What the hell, lets make a series. Not
necessarily a weekly thing, I don't create to a rota, but what the
hell.
Let's talk about the tankie. I was putting the finishing
touches on this when I last posted, and to recap, its a bitz box
job, rather a true scratch-build. There are three major components,
the resin tracks, a central hull being made from off-brand lego, and
a turret from a crappy tank toy. These where then dressed with mix of
resin, white metal, plasticard, anything that fit really. I call it
"Tankie", as its cute much the same manner as the Metal
Slug tank, but its more of an Infantry Fighting Vehicle with the rear
door. The project then turned into another rust painting exercise, I
like how it came out, but I think I over did the orange. Then again,
we've had Mad Max: Fury Road, and that was a bright as a supernova,
so why not?
Oh, and I've been practising teeth,
with mixed success. I pulled this somewhat badly glued together boy
out of the bitz box, and got some new paint. Its not a great job, but
at least its game-worthy.
As for other projects, I'm planning to
slowly build up to a Stompa/Gorkanaut type/thing. I did make some
progress on that, but I dropped it, so its been shelved in 17
different pieces. I plan to come back to it once I've had a bit more
practice, or I stop feeling daft. Whichever happens first. For the
meantime, in a no doubt shocking turn of events, I'm doing some
robots. I am continuing to experiment with painting techniques here.
There's a few more, but they aren't really ready to show yet.
OK, as I've mentioned in previous
posts, its not been a great year for me. I don't feel I can discuss
it here, but its coming to a logical end. Things may be improving
finally, but I've needed to get a new hobby to distract myself. As it
turned out, an old hobby. I went back to model making, something I've
not really done for three years. To provide context, like numerous
Nottingham nerds, I was a big fan of Games Workshop games. I played
Orkz, still have a quite expansive army, but I went off the hobby.
There are various reasons for this, but the main reason was the most
recent Ork codex, followed by the head-in-bum stupidity that was
their Warhammer reboot. I'm not quite over those things, so I don't
think I am gonna be commanding an army in WH40K any time soon.
However, after some light toy customisation, I found the process of
creation to be very relaxing. So, I rummaged through my still very
expansive bits box, and went to town.
Not to sound too much like a prat, but
its nice to remember you are good at something.
First off, is the bandit, which I
suppose in rules terms would be a Looted Wagon or Rhino. The main
hull is a Space Marine Predator, of the hairy-chested Space Wolf
chapter, if I recall correctly. While a Predator is a main battle
tank, for real life money reasons, its based on the Rhino transport.
The turret and guns were long gone, but it was only a matter of
filling the holes and bolting on new bits to make into an APC.
Several of the new parts, such as that big ram, come from a company
called Ramshackle Games. If I post more photos, you'll see more of
their stuff. Also had a happy discovery during painting; orange is a
great way to do rust.
Smokey here is however pretty much
solid Games Workshop. There are fairly modern plastics used here for
the head and shoulder pad, but its mostly old school white metal. I'm
still experimenting with paints and remembering techniques, so he's
not quite done. The armour is painted in the same manner as the tank,
more-or-less, but the skin is a “Vallejo Game Color Goblin Green”.
That was a little odd to work with, as it basically inks itself as it
dries. I need to remember how to do teeth....
Another project I'm working on is
“Tankie” here. Its much more a scratchbuild, in that while the
tracks are resin, the main body is lego, and the turret is off a cheap
tank toy.
Well, its a Marvel film, do we need to
say any more?
Dum-dee-dum-twiddle-my-thumb.
You can go now.
Oh, we do,
sorry.
Right, Doctor
Strange is the latest in the generally very consistent Marvel canon,
and one of its smaller scale entries, as its an origin story for a
single character. Like last year's Ant-Man, its almost a throwback to
the “Phase 1” films, and has a fairly light connection to
existing plot threads, excluding a mid-credits sequence and a rather
notable name drop. This was probably for the best as this film
attempts to place hand-wavy magic into a world of soft sci-fi, a
tough sell at the best of times. This film however pulls it off,
creating utterly beautiful action sequences that feel like lucid
dreams. I do want to see this film again in 3D, I feel it would add
to the effect, rather than than be a cheap gimmick, which is high
praise from me. Its also a generally slick production with a strong
cast, and a general feeling of competency. Benedict Cumberbatch is
another great casting choice, fitting into the role as well as
Robert Downey Jr. did with Tony Stark, and the beard is a massive
boost to the man. The remainder of the cast do well with what they
have, the narrative progressing in a solid manner for the genre, and
there is no obvious weak point in the entire enterprise.
This however is not
quite the same as saying Doctor Strange is a great film in its own
right. Something about it didn't click with me. There is where the
comparison to Phase 1 comes back. Those were always entertaining
films, but I didn't love any of them until the Avengers assembled.
Doctor Strange has so much going with respects to its core concept
that its almost surprising it works as well as it does. But we are
still in a position where the rules of the world still need to be
explained, and this undermines the concept of danger. The formula of
the Marvel films, or perhaps just the genre at large, also shows
through. Doctor Strange doesn't look like any other Marvel film,
including Thor, but it has a similar feel in places, and the same
sense of humour. You'd be daft to say this film was identical to say
Guardians of the Galaxy or Captain America, but you can pick out
common themes. If you'd been inclined to sketch out a plot for this
film beforehand based on the trailer, you'd probably have got the
specifics wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if you got the broad
strokes. The ending was a surprise, however. Doctor Strange, while
quite trippy could have been a lot stranger, perhaps to its benefit.
Then again, to misquote someone, you have to have your feet on the
ground, before you can build castles in the sky.
And, you'll forgive
me if I don't open the can of worms that was casting Tilda Swanson as
the Ancient One. She does a good job, but that's a topic for another
day.
All this is however
is me attempting to draw a line between the merely good, and the
exceptional. Doctor Strange is good, and there's nothing wrong with
that. While I don't wish to make comparisons with the distinguished
competition, this film certainly handled magic a lot better than
Suicide Squad did, and remains infinitely more watchable than some
films about superheroes released this year.
The Verdict
Doctor Strange is
exactly what it looks like, no more, no less, and that's just fine.
Image Copyright Warner Bros. Used under fair use provisions.
In the weeks leading up to its release,
Suicide Squad was looking to be a repeat of Bats v Supes. There were
repeated reports of trouble behind the scenes, reshoots and reedits,
as the trailers went from dour to paint factory explosion. People
involved started talking against film reviewers, such as Cara Delevingne whom
said not to listen to critics, they don't like superhero
films. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 26% at time of writing(1). Some
frankly insane fans started a petition to close that website, based
mainly on that, before the film was even out. And all the while, the
film was trending for a record breaking opening weekend and a sharp
drop off. This is all despite an honestly interesting idea, and it
being a genre first. Its the dirty dozen, but with super villains.
Its DC's answer to Guardians of the Galaxy. But is it any good?
Almost.
Suicide Squad has quite blatantly
been tampered with during production, not enough to ruin the
experience, but they probably should have left it alone. Its a cake
they took out the oven too soon, only for the cook to cut bits off,
shove it back in, and cover it all in day-glo icing. There's still
enough sugar sprinkles and chocolate chips to salvage the mess, but
its not a top tier product. Suicide Squad is not as funny or as
colourful as the trailers make it look. You've probably seen all the
good jokes already, and I suspect the bad ones to be from the
reshoots. Tone is inconsistent, never feeling quite natural, and
frequently punctuated with popular pop music. The positives, such as
they are, suggest a darker and more elegant Director's Cut. They've
basically put LEDs and chrome rims on a hearse with this film, and
then painted it pink. Key scenes seem to be missing, replaced with
clunky exposition, while character motivations are a mess. Its a hard
movie to make an emotional connection with, good or bad, and is
therefore unsatisfying. Be it the studio, the editor, or the
director, Suicide Squad shares so many flaws with Batman V Superman I
don't blame anyone whom was bitterly disappointed by this film.
On a more specific level, I can't work
out why Harley Quinn, and by extension The Joker, are in this film. I
mean, obviously, they are there to draw in fans, but
narratively it makes no sense. Harley is just a mortal woman with a
baseball bat and a mental illness in this world, and yet she's on a
team with a professional assassin, a man whom controls fire, and a
sorceress. There's nothing she does the other squaddies don't do, and
is an absolute liability at all times, so there's no narrative reason
for her to be there(2). If this film had been about an attempt to
capture The Joker or similar, then, yeah, she'd be on the team, but
this isn't what the plot is. I'd also like to make the surprising,
and somewhat worrying, complaint that they seem to have romanticised
the relationship between the two. Something that was explicit in the
cartoons that created her was that Harley was in an abusive
relationship, her affection being largely one-sided and taken
advantage of frequently. She is a battered wife, and therefore both
sympathetic and somewhat blameless for her part in The Joker's
horrific crimes. In this film, their relationship is much more even,
and she ends up being much less likeable as a result. And to be
honest, the scenes with both could have been excised from the film
with little effect. This film is so fundamentally confused about its
own existence, that Harley, or for that matter, everyone, lacks a
coherent arc. The inevitable world building scenes are also a
problem, Batman showing the same disregard for his secret identity as
he does in the Justice League trailer.
Does Suicide Squad get anything right?
Well, while its clearly not the single vision it should be, the film
does end up being the better of DC's films this year, not that this
is strictly saying much. Having little prior investment in a majority
of the cast, I was less immediately hostile to their depictions than
Zack Synder's wrong-headed approach to Superman. I also found Jared
Leto's Joker to be less immediately irritating than initial reports
suggested. Certain characters, like Viola Davis as Amanda Waller and
Will Smith as Will Smith(3) honestly do shine. Margot Robbie is a
star in the making. And throughout, there's the sense that there was
a better movie in there, somewhere. Its a confused film, but unlike
Synder's work, its more interesting than aggressively stupid.
The Verdict
Suicide Squad is not overtly terrible,
but its close. Its also a fair distance from being good. There are
many basic story telling flaws present, and while the film is
interesting enough to distract from this, its not something that's
going to do well in repeat viewing. If you are a diehard DC fan,
you'll find something to like, but don't be daft and start
criticising the critics. Its good for one watch, and maybe a
Director's Cut. But it ain't Guardians of the Galaxy.
Foot notes
Which means 26% of reviewers gave
it a positive review, BTW. Not that it scored 26 out of 100.
You can make similar arguments
about Captain Boomerang, but he's an original member of the team
from the comics, and a world-class bank robber. He's got as much reason
to be there as anyone.
Right, I said I'd do some effing
opinion pieces, didn't I? Well, I struggled a bit, given my new
business demanding a lot of my time, and disqualifying some 90% of my
ideas on grounds of potential bias. But sometimes, you get that spark
of inspiration, and the need to do something else with your brain.
So, here's a ramble about why I think Batman really needs to take a
back-seat in Warner Bros attempt to make a cinematic universe, and
will hopefully finally express my mixed feelings on the character.
Image Copyright Warner Brothers etc.
The thing about Batman at this point is
that he's undemanding in terms of SFX, and you've got a bounty of
material to draw on. He's easy. While Bats does fight alien ghosts of
a Tuesday, he's basically on the level of James Bond. He's a gadget
guy, prefers not to be shot, doesn't use guns because of his origins,
and most of his foes are of that nature. He's a rich dude whom trains
his mind and body like a champion. Depicting him in live action is
only as difficult as you want it to be, whereas characters with
actual Super Powers, especially the weird looking ones, only really
became possible with CG(1). Narratively, he's also easy to get
behind, being the archetypical grim and gritty superhero. Even before
Frank Miller and Alan Moore took a swing at him, Batman was a guy
whose parents were murdered in front of him as a child, and overcame
unimaginable loss to start a quest to end crime, but decides not to
take human life for fearing of becoming what he hates. He's just
enough of an everyman to be easily empathised with, flexible with
tone, and the psychological aspects are endlessly fascinating.
Furthermore, the character has arguably the best selection of
colourful villains, many being evil counterparts or reflections of
Batman's personality. Its the best possible material to adapt. It
resulted in arguably the greatest cartoon series of the 90's. The
most memorable TV series of the 60's. Some spectacular video games.
And two genre defining films by Chrisopher Nolan. If you've ever been
anywhere near the Superhero genre, you know this, I do not have to
explain further. This foundation is so strong that people say Ben
Affleck is the best bit of Batman V Superman, despite the myriad
flaws and troubling characterisation associated with that film.
Like the guns and vehicular
homicide, but more on that shortly.
Batman however has some problems, ones
which mark the DC universe and the expectations of viewers. The
simple truth is that not all characters are Batman. Especially the
grimdark version Frank Miller codified, and a large subset of comics
fans tend to hold in high regard. Not every superhero works the same
way, or operates in the same context, but yet WB and many others
treat the character as the gold standard of the genre when it comes
to live action adaptations. This is kinda daft. you get a
homogenisation of the genre, where a bunch of wannabees end up
imitating the wrong things. See the comic book industry in the 90's,
or what happened to anime after Neon Genesis Evangelion came out.
Its for this reason why Arrow isn't
called Green Arrow. Why Man of Steel was essentially Superman Begins,
via Zack Synder. Why Bats V Supes took its inspiration from the Dark
Knight Returns. And why we have a TV series that's basically about
Batman before he was famous, even though there's no obvious narrative
there, and it presents all the problems of a prequel. This is also
why, I think, the Marvel films get stick for their lighter tone and
lack of memorable villains. Yes, the latter complaint is
reasonable(2), but the first bit isn't. Marvel has shown another way
of doing things, where antagonists are obstacles to be defeated, not
more important than the lead characters. There is an ingrained
mindset that these things should be serious, one that is slowly
breaking down, but not fast enough to avoid hobbling the new DC film
series out of the gate. Warner Bros in recent years has only really
managed to produce Batman films, or films that fit into a similar
Venn Diagram. They haven't been able to do Superheroes that don't fit
that template, and even then, the Batman movies are patchy. They've
basically got it into their heads that the dark and gritty is the
only way to go, something a lot of fans encouraged, its difficult for
them to change tracks now(3). It will be interesting to see how
Suicide Squad works out, with the rumours of comedic re-shoots and
increasingly technicolour advertising. But, then again, Bats is in
that too.
I thought there was a “no jokes"
policy.
Then there's the whole “unfortunate
implications” business. Going by recent films alone, it would be
easy to view Batman as a mentally unbalanced billionaire whom uses
his money to beat up the under-privileged, as opposed to spending on
Police and Social Programs. A violent power fantasy bordering on
Fascistic, excused by a childhood tragedy. The character's origins as
detective whom eschews guns on principle, gets lost in translation.
This is what happens when you repeatedly invoke “darkness” and
“realism” on a character whom dresses like a rodent to fight a
murder clown. You can only push it so far before the whole edifice
comes crashing down. Yes, this is a train of thought that utterly
defeats the point of the guy, and can be contradicted by citing
specific comics and scenes, but its an argument that can be made(4).
The Dark Knight, for example, is probably still in my top 5 Superhero
films, but you do find a certain Right Wing circa Dubya Bush feel to
events. This is a film where the hero flies into another country,
does an “Extraordinary Rendition”, beats up a guy in a Police
interrogation, and hacks every phone in Gotham in an attempt to find
a single person, although he does step back from that. This looks
more dirty than heroic, if you are of that mind. You can say I'm
reading too much into it, and maybe. But then again, the Ben Affleck
version is even worse, a multiple murderer whom brands criminals,
humanity and reason apparently absent. He's just a lump of brutality,
deciding to eliminate Superman for reasons that can only be described
as hypocritical. And don't forget, the 1989 Batman was pretty killy
too.
Pretty deliberate attempt at murder
there.
What I'm trying to say here is we don't
need another Batman film. At least not without a pretty comprehensive
reworking. The realism angle has been drained dry, and the direction
Synder took was unpleasant. And while I will always enjoy The
Animated Series, the best thing for the character and for DC, is just
put him in the background for a while.
Footnotes
Yes, Superman did a good job in
1978ish, but that was at the upper limit of practicality and money
at the time. Note how long it was between that film and Spider-Man.
That said, DC cinematic villains
stopped being good circa 2012. Note I said 2 Nolan films.
Although, Batman: The Brave &
The Bold does exist.
Like how Indiana Jones was
unnecessary in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Hi there loyal readers. My apologies for the general lack of updates. This is of course due to my new business venture, and a family matter, both of which demanding more time than I ever expect. Things probably aren't going to get better on these fronts any time soon, but I'm going to try to knock out an opinion piece or two by the end of the month.
In the meantime, The Nottingham Robot Company has a facebook page, please take a look if this interests you.
Deadpool is a movie Fox didn't want to
make. It was gonna have a high rating, "R" in the American
system, when Holywood logic said such things were unpopular.
Furthermore, the character was intimately associated with the
disaster that was X-Men Origins: Wolverine, although the titualar
Deadpool had been changed almost beyond recognition. The actor whom
played him, Ryan Reynolds, was a comics fan, and clearly wasn't happy
about it, as he spent the following years pushing for a more faithful
adaptation. Things had to have taken a personal angle for him, as he
starred in the similarly terrible Green Lantern. He must have felt
some need to atone, reclaim his nerd pride. Eventually, test footage
was leaked, with Reynolds making vague implications he did it, and
the resulting cheers got it green lit. Then its budget got cut just
before filming. Then it made some massive gross ticket sales.
It actually. took more than Man of Steel, a Superman film. The
original and most recognisable Superhero. The year isn't over yet,
but at the time of writing it hovers around #3 of the American cinema rankings, with similar performance worldwide. And this is fully
deserved.
Because
Deadpool is, in a very specific way, the best X-Men
film.
Now, I made this assertion to some friends, and it
was a bit controversial. There are good X-Men films, although the
ratio of good to bad is not a favourable one. The films certainly
deserve credit for addressing prejudice and oppression, and this film
is closer to top tier episode of Family Guy(1) than social
commentary. Deadpool however succeeds in completely and utterly
capturing the spirit and tone of the source material, juvenile as it
is. The other X-Men films, especially the Brian Singer ones, tend to
feel a step removed and samey, standard Hollywood. Be it superficial
stuff like costumes, or bigger stuff like the Sentinels, the X-Men
films have never quite embraced the quirks of the comics. This film
does does. In fact its probably the most effective Marvel adaptation
which Kevin Feige didn't have a hand in. Deadpool is, as near as it
makes no difference, the comic book version. He's a hideous mercenary
specialising in endless chatter and inventive obscenities. He's a
fighter, whose resistance to injury allows for slapstick violence
that would make the late great Rik Mayall proud. And he knows you are
watching, that this film breaks the X-Men format, and the actor
playing him has a few troubled productions on his IMDB page. They
famously CG his mask to give it facial expressions. This personality
shines like a beacon, and played into the masterful marketing for
this film, a majority of which is happily on the disk. But does that
make it an actually good film? Let's watch the uncensored trailer
again.
Here be swears, BTW.
If any of that made you laugh, you will like the
film. Its very good at what it does, and no, those aren't all the
good jokes. The film is consistently funny, often taking a scattergun
approach, and quite happy shift comedic tones in an instant. As a
character, Deadpool as the potential to be as irritating to us as he
is to the supporting cast, but much has been done to balance him out.
For a start, as this basically is an origin story, we spend a lot of
time with the pre-pool-less-violent-but-still-chatty Wade Wilson and
his lovely love interest Vannessa, played by Firefly actress Morena
Baccarin(2). The chemistry between the two is fantastic, as she isn't
the serious girlfriend, she's almost as daft as he is. Both have a
lot of pain in their lives, and basically the same sense of humour.
And she does not take her eventual role as damsel lying down, so a
thumbs up there. The other characters vary between functional and
good. I do like Colossus as the straight-man Vanessa isn't, and as a
thematic contrast to Deadpool. TJ Miller's performance as Weasel
should be completely superfluous, he's a comic relief character in
a film where the lead character tells more jokes in one scene than
Jack Synder's entire career, but makes an impression with a few
very memorable lines. Negasonic Teenage Warhead has a very cool name,
and a pleasing antipathy to Deadpool. The villains of the piece,
“Ajax” and Angel Dust, aren't quite as memorable, if competent in
their roles, and this leads to possibly the film's main problem.
In my place of work....
When you get right down to it, Deadpool
the film isn't too dissimilar to the X-Men and 2000's superhero
flicks it periodically mocks. Action scenes are relatively few, take
place in some fairly generic locales, and are perhaps pedestrian when
compared to some of the stuff we've had this year. Its an origin
story mixed with a revenge story, and is fairly conventional when
viewed that way. Its doesn't really reach for anything difficult, its
more about being funny instead. Yes, the film plays cancer and the
resultant human experimentation scenes pretty serious, but its not
really what the film is about. You don't necessarily notice this as
an issue because A) it is very funny, B) that really should be
enough, and C) the film jumps around its timeline. It makes the film
seem slightly cleverer than it actually is, and I would say suffers
slightly in repeat viewings through this. That, and the jokes getting
old, of course.
The Verdict
You need to have the right sense of
humour to enjoy Deadpool, but its seems there's no shortage of it
lately. Fans of the character can rejoice in that they got it right.
Fans of superhero films will have a good time. People whom think that
superheroes need a little bit of ego deflation will probably enjoy
it, although its not a satire of the genre. People whom feel
superheroes should be serious need not apply, however. Not a perfect
film, and maybe we won't remember it in 18 months. The best superhero
comedy remains Kick-Ass, and its not quite a match for Guardians of
the Galaxy, but Deadpool is just what we all needed.
Foot notes
A.K.A an actually funny one.
Possibly involving the Chicken.
There is similarity in the two
roles, but I'd say she was enjoying this role a bit more.
