X-Meh?

I saw X-Men: Apocalypse recently. It was a mess. An honest and entertaining mess, it’s clear director Bryan Singer cared, but a mess nonetheless. And it appears that reactions have been all-over, with some liking it, others hating it and a few caught in-between. But the fact that it’s reignited the dronings of “critics are biased” and “give _ back to Marvel” is really annoying, so I figured I’d talk about that.

First, some context: back in the 80’s, Marvel, the giant powerhouse we know today, was on the verge of bankruptcy. In order to save its reputation, the company decided to make movies. However, since Marvel didn’t have its own studio, like it does today, it auctioned off its characters to various studios. The contracts stipulated that if a film wasn’t in production every 7-8 years, the ownership would revert back to Marvel. This is why we ended up seeing names like Spider-Man and X-Men, both Marvel properties, under the Sony and 20th Century Fox logos.

As you’d expect, the big boom of superhero properties began as the 21st Century rolled on. Sadly, while some of these Marvel characters, namely Spider-Man and X-Men, managed to make for successful films, many, like The Punisher, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, The Hulk and Ghost Rider, failed to be successful critically or financially and others, like Namor and Man-Thing, never got off the ground. I know it’s more of a concern now with the advent of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but by the time Iron Man hit theatres in 2008 most of the Marvel properties that’d been outsourced had already reverted back to Marvel. To-date, Marvel owns or co-owns all of its properties save Fantastic Four and X-Men, both still owned by 20th Century Fox and don’t look to be given back in the foreseeable future. In short, it’s complicated.

This is where the fans come in. You see, it’s not enough that X-Men: Apocalypse was critically panned. Plenty of movies, particularly comic book adaptations, have been panned, so this is nothing new. The problem is that, even if the movie had been praised, it’s a property created by Marvel that isn't owned by them. Given how Marvel’s current goal is a world-building film continuity called “The Marvel Cinematic Universe”, that mutants aren’t present makes Marvel nerds unhappy; in fact, since two of these mutants, the Maximoff twins, are both mutants and general Marvel heroes, Marvel and Fox had to compromise and only focus on one each. Essentially, 20th Century Fox focuses on Quicksilver and his relationship with Magneto, aka his estranged father, while Marvel focuses on Scarlet Witch without mentioning her as a mutant at all.

And it drives Marvel fans insane, such that many are openly boycotting the X-Men continuity in hopes that it tanks and Marvel gets the property back. This includes looking for reasons to nitpick the films too: Wolverine is criticized for overshadowing the rest of the cast, the suits are criticized for not looking like the comics, the mutants are criticized for not being identical to their comic book counterparts, the list goes on. It’d be one issue if the movies were objectively awful, as in they didn’t do anything right, but given how four of them have been critically praised, while one of the remaining films was decently-received, it’s not that simple. X-Men, like Spider-Man in the early-2000’s, has translated quite well to film, so it’s easy to forgive the darker, grittier nature of the on-screen continuity because Bryan Singer-and, to a lesser extent, Matthew Vaughn-and company know what they’re doing.

Which leads to the first of my big questions: why are fans behaving like this? Is it a shame that X-Men isn’t back at Marvel? Yes. Would I like it to be? Again, yes. But whining that this “isn’t the X-Men I grew up with”, when it’s flexible enough to be open for interpretation, and demanding that it revert back to Marvel for a “true adaptation” is exactly why the general populace has a hard time taking nerds seriously.

Perhaps the biggest, and most-unfortunate, example comes from YouTube personality Bob Chipman’s review of X-Men: Apocalypse:

*Sigh* (Courtesy of moviebob.)

For clarity, I respect Bob Chipman immensely. I like a lot of his work, and I don’t usually mind when he rants about films he doesn’t like. I also realize that art is subjective, that it’s okay to disagree, and that the X-Men films have always been divisive. But claiming that the franchise doesn’t hold up is one problem, stating that people have an ironic attachment to something they haven’t seen in years is another, and the latter doesn’t sit well with me. I hear it frequently about non-Marvel movies, that people “only love them because of when they came out”, and that arrogant notion is one of my big no-nos in film criticism.

“But wait,” you’re thinking, “I’ve read your Tweets! Haven’t you done the same with other films that people like before too?” Firstly, guilty. Secondly, I’ve tried my hardest not to, usually apologizing when I have. And thirdly, I’ve never screamed “nostalgic/ironic love” for these movies when challenged by fans. I don’t do it for either of the Tim Burton Batman films, which I can’t stand, either of The Amazing Spider-Man films, which I can’t stand either, or anything else I don’t think is any good/holds up. Because that’s cocky and condescending, and Lord knows how much I hate that!

It doesn’t help that Bob’s tagline implies that we should “let it go already”. Why? Bob not liking the X-Men franchise, save one entry, doesn’t mean that my enjoyment of these films is a lie. And what if I don’t want to let go of X-Men? What if I think Fox has done a (mostly) great job? Am I harbouring an “ironic love” for this series too?

Thus is the slippery-slope of such a claim, as it presumes too much and understands too little. I haven’t seen the first two X-Men films in years, but I doubt they’d have fans if there was nothing to connect to. X-Men: Days of Future Past, on the other hand, I’ve re-watched recently, and it’s one of my favourite superhero films of all-time. And while X-Men: Apocalypse is plagued with pacing issues, character inconsistencies, occasionally weird structure choices and tonally-jarring detours and fan-service, it’s still enjoyable and has plenty of heartfelt and well-executed moments. Ironically, it’s the entry that Bob actually likes, X-Men: First Class, that I’m not terribly impressed by. But even then I enjoy it for what it is.

It’s doubly-frustrating because Bob’s love, and the superhero franchise most detractors seem to gravitate to, is the MCU. I like the MCU, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not flawless. It’s made slip-ups here and there in the areas Bob’s criticized the X-Men films for, yet it’s given a pass because the characters and character writing is consistently strong. That doesn’t mean, however, that I don’t think the franchise hasn’t already peaked qualitatively with Iron Man and creatively with The Avengers, or even that Thor: The Dark World isn’t a colossal waste of my time. The pool of criticism runs both ways.

Which isn’t to say the other side isn’t shameless either, leading to my next question of why people assume reviewers are biased toward the MCU. Are they really? Because as far as I know, most reviewers don’t know the nuances of Marvel licensing. They see a movie, give their thoughts and share said thoughts with the rest of the world. This shouldn’t be so hard to understand, right?

Enter Exhibit B:

"Disney has been continually paying critics to attack Non MCU movies. MCU movies are safe. They're not challenging at all. Just like a comic book movie is "supposed to be". They're not divisive or thought provoking. First they bashed Batman V Superman.They cleared BvS out of the way, gave Civil War (which wasn't a perfect film) an Oscar, now they're going to work on moving Apocalypse out the way...then they get offended when they're accused of accepting gifts. Deadpool would have also suffered the same fate however it was released in February and was not an immediate threat.”

Wow…

There’s a lot I could pick apart, but I’ll simply ask why someone decided this was petition-worthy. Why do you need critical approval to enjoy something? When has a score stopped a movie from resonating with someone personally? And why can’t we accept that maybe it’s okay to like trash? I enjoyed X-Men: Apocalypse, but I admit that it’s not great. Why I’d shout “conspiracy” is beyond me, especially since, unlike Fantastic Four, the X-Men franchise has actually had good movies over its lifetime.

Perhaps I’m overreacting. After all, X-Men is a property that’s often gotten too dark for its own good, including a moment where Kitty Pryde ripped Emma Frost’s heart from her chest (look that up, it actually happened) and another where Wolverine’s spine was ripped from his body (that actually happened too), and sometimes that grimness makes the franchise polarizing. And yeah, I do think people can overlook the flaws of the MCU, even the more-glaring ones (like how Guardians of the Galaxy has sexist undertones.) But both groups are being ridiculous, and that has to stop. Because it’s not healthy for the image we want to project.

And by the way, this idea that X-Men is boring because it ham-fists its message of prejudice? It was created by a socially-conscious Jew, so it’ll always be as political as Captain America. Then again, the real complainers probably won’t listen…

21st Century Disney? A Post-Mortem

(Note: The following is all based on speculation and personal concerns, and is subject to reflection pending what happens next.)

Last month, I wrote a blog discussing the talks Disney was having with 20th Century Fox to buy their films and TV divisions, the implications behind the deal and what I personally thought. This past Friday, the deal was closed for $52.4 billion. While some people were cheering at the prospects, others were mortified by Disney gaining control of more of Hollywood’s assets. I still remain divided on this, but for the sake of inner-peace, I’ll argue both sides and explain why this is a big deal in hopes of making sure my readers better understand where I’m coming from:

Pros:

In the 80’s and 90’s, Marvel, now a giant corporation, was on the verge of bankruptcy. In order to help their situation, Marvel comics siphoned off their IPs to different film studios with the intent of making movies. Said siphoning came with a single clause: in order to keep hold of the property indefinitely, the studio had to begin work on a new film every few years. Note that they didn’t have to make the film, but rather begin work on it.

Many of Marvel’s high-profile IPs went to big-budget studios. Fantastic Four, for example, went to a studio that’d later be bought out by 20th Century Fox, while Spider-Man would float around for many years before being grabbed by Sony Pictures. And, of course, The Incredible Hulk went to Universal. This decision saved Marvel from collapsing, but it left them with little of their own in the end.

That didn’t stop Marvel from working with what they had, however. After seeing the frequent misuses of their IPs on the big screen, in 2008, after reclaiming Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, Marvel began an experiment that’d become known as The MCU. Beginning with Iron Man, they kicked off a shared universe on the big screen, with mostly C-tier superheroes, and made a name for themselves in Hollywood. This was further amped up by Disney purchasing Marvel in 2009 and adding them to their growing arsenal. With their success all but assured, Disney simply had to play the waiting game to gain back all of Marvel’s lost IPs.

But there was a problem: not every studio was willing to co-operate. Some, like Lionsgate, were happy to oblige, seeing no real use in failed IPs, but others, like Universal, would only give up what they had on the condition that they shared profiting or licensing rights. This was how Marvel reclaimed Spider-Man from Sony in 2015, and even now any solo Spider-Man efforts are under the Sony Pictures banner. Yet the biggest thorn in Disney’s side was 20th Century Fox, who stubbornly held onto Fantastic Four (despite four failed movies) and X-Men (a property they had mixed success with.) Disney and Fox were known enemies, with Fox making their acquisition of Star Wars in 2012 a living nightmare, so reclaiming these properties seemed like nothing but a distant dream in the eyes of Marvel fans…until now.

The one upside to this deal is, as I mentioned, a full acquisition of Marvel’s properties. Finally, after decades, Marvel’s complete! Fantastic Four has a shot at a good movie now! X-Men can appear in The MCU! It’s like I said last time: think of the possibilities.

But even outside of that, Disney can now use Fox’s IPs in any way they so desire: want to finally make Avatar the franchise Disney’s clearly wanted since they opened up their theme park? It can happen. Want to reboot the Alien, Predator, Terminator and Die Hard franchises properly? It can happen. And with The Simpsons being well-past its prime, having gone on for 28 seasons, perhaps it’ll finally be cancelled? Who knows?

What’s best is, on a purely theoretical level, the amount of creative freedom Disney’s giving these properties and the results they’ve received because of that. The Muppets has seen a renaissance under their rule following two successful films this decade. Disney’s Marvel and Star Wars divisions have really shone, with Star Wars getting a second-life following the reception of The Prequels. And with the announcement that Deadpool 2 will get to keep its R-rating, this looks to be a deal with no losses on paper!

Cons:

All of this is hunky-dory, but at what cost?

Keep in mind two points: first, this wasn’t a cash deal, but a stocks deal. That $52.4 billion was all in shares of the Fox enterprise. And now that Disney owns the film rights to its biggest competitor, this makes for some really shady investing considering that Disney was on the verge of bankruptcy 30 years ago.

Remember, Disney’s not infallible. They’ve made big mistakes, and I’d argue that their streaming service they’re set to launch next year will be another one. It’s easy to assume that Disney’s untouchable, especially given their record profits these last few years, but they could crash-and-burn if they’re not careful. Pride goeth before a fall, after all!

On a deeper level, this also reeks of anti-competitive practices. We bemoan big corporations running Hollywood, but the diversity of studio output allows for healthy competition and creative options. Art never works well under unfair monopolies. As so do big corporations, since they never feel a need to expand their horizons and challenge themselves.

This is something I don’t think fans are aware of. True, X-Men was always a Marvel property, but while it’d had its ups and downs under Fox, it was going in unique directions that Disney wouldn’t take. An ambitious film like X-Men: Days of Future Past would’ve never flown with Disney, nor would small-scale ventures like Logan or Deadpool. They wouldn’t be acceptable under the family-friendly reputation Disney’s made for themselves. And that’s important to note in a superhero market like the one currently dominating Hollywood.

It also bothers me because Disney’s now one step closer to owning everything in Hollywood and charging more for consumer to watch movies. Films are already expensive enough as is, I don’t need to pay any more than I already do. Yet I might have to, and that worries me.

Essentially, this is greed at its finest. I can appreciate Marvel owning Fantastic Four, as Lord knows the IP was struggling, and X-Men being back at Disney is fine, if not a little disappointing creatively. But owning all of 20th Century Fox’s IPs? Isn’t that a bit much? Isn’t that a bit scary?

Still, I’m willing to be proven wrong, so who knows?

Iron Bomb

Who’s excited for Iron Fist? I am! Marvel’s been on a roll with their Netflix shows as of late, so this seems like a perfect opportunity to get pumped. And hey, the early review embargo’s down! I wonder what critics are saying-

“Iron Fist is the most frustrating and ferociously boring example of Netflix Drift [pacing problems] in some time.”

Oh…

“I’m not surprised that Iron Fist isn’t a comedy. I’m surprised that it’s so bad. And it is laughably bad.”

Oh dear…

“If Iron Fist was an otherwise boring series with a hero who kicked butt in exciting ways early and often, I’d forgive the bland expository parts in the same way I do for a lot of action shows and movies. And if Finn Jones couldn’t fight but was otherwise a riveting screen presence blessed with sparkling dialogue and a compelling character arc, I’d get past the alleged living weapon’s lame physical prowess. But when neither part works at all, why would anyone but the most devout, masochistic Marvel completist want to watch?”

Yikes!

“Through six episodes, in addition to failing to introduce a main character I care about at all, Iron Fist hasn't given me any season-long arc/objective that I could describe for you, much less one I'm curious to see resolved.”

Oy!

“What could have been the boldest series is instead the quietest. Seriously … in the comics, the man gets his powers from punching a dragon in the heart, but that’s withheld from us? If I wanted to focus more on reality I wouldn’t spend so much time watching superhero TV.”

Oy vey zmir!

“Fans feared the worst when the series was announced, and all their fears came true.”

*Sigh* So much for that!

I should get this out of the way now: I’m not a die-hard MCU fan. I like their stuff a lot, but save Iron Man none of it strikes me as an instant classic. The exceptions are the Marvel Netflix shows, all of which, at least with their debut seasons, I’d put on-par with that film. So the newest entry, aka Iron Fist, getting panned so heavily is really crushing. It’s not like this was some low-tier series, as Marvel’s made sure to give their c-list heroes the respect they deserve so far. But with this information being made available, it’s as if that “Marvel doesn’t make bad content anymore” claim is suddenly not true anymore.

Sufficed to say, the internet’s reaction has been as you’d expect. On one hand, MCU die-hards are furious, claiming that this is “a mistake”. On the other hand, MCU detractors are smiling in devilish glee and thanking the gods of karma. And then there are those in-between that are disappointed, like me. However, both extremes need addressing, so that’s what I’ll do.

First, to the fans: calm down. This isn’t the end of the world. We knew from the beginning that the MCU quality train wouldn’t last forever. It’s impossible to keep a steady influx of shows and movies and not have at least one dud, it simply took longer than expected.

Personally speaking, I’m not upset. I know Thor: The Dark World wasn’t outright panned, but it wasn’t exactly “good” either. It was the first sign in my eyes that the MCU wasn’t infallible, and that’s because I remember so little due to how uninspired it was. It, in many ways, was the film version of Iron Fist: slow, boring and inconsequential. And yes, it introduced one of the Infinity Stones, I’m aware of that, but that it took all of the flaws of Thor-Darcy, an unenthusiastic performance from Natalie Portman, a disappointing finale, forced comedy that wasn’t funny, side characters who mostly served as window dressing-and magnified them tenfold was reason enough to be let-down. I waited until I’d earned a free movie to go see it, and I never do with an MCU film!

Honestly, take a page from Cars 2. Speaking as someone who didn’t mind Cars, I was initially excited for that film. I love Pixar, and they’d yet to make a flat-out dud by that point, so I was intrigued by the possibility of a spy film from the perspective of talking cars. I know now that my hopes were unfounded, but I also didn’t mind Cars 2 all that much. I waited until it hit home video, but it had its moments, so it wasn’t a waste of time.

And that could end up being the legacy of Iron Fist. Sure, it might plod, but who’s to say it won’t be enjoyable? Remember that critics are paid to be more critical of entertainment than the average Joe, so hearing “it’s boring” doesn’t mean that it’s actually boring. Basically, don’t be discouraged and watch it anyway.

As for those celebrating with glee, grow up. So what if an MCU property finally sucks? You want me to talk about the DCEU’s quality control? Because, rest-assured, it’s far worse! You’d think a comic enterprise like DC would know how to put out solid work in-conjunction with Warner Bros., but nope! Three attempts at a shared universe so far, three reminders that a LEGO movie is doing a better job!

Secondly, why the arrogance? I know that there’s catharsis in knowing that Marvel has finally fallen on its face, but why does this a competition? Why are you so insistent that this is a “victory” after reviewers were “bribed by Marvel to give the competition bad reviews”? Ignoring how flat-out absurd that is, shouldn’t you be encouraging good entertainment, not petty rivalry? What gives?

And thirdly, if you wanna get technical, the MCU going 14 movies, 2 shows and 3 Netflix series without a single dud should be an indication that they’re doing something right. If it took that long, then clearly they’re doing something right! It’s like how Pixar’s first flop, Cars 2, came after 11 success stories: if anything, that’s something to learn from.

Besides, Marvel’s gonna recover from this. Even if Iron Fist is a dud, they’re not stopping any time soon. They going ahead with The Defenders on Netflix, as well as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Thor: Ragnarok in theatres. This is a minor setback in the grand scheme, and Marvel knows this. It might hurt them a bit in the short-term, but their long-term goal is still on-track.

Ultimately, what this should prove to everyone is that Marvel’s not perfect, and that’s okay. They’ve built up a big enough empire that they can afford a slip-up. It’s no different than the aforementioned Pixar and Cars 2, or even Studio Ghibli and Tales from Earthsea. Marvel’s not out of the game, trust me! If anything, they’ll learn from this and try harder for next time (assuming they even have to, which won’t be hard.)

So yeah, Iron Fist is the first MCU dud. But it’s not the end of the world either, and I wish people would realize that.

"I'm Captain Carter!"

(Warning: This piece contains spoilers for recent MCU outings. Proceed with caution.)

Marvel won SDCC 2022. Sure, there were offerings from other studios, but none like those from The MCU. I mean, two Avengers movies in a year? I haven’t seen that much of a gamble since The Avengers: Infinity War ended on a downer! Marvel’s hooked me again!

I could discuss the different announcements from Marvel, but it’s best to zone in on one that caught my attention: What If…?’s getting another season, and its first episode’s on Captain Carter. Considering that the pilot episode in the first season was also about Captain Carter, I’m excited. Perhaps I’m alone here, but Peggy Carter getting the super-soldier serum has plenty of potential, and it makes up for her character getting the shaft for so long. What’s not to love?

Well, there’s the issue of Sam Wilson being given the mantle at the end of The Avengers: Endgame, and there was a Disney+ series dedicated to him accepting it. Essentially, Sam Wilson’s Captain America, not Peggy Carter. And given how Sam hasn’t had a movie in the spotlight yet, that’s, supposedly, cause for annoyance. Why push Peggy to the forefront instead?

I’d talk about sharing, especially in The MCU, but that’s not the point. There’s a Captain America movie in production right now, and it stars Sam Wilson. This feels like grasping for straws. Sam’s still Captain America! Be patient!

The bigger complaint arose from a quote from when Captain Carter’s episode was announced. Initially, there were concerns that this was the same Captain Carter from Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. You know, the one who was impaled with her own shield? Rest assured, she’s not. As was stated:

“Our Captain Carter would have kicked Wanda's ass.”

Far be it from me to dispute that. I’m not a Marvel screenwriter, and the inhabitants of Earth-838, which is where Captain Carter met her demise, are far weaker than those of Earth-199999, where most of The MCU thus far takes place; after all, why else would Earth-838’s Doctor Strange rely on The Darkhold to defeat Thanos? If you subscribe to Marvel’s Multiverse, then there’s clearly more than one Captain Carter. And it’s possible for her to overpower Wanda.

I wish this was more widely-accepted, but alas. Between people claiming it wasn’t possible, and Wanda fans being mad that their Lady and Saviour was done dirty, Captain Carter’s existence was a no-win situation. She was detracting from a black man’s inheriting of the mantle, and she was detracting from a witch’s moment of glory. If we’re being honest here, I think Marvel fans need to get outside more.

Captain Carter’s fairly-recent to The MCU. She was introduced last year, and she hasn’t had much time to warm up to people. Sure, she had a live-action cameo this year, but she didn’t last long. Either way, people need to give her a chance. How do I know this?

Because Captain America had to warm up to people too. Steve Rogers is now one of Marvel’s best, but back in 2011 people were skeptical: a skinny guy with a pure heart becomes a super-soldier? And he never stops being pure? I dug it from the get-go personally, but until Captain America: The Winter Soldier many people considered him one-note and boring. The same could be said of Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel, except with added sexism.

People should be more open-minded about unestablished characters in fiction. Captain Carter’s no different. Yes, Sam Wilson’s the new Captain America. And yes, I don’t want to detract from that. But it doesn’t automatically negate Captain Carter, especially with The Multiverse. That goes without saying.

Then there’s Captain Carter “winning” against Wanda Maximoff. To that, I defer to the late-Stan Lee:

“So one Question I'm always asked. Who would win in a fight? Who would win in a fight if Galactus fought The Hulk, or if Thor fought Iron Man? And there's one answer to all of that. It's so simple, anyone should know this. The person who'd win in a fight is the person that the scriptwriter wants to win! If I'm writing a story, about The Thing, from the Fantastic Four, and he gets into a big fight with Spider-Man, and millions of people out there say Who Would Win? Well, it depends on who I want to win if I'm writing the script. If I want Spider-Man to win, he'll win. If I want the Thing to win, he'll win. These are fictitious characters, the writer can do whatever he wants with them! So stop asking those questions, 'cause I've had it with that.”

Superheroes aren’t real people, and they lack agency. It’s up to the writers determine the winner. We saw that when Wanda fought The Illuminati in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness: Black Bolt could’ve wiped the floor with Wanda with one whisper from his mouth. Remember, he killed Doctor Strange with “I’m sorry”! But because the movie needed Wanda to survive, the writers had her remove his mouth, making his skull implode.

If Marvel wanted Captain Carter to win against Wanda, then it could’ve easily happened. Is it likely? I don’t know, but it’s not up to me! I wish more people remembered that. I also wish people would stop being overly-possessive of a fictional character…

So that’s what I think of this dilemma. Will Captain Carter disappoint? It’s not impossible, but I don’t have a crystal ball. Regardless, everyone needs to touch grass. If we’re accepting that The MCU has a multiverse, one where variants of characters exist, then we have to also accept that not all of them will be equal in strength. It’s a double-edged sword.

Lemme Twerk It!

I haven’t seen She-Hulk: Attorney at Law yet. I plan to, but I like waiting until Disney+ shows are almost finished before binging them. Anything I say about it, therefore, is based on hearsay and second-hand information. Besides, this piece will be less about the series than people’s reactions to it. In particular, it’ll be about one moment that’s garnered…unwanted attention?

She-Hulk isn’t new. She’s been around since 1980, when Stan Lee and John Buscema created a female variant of The Hulk who was Bruce Banner’s cousin. I don’t know much about her, since I’m not a big comics person, but I do know Jennifer Walters was given Banner’s blood in a transfusion. Since then, her gimmick has been that she’s The Hulk, but shorter, less-aggressive and with her cognition fully-intact. Make of that what you will.

The issue at hand here is a post-credits scene from the Disney+ show, where She-Hulk and her best-friend are twerking in her office. It’s short, silly and gained plenty of ire. In particular, it’s received backlash from people who think it’s “disgusting” and “offensive”. It’s as if, in their eyes, Marvel has “lost the plot”. And that’s “bad”.

I shouldn’t even be writing this. Not only is there real criticism with The MCU in general, some of which I’ve covered, but Marvel characters dancing isn’t new. Star-Lord danced in front of Ronan the Accuser in Guardians of the Galaxy. Baron Zemo, rather awkwardly, danced in a club in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Even pre-MCU, Peter Parker danced in Spider-Man 3 during his symbiote phase. Dancing badly is an age-old phenomenon by now.

I’d ask the obvious “Why is She-Hulk twerking any different?”, but we know the answer. It’s why Captain Marvel being overpowered was a problem, why that moment in The Avengers: Endgame where the super-heroines helped Spider-Man was too, and why Ms. Marvel existing was most of all. It’s sexism. In other words, it’s okay for males to do this, but women? No!

I’m curious how small some peoples’ worlds are if this is a controversy. The MCU has real issues. Disney, the company that owns Marvel, has more. Like I said, I’ve covered some of those in the past. You’d think those issues would get traction, right? Nope! Instead, we’re discussing the “negative implications” of a female attorney shaking her booty. The world is so cruel…

It's annoying because She-Hulk, like her cousin, is comical. She even breaks the fourth-wall repeatedly, which, apparently, is a running joke in the show. Her twerking, therefore, isn’t such a stretch. Besides, isn’t dancing a pastime of youth? Or am I the oddball here?

Female characters in fiction are routinely subjected to a level of scrutiny that their male peers aren’t: Harley Quinn can’t be in a relationship with Poison Ivy because she’s subservient to The Joker, who’s abusive. Batgirl can’t be a relatable teenager because she plays second-fiddle to Batman. Even with Marvel, Captain Marvel and Ms. Marvel can’t compete with Captain America and Spider-Man because “that’s man’s stuff”. In short, women can’t be human beings.

It’s this kind of thinking that trickles down to reality. We’re seeing that with Roe V Wade’s overturning in The US: regardless of your stance on abortion, not giving women the option to have them is creating unwanted stresses. Women deserve better, and fiction also plays a role in how society operates, even if minuscule. It also shines a mirror on societal standards and expectations. But I’ve covered that too…

Besides, She-Hulk twerking, what I’ve seen, is cute. She’s having fun, and isn’t that what matters? And yes, she does point out earlier that she hates being catcalled. But that has no correlation with her dancing, especially in private. I think that distinction’s important, as unnecessary as it is to point out.

What’s the end-goal of this anyway? Is it to validate the frustrations of male nerds? Because it’s doing the opposite. Is it to make their voices heard? Because it’s doing that, but not how they want. Or is to quiet outsiders who are now interested in their hobby? Because that’s not working either.

I don’t think nerds realize how spoiled they’ve been recently. Their passions, once niche, are now taken seriously by everyone. With The MCU, I over-heard two women discussing The Avengers: Endgame on the bus a few years ago. Our interests are widespread now! Isn’t that what we wanted? Isn’t that good?

Because if so, that means we should embrace new fans, right? And that includes women, doesn’t it? And that includes women having fun too, right? So why is it offensive that She-Hulk twerks? Especially when Star-Lord and Zemo dancing were both seen as endearing? What’s with-oh right, sexism. Never mind!

I think critics of this moment need to grow up. If this moment bothers you, and it shouldn’t, so what? The show isn’t about She-Hulk twerking, right? There are other aspects that are more worthy of conversation, like if having a superhero law division is such a good idea. That’s what we should be discussing, not if a woman’s dancing “offends” you!

That Tarantino, Man!

Stop me if you’ve heard this before:

“Marvel movies are ruining cinema! They’re overblown spectacles that aren’t art and killed the movie star! And they look like trash! Why do they make more money than [insert obscure movie here]? This is outrageous!”

That paragraph’s hyperbolic, but the sentiment has been echoed by many names in Hollywood for a while. And now it’s been broached by Quentin Tarantino, the king of fetishized slasher/gore porn movies. In an interview with Mediaite, he said:

“Part of the Marvel-ization of Hollywood is…you have all these actors who have become famous playing these characters…[b]ut they’re not movie stars. Right? Captain America is the star. Or Thor is the star. I mean, I’m not the first person to say that. I think that’s been said a zillion times…but it’s like, you know, it’s these franchise characters that become a star.”

Now, asking auteurs about Marvel movies constantly for clicks is annoying, and I wish press outlets would stop that. However, it’s not only Marvel that’s the issue here. Because Tarantino made a tone-deaf remark about how modern Hollywood, like the 1980’s and the 1950’s, is the worst for films. You can look that up if you don’t believe me. I wish it were a joke.

Anyway, the response was more of the same: on one hand, defenders of Tarantino’s remarks claimed that he was objectively right, and that his critics were lame MCU fans. On the other hand, general movie fans, particularly those who like Marvel, were upset that Tarantino was out-of-touch. And then there’s me, who sees both sides, yet isn’t happy with Tarantino’s remarks.

I’ll give him points in one area: big-budget movies shouldn’t be the only ones in theatres. Whenever I go to the cinema nowadays, which is rare, I always see at least two or three showings for a Marvel movie. And they play nonstop throughout the day. It doesn’t help that they’re crowding out smaller options either. Factor in that theatres aren’t conducive to going to anymore, and it’s easy to see the resentment.

That said, this issue isn’t clear-cut. While I’d love to see obscure films get more love, I’d also be content with them releasing on streaming. Marvel is made for theatres, it’s built from the ground-up to operate that way. An indie drama, however, can be enjoyed at home. That’s not a flaw either, as not all experiences are equal.

In a similar vein, people who are mad at Tarantino aren’t inherently wrong. Because Simu Liu’s remarks about old Hollywood being “really white” aren’t incorrect, as I doubt he’d have had the same options in the 1950’s. I also think Tarantino being “immune from criticism” is ridiculous. Auteurs are human beings, prone to folly. If Steven Spielberg’s criticized for covert racism, then Tarantino can be criticized for his remarks too. Legacy’s irrelevant here.

I’m annoyed this sentiment even exists. You don’t have qualified immunity because you make great movies. James Cameron’s made many legacy films, and he’s known for his inflated ego and short temper. George Lucas gave us Star Wars and Indiana Jones, but his refusal to relinquish control of his IPs has harmed the film landscape. Even Hayao Miyazaki, whom I adore, has taken flak for his remarks about the anime industry. Being influential doesn’t give someone a free pass.

So why do people act that way? Is it because they’re desperate to vent their frustrations about Marvel movies? Is it because they can’t think for themselves? Is it both? Is it neither? What’s the deal?!

By the way, Tarantino’s remarks about “the movie star being dead”? That’s not really a flaw. Yes, it sucks that an actor’s worth these days is tied to a fictional character. But given how many actors have been revealed to be weird, shady or both, maybe that’s for the best? I wouldn’t want to centre my life around that, after all!

Maybe it’s better that people prefer fictional characters? That doesn’t mean we should be overly-attached to them, forgetting they’re fantasy. If the story of Julian Roman’s indication, not distinguishing between fiction and reality is dangerous. But that doesn’t mean we should be worshipping real people. The cult of personality’s equally as dangerous, after all, and that doesn’t get the coverage it should.

Essentially, I don’t agree with Quentin Tarantino. I sympathize with him, especially given how Hollywood operates, but I think he’s off-base. I also think it’s ridiculous that I’m not allowed to be critical of him for his off-colour remarks. I don’t care how successful or influential he is, he should know better. And that he doesn’t is disturbing.

As for The MCU? It’s complicated. I’ve enjoyed most of its output, and even considered its flops…interesting, but claiming they’re the death knell of cinema is misguided. The movie industry’s a business, and businesses are out to make money. The MCU’s following what’s hot right now, and it’s not entirely its fault that many films are (unsuccessfully) following its lead. If anything, we should demand more from the competition, not attack something that’ll be successful regardless of what we think.

Finally, I wish people would stop dragging this debate back into the spotlight. And I wish people like Simu Liu could express their frustrations without unnecessary backlash. It’s old, it’s tedious, it’s tiring, it’s not fun period. I know it works as free advertising, as much as I don’t want that, but it doesn’t outweigh the negatives. The horse is already dead. You don’t need to keep flogging it.

The Copycat Cinematic Universe

*Sigh* Here we go again!

I often feel like I’m dancing in circles over The MCU, as if it’s a personal lifeblood. It’s irksome because, despite my constant defence of the franchise, I’m not its biggest fanboy. I enjoy what it has to offer, but, save Iron Man, none of the movies have transcended a 4/5 on my personal enjoyment scale. So frequently seeing people argue how it’s “destroying film” or “mediocre entertainment”, only to present weak or easily-rebuffed arguments in favour of their positions, is tiring. And, to be frank, I’m tired of responding.

However, for the sake of trying to extrapolate writing ideas, and because The Whitly-Verse hasn’t seen an entry for a month, I’ll do it again:

… (Courtesy of The Unintentional Fallacy.)

I’d like to apologize for getting to this video 5 months late. I subconsciously mark video essays calling Marvel movies a “problem” with red flags, so I usually avoid them like a plague unless I’m desperate. But there can be no holding back how pretentious I think the video is. I think it’s pretentious because it assumes, like most detractors, that MCU movies are solely created with the intent to pander for money, completely ignoring that they almost all function as films, and I think it’s pretentious because it assumes that said films don’t inspire individuals to be creative. I also think it’s pretentious because it assumes that Star Wars, a franchise the essayist holds in high-regard, wasn’t made for intertextuality, even though George Lucas acknowledged inspiration from Akira Kurosawa and the Flash Gordon serials of the early-20th Century.

However, the one area this video missed the mark in is in its insistence, perhaps indirectly, that Marvel’s responsible for the corporate, franchise-based model that modern-Hollywood’s vapidly abusing. Because it’s not. It’s not Marvel’s fault that Hollywood’s mimicking its formula without understanding why it worked. It’s also not Marvel’s fault that The MCU’s successful enough to warrant shameless copycats. And it’s not even close to Marvel’s fault that the films are adored by moviegoers, yet their imitators aren’t. How do I know this?

Because I’m a moviegoer.

I’m not much of a comic reader. I’ve read the odd issue here-and-there, and there are definitely stand-outs that I own, but for the most part it’s never been a medium I’d spend hundreds of dollars on a regular basis. Comics, despite being interesting, don’t fancy my interest. And Marvel Comics, a brand that’s been around for over 50 years, is guilty of constant interlocking and continuity nods spanning so far back that knowing where to start would give me a headache.

I am, however, a film fan. I enjoy some genres less than others, but I’m open to anything so long as it looks good. And The MCU, for all of its continuity nods and winks, captures my fancy because it deals with superheroes, whom I happen to really like and admire. Plus, the franchise can draw-and-pull from the best of the archives while ignoring the garbage. Captain America: Civil War, for example, drew from a largely-maligned event series, yet it was praised because it knew which ideas to keep and which to discard. That’s a luxury that film’s entitled as a medium.

This is why I respect Marvel despite not loving them. I also mention this to springboard from the above video on how Marvel’s opened the door for low-strung imitators that miss why they’ve been so successful. Not that some of them aren’t entertaining, I enjoyed Star Trek into Darkness and Spectre despite both being completely ludicrous, but when they mimic The MCU without knowing why it works-its commitment to characters and story-then whose fault is that? If the smartest kid in class inspires lazy copycats, would you criticize the kid for being smart, or the copycats for being lazy?

This is why the video bugs me so much: it claims the franchise is responsible for a corporate attitude toward filmmaking, all-the-while not recognizing the bigger issue of laziness. Is it a problem that so many franchises are attempting half-baked MCU replicas? Absolutely. Will it kill the film industry? Maybe. But is it solely The MCU’s responsibility? Absolutely not. Because Hollywood has always run after trends in an attempt to make quick money, not realizing until it’s too late.

Also, digging into the essayist’s reverence for Star Wars, keep in mind that there was resistance to that franchise in its early days too. The older crowd of critics doomed it as the “death of filmmaking”, and the franchise’s most-beloved entry, Star Wars Ep. V: The Empire Strikes Back, was met with lukewarm responses from many respected tabloids of the time. We look fondly on it now, but hindsight’s 20/20. Not to mention, Star Wars inspired its share of knock-offs too, such that Castle in the Sky, which I adore, wouldn’t exist without it.

I know it’s easy to point fingers at the flavour of the day for “ruining ice cream forever”, but it’s not fair to shirk the blame on populist tastes. Because The MCU isn’t an exercise in vapid entertainment. Could it be better-executed? Yes, but it could also be worse-executed. And until that level of self-awareness is understood by its detractors, then the real issue, a lack of effort from Hollywood, will continue to be ignored. And I think that that’s most harmful.

Chekov's Gunn

A couple of months ago, James Gunn, known for directing the Guardians of the Galaxy films, was fired from Marvel Studios after Mike Cernovich brought to Alan Horn’s attention a series of Tweets from Gunn’s past joking about pedophilia. Despite making amends for said Tweets, his sudden dismissal, and indefinite pause of production on Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. III, riled many fans. To-date, Horn has yet to renege this decision, and it’d seem, from the outset, that it’s time to move on. At least, I would say that…but recent news dropped that Gunn was in talks to direct and write Suicide Squad 2 for DC.

Cue the celebration.

For those unaware of my stance on the matter, which you can find here, I think this is great news. I felt Gunn’s firing was completely unwarranted and reflected poorly on Disney as a whole. Additionally, the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, while not my personal favourites, are easily the most-personal of The MCU’s filmography, dabbling in themes of death, abuse and forgiveness in ways many of its peers have yet to do. They’re also fun and funny, with plenty of laugh-out-loud moments amidst some killer tunes. So to see Disney fall prey to an orchestrated, online attack on one of their best filmmakers is upsetting, which is why I’m pleased that there’s now closure to this story in some fashion.

It’s also another of DC’s smarter moves in recent months. Anyone who’s been following the incredibly-messy trajectory of The DCEU knows how, save Wonder Woman, much of a disaster, both in-front of and behind the camera, it is. It’s been a series of bad decisions in succession, and it’s about time the franchise started over. That WB execs have been attempting course-correction is good, but getting an accomplished director like James Gunn to helm the DC-equivalent of a “Guardians of the Galaxy team” is nothing short of brilliant.

It'll also boost DC’s reputation in the filmic world. Keep in mind that DC’s been struggling with its brand for 6 years now. The company, up until recently, had been trying to merge Christopher Nolan’s dark grit with Zack Snyder’s inept filmmaking, resulting in a mess that seemed almost like DC was intentionally trolling its fans. It’s not like long-standing franchises aren’t bound to eventually have flops, Marvel had two in one year with Season 1 of Iron Fist and their incredibly short-lived Inhumans series, but three in-a-row? And then one more right after its only success-story? And almost all of them from the same director?!

I won’t bag on Snyder too much, especially considering his family tragedy, but this wasn’t a good look for DC. In an attempt to be the “edgier MCU”, The DCEU was slowly digging its own grave. It was as if the project was dead from the start, which is why I’m glad WB are starting to course-correct and differentiate themselves from the competition. Their trailers for Aquaman and Shazam! show promise, but hiring Gunn really drives that home. It’s also a smart business decision, given Gunn’s ability to work well under studio mandates.

Which is why the few people that are angry over this baffles me so much. For one, this is DC making good on their promise of “director-led films” from the beginning of The DCEU’s inception. Though Snyder has a unique voice, he’s not a coherent filmmaker. He might’ve started out promising in his early days, but his biggest successes, Dawn of the Dead, 300 and Watchmen were more the result of the screenwriters: 300 and Watchmen were written by people other than Snyder, while Dawn of the Dead was one of Gunn’s earliest, big-budget writing credits. Even in the case of Watchmen, which I’ve seen, the movie didn’t understand its source material. By having Gunn write and direct Suicide Squad 2, you’re ensuring a greater chance of success.

Two, why does it matter if alt-right trolls are offended? They’re the ones responsible for Gunn’s removal from Marvel, let them be unhappy! The best revenge you can have here is to see your target show you down by remaining successful. And isn’t that what matters, even more than him directing for Marvel’s competition?

And three, it’s good for both DC and Marvel. It’s good for DC because they now have such a talented man working for them, and that’s something they need at the moment. It’s also good for Marvel because it’s a lesson in bad decision-making that they need to learn from. They let their biggest ace in the hole go over something petty, and there are consequences to doing that. That’s not to say they’ll suffer terribly in the long-run, they probably won’t, but considering that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. III is now in limbo, well…I think this is coming back to bite them. (Which it should!)

Ultimately, this gives The DCEU the competitive edge they so desperately crave, especially with having to play catch-up. And as much as I love what Marvel’s doing with their brand right now, I like DC’s heroes more. They hit broader themes, hence they appeal to a broader crowd. Besides, I’m desperate to see a Flash movie done right, let-alone a Superman movie done right for the first time in almost 40 years!

It’s possible that this’ll go terribly-wrong, and that Gunn’s efforts will be in-vain. But until WB tries, what’ve they got to lose?

Shazam! Wow!

Here’s something that I never thought I’d write: I’m actually looking forward to seeing a DCEU movie.

It’s true: Shazam!’s legitimately exciting me. I’m aware that I praised Wonder Woman two years ago, but I wasn’t enthused for that film until a few days before its release. Shazam!, however, has had me pumped from the moment I saw its first trailer, and the anticipation has only grown since. So seeing it get great reviews is the cherry on top.

But this had me thinking: I was mildly-hopeful for Man of Steel, but that was in 2013. It was also right after it was announced that Christopher Nolan, who’d recently finished his take on Batman, was producing it, so I was still on a high. Him rebooting Superman, a character who’d been struggling since the late-80’s, seemed like a solid choice. But once the reviews poured in, and they were negative, I jumped ship. Why now, six years later, am I excited again?

I think the main reason is because of the new route DC’s taking. The current king of superhero franchises is The MCU, which has existed since 2008’s Iron Man. By the time DC announced their own universe, it’d already been around for four years. But instead of striving for a unique identity, DC opted for a darker, grittier version of the same concept: a multi-part, inter-connected franchise over a lengthy period of time. And rather than take the time to write compelling stories, The DCEU fast-tracked the project and rushed it out. Add in how they left the storytelling reigns primarily with Zack Snyder, and they were setting themselves up for failure.

So yes, The DCEU was, for the longest time, a complete and utter train-wreck. The exception remained Wonder Woman, but that could’ve been because director Patty Jenkins had so much creative freedom. The rest of the franchise suffered from delays, behind-the-scenes complications, studio mandates, creative re-shuffling and lots of interference with the finished projects. I can’t cover everything, it’d take too long, but it wasn’t pretty.

I think their decision to rebrand was a good one. Not only in a “let’s change the focus of our universe” way, but also in a tonal and directorial way. Let’s face it, DC’s characters aren’t Marvel’s characters. Marvel works because their characters interact freely, while DC’s often work best solo. And when they do interact, it’s usually infrequent and not a big deal (with exceptions).

Honestly, I prefer it like this. Not every franchise needs to be another MCU, that’s been proven disastrous. I much prefer seeing DC’s attempt at solo movies that rarely connect, as Booster Gold doesn’t mesh tonally with Batman. If Warner Bros. wants the success of Disney and Marvel, this might actually be better for quality-control.

Like I said, not every superhero in DC’s pantheon needs to be grim-dark like Batman. I remember having a conversation with a co-worker at my old theatre job, and she mentioned that DC’s characters are “too dark to work on screen”. I still don’t agree; after all, if every DC character is dark, then how do you explain Superman? Wouldn’t he contradict that?

This is also why, I think, Shazam!’s getting praised: aside from not being grim-dark, it’s also really funny. Even its trailers are highlighting how much comedy there is, which fits its goofier, more kid-friendly tone. And when it gets “dark”, it never doesn’t feel real or relatable. I think that fits Shazam far-better than Batman, no? Especially when Batman can do dark because he’s a twisted psychopath who beats up criminals because “justice”, right?

It’s not only Shazam! that has me excited. Remember the ordeal with James Gunn? The one that recently got resolved? That led to The Suicide Squad. And then there’s that Birds of Prey teaser, which also looks interesting. That’s not to say every DC project in the future will be good, it’s impossible to know, but it’s a start!

I think DC, after a shaky beginning, has finally gotten its act together, and I’m pleased. I wouldn’t mind if DC went the solo, self-contained route with its movies from now on, as it suits them far better than imitating Marvel. It’s also, judging by Shazam!’s reviews, working better for them anyway. And isn’t that what matters most?

Look, I don’t like deliberately trashing DC. I love DC, far more than Marvel. I also prefer DC’s highs more than Marvel’s, as I think they have the potential for better movies. That I was purposely avoiding The DCEU for years hurt me, as I was robbing myself of seeing classic characters on the big-screen. Why would I want to do that to myself?

Now I don’t have to avoid them, which is a nice and welcomed. Now I can look forward to the adventures of Shazam, Wonder Woman, Harley Quinn, Batgirl and Future Batman without shame. I can also pump money into Warner Bros.’s pockets to make these kinds of movies, too! Isn’t that what it’s all about? Especially if it means legit competition for Marvel and keeping them from becoming stale?

Little Miss Marvel

Ms. Marvel’s the Disney+ MCU show I’ve been looking forward to most. Not only is the lead Canadian, hence representation, she’s also young and not another white person. Additionally, her story reflects the youths’ experience, and she isn’t exclusively tied to previous lore. Like Kate Bishop in Hawkeye, Kamala Khan’s the future of the franchise. That’s exciting.

I say this in light of recent information. A picture of Ms. Marvel was recently leaked, and it’s…something. I like her costume a lot, but there’s one detail that rubbed me the wrong way: her fists are energy-based, as opposed to elastic. Considering that Kamala’s comic trait is stretching like silly putty, that’s really odd. It doesn’t help that early rumours suggest she’s a genie, which has rubbed other people the wrong way.

Now, I’m no expert on this controversy. I’m Jewish, so I lack the appropriate insight into why this is offensive. However, I’m disappointed that attempts at scrubbing Marvel characters of their Jewish roots-Spider-Man, Moon Knight, Scarlett Witch, to name a few-haven’t received as much backlash. (Neither has able-washing Professor X by having two able-bodied actors play him.) I guess Jews are no longer considered a minority in Hollywood?

Anyway, I don’t mean to demean the backlash. Making Kamala Khan into an energy genie, aside from being uncreative, isn’t the way to go. Genies lack agency, are slaves and serve as wish-fulfillment for others. Having the first Muslim super-heroine be one is a slap in the face. Or maybe it’s a punch?

Regardless, I’m disappointed. I’m also disappointed because I don’t know why the higher-ups felt this, of all the concepts they’ve executed thus far, was a deal-breaker. Why is Kamala Khan having stretchy hands bad? Is it “too silly”? Because The MCU has a talking raccoon and a giant tree that repeats its name constantly. It also has a green monster and a rock troll. This ignores the dozens of other weird choices. Stretchy hands aren’t even that weird considering Mr. Fantastic is making his way to The MCU soon.

Additionally, this feels like a step back for representation. The Mandarin, for example, was always going to be tough to adapt because of his racist history, yet Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings pulled it off. Ditto for M’baku in Black Panther. If The MCU could make these characters functional, then why go backwards with Kamala Khan? I don’t understand.

I wouldn’t be as disappointed if The MCU didn’t have a “too big for its own good” aura constantly looming over it. The franchise has constantly expanded, and while some entries have been lesser, it’s yet to completely collapse. Even Iron Fist and The Inhumans, arguably the weakest links, haven’t tipped the scales completely. It’s bad enough that this aura’s lurking without the added racism.

Additionally, if this fails, detractors will resume the revisionism they keep flaunting. It’s annoying even without the added tone-deafness, and having a legitimate issue would be unbearable! I remember the “Is it dead?” discourse that circulated with Thor: The Dark World and The Avengers: Age of Ultron, and how insufferable it was at the time. In both cases, the franchise rebounded quickly. I can only imagine how much worse it’d be if Ms. Marvel ends up being the project that tanks everything.

I’m not saying that because of the naysayers. I like The MCU! It has problems, but it’s also responsible for generating hype for comic book properties no one cared about in large numbers otherwise. (Most people thought Iron Man was a robot before Iron Man.) If Kamala Khan’s debut ends up a disaster, can you imagine the tarnished reputation? How many comic fans would be crushed by that? It may not matter to most of you, but for Muslim fans it’d be huge if their shot at representation was blown!

Now, does this change mean I’m no longer excited for Ms. Marvel? No! As stated earlier, this is a young, fresh character in a franchise with mostly white ones. Like Black Panther and Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, I’m hopeful that this’ll move The MCU in positive direction. Also, if any franchise deserves some trust by now, it’s The MCU! I doubt I’m alone there.

That doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed, though. It’s one issue for Kamala’s fighting style to be changed to energy beams, even if elasticity might be “hard to do in live-action”. But it’s another to make her a genie and remove her agency. The former’s lame, but the latter’s insulting, and The MCU’s first Muslim super-heroine deserves better. She deserves the same respect Tony Stark had in 2008. Not getting that’s irritating and a missed opportunity.

So yeah, I’m unhappy, even if I’m not the best source for why. Does this mean Ms. Marvel will suck? Not necessarily, as I’ve seen lamer work before. Am I still excited? Yes, why wouldn’t I be? But that doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed, assuming it’s legitimate (you never know). And if I have to justify why, well…I think I did a good job. I only hope I’m, once again, not alone.

The Prickly Sabra

Life’s a Monkey’s Paw sometimes. I’ve wanted proper Jewish representation for Marvel film characters for a while. I’ve waited, but it simply wasn’t happening. And now that it is, I regret it. Let me explain.

This is Sabra. She’s an Israeli mutant. Despite existing since the 80’s, Sabra’s remained obscure in superhero discourse for decades. And now she’s been announced for Captain America: New World Order. She’s also being played by Shira Haas, who came to prominence with shows like Unorthodox. Cue the celebrations, a Jewish character’s being played by a Jewish person…right?

Not quite. But before I get into that, I’d like to share my two concerns on this matter:

The first is obvious: her name’s Sabra. The word “Sabra” on its own isn’t a big deal, it’s the Hebrew word for “cactus”, but given that it has partial ties to The Sabra Shatila Massacre, it’s not a great look. It’d be like playing The Bridal Chorus at a Jewish wedding: technically not “offensive”, but with a negative, historical connotation. It doesn’t help that The Sabra Shatila Massacre was relatively-recent, making this a little iffy. Not to mention, calling her “Sabra” is really lame.

The second issue’s more distressing: having an Israeli Jew in a movie about a “New World Order” is…tone-deaf? Jews have been accused of being global puppet-masters since The Middle Ages. Even now, George Soros is the punching bags of Antisemites desperate to blame American democracy’s failings on him. “New World Order” contains lots of baggage, and this doesn’t help.

Now then, time to dump the garbage:

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has been going on for decades. It’s messy, unpleasant and has victims and perpetrators on both sides. It’s led to wars and casualties, and has gained the attention of the world. The discourse has also been poisoned by bad-faith actors of all stripes, sometimes with lethal consequences. But I’ve covered this in greater detail…

One of the biggest fronts has been online, particularly with PR. Twitter alone has dozens of dummy and propaganda accounts ready to take innocuous situations and warp them to fit an agenda. I should know, I’ve witnessed it firsthand! But it’s the lack of regulations that makes it so easy, and Shira Haas in an MCU film is another example of that. She’s the new Gal Gadot, but without the baggage.

As you’d expect, this led to intense arguing. On the Israeli side, people were calling this a win. On the Palestinian side, people claimed it whitewashed Palestinian self-determination. I can see the frustrations of the latter camp, Palestinian voices have long been marginalized, but it’s ridiculous that a woman who’s Israeli is being boxed into a reductive binary; after all, Haas might be anti-Zionist! We don’t know yet!

But I doubt that matters to her detractors. In their mind, Haas is the enemy because she’s Israeli, nothing more. It doesn’t matter what her political leanings are, she’s a supporter of Israeli occupation. There’ve been pushes to boycott Marvel until she’s removed. Never mind that Natalie Portman and Ayelet Zurer have been in Marvel roles prior...

So yes, Shira Haas is “bad”. This bothers me immensely. I’d expect this kind of open bigotry from the far-right, but progressives have increasingly disappointed me by not factoring in nuance to their critiques of Israelis. Israel has over 9 million citizens, and not all of them are Jewish. Many of them are Palestinian! And their views, as shown through surveys and videos, on Israeli society aren’t monolithic.

Not even Israelis are monolithic! There are so many viewpoints in that tiny country that despite there being a far-right extremist issue, as with most countries, the population’s quite diverse. And so are the politicians, with the most-recent government containing 7 political parties of different persuasions before it fell apart. Israelis don’t all think alike, and Haas is no different. Like I said, she could one day come out as anti-Zionist!

My concern is that people are overreacting based on minimal information. It’s not like there isn’t already a Palestinian Marvel character named Hayyan Zarour, because there is. It’s that Sabra’s Israeli, therefore Marvel “supports oppression”. This logic is biased and doesn’t make sense. It’s also tiresome.

I’m not sure what’d satisfy her detractors, other than her disappearing altogether. I support Palestinian self-determination! And I won’t act like Palestinian voices haven’t been shafted for decades! But silencing Israeli voices helps no one. Nor does dehumanizing them.

I get that this is a complicated position to be in. For as much as I wanted proper, Jewish representation in The MCU for the longest time, instead of empty lip-service, this wasn’t what I wanted. I also have no doubts that including Sabra was largely a calculated and financial decision. But that doesn’t excuse the backlash the character, and subsequently her actress, is receiving. There’s no shortage of other kinds of representation in The MCU thus far, so why not give someone else a turn for a change? What do you really have to lose with Sabra?

It's Fantastic, Right?

The Fantastic Four IP, despite being Marvel’s first, hasn’t had much success on film. Despite 4 movies, 5 if you include the Roger Corman venture, the franchise has long been considered a joke. It wasn’t until the most-recent entry that they starred in something critically-acclaimed. The best portrayals of Fantastic Four characters until now were two cameos that were killed for shock effect. Make of that what you will.

The question on my mind was, “What makes this newest Fantastic Four movie different?”. After all, the previous movies were in conversation with one another, yet they all suffered from similar problems. And while you’d think Marvel working directly on The Fantastic Four: First Steps would guarantee a success, if recent years are indication, well…that’s not assured. So what made this work? I think it boils down to something lacking in previous attempts: sincerity. Specifically, respectful sincerity.

I’ll make a disclaimer: I’ve only seen the 2005 movie prior to this one. However, based on how bored I was, as well as word of mouth and clips of the other movies, I can deduce that they suffered from the problem of, “These Fantastic Four characters are lame”. It’s a shame, as their comics suggested otherwise. Even prior MCU cameos, which were comic accurate, didn’t help with this notion, as both Reed Richards and Johnny Storm were murdered. It felt like the films were embarrassed by these characters, to the point of scrubbing anything fun or exciting.

Take the 2005 and 2007 movies. These are part of the same franchise, thus fair game to lump together. However, while the tone might be correct, mostly, the writing’s a mess. The 2005 movie is way too long, and when it doesn’t feature plot-related action, it spends its time with science lessons and pointless hijinks. I love Chris Evans as an actor, but I can only stomach his “immature frat-boy” personality for so long before wanting to punch a hole in his chest. Thank God the movie does that, except without the fatality.

This isn’t helped by the movie routinely stopping to share anecdotes about rocks, fire, rubber, invisibility and metal. Which leads to the second problem, that being its inability to shut up. I like chemistry, even if it was never a subject I excelled at, but I don’t care to hear what happens when rubber’s frozen. Or I’d prefer the movie not shout it out. It’s more satisfying watching Reed Richards freeze and become brittle without the movie spelling it out.

Arguably the movie’s biggest problem is its antagonist. Like Galactus being a storm cloud in the sequel, this movie doesn’t trust the audience buying Victor Von Doom as a mad scientist and dictator. He might be overly-theatrical, but he has potential to be scary. Yet this movie gives Victor a new origin, that being a casualty of the same solar eruption that gave the others their superpowers. It also rips off Spider-Man’s Green Goblin portrayal, with Victor’s transformation being gradual and chaotic. Yes, it’s cool watching his metallic casing slowly cover him, but at what cost?

I haven’t seen the 2015 reboot entirely, even though I’ve written about its production, but it has the same problems as the 2005 franchise and news ones entirely. On one hand, it doesn’t respect Doom’s character, creating an even more convoluted origin for his powers. On the other hand, it’s also overly bleak and dour. Based on what I’ve watched online, Fant4stic, as it’s been called, is gritty and grounded in the vein of Christopher Nolan, except without any life or levity. Nolan’s characters crack jokes and have genuine emotions, even amidst their exposition, and Josh Trank’s movie forgets that. In fact, I don’t think the characters even crack a smile.

Fant4stic seems to have every problem the 2005 and 2007 movies are guilty of, and more. In an attempt to distance itself, it’s learned all the wrong lessons. And this is while adding new ones. There’s a reason Fant4stic’s one of the worst-reviewed comic book movies, surpassing Batman & Robin. Considering some of the slop superheroes have given us, that’s no easy feat! But when you don’t respect the material, that’s what happens. Especially since, outside of X-Men and maybe Blade, 20th Century Fox had no clue what to do with Marvel’s IPs.

Perhaps it’s only fair that Marvel now owns the Fantastic Four characters. We can argue the ethics of their acquisition, which I’ve already done, but considering the abuse many of Marvel’s IPs experienced prior, The Fantastic Four: First Steps being the first well-received entry in the IP’s history was inevitable. And yes, it has issues, as all MCU films do. But when it embraces to looney sincerity of the IP, even down to its antagonists, it’s clear we’d have a winner right from its final trailer. That much was guaranteed.

It also shows that sincerity still works. I like The MCU, but its biggest drawback is not always taking its in-universe story beats seriously. It’s fine to have your characters crack jokes, especially when it helps the world feel lived-in, but at some point that’s too much. The Fantastic Four: First Steps avoiding that works in its favour, surprisingly. Then again, when your movie takes place separate from most of The MCU, I guess you can get away with that.

That’s the secret here. Yes, The Fantastic Four’s a silly IP. But so are most superheroes. That a person with weird powers would fight crime is, in itself, ridiculous, and a good adaptation would acknowledge that. At the same time, it’d treat it with dignity, which this newest movie does. Perhaps some of its writing feels a little sterile, but I’ll take that if the movie’s good.

Now, about that end-credits scene…