Superman under the Gunn

Well, it wasn't as bad as I was afraid it would be.

But it wasn't nearly as good as it deserved to be.

Superman/Clark Kent  

David Corenswet

who is a REALLY BIG MAN, by the way--like, oddly, noticeably BIG, in a way no other Superman actor has ever been--

is quite fine as Superman.  He carries it off, remaining believable despite Gunn's, well, Gunnisms (more on those later).  He never swears (although there ARE several "goshes"), saves squirrels and (freaky bad CGI) babies, and really cares about people.  Aesthetically, I rather like that his costume is not skin-tight; after all, he's got on a working outfit for putting out fires, he's not an aerobics instructor.  

Et al. 

The movie is full of supporting characters who do next to nothing, such as Ron Troupe, Steve Lombard, Cat Grant, even Martha Kent.  But I mark that as a plus.  Anybody's real life has lot of "supporting characters" in it, who are not all always essential element to every "plot" you are experiencing.  I appreciate Gunn's inclusion of them just like that of the DCU's signature brands (Zesti Cola, Big Belly Burger, etc.).

Jimmy Olsen

The actor still seems a little off-model to me.  But he is more on-model than almost every OTHER live-action Jimmy Olsen.

I mean, we all know what Jimmy Olsen is SUPPOSED to look like.

But the character is used well in the film.  He's not a damsel in distress, but he's quirky, pro-active, gets his story in a characteristically weird way, and is, for no reason anyone in universe understands, attractive to the ladies.

Lois Lane

I don't know how this actress is but, well, not to be unkind, but she just doesn't seem IMPRESSIVE enough to be Lois Lane.  Although she is certainly more on model than that Amy Adams (?) person.  She simply doesn't seem sufficiently substantial to Superman's love interest (or even Clark's frankly).  I'm no fan of Margo Kidder, but at least her Lois Lane was someone to be reckoned with.

Lex 'Bingo Caller" Luthor (Nicholas Hoult)

Look. Nicholas Hoult seems very nice. And pretty. But he was in WAY over his head in this role. You know what more frightening than Hoult's Lex Luthor?  Gene Hackman saying, "Almost nobody", while not even ON SCREEN. Or "by causing the deaths of millions of innocent people".  

I am STILL unnerved by the inhuman coldness of that line, fifty years later.

Hackman's Luthor may have been goofy but... that was part of the point.  That didn't make him any less dangerous. Kind of goofy but still very dangerous is ALSO Superman's brand, remember.  

Kevin Spacey could say "kryptonite" in the goofiest way imaginable, but I never doubted that he was exactly as brilliant as he claimed, dangerously as heck, and irremediably evil. And that's just Spacey, not even Spacey's Luthor.  

Even Jesse Eisenberg

poor, terminally weird Jesse Eisenberg

seemed achingly smart (as all his characters do, I believe).

Hoult did the one thing you can't do as Luthor; he made me doubt Luthor's intelligence. Badly. 

This man shouting 'brains over brawn!' as he threatens to burst the seems of his clothing with every movement and is literally taking over a foreign country with massive firepower is ...
well, I will be kind and call it "comic book irony".

Eve Teschmacher

At first, I didn't like her. Then eventually I realized what they were doing with her and that everything I thought was wrong about her was.... my mistake.  Also on the villain's side of things, I have to confess that Gunn's geek bait of Sydney Happersen and Otis Berg ... yeah, fine. He made me smile with those.

Hawkgirl

And the award for Least Impressive Hawkgirl of All Time goes to... whoever that actress was. Really, I can't even be bothered to look it up.

4

Quick, at this point what could be more trite than Alan Tudyk as an alien or a robot (AGAIN)?  Answer: Alan Tudyk as an Alien Robot.  This is the same kind of casting from the Geek Toolbox that gives us geek favorite Nathan Filion, looking every bit of 75 years old as Guy Gardner.

Mister Terrific

Fine; Mister Terrific WAS exactly as bad-ass as he should be.  But why he should occasionally sound like a cast member of "Good Times' simply because he is black is beyond me and not really in character.

Metamorpho

Metamorpho looked terrible (and not in the way he is supposed to). Naturally, Andrew Carrigan was flawless in the part, because he always is.  But the character uses his powers in EXACTLY the way he CAN'T, according to every single story the character has appeared in since his inception.  It's just another piece of evidence that Gunn doesn't really care about what the characters are, but only about what function they can serve in the story he wants to tell.

Plot Twist

Believe it or not, I actually approve of the plot involving Jor-El and Lara. But I also remember that John Byrne did it first.

Q.E.D. Byrne is NOT a subtle writer; but he is MUCH MUCH subtler than James Gunn.

Plot Problems

I'm only going to list one:

Lex is desperate to make Superman look bad, eh?  But he never uses HIS OWN SUPERMAN CLONE to frame Superman?  Stupid.

Atrocious Gunnism

Oh, they were legion, I'm afraid.  Here's a few.

• Fight scenes with diegetic pop music scores.  I would have preferred simply watching Mr. Terrific kick ass, thank you.
• Supergirl as a drunken frat girl for comic relief.
• Krypto as comic relief. "What?! Krypto's out of control! That's hilarious!" No, it's not. The ONLY Krypto joke that comes close to landing is the dog's perfectly natural reaction to a T-Sphere.
• The Kents as comic relief.  Just because the Kents are "simple farm folk" doesn't mean they would use bad grammar.  
• The sadly GotG-style "Justice Gang" as comic relief. By the way, the idea that such a group would have a corporate sponsor WITHOUT yet having an agreed upon name and image is embarrassingly unrealistic.  
• Was the Justice Gang fighting a giant evil beach ball in the background of a very serious conversation supposed to be funny?  It wasn't.  But that's just about what I would expect from Gunn.
• "So is 'Gary'." Is that supposed to be funny? Not only do I not find Gunn funny, I frequently can't even recognize his attempts at humor as such.  
• Oh, no, are plunky sidekicks are about to fall off the edge of the building! Oh, whoops, it's okay!
• "I'm doing ... important stuff."  Yeah; no. Superman is not a Marvel character, Gunn.
• Clark Kent, a professional reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, completely blind-sided and nonplussed by Lois's straightforward report questions during their 'interview'?  Leading to their faux relatable-couple badinage?  Ugh. Gunn really can only write one style of character, it seems.

Many people will simply be happy to get a non-grimdark version of Superman and, yes, that's in the plus column.  I simply hope that it is the message that resounds from this film, rather than Gunn's goofy, Marvel-style take on things.

Superman's Costume

 

Okay, I'm going to address this issue (the teaser pic from the upcoming Superman film) to get it out of my system. I am possibly the only DC comics fan who has NOT read any of the debate about this. But I have seen the HEADLINES of those articles enough to keep me aware of the issue.

Before I address the photo, I have to remind us of something about Superman's outfit:

It's a costume.

That may seem like a dumb statement of the obvious, but let me explain.  My point is that it is not a "combat suit" (such as Batman and other non-super characters favor, out of necessity). 

Some combat outfits are tactical.
Other are mostly ... strategic.

The man's invulnerable; the idea of a suit that "aids" him in combat is absurd. The only outfit that could possibly "aid" him in combat would be his birthday suit, since the fewer clothes he has on the faster he should be able to soak up solar energy.

That's what the Metropolis Prurient Scientific Society would prefer.

It's not a "disguise" (as are superhero outfits with masks).  Superman does want to keep his private identity secret, but he doesn't really rely on his heroing outfit to do that.  He relies on his super-thespianism and the idea that no one really has any reason to suspect that Superman even HAS a civilian identity.  

Now THAT is a disguise.

It's not a "uniform", such as the original X-Men wore to designate their status a members of a team,

Except for the guy running around apparently (mostly?) naked like he's a gay porn star.  
Must be an influencer.

or like those coordinated but individualized uniforms the Athramites designed for the Legion.

I love the Athramites.
If you do not know the Athramites, you have been deprived.

Uniforms, after all, are for characters who are known principally as members of a team, not merely incidentally.

The dumbest part about the New 52 Justice League was giving three of them the SAME COLLAR to give them more of a team look.  As if Hal, Arthur, and Clark go SHOPPING together.

No, it is costume, which he puts on for his "performances" as Superman (because, as previously discussed, Superman is essentially a circus performer).  

With all that in mind, let's examine the missteps in the photo of the film costume.

The costume does not seem well designed for the costume's purpose.  In contrast to, say, Batman's outfit, the purpose of Superman's costume is to make him very visible: a circus performer must be SEEN.  And clearly visible from a distance.

This iconic sequence of utterances conveys this need perfectly.

Superman needs to be as visible as possible so that people can be inspired by his presence and comforted by his arrival on the scene.  The movie costume doesn't shy away from the inherent color contrast in Superman's colors, but they have made them rather dark. The colors are right, but the hues are wrong, in that the fail to serve the costume's actual purpose.  That's misstep #1.

Misstep #2 is the texture.  The movie costume is all line-ified and Braille-bumpy.

Superman is a superhero, not a sofa, and does not require "texture".  This added complexity is not merely unnecessary, it is distracting.

For 25 years I was a performer on stage with a large chorus.  Often we were reminded to focus less on "adding" to the performance than on "subtracting" anything that would distract the audience. It was a process of working to remove moves or notes or vocal occurrences that might "stick out" from the whole, and distract the audience from the entirety of the performance.

So, too, should be the approach to Superman's performances as Superman.  His outfit already has a cape, and pants with a belt over a leotard, a chest emblem, those funky books and sometimes funky sleeves.  No additions are welcome, certain not detail that is completely invisible to the crowd of citizens who is the audience for his deeds.  Superman is not a complex character.  He may have lots of powers, but part of his appeal and staying power is just how simple a concept he is.  Anything that veers away from that simplicity is counter purposeful.

No counterargument based in some cobbled together movie lore can prevail. "Well, it's a Kryptonian garb that blah blah blah."  These are merely post hoc justifications for an aesthetic misstep and I will not dignify them with refutation; they are simply to be dismissed.

I do NOT deem the movie costume's collar as a misstep.  Yes, Superman's outfit traditionally  has an open neckline evocative of the shirts worn by circus strongmen.

But, other than showing how thick his neck is, that element of his costume serves no purpose but as a historical reference, and if someone wants to use a more natural and modern collar style, I see no reason to object strongly.

Also, I give a thumb's UP to the chest logo.  It looks BOTH like an alien symbol AND an image that any user of the Roman alphabet would perceive as an "S".  It's a fine line to tow, and they seemed to have done an excellent job on it, especially as it is MORE abstract than we have often seen, and so is in keeping with my views of the need for simplicity in Superman's costume.

Now for the blocking of the photo.  Look, I'm all for subverting expectations here and there to freshen up a literary property.  

For example, John Byrne's revivification of the Kents in his reboot of Superman became obvious only in retrospect; they had been DEAD in every other version of Superman (no, Superboy doesn't count).  

But this relaxed boot-donning pose is a severe misstep. Superman was mean to be a man of action; it's LITERALLY the title of the comic he started in.  And this putting on his boot pensively while sitting down is just about as inactive a pose as you could find outside a Hopper painting. Personally, the only thing I can think when looking at him in this pose is William Moulton Marston's fetish about Wonder Woman putting on her boots.

Showing Superman slowly putting on one boot like he's about to walk the dog in the rain, with no sign of urgency, concern, or even awareness of the disaster befalling Metropolis behind isn't some fresh interp, it's possibly the most aggressively out of character pose I can imagine.

Trite though it might seem after 90 years, there is a reason that THIS is our consistent image of Superman going into action. People are in DANGER and, superspeed notwithstanding, Superman LEAPS into action to save them, before even having finished his costume change, because there is no time to waste while lives are in danger.

And these are only the criticisms of the scene's symbolism.  There are also cogent, in-universe, fanboy logistical objections that are hard to dismiss.  Superman can FLY.  He is often depicted floating in mid-air simply because he CAN (and it leaves him more ready to act).  Why on earth is he SITTING DOWN to put his boot on?!  That's how humans do it because we can't defy gravity through force of will. 

Perhaps the creators of this film thought that the emphasis on him putting on his costume was a good way of highlighting the costume. However, as far as I call tell, it only seems to highlight much they simply don't get what Superman is about, not merely to me, but to most people.

Blue Beetle: La Pellícula

 I saw Blue Beetle today, and enjoyed it.

Some of the beats were a bit worn for me. "!FAMILIA!" is nearly inevitable for a film with Jaime Reyes at the center, but has "FAMILY IS EVERYTHING!" beaten to death as a pop culture message in the last 15 years, or what?

Pictured: The Supreme Importance of Family

Even WITHOUT "The Fast & Furious" films. Really, you can't have followed any longer-form pop culture saga without this theme having been anviled on your head incessantly.  Gods help you if you don't Have Family, because It's The Only Thing That Matters, and so most popular narrative is designed to make you feel like you have NOTHING.

When you love your family so much,
you have to marry them.
BTW, only two of three people in this picture survive the ceremony.

It's convenient for long-form narrative, because it lets writers define their cast of characters As A Family and then justify anything around that.

And you don't abandon family,
even if they aren't perfect.

This is why it is so overused.  BUT it's a theme that actually DOES belong in Blue Beetle, where it is handled, well, not subtly, certainly, but solidly.  

As for the rest of the film, 

The CGI was good and believable, which is impressive given how difficult the Blue Beetle III concept is to visually represent.  The film also has the coolest set of stairs since The Exorcist.

Which are quite vertiginous, btw.

Jaime and the other characters were likable and (broadly) believable (except for the villains, who were neither).  

Having a likable and believable hero as your protagonist should not be taken for granted.

The characters are pleasant enough, if a bit stock-y: the Saintly Supportive Father, the Weepy Attentive Mother, the Perky Nana, the Sassy Sister. I missed Paco Testas and Brenda Del Vecchio, who I (and even CBR) think of as Jaime's real supporting cast.

They were sacrificed in favor of family, because family is all.

The plot was pretty tight (if vague: the Scarab doesn't seem to me like something Whose Code You Can Download, but many hands were waved in the making of this film) and proceeded at a good clip; I never felt the movie dragging at any point.  Except in the Afterlife, but you know how leisurely people in the Afterlife are.

Blue Beetle history fans have every reason to be pleased, given how accurately and respectfully Dan Garret (Blue Beetle I) and Ted Kord (Blue Beetle II) are incorporated into the plot.  

I mean: Ted Kord foe CARAPAX? Who expected THAT?!

Delightfully, even though Ted doesn't appear, his tech DOES and it is very satisfying, because it represents him perfectly. It's goofy, amazing, impressive, and not always reliable.  As one of the characters says, "He was like Batman, but with a sense of humor."  Ted Kord doesn't cast a shadow on the movie, he shines a light on it.  This is perhaps the film's most impressive feat.

Fans of broader Ted Kord lore should pay very close attention to where his daughter is from.  True fans will understand the significance of it.

It's pretty sweet.

The film even climaxes on Pago Island.  I didn't expect that amount of comics-accurate respect.

That one; in the DCU.
Not Pago Pago; that's in Samoa.

Mercifully, while the film includes much Blue Beetle history, it spares us any mention of The Reach or The Bleed, which have always been tedious with their Invader Zim bit. The Scarab is "alien combat tech", period.

There are plenty of familiar (and familial) aspects of Latin culture (even more specifically, Mexican) that those in the know will be tickled by (I was slain when the film embraced The Red Grasshopper).  It also does a good job of reminding us that the old people in your life have entire decades of living underlying them that you just know nothing about.  

At the cinema I saw the film at

The Alamo Drafthouse, which has really made Going To The Movies a special treat again.

a trailer interview with Blue Beetle's director (Angel Manuel Soto, famed chronicler of Menudo) ran before the film that was elucidating.  What struck me most was his understanding that shifting the setting from El Paso (where Jaime originally was in comics) to a fictionalized version of that city ("Palmera City") is a "promotion" for Blue Beetle, because tentpole heroes in the DCU have Their Own Cities and lesser ones generally do not.  It's one of the most clear reinforcements of one of my favorite concepts, the idea that The Fictionopolis matters and it's one of the DCU's advantages over the Marvelverse.

Palmera City was created FOR the film, but appeared in comics at least half a year earlier, because comic books not written by Frank Miller come out faster than movies do.

P.S. Because sometimes The Fat Funny Friend is FAMILY, the film has George Lopez in it. Prominently. But I still recommend that you see it, which is high praise, indeed.

Tragically, his character survives.  
Truly, a failed promise.

I saw "The Flash"

 The movie, that is. On the whole, I enjoyed it.

Now, I enjoy a LOT of films. I am the only living person who enjoys "Wavelength" 

This one, I mean. The 1967 one. Not the one in 1983. Or the one in 2018.  Which, sadly, were not sequels.

My enjoying a film doesn't mean to imply that it's objectively good, or even that I think it's good. But they are certainly many good things about film. Ezra Miller --despite his personal failings and the rather annoying off-model version of Barry Allen he's portraying -- is a very experienced actor and during the serious emotional parts of the film, it really shows. As for the comedic parts--

how shall I put this?

Expert panel? Any help for me...?

Let's just say, although there are certainly funny bits and I laughed out loud several times, the attempts at humor were, on whole... misplaced.  Some not only fail to stick the landing, they failed even to take off enough to HAVE a landing.  I'm going to cheat and just blame Stupid Humor Attempts Based on Awkwardness in Superheroes on Marvel-aping.  Fair? Maybe not. But it does absolve me of expending any intellectual effort on why anyone in charge of a zillion dollar picture would think some of that stuff (especially Marty McThigh) was, you know, so amusing that it needed to be in a film about one of our culture's best known fictional heroes trying to replicate his most serious mistake to avoid the destruction of all reality.

But the Bat-Kite? THAT made me burst out laughing.  
Batman is funny. Batman has always been funny.
Flash is not funny. Flash has never been funny. And if you DON'T believe that, buy a Golden Age Flash Archive and see how many Jay Garrick stories you can stomach.

The plot was simple and easy to follow with nothing that seemed extraneous, which I appreciated.  I will wryly note that DC eliminated the multiverse in 1986 ostensibly because it was "too complicated" for readers.  However, just like Flash's, their attempt to rejigger their timeline backfired and resulted in more multiversing than ever, not just for the DCU, but for...everything. You can't make a Trix commercial nowadays without the Trix rabbit fighting his dark counterpart from another universe.

I mean... even the Bablyon 5 animated movie is multiversal madness.  
Silly Vorlons; multiverses are for kids.

The action was good, the BATMAN action was awesome. Truly.

Batman is SO awesome, in fact, that he casually explains all of time-travel, retrocausality, and the character of the multiverse in seconds using nothing but pasta. Because he's Batman.

I liked the special effects, no matter how many people bitch about "The CGI being terrible".  I've been watching movies for over 50 years and someone is ALWAYS bitching that The CGI Is Terrible (even when it was SFX and not CGI).  I thought the "chronobowl" was especially innovative and intuitive.  Oh, and to all those people bitching about "Miller's weird running style": shut up. You've obviously never skated or at least not WELL.  He's speed-skating through time/speed force. If you actually saw his little legs moving zippy-zip step-by-step it would look Road-Runner ridiculous.

Did I say "little legs"? I take that back.  At first I thought they'd overdone it a bit on Flash's suit being too faux-muscley. Then I noticed how Miller was straining at his civilian seams and then came Miller's (many) shirtless/(all-but-frontal) nude scenes and I recanted.  Gratefully. Jeez, he looks like he put on 35 pounds of muscle. Not sure how needed that is for The Flash per se but... well, it wasn't my least favorite part of the film.

Silly Ezra; twinks are for kids.

The cameo parts, well, yes, they were a bit cheesy but they weren't CRINGEY.  And, yes it seemed dumb that we didn't see a hint of Grant Gustin or John Wesley Schipp, which just seems like respect due.  But Gustin and Schipp have had LONG runs and got a lot of traction from their roles; a few seconds in this film wouldn't have helped them. But it certainly wouldn't have hurt the director/producers in the eyes of fans of the character.  

I thought the Latina version of Nora was an interesting choice; if nothing else, it explains why Barry Allen looks like Ezra Miller in this universe.  Actress was great; loved her in the role. The father? Eh. No.  Why they passed up the opportunity to say "Run, Barry, Run" rather than just "Run, Barry"... well I suppose that would have struck too close to home (the TV show). 

Anyway, I had fun watching it.  I hope you do, too.

The League of Super-Pets

I'm happy to say:

I was completely wrong.

I expected League of Super-Pets to be awful. It was, in fact, a delight, pretty much from start to finish. I didn't realize it was from the same people who did the Lego Batman movie or I might have been more optimistic.

The voice-casting was mostly great. Except for Lex Luthor; I can only assume whoever Marc Maron is has enough of his own brand that he got to play himself more than Luthor, because Lex's diction is much better than that. Heck, his guinea pig's diction was better than that.  Aw-shucks Krasinski is a very believable farm-boy Superman, whoever Olivia Wilde is nailed it as Lois Lane, Dwayne Johnson & Kevin Hart (who should really just get married at this point) were endearing rather than annoying, Bayer was a very pleasant pig, and Keanu Reeves as Batman, well, do I really have to say anything about that? 

World treasure Jameela Jamil didn't have a lot of lines as Wonder Woman but her, "You; porcine creature!" sold me completely and was worth the price of admission. For a while, I thought we had a breakthrough with our First Gay Super-Pet, but then I realized that they made Merton the Turtle female (probably just to get Natasha Lyonne, or perhaps for gender balance, since there aren't a lot of fans like to get bent out of shape about changes to Merton McSnurtle canon).

Besides: multiverse/hypertime <waves hand>

The plot was solid, its internal logic consistent, as were characterization and motivation. The threat(s) were real; the action palpable.  It's not easy to make super-powered guinea pigs threatening, but, hey, anything that takes out the Justice League automatically gets respect.  Are there a lot of surprises? Of course not.  But is that really what you are clicking that button for? I mean, if "super-power guinea pigs defeat the Justice League" isn't enough of a surprise for you, that's on you.

I very much appreciated that despite his superpowers and intelligence, Krypto is still emotionally just a dog, with the pros and cons that come with that. While the rest of the super-pets may seem like a hodgepodge, they line up well with the respective heroes they 'represent'. Chip the squirrel (obviously the Green Lantern analog) is incapacitated by paralyzed by imagining worst-case scenarios (a sort of fear).  Wonder Woman fan PB the pig (a reference to the JLU episode where WW turns into a pig) has faith in everyone except herself and needs some self-confidence.  Ace (the eventual Bat-Hound), is resilient, protective of others, and has lost his family as a puppy. Merton is fast, but has trouble looking before she leaps.  Krypto has yet to learn an important lesson that Superman has already learned but I'll let you watched the movie for that.

For comics readers like me, the movie was chockfull of visual references to in-universe DC entities.  Big Belly Burgers, Ferris Air, (Jonah) Hex Steakhouse, Jitters, Kord Industries, the Metropolis Meteors, O'Shaughnessy's, Gingold soda, Catwoman (the Broadway show), Starfire Express (the Broadway show), Sun Dollar coffee, Bruce Wayne menswear, S.Kyle jewelry, Taco Whiz, Chocos, Janus Cosmetics... I lost track.

On the whole, I appreciated the character designs. The black-background "S" for Superman's logo was a nice Golden Age touch.  Wonder Woman looked like, well, an Amazon, and Green Lantern Jessica Cruz was winningly zaftig.  Flash was clearly a runner, not a brawler.  Cyborg...

This line of his alone justifies making the entire film.

Aquaman was oddly off-model.  It seemed like they were trying for some sort of amalgam of various versions and it failed pretty badly (both visually and in personality).  I mean... a harpoon hand? For Poseidon's sake, what year is this? How is that going to be anything but wildly confusing for someone who wasn't reading Aquaman comics 25 years ago?

But he is on the screen very little; most of the heroes are.  In this film, the pets save the day, as I'm sure they all dream of doing. I hope you enjoy the film as I did.

Gunn Takes Aim at Superman

Ugh. Apparently, scriptwriter/director/producer James Gunn wasn't content with taking Marvel characters, known for taking themselves too seriously, and re-making them as goofy clowns.  

In fairness, it does seem exactly like something Chris Pratt himself would do.

That's fine, perhaps.  For Marvel.

But now he's zeroed in on DC characters, known for holding themselves to a higher moral standard, and turning that on its head.  Yes, James Gunn is making a move about the tritest trope in comics: an Evil Superman.

It's been done. Ad nauseum. And with HATS.

Oh, sure, they aren't CALLING him Superman; we all know how THAT would go over in the courts.

Do NOT tug on Superman's copyright.  Just ask Billy Batson.

But all the signs are there in the trailer for BrightBurn.  A barren farm couple wishes for a child and one arrives from the skies in a rocket, which they hide in the barn.  As it grows, this alien child develops super-strength, super-speed, the ability to fly, heat vision, an affinity for red capes and... EVILNESS.

Super-sewing develops later in adolescence, it seems.

It's already being touted as 'a radical new genre': the superhero movie as HORROR.  Because Chronicle doesn't count, I guess. Or any of the other 1000 films/shows where someone gets superpowers and uses them for evil.  No, I guess it only counts when you can clearly recognize the superhero being ripped off and when it's the good-est superhero of all: Superman.

An Evil Superman! Such a modern radical cutting edge concept! Without the vision of James Gunn, who could have thought it before? Except perhaps... ever generation of Superman writers, ever, in every medium.

Simply wearing that much eye-shadow counts as federal crime.

"Coffee.Black. NOW."

He was originally from OUR earth, in case you forgot.

Look. I really like horror movies. And maybe this will be good one.  But was it really necessary to ride Superman's cape to make it?  If you insist on doing that, the LAST thing you have to right to do is make any claim of originality in that idea.

Stop kvetching to me about the new "Joker" movie

I'll start by saying: I agree with you all completely.  The Joker movie shouldn't be made, shouldn't be made by the people who are making it, and shouldn't be about his origin.

That said, I am now going to contradict most of the objections of people who feel this way.

"The Joker doesn't/shouldn't/never has had an origin!"
Yes. I feel that way, too. We are, however, completely wrong.  The Joker has had an origin since 1951.

There it is, although I can't imagine anyone reading this blog hasn't seen that already.

Granted, it's an odd and unsatisfying origin introduced in a terrible way, as a throwaway surprise ending to story that's actually about some collegiate criminology students and how the Joker got pwned by a learning-impaired gardener.  But that's how it was.  No, they, didn't give him a name; but it was still a very clear story about who he was before he became the Joker and how it happened.
The Joker has been around for 77 years and for 66 of them, he's had a known origin story.  That's 85% of his literary existence, people.  I don't like it EITHER, but it's a fact, so stop kidding yourself and deal with it.

In fact, creators can't stop talking about the Joker's origin.  The Joker's origin story has been retold more than the average hero's has.  And sometimes he even gets a name (usually "Jack" because god forbid a villains real name not bear some relationship to their eventual new identity); the ridiculous 1989 film actually named him "Jack Napier", as in "jackanapes", as in "holy crap they think the Joker is like Roy G. Bivolo."

"The director/actor won't do the Joker justice."  Oh, you're right not like...um... oh that's right. None ever have.  The travesty of fat, old, crude Jack Nicholson in the 1989 film, playing not the Joker, but himself in clown makeup (and unable to even produce a passable Joker-style laugh).  Mark Hamill's version who, despite all our fond memories and his very impressively varied voice work on the character, was played mostly as comic relief that simply happened to be dangerous.  Jared Leto end of sentence.  60 year old Latin lover Caesar Romero, whose fun-loving interpretation created the mold for all followers, but who performed in the less than serious context of Batman'66.  Ted Knights marble-gargling version in the '60s cartoon? Jeff Bennett's chortling clown from Batman: Brave & the Bold? Loopy barefoot Kevin Michael Richardson? Nails-on-chalkboard-voiced Lennie Weinrib from the New Adventures of Batman?  Generic Zack Galfianakis from LEGO Batman? Ric Maddox?!  PICK ONE.  And don't get me started on Heath Ledger who simply stitched together a disjointed pastiche of Nicholson and Hammil and got wildly disproportionate praise for simply being better than a Hollywood pretty boy had been expected to do. [Mind you, I am not blaming necessarily the actors here (certainly not Romero, who was fabulous) but rather the director/actor combination: nobody 'does the Joker justice'.]

"Such a film isn't necessary!"  No films are necessary.  Film-making is a business. They are made not out of some artistic necessity but for possible commercial success. You went to see "Suicide Squad" because it had the Joker and Harley Quinn in it. Face it, they've got your number because they know that at worst you'll hate-watch the movie anyway.  The math tells them they will make plenty on money on this film AND THEY ARE RIGHT. And that's why you are terrified they will make it.

You wanted a film Joker who will terrify you? Looks like Hollywood has figured out how to do that...