Opening Day

Today wasn't nearly as exciting as last year's Opening Day, what with its warm weather and drunk Phillies fans and Obama and still having Stephen Strasburg to look forward to and all. It was cold and wet and fairly miserable. I got a free Nationals cap, which can go with my ever-increasing collection of free Nationals caps that I never wear. (Although the Fourth of July one is pretty spiffy.) And predictably, the Nationals lost. It really wasn't even much of a contest.

But it was Opening Day, so it was still pretty fucking awesome. It's hard to believe it wasn't that long ago that I hated baseball. What was up with that?

Rebooting Batman

A number of interesting news bites have come out of a recent interview with Jeff Robinov, president of the Warner Bros. motion picture group, including word of a planned "Justice League" movie in 2013. Possibly paving the way for that DC superhero team-up is another off-hand comment in the same interview — one that could indicate plans to reboot the entire Batman movie franchise after Christopher Nolan's third and final film, "The Dark Knight Rises."

"We have the third Batman, but then we’ll have to reinvent Batman," Robinov told the L.A. Times. "Chris Nolan and [producing partner and wife] Emma Thomas will be producing it, so it will be a conversation with them about what the next phase is."

Could Batman be headed for yet another reboot? It certainly seems that way. (Splash Page)

This isn't surprising news, but it's still disappointing. It used to be that rebooting was the nuclear option of movie and TV franchises. An admission that things had gotten so dire, either because the story needed to be refreshed or that the series was no longer profitable, that that there was no other way to salvage it. Now it's just routine. Battlestar Galactica. James Bond. Star Trek. Spider-Man. Superman. Friday the 13th. A Nightmare on Elm Street. V. A few of these may have required reboots, but most didn't. Neither does Batman.

If movie trilogy history is a reliable indicator, The Dark Knight Rises is probably going to be bad. Maybe just lackluster bad, like The Godfather Part III, Return of the Jedi or Back to the Future Part III. Maybe epically bad, like Scream 3, Spider-Man 3, or Jurassic Park III. And even if it somehow defies the odds and ends up being good, the franchise is still faced with losing Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale, on top of no longer having Heath Ledger. So on one hand, I can see why WB might want to start from scratch.

But on the other hand, it seems like it's mainly being done for two awful reasons: First, as an ego stroke to Nolan, and second, so they can put Batman into a Justice League movie.

Batman comics have been coming out on a more or less monthly basis for decades. Have all of them been good? No. But every month, with each issue, their writers and artists take what other writers and artists have done before them--the good stuff, the bad stuff, and the really ugly stuff--and build on it. They don't have the luxury of just ignoring everything and starting over, and they certainly don't get to declare that their Batman story is the end of the franchise.

So I sort of have a problem with what Nolan and WB are apparently doing. Batman doesn't need to be "reinvented" after The Dark Knight Rises. Just continued. Nolan's films are great. But they're not so great that they need to be concluded when Nolan and Bale depart. There are other writers and directors who can build on the foundations of what he, Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer have constructed. There are other actors who can play Batman. (Some can probably even do a halfway decent Batman voice, as opposed to Bale's violent rasping.) Are we going to get a new Batman trilogy every decade, each one retelling his origin, fighting the Joker, banging Catwoman, etc. over and over? That kind of seems like the road WB is going down.

There's also the implication that Nolan's version of Batman is somehow incompatible with a Justice League film. I get that he and Bale want nothing to do with it--if I were them, I wouldn't either--but since they're leaving anyway, that shouldn't be an issue. Batman's perfectly capable of patrolling Gotham in a Dark Knight Rises sequel and helping Superman and Wonder Woman fight Amazo or Starro the Conqueror or whoever in Justice League. He does it every month in the comics, and no one's head explodes.

Finally, how the hell is a Justice League film going to come out in 2013? They're not going to have time to relaunch Batman before then, and it's going to be difficult to tie the new Green Lantern and Superman franchises into it. If it's going to be totally separate from the existing franchises, doesn't that totally defeat the purpose of even doing a Justice League film?

Whatever. All this makes my head hurts. Just bring back Super Friends.

Sucker Punched

There are three kinds of bad movies.

There are the ones that are practically willfully bad and clearly have no regard whatsoever for their audiences' intelligence. Everyone involved knows they're making a piece of shit, but they're getting paid, so who cares? These are your Batman & Robins, Jonah Hexes, Clash of the Titans, etc.

There are the ones that are bad, but not maliciously so, and through no real fault of their own in the sense that they had natural limitations--be it budget or actors or plot or whatever--and simply weren't able to overcome them. Getting upset with these movies for being bad is like blaming a toddler for not being able to dunk a basketball. A lot of horror movies and Jennifer Aniston films fall into this category. I'd even throw something like Battlefield Earth in there.

Then there are movies that you can tell started out as labors of love. That the director honestly wanted to make a great film, but somewhere along the way, it just gets away from him and the end result blows. And for some reason, these are typically the most annoyingly bad movies of all. Jersey Girl. Phantom Menace. Lady in the Water. Sucker Punch.

Sucker Punch is an unpleasant film to sit through. It's boring. It's pretentious. It's predictable. It never goes more than five minutes without attacking you with loud music in the background for extended periods of time. (To be fair, though, the soundtrack's pretty good.) To its credit, it is visually stunning. But frankly, that doesn't carry nearly as much weight as it used to. Eye candy's nice, but not $9.50-for-a-matinee nice.

In fact, it looks so good, I rewatched the trailer yesterday, and there are so many really awesome images throughout it--explosions, zeppelins, sword fights, dragons, Emily Browning's midriff--I found myself wondering, less than a day after I'd seen the film, "Geez, was it really that bad? Could I be wrong? Because this shit looks pretty awesome." Then I thought back to how I felt in the theater, being bored and irritated and wondering if this was really all there was to the film, and how aside from exactly two moments of soft laughter, the rest of the audience seemingly feeling the exact same way, and realized, no, I was right the first time, the movie really does suck.

The real problem with Sucker Punch isn't that it's an awfully made film. It's that it's so goddamn lazy, it's indistinguishable from an awfully made film. It dutifully goes from Point A to Point B to Point C to Point D to Point E, relying on one of the most formulaic plots in fiction, where the hero(ine)'s goal is to collect a series of objects for whatever reason. And then, special effects and hot girls in burlesque outfits aside, does nothing remotely interesting with said plot. Even the minor twist at the end feels predictable, probably because Scott Glenn more or less tells you early on there's going to be a twist.

(I'll give Zack Snyder credit for this: Scott Glenn was fucking awesome casting. I wish he could have been in a better movie, but it was great to see him, cheesy lines and all, and he seemed like he was having fun.)

When I was a kid, I would have loved Sucker Punch. In fact, I probably would have assigned it some sort of depth that I'm almost positive it doesn't actually have. Hell, even just a few years ago, I would have been mostly satisfied with just the effects. Now, though? Meh. Sucker Punch isn't a story. It's a lot of moving parts meant to resemble a story. And sometimes that's okay, but for some reason, here, it wasn't.

Panel of the Week

From Batman Incorporated #4:

Well, it's certainly shiny. And hey...boobs!

When one starts a blog, one obviously wants to dive right in and discuss matters of grave national importance. As such, one of my first blog posts, written almost exactly five years ago, concerned rumors about Lindsay Lohan wanting to play Wonder Woman in what was, at the time, going to be a film with Joss Whedon writing and directing.

Currently, of course, it's doubtful that Lindsay Lohan could even get a job as an extra in a movie. But in 2006, the idea sounded horribly plausible in a studio-executives-are-fucking-idiots kind of way.

Lohan's fortunes aren't the only thing that's changed since then. Whedon switched comic book universes and is directing The Avengers. Wonder Woman got pants. And the Wonder Woman movie became the Wonder Woman TV show with Adrianne Palicki in the lead. I thought it was pretty lousy casting at first, knowing her just from Friday Night Lights. But now having seen her in the costume (and new hair color), I have to admit, she definitely pulls off the look.

And let's talk about the costume.

When I heard about the plot of the new TV show--business executive by day, crime fighter by night, or whatever--I assumed there wouldn't even be a costume. Or if there was one, it'd be like something from the X-Men films: Black leather, bland, and having nothing to do with the costume that--regardless of how you may feel about the merits (or lack thereof) of a woman fighting crime in a swimsuit and high-heel boots--is one of the most iconic in all of comics.

So on one hand, from the comic book fan perspective, this is a nice surprise in that it shows respect for the source material. And the bustier certainly doesn't shy away from emphasizing Palicki 's greatest...er...heroic assets.

But on the other hand, let's be honest...it looks fucking ridiculous.

What the hell is David E. Kelley thinking? This is a million times worse than the outfit that Lynda Carter wore in the old TV show. And that only worked because the show was intentionally campy. The disconnect between this costume and what the TV show seems to be shooting for, couldn't be bigger.

Not that I've read a ton of Wonder Woman comics over the years, but when it comes to the ones I have read, there have been only two writers who I thought ever really made the character interesting. George Perez, who went heavy on the Greek mythology aspects, and Greg Rucka, who turned the book into a political drama. (Picture The West Wing, if President Bartlet was a chick with super powers.) Kelley's concept for the show doesn't sound anywhere near as good, so the margin for error when it comes to stuff like getting the costume right is a lot smaller.

Best case scenario: The show's a goofy guilty pleasure, kind of a cross between Ally McBeal and Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Worst case scenario: It's exactly what you think of when you look at that costume: One of those awful mid-'90s syndicated action shows, only with a larger budget. My money's on the latter.

Panel of the Week

From Brightest Day #22:

Bracketology for fun and profit

During the average college basketball regular season, I watch approximately 0.0 hours of college basketball. I really only perk up every few years when my alma mater somehow sneaks into tournament contention. Or this past season, during the Duke/Maryland game, but that was mainly just to see whether or not there'd be riots again. I mean, I barely care about pro basketball. I don't have time for a bunch of kids who aren't even at that level.

But I do love the NCAA Tournament. Partly because of the chaotic flurry of so many games in such a short period, partly because of the possibility--likelihood, even--of incredible, epic upsets, and mostly because it's the one time a year where office gambling is...if not sanctioned, at least permissible in the sense that management's willing to look the other way rather than destroy office morale.

(One of the years I was running the office pool, one of my co-workers who was clueless about how NCAA pools work, asked me, right in front of my boss, whether or not as the organizer, I was taking anything off the top. Since that's the difference between sort of illegal gambling and extremely illegal gambling, I was forced to fall all over myself to assure the boss that I wasn't running a sportsbook out of the office.)

And thank God for the Internet, because one is no longer limited to just the office pool or a contest run through the local paper. There are dozens of bracket contests to be found. Once, they gave out pretty good prizes, too. Lots of money. Cool trips. Nice toys. Ten years ago, some company I can't remember offered a billion dollars for a perfect bracket. Since the odds of accomplishing this are virtually impossible, they obviously never had to pay it off and it was offered just for publicity. But it's the thought that counts.

Now, though? Bad economic times in general and bad economic times for media outlets in particular, have led to some really dubious prizes. Sure, ESPN is awarding $10,000 for the person with the best bracket. But others aren't being nearly as generous. It might be a bit unfair to compare today's offerings with the ones from when the economy was in better shape, but it's still a letdown.

Regardless, over the next couple of days, I'll be entering all of them. Because what else is there to do in the office this week?

The Washington Post: Vouchers for The Capitol Deal. Which seems to be some kind of Groupon rip-off, but more importantly, is a subsidiary of...The Washington Post! Cheap. This is the same newspaper that when I was a kid, used to give away $100 a week for the reader who picked the most NFL games correctly. I know those days are long gone for the Post, but surely, they could spring for a better prize.

NBC: "Big Money Prizes"? That's more like it! How much we talking, NBC? $2,000? Well, that's...big-ish, I guess. I mean, compared to $0. Considering that Comcast is raising cable rates again, you'd think they could do a little better.

CBS: A trip to the 2012 Final Four. That's actually a pretty great prize. The benefit of being the network airing the games, I guess. I'm also really glad that even though the NCAA is doing its best to convince us that the tournament starts tomorrow, CBS isn't buckling under and is still using Thursday as the deadline to get brackets in. I suspect the NCAA is already working on a way to fix this next year.

Chicago Sun Times: $1,000,000? Right on!

Okay, yes, you have to get a perfect bracket to win that. But still! A million bucks! But what if you get just one game wrong? What do you win then? $10,000? Man, that's an awfully big drop-off, given that it's nearly as impossible to get an almost-perfect bracket. What if you miss three games? I mean, again, virtually impossible, right? Only $1,000? Jesus.

Okay, what do you win if you just get the most right of all the entrants? That's got to be worth at least $500, right? No? You just get an iPod Touch? Oh.

The New York Times: Winner gets an iPad. Good prize, but I'm a bit alarmed that they don't specify an iPad 2. The most famous newspaper in the world wouldn't really cheap out on us by giving away an obsolete model, would they?

Fox Sports: It pains me to say this, but after ESPN's guaranteed $10,000 prize, Fox has the best contest around. Fox too, is doing the stupid $1,000,000 for a perfect bracket nonsense, but it's also giving away a 60" TV, trips to Vegas, and varying amounts of Hooters wings.

If Fox put as much effort into its news operation as its bracket contest, the world would be a much better place.

But is it art?

I like going to the Georgetown Flea Market because it's a good place to find nice artwork for surprisingly affordable prices.

It's also a place where you can find some truly horrific artwork. (Prices vary.)

I mean, it's not bad in a technical sense. It's competently done and all. But why is he wearing a man-thong?

I'd actually appreciate it more if the dude in the painting was completely naked. I obviously wouldn't want it hanging on my wall, but at least I'd recognize the intrinsic artistic properties of a nude figure painting.

But this is even more revolting than showing the guy's junk. If you're the artist and you're painting a dude in a pose that's...well, I'm not really sure how to describe that pose. But why suddenly get shy when it comes to the actual goods?

Surely the good people of Georgetown deserve full frontal nudity in their artwork.

Panel of the Week

From Titans #33:

Panel of the Week

From Marvel Zombies Supreme #1:

Off the rails

I''ve noticed a recent uptick in a Metro behavior that I've long found annoying, but have now really grown to really hate. Which is, during rush hour, someone asking me to let them out of their seat before the train has come to a complete stop, just so they can get up and be closer to the doors when they open. This comes in two forms: 1) The person in the inside seat asking the person on the aisle seat to stand and move aside so they can get out, and 2) The person in the aisle seat asking the person standing right beside them to let go of the handrail and move so they can stand up.

Let's talk about the second one first. If you're standing in the aisle on the Metro, there are no poles close by and you often have only two options to keep yourself steady and upright, neither one great. You can either hold onto one of the handrails that run along the top of the train or you can hold onto one of the handrails that are on the back of each Metro seat. The former is hella uncomfortable, and the latter doesn't really provide much in the way of balance. But they're better than nothing, which is what you have if you have to let go of them in order to allow someone out of his or her seat.

A couple of months ago, the train I was on was incredibly jerky. I was standing up and, my feet planted, hanging onto one of the seat handrails for dear life. About a minute before we reached the station, the guy in the seat next to me tapped me on the arm and said, "Excuse me," and started to stand up. Just then, we hit whatever the subway track equivalent of a big wave is, and even with my death grip on the handrail, I was thrown forward a couple of steps. If I'd let go a second earlier, I would have gone flying into the old woman standing in front of me.

Being asked to move by the person sitting next to you is an even bigger pain in the ass. You have to get out of your seat while the train is still moving, and if it's crowded, also ask anyone standing nearby to make room as well. Same situation: As the train was pulling into the station, the woman sitting next to me said, "I'm getting off at the next stop," and stood up expectantly. If I'd paused a second to think about it, I would have told her politely that I'd get up when the train had stopped. Unfortunately, I complied. This time, I didn't almost go shooting across the train, but it wasn't exactly a smooth procedure, either.

If these two had been isolated incidents, I might not be making such a big deal out of it. But I'd say that as of late, it either happens to me or I see it happen to someone else at least once or twice a week. Going forward, I've decided not to play along. I'm just going to acknowledge the request but not actually move until the train stops. Or if that's too subtle, I'll tell the person, "Sure, but I'm going to wait until the train stops." Largely because it's a pain in the ass, but more importantly, it's a bullshit thing for someone to ask in the first place.

I mean, do people think that if they're not near the door the moment it opens, they might not make it off? In all my years of riding the Metro, I've seen exactly one person be trapped on a train because he couldn't get off before the operator closed the doors. Hell, I once saw a woman who had dozed off and didn't wake up until the "Step back, doors closing" message played, and still had enough time to realize she was at her stop, leap up, dash to the doors, and jump off before they closed. I'm somewhat more sympathetic to the argument that people might want to get off quickly so they can catch another train, but not so sympathetic that I'm going to do anything about it. It's rush hour. It's not like there isn't going to be another train in three minutes.

The only way this advance notification is even sort of excusable is if you're simply giving the person next to you a heads up that you're getting off at the next stop, without the expectation that they're immediately going to move for you. But unless they have a kid or a large bag in their lap that would make standing up more complicated than usual, it seems unnecessary. I think Metro riders are pretty well trained to recognize the body language of the person next to us when he or she is preparing to leave the train, and will quickly move aside when it's appropriate.

I get being in a hurry. But if it's really that important, stand up at the stop before yours so you're ready to disembark. Or hey, just don't sit down in the first place. Certainly not in a window seat. You can have the comfort of sitting down during your rush hour commute or you can be the first one off the train. But when you try and have both, you're being an asshole.