Matt Murdock's ordinary acts

A while ago, I wrote a few tweets tagged #OrdinaryActs, and the idea was that these are little things superheroes do to blend in, to make it seem like they have ordinary lives. For example...

We know a hot cup of coffee wouldn't affect Clark, and we know Peter has excellent hand-eye coordination, but these are everyday moments where they could play up being ordinary.

And then I watched the Daredevil Netflix series and saw that Matt Murdock does these kinds of things too. Even though he has heightened senses and is not in total darkness, he pretends at complete blindness when he is around people in his everyday life.

Small things, like reaching out to touch a door frame or missing someone's hand for a handshake. Relying on his cane as he walks down the sidewalk, but we know he can toss it and run, full-speed, if he wants to.

I love seeing details like that, where Matt acts that way on purpose as part of his disguise.

It's a reversal: He stops pretending when he puts on the mask.

Bits of Black Hat

I Wear the Black Hat: Grappling with Villains (Real and Imagined)

by Chuck Klosterman

Chuck Klosterman writes a lot of cultural essays, and I find myself underlining a lot of stuff in his books. Here are some of my favorite bits from I Wear the Black Hat.

 His basic definition of a villain:

On the relationship between knowing and caring:

"If a villain is the person who knows the most and cares the least, then a hero is the person who cares too much without knowing anything. It makes every hero seems like Forrest Gump. But it's not the intelligence that people dislike; it's the dispassionate application of that intelligence. It's the calculation. It's someone who views life as a game where the rules are poorly written and designed for abuse."

"I am a bad guy because I remember it (and because it informs how I think about everything else). I know it's wrong and I do it anyway. I do it consciously. I have the ability to think about this person in a thousand different contexts, yet I prefer keeping my mind unchanged. I can see every alternate reality, but I prefer to arbitrarily create my own. I know the truth, but I just don't care."

On vigilantes and specifically Batman:

"When considering the vigilante, the way we think about fiction contradicts how we feel about reality. Which should not be unanticipated or confusing, yet somehow always is."

"Yet Batman never tries to overcome this childhood event. It becomes the only meaningful moment of his entire history, and he doesn't seem to question why this is the case. 'I think the refusal to examine the insanity of what he's doing is the whole point of Batman,' argues culture writer Alex Pappadamas, paraphrasing the sentiments of Batman screenwriter Sam Hamm. 'He's a rich solipsist who can never beat up enough muggers to bring his dead parents back. But because he's a billionaire, he can afford to keep trying forever. He's never confronted with the futility of what he's doing. Were he to examine and work past those motivations, you'd have no story. The guy has to stay broken.'"

"Batman is not a superhero because of his physical abilities and mental acuities; Batman is a superhero because he seems like a moral impossibility. No one believes a real human would live that far outside the law for the good of other people."

On Seinfeld and satire:

"Most episosdes of Seinfeld circuitously forward two worldviews: The first is that most people are bad (and not very smart). The second is that caring about other people is absurd (and not very practical)."

"If you want to satirize the condition of a society, going after the apex of the pyramid is a waste of time. You need to attack the bottom. [...] This requires the vilification of innocent, anonymous, working-class people."

Give me uncertain heroes

When I watched X-Men: Days of Future Past, I realized that one of my favorite things about these characters is that they are allowed to be imperfect and unfinished. They make poor decisions. They're selfish and stubborn. They lie. But they also change, and we get to see the whole process.

Other superhero movies give us an origin story or a full-blown hero, but not many deal with the hero's uncertainty as the main story. Uncertainty comes as a brief scene or it's used as an excuse to see the hero act out of character. But it's rare that we see uncertainty used for character development and executed well.

Days of Future Past shows us a young Charles who gives up his ability because he doesn't want to cope with other people's pain in his head.

We see a young Magneto who chooses to act in ways that benefit the mutant community as a whole, over and over, even if it means killing a friend (Raven). Nothing is personal with him—it's only mutant or human.

But then we see Charles accept that he needs to open his mind in order to save others, and that allows him to grow into the mentor/leader that is so calm and assertive in the future, even when all odds are against him. We see an older Magneto in the future fight to protect his friends with little concern for himself, even missing a piece of shrapnel that ends up fatally wounding him, because he was more concerned with saving the others.

Besides seeing these characters develop and change over time, I also love that we see them lose control of their abilities or be afraid of what they can do.

Too often in superhero movies, we're given the over-confident hero who always knows what to do. Or at least, he tries his best and gets lucky.

In Days of Future Past, though, the character don't always know what they're doing.

When Magneto is drowning in the fountain, all the cars on the street shift and tilt toward him. It isn't because he was going to use them, but because he was in danger and freaking out—so his powers went haywire.

Charles's abilities go out of control too. When he puts on Cerebro, he says "these are muscles I haven't stretched in a long time," meaning maybe he will have trouble operating Cerebro, but he ends up shorting out the machine. Part of that might have been his nervousness, but it seemed like he underestimated his power and then used too much.

I like watching characters who don't fully know themselves and can't fully control their abilities. It's so much better than a story about a static, finished hero.

Man of Steel got some things right

Spoilers for Man of Steel.

I heard mixed reviews about Man of Steel and these two things kept coming up:

1. Way too much destruction. Buildings fall apart. Explosions. Lots of civilians in danger. But Superman wouldn’t put that many people in danger. He would take the fight away, out in the middle of nowhere (or even into space).

2. The first half of the movie feels different from the second half. Stylistically, visually. It’s like you’re watching two films mashed together, and they don't mash well.

As I watched the movie, I thought these were valid points. Man of Steel has its flaws, but it also got a lot of things right. I'll go through the bad stuff first, and then get to the good stuff.

The bad stuff

1. Too much destruction, and I know why it happens. This version of Clark doesn't don the suit until he faces Zod. Clark hasn't faced major threats before, human or otherwise, so when he fights Zod, it's messy and desperate. Clark doesn't have enough experience to control the situation, and that's why there's so much destruction. I still think it's excessive, but I understand why it happens.

2. Stylistic changes. One issue is with the flashback scenes. I like seeing Clark at different ages, but a few of the flashbacks feel forced and interrupt the flow of the present action. I don’t know if there was a better way to include them. Another issue is all the fighting in the second half of the movie. Lots of explosions, broken glass and stone, and loud noises in contrast to (relatively quiet) scenes around the world in the first half.

3. Clark doesn’t work at the Daily Planet until the end of the movie. I have mixed feelings about this. I like seeing on-the-farm Clark, but the mild-mannered reporter is a big part of the character and usually a more prominent role for the actor. One of the best things about Superman I is seeing Christopher Reeve shift from Clark Kent to Superman, but Henry Cavill doesn’t have the opportunity to do that.

4. Zod was born to be a soldier and protector of Krypton, but we find out too late. Jor-El says that for centuries, everyone on Krypton was born for a specific purpose, but Clark was born naturally and with the freedom to become whoever he wanted. Zod was born to protect Krypton, and that helps us understand why he is willing to do whatever it takes to build a new Krypton on Earth. Clark takes away the purpose of Zod's life, and that's a Big Thing, but the revelation comes too late in the movie for us to care.

5. Jonathan’s death was sort of...ridiculous. In other versions of Superman, Jonathan dies from a heart attack. It’s fine if the writers want to do something new, but Jonathan's death in Man of Steel could have been prevented so easily. Jonathan should have picked up the little girl and gone to the overpass with Martha. Clark could have rescued the dog and used the excuse that he “got really lucky” that he didn’t get hurt. I understand that Jonathan was willing to die in order to protect Clark’s secret, but this was a poor way to show it.

6. Lines that failed miserably. I'm sure there are more, but these two stuck out to me:
---Zod: “Where did you train? On a FARM??” This sounded cartoony, like a cheesy villain. What Zod meant was, he dedicated his life to protecting Krypton while Clark had relatively insignificant experiences on Earth.
---The female military officer at the end who said Superman is “kinda hot.” Completely inappropriate. Her character wasn’t even well developed and still that line was out of character.

The good stuff

1. Clark as a drifter. We haven’t seen this stage in Clark’s life on screen before, even though it’s been hinted at a few times. Man of Steel has thirty-three year-old Clark moving from place to place, job to job. He has this great power and he isn’t sure how he should use it, so he helps where he can. It’s nice to see Clark in ordinary situations. Bus boy at a bar. Part of a ship’s crew. He wears t-shirts and jeans and even though he looks ordinary, there’s an Otherness about him. He wasn’t pretending to be a bumbling reporter and he wasn't a demigod with a cape yet. Just Clark trying to figure out what he is supposed to do.

2. Lois is an ace reporter and she respects people’s boundaries. Lois finds out where Clark lives and says she wants to tell his story. When he explains to her that the world isn’t ready to find out there’s life on other planets, she backs off. She keeps his secret and doesn’t push him. Other versions of Lois Lane (but not all of them) have her arguing for the sake of arguing. If someone says she can’t do something, that’s all the more reason she wants to do it. It becomes predictable. “Lois, don’t get into trouble.” And then oh, there’s trouble and there's Lois. This Lois thinks about more than the news story. She realizes there are some things she shouldn’t do, even if she has the ability to do it.

3. No Kryptonite. No meteor pieces that came to Earth with Clark’s spaceship. No crutch for the bad guys to use. I like what the writers did instead. Clark adapted to Earth's conditions and so he has a bad reaction to the Kryptonian air on the spaceship and the Kryptonian atmosphere spewing out of the World Engine.

4. Jor-El is AI you can see and trust. Russell Crowe’s Jor-El is visible (and not a translucent hologram) and integrated with the alien ships. He explains things to Clark in a straightforward way, no mind games, and Clark trusts him. What bugged me about Jor-El in Smallville was that he was always ambiguous—Clark never knew if Jor-El was manipulating him. It is so refreshing to see Jor-El as a guiding figure that Clark can work with.

5. Normal danger doesn’t faze Clark. In one of the flashbacks, Clark is on a school bus that goes off a bridge and into water. All the other kids are screaming as the bus fills up with water, but Clark is looking around, observing, because he knows he can force his way out of the bus if he has to. The other kids are scared because they’re trapped but Clark is calm because he has a way out. It’s part of his Otherness, that he can't be hurt as easily as humans. In contrast, Clark is cautious when he fights Zod and Faora-Ul because they are actual threats to him.

6. Heat vision is uncomfortable for Clark. The skin around Clark’s eyes turns dry and veiny, which is something that might happen if searing heat suddenly burst from you eyes. In fights, Clark uses heat vision in desperate moves and it takes him a moment to shut his eyes and turn it off.

7. Superman teams up with humans. The military needs Superman’s help and Superman needs to coordinate with them in order to defeat Zod. It isn’t Superman as mankind’s savior but rather Superman as a leader. Which is how it’s supposed to be. Superman leads mankind into the light, not Superman solves all of your problems for you.

8. Lois knows Clark Kent is Superman. She tracks him down to Smallville, and then she keeps his secret. The writers completely bypassed the notion that Clark’s disguise fools Lois, and it suits the characters perfectly.

9. Coming to Earth was about repopulating Krypton. This was the central conflict: would Superman help Zod build a new Krypton or would he defend his adopted home? It's an internal conflict for Clark and it has external effects and consequences. In theory it would work well, but the movie doesn't quite get there.

Man of Steel focuses heavily on Kal-El’s side of the story. It’s a film about the last son of Krypton with some flaws and some highlights. I’m still waiting for a story about Clark Kent. Scenes hinted at what that would be like...young Clark suffers from sensory overload; middle school Clark risks revealing his secret in order to save his classmates; young adult Clark is frustrated about what his purpose is. I want to see a story about what an extraordinary man does in an ordinary world, but the Superman movie we usually get is an extraordinary man in extraordinary circumstances.

The Amazing Spider-Man: The Concept of the Mask

I didn't have any reservations about rebooting Spider-Man. He's my favorite superhero, and things weren't working out with Sam Raimi after Spider-Man 3, so by all means, have another go at Spider-Man with a new crew. After seeing Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, I'm happy we got this movie.

The first time Spider-Man is in his full suit and faces a thief in The Amazing Spider-Man, he says, "No one seems to grasp the concept of the mask."

The characters in the movie might not understand how the mask allows Peter Parker to be Spider-Man, but the people who made the movie certainly do. That's what I want to talk about.

Spoilers after the cut.

Telepathy is a good supervillain power

I wonder why more telepaths aren't villains. Think about it: he has the power to see what people actually think, what they keep inside their heads that no one can criticize or judge. He knows whenever someone lies to him or talks behind his back or takes advantage of people. He can't ignore any of it. He gets angry at the world for not being honest, and so he messes up things for the people who lie to get ahead.

And when he turns to a life of crime, his power will be a huge help. He can sense when police or superheroes are near. He knows what everyone in the room is thinking and can use that to his advantage. He might be able to manipulate their thoughts.

I did a quick Google search and found a few telepathic villains: Saturn Queen, Esper Lass, Mentallo, and Black Mamba.

That's all well and good, but I'd love to see a movie where telepathy is misused. Chronicle showed us the bad things that can happen when normal teenagers develop telekinesis. Do the same thing, but with telepathy.

Why the Hulk works in The Avengers

The hints of Bruce Banner's struggle to accept that he is the Hulk make his character compelling but his focus on the team—rather than himself—makes him watchable. Bruce doesn't talk about himself  much in the movie, but when he does, he sets up an interesting contrast in his identities as Bruce and the Hulk.

Spoilers after the cut.

Top Superhero Posts

Here's a list of the top superhero posts on Digital Fare. If you're new to this blog and like superheroes, this is an easy way to dip back in the archives.

The Amazing Spider-Man: The Concept of the Mask

Why the Hulk works in The Avengers

Does everything a spider can - a look at the excellent storytelling in Spider-Man, the animated series that was on FOX from 1994 to 1997

Clark Kent is not a Commentary on the Human Race - why Clark Kent's geeky side doesn't mean that's how he thinks normal people are

Superman movie: Reboot or Sequel? - what I want from the next Superman movie

Marvel and DC Movies - differences between the Mavel and DC movie franchises

Why does everyone trust the telepath?

A few days ago I finished reading After the Golden Age by Carrie Vaughn, which is a novel about the daughter of Commerce City's prime heroes. She doesn't have any superhuman powers. She's a forensic accountant, but she's not the point of this post.

One of the superheroes is Arthur Mentis. He's a telepath—your basic mind reader and lie detector. I like his character (he might be my favorite), but one thing bugs me: People automatically trust him. No one questions him. Everyone assumes Arthur tells the truth.

He can tell if people are telling the truth. That doesn't mean he has to be honest all the time.

I want to believe he's completely a good guy but he makes me think of the Salem witch trials.

Arthur Mentis has the same power as those girls who accused people of witchcraft. He can see if people are telling the truth. What's stopping him from lying about what he sees? This bugs me because this novel does a good job of seeing superheroes as people first, and vigilantes second. Most people think the heroes are great, but under the masks, these heroes have flaws. But the author hasn't addressed this undeserved trust of the telepath.

Does everything a spider can

For several weeks in July, August, and September, I watched every episode of Spider-Man, the animated series that was on FOX from 1994 to 1997. I had seen most of the episodes growing up, but seeing them again now, I realize how much this cartoon series respected children as an audience.

I see respect for the audience in several aspects of the show:

1. Complex characters. Peter Parker is consistently an intelligent and flawed character. We see how smart he is in figuring how to defeat villains, and when he makes mistakes it's because his  arrogance, carelessness, or anger. Everything Peter does makes sense, though. His actions are logical reactions to what happens to him and around him. The villains are relatively flat compared to Peter, but even they have logical motivations. Doc Ock needs resources for his research. The Green Goblin sabotages the King Pin's work so that Norman Osbourne can keep a clean reputation.

2. Multiple story lines at the same time. Episodes often contain one problem for Peter Parker and one for Spider-Man. Besides those, we see plot developments with Mary Jane, Harry, and Aunt May.

3. Multi-episode stories. Spider-Man often carried a story over several episodes. Recaps at the beginning of every episode probably helped children follow along, but even so, children had to pay close attention to make sense of the larger story. Characters and other elements from early seasons came back in the final season of the show. That's a lot of detail to ask children to remember.

4. Crossovers. I'm impressed with the number of Marvel characters Spider-Man features. I started keeping track after I realized crossovers were a recurring theme. The X-Men, Punisher, Daredevil, Iron Man, War Machine, Captain America, Blade, Red Skull, and Fantastic Four all teamed up with or fought against Spider-Man in the series.

Spider-Man respected its child audience by offering entertaining, complex stories. The banter and action scenes so typical of superhero cartoons are there, but so are deeply emotional scenes, like when Peter loses Mary Jane. The creators of the series must have felt that children could follow and enjoy these stories. Or else, why would they bother writing such developed plots and characters?

I feel like today's creators of children's television have much lower expectations for their audience. Children today are lucky to watch characters who behave rationally, let alone see complicated and satisfying story lines.

Venom to his Spiderman

Since Netflix added Spider-Man, the animated series (1994-1998), to instant streaming, I've been watching season 1 and remembering what a great show it was.

"The Alien Costume" is a three-part story in the middle of season one. The symbiote comes to Earth with a space shuttle and attaches to Spider-Man. Peter fights it off, and it takes over Eddie Brock to become Venom. This story is the animated version of everything Spider-Man 3 should have been. But I don't want to talk about the film's emo Peter Parker.

I want to talk about how Venom is a reflection of Spider-Man and why that makes him such an interesting villain.

I'm going off the animated series here (which I expect is close to the original story in the comics). Venom knows everything about Spider-Man and Peter Parker because the symbiote tried to bond with Peter first. This gives Venom a few advantages.

1. Venom can block Spider-Man's spidey sense. Venom is the only thing that can sneak up on Peter, and we see how jumpy and paranoid Peter feels because of that.

2. Venom has Peter's memories, so he knows Mary Jane Watson and Aunt May.

3. Venom has all the same powers as Spider-Man, except he's stronger.

Venom matches and beats Spider-Man in strength and ability. He plays mind games. He threatens to expose Spider-Man and hurt his loved ones. Venom is dangerous because he knows how to fight Peter Parker and Spider-Man. He can attack both identities.

This idea of a villain who is a reflection of the hero reminded me of "Amy's Choice," a series 5 episode of Doctor Who. The Dream Lord is a mocking version of the Doctor (Time Lord) that comes from the Doctor's mind. He hates the Doctor, he taunts Amy, and he puts Amy, Rory, and the Doctor in a cruel test of distinguishing dreams from reality.

But there's an important difference between the Dream Lord and Venom. Venom is a reflection of Spider-Man, but a separate entity. The Dream Lord is part the Doctor, the dark thoughts about issues the Doctor doesn't want to face. Venom's threat is in being able to match Spider-Man. The Dream Lord's threat is in the Doctor torturing himself.

These types of villains are compelling because they aren't simply evil: they're evil that comes from the hero. That complexity shows a flawed side of the hero, and that's good storytelling.

Clark Kent is not a commentary on the human race

I haven't seen Kill Bill, but I came across this quote on tumblr the other day:

A staple of the superhero mythology is, there’s the superhero and there’s the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he’s Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn’t become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he’s Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red “S”, that’s the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that’s the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He’s weak… he’s unsure of himself… he’s a coward. Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race.
— Bill (Kill Bill Vol.2, 2004)

I've read this argument elsewhere online and I've heard it from a few friends too.  I agree with the point that Superman was born Superman and that sets him apart from other superheroes. His alter ego is Clark Kent as opposed to a superhero persona that other characters like Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker had to create.

I don't agree with the argument, however, that the Clark Kent guise is a critique of the human race.  Superman doesn't dress like Clark Kent because he thinks that's how the average human being is.  Superman dresses like Clark Kent as a disguise.  He wants to be under the radar, to be the last person anyone would expect to be Superman so that he can have a life outside of the blue suit and cape.  So the glasses, the dorky behavior, the insecurities--that's all an act to distance himself from the Superman persona.  Superman could have chosen to stay on the farm in Smallville.  He could have played professional football.  He could have been a travel agent.  He could have done anything, but he wanted to keep a low profile and stay close to world news.  He took a job at the Daily Planet and he pretends to be the most awkward dork in the world. No one thinks he's anything like Superman because if anyone did, Superman couldn't attempt to live a normal life in Metropolis.

Bruce Wayne uses a deeper voice when he's Batman.  Peter Parker constantly banters with villains and makes wisecracks as he web-slings around New York City.  They put on acts like Superman does, but their situations are polar opposites.  Batman and Spider-Man make spectacles of themselves while Clark Kent tries to blend into the background.  The Clark Kent guise is Superman's understanding of the type of people we don't pay attention to but not a stereotype of humans.

Updates on Spider-man's reboot

More news and discussion on movie sites today about Sony's plans for the Spider-man reboot.  According to Screen Rant and /Film, James Vanderbilt has already written the script for the new movie thanks to Sony's pre-planning with how things would go after the fourth film.

EW reported that the reboot will be gritty and contemporary.  Hopefully Vanderbilt's script isn't gritty--that's not what Spider-man is.  Contemporary would work, I guess.  Make him live in the 21st century. 

Good luck to the director who has to follow Raimi...see the links above for more info.

Spider-man 4 is dead but reboot coming in 2012

/Film and ScreenRant both reported that Sony canceled Spider-man 4 today.  After a few setbacks and schedule issues, Sony and Sam Raimi (the director) decided to part ways.  Raimi will move on to other projects, and Sony wants to reboot the Spiderman franchise for a return to theaters in 2012.

Future movies won't follow the letdown that was Spider-man 3, so hopefully we'll have good Spider-man stories again.  Sony said they'll reboot with Peter Parker back in high school dealing with his abilities and real-world problems.  I haven't seen a lot of Spider-man in his high school years, so this is good news for me.  I'm excited to see where they go with it.  I loved the first four seasons of Smallville simply because they were about Clark Kent in high school and that was something that wasn't shown on television before.  If the reboot works out, the sequels could continue to be about Peter's high school years.  The cool thing about sequels is that they don't have a specified time between stories.  The sequel could be later that year, the following year, or jump a few years. 

I didn't mind Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-man, but a new actor in the role will be refreshing.  I wonder which villains will be in the reboot, and I hope Peter gets his snarky banter back.

Superhero cover

If you browse through my posts on this blog, you'll notice that I've written a lot about superheroes.  That's because I love all the aspects of superhero stories so much- the super powers, yeah, but also the character study/development, the take on morality, and the commentary on our world.

Lately, I've been thinking about a superhero having an alter ego as a taxi driver. Superman is Clark Kent at the Daily Planet so he can keep up with breaking news and help as he's able. The downside is Clark has to do all the work a reporter does first to earn a living and second to keep his position at the Daily Planet so he can stay close to the news. I see pros and cons for my taxi driver scenario as well.

Pros

• can listen to police radio as he cruises around the city
• has a valid alibi--taxis can show up pretty much anywhere at any time
• personal transportation (significantly more important if his superpower has nothing to do with transportation)

Cons

• conflict of interests - What does he do if he hears a call he wants to respond to while he has a passenger in the car?
• rush hour
• use gas money for patrolling/cruising
• difficult to maintain a reputation as a reliable cabbie

I have no idea what sort of hero he'd be or what abilities he'd have.  I've been thinking about the practicality of alter egos only.  I think there are fun possibilities for a taxi driver by day, a superhero by...well, day or night.  Maybe some day I'll play around with the idea.

And there's a glance at the randomness that passes through my mind.  If you want to suggest a topic for me to blog about, ask me a question, or contact me for some other reason, you can do so at formspring.me.

Heroes: I Am Sylar

****Spoilers for last night's episode, I Am Sylar.****

I love Heroes, but in all honesty, seasons 2 and 3 are nowhere near the awesomeness that was season 1. Season 2 was messed up by the writers' strike, to be fair, but season 3 hasn't done much to redeem the series. Season 3 is just stagnant in my opinion. New episode every week, but not much has actually changed. Nathan messed up and is still messing up. People with special abilities are still being hunted by a secret sect of a government agency. Sylar continues to kill people to take their powers. Hiro and Ando are on their own random missions. Angela is still lying to her sons. The whole season drags on at a snail's pace and I don't even know if the writers know where they're heading. There's some interesting stuff, yeah, but it's mixed in with so many other things that don't matter very much. The characters keep taking action that takes them nowhere.

Peter and Sylar are the only characters I still find interesting. I like Peter because he's the unwavering hero. No matter what, he wants to do the right thing. Powers or not, support or on his own. He knows Nathan messed up big time and Peter wants to make things right. Peter is the most noble character and the fact that he always wants to do the right thing makes him predictable. I like him because he's consistent and actually cares about others enough to do what he can to help, but he doesn't do much that surprises me.

I like Sylar because he's hard to figure out. Sometimes he'll help others---even save other people---but most of the time he's just evil. He'll kill people for his own reasons, and he switches back and forth, sometimes in the same episode, between being good and evil based on his motivations and interests. I like that because it keeps me on my feet. I pay attention to what he's doing and why, and the character is still surprising.

Sylar wasn't in last week's episode very much, but last night the episode was primarily about him. Sylar killed a shape shifter a few episodes back and acquired his ability. Sylar has morphed into government agents, Danko, Noah Bennet, and others and now his identity is slipping. The shape shifting is glitching, and that's weird because as far as I remember, Sylar doesn't make mistakes with powers he takes. He sees how they work, learns how to use them, and that's it. He can always use them without hesitation or error. Except he morphed in his sleep. His eye didn't change back to brown. If he's having problems with his abilities, I take that to mean there's something wrong with Sylar--mentally, emotionally. (And okay, we know he has issues, serial killer and all. I mean he has something new that's wrong.)

About halfway through the episode, Sylar got a hold of the clothes his mother was wearing when he murdered her (connection all the way back to season 1!) and then could morph into her. Why he would want to become his own mother is weird enough, but what's weirder is he started having conversations with himself. He morphed into his mother, spoke as her, then morphed back to himself and responded. It was so creepy! We finally see how messed up he is, and it's heart-wrenching to see him break down.

Sylar is always cool and collected, motivated and calculating. He doesn't falter, and it's weird to see him weak, to actually see that he's broken. As messed up as he is, I found myself hoping he would get better, that he would find a way to overcome his issues so he could go back to being Sylar...and that technically means I want him to be Ruthless, Intense, Bad Guy again. Isn't that messed up on my part? But I think that's the point. We're supposed to be rooting for Sylar.

Micah met up with Sylar last night and Sylar helped him get away from Danko and the government agents. Micah wants to help Sylar because he's the only chance people with abilities have at fixing the mess Nathan Petrelli made. Micah understands that, and it's true. Sylar is the most powerful person in the show right now, especially since Peter has been limited to one power at a time. Sylar's the bad guy, but he's the in the best position to save the good guys.

I'm really interested to see how that's going to play out. Sylar doesn't have any motivation that I see for helping Nathan and Noah stop the hunters after people with abilities. (Although Sylar might want to go after Danko...) Sylar can go around on his own and kill people, take their abilities. He has no interest in saving them. He doesn't owe any of them anything. If Sylar does end up helping them, I wonder why he'll do it.

11:58 p.m. Close one! Phew.

Superman vs. Clark Kent

I know what you're thinking after reading the title. What do you mean Superman VS Clark Kent? Everyone knows they're the same person unless you mean something like Bizarro or that scene in Superman III where Clark and Superman actually DID split in two...

I mean the distinction between the persona of Superman and the persona of Clark Kent. Superman is cool because he's the first comic book hero. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have many of the other superheroes in pop culture. He's the best example of an ideal hero--a person with solid morals who helps people just because he can. Superman is arguably the most important superhero but that doesn't mean he's the most interesting. We know he can't get hurt unless there's Kryptonite around, so it's hard to build suspense. It's hard to care about a character who doesn't actually sacrifice or risk anything by going into dangerous situations to save people.

Superman isn't very interesting because he's so powerful. Clark Kent, though, fascinates me.

No matter what, Clark Kent is an outsider. He has loving parents who consider him their own son, but his superpowers set him apart from everyone else on the planet. He has to keep his true origins a secret, and when he develops his powers, he has to hide them. Clark Kent constantly has to hold back, and he has to put up a front that he's a normal, ordinary person (unless he's in his Superman suit). I love watching how a person deals with that, and that's infinitely more interesting than Superman's track record of saving lives.

So when someone asks me who my favorite superhero is, I say Superman but I actually mean Clark Kent (and you can't have one without the other). Maybe I should just say Spiderman from now on so I don't have to deal with remarks like, "But Superman's so lame because he's so strong!" I understand that, and it's not why I like the character...but I'm off on a tangent.

My interest in Clark Kent was the primary reason I fell in love with Smallville. I loved the series because the premise was Clark Kent in high school. (It also helped that the series was well done--good cast, smart direction, the budget for awesome visual and special effects.) Smallville was about Clark growing up, figuring out who he is, and having a normal life despite his alien origins. Superman wasn't part of the story yet. For the first four seasons, the show focused on Clark most of the time, and it was great. We saw him make mistakes, but we also saw the inklings of a hero emerge. No television series had explored Clark Kent as a teenager, and the fact that Smallville was highest-rated series in a long time on the WB was proof that people were tuning in and enjoying it.

Somewhere along the line, the writers lost sight of what made the show incredible. For me, that point was the 100th episode when Jonathan died. Martha and Jonathan Kent were an important part of the show. They were the only people who knew Clark's secret so they were the only ones he could go to for guidance and advice. For a while, the Kent family was the best portrayal of a TV family. That ended in the 100th episode, and Martha isn't even on the show anymore. I stopped watching Smallville regularly after that, and I tune in every now and then (because old habits die hard), but the show's just not the same anymore.

I'm not saying the show isn't good anymore. Smallville got renewed for a ninth season, so it still has a strong audience. It's just not the same show it was when it started. I know the show has gained a lot of viewers over the years, but I think they lost fans along the way too because of the changes they've made.

Cross-posted on the ning.

Sliced Bread 2

I mentioned in the Maureen Johnson forums that I'll do Suggestion Saturdays during BEDA. I'll pick a web site, movie, game, TV show, or movie I like. Tell you why I like it and why you might too.

This week's Suggestion: Sliced Bread 2

Sliced Bread 2 is a blog written from the perspective of Dennis, personal assistant to a superhero named Greyghost. Not a sidekick, not a partner, but an assistant. As in office assistant. As in secretary, researcher, and gofer. The blog is a completed story in journal form that chronicles Dennis's search for a new job in a new city that takes him to a unique position as Greyghost's helper.

The blog is well-written, the characters have depth, and it's funny. If you're into superhero stories--especially fresh takes on superhero stories--definitely check it out. I've read it through twice. :)

Justice League Spinoff?

I would have written today's BEDA entry earlier, but I wanted to watch Smallville first to see if the episode would pick up after last week's incredible ending. Green Arrow met Chloe at the Isis Foundation. She sat down in front of a bank of computers, linked up with the future Justice League members, and then said, "Watchtower is officially online." It was so cool I got chills.

Tonight's episode had nothing to do with that, so turns out I didn't have to wait to blog about it. But anyway...

Rodney over at The Movie Blog posted about the Watchtower scene yesterday (you can see the clip there) with some speculation about a possible spinoff series. Fans of the show know there's going to be a major death at the end of this season. I've always thought Chloe would die at some point in the series, and as the show progressed, I was always anxious to see if she would make it to the next season. Rodney's predication is that Chloe will fake her death so she can leave her life in Smallville/Metropolis behind and join the Justice League as Watchtower in a spinoff show.

Chloe is my favorite character on Smallville and it would be sad to see her leave, but I would absolutely LOVE a live-action Justice League series. Justin Hartley is awesome as Green Arrow on Smallville, and it'd be incredible to see him head up the Justice League with Chloe in a new series.

If the CW made smart decisions, it would start a Justice League series this fall and pair it with Smallville. Build its audience from Smallville viewers so when Smallville ends, those viewers will still have a reason to watch the CW.

The show be action- and character-driven, and I can only hope it wouldn't be a teen soap opera. Superhero movies are the current trend in Hollywood, but the Justice League movie is stagnant in the planning stages. Maybe a TV series is the way to go.

Would you watch a live action show about the Justice League?

Cross-posted on the ning.

Neil Patrick Harris as the Flash?

Rumors are circulating that Neil Patrick Harris might play the Flash in the upcoming DC movie. Other actors rumored for the role are Scott Porter and Ryan Reynolds.

I haven't seen Porter or Reynolds in anything, but I love Neil Patrick Harris. He's hilarious on How I Met Your Mother, and he showcased his talent as Dr. Horrible in Joss Whedon's summer internet sensation, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Harris is excellent with comedy (that helps -- Flash tends to be light-hearted), and he has the look. I didn't know this, but he voiced the Flash in a Justice League animated movie.

I'm a fan of the genre, so I have no problem with Hollywood making superhero movies. I don't know very much about the Flash, so I'm looking forward to a full-length film.

DC is taking a darker perspective comic book movies because Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were so successful. The Man of Steel is supposed to be a darker version of Superman, for example. A bright movie about the Flash will be a nice balance, comparable to Iron Man in the Marvel universe.


Via The Movie Blog and Screen Rant