Snap Judgement: Avengers Trailer #2

Today was the day: the second full-length Avengers trailer hit the web. Boy, was it worth the wait. Some thoughts:

- I like that most of the major characters got equal screentime. The quick intros to each major member of the team were really well done. I do wish we got a little more than just a few glimpses of Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye...not even one line of dialogue for him? Really?

- You can never have too much Loki. Seeing that he'll be the clear villain in this film is crazy exciting on all kinds of levels.

-Obviously Tony Stark/Iron Man is getting put front and center here and in other places in Marvel's advertising, a move that I don't totally love, but do understand. From a marketing and advertising standpoint, his character is the most well-known to general audiences. Still, I wish the movie was being pitched more as the ensemble piece I'm sure it will turn out to be.

-I'm still on the fence about Cap's new costume. Still, I remember before Captain America came out, I wasn't really loving his costume there either, and ended up really liking it in the actual film.

- The shot where Iron Man is falling through the air and the Hulk flies up out of nowhere, grabs him, and surfs down the side of a skyscraper? MIND. BLOWN. WITH. AWESOME.

-Also, money shot at the end with the giant metal snake thing? Totally unexpected and freaking amazing. Should I know what that thing is? Or is it something totally new to everyone?

May 4th can't come fast enough.

Quit it, or I'll stop spending money on you: An open letter to DC Comics

Dear DC Comics,

If you keep up your recent shenanigans, I am going to stop spending money on you. What you're doing is annoying, tedious, and greedy. I'm talking, of course, about your propensity for crossovers between your books. I don't mean the massive, universe-spanning "event" series - I can handle those. Heck, your "Brightest Day" arc last summer is what got me reading your titles regularly. It made me willing to pick up several new titles when the "NEW 52" hit shelves.

No, what I'm talking about is the incessant attempts to shanghai me into reading even MORE of your titles by making plot points in the series I enjoy wholly dependent on events in OTHER SERIES, which I may or may not read. I don't like opening an issue of Superman and being told four times within a half-dozen pages that in order to understand the references being made in regards to important events, I will need to rush out and get myself copies of Superboy #5, Supergirl #7, and a few other series as well. To be honest, dirty tricks like that contributed heavily to my choice to drop the Superman titles for the forseeable future. (Well, that, and the poor storytelling, terrible dialogue, and overall low quality of the title. Let's hope the new creative team can do better).

For me, the last straw really came when I hit the end of issue #6 of one of my favorite NEW 52 titles, Justice League Dark.  Up until that last page, the series had been flying along, telling a great, self-contained story that I think was spectacularly done. But when I hit that final page, things got turned upside down. A new villain rose up against the JLD, but guess what? In order to figure out who he is and why he's so dangerous, you told me, I would have to "run out and buy Issue #6 of I, Vampire - another DC book that until this point, has functioned completely separately from  Justice League Dark. I don't read I, Vampire. I've got nothing against it, I just never got into the title - and now you're insisting that in order to fully understand the entire next arc  of one of my favorite books, I should go out and buy at least one issue of a book I don't read. And maybe it's just me, but I'm a completest when it comes to stories. I can't just grab up a random issue and be OK with whatever's going on. I want to know the whole story so I can enjoy it.

I don't appreciate being told that in order to really enjoy my book, I should go out and throw more money at DC for a title I may or may not enjoy. And here's the thing that really makes this stick in my throat - I'm a college student. I don't have the money to go out and buy comics left and right. I wish I did. But I can only buy so much, and crossing over two titles to make their stories entirely dependent on one another is a money-grab that I don't appreciate. It makes me hesitant to go out and buy the next issue of Justice League Dark, because I don't like spending money on things I won't enjoy. I don't want to spend an entire arc (5+ issues) wondering what's going on. 

If your goal is to get people to spend more money, it won't work - at least with me. It is incredibly frustrating to me that your readers have taken a backseat to profits, real or imagined. Stunts like this make me less willing to spend money on your titles each week, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. As a college student with limited money to spend, it feels like a down and dirty betrayal when you try to squeeze even more out of me for the sake of the profit margin.

Sincerely, 

An Aggravated Reader 

Sheer Idiocy

So, I happened across this video today, in which Fox News pundit Liz Trotta shared her opinion on military women. Go take a look, then come on back. 

I have no interest in sugar-coating this: People like Liz Trotta make me sick to my stomach. This woman is so bent on her own personal agenda (which appears to be an attempt to eradicate feminism of any kind whatsoever), that she's willing to blame women who serve in the military for being raped. 

That's right. If you didn't catch it the first time around, Trotta essentially says that women who put their lives on the line to protect the citizens of the United States (which, as far as I know, includes Ms. Trotta herself), shouldn't be surprised when the men they serve with sexually assault and/or rape them. In fact, she says, its really their own fault, and nobody has any responsibility to try and protect them. 

Ms. Trotta is wrong on every level. First of all, she's blaming victims of sexual assault for what happens to them - which is completely unconscionable no matter what the situation is, or how you try to spin it. I don't care who you are, victims are not responsible for the actions of those who attack them. 

Secondly, Ms. Trotta seems to think that programs that provide "sexual counselors, victim advocates, sexual response coordinators", and the like to women who have been attacked while serving our country are nothing more than a part of the so-called 'feminist agenda' she continually refers to. This opinion is nothing more than hot garbage. Our servicewomen deserve every protection and piece of support we can offer them, just like their male counterparts. 

Speaking of male soldiers, Ms. Trotta's seriously misguided argument also implicitly lowers the standard of behavior for men in the military. She basically absolves them of any responsibility toward their female counterparts, which is a foolish and ignorant perspective. Honor and respect are two of the highest tenets of the American military, and pretending that 1) they can be ignored, and 2) implying by her argument that male service members can and do make a habit of disrespecting the females who serve with them is not only wrong, it is incredibly irresponsible. 

Ms. Trotta, our service women and men deserve better than this. I hope someday you realize this fact, and come to give those who protect and serve us, male or female, the respect that is due to them. 

Trailerville: Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter

So...this looks better than I expected. Check it out here, because my imbed function is being silly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=34x6m-ahGIo
Viewed? Good. Let's carry on.

First Thoughts:
Tim Burton: Good.
Abraham Lincoln circa the Civil War: Very Cool.
Abraham Lincoln swinging an ax so hard a tree explodes: Awesome.

Also, trains. Fiery chasms. Vampires that don't look like Robert Pattinson. What's not to like?

Even with the rather poor (read: jarring) cutting of Johnny Cash's voice from "The Man Comes Around", this trailer actually makes me want to see this movie. Granted, the movie itself may still disappoint...but things are looking good so far.

"On Your Own" - a Whedon Misstep?

Today, I read Buffy S9, #6. I was less than thrilled. I thought about it for awhile. Then I read the whole thing over again. I was still angry and twisted up inside about what I had read. So I wrote this.

   [FAIR WARNING: SPOILERS ABOUND] As readers of this blog-or most of the other things I write-know, I am a die-hard fan of Joss Whedon and his work. I read both Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 9 and the new Angel and Faith series, I own complete series sets of his shows...and I'm way too excited for The Avengers premiere in May. So when I say this, I don't say it lightly: "On Your Own" Part 1 left me more conflicted on the work of Joss Whedon than I have ever been. 

   For those who don't know, the driving idea of the issue is this: Buffy is pregnant. She doesn't know who the father is, and she's still the Slayer, more or less alone in the world (or at least that's how she feels). 

   This story is paralleled by one set in 1973 that will be familiar to fans of the TV series - Nikki, a previous Slayer, finds herself in a similar situation to that of Buffy. As fans know, she is the mother of (former) Principal Robin Wood,  whom Buffy seeks council from in the present day on what to do about her pregnancy. Robin advises her to keep the baby, because he believes that she has the strength and courage to raise the child right, even with the duties of a Slayer in the mix.

   I applaud Joss for presenting the choice to keep the child despite the odds. I simply find it out of character that Buffy didn't make it. In the final panels, we see that Buffy has made the decision to have an abortion instead of keeping her child. 

   In my mind, Buffy has always been the epitome of a strong female character (both on TV and in the comics). Buffy has always been willing to make any sacrifice, putting the good of those around her and the world at large before her own. In Season 1, she died to save Sunnydale. In Season 5, she died to save her sister Dawn from her fate...and yet here, she seemingly chooses to end her own pregnancy, denying her own child the chance at life because it might be hard. Of all people, Buffy the Vampire Slayer knows that just because life is really hard, and sometimes really sucks, that doesn't mean it isn't worth living.

   But here's the problem. Whedon tells us, "I don't think Buffy should have a baby. I don't think Buffy can take care of a baby. I agree with Buffy." (You can find the full article here - it's worth a read).

   I think he is wrong. I don't think that the Buffy we all know and love would ever make the choice to have an abortion. Character-wise, the choice is truly a departure from the Buffy I know.

   I think it runs counter to the message Buffy has been giving us for close to the last decade: make the right choices, even if they're incredibly difficult. Don't take the easy way out - you can do better than that, you have the strength to do better than that.  As a fan, someone who both likes and respects Mr. Whedon and his work, I was disappointed by the choice to seemingly allow Buffy to sidestep the challenge of motherhood (intended or not, it is still motherhood). 

  I disagree with the character's choice on moral grounds. I have no shame in admitting that. I will never defend the ending of a child's life in the real world or in the pages of a comic book. 

   Yet, at the same time, I understand that Buffy is not my creation. I respect the fact that Joss Whedon holds differing views from my own, and it is his right to show them in his work, especially if, as he says, he feels it is true to the character and her story. I truly respect the creative freedom of storytellers (especially since I'm one myself).

   I also greatly respect the way that this subject matter was handled in the issue. There's nothing I hate more than a writer who blatantly shoehorns his or her own views into a story whether they naturally fit there or not. As far as I'm concerned, if they fit, fine. If not, they shouldn't be there - not if you want to keep the credibility of your story and your characters strong. In this case, the fact that the issue of abortion arose is a natural consequence of the story that Mr. Whedon is trying to tell. Not only that, but both sides of the issue were addressed, and not in a cursory manner. I truly wasn't sure what choice Buffy would make until she made it. And that is the mark of masterful, well-rounded storytelling. 

  I'm truly torn by this issue of Buffy Season 9. I feel that the strong credibility of Buffy's character was damaged - but then I wonder if she'll go through with it or not, and what that story will be like. I haven't stopped thinking about the issue since I read it this morning.  That, more than anything else, makes me respect Joss Whedon as a writer and storyteller even more than I already did. I may disagree with him, but he's telling a story that I am invested in and want to know the end to - and that excites me.