Is DC Television being ruined by Warner Brothers?

Here's a subject that hasn't gotten old yet...lets talk about Superhero movies! So like, they seem to be all the rage right now as far as Hollywood is concerned. We have Marvel to thank for that. With what started as a wee easter egg in Iron Man eventually formed into a full thriving Marvel Cinematic Universe that is still growing stronger with each new cinematic release. It's a winning streak that is yet to be crumbled.

Meanwhile, over at DC...we have Man of Steel...

As far as TV goes, DC were killing it with their first TV series since Smallville - Arrow!
What is Arrow? Arrow is a TV show that follows the adventures of billionaire cocky pretty-boy, Oliver Queen who had been trapped on a mysterious Island for 5 years and had come home with only one goal - to save his city. The show was produced by The CW Network and like Marvels movies, they had no original intention of creating this giant, connected world. Popularity for Arrow grew immensely - supported with a strong cast and a gritty, realistic world that brought new life into Oliver Queens story while at the same time, staying faithful to the comic source material.

Oh, the edge!

The first Season proved to be both interesting and entertaining as Oliver Queen had a book given to him from his Father with names of wealthy big-wigs that were poisoning Starling City with their wealth and greed. One by one, the Arrow would hunt and kill each person and cross their name out in a metaphoric game of "Cat and Mouse" while muttering the well known catchphrase (at this point) "You have failed this city" just before offing said-rich stiff. Here and there, the first Season would throw in well known Comic Book characters for either one-off episodes or frequent appearances such as Huntress, Firefly, Deadshot and more. 

The show was eventually given a second Season which had tonnes more easter eggs and homages, more Comic Book characters and the introduction of another hero - Flash! 

The CW were now opening a gateway to another Superhero with The Flash getting his own TV show. By the time Flash hit screens in 2014, Arrow was beginning its 3rd Season. Between the two, Flash has been the more entertaining show, embracing its comic-book roots, offering a lighter tone in comparison to Arrow as well as more super-powered villains dubbed "Meta Humans". 

You could say Season 1 was over in a "Flash"...

So, yeah. Flash Season 1 was fantastic - focusing on Barry getting used to his new life as a speedster along with trying to find out who killed his mother with the results being bigger than anyone could have predicted. The Flash has partially stolen the limelight from Arrow as Season 3 has been a bit of a mess with Ra's Al Ghul as the main villain with a whole heap of side-plots and confrontations that just distract from the main story. Also, personally speaking, I feel Ra's Al Ghul was the most boring antagonist so far in the show. 

You have failed this show Ra's!

With both Season 1 of Flash and Season 3 of Arrow wrapped up, The CW Network have released a trailer of their new show, again connected to both shows - DC's Legends of Tomorrow! This new show will feature the likes of The Atom (introduced in Arrow Season 3), The White Canary (killed in Arrow Season 3), Captain Cold, Heatwave and Firestorm (All introduced in The Flash Season 1) and Hawkgirl who had a small "blink and you'll miss it" scene in The Flash, coming from fucking nowhere. Will it be another success for The CW? Will it be the continuing downfall that started with Arrow Season 3? Only one way to find out...

Least the picture is cool

Now on to the actual *point* of this blog post..

This mini-rant/blog post represents my own opinion and no one else's. With Warner Brothers trying to play catch-up to Marvel and establish their own Cinematic Universe, there was debate on whether the TV shows and Movies would share the same universe, especially with the likes of a Justice League movie being down the line, Would we see Stephen Amells Oliver Queen in DC's Cinematic Universe? No...

It was later to be confirmed that the DC movies and DC TV shows are part of a multiverse. But at the time, it came across to me personally as a cheap excuse to get people excited about nothing. A multiverse is nothing new for DC as the Crisis on Infinite Earths storyline introduces a universe of alternative Earths based on choices. So, CW's TV universe doesn't reflect WB's Movie universe but it doesn't rule out a cross over in the future...

Oh but it does...

With the release of Marvel's "Guardians of the Galaxy" selling really well for a movie about a rag and tag team of characters, both Sony and Warner Brothers attempted to jump the same bandwagon with Sony trying and failing to release a Sinister Six movie and WB releasing a Suicide Squad movie which is currently being filmed. 

But what does that have to do with anything? With a Suicide Squad already being a key element in the Arrow universe, WB have made is so the CW can no longer use certain characters such as Deadshot, Bronze Tiger, Captain Boomerang, probably Katana and Harley Quinn who had a cameo role in an Arrow episode.

What they're essentially doing is eliminating creative freedom in a more well-established DC Universe that is miles ahead of DC's Cinematic Universe. It was bad enough they weren't allowing the use of Superman and Batman, yet still allowing Superman to be in CBS' Supergirl TV show, despite being visually obscured. 

So what was the point in saying it was a multiverse when it simply wasn't? Just DC simply being DC and not having a fucking clue what to do with itself. 

I also feel DC shouldn't even bother with a Flash movie when Grant Gustin has already made the role his own and any live action attempt will only be compared to his. 

Me personally, when it comes to comics, I'm more of a DC guy all the way, but if Marvels Daredevil TV show has anything that DC could learn from, its a shining example of how to bring a Superhero TV show into a Cinematic universe flawlessly through dialogue and easter eggs (posters, newspapers, etc.).

What was the point in this blog post? I don't know. It's 22:18pm and I'm tired. G'Night everybody!

Bring Tobey Maguire back?

Hey everyone, your friendly neighbourhood blogger here! :D

With all of the commotion surrounding Marvel, Sony and the Spider-man film series, there's a lot of hoopla about who should play the role with some touting for Donald Glover, some for Tobey Maguire, some for Andrew Garfield and some for an unknown 4th candidate. In the end, every fan has their "ideal choice". Me personally? I would have just liked to keep Andrew Garfield! He was fun, charismatic, engaging and proved to be both a likeable Peter Parker and a perfect Spider-man.

No all that shit has changed! Spider-man has joined to the MCU and millions of Marvel movie-goers webbed their pants with excitement (among other things, hiyooooo). Talks are that firstly, before we're treated to yet another reboot, the red & blue web-slinger will dish out his first appearance in another Marvel movie. Odds are for it to be Captain America 3: Civil War. Why Civil War of all movies? Well Spider-man happens to play a part in the overall story, unmasking himself for all to see amongst the Steve Rogers/Tony Stark war...

Now fans have been fan-casting, preying and hoping for certain actors to portray the web-head in what will surely be one of the biggest Marvel movies to date! Below you will find out along with my own opinion on why I feel he should or should not be given this high-profile role!

Donald Glover

This is the first one I want to talk about. There's been rumours circulating that they may go with the Miles Morales Spider-man. For anyone who doesn't know, Miles Morales is a 13/14 year old black Spider-man who takes up the mantle after the death of Peter Parker. Now everyone's going ape-tit's over having Donald Glover play as Miles simply because he voiced the character in the Ultimate Spider-man cartoon. But there's one problem. He's way too old to portray an early teen in a movie and I don't feel that Miles Morales would be a good choice to have as the first Spider-man of the MCU. In fact, I feel that would just confuse and maybe not sit well with children who are so used to Peter Parker. In the end, I wouldn't mind seeing Miles on screen, just not played by Donald Glover (or Jaden Smith) and eventually instead of instantly. 

Dylan O'Brien

Possibly my favourite of the potential candidates. I mean just look at him! That youthful teenage look. I mean he doesn't look realistically dorky with those specks (I mean which Hollywood actor does?). But I feel he nails the Peter Parker look and has the chops to play the character well for years to come. He's mostly known for the Teen Wolf TV Show, so he's got the whole "Highschool outcast with exceptional gift" thing down! And Marvel seems to want to have a High school Peter. 

Josh Huthcerson

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

When you look like the love-child of Joe Pesci and Rocky Dennis and have the emotional range of a match stick, your not an ideal candidate. Donno why people seem to pick him. 

(Don't even think about it Drake Bell!)

Andrew Garfield

I admit, he's not an actual candidate for the role, but fans (including myself) are clamouring for his return in the role. With the shared deal between Sony and Marvel, includes a new start, eliminating the progress of the rocky Amazing Spider-man movies. Rumour has it that Garfield left Sony and the role before the deal could hit. Saddening to hear, you can't blame someone for being human. But he would be a great choice in my opinion. He already has experience in the role, being a fan-favourite between him and Maguire for bringing the hero from the comics to life in a manner Tobey simply couldn't. His age and looks worked well with each other where he convincingly played a high schooler. With a little bit of un-shaved stubble, he could easily play an older Peter Parker as well.

Now before I go on to the last candidate. It's obviously no surprise who this last person is, but I'm going to spend the rest of the blog post talking about why he would be the most logical candidate to go with. I present to you....

Tobey Maguire

Tobey Maguire everyone!!! Now lets get one thing clear, from someone who grew up on the Sam Raimi Spider-man trilogy, Tobey Maguire will ALWAYS be Spider-man in my eyes. He may not have portrayed him the best, but he is synonymous with the role to me! His Peter Parker is both realistic and believable. He brings out the perfect rendition of isolated and nerdy that a real-life Peter Parker is bound to display. His Spider-man? A little awkward at times but enjoyable, watchable and entertaining. 

I know, your probably thinking "YOU ARE WRONG!" or something like " You don't know what your talking about"

Well keep reading for why I think Tobey Maguire is the "logical" choice to play as Spider-man in the MCU. 

He's already been in the role

One advantage he has over every other candidate is that he's played the role, in not one, not two, but three movies! While the first two were praised highly, the last wasn't. Albeit, it did well financially which is still technically a success, right? Heck, both of the Amazing Spider-man movies didn't even gross more than Spider-man 3. But in comparison to any other actor here, he's dived in to the role for the longest and I feel it's a role Tobey Maguire would feel more than comfortable being back in. 

His world is more rich

Raimi's Spider-man movies welcomed more of the characters and tropes that made the comics iconic from the beginning till today. Raimi's movies introduced Peter, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Harry & Norman Osbourne, J. Jonah Jameson, Mary Jane Watson, Gwen Stacy, Flash Thompson, Eddie Brock and more in a modern New York City (Queens to be exact). The original Spider-man trilogy started before Marvel's first "Iron Man" movie which kickstarted the MCU, this would give Raimi's trilogy the edge of setting up Spider-man in the MCU.

Being that Spider-man 3 ended up with Peter saying his goodbyes to a dying Harry and getting Mary Jane. he could have simply retired for the time being. It's a lame excuse but it works, with a world of more superior heroes, why would he need to come from retirement? But the Civil War would be the reason to change that! But Marvel could think of something better, I'm not one of their paid writers! Regardless, Raimi's trilogy offers up more leeway and opportunities to inject Spider-man into the MCU in comparison to Webb's Amazing Spider-man movies. 

His Spider-man has been through more

While Garfield was in the role, he had been through some tragic events, such as losing Uncle Ben, creating The Lizard, losing Captain Stacy, seeing visions of Captain Stacy, upsetting an Electric stalker, pissing off Harry and losing Gwen Stacy. 

Now, while that's only two movies in comparison to three, it barely touches on what Tobey Maguires Spider-man has been through...

He didn't stop the burglar, lost Uncle Ben, watched Norman Osbourne die, unknowingly pissed off Harry, watched Octavius become a villain, had a drunk Harry slap him, lost his powers, gained them back, watched Doc Ock sacrifice himself, fought Harry, caused Harry to get amnesia, technically cheated on Mary Jane (she was a bitch anyway), lost Mary Jane, got a sexy killer-black suit, almost killed Sandman, stole Eddie's girl from him, stole Eddie's job from him, played Gwen, performed a well-practised dance number, almost killed Harry, almost got killed by Venom and Sandman, accidentally killed Eddie Brock (or did he?), watched Harry die, got Mary Jane back (booooo).

So yeah, you could kinda say he's a more experience Spider-man. That and his character and his world is more developed!

He would make a bigger impact to the Civil War

As it's been stated by other fans, while Marvel want their Spider-man to be of High school age, it's important to note that Peter in the Civil War storyline is well past his teenage years and a much developed hero within the Marvel universe, so the idea of him revealing his identity was huge. If they brought in Spider-man and kept him mute until revealing himself, only to reveal Tobey Maguire underneath, I feel like it could positively impact long-time fans and fans of the comic as well.

For now that's all I'm gonna say on the subject. I know not everyone will agree with me or see my poor bad awful logic, but hopefully you enjoyed the wee read anyhow. 

Below you'll just find some side-notes: 

Keep Mary Jane away!

Lemme be more clear about that. Keep Kirsten Dunst away, she is a plague to the role of Mary Jane and I would not like to see her return. She always gave off this impression in Spider-man 3 like she couldn't be fucked. And with that kind of performance, I wouldn't like to see her get the career-boost she all-so-desperately needs! 

While on the topic though, keep Shailene Woodley away as well. While we never really got to see her in the role in TASM 2, I also feel her acting ability is too low for a movie of this calibre, she's bland, faceless and just in it for the career opportunities, as she made clear when she "demanded" for a role in a Marvel film.

Miles Morales

Below, you'll find a short sample of Donald Glover as Miles Morales from the Ultimate Spider-man cartoon, for your entertainment:

Let me be Spider-man!!!

I'm no beggar, but if anyone from Marvel or Sony is reading this, hook me up? ;)

I'll do it for FREE!!! You know you want to see this in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: 

(FYI, it's not really me)

Goodnight everybody!

About me....in a nutshell.

Today, I thought I'd make a different sort of blog post. I've realised after what? 7 Blog posts, that I haven't really introduced myself to the internet and anyone reading this blog (most readers are 'friends' anyway).

So that's the plot of this post today, to give a little introduction, what I do and/or plan on doing with my life and maybe some facts of me!

First of all, who am I? From the right hand side of the page and my not-so-subtle profile picture, you'll find my name is Scott Burns. I was born and raised in the humble land of Scotland - a land of poor weather and many grassy hills. There was also a very well-known Mel Gibson movie based on our history, which some argue is not accurate but whatever. 

Currently at the ripe age of 22. I'm of a husky build and I'm slowly watching as my hair thins every year! Am I depressing you yet? (sorry)

What do I do currently? Well, I'm not very good with jobs and job searching an all of that magical jazz, but I currently work in an airport as a "Customer Host" for a Cafe. It's okay, it pays and I can buy the little pleasures in life, no complaints. As of 2014, I finished college, graduating with a HND in Sound Production. What does that mean? I'm just decent with Musical software and stuff. When I do stuff regarding that, it's more of a hobby than a passion. When I started college, I wanted to become a composer. Composed music in movies, TV and videogames is something I find an interest in, but over the years, my interests have changed and shaped for what may be the better!

Beyond having a job, what I also enjoy doing is drawing and writing. When I was younger, all I used to draw was Sonic the Hedgehog. I'd draw the characters on my school jotters, on my folders, on the corners of my tests and so on. For the last 4-5 years I've been drawing and improving on my own characters for my own novels! (like I said, I enjoy writing too)

For example: 

The inception of "Matthew Gray"

One of the more recent drawings featuring

the updated look of today!

With time, you develop your skills and your results show. I feel the same about my writing. I wrote the novel that features Matthew in 2012, titled "Descendants of Honour" and it has since seen a re-write and is sitting stored away till I do the final re-write. It's a story I know like the back of my hand and based within Falkirk, a town local to me. Since then I've gone on to write many more personal projects. 

I've written a Justice League script that one day, I'd like to utilize into a Youtube video in-time for the eventual Justice League movie!

I've written a script for a KFC Horror short. I loved every bit of it, it's crazy, it's hilarious and insane. 

I've written part of a Pilot for a TV show idea I had called Strangemouth. It's something that really brought me into a dark place that when writing, I'd get these killer goosebumps and just imagining my words as visual pieces, I could feel the horror of what I was writing, exciting stuff. 

There was also a time where I was writing a script for a Deadpool short movie but abandoned when too many suggestions and ideas were getting thrown at me, that I lost interest. I love Deadpool, I love and know the character well enough, but wasn't willing to chuck a cameo from every Marvel character under the sun...ugh, 

And there's my Formidable Three scripts..more on that at another time. 

Why do all of this? Simple - it's fun :D I take enjoyment out of it and hope to eventually finish all of these scripts and bring the projects to fruition. Usually I end up doing them myself because other people aren't interested, don't bring anything to the table or don't see the potential. But there's a potential in everything. So usually I pursue my projects on my own. I don't mind though, like I said, I enjoy it :)

I've collaborated in some form before. You see, I also have a Youtube Channel which I mentioned in the beginning blog posts. I called on others to voice characters on an audio comic adaptation of Space Detective. Below you can see the last video of the Space Detective series:

It's a right campy experience!

There's a mish-mash of different vids on my Youtube account. If you haven't, be sure to subscribe, you never know when I do something new, out from the blue ;)

What do I want to do with my life? 

Well currently, I'm writing and collaborating with a friend and partner on my first comic, titled "The Formidable Three: Origins" It's a cartoony-slapstick adventure that I'll speak more of in a later post!

So for 2015, I want to see that progress and hopefully finished as well as doing a short Batman film that aims to achieve what no Batman film has done and provide a thrilling and scary psychological approach to the caped crusader. It will be filmed on a Super 8 camera which will hopefully give it that extra unsettling edge in a visual manner. 

After which, I will focus on possibly more Formidable Three stories and more importantly, the third rewrite of Descendants of Honour which will be followed by a heavy campaign of looking for a publisher or/and an agent. Should this not prove successful, it shall be followed by an even heavier promotional campaign. 

From there? Focus on a sequel perhaps? Or start with a new novel? Who knows...

Some facts about me!

Lastly, I thought I'd end this on a fun note, Five little facts about me. So if you bump into me in the street, you'll have a nice wee ice breaker to use ;)

1. I have a permanent scar on my left elbow from a time I fell as a child

2. I'm definitely more of a DC fan but Spider-man is my favourite Superhero. 

3. When I was a kid, the Singing Kettle team came to my hometown and picked me (along with a select few others from my primary class) to be featured on a video, singing about keeping our teeth clean. 

4. Despite only watching it last year, Twin Peaks is my favourite TV show and nothing's gonna change that. 

5. I'm a big fan of NIN and How to Destroy Angels, but a favourite song of mines right now is "Doing it right - Daft Punk". 

That's that for now! Goodnight everybody!

Support Indie Media!

Indie Media - I'm simply narrowing that down to Comics, Movies and Videogames. Read on for what I have to say in regards to the future of media and how supporting Indie creators will help that!

Today this symbol will be used

in a rebellious cliché method

I'm a child of the 90's. I was born in ol' '92. It was a good year. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 came out, Batman Returns and Wayne's World hit theatres and Miley Cyrus was born...wait, what? 

From my young perspective throughout the 90's, whenever I saw a movie or played a game, I thought nothing of it. The gaming scene was the latest and long-lasting thing among kids in those days (among many hip fads!) Suddenly we were breaking from mere 16-Bit games to fully 3D games that opened a new world and gave us a much more realistic approach to how we interact with a virtual world.

Basically this...but kinda not

So from my young perspective, it really seemed the gaming world was booming with interest, sales and new ideas. 

Comics! We had a Golden Age, a Silver Age and a Bronze Age of comics. But the 90's, man...comic's were trying new things. Some titles had "experimental phases", new publishers were created and with them came new IP's for the coloured funny-book industry. You could chalk it up as semi-modern underground phase in comics. But while we saw new ideas and so-so, it wasn't all money and success for everyone.

The industry still had interest and that's what mattered to a fanbase of ageing-awkward nerds growing up in the height of awful fashion. 

Just your average 90's gamer

waiting on his mail-order set of DOOM Floppy Disks

Now the Film industry. An industry that has been going strong since it's inception, the 90's saw a butt-load of cheesy movies. It wasn't the 80's no more, you couldn't get away with it! It wasn't all doom & gloom, we saw some compelling drama movies rise from this glorious decade. 

On a side note, the 90's gave us Jurassic Park, The Matrix, Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption and heck, even Toy Story! New ideas were aplenty in this splendid era and it was a business that could still surprise the market of modern viewers.

As the world we knew changed, creative media

began "falling with style" (sorry)

BOOM - The Internet happened. When the internet grew bigger, it started becoming available in more and more homes. Sooner or later, most 1st class and 2nd class citizens and families began having internet readily available in their own premises to explore the big wide web. While the process started slow, it was soon to change the creative outlet forever and all forms of media would indeed be effected...

As time passed, computers and the internet became something we used in our lives almost daily! In the last few years, all forms of media have began to experience a sloping decline, in a sense. 

YES, movies, comics and videogames are readily available at many retail stores where we can find them at our own leisure, but not in the same way we used to....

Let's start with Comics! Today, Comics are still readily available in certain stores. You won't find them among traditional magazines in your local convenience store, but rather only in shops that tailor towards the nerdy user-base. As far as the collectable comic-book market goes...it's very much declined, per se'. True, if you manage to own like the first Superman/Batman/Spiderman/Etc. issue, then yeah, you'll be in the big money. But with the inception of Digital Comics, the industry has changed completely, forever. 

Now people can purchase comics from the beginning till the present day, essentially killing off the value and validity of it's physical counterpart. 

What's changing this industry also? Indie comics - Comic's created by individuals with a story to tell. Indie comic-book creators are creating more unique and interesting titles than Marvel or DC. Thankfully, most if not all indie creators want their titles to be physical, giving a new lease of life for physical comics and digital as an afterthought. Unlike Marvel or DC, a good amount of Indie comics usually have a conclusion set up, whereas with most/all superhero comics by the "Big Two" continuing for decades with characters being killed, then brought back constantly. But in the end, an Indie comic is only as good as how much effort and money the creator(s) put into it. 

Films! Films are readily available in a variety of ways - Physically bought on store, bought online to download, streamed on a subscription service (Netflix, Now TV) or watched in the Cinema. Now when people want to watch a film, they usually turn to one solution - illegal streaming/download. In the good ol' days, when you wanted to see a new movie, you went to the cinema. When you wanted to see a movie that was already out, you either bought it or went on a quick trip to your local Video Store to borrow a movie for a day or two. 

Now, with everybody turning to online streaming of movies illegally, the business is limping along. Companies have closed, movies have bombed and Video stores have closed because of illegal streaming of movies and why? Because it's free! Because people feel entitled.

It isn't every consumer's fault though. With online streaming, companies in Hollywood may see new ideas as too much of a risk. The solution? Churn out a remake!

Remakes, remakes, remakes...If it's not a superhero movie or a comedy, it's a remake. Where are the ideas I hear you say? In Indie creators! There are generations of individuals out there who yearn to bring their ideas and stories to the screens in any way they can. The indie film fanbase is filled with devotion and commitment unlike any other and some indie films can really surprise you in ways blockbuster films haven't for a long time. Look into it, get involved. 

Videogames are a little tougher. Unlike simply putting a pen to paper or pressing record on a camera, to make any kind of progress in creating a videogame, its required that you have a good idea of what you want to create and some knowledge of coding in general. Todays games are a sad affair when you compare them to the games of yesteryear when we had variety! 

Now? If it's not Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Fifa, Far Cry or Battlefield, it usually isn't given much attention. Like comics and films, videogames have also moved to being available both physically and digitally - unlike other media, not resulting in being any cheaper. With new generations of consoles comes new updates in graphical quality...and not much else. It's become a cliché market of DLC available on the disk and sold to idiotic consumers later, micro transactions you 'should' buy to win, multiplayer-focused titles and remakes!!! (Taking a page from the film industries book?)

You know what is giving us variety? Indie games! You know what isn't simply tacking-on DLC? Indie games! You know what isn't shoving micro transactions? Indie games! 

Unlike Comics and Films, most teams/individuals in the Indie gaming scene can't bring their idea to a physical format, usually relying on something like Steam or Android's app store to make their game readily available. Indie dev's are certainly bringing the meat of "what makes a game a game" with them in their titles, some reminding you of your favourites and some reminding you why you enjoyed games in the first place. 

That's not to say blockbuster games are dead or that all are boring. It's just not a good time at the moment? I dunno. 

  

But there's something that can be learned here! The market could change, depending if the masses were able to organise and make it happen.

If an artist creates a comic, he/she can easily get it stocked in his/her local comic shop. What if you make a game and can pay to make it physical and work on a console (in that very unlikely situation)? Well to start, there should be an ability to apply and submit your game to a console manufacturer who for a fee will make it physical and with a payment plan, put your game on say 100, 500 or 1000 Xbox 360 disks with options for old consoles too, such as the Dreamcast or the Snes. Why not? right? And with that, it would be on the shelves of local game stores. It would surely benefit anyone. I also acknowledge it would need a more thorough plan than that. 

Films could also take a page from this book too. It's a lot easier for someone to bring their indie movie to dvd and yes, they can sell them on their own. But to mass-market like blockbuster movies? 

It seems almost unachievable. If we still had videostores, this could help keep them open, maybe? 

Imagine - your head down to your local Blockbuster, your having a movie night with the other half, you grab some popcorn, but now for the movie. You acknowledge there are plenty of blockbuster movies that you have and haven't seen. What's this? an Indie section? Sure, why not? You see a movie with an awesome cover, a nice title and your interest is piqued. You read the back and you like the sound of it. You go home with your companion, watch it, love it and your sold! Another Indie movie to go!

Seems possible, right? I would like to believe that!

Now comics can already be stocked in comic stores. But what if this industry took a page from the Videogame and Film market. Sure you get Comic-Con where creators can show and sell their unique idea(s) but what about a Comic-book festival? Similar to Videogame and Film Festivals. Have Comic creators submit their Comic book creation into a festival. Albeit, this would need more planning to it than I am prepared for, as Videogame and Film festivals have content you can watch. At the same time, motion comics exist and I suppose that would be a smart way to submit your comic in a festival-like manner. 

But with a festival and a prize for the best comic sounds like a good way for creators to get exposed as opposed to Cons. 

So that's it everybody, just a few ideas from myself. But in the end, I'm just a fan of many movies, comics and games and would love to see the businesses survive and get better! 

Have a good day everybody!

Still bitter about the Bat?

I love movies. A lot of us do, but I get a fair bit of enjoyment from a Superhero film. The average Superhero film just has the perfect blend for what makes an entertaining movie in my opinion.
DRAMA! ROMANCE! ACTION! THRILLS! These are the makings of quintessential Superhero spectacle.

But I'm not here to talk about any Superhero movie. Simply the Batman movies. NO!!! Not the Nolan films, the sort-of-a-quadrilogy-but-not-really-a-quadrilogy Batman set of films. Starting from Tim Burtons "BATMAN" and ending with Joel Shumacher's "Batman & Robin".

I mean was it really THAT bad?

In short, it all started with Tim Burton's successful batflick - "BATMAN" deputing in cinemas everywhere in 1989. For the first time, Gotham city as imagined in the comics had been brought to life, from the gargoyle statues, to the towering buildings reeking of classical architecture. It literally put the "Goth" in Gotham. Not to mention funny-man Michael Keaton blew everyone away for his portrayal of both Bruce Wayne and Batman. 

The movies success deemed it worthy for a sequel and just to ensure a success, they hired back Tim Burton, promising him more room for creativity. This ensured his stay with Warner Bros. A sequel happened and it was successful, but was followed by a parental backlash of complaints about the film being to dark, scary and perverted. I'm not gonna lie, as an older Batfan, I've noticed tonnes of sexual innuendos in Batman Returns. I wouldn't feel the need to complain about it though as it's not something I picked up on as kid cos well...I never knew anything about boobs, willies and all the sexual organs on a human being, or any sexual terms such as "Just the pussy I've been looking for" and "I'd like to fill her void". 

Like I said, the movie was successful regardless. This cause Burton to be replaced and in his place was Joel Shumacher. When people tend to utter that name, they usually shudder at the memories of both "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin". Why? Good Question, read on for the reasons why and what I think of these movies myself...

It's about to get real in here...

Let's start with Batman Forever. The movie like the previous two entries proved to be once again successful. Fans were left confused when Michael Keaton was replaced the increasingly popular Val Kilmer in his place, the addition of Robin and a lack of gothic darkness, instead hankering for a more silly and fun vibe which this movie strongly delivered! 

The movie had Jim Carey play as the Riddler and Tommy Lee Jones as Harvey Dent/Two-Face, replacing the one-time Harvey, Billy Dee Williams (who isn't really remembered for his Harvey Dent role anyway). The movie starts off light hearted with Alfred asking Bruce if he can convince him to take a sandwich, while Kilmer as Bruce grunts his voice, simply replying "I'll get drive-through". It's clearly a line you would hear in a Batman McDonalds advert or something. 

It's dark!...sorta

While fans didn't like it then, is it really bad now? Think about that for a moment. Is it? Is it bad? After almost 20 years, is it still bad? 

Starting from the Adam West Batman movie till Nolan's " The Dark Knight Rises" we've had a number of live-action Batman portrayals and each one brings something different. We're also about to get a new portrayal in "Batman vs Superman" featuring Ben Affleck as the titular Dark Knight. 

But that's what I love about all the Batman films! Variety! 

We can watch a nice range of Batman movies and my choice is usually dependent on my mood.

This is where I get honest though. While in my opinion, Michael Keaton is my favourite live-action portrayal of Batman, Batman Forever will always be my favourite movie of the Bat-franchise.

Why? Chris O'Donnell's somewhat mopy Robin is my favourite portrayal, the nipples on the batsuit doesn't bother me, it's a fun movie overall, it's so 90's to the core, the soundtrack is fabulous and well, Jim 'freaking' Carrey! 

It might not accurately portray Batman as he's shown in the comics but it's an enjoyable "blockbuster" movie. It has action, drama, romance and thrills with a small dose of comedic dialogue here and there. It's also the only movie where I've seen Tommy Lee Jones smile...

Cryyyyyyyy little siiiisteeeeeer!!!

You've probably seen Batman Forever at least once in your life and maybe thought "Joel Shumacher is a shit director, wtf???" 

Uhm...no. He's not a bad director. Sure, he's no James Cameron or Steven Spielberg. Heck he's not even Rob Reiner! But he is good. Two examples of which before he tackled the Bat from my memory are "Lost Boys" and "St Elmo's Fire". He has the chops to make a great movie. The problem with both Batman Forever and Batman & Robin was the large interference from the Studio execs. Does this excuse Shumacher's poor movies? Actually, it does! The guy creeps me out a little, but I wouldn't straight-up blame him for anything. In the decades of movie make, when have studio execs ever understood a licensed property? When have they ever understood what "the fans want"? Never! That there lies the problem with any licensed movie - cut out the execs and not limit creative freedom.

One thing that Shumacher CAN be blamed for - not having a backbone to tell the execs to back off! I know, I said I wouldn't straight-up blame him for anything and at the same time, I can't blame him for doing nothing. 

Imagine it yourself. Your a wee director, making movies is your thing and suddenly your asked to do Batman. Your asked to direct a movie for a financially successful franchise, what do you do? Whether it's about the movie or not, you obviously take it, right? It's work! And career changing work at that, no matter how you go about it. So when your in the middle of it, your not gonna exactly tell off studio execs and possibly ruin your chances at the "big gig". Everyone is different though, right?

The typical response from anyone who watches

Batman & Robin

So lets talk about Batman & Robin, the complete game-changer! This is the movie that burned the careers of many. Joel Shumacher was no longer a big director name, Alicia Silverstone's career plummeted, Arnold just kind of stayed the same, Chris O'Donnell retired from acting and both George Clooney and Uma Thurman distanced themselves from the movie, appearing in many other movies since. 

But almost 20 years later. Does is still suck? Again, does it? Does it really? Are you sure your not being too bitter? No I'm not being too soft on it. What is honestly not to love about this movie? 

I mean man oh man, if you thought Batman Forever was very 90's, this one amps it to 11! Bat-nipples to 11! Sillyness to 11! Comedy to 11! You get the gist. Once again the titular role is recast, now with real-life Bruce Wayne, George Clooney who plays an alright Bruce Wayne but a terrible Batman (at least he looks the part, right?) A Robin who seems to be going through a very tough puberty period of moaning about everything, but overall doing a good portrayal of Hayden Christensen (wait, lol). 

In all seriousness though I love this movie. A lot of people love to hate it, some people even hate on it to be cool (lol, cool...ice...lol) With so many Batman films today and so much variety, why are you still hating it? Honestly, why? Is hating it gonna get your cinema ticket money back? No! And I bet you've watched it at least once since your first time? So is it that bad you had to watch it again? Surely not. Stop hating it and accept it for what it is. A corny Batman movie with cheesy one-liners, lovable Arny keeping the crowd entertained as always, a great soundtrack and a very basic plot filled once again with drama, romance, action and thrills. While I feel it's not as great as Forever, it's still enjoyable for a lazy night-in with munches!

It's all fun and games really!

Listen to the Joker and ask yourself "Why so serious?" Why be so critical and not just enjoy something for what it is instead of hating it for eternity. If you don't like something, don't indulge in it. Save your hair from the stress! I feel sorry for anyone who can't enjoy any movie for silly and petty reasons.

Bye!