Superhero Movies: The Age of Marvel

I'm going to start this post saying I have no problems with superhero movies. I think they are fun popcorn-munching summer entertainment that totally has a place in the world, BUT that place needs to be scaled down a lot. So while I don't have a problem with the genre (yes, it is definitely it's own subgenre), I have a problem with how superhero movies are being approached these days.

I'm probably wrong on this point, but I place the "revival" of the superhero movie at the release of Iron Man in 2008. Watching the trailers for Iron Man, I thought it looked insanely stupid, but it wasn't. I am not a comic book guy, but I do like good movies, and Iron Man was a really good movie. Unfortunately Iron Man continued moving movies in two directions: more superhero fair and the FIRST summer movie will ALWAYS be a superhero flick.

A couple years ago I had a bet with my dad about whether Thor or Captain America would make more money since they both came out the same summer. BUT Thor came out in May and Captain America in July. It was really close, but Thor made more money that summer AND got better word of mouth than Captain America and I credit that to it's May release. Now the majority opinion is the Captain America is a better movie than Thor, but that summer people said otherwise. This leads me to the point that superhero flicks are more about marketing to predict success than anything else. Last summer Guardians of the Galaxy and Amazing Spider-Man 2 made roughly the same amount of box office money, yet one was praised the world over and the other "boasts" a truly pathetic 53% on Rotten Tomatoes a full 20% drop from Amazing Spider-Man. This saddens me because it means I had to talk about a really good movie and a really terrible movie in the same breath. I think my biggest problem with the whole system is that the release date does more for your movie than anything else. By giving in and moving Batman vs Superman to March and not May, DC will lose money. I don't know if it will be a ton of money, but they will suffer a hit. The better movies should be ACKNOWLEDGED as the better movies rather than the American public getting starry eyed and saying Iron Man 3 and Thor were good because they were released in early May.

That was long winded. My second point regards the sheer MASS of superhero movies. It's now become pretty standard for three superhero flicks a summer, and this year they're ALL MARVEL!!! Consider that for a moment. This means that NEXT year when DC shows up as more of a factor we will have 4 or 5 or more superhero movies over a 6 month period. I'm as excited about Batman vs Superman, Captain America 3, and Suicide Squad as much as the next guy, but pump the breaks. With increased popularity in shows like Arrow and Daredevil, viewers no longer have to get their superhero fix only a couple times a year. If these movies stay good (and the Avengers line has a good chance of that), people wont be concerned, BUT if Batman vs Superman is BAD, DC will have major trouble on their hands.  People went to see Guardians because it was Marvel and we all trust Marvel, but DC doesn't have that luxury with their movies yet. Trust is earned and aside from Nolan's Batman, they haven't earned it. But I've been predicting this fall for a while now and so far it hasn't happened.

I think people forget that great movies need a decent story with manageable characters. We need to like the heroes, hate the villains, and care enough about what's going on to sit there and watch it. Avengers was good because we knew Marvel, knew the characters and LOVED Loki as a villain. I think the number one predictor of a superhero movie being good is the villain, but more on that next time.

So all this to say, I do plan to see Avengers and MAYBE even Ant-Man/Fantastic Four, but it takes more than cool effects to make a good movie (cough Transformers 2-4 cough). Avengers had a good story and that is central to success, not in a monetary way but in a quality way. So yes, I'll go see and talk about Age of Ultron, but I want people to remember that there are other movies coming out to get excited about like:
-Tomorrowland
-Inside Out
-Minions
-Paper Towns

So watch and talk about superhero flicks, but don't forget family fare in the summer. Because I think Inside Out will be the best Disney/Pixar movie since Up.

Playoffs?! You Wanna Talk About Playoffs?!

I apologize for the really long break between posts, but life has gotten in the way of most reviewing, ranking and even ranting. Things really should be settling down now, though. Look for a post (or two or three) on superhero movies in the next couple weeks. But today I'm going to veer from the very loosely defined norm of this blog to talk about the NBA and NHL playoffs. This will be something of a rant, but also just thoughts in general.

I don't like NBA basketball. I don't think it provides very good story lines and aside from a Blazers game here and there, I avoid it all year long. I really like NHL hockey. I watch it almost every chance I get year round, so I'll acknowledge that I'm biased in this discussion. Bias aside, it's time to evaluate the NBA playoffs and make them better.

My big problem is length. Like the NHL playoffs both require 4 series of 7 games (max) to reach a champion, and I'm totally fine with this. What I'm not fine with is how LONG it takes to get moving on that goal. As it stands right now the NBA playoffs are on Day 9 and the NHL playoffs on Day 12. It stands to reason then that the NHL should have more games played to this point.

Through Day 12 the NHL has played 44 games of hockey for an average of 3.67 games per day.
Through Day 9 the NBA has played 30 games of basketball for an average of 3.3 games per day.

Those numbers can be adjusted slightly to factor in teams closing out series early than 6 or 7 games, but the point is still valid. By running first round NBA games at 3 a night and first round NHL games at 4 a night, the difference in time becomes drastic. It also becomes much harder to follow teams when they don't fall on a simple every other day rotation. This is the first round. Everyone is still pretty close to home sometimes only across the state. We DON'T need to take extra days off for travel or whatever.

The reason for doing this falls squarely (in my perception) on ESPN. ESPN has a high level of the NBA playoff coverage, which is fine, but ESPN only really likes to show basketball on weekends and Wednesdays. So what you get as a result of this is 4 games on Saturday and on Sunday but then 2!!! the next Monday. This is not a joke: on the 3RD day of NBA playoff basketball there were only two games. No one traveled to another city. No one was tired from multiple games in a short period of time, they just didn't want basketball on Monday so they showed only 2 games.

This is absurd to me and a big reason why I can't stand the NBA playoffs. At this point teams have played 3 or 4 games and 2 series' are already done! with another 3 likely to finish as sweeps! If I'm being honest, only 2 series' have been remotely competitive, because the better teams are better for a reason. With the NBA everyone (except hardcore die hard fans) really just wants to see the four best teams smashing each other in the conference finals and the finals. It is for the reason more than any other that ESPN, TNT, and the NBA need to speed up the first round! Most fans REALLY want to get on to the third round, so you should want to get us there faster. Dragging out the first round isn't helping anyone and it's hurting everyone. I take that back. It's helping smart sports fans watch hockey instead until the NBA playoffs get interesting.


I learned to stop making guesses at what the next posts will be about, but expect a ranking of superhero movies/shows, a post on where superhero movies need to go in the future, another generic rant on why I get more excited about other things and maybe even a repost of a review I wrote on Amazing Spiderman 2 last year (which I hated BTW). Because it's summer and in Hollywood that's now (sadly) synonymous with superhero movies.

A Fan Theory

I really apologize for the delay between posts. Life has been busy in terms of school. I promise you that I have a few thoughts brewing for posts in the near future, but they aren't ready quite yet. So instead today I'll share a fan theory I came up with a while back relating to How I Met Your Mother and Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

Barney Stinson and Dr. Horrible are the same person. It is a well-established fact that Barney has a blog on HIMYM, but that blog is shrouded in mystery and only alluded to occasion. This blog is Dr. Horrible’s same blog. You see Barney/Dr. Horrible only had one love in the world: Penny. But because of Captain Hammer, he never got to share his true feelings. He hides and compensates for this loss by putting on the persona of a playboy, but he is only masking his insecurities.

Bonus: One time the blog is mentioned is in the episode “Rebound Bro”. This aired before Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. The blog is then mentioned twice in close succession two seasons later one time making repeated reference that the blog is “getting better”. The only logical conclusion is that after the events of DHSAB, Barney/ Dr. Horrible can now produce a higher quality blog based on his connection to the Evil League of Evil as well as his growing evilness. 

Conclusion: Barney loved Penny deeply and was devastated that they couldn’t be together so he masked this devastation with tons of meaningless sex, which increased on HIMYM shortly after DHSLB aired. Barney is Dr. Horrible.

I say this mostly for entertainment purposes, but I really do believe this to be a very valid fan theory. I love fan theories and will continue to share them and evaluate them from time to time. For now that's all I've got, but expect a post on superhero movies in the next week.

Game of Networks

I have already sung the praises of Netflix, but today I'm going to talk about various networks, including Netflix, and how they are in a unique position in the world of TV. Let me preface this by saying that I think 2015-2017 will be one of the most important stretches of TV history. The simple fact of it is no one watches broadcast TV anymore, so everyone is (rightly) going online. But this creates new challenges and dynamics that are really intriguing to me.

I see a few major players in the TV Game of Networks, but before I can identify them, I must categorize all TV networks into 4 main groups. Firstly is network TV. This group contains ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and the upstart the CW. Second we have what I term "basic cable networks" that include everything from USA to BBC. Third we have the "Premium" channels of HBO, Showtime, Starz and (sort of) Encore and Cinemax (I say sort of because Encore and Cinemax have almost by their own decision removed themselves from the fight). Finally we have the "Internet Players" which at the moment are primarily Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime.

Having listed all that out in a confusing fashion, I will now identify the main players, or "champions" so to speak of each category. For Network TV, I determine FOX and CW to be major voices. In the Basic Cable realm I hold FX, AMC and to a lesser extent BBC as major factors. Premium is a two horse race between HBO and Showtime (Starz is trying valiantly to become relevant but so far they just aren't). The Internet champions are Hulu and Netflix, though I do see more promise with Amazon Prime's original programing than I see with Hulu's. This leaves us with the following players: FOX, CW, FX, AMC, BBC, HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Hulu. I see these nine players as the major competitors in the Game of Networks.

The next section of this post will be spent identifying the leader in each subcategory before forcing them to face off against each other even further. First is the class of FOX and CW, which I will admit, is a tough race to call. The CW carries a great deal of promise and has established winning dramas in the very specific genres of "supernatural show" and "superhero show".  My intent there was not to come off negatively toward the CW. I have watched both Arrow and Supernatural and they are really good shows, but the CW has yet to prove to me that they are a well-rounded network capable of comedy. FOX is just the opposite where the drama landscape is sparse at best. I watch almost all of the comedy shows on FOX and none of the dramas, but from what I've heard Empire is really good as well as Fringe and House M.D. from yesteryear. Because of its track record I give the win to FOX as they are backed by history. They are the only comedic light I see for network TV.

We now move on to Basic Cable. As much as I love Sherlock and Doctor Who (and Orphan Black is probably really good too), BBC can't compete with FX and AMC. Sherlock did win some nice Emmy's last year, but the overall presence of the network resides almost exclusively in fandoms that make their voice heard when new episodes come out. These shows aren't winning Best Drama Emmys any time soon. That leaves AMC and FX. A year ago I would have given this win to AMC, but a lot happens in a year. AMC has without a doubt some of the best shows on TV, but with Breaking Bad finished, Mad Men about to end and Walking Dead losing some of its quality (or so I've heard), the network is in a tough place. Better Call Saul and Turn offer hope for the future, but AMC has slipped. FX is moving in the opposite direction and, like FOX, offers excellent comedy as well as drama. Fargo was the best new show of 2014 (there, I said it) and Archer and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia remain top comedies. This win goes to FX.

In the Premium fight, the obvious winner in HBO. Showtime has had some sort of good shows here and there, but I usually watch a few episodes of those shows and stop. They just don't deliver the high quality writing and characters to compete with HBO. Even Dexter, I show I really expected to like, let me down after a few episodes. I can see Showtime moving to a place of being more relevant, but right now, they just don't have the shows to take the crown from HBO. To HBO's credit, it is not only that Showtime is underwhelming, but HBO is overwhelming. True Detective, Silicon Valley and Last Week Tonight cover three distinct genres, yet all are excellent TV.

In the Internet battle, Netflix is king. I haven't had a chance to see Transparent or other Amazon shows which might be good, but Netflix is king. Refer to my previous post on Netflix if you need further convincing.

And the final conclusion. I don't know who will win the ultimate Game of Networks, but I think HBO and Netflix have the best chance. Netflix is what everyone knows and loves, but HBO quality is better. I love House of Cards, but it falls short of the quality of similar HBO shows such as The Newsroom. Either way, much like the current landscape of Game of Thrones entering season 5, there are only a few real players left in the game. We are in for a really interesting year as HBO tries to make their voice heard on the internet, but it is yet to be known if people will pay twice as much as Netflix for fewer options. However, true TV fans will and word of mouth will make HBO king again, but only if they keep it up.

As a final note FX and HBO are really relying on Fargo and True Detective to be good in their sophomore seasons. I'll write about this more in the future, but more so than Netflix, their future's are uncertain at the moment in terms of longevity. I have no doubts they will continue on as major players in the TV business, but we all saw how quickly AMC faltered, so you never know...

It Wasn't Just Another Day (Now I'm Better than Before)

Tomorrow marks the 2 year anniversary of one of the few dates momentous enough that I make a specific point to celebrate it annually. That day is April 4th, the first time I listened through the musical Next to Normal. This may sound like a rather trivial occurrence to many of you, but I assure you, it totally changed my life. In this post I'm going to talk about three musicals which happen to be my favorites as well as the first three I really discovered. These shows are RENT, Next to Normal and Book of Mormon. By finding these shows first I set the bar very high, but I have since found many other musicals that I love very dearly as well (see recent post on Sondheim).

I will start this post with Book of Mormon. Book of Mormon comes from Matt Stone, Trey Parker and Robert Lopez. You may know the Parker and Stone as the creators of South Park, but it's unlikely you know Lopez. As a point of reference, he also did the music for Frozen, Avenue Q and is the youngest person ever to get the EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony) awards. Between his skill for hilarious lyrics and Parker and Stone's knack for genius satire, this play hits on all cylinders. In the past two years I've listened to upwards of 20 musicals of all shapes and sizes, but Book of Mormon remains the absolute funniest by a large margin. This is satire at many levels mocking not only Mormonism, but deficiencies of religion and of privileged America as well.  Yet despite its biting tone, this play also offers one of the strongest notes of redemption and closure I've found to date. I'm serious when I say your will laugh your head off and be a better person for knowing this show.

Next up is RENT. It pleases me that a lot of people know RENT exists, but they don't know much more about it than the idea that "it's that AIDS musical". While it is true that some of the musical is about AIDS, that's not really the drive of this play. Above all else this is a play about human experience over the course of a year, a year filled with great highs and great lows. RENT is as much a story of death and love as it is about anything related to AIDS. The central message of RENT is summed up nicely in one of the songs as "I think they meant it when they said you can't buy love, now I know you can rent it...". RENT understands the remarkable human idea that love is really hard, and that like all other things in life, it will only be here for a short season. Love is not something you can own but only something you can have and borrow for a time. People die, move away, contract disease, break up, but love is achieving love for even a short time is worth all the pain. The message of RENT remains one of the absolute best I have ever heard from anything in my whole life.

Finally we arrive at Next to Normal, the inspiration for this post. Next to Normal changed my life because of not only its exceptional quality, but also how it made me rethink everything I knew about musicals. I discovered NtN a few days before RENT, so when I found this one I was still laboring under the delusion that musicals were like all like "Singing in the Rain" and such. Don't get me wrong, I love singing in the rain, but I had never considered that musicals could be used to talk about "real" things. Next to Normal is as real as it gets. It's a play about a woman struggling with bi-polar disorder brought on by the death of her son 16 years prior. It's a story of family disfunction, attempted suicide, divorce, drug use and just the pain of love, life and loss. RENT shows a tight knit group of friends struggling with the ins and outs of life, but Next to Normal reflects a dysfunctional family in really dire circumstances that is just trying to make "Just Another Day". Despite all the pain and turmoil, it ends with a glimmer of hope that a normal life is too far from reality, but that "something next to normal" is a real possibility. It's not really a happy story, but I believe it will change your life for the better to contemplate human experience in this context.

Thank you all for bearing with me through a few slower weeks of fewer posts. Life is been more "human" than I bargained for lately. Next time I plan to talk about how you should spend Xfinity's upcoming Watchathon Week, and I'll also probably talk about Binge watching, because there's an art to it.