, or Striking Distance. For every great action movie those guys made, they also made a stinker or mediocre entry in their filmography. They weren’t all winners and that’s okay. Welcome to the world of shooting your shot. Sometimes you hit, sometimes you miss.

Beyond that, it’s not like there haven’t been successes in the genre since Endgame and Aquaman. Spider-Man: No Way Home was quick to remind audiences that there’s still magic to be made and despite low enthusiasm, almost all Phase 4 films have made a minimum of $400 million globally, which may not be $1 billion, but it’s not nothing. Currently, both Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse are keeping theaters vibrant and alive. For DC, while The Batman and Black Adam didn’t break the box office, they are both a significant rebound from the three DC movies prior (although Shazam 2 and The Flash aren’t exactly reigniting things).

The bottom line is that this genre will have highs and lows. They won’t all be Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man: No Way Home or Aquaman. And, that’s okay. To a point. Because it’s also okay to want more out of them as an audience.

So, the latest MCU or DCU film isn’t on the scale of one of the aforementioned blockbusters; that’s fine. But, it still needs to be something more than what we’ve seen a hundred times over by now. What audiences hate more than anything is being bored and that’s why movies like Shazam: Fury of the Gods, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Secret Invasion, and even the non-comic-book franchise Fast X are underperforming (or outright flopping).

It’s lost touch with reality. The audience perhaps likes the video game. But I get bored by it,. How many cars can crash? How many stunts can you do? What’s the difference between ‘Fast and Furious’ and some other film? It’s just one thing after another. Whether it’s a super-human Marvel character or just a human being like John Wick, it doesn’t make any difference. It’s not believable.” - Oliver Stone

Audiences are bored of the same old tricks. If there’s one thing Hollywood loves, it’s a formula for success. Mostly, because there isn’t one, but they’ll never stop trying to find it. Even as I type this WB just signed a deal to have AI make business decisions for them. The endless quest to find out which project to invest in that will separate you from your money continues, like explorers looking for a lost city of gold that doesn’t exist. They’ll never settle for the gold bars they’ve already found; they want the whole treasure.

The crazy thing is that all of these studios already have the formula for success at their fingertips, but they’re too blinded by the easy wrong over the hard right. The formula is simple. It’s QUALITY. Not what they think is quality, not what they hope is quality, not replicating everything that worked before and hoping for a second miracle. No, it comes from genuine, earnest, smart, intuitive, and creative quality. It comes from understanding what you have (in this case, comic book IP), understanding the audience (and their needs/desires), and ultimately understanding what it will take to deliver that product.

Unfortunately, quality has taken a back seat over quantity, as I’ve already outlined with Marvel’s jump from bigscreen to smallscreen, which has greatly sullied their brand. It’s also stretched the VFX houses, who are responsible for an insane amount of the quality needed to sell these films, forcing them to cut corners and deliver subpar product to overly-demanding studios who are trying to keep up with the joneses, rather than make the best film/show they can possibly make. They’ve let demand drive their product, rather than a pursuit of perfection. Keep the villagers fat and happy. Keep the gears grinding. Keep the factories running.

Subscribe now

And there’s a whole other article in my brain about what we’re losing to event films dominating theaters, but I’ll save that for another time. Bottom line is that the two latest films from Martin Scorsese have to be watched at home, and anything sans capes, cars, or CGI creatures is kicked to the streaming curb, no matter who is making it. Sure, some sneak by and occupy a screen for a few weeks here and there, but it mostly just pops up and fades into streaming obscurity and that’s the real thing audiences are losing. Diversity of content on the bigscreen is almost extinct, but we’re too busy complaining about not having better versions of the same old shit.

I don’t know about you, but I’m more than willing to wait an extra year or two for something amazing, rather than be force fed half-baked cinematic fast food all year long. If anyone says waiting is a bad idea and that folks will forget your project and it will lose momentum, I’d ask you to speak with a Mr. James Cameron. It also opens the doors back up to let in a more diverse array of films that don’t rely purely on spectacle.

Playing devil’s advocate, if the trend were to continue on a downward spiral, two of the greatest filmmakers of our generation may well have already called what the future looks like. Both Steven Spielberg and George Lucas predicted an inevitable “event film” implosion, saying in a speech at USC in 2013 that, "There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even half a dozen of these mega-budgeted movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm again."

While I don’t think we’re quite there yet, as there are still event films doing well, there’s merit to their prediction. If all of the studio money is being poured into the big-franchise pot and those films start failing, it will certainly force the powers that be to change their ways and refocus their efforts to quality over quantity. And if that were to happen, would it really be a bad thing?

I guess we’ll find out.

Leave a comment

Buy or Rent Blue Steel HERE

Physical copy HERE

Many years ago I created a column on JoBlo.com called The Best Movie You Never Saw, which continues to this day. It’s a fun legacy to have left the site, but I mainly created it because I wanted to write about movies I loved, specifically those that aren’t all that well-known. Many of the films we love aren’t mega-blockbusters and household favorites, but rather back-shelf titles that didn’t achieve the level of box-office success that made them unforgettable to the average moviegoer or they simply didn’t connect with an audience when released, due to a long list of varying factors.

With that in mind, I am going back to the well to discuss movies I love, in the same vein as the column I created a decade ago. As I get older, I’ve discovered more and more that the up-and-coming movie aficionados, the young viewers who see film as an art, rather than just a way to pass the time, are increasingly missing out on some of the great films as the library continues to grow, sadly with a whole lot of fluff that clogs the drains. For those readers, consider this your film drano. For everyone else, it’s a place to champion some of the great and underrated films that we love, shining a light on them and hopefully inspiring the next generation to carry the torch forward into the future.

The inaugural column kicks off with Kathryn Bigelow’s Blue Steel, a film I’ve been dying to highlight for the longest time and am proud to finally do so.

When Was It Released: March 16, 1990

Who Made It: Directed by Kathryn Bigelow. Written by Bigelow and Eric Red. Produced by Lawrence Kasanoff, Oliver Stone and Edward R. Pressman. Made for Vestron and Distributed by MGM.

Who’s In It: Jamie Lee Curtis, Ron Silver, Clancy Brown, Elizabeth Pena, Louise Fletcher, Philip Bosco, Kevin Dunn, Richard Jenkins, and Tom Sizemore (in his first onscreen role).

What’s It About: Jamie Lee Curtis plays Megan Turner, a fresh-to-the-force New York City police officer with a tough, yet vulnerable charm that makes her both approachable and dangerous if provoked. There’s a humor to her character as well, but it doesn’t last long, as things get dark pretty quickly when she meets Ron Silver’s Eugene Hunt, a commodities trader who suddenly awakens the psychopath within when he bears witness to Turner in a shootout at a supermarket, causing him to begin his own murder spree and obsession with the officer, eventually leading to them forming a romantic bond. However, his motives quickly become evident, and thus begins a game of cat-and-mouse as Turner attempts to bring the serial killer to justice, even as he disrupts every aspect of her life.

How It Was Made: Bigelow had formed a collaborative relationship with writer/director Eric Red (The Hitcher), which led to her first directing gig, the midwest vampire flick Near Dark, starring Bill Paxton and Lance Henriksen, itself a cult classic. Bigelow held firm to being behind the camera and was able to pivot to Blue Steel, based on a script by herself and Red, which won the support of director Oliver Stone, who helped Bigelow get the job, while also serving as a producer alongside Ed Pressman.

Shot all on location in New York City in 1989, having secured Curtis to take the lead as Megan Turner, Bigelow set out to make a tough action film that focused on a female lead in what was traditionally a male-led genre. In what would normally be a cop thriller with, say, Bruce Willis or Keanu Reeves (whom she’d work with next on Point Break), Bigelow framed the film to go against genre stereotypes, but not in an effort to make a statement, but to flip the script and see what happens.

“I was interested in making a ‘woman’s action film’ so I was interested in kind of a permutation on a genre that had been predominantly occupied by men, very simply for the reason that I believed that there were certain elements, like fear and self-preservation, which broke down along universal lines. I kind of wanted to turn the cop genre, so to speak, on its head, and put a woman at the center of it, who’s sort of an “everyman”, a character who not only women, but men, could identify within the context of an action film, as opposed to the woman being the girlfriend or the victim, I wanted her to be central to the story.” - Kathryn Bigelow, BBC2 Interview (1990)

Blue Steel made its debut at Sundance in 1990, a rare move for a Hollywood cop thriller. It didn’t make a tremendous splash, nor did it make a killing at the box office when released a few months later. Both Curtis and Silver received praise for their performances, with Bigelow causing enough of a stir to get another directing gig, 1991’s Point Break, which would become an action classic. However, as time wore on and Bigelow’s career continued to soar, fans began to seek out her past work and Blue Steel has emerged, over time, to cult status, ironically getting the kind of recognition it was aiming for when released, which is to be appreciated as a fun, moody, violent, goofy, and exhilarating action flick.

“Why should guy directors have all the fun? My interest was in making a women’s action film, but one which men could also identify with.” - Kathryn Bigelow, Toronto Globe and Mail (March, 1990)

Subscribe now

Why You Should Watch It: Early in my film education, as I began to revisit my favorite filmmakers, Bigelow was a quick study. Point Break was one of those films that hit me hard, and as I began to dissect film as art, not just entertainment, my great hope was to discover more films by my favorite directors that were akin to their more popular ones. It was always a win to find that a filmmaker had a number of early gems that preceded their well-known works, and Bigelow was no exception. Discovering both Near Dark and Blue Steel were like unearthing treasures.

The first notable aspect of Blue Steel that stands out is the two leads in the film; Curtis and Silver. Curtis, up to that point, had carved out a career as a scream queen and a comedy actress, having starred in films like John Carpenter’s Halloween, The Fog, Prom Night, Trading Places, and A Fish Called Wanda. Blue Steel was a step into a completely new genre for the actress and one she turned out to be well-suited for.

Curtis makes for an outstanding action star lead in Blue Steel, emulating all the usual tics you’d expect from a male counterpart, yet still showing a feminine side that is befitting of her character. She’s a beautiful, single woman living in a big city, now charged with serving and protecting it, and Curtis plays Turner with a raw, yet vulnerable strength. There’s a scene in the film where she arrests her own father for abusing her mother, and it serves as a kind of wish-fulfillment moment for her character, a refreshing inclusion in the genre that rarely sees the light of day, and Curtis sells it with perfection.

"One of the reasons I took this job is because I love using my physicality and my strength in a film, and I don't often get to do that. In my need to go off and do more dramatic films, I haven't been able to use it. I guess 'A Fish Called Wanda' used it in a different way, but this was a real action film, and a wonderful thing for me." - Jamie Lee Curtis, Roger Ebert Interview (Sundance 1990)

For Silver, who was mostly known as a character actor, the part of Eugene Hunt was a chance to really let loose, and let loose he does. Silver gives a maniacal, psychotic, and beautifully evil performance in Blue Steel, giving Curtis a great cat to her mouse. Without that dynamic, Blue Steel would’ve fallen apart. Thankfully, they both shine as protagonist and antagonist, creating a multi-layered relationship that makes the stakes feel real, even if the premise gets silly as it goes on.

Clancy Brown is low-key cool in Blue Steel, which is a refreshing take for the actor who is mostly known for his over-the-top and hardcore performances in everything from Highlander to The Shawshank Redemption. He is basically the love interest in the film, in what would normally be played by a female in a male-led cop thriller, which is a fun dynamic to watch play out.

There are two other aspects to Blue Steel that greatly contribute to its success, outside of the actors and the direction by Bigelow. The first is composer Brad Fiedel’s score, which is a dark, moody, oozing score that gives Blue Steel as much of its identity as anyone else’s contributions. Fiedel is known for his work with James Cameron (Bigelow’s ex-husband and frequent collaborator), particularly The Terminator franchise, but Blue Steel remains one of his finest works that rarely gets the credit it deserves.

The second is the absolutely gorgeous cinematography by Amir Mokri, who had the benefit of shooting all on location, capturing the landscape of 1989 New York City with depth, personality, and vibrant energy that frequently goes underserved in the new era of studio lot sets and green screen. Blue Steel benefits tremendously from Mokri’s work, giving the many macro-style close-ups and detailed, gritty resonance that seems to have diminished in the new digital era. Mokri’s work here makes all the difference and the film would not be the same without him. He would later flex those skills on films like Man of Steel, The Salton Sea, and Lord of War, amongst others.

"If you said the director's name was Bob Bigelow, I think the movie would elicit the same response. I don't think people would say--wait a minute, a man didn't direct this movie. But there are some differences. I'm an actress, and therefore maybe I infused more sensitivity into the character than if this was a man's role. I liked the fact that I was scared. I really loved the fact that in that opening scene in the market when she shoots the guy, she's dying, she's so scared, and I loved that she's not just busting through doors, that she's scared, because it's human nature to be scared." - Jamie Lee Curtis, Roger Ebert Interview (Sundance 1990)

Subscribe now

Of course, the biggest contributing factor to Blue Steel’s success is Bigelow’s surehanded direction. While we want to pretend that all sexes are equal in every way possible, that simply isn’t true. Physiologically and psychologically, women are different than men in many ways, despite the ongoing trend to uproot the scientific fact of it. Male directors have predominantly shaped the action genre, which is by and large, a male-focused genre. Women frequently do not gravitate toward the action genre. And, hey, that’s okay. Ninety-Eight percent of the US Army infantry is led by males (an all-volunteer force), while females make up only ten percent of incarcerated individuals in the US. Obviously, men and violence go hand-in-hand a lot more than women do when stacked against the statistical evidence.

Which is what makes Bigelow such a radical outlier in Hollywood. She has directed some of the ballsiest, most badass, violent action films that the genre has ever seen, right down to Blue Steel. It’s not that she simply made the film, but that she made it with the same sensibilities you’d expect from a male director and, in most cases, better than what a male counterpart would do. With Blue Steel, Bigelow leans into tender moments, never to the point of being some kind of feminist jab at the patriarchy, but rather to show an honest portrayal of female friendships and home life without trying to make anyone feel guilty about it, lending an air of authenticity, rather than a point blank finger wag to drive home a point on gender.

In the same swing, Bigelow stages gunfights and violence with the same sensationalized swagger that her contemporaries like Walter Hill, John Woo, Tony Scott, or John McTiernan do (or did). She doesn’t try to make it more palatable, toned down, or somehow redirected from the genre it’s in. No, Bigelow stages her action sequences with the same intensity, rawness, over-the-top bravado, and macho maneuvering that has perpetuated the genre from the start. The gunshots are frequently in slow motion or in a tight close-up, showing every ripple of smoke and recoil, with blood squibs exploding across the screen in a visceral shower of violence. Bigelow, for whatever reason, was gifted with the visual acuity of a true action auteur, which just happens to be exceedingly rare for a female.

Blue Steel isn’t particularly revolutionary in terms of the genre. In fact, it’s very familiar. But, the way it’s staged, filmed, acted, and (especially) directed, Blue Steel is a game changer. It’s one of the stronger cop thrillers of that era, even if just as silly, but it also serves as a rallying call not only for female leads, but female directors. Bigelow set a stage that opened the door for filmmakers like Karyn Kusama (Destroyer), Patty Jenkins (Monster, Wonder Woman), Lexi Alexander (Punisher War Zone), etc. The field is still remarkably small, and Bigelow still reigns supreme (and it’s not even close), but the road for female action directors has been paved nonetheless and much of it started with Blue Steel. You could argue that it began with Near Dark, but Blue Steel has the added benefit of experimentation on flipping the script with a female lead in this particular genre, making it not only groundbreaking but just a fun damn movie.

Blue Steel may not change your life, but as a cop thriller on a late Friday night, it’s a magnificent watch. It’s simply a well-made film by a group of talented folks, regardless of what’s between their legs. However, it can’t be understated just how exceptional Bigelow is at understanding the action genre aesthetic, as she’s proven time and time again with films like Point Break, Strange Days, K-19: The Widowmaker, The Hurt Locker, and Zero Dark Thirty. She is unmatched and unparalleled in her understanding of violence and how to portray it artistically and Blue Steel is the film that lit the fuze on her tremendous journey throughout the genre in her career.

“I think, in one sense, we’re motivated by violence or resistance to violence, by profound emotional response, that’s a better way of maybe putting it. I think film, when it’s most successful, can create profound emotional response.” - Kathryn Bigelow, BBC2 Interview (1990)

Best Scene: The best scene for Blue Steel is the end shoot-out, as it really capitalizes on what we’re actually there to watch. Sure, there are plenty of clever, cool, weird, and fucked up scenes in Blue Steel, but a cop thriller frequently hinges on how it pulls off the finale. I’ve heard many reviewers say that Blue Steel doesn’t pull off the ending, and I couldn’t disagree more. It’s not a complex shootout or confrontation, but it is one that you’re ready for by the time you get there, and Bigelow stages it like a John Woo-styled ballet of chaos with moody depth, macro shots, and that atmospheric Brad Fiedel score carrying it all on its back. It’s not John Wick, nor should it be, but rather a taut, bloody finish to an implausible, yet convincing action thriller.

That said, I can’t include it here, as I don’t want to tempt spoiling those of you that haven’t seen the film, so I’m including the opening shootout with a then-unknown Tom Sizemore. It’s the scene that sets everything in motion and is a small tease of things to come later in the film.

Leave a comment

Buy or Rent Blue Steel HERE

Physical copy HERE

A few months back, actor Ryan Reynolds posted a video to his YouTube channel that was a strange hybrid of promotion and health awareness. I expect nothing less from Reynolds, who has quickly become a kind of ad wizard with his company Maximum Effort, where he’s produced advertisements for things like Aviation Gin, Match.com, Mint Mobile, and supplemental pieces for anything and everything he appears or invests in. They’re always smart, funny, witty, and full of the kind of Ryan Reynolds-isms we’ve come to know and love.

But (pun obviously intended), Reynolds took things to the extreme with an ad that champions colon cancer screenings, which was born from a bet between himself and Rob McElhenny (aka Mac from It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia). The story goes that Mac said he could learn to speak Welsh, with Reynolds betting against him. The bet was that if Mac could learn to speak Welsh, Reynolds would film his colonoscopy. It’s an odd bet to be sure and likely conconcted to create a memorable ad that actually does some good.

Real or not, the bet spawned the below video, which highlights both Wrexham A.F.C. owners getting a colonoscopy and their individual results. Take a look to get caught up…

So, here’s the thing: I’m 45 years old. I know, I know. It happens. But, hey, so are these guys, so back off. The age for this screening was originally 50, but they recently lowered it to 45, which is where the prompt for Ryan and Mac’s video comes in. If you’re not already there, then one day you will be, unless you get hit by a train or burn yourself alive doing a YouTube challenge (surprisingly, a real way to die in modern times). It’s not easy to live this long. It was the average life expectancy in the 1890s and they didn’t even have YouTube. But, they did have colon cancer, which is the second most common cause of cancer deaths. That’s a stat that stands out and one that made me take notice.

Lord knows I’ve tested the limits of my lifespan thus far. But, at some point throwing caution to the wind becomes something you do less and less of as time goes on, especially once you become a parent and your longevity becomes a necessary thing for your offspring, sticking around long enough for shitty school concerts, bench-warming sporting events, dishes in the sink, clothes on the floor, money spent on worthless in-game purchases, high school graduations, and everything in between before they leave you forever, only to return for Christmas and to drop off their own offspring for you to babysit. I mean, who isn’t trying to stay alive for this, am I right?

So, as someone who wants to stick around long enough to raise my kid, finish a few projects, sip a few more mai tais, bang my wife until my dick doesn’t work anymore, and perhaps see if Lucasfilm can make a good Star Wars movie before I release this mortal coil and am reborn as a cute little axolotl in Mexico, I took Ryan and Mac’s message to heart (or, ass in this case).

What the fuck is a colonoscopy and why should I read this shit?

Bro, I thought this was a movie blog run by a dude that left the movie news business, what the hell? Yeah, yeah. Well, that’s just it, isn’t it? I love movies and entertainment and art and all that jazz, but there’s more to talk about, think about, and write about than just movies, including our own health and well-being. So, here we are.

co·lon·os·co·py

/ˌkōləˈnäskəpē/

noun Medicine

noun: colonoscopy; plural noun: colonoscopies

1. a procedure in which a flexible fiber-optic instrument is inserted through the anus in order to examine the colon.

You get all that? That’s right, they shove a fiber optic “snake” up your ass and slither through your guts to look for cancer and cut off anything that looks like it. The reasons for this should be obvious and if you’re under the age of 45 then you’re probably thinking, “dude, no”, but I promise you, dude, yes, you will have to do this if you live that long.

As a teenager I was a bit of a hypochondriac, always thinking that cancer was out to get me, even at 17 years old. I would go to the school library and look up information about cancer in the medical section and get that same wave of naseau you get when you try to diagnose yourself on WebMD. Over the years I’ve gotten way better about all of that stuff and wouldn’t call myself a hypochondriac anymore, but I am someone who wants to stick around a bit, and thus, I take my health seriously. I mean, something’s going to get us all regardless, but I don’t want to make it easy. So, armed with Ryan and Mac’s messaging and the desire to make sure I didn’t have ass cancer, I called up my doctor to schedule a colonoscopy.

Because I am at the exact age for one it was no issue to get an appointment and I was referred to the Air Force hospital (Elmendorf) as I have VA health insurance. It’s the same hospital where I had surgery when I ruptured my bicep (so much fun, highly recommend) and the same hospital where my son was born, and since it was a military facility I felt right at home going there. I was told I would have to go to a “class” for the colonoscopy first, which would involve a breakdown of how it would all play out and what I had to do in order to prep for the procedure.

Upon arrival to that appointment I found that a bunch of men were there (I’m not sure if women get a separate appointment or not), including my old squad leader. I seemed to be the youngest one there, or perhaps the youngest looking, and we all went into a small waiting room to be briefed. A nurse brought in a big, grocery-size brown bag for each of us, which was tagged with our name on a prescription label. Inside the bag was our medical chart, an instruction packet, two prescription bottles with laxatives, and a big plastic jug filled with powder labeled GoLYTELY (pronounced Go Lightly), which would soon become my mortal enemy.

The doctor came in and briefed us about the procedure and explained the preparation process, which would involve a full day of eating no solid foods and drinking only authorized beverages (No, Aviation Gin is not on the list), while also “cleaning out” the bowels with an onslaught of laxatives, which were waiting in our brown paper bags like a brigade of shit destroyers. The doctor showed images of what the process looked like, giving us a clear view of the inside of a colon, which is similar to those extendable tubes for your pet hamster. But, with polyps.

They explained that we’d be sedated, but lucid, which perplexed me, as I just couldn’t imagine being alert while someone ran a hose up my ass and poked around. I guess I’d find out. We then scheduled appointment times and designated an escort, who would have to bring us to the procedure, wait, and bring us home. I asked if they had any good escort services they could recommend, particularly one with English speaking Ukrainians with drivers licenses, but that joke was too lame and too soon to make an impact. It was now a dreaded waiting game until my appointment, which loomed on my calendar like a designated sick day.

Prepare For Evacuation - All Day

Look, this is where the fun does not begin, okay? But, if you’re still with me then perhaps you’ve had a colonoscopy or you’re considering one (a great gift for loved ones). My first big takeaway from the procedure is that Prep Day is the WORST. You already know what’s coming (or, rather, going). You’re going to take mass amounts of laxatives and you’re going to empty your bowels as if they went through the car wash three times in a row, leading directly to your appointment so that they can probe that sweet ass without any roadblocks.

I fucked up my prep initially, as I dreaded the GoLYTELY. Having to chug a bunch of foul-tasting goop in order to clean out my guts was not enticing in the least, and I just wanted to get it over with. The doctor showed us a video of himself guzzling the whole fucking thing in one sitting at a meeting with staff, attempting to show that it could be done with ease. My immediate thought was to get it done similarly, if possible. I have always been a “yank-the-band-aid-off” kind of guy, so that was my approach.

Subscribe now

The instructions on my sheet were a bit confusing as it didn’t state a particular time to start the GoLYTELY, so I decided to do it first thing in the morning to get it over with. In truth, I was supposed to start it at 5 pm and finish it by 9 pm, taking my first round of pill laxatives at the same time. Instead, I started in the morning, spacing out the pills until long after the GoLYTELY did its work.

Now, let’s talk about GoLYTELY. It tastes like thick, warm seawater with hints of vomit. I can’t even begin to understand how we’ve advanced so far in medicine and still produce things that taste like this. I tried my damndest to choke this shit down in a single gulp, just as the doctor did, but it became evident that this was not going to happen as soon as I tasted this revolting sludge. It got to the point that my eyes were watering and I started heaving as I ran out of breath trying to empty this muck into my system. It was going to be a long day.

I set the jug on the counter and stared at it like an intruder in my home, even contemplating getting my gun out and shooting it. Alas, I knew it was best to stay the course and get the whole thing over with, so I stuck with it, guzzling as much as I could every 10-20 minutes. The mistake I made halfway through was squeezing some black cherry flavored Mio into it, hoping to make it go down smoother. Instead it just tasted like black cherry flavored puke, rather than seawater flavored puke and thus the endeavor continued.

About an hour in the sludge triggered the poop alarm, and the back and forth journey sent me to the bathroom throughout the rest of the day. I’ll spare those details, as we’ve all experienced the unsavory feeling of peeing out of our buttholes, no matter who you are. Ana de Armas? Peed out her butt. Ryan Gosling? Peed out his butt. Chris Evans, The Sexiest Man Alive 2022? Peed out his butt. You get the idea. Young, old, hot, not, it doesn’t matter, we’ve all experienced this horrid sensation and you don’t need a description. We’re all experts here.

Subscribe now

I drank Diet Coke, Black Coffee, and Water with Lemon Lime BCAA’s throughout the day. It was breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snack time. It was a shit day (literally), as I basically laid on the couch, watched The Office, did some drawing on my iPad, and pondered what to expect when I arrived at 7 am the next morning for the procedure. I went to bed, setting my alarm for 3 am, when I was supposed to take more laxatives, and then go back to sleep. My next alarm was set for 5:45 am, which would allow me time to wake up, empty any final contents from my bowels and take a shower (I mean, c’mon, a bunch of people were going to see up my ass, it should at least be clean).

My escort arrived at 6:20 am, which was a former Geronimo like me who had already had three colonoscopies in his lifetime already. “You ready??” he asked me as I got in the car, laughing vibrantly. “Fuck, I hope so,” I said. And off we went.

Right Up Main Street

There’s a scene in Deadpool when Ryan Reynolds’ Wade Wilson gets shot in his ass and he utters the line, “Right up main street!”, which made the fact that I was getting a colonoscopy due to a Ryan Reynolds video that much more ironic. It could even be a poster for doctor’s offices, Deadpool with a bullet hole up his ass with the tagline “Right Up Main Street. Schedule Your Colonscopy Today!” I think Wade would like that, actually.

I walked into the gastro ward and they were expecting me. They had my chart all ready and ushered me into a room, handing me a pair of socks with rubber soles like the ones you get at a bounce house, and the traditional hospital garment that left your ass in the breeze. I sent a message to me wife, telling her I loved her before locking my phone away, hoping I didn’t die on the procedure table from a colonoscopy. That would be embarrassing, but it’s probably happened to someone.

They laid me down on one of those pushcart beds, stuck me with an IV, covered me in blankets, and even put on a little TV next to me, which only played static or Supernatural. True story, I’ve never seen a single episode of Supernatural, but was intensely invested as I waited. When they came back to wheel me away, I said, “Wait, I need to see what happens!”

The nurses and staff were all great. I mean, I feel like they usually are, but everyone has their horror stories, I suppose. My experience at Elmendorf has always been a good one and the staff have always been pleasant, professional, and frequently in high spirits. I don’t know if that’s part of the training or what, but there you have it. We all have a role to play in this world. Some people play Deadpool in movies. Some people fix cars. Some people raise cattle. Some people write about Deadpool in movies. Some people shove probes up your ass to look for cancer. It’s the circle of life and we’re all up in it.

In the procedure room there was an anesthesiologist talking shop with someone who was obviously in training, and it became clear that they were going to give me Fentanyl, which seemed odd, seeing as all I ever hear about it is how it’s killing people every day. But, it’s good enough for colonoscopies, I guess, and I haven’t bought any off the street in at least a few hours, so I think I’m good. More and more people shuffled in, many of them introducing themselves. “Hi, I’m Colton, I’ll be assisting today. Hi, I’m Mary, I’ll be assisting today.” On and on it went and, in truth, it’s probably the most attention my ass has ever gotten.

The first thing I noticed while laying there was a thin, snake-like device that looked like it had one too many attachments for my comfort level. “Are they putting that whole thing up there, because I’m not sure that’s gonna fit,” was my resounding thought. The business end of that thing looked like one of those snake cams you use to peek under a door in Call of Duty, and it looked like it had telescoping pinchers that reminded me of the bad guy from Innerspace. I hope my doctor was as good a pilot as Lt. Tuck Pendleton or this was gonna be painful.

It was a little off-putting to know that so many people were about to see my asshole, which is something even I haven’t spent much, if any, time seeing. It’s not uniquely positioned for my perusal, so I pretty much let it live its life, while shoving some TP and soap up there on a regular basis. Other than that, my asshole is in his own world and I have no intention of disrupting that. But, today, he was getting visitors. And then some.

My initial fear as people began to crowd the room was how embarrassing it would be if I projectile shit on them when they turned me over. Granted, there was just no way there was anything left up there. It was factory reset in my guts, so I just assumed that it was clear sailing. But, in the off chance there was a last holdout, I could only imagine the disdain the crew would have if I gave them a blast before it all began. I imagined that the hose wouldn’t go in so gently. Alas, my fears, to my knowledge, were unfounded.

Subscribe now

I say to my knowledge, because once it was on, I was out. Kinda. Allow me to explain. Once everyone was in the room and the doctor checked in with me, everything amped up. Everyone seemed to enjoy the fact that I was a “virgin” to the procedure, and the doc asked me if I had any questions. “It’s my first time, so I don’t even know what to ask,” I said. “Oh, it’s mine, too. It’s all of our first times, actually,” he said, jokingly. “Well, we’re all in for a treat, then,” I responded.

They all checked in with one another and then, in unison, yelled “Start time, 7:39”! after the doctor announced it. This is where it all gets fuzzy. The nurse asked me to scoot to one side and then turn my body so that my ass was facing out. They undid my gown and all my goodies were on display. The nurse nicely doubled-up the pillow my head was on, and then I felt the sweet sensation of narcotics take effect like a wave of euphoria. It was then that I noticed there was a monitor in full view that would show me the whole procedure. It was also then that I realized I really didn’t want to see it, but it was too late, as I couldn’t make words come out of my mouth even if I wanted to.

Before I could even take stock of what was happening, I just felt an uncomfortable pain in my stomach, while I watched this really weird show about a snake exploring a cave, stopping along the way to check all the nooks and crannies, eventually coming upon two blobs that he attacked and bit off, before returning home. I think it’s streaming on Netflix.

Show Him What He Won!

And, just like that, it was over. They rolled me back to my back and were carting me out of the room seemingly as fast as I’d entered it. Shit, I could’ve been in there for days for all I knew, but it was under a half hour and I was back where I started, although I missed what happened on Supernatural. I wasn’t drugged to the point of saying incoherent and embarrassing shit to the staff at all. In fact, it was wearing off fast and I felt almost completely normal within what seemed like just a few minutes.

I was told they found two polyps, which they removed and would do a biopsy on. It takes weeks, but I was told that if they were found to be cancerous then I’d come back for another colonoscopy in seven years, and if not, I’d come back in ten. Ultimately, I was just happy that they didn’t find raging bowel cancer, which is always a possibility, especially for those at risk and with a family history of it.

My stomach hurt for a few hours afterward, but after some rest and (finally) some food, I was back to normal, as if it never happened. When thinking about the worst part, I was a little shook that I hated drinking the GoLYTELY more than I hated having a probe stuck up my ass, which is saying a lot about how awful that stuff is. Add that to the list of my PTSD triggers.

They gave me a printout of the whole procedure, including a look at the polyps, as well as a numbered graph that showed me exactly where in the colon the images were from. Super nifty. It gave me a breakdown of the results, which were normal, minus the polyps. I was relieved that it was over and grateful that I did it. If anything, the whole thing is a preventative measure, and one that needs to be taken as we grow older or are at risk. I am no expert on cancer, but I know that early detection is the greatest asset to beating it above anything else, and that’s an important factor as we grow older. In the end, we have Deadpool and Mac to thank for potentially saving my life, so here’s to paying it forward, right up main street.

Leave a comment

NEXT on Way of the Shirey:

So, there you have it. You signed up for this Substack for movie chatter and this week it’s a bunch of shit. But, as I stated when I began, I’m expanding into many other areas (natch!) with this thing, and will do the same when the new podcast kicks off. Hopefully, this entertained and informed you, especially those that need to get your ass snaked same as me.

So, enough with the old people shit (literally). Next week I’ll be revisiting Brian Bosworth’s Stone Cold, as well as some new reviews and ponderings from new releases or some other medical procedure (kidding!). See you next time and remember to love what you love!

Share

Week in the Way

Well, it’s been an interesting week to be sure. I thought I’d be writing about just AI, but then The Hollywood Reporter dropped a report that was a bit of a smoking gun in terms of the future of DC films. There’s a couple of other topics I wanted to mention as well, so let’s get through those first before we get to the behemoth that is the DCEU…or whatever it’s called now.

If you’re new here, please consider subscribing to support my work. Free or paid, it helps both ways. Updates are weekly, with perks on the way for paid subs, but just subscribing and sharing helps tremendously in keeping me going. Just hit the button below and you’ll be all set and have my eternal gratitude. Until I’m dead. Then, I’m taking it back.

Subscribe now

AI IS TAKING OVER THE WORLD (No, it’s not)

If you’re a vain douchebag like me and millions of other people around the world, then you probably jumped on the Lensa app craze and shelved out five bucks to see how AI repurposed you. Much like the faceapp craze, this was yet another trip down ego lane where we could, even if for a brief moment, see what we’d look like as drawn, painted, or digitally created by a well-known and exceptionally talented artist.

We are, after all, creatures of vanity, and it’s not odd in the least to think that we’d jump on such a distraction. Everyone’s results were broken down into five-to-ten different categories, which included sci-fi, rock star, superhero, stylish, mystical, astronaut, anime, adventure, cyborg, and cosmic. It took about an hour for the AI to “generate” these results, which amounted to some pretty cool, pretty weird, and pretty scary imagery of ourselves.

The cool ones made us look like the heroes of our favorite fantasy worlds, while the scary ones made us look like our worst nightmares. Or, maybe exactly as we are. Either way, it was a fun little experiment that has produced a whole bunch of new avatars throughout social media and everyone feigning that they decided to “take the plunge” and pay to see their results, as if someone were putting a gun to their head and forcing them to do so, rather than admitting that they were curious and vain enough to see what theirs would look like.

Now, like any short-term fad, the nostalgia is wearing off and the new app smell is dissipating. What we’re left with, even with our cool new avatars, is an air of familiarity. The uniqueness of it is gone. What we thought was a cool-looking Star-Lord version of ourselves is suddenly very similar to everyone else’s result. What was at first special and cool is now standard and over-saturated.

I bring this up, because what I saw pop up in my Instagram and Twitter feeds from the artists I follow is the growing concern that AI is threatening to take over the field of art. In being able to create “art” out of simply typing words into an app (Lensa is far from the only app available), generating some very specific results that frequently look like the work from a garden variety of known artists, both living and dead.

Share Way of the Shirey

I’ve seen much of this art and been wowed by it myself, but here’s the catch to all of it: None of this AI art could exist without flesh and blood artists. AI is assimilating and “creating” these new images by culling the style of artist’s work that is spread throughout the internet. None of it is being created out of thin air, no matter how cool or interesting it may be. It’s all derivative of the real artists who defined these styles.

These AI creations are essentially Frankenstein’s monster versions of real art, not new, not visionary, and stuck in the window of what’s already been done. In sum, AI cannot create new styles, as it is merely mimicking everything that’s already been done, which is why those cool Lensa avatars you see on all your friends’ profiles (mine included) are already looking like everyone else’s.

Flesh and blood artists will always be needed, always be inspired, and always be revolutionizing how they express their work. A machine doesn’t think that way. I machine can guess, it can use data, metrics, and predictive software to attempt to make art, but it doesn’t feel inspired, doesn’t cull from a lived experience, doesn’t understand timeliness, politics, or social commentary, let alone the deepest form of humanity, which is emotion.

I think ethical discussions about the use of AI are necessary and something that should be carefully considered moving forward, as we continue to undermine our natural abilities with shit created in a lab. AI can be useful in helping artists realize their vision, and it’s fine for creating an Avatar when you can’t do it yourself or pay an artist to make one, but it’s not replacing artists, unless you think that people will accept living in a world where all art starts to look the same and nothing new ever comes to fruition. We can be cynical about that, I suppose, and say it’s already that way, but it’s not. As someone who soaks his eyeballs in art, I see new stuff every day, I see styles evolve and emerge every year, and I’m always enthralled and inspired. There’s never been a dull moment when it comes to art.

Humans love and crave variety. We love to be shocked and surprised. We love to be inspired and roused. Those emotions come from artists who also feel the same way. We create art to capture the human experience, whether its an impressionist painting from the 17th century or a superhero comic picked off the shelf today. Art isn’t just pretty to look at, but it’s a reflection of who we are, and only humans can capture that. For me, AI is a tool, one that’s not all that different than a warehouse of monkeys with paintbrushes and iPads instead of typewriters. They may get lucky and put a few things together, but they’ll never be able to fully reproduce what the human mind (and heart) can make, especially when endowed with artistic ability and vision. For now, I think we’re safe from a Terminator style AI takeover of creativity, but we may have to endure annoying avatars for a while. Which brings me to…

Subscribe now

Avatar: The Way of Water Reactions come crashing in

The long-awaited (forgotten?) sequel to James Cameron’s Avatar debuted in London this past week and many of my peers shared their musings on social media shortly after. Heaps of praise were tossed onto the pile, as expected, and it has built up the hype train for the film that seemed to be lost on the tracks until now. That said, the reactions are very much on par with the kinds of things you hear when a new Marvel movie is released and you have to take into account that early reactions are always going to skew positive. Here’s a few that caught my eye from folks I know and respect:

Early reactions are always close to the chest, especially when you’re on the ground after an all-expense paid trip to the premiere and access to filmmakers and talent is involved. Everyone is trying to play nice. So, while I think these reactions are genuine, you also have to do some decoding. I’m looking forward to the film, but my takeaway from the reactions is that it looks and sounds amazing (like the first film), but is probably a half hour too long and weighted down by another goofy anti-human, environmentalist message that paints things in broad strokes, rather than deep commentary. We’ll see, but that’s my prediction. Who knows, maybe I’ll just love the shit out of it, but there’s only one way to find out. My review will be up on the Substack next week and you know you’ll get my honest take.

Share

James Gunn and the Future of The DC Universe

All right, let’s get into the big “bombshell” of the week, which comes in two parts. First came the report from The Hollywood Reporter, which gave an unsettling picture into the future of the DC Universe, including the shelving of Wonder Woman 3 and an unknown prognosis for Henry Cavill as Superman, Dwayne Johnson’s Black Adam, and potentially Matt Reeves’ planned sequel to The Batman. And, well, everything else.

So, let’s break down the report. THR’s sources indicated that director Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman 3 treatment was not approved and she was notified that they would not be proceeding with her proposal, as it “did not fit in with the new (but still unfolding) plans.” Deadline took it a step further, saying that Jenkins walked when her idea was rejected. At the same time, Gal Gadot, who has played the character since 2017, sent out a somewhat cryptic tweet, saying that she “can’t wait” to share the characters next chapter with fans. Some have taken it as a subtle “goodbye” to the character, but it reads more to me like a promise to return.

It ultimately rests on whether she’ll do it without Jenkins. I’ll throw my choice of Kathryn Bigelow out there yet again, especially if the studio is locked on having only women direct the franchise. As an Academy Award winning female filmmaker, Bigelow not only knows action (see Point Break, Blue Steel, or Zero Dark Thirty), but knows character. How she hasn’t been considered yet is beyond me (unless she has). Either way, it seems like Gadot is still game for the role (and why wouldn’t she be?), but she’s going to have to get comfortable with playing the part without Jenkins.

The rest of the THR article is little more than speculation, with rumblings from an insider who offers that the Ezra-Miller led The Flash is still an “unlocked picture” particularly as it involves cameos from Henry Cavill’s Superman and Jason Momoa’s Aquaman, not to mention a substantial role with Michael Keaton’s Batman, as well as Ben Affleck’s Batman. That scenario isn’t hard to believe, as Miller’s public and private antics have caused a massive headache for WB as they scramble to piece together their 2023 slate in a way that aligns with their future plans. Box office for that film will be most telling.

THR speculates that both Cavill’s Man of Steel 2 and Momoa’s Aquaman tenure may be on the chopping block, but that’s pure speculation at this point. It all comes down to phrasing, and THR’s speculation cites that it’s built upon “several rumors and possible scenarios” rather than actual fact. Many have taken the THR report as gospel, which has caused a number of people to lose their minds over the changes that may or may not be at hand. But, Deadline’s follow-on report from their source implies that that’s not the case, saying:

“These franchises which already make a lot of money, why stop them? How can a studio that’s bearing so much debt afford to start from scratch? There are scripts and actors’ schedules to be figured out.”

Gunn has always been a vocal presence on Twitter when it comes to the rumor mill, and he took to the platform to clear the air, while also polluting it a bit. Below is his response to the THR piece:

It’s a very diplomatic response from Gunn, and honestly, good for him for even saying anything at all. It shows that he knows what he’s inherited and that remaining silent and stringing fans along is not the best way forward. Gunn continues to tease DC art (lots of Alex Ross in there), featuring various characters and storylines that may or may not come into play, and I think he’s genuinely excited about the gig. While some may not be the biggest fans of his work, there’s no denying that he’s a passionate filmmaker and having someone like that spearhead the future is much better than a bean counter suit who holds grudges against talent and could give a shit about what was ever written or drawn in the comic-book source material.

The same can be said of Safran. I’ve spoken to him personally many times and he is someone that operates from a place of excitement about this genre. It’s not just a new job for him, but a massive opportunity. I think this is a strong duo that can steer the DC Universe into territory that reflects the comic-book roots, while bringing stories to life that fans have been clamoring for. Because let’s be honest, as cool as many of these films have been, they’ve barely scraped the surface of the decades of storytelling that’s been paved for them to mine from. I mean how many times are they going to try and mine Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns? It’s time to dip the bucket in a new well.

Will Cavill’s Superman fly again?

The biggest thorn in everyone’s side is the rug potentially being yanked from under Cavill’s feet yet again, after such a long slog to get him back in the cape and on the big screen. Johnson fought viciously to have him appear in Black Adam and it was the best part of the entire film. Cavill then announced his return, just before Gunn/Safran taking over was put into effect. Now, the question lingers if Man of Steel 2 will happen with Cavill or if Gunn/Safran are looking to reboot Supes altogether. It’s all speculation, of course, but per Deadline, the only thing rejected thus far was a pitch from producer Charles Roven and an unnamed writer. They opted to wait for Gunn and Safran to offer their input, so Man of Steel 2 is, as of now, still a very real possibility. They just don’t have anyone outside of Cavill lined up for it yet.

The Takeaway

It’s all too early to tell and unless you’re a fly on the wall in the meetings between Gunn and Safran, then there’s just no telling what they have planned yet. And, my guess is, they’re playing some “wait and see” as well. I think A LOT is being hinged on how Shazam! Fury of the Gods, The Flash, and Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom play. From there, I think you’ll see things start to take shape, but maybe don’t expect a slew of announcements right away. Personally, I think it’s the right approach. See what’s working, see what audiences are paying for, see what fans are saying they want more of, and build your play from there. You have three big-budget movies in the can, waiting to play, so why start making big plans if either succeed or fail in ways that would screw it all up? Now is not the time to over or under promise anything.

The other factor to consider, and it’s one that a lot of people don’t want to face, is that maybe, just maybe, it’s time to move on. These actors have been committed to these roles for a long time and, sadly, WB squandered a lot of the time that should have been spent on sequels and crossovers, putting careers and schedules in jeopardy. How long should Cavill, Affleck, Gadot, Momoa, and Miller wait before they get their shit together? In the end, they all have livelihoods to take care of, and waiting for a studio that hasn’t found it's footing isn’t the best career move.

Momoa is 43, Gadot is 37, Affleck is 50, Cavill is 39, and Miller is 30. There’s still gas in the tank for most of them, Affleck being the odd one out, but it’s a small window (with Miller having a stronger lead, but that doesn’t matter much given his deteriorating reputation). If Gunn/Safran are building a 10-year plan that would presumably culminate in some kind of “Justice League: Endgame” style film, then you’re looking at most of these players at age 50 by then. Any way you slice it, this is their home stretch and folks need to get comfortable with that.

And don’t think that Marvel is any safer in that way. If you’re frustrated with a lot of young actors being hired for their films and shows, don’t be. It’s exactly how it went down with Phase One and you can reckon that every three phases there will be some big recasting of key players. The one thing all fans will have to contend with is that actors (and talent) are not immortal like the characters on the page. Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Kal-El, and all the rest of the comic-book superheroes can thrive for decades (for some, nearly a century) as perpetually in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, but the rest of us age out until we’re worm food, and Hollywood doesn’t have a magic pill that reverses aging, outside of de-aging CGI, which isn’t going to play on a corpse.

All that to say, it’s time for everyone to accept that Hollywood and superhero movies can only keep people in the same roles, be it in front of the camera or behind it, for so long. There is, unfortunately, an end to us all. And, let’s not forget that even the comics play this game, too. DC’s New 52, Rebirth, and Marvel’s constant “renumbering” and convenient time-travel and cosmic nonsense plotting that sets the clock back is a standard trope for the comic page. Why shouldn’t it be for the movies as well?

There’s much more to come, and I’m sure Gunn/Safran/Zaslav, and everyone else at WB/DC will reveal more when they can, but for the first time since Snyder, I feel like we have people on deck that actually give a shit and are committed to making DC a consistent, beloved, and exciting brand on film, TV, animation, etc., even if they can’t please everyone. And they can’t. They won’t. Accept it now. You haven’t been completely pleased already, so why would that change now? In the end, The Rolling Stones said it best, when they sang “You can’t always get what you want”. It’s true in life and it’s true in superhero movies.

Leave a comment

Greetings all, and welcome to this week’s Substack, which comes in the form of a newsletter. That sounds boring to me, though, so let’s call it something else, shall we? Let’s go with…

Week in the Way

If you have something better, let me know. Until then, that’s it.

I’ll be adding more and more content to this Substack as it gets off the ground, but you’re guaranteed at least one piece per week that will be a lengthy read, be it a news update/commentary like this, a review, or something else entirely. As it grows, I’ll continue to add perks and paid subscriber-only content for those that help support my work. It helps me tremendously and I greatly appreciate it to those who have already joined. I will happily take free subscriptions as well, of course, and hope that it merits a small investment at some point down the line.

I pay for a few Substacks myself, so I understand what goes into it. However, I feel that if you find a Substack that offers something you can’t get anywhere else, it’s worth the investment to keep them going. My hope is that I reach that arena with you, but I know we’re early days, so it’s cool. Take your time. Settle in.

It’s been a crazy week and I have a few topics that I’d like to discuss, from Henry Cavill’s official return as Superman, the exit of Walter Hamada, the takeover of James Gunn and Peter Safran of DC Studios, plus Elon Musk taking over Twitter, and the inevitable swing back of the woke pendulum. Let’s get into it…

Subscribe now

Henry Cavill is officially back as Superman

Now that the spoiler cat is out of the bag, everyone knows that Henry Cavill donned the cape again for an appearance as Superman in the mid-credits scene of Black Adam. It’s been a decade in the waiting, with Cavill’s last official appearance as Superman in Joss Whedon’s cut of Justice League in 2017 (with his additional footage in Zack Snyder’s Justice League in 2021 already filmed during initial production). Cavill nearly appeared in the end-credits scene of Shazam! in 2019, but the deal never came together, with a headless Superman appearing in his stead. A cloaked-in-shadow version of Supes appeared in the season finale of James Gunn’s Peacemaker series as well, while both Jason Momoa’s Aquaman and Ezra Miller’s The Flash both showed up in person.

The reasons behind Cavill’s absence in other DC films, let alone a sequel to his standalone debut, 2013’s Man of Steel, have been cloaked in mystery. Most have figured that its behind-the-scenes drama with WB and Cavill’s team that has stalled his reappearance. That sounds like it was at least part of the problem, which was perpetuated over pay disputes between Cavill and WB’s Toby Emmerich, who stepped down as chairman of WB in June 2022 when Discovery acquired them. In a report from The Post Geek Singularity, Robert Meyer Burnett shared information from an inside source who said that Emmerich was the key reason why Cavill wasn’t in Shazam!, let alone any DCEU films since, as he took Cavill’s negotiating tactics as a challenge to the studio, citing Cavill as “persona non grata” with WB and reportedly suggesting that the actor would never play Superman again.

How true is that report? Well, it’s impossible to verify when it’s a “protected” source and reported by a lesser-known journalist, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t factual, at least in part. However, according to the Vanity Fair article that covered the release of Zack Snyder’s Justice League, Emmerich was one of those who was onboard the endeavor, even if it was more of a gimmick to boost HBO Max subscribers. Emmerich is quoted as saying:

However, Emmerich’s support of releasing Snyder’s Justice League cut doesn’t mean he wasn’t against Cavill’s return in other films. The same can be said of Walter Hamada, who vacated his post at WB as the President of DC films (more on that in a minute), a move that seemed inevitable with WB Discovery CEO David Zaslav looking for his own Kevin Feige to spearhead WB’s superhero properties. Hamada may have helped shepherd in some of DC’s worst films in the last few years, including Birds of Prey and Wonder Woman 1984, as well as the cancelled Batgirl film, but he did oversee Aquaman, Shazam!, The Batman, and Joker, all of which did good-to-great at the box office (and all are getting sequels). The Suicide Squad is the one outlier, in that it flopped at the box office, but was well-regarded critically, and spawned a massively successful spinoff show in Peacemaker with John Cena.

All of Hamada’s DC credits have one thing in common, though: No Superman, specifically no Henry Cavill Superman. It took Dwayne Johnson’s support (including his manager, who also manages Cavill), and an entire regime change to finally break through the wall of “no’s” at WB to get Cavill back in the cape. If anything, Cavill’s long-delayed victory paints a picture of the petty grudges studio bosses can have, as well as a complete lack of understanding of what the audience (I.E. their customers) want. The lack of a Superman sequel or team-up film since 2016, with reports of attempting a race-swapped reboot, felt like a slap in the face to fans.

WB: What is it you want, damn it?

Fans: We’d like Henry Cavill back as Superman with a proper sequel and appearances in other DC films.

WB: Best we can do is a black Superman reboot with JJ Abrams and Ta-Nehisi Coates. Cool?

Fans: Fuck no.

WB: Hey, look, a new Batman movie!

It’s unclear what Cavill’s return will mean in the long haul, but Johnson has said that the showdown between Black Adam and Superman is a way off, which is good news, as it likely means that Superman will get to fly on his own a bit, before jumping into one team up after another. Cavill announced his return officially on his Instagram, thanking fans for their patience and promising that it will be rewarded. He also appeared on Happy Sad Confused and said of his return that, “The character means so much to me. It’s been five years now. I never gave up hope. It’s amazing to be here now talking about it again. There is such a bright future ahead for the character. I’m so excited to tell a story with an enormously joyful Superman.”

Cavill’s next appearance as Superman will be the most telling about his status in the DCEU. Black Adam was a loud, colorful, and messy slugfest, which is meant to be the new “tone” of DC Universe films, a far cry from Cavill’s Superman origins in Zack Snyder’s darker, meditative, but equally destructive Man of Steel. A balance must be struck, however, and it will take the right filmmaker to spearhead the endeavor. Cavill has done as much as he can, which is to embrace the role that he excels at. Now, it will be up to a creative team that can tap into that potential and legacy to bring Superman back into the DC zeitgeist.

Share

James Gunn and Peter Safran take over DC Films Studios

Well, they may not be a “Feige”, but both James Gunn and Peter Safran have a lot of clout under their collective belts to make their takeover of DC Films, ahem, Studios, an intriguing answer to the question of what WB Discovery is going to do with their superhero franchise. The duo will now oversee DC Studios, the newly formed division at WB that will cover film, TV, and animation for the superhero IP. Gunn and Safran issued a joint statement on the endeavor, which reads:

Gunn has fought through the trenches in his career, starting as a B-grade Troma guy that graduated to indie and low-budget features (Slither, Super), eventually taking on Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 for Marvel, as well as the sequel, before he was fired over some controversial tweets. He went on to direct The Suicide Squad with Safran, before being invited back to complete his Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy, as well as a Holiday Special (due next month on Disney+). Gunn has famously said that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 would be the end of that team as we know it, and it appears to be the end for him at Marvel, at least for the next four years, which is how long his new deal at WB lasts.

Safran is a savvy, smart producer who’s made an impact with the horror and superhero genres, showing an understanding of how to deliver on audience expectations. I’ve spoken to Safran multiple times, both at the early screenings of Aquaman and Shazam! on the WB lot, as well as on the set of The Suicide Squad, and he’s always left me with an impression of excitability with his projects. While one could argue that he would, of course, show that when talking to a member of the press, Safran has a no-bullshit way of speaking that goes well beyond talking points. And, beyond that, he actually cares that the product they’re making resonates with audiences and seeks to deliver entertainment that is filmmaker-driven but made to appeal to the fans that would pay to see it. I’ll never forget being on the set of Aquaman when Safran pulled out his phone to show us Black Manta in his full costume, the first time anyone from the press had seen it in full. He was ecstatic for us to see it and it immediately showed me that Safran (along with director James Wan) were dedicated and excited to be making something that was true to the comics.

We’ll see how that all shakes out in the long haul, as the duo kick off their new adventure at DC Studios starting November 1st, but my feeling is that having this kind of duo in place of guys like Hamada and Emmerich, who never seemed to understand what they really had, is the biggest step forward for DC since they hired Snyder for Man of Steel.

Share

Elon Musk sinks in

This week, billionaire Elon Musk completed his purchase of the cesspool known as Twitter, which in recent years has become a well-censored cesspool by a very particular group of people, who have attempted to steer the platform into a very particular bubble of thought. Extremes on any side make for an ugly, obnoxious, and close-minded venue, and Twitter was already in the throes of becoming an echo chamber where digital mobs canceled each other out on a regular basis for whatever flavor-of-the-week offense was trending as currently “problematic” and/or relevant. Now, perhaps, that may shift.

Twitter is a strange kind of anomaly that brings professionals, businesses, everyday folk, outright anonymous trolls, outright flagrant trolls, and government agencies from all over the world together in an effort to share information, disinformation, hot takes, memes, porn, and product placements, making it a hub of colliding ideas, opinions, and commerce that is frequently difficult to discern in terms of where it’s coming from. It’s infuriating. It’s triggering. It's hilarious. It’s entertainment. It’s chaos.

Sadly, though, Twitter has become the house of cancelations in recent years, especially as the now old regime was cracking down on pretty much anything that went against Their Guidelines™ which frequently aligned with only one school of thought while subverting or vilifying everyone else. We can go back and forth on it all day, but I’ve seen it frequently (daily, actually), and have experienced it myself, as I’ve watched my Twitter account go from gaining 50 followers a week to about 2 per week in the last few years. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but the second I started following a few right-leaning folks or “controversial” types, my own Twitter account took a nosedive in reaching people.

However, Twitter does not define me and I don’t live or die by it. It’s just a good way for me to reach people and share my own thoughts. But since my thoughts and perspective aren’t lock-step with the overlords, I think it’s safe to assume that someone out there in the Twittersphere likely tapped a few buttons to send my account into some compartmentalized corner of the platform. This is another huge reason I started this Substack, as nobody puts ArcticNinja in a corner. And if Substack becomes compromised, I’ll just move on to the next place.

In these Wild West Days of Social Media it constantly feels like the world is being constricted, rather than freed, as we all attempt to make sense of this new method of communication of which no one had a template for to begin with. We’re basically all infants running around a playroom blindfolded with this shit at the moment. One day, we’ll all look back wondering how we survived this mess. Well, if we’re still allowed to wonder things publicly that is.

Anyway, with Musk taking over, it represents a shift in the way the platform will be used. Actually, it represents a balance. Musk’s first order of business was to fire the staffers that were most responsible for ushering in their new way of stopping ideas contrary to their own the spread of disinformation and anyone calling someone a naughty word, let alone challenging a fringe group of lunatics from hijacking discourse on controversial ideas that nobody seems to agree on.

It's far too early to tell, but for me, when the richest man in the world invests $44 billion into a social media platform, I’m going to pay attention. It could all blow up and become a mess, but really, it’s already a mess. What have we got to lose exactly? It could be exactly what’s needed to find some sense of balance. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can say that when it comes to the facts and the truth, I want it straight, not catered to me to fit a narrative. If Musk can help bring that about, while allowing folks to openly communicate their ideas, thoughts, and perspective, then I’m all for it. While I believe some form of moderation is needed, I also think that Twitter has become dangerously close to a platform that continues to slide down the slippery slope where almost nothing controversial, challenging, or offensive can be said, unless it aligns with one specific ideal, of course.

At this point in time, I think social media was a mistake. I’d be more in favor of letting Snake Plissken send us all back to the dark ages, but I digress. My 13-year-old son commented this week, while vacationing at Disney with his mom, that it was sad how so many people are literally recording and sharing every aspect of their time at the park, as if the experience was entertainment for followers, rather than the person that’s actually there. At some point, we must disconnect, before we devolve into the scooter people in Wall-E or, worse yet, the human shells plugged into The Matrix. Here’s to hoping that Musk’s gamble pays off.

The Woke Pendulum swings back

This week, The New York Times published an article about how Hollywood is regressing after the explosion that was the #MeToo movement, which snowballed into the woke movement that has begun to become a plague. I know many of you hate the word “woke” as it frequently gets overused, but it’s what we’re working with when describing the collision of Hollywood entertainment with social issues, many of which are controversial. But, with Hollywood, which aligns itself almost entirely to the left, those ideas aren’t controversial but labeled as “progress”. And, in some ways, there is positive progress. In others, it’s been a massive step backward with an overcorrection that’s both misguided and undefined in terms of what they’re actually trying to accomplish.

The NYT article by Brook Barnes surmises that the trial and incarceration of Harvey Weinstein touched off a series of changes, including “a broader reckoning in the entertainment industry around diversity, equity, and inclusion on both sides of the camera — who gets to make movies, who gets to be the subject of them” which has altered Hollywood permanently. On the surface, that doesn’t sound like a bad thing. How do you take giving more roles to women, people of color, different races, etc. as a bad thing? I mean, Hollywood itself was the industry that blatantly took part in silencing, patronizing, abusing, and exploiting the people in those categories for decades. Now, we pat them on the back for locking up one of their own and suddenly making every creative decision with a diversity checklist, rather than one based on talent? How could that possibly backfire?

Sure, some things absolutely needed a shake-up. Women (and men for that matter), should not be sexually harassed in the workplace. Not just in Hollywood. (Isn’t it amazing how frequently we look to Hollywood as the only industry that exists where these things happen?) Does Hollywood need to open up the doors and allow a more diverse cadre of folks to work on projects? Certainly. Let’s get more voices out there. Let’s encourage, train, and foster those who show talent and skill in this industry that may not get that chance otherwise, but it sure as hell shouldn’t be at the expense of anyone else that shows the same talent, regardless of the pigment of their skin or what gender they identify as.

So, why would things start to backslide after all this “amazing progress”? It’s called money. And money, my friends, is why any of this has happened in Hollywood. Money is also the reason the industry exists in the first place, and despite the misconception that New York and L.A. alone fuel the box office, it’s an entire country (and the world, for that matter) that puts cash in accounts, not a minuscule conglomerate of loud voices on Twitter.

It wasn’t just the #MeToo movement that brought about this change, but also the fallout from the George Floyd riots, which put #BlackLivesMatter at the forefront of everyone’s lips, whether they were for it or against it. Now, the organization’s true colors have been revealed to care more about a different color altogether: green. The black community that the organization was supposed to represent has continually been let down and misrepresented by those few in charge (sound familiar?), who hijacked a legitimate movement to see more accountability and care in their community, turning it into something wholly vitriolic, negative, and, in the end, selfish. But that didn’t stop Hollywood from getting involved, did it? The industry is nothing if not predictable when it comes to jumping on a bandwagon, but don’t think for a second that it was out of true care and concern for the people. It was following a trend because trends make money. Or do they?

In the end, Hollywood is a business. It’s show business, and it caters to what people are paying to see and what they’re logging their time watching. And that’s what Hollywood will follow, time and again. It’s important to progress, to not grow stale, and to change with the times, but what has happened in Hollywood is a massive overcorrection that’s infested the industry with underqualified, overrated, and misaligned individuals who aren’t in the business for the sake of making quality art, but rather beating audiences over the head with a “message” that they could otherwise easily get on Twitter and filling a quota that has no basis in the representation of reality.

The NYT article interviews a number of anonymous industry types, all of whom express that it’s all gone too far in one direction and now they’re feeling the pangs of it. Movies like Bros, Easter Sunday, The 355, and Lightyear were all flops, while films like The Woman King, Everything Everywhere All At Once (a superb film, btw), Barbarian, and Nope did well (especially in relation to budget). The difference? It’s not about a lack of diversity or voice, it’s about making good films that people want to see, rather than films that want to beat you over the head with woke messaging.

The people that are buying and watching this stuff aren’t all cut from the same cloth. And while you can’t please everyone all the time, you can make an effort to focus on the story, the art, and the craft, rather than the social issues checklist that muddles it. It ultimately comes down to being genuine. If it’s something that fits the story, that feels organic and natural, then by all means, those things can (and frequently should) be worked in. But, when the attempts at doing this come down to check-the-block casting, social-issue story beats and linking everything to “real-world events” then it comes off as disingenuous drivel, and audiences aren’t fooled.

When you look at the last decade of highest-grossing films in the U.S. (see below), it’s a massively diversified list that didn’t need Hollywood’s help in deciding if it was worth the repeat business. The customer is always right, even when it comes to Hollywood, as they will let the industry know what they want (and don’t want) to see by where they place their money. And the list of movies in the last decade is ripe with a pretty solid balance in terms of the actual makeup of race/gender in the United States. Hollywood can knee-jerk all it wants and feign tears when no one tunes in to their woke movies and TV shows that try to make their fantasy world a reality, but audiences will only be as fooled as much as they’re entertained.

Top Grossing Movies (Domestic) since 2012:

2012 – The Avengers – Three white guys, one green guy, one black guy, and one petite redhead

2013 – The Hunger Games: Catching Fire – Strong female lead with a mostly-white cast

2014 – American Sniper – White male lead military biopic

2015 – Star Wars: The Force Awakens – White female lead, black male co-lead, with a host of diversified talent, as well as old, white male and female stars

2016 – Rogue One: A Star Wars Story – White female lead, brown co-lead (who now has his own show) and a diversity checklist of back-up characters.

2017 – Star Wars: The Last Jedi – White female lead, crotchety asshole white co-lead, and the usual array of diverse co-stars, including a black man and Asian woman.

2018 – Black Panther – All black cast with one Hobbit.

2019 – Avengers: Endgame – It doesn’t get more diverse, even when cringe-inducing

2020 – Bad Boys For Life – Two black leads with a few white folks sprinkled in

2021 – Spider-Man: Homecoming – Three white Spider-leads with some diverse co-leads.

2022 – Top Gun: Maverick – Old white male lead in a decades-in-the-waiting jingoistic military thriller with some diverse co-leads in the mix.  

I have had discussions with everyone from everyday fans to industry professionals about the shift in focus in terms of Hollywood going woke. I personally know people who have suffered the effects of this, right down to their own job security. I’ve talked with fans and followers in private (because you can’t talk about this stuff publicly or else you are a racist Nazi) who have expressed their discontent with what’s happening. Many have asked me if I thought the pendulum would swing back. My answer has always been that I firmly believe it will, simply because A) Hollywood will always change its tune to make a dollar and B) If people don’t want it, they won’t watch it, which, in that case, see A) again.

So, in answer to the NYT article, I don’t think it’s a question of Hollywood regressing, I think it’s a sign of Hollywood re-aligning, which is what it needs to do more than anything. The knee-jerk reaction to nearly everything in Hollywood is almost always an overcorrection, one that ardently follows the hashtags and trends that media outlets and loudmouth “voices” on social media are pushing as if the fate of the world depended on it, rather than the actual groups or people being affected, where the issues are far more complex. If anything, the lockdowns, riots, and general dismay of the last few years have dried up and people are sick of being reminded of it. While movies and TV can be powerful mediums to express the human condition, it needs to come from a place of care, understanding, and earnestness, not a bandwagon ride through trend town.

While some tremendous strides have been made and will no doubt continue, the pendulum should fall somewhere in the middle, not on one side or another, otherwise we run the risk of watching dull, safe, boring, check-listed rubbish that does little more than spin the wheels of progress, while diluting the craft of filmmaking, all in the name of being on the “right side of history” which only seems to last until the next hashtag trends.

Share

So, that’s it for this Week in the Way (hey, it’s growing on me). I realize that this week’s topics may be a bit more controversial, but that’s again kind of the point of me doing this Substack. I could break down all the Easter Eggs in Black Adam, I guess, but that’s not exactly stimulating or compelling and there’s a whole army of people churning that shit out on the regular, God love ‘em.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers or to be absolutely correct in everything I discuss. My hope is that you take in what means something and dismiss what doesn’t. Do your own research. Hold yourself accountable for getting the facts, context, and details that make up the truth. No one, including me, can do all that work for you. But, my hope is that these posts will inspire you to continue the journey. Have a discussion. Ponder things. That’s what we should be doing anyway, rather than reading, insta-sharing, and puffing our chests for all to see until we’re distracted by the next controversy.

Until next week, I wish everyone a safe and joyous Halloween, whether you’re going to a party dressed as some pop-culture deep cut, taking your kids around the block to go trick r treating, or sitting at home and watching scary movies. I’ve imbibed on far too many horror movies this month and am greatly looking forward to New Movie November next month.

Which reminds me! NEW MOVIE NOVEMBER is upon us!

For those that want to participate, it goes like this: Only new movies and shows, or old movies and shows for the entire month of November. No putting on an old favorite or rewatching episodes from a show you’ve already seen. It’s a great time to catch up on movies and shows you’ve been putting off. I recommend putting together a list and sticking to it. You’ll be surprised how hard it is when faced with something uncertain vs. something known. It’s a great challenge and you will always walk away with some new favorites. You have my word.

Below is my list (so far):

• Kansas City

• Nashville

• Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

• The Conversation

• Do The Right Thing

• Heaven’s Gate

• Rashomon

• The Long Riders

• Amadeus

• Vertigo

• Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

• Annie Hall

• Spartacus

• Easy Rider

• MASH

• Legally Blonde

• The Death of Stalin

• Sorry To Bother You

• Waves

Until next week, remember to love what you love!

ArcticNinjaPaul

Leave a comment