5 Most Shaken, Not Stirred, Bond Movies!

James Bond has been around more than 50 years, and as yet, shows no signs of quitting, which I think is great. Its past has, however, been somewhat checkered over the years. For all of the entries that are legitimately good, there are at least two others that might make a person cringe upon watching. I tend to be pretty lenient when it comes to Bond films, and enjoy watching most of them fairly often, perhaps even more frequently than I watch Star Trek, but that will be our little secret. I figured since it’s been a little while since I did a list, that I’d go ahead and kick off the summer with one, and list off what I believe to be the sterling entries in the Bond franchise.This was a pretty arduous undertaking as there are, to date, 24 films in the Bond franchise, just counting the official entries. Hence, in order to whittle things down a bit, I came up with some specific criteria that I looked for that made these particular choices stand out above the rest. Those criteria included minimized use of cheese, having a good villain that has a somewhat believable plan and isn’t a Mary Sue, use of a legitimate theme in the film, and attempts at giving Bond more depth as a character. I also made a genuine attempt to cover the majority of the Bond eras as I feel that each portrayal by each different actor lends at least a little something to the richness of the universe. Will your list differ? Most definitely! Will you agree? I hope not! But, to minimize confusion somewhat, I recommend that you take a look at my film identity article so that at least we can be close to the same page when it comes to criteria.With all that in mind, let’s take a look at my top 5 Bond films! In no particular order, by the way....

#5: From Russia With Love:

I feel like this film would be at home on any “Best of Bond” list. I say this because I really feel like this is the film where Bond really hit its stride as a franchise. Not to knock Dr. No, which is a great film in its own right, but the elements that we typically associate with Bond films really started to come together in this entry. There’s a hauntingly beautiful theme song in the form of the eponymous track sung by Matt Monro. In fact, the track lends itself to the rest of the score, which only heightens the experience, and set a definite trend for Bond films incorporating their opening credits song into the score. The pre-credits sequence was really well used in this film on account of its bait-and-switch tactics. Portraying a SPECTRE agent hunting down and killing a Bond lookalike was a nice touch, although once you know, if you go back and look at the makeup used on Connery for the sequence, they did try to subtly make him look like he was wearing a mask the entire time. That’s a nice touch. I also applaud the decision to show Morzeny playing chess at the beginning as he takes a potential loss and turns it into a victory. This sets the tone for him as a brilliant tactician, and they didn’t have to spell it out verbally, but it also establishes the metaphorical chess match that SPECTRE and Bond were about to undertake. This film also uses the “West vs. Soviet” scheme that would later get played out again in so many other films. Was this original even for the time? Maybe not, but it set the stage for a tried and true Bond formula. Interestingly, this film is definitely paced more like a suspense movie than an action film. In a lot of the later Bond films, the tendency toward action became more of a driving force, but in this film, and in the bulk of my subsequent entries, time is taken for the viewer to watch the scheme unfold alongside Bond. Now it wouldn’t be Critical Mass unless I found some fault with the film and in this case, I’m going with the score. There are definitely original cues that were written for the film, but it seems like a lot of cues were reused from Dr. No, perhaps as a cost cutting measure. At any rate, at times, the score seems extremely disproportionate to the action that’s being portrayed. Nonetheless, this is a great entry in the franchise and a fantastic place to start if you’re unfamiliar with Bond.

#4: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service:

I realize that this might be a fairly controversial entry for some. I just want to preface all the rage hate with this: Sean Connery himself said that this was the type of film he wanted to make for the Bond franchise, and it’s the most faithful adaptation of a Bond novel to film ever done to date. Now, what’s so special about this film? It sticks with the tongue and cheek that had begun to take hold in the franchise from previous films, but does it in a George Lazenby way instead of a Sean Connery way. That’s important to note as it would have been really easy for the writers, the staff, and Lazenby to just copy what Connery had done beat for beat. This film started to incorporate elements that would eventually become standard fare in Bond films; things like slow motion, and use of synthesizers in the score. Blofeld’s diabolical plan is more complex in this film, but still believable. Using biological weapons to decimate the world food supply is more plausible today than it was in the 60s. Now let’s really look at the elephant in the room for a moment. This is George Lazenby’s only Bond movie. Some attribute that to poor performance from Lazenby himself. Others claim is was bad box office sales. The real reason can’t be attributed to any one thing, but yes, it did perform slightly less well than previous films, failing to break $100M by a mere $13M. That mostly boils down to bad marketing. The other reason Lazenby never came back was simply because his lifestyle while he was playing Bond became very self-destructive. He was contracted for seven years as Bond and chose not to return. All that said, he killed it as Bond. He brought a sensitivity to the role that Connery just couldn’t match. There was motivation behind his love interest beyond sex. It was money to start with, but the chemistry between the two leads is such that when Bond legitimately starts falling in love, it feels organic. And he kills the final scene! Sitting in his Aston Martin on his wedding day, lamenting the murder of his new bride that just took place, the emotional impact is huge and I’m not sure that Connery could have pulled it off. There are a few flaws, for instance, some of the edits are choppy jump edits that are really noticeable, but in all, it’s a well made film.

#3: License to Kill:

Okay, so if the last entry was fairly controversial, then some folks may want to crucify me after this one. To be fair, I really grappled with this one. I looked at several aggregate websites while compiling this list and there are definitely other, higher rated films in the franchise. But, I really wanted to cover as many Bonds as I could, and my runner up, The Spy Who Loved Me is basically one of those many rehashes of the plot of Russia so I’m sticking to my guns. Go blow up the comments section. If this was such a struggle, then why did I go with it? Well, primarily, and the biggest reason is that it gave us a short lived glimpse of what Bond could be. It took a very realistic (for Bond), and a more gritty approach to the character. It’s an approach that we wouldn’t see again until Daniel Craig took the reigns. Say what you will about Craig’s Bond, but it certainly fits the two previous descriptions. Another strength of the film is that it didn’t completely drop the Roger Moore cheesiness altogether. I know I said that minimal use of cheese was a criteria, and that aspect was dialed way back for this movie, but it’s still there. That has a lot to do with how Timothy Dalton came to play Bond in the first place. Moore was slated to do The Living Daylights, but felt he had gotten too old. The script was done, but no Bond. So Dalton was tapped, again (he had been approached as far back as 1969 to play Bond), and took the role with the script as is. Hence, Daylights is a Roger Moore Bond film with Tim Dalton in the lead. But, License was all Dalton and it shows a great deal of wisdom on his part to leave the levity intact even though he clearly wanted to take a much different approach to the character. Now, the flaws are pretty glaring in this one. For example, some of the performances for the supporting cast can be pretty cheesy at times. Also, this film took the list of standard 80s action movie tropes and just went straight down the list. It was pretty much a pro-war-on-drugs PSA, but from those flaws come a number of strengths. This movie was released during the winding down of the cold war. Russia, for all intents and purposes, was no longer a threat, to say anything about still being an enemy. The decision to explore the war on drugs was socially relevant at the time. That decision also make the main protagonist, Sanchez, a slightly better villain. His huge scheme is simply to flood the world markets with cocaine. Pretty straight forward if you ask me. I also really appreciate that at some point, Bond drops a tube of C4 and no one makes a big deal about it. There’s no panic, and there shouldn’t be. Go research that yourself, but that’s a huge pet peeve of mine.

#2: GoldenEye:

This film came about at a really interesting time for film. Computer graphics were starting to become a more feasible tool for filmmakers, the Soviet Union had actually collapsed, and the Internet was starting catch on as a thing. Appropriately, this film asks the thematic question, “Does the world still need James Bond?” It’s a theme that unfortunately would be rehashed again, badly, in Skyfall, but I get ahead of myself. Beyond the relevance of Bond, this film banks heavily on the themes of betrayal and deceit, and I give it kudos for even using a theme at all beyond vengeance. The film manages to take some potential weaknesses and turn them into strengths. Remember what I said about CGI? Well, the film really makes decent use, for the time, of this tool in order to deliver bigger stunts. For better or worse, this would become a hallmark of Pierce Brosnan Bond movies. It also takes advantage of the burgeoning Internet and uses that as a primary tool for the villain and his cronies to do their thing. You could say it was one of the first uses of legitimate cyber terrorism as a plot device. The tone does manage to remain somewhat dark in this film, most likely because those involved didn’t want to totally upend the feel of the franchise coming off of the previous film. I really appreciated that the main villain, Trevelyan, had believable motives. His axe was perhaps a little dated, but revenge on behalf of one’s parents is usually a passable motive for villainous activities. I also appreciate that in keeping with the primary theme of obsolescence, the movie took a lot of opportunities to point out Bond’s archaic methods and the extent of his inadequacies. It really highlighted the need for Bond to adapt to a drastically changing world of espionage. There were a few flaws that need pointing out, but they are few. The biggest flaw I noticed is that certain performances were just a little too over-the-top, namely Xenia Onatopp. I felt like Famke Janssen took the whole sadist shtick just a little too far and it made her scenes uneven to the tone of the rest of the film. On the flip side of that coin, however, Dame Judi Dench really nailed her role as M. She brought a ferocity and command of respect that was unheard of at the time and I really enjoyed her performance. Say what you will about Brosnan’s subsequent outings in the franchise, this movie really revitalized the property on the whole and is a pivotal reason that we’re still getting Bond movies today.

#1: Casino Royale:

Was there really any question that this movie would end up on this list? As with Russia it’s right at home here. In fact, according to most aggregate sites, it’s the highest rated Bond film of all time, and it really deserves the honor. This film was yet another attempt to reboot the James Bond franchise. After three dismally over-the-top Brosnan films, the world had seen enough, and it was time for James Bond to pursue another track. The decision to take Bond back to his roots was a brilliant one. To say that I love this movie would just be a colossal understatement, but I’ll try not to geek out too much. There were a lot of interesting ideas that made it into this film and really helped to set the tone for new Bond. For example, the use of black and white at the beginning of the film really lends great contrast that helps to establish that the old was being made new again. And during that sequence, the flashback scenes to Bond’s first kill are excessively grainy. It’s a small touch, but it really helps to set those sequences apart from the main sequence and pushes the grit of the situation that much further offering more impact. For that matter, even the opening credits try to convey that the viewer is getting something new and special from this film. They’re simple and they allude to the main premise of the film for those who have read the novel, or at least know the story, not to mention, they tie into the overall story quite nicely. Overall, the story is a fine blend of action, suspense, intrigue, romance, and humor. True, it was kind of light on the humor, but the producers were trying to set Bond up in a more real world sandbox, for better or worse. I can appreciate that there were undertones of a larger machine at work in the background of this film. It has the effect of giving the viewer just enough to satiate their curiosities about the situation at hand, but it teases just enough that we all know that Bond is going to have to come back in another film in order to figure out the bigger conspiracy, and it does so beautifully. Along that line, it’s great to see a villain that’s down-to-earth and who makes mistakes along the way. I also love that there were so many locales used in this film, and they were gorgeous! Every establishing shot used is a breathtaking vista that opens up Bond’s world and helps the viewer feel like they’re right there. The pacing hearkens back to some of these older films. It doesn’t play like an action film so much as it does a spy movie. Once again, the story takes its time in developing organically and taking the viewer on a trip, giving us an experience as it were, as opposed to simply trying to download the information into our brains in the most mindless and flashy way. The whole movie wears this polish and confidence that really comes through in the finished product. That’s in stark contrast to Daniel Craig’s Bond, which is a blunt object at this point. The decision to make Bond a rookie was a really effective one as it allows the audience to watch him grow into the Bond that we’re more familiar with. I think the biggest win for this particular film is that I could totally see a younger Sean Connery in the role. The whole movie felt like a Connery Bond film as we could expect to see it aided by the technology of today. Having put a critical eye to this movie, I can start to understand why Daniel Craig has gotten tired of participating in the franchise. All of his films have definitely been downhill from this one. To be fair though, this movie really did set a high benchmark.

Well, that about does it. Is this list authoritative? Not in the least bit, but in this guy’s opinion, the films on this list set certain benchmarks that helped to shape the overall Bond franchise along the way. They also played a hand in developing Bond as a character. They gave us all a taste of what a Bond movie can be when all of the elements are blended perfectly. I don’t expect to get movies like these every time that a new Bond movie is released, but these leave me rabidly curious whenever a new one is announced as to what they’re going to do next. Because of the entries on this list, I will continue to give my money freely to the James Bond franchise because, to me, these films demonstrate that when Bond is done right, it’s an experience more than it is just a film., Drop by next week where we’ll take a look at a former tentpole genre of the summer blockbuster repertoire!

Old vs. New:Robocop

I won’t lie to you, I’ve been sitting on this one for a while. Almost since I started this blog, actually. I’ve held off because there are already a lot of reviewers out there who do this sort of thing, but no one has done it with these two films, to date. I’m of course talking about Robocop (1987) and Robocop (2014). There’s really an interesting dichotomy between these two movies and even though they share many elements, like characters, settings and basic story foundations, they manage to be two very different films. The 2014 version doesn’t get a lot of love from anyone really, let alone fans. I’m pretty sure they’d all rather sit through Robocop 3 than watch this one and I really can’t understand why. Let’s take a look at these two films and see what they have to offer.

The ‘87 film begins in a very Paul Verhoeven style, with a news broadcast. This is an effective bit of narrative as it’s purpose is to download most of the important information to the viewer quickly so that the audience can then jump right into the rest of the story. So we get a snippet about one of the protagonists, Boddicker, and we instantly get the commentary on capitalist decadence and corporate greed. The whole film serves as a vehicle to rail against the excess of the 80s and it does so very well. Yamaha is making artificial hearts, there’s a company building the most fuel-inefficient cars ever conceived, and a corporation has managed to privatize law enforcement. It all lends itself to a gritty dystopian feel, which we were all over back in the 80s and Verhoeven doesn’t waste any time getting us invested and lost in the world that he’s created. We meet the character who will eventually become Robocop, Alex Murphy, as he’s being transferred from his cushy job at an uptown police precinct to an underfunded hell hole in the slums of Detroit. The atmosphere is further emphasized here as we hear talk of officers being murdered, strikes and just a generally bad situation all around.

The 2014 reboot starts in sort of the same way. There’s a broadcast, but this time, it’s a political show hosted by Samuel L. Jackson. He shows the ED-209 models at work in Tehran, there’s some terrorist activity, and it’s all pretty action packed. Our primary antagonist is introduced here, but you wouldn’t know that unless you’ve watched the film previously. When we’re finally introduced to Murphy, he already works at the one precinct in Detroit and he’s already investigating the drug lord. Right there, there are a few similarities between the two, but this i really where they start to diverge a little. Where in the original the audience really feels Murphy’s death as he’s blown apart by gunfire piece by piece, in the reboot, he’s blown up by a car bomb. Also, in the reboot less time is taken to help the audience connect with the Murphy character in a meaningful way. But, I get ahead of myself.

The rest of each movie both play out in much the same way. Murphy is killed, then revived as Robocop. Once that happens, he sets off trying to solve his own murder, which leads back to one of the head honchos at Omni, there’s a final confrontation and said honcho is ultimately killed. Although both stories maintain certain similarities on paper, the way that each film employs these components is totally different from one another. In the original, great effort is made to make the audience feel as if they’re apart of the universe Verhoeven created. Everything about the narrative is more personal. The death of Murphy is gruesomely intimate, which in turn, makes everything that happens subsequently feel more intimate. When Robocop learns that he’s been betrayed by the very people that created him, we feel that because we witnessed in gory detail the events that led to his creation. His wife leaves after he dies so he’s alone. This reinforces the bond between Robocop and his partner, Lewis. Even the narrative as a whole is much more intimately presented.

Contrast that with the reboot and you get a narrative that tries to be more broad. This may not seem like a bad idea on paper, but the resulting effect is that there’s less for the audience to grab hold of and get invested in. Sure it’s great seeing OCP use their robots to patrol warzones, but when things are portrayed at that level of detachment, it has to be made up for elsewhere. The director even goes so far as to use Murphy’s relationship with his family to emotionally blackmail both Robocop and the audience, as if he knew that there wasn’t enough there to emotionally ground the narrative. What I’m saying is that the reboot is less about the story serving the characters and more about the characters serving the story. This significantly impacts the narrative impact and not in a good way so if I had to give a point to either one on general storytelling, it would definitely go to the original.

Now let’s take a look at themes. The original looks at the decadence, decay, and moral corruption that results from capitalism run amok. It does this by throwing the audience into a near future dystopia and it really drives the dystopia home for the viewer. Everything about the setting is gritty,dirty, and lawless. There are thugs murdering cops, rapists running with reckless abandon, politicians taking hostages, and corporate executives taking out hits on co-workers. The idea that Detroit is two steps from hell is made absolutely clear and reinforced continually. And of course, all this is attributed to the corruption that exists because of the corporate mentality and the fact that that ideology is allowed to continue. Everything about the movie serves this notion, including the fact that we never see the main baddie, Jones, outside of his corporate tower. He spends his whole life completely out of touch with the world around him. By comparison, the reboot attempts to take up a slightly less tangible theme. The theme behind the newer entry is the illusion of free will. It’s a really fascinating concept and I give huge kudos to the film for attempting to tackle such a complex idea. However, it does suffer from making the attempt. See, it’s a very subjective theme in that some just aren’t going to get there and it needs subtlety in order to work, but if it’s too subtle, it will get lost and that’s really what happened. With the reboot, we only spend a handful of scenes exploring the theme. The rest is a lot of politicking and backdoor business dealing, which although it lends itself a little, lacks the intimacy to have any impact. There’s really only one scene that works with the theme in mind and it’s Robocop’s final field test. Gary Oldman explains how the AI system that runs Robocop while he’s in an altercation makes Murphy think that he’s in control even though he’s not.; The theme is carried through the rest of the film as we see scientists playing with the chemical balance of Robocop’s brain in order to keep him under their control, and it’s pertinent in today’s society where our every whims are monitored via GPS and the Internet, and so much of what we do is subconsciously guided by the media. It’s brilliant and if the rest of the film had been up to that standard, the entire thing would have been amazing. But it wasn’t. It quickly devolves into a soulless action film Hence, again, I have to give the point to the original.

Finally, let’s look at the setting a bit more. I know we’ve already done this to a point, but it’s something that makes the original very unique. See, the original was not apologetic in the way that it decided to depict the future. Verhoeven decided that it was a gritty dystopia and then he took that concept and cranked it up to 11. That’s one of the reasons that the film got an R rating. It didn’t pull any punches immersing the viewer in that world and as we previously discussed, it was not a friendly world at all. On the other hand, the world created for the reboot felt a little mundane. Gone was all the familiar corporate identities meddling in markets they shouldn’t (Yamaha making artificial hearts, for example) and in its place is a fairly bland and interchangeable future that, although maybe accurate, isn’t terribly unique. More time could have been taken making the setting more memorable and unique if so much time hadn’t been devoted to trying to show the audience the ‘bigger picture’. The original succeeds because we’re thrust into the story from the get go, everything about the setting is established and then just continually reiterated. The reboot doesn’t take the time to even establish why Robocop would be such an important development for domestic law enforcement. Detroit seems pretty tame and we get the impression that the rest of the US is more or less the same. There’s the struggle between Congress and OCP to implement the Robocop program, but the audience is not given sufficient reason to get invested in that struggle beyond, “It will make OCP billions.” The setting just doesn’t do a satisfactory job providing the depth and reinforcement necessary for the audience to invest in the film. Again, point to the original.

I could probably go on for a couple more paragraphs or so, but I think it’s pretty clear where I stand. The original still manages to be the best, which is typically the case in any franchise. It has enough story, character development and setting to still hold up to today’s standards. That’s not to say, however, that the reboot isn’t good. It’s got some great visual effects, a couple of exciting action sequences, some great actors giving good performances, and even a couple of laughs. It tries to operate via irony, which is somewhat different from film today, but in the end, the original sets the benchmark so high that I think it’s pretty much unattainable, but that doesn’t mean that they should ever stop trying. Catch me next week when we take a look at Bond films that are more shaken than stirred!

What is up with fandom?

The Internet has become the single greatest and the single worst invention humanity has ever crapped out. Ever. On the one hand, it is a conglomeration of the totality of human knowledge and a place for humans to act social, even if actually being social scares the poop out of them. On the other hand, it’s given nearly everyone on the planet a voice that can be heard by nearly everyone else on the planet. No, this isn’t some pro-censorship article. What I’m driving at is that the whole situation is simple metaphorical audio physics. When you get one voice by itself, that voice doesn’t have to be very loud in order to be heard, but when you get billions, suddenly all of the voices have to be louder in order to be heard above all of the other voices, which in turn increase in volume, which in turn causes the original voice to increase in volume, and I’m pretty sure you can see where this is headed. To compensate, and by natural design, we homosapiens tend to congregate with those others who share similar interests and beliefs as our own. This cuts down the amount of noise that we have to be exposed to in order to find Internet voices that are saying things that we find interesting, or entertaining. It’s not a perfect system, but it does work, most of the time.

Where am I really headed with this? Well, as a huge Trekkie,I tend to listen to other Trekkie Internet voices when I’m online and recently, my Internet has been blowing up over an event that’s been more polarizing than that time that Paramount announced that the next Star Trek show was going to be a prequel to the Original Series. In case you haven’t been following the event, I will recap. I do want to point out that I will try to remain as neutral as I possibly can here as the events that I’m about to share are not designed to be the sole direct focus of my thoughts. Now, a few years back, I think it was in 2013, I caught wind of a Star Trek fan film that was seeking funding via crowd sourcing called Star Trek: Axanar.  According to the pitch on Kickstarter, it was meant to take place several years before TOS started and focus on the exploits of Garth of Izar, a very minor character from TOS that only shows up once. They did their initial crowdfunding campaign successfully, made a promotional short to give people a feel for the quality they were going for and everyone was pretty happy by the end of it all.

Fast forward to December of 2015. Axanar dropped the Star Trek monicker at the behest of CBS and Paramount, but that month, they both decided to lay a lawsuit against the group making the film. This is the initial event that set off a firestorm of epic proportions within the Star Trek fandom. I don’t wish to imply that there hadn’t been some brushfires previous to this, but this single event caused the sleeping volcano of animosity to erupt in a way that no one thought possible. Suddenly, there were producers of fan shows making rude and snide comments about the crew of Axanar. Said Axanar crew tried to remain civil for a time, but then certain ‘official’ Trek news sites started playing an agenda against the production. Fans were equally divided. Some were very much pro-Axanar and some very much against. And because of our wondrous Internet, thousands upon thousands of people were speaking up to contribute their opinion. Things got very messy very quickly.
Now there are a lot of minute aspects of the
lawsuit debacle that I could delve into, but they’re pretty trivial at this juncture and doing so is not the main purpose of this article. The last pertinent piece of information that needs to be discussed in order for us to finally move on is that just last week, JJ Abrams announced to the public that CBS and Paramount had agreed to seek a settlement with the producers of Axanar and that as part of that settlement, a list of officially endorsed fan film guidelines would be drawn up and published for the world to see. This should have been a moment of great rejoicing for Trekkies the world over, and indeed there was a lot of rejoicing. I myself let out a sigh of relief, but we’ll get to that in a little bit. In the few days following that announcement, certain producers of other Star Trek related fan productions started speaking their minds about the impending settlement situation. One in particular expressed that it was folly on the parts of CBS and Paramount to simply give up on the lawsuit and that the crew of Axanar got off far too easily. The same individual implied that the failure of one of his own projects was due to the lawsuit, which it was indirectly, and then tried to lay some blame at the feet of the fans over his non-Trek project failing to reach it’s funding goal, citing a lack of fan support as one of the primary reasons for the failure.

What does all this have to do with my point? I know I’ve taken a roundabout path getting to said point, but there is a reason. See, this entire fiasco has brought lo light just how fractured Trek fandom has become over the years. I should know, I’ve taken a bad attitude towards certain productions that I have found fault with in the past, but it’s gotten especially bad since there haven’t been any more shows on TV, but the question is, should it really be this fractured? Sure, there are going to be versions of Star Trek released that aren’t going to be entertaining to so some fans and that will be very much so for others. It’s the nature of entertainment, everything is constantly trying to evolve in order to stay fresh. How does the lawsuit play into this? Well, once the final iteration of Star Trek was cancelled, Enterprise, fans no longer had that weekly fix to look forward. That’s where these fan productions stepped in to fill a gap. They made episodes and full-length movies as labors of love to give the fans something to satiate their cravings for new Star Trek stories. I’m not personally associated with any of the individuals involved in a lot of these recent incidents, but I’m sure at their core, their only real desire is to make good and entertaining Trek, and to pay homage in their own way to the show(s) that sparked their own imagination and that got their creative side fired up in the first place.

My point is, shouldn’t that be the attitude of all Trekkies? Call it a little naive, but at the end of the day, shouldn’t we support, at least in attitude, those who have dared to gamble making a product that brings most of us joy and entertainment? Sure there are going to be some fan productions that we don’t enjoy for one reason, or another, but that’s the nature of the entertainment business. There are a lot of fan productions being made and as fans shop around, they’re able to find those ones that they enjoy. The fan film model is an extremely stressful and uncertain one, and I believe that we should appreciate the efforts of those trying to enrich our lives through their efforts, not tear them down. The Trek fandom needs solidarity, especially in these critical times as CBS and Paramount seek to figure out exactly how to allow fans to wield this unique creative outlet. I’m not saying that this change in attitude will, or even can happen overnight, but I think it’s something that Trekkies need to work toward. If Trekkies present a united front of fandom, then the powers that control that beloved property are more likely to listen to what they have to say. So next time you might find yourself in a discussion about Trek fan films, especially with me, try to keep in mind that we’re all just imperfect beings trying to make it in an imperfect world, and at least pay respect to those who are attempting, in their own way, to make that world a little better for others.

My Favorite MCU Film

Well, we’re officially knee deep into summer blockbuster season, for better or for worse, and we’ve already gotten a new MCU film for the year. It’s been a couple of weeks since Captain America: Civil War came out and I understand that it’s been doing pretty well in the box offices. As my personal homage to this “cinematic event” I thought I would share with you my thoughts on my favorite MCU film. Now, I’ve seen all of the phase one films up to the first Avengers movie. I’ve seen all three Iron Man films as well. But this particular film still manages to maintain a special place in my heart. Let’s take a look at, possibly the most underrated MCU film ever, The Incredible Hulk.

In the distant year of 2008, Marvel comics made the, for the time, bold decision to try and weave their various film properties into a single universe. It had been done before, see Star Trek, but never for film, and never in the scope that Marvel envisioned. So, in that year, they released the first two of a series of interrelated films that would become known in later years as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The film franchise currently spans 13 films with another four to be released by the end of next year. This is truly an ambitious undertaking. So why does Incredible Hulk stand out so much to me?

Let’s look at some of the other films in the franchise thus far. Ironman was a good first film. We were right in the middle of Nolan Batman and Ironman is about as close as you can get to that in the Marvel pantheon while still staying kid friendly. But, it was an origin story through and through. There’s the first Thor film. To be honest, both of those films have been such a snooze fest to me that I barely remember either of them. It’s not necessarily that they were bad films, but Thor is not my cup of tea as far as superheroes are concerned (reference Mary Sue). Captain America is slightly more memorable to me, mostly because I really like all things World War II, but again, it was an origin story and I find those to be pretty boring in high doses. And then there’s the old piece of resistance, Marvel’s The Avengers. Look, I know that everyone collectively lost their cookies over this movie, but it lacked a certain finesse in its storytelling elements and, quite frankly, cramming seven superheroes in one movie can be a little disorienting. It had some okay spectacle and there was some good humor, but I guess the Avengers just aren’t my style either. Always been more of an X-Men guy myself. I could go on, but that could take forever and I think we’ve established a decent cross section of data here. Besides, that covers phase one of the MCU so what makes Hulk different from the rest of these movies?

Sure, they’re all pretty good films in their own right, but they’re all origin stories. ALL. OF. THEM. The first Ironman we see how Tony Stark decided to become the titular character. Thor we see how Thor crosses over to our realm for the first time and falls for Natalie Portman (The most unbelievable aspect of that movie, by the way.) Captain America, same thing. Take the serum, fight the Nazis, get frozen and then suddenly it’s 2010. Even the Avengers film was kind of an origin film. Will they figure out how to work as a team in their ‘first major engagement together’? What I’m saying is, in three years, we got four origin story films. It took four films to finally lay the groundwork for all of these characters. Now, I know what you’re probably saying, “But that’s a lot of mythology to bring together!” Okay, I’ll concede that one. That is a ton of mythology to tie together, but it speaks to an epidemic in comic book films today. How many films have shown the origin story of Batman? Four. How many for Spider-Man? Three, perhaps four depending on what happens with the next film. Superman? Well, two for that one, but he’s an outlier here. The point is, even though it was still fresh at the time, we’ve seen so many origin story films by now that for the sake of this discussion, it needed to be brought up, but why?

Incredible Hulk did something seriously gutsy for a comic book film, it didn’t approach the film from the origin story point of view. The origin of the Hulk is covered, but it’s done so in flashbacks during the opening credits sequence. It did what no very few other superhero films have dared to do and assumed that the world collectively knew how the Hulk came to be. I wholeheartedly applaud this approach! We live in a world where these characters have literally become our pantheon of demigods and there are very few people living on this planet who don’t know the origins of these superheroes so wasting millions of dollars and months of people’s time is a little superfluous. Now having said all of that, there was a wee bit of an origin story going on in the film, it just wasn’t focused on the Hulk. Instead, it was focused on how Abomination came to be. I can give a little bit of a pass here because I think only diehard fans of the Hulk are really going to know who that character even is. I didn’t even realize that they’d lifted him straight out of the comics until I was researching this article.

That brings me to my next point. The writer did a wonderful job incorporating existing characters from the comic mythology. Betty Ross, the Abomination, Leader: all of these characters got great representation in the movie. And while we’re on the subject of representation, I thought that the nods to the 70s TV show were a really nice touch. The theme song got worked in there! Whenever I hear those somber notes, I feel like I can almost understand the agony that is the Hulk’s existence. The use of the green eyes in the spotlight was taken directly from the show and Lou Ferrigno makes a cameo. The writer knew that a lot of his audience were going to be familiar with the show and he did a great job integrating all of the good elements of that show into the film so that audiences would have some common ground with the universe that he’d created.

There’s a huge aspect of this movie that I feel gets dropped afterward with the Hulk’s subsequent appearances and it’s on that, at least in my mind, solidifies Ed Norton as the best Hulk of this millennium and that is that his performance is very dynamic. Chalk it up to the screenplay if you want, but Ed Norton’s portrayal gives some amazing depth to the character. There’s a struggle going on inside Banner’s mind between the logical and ordered Bruce Banner and the chaotic and deadly Hulk. There’s a desire to rid himself of this burder and we see that struggle and the side effects of that struggle. PTSD is extremely well represented in this film and it’s handled well. It’s an aspect that I feel is absent in other film portrayals of the character, and that’s too bad because it helps me as an audience member, connect to the character more.

Following that train of thought, I also enjoy the growth we get to see Bruce Banner got through in the movie. He starts as a man at odds with his existence. There’s this hidden piece of himself that he sees as a cancer and he’s trying to find a way to remove it, but by the end of the film, we see him embrace that side of himself as he learns to harness his abilities. He accepts that ridding himself of his mutation is just not an option and he starts to learn to integrate that aspect of his being into his life instead. Again, Norton’s performance really drives this home. Speaking of, one of the other aspects of Norton’s performance that I enjoy is how he approached the character in general. Mark Ruffalo is the mild-mannered, soft spoken genius Banner and that’s fine, but Norton is the plucky, bumbling and uncoordinated Banner that really captures the total package when I think of Bruce Banner as a character. Again, Norton’s performance is just more relatable and I like characters to which I can relate.

Let’s talk about Bruce and Betty real fast. I understand that Norton is kind of a pain to work with so I don’t know if the chemistry between the two was natural, or forced, but it was great! The body language that the two actors used towards one another, the tones of their voices all convey a warmth and a caring that goes beyond mere friendship. You really get the impression that these two are soulmates who want only to be together, and you feel the conflict as they come to accept the reality of their existence.

It all makes for a great story, which I’ve discussed a little, but not at length. I like the way this movie is structured. It takes its time and does things deliberately. There aren’t really any wasted frames in this film. Every scene, every line of dialog serves the story and they serve it well. I love that we get half way through the film before we even get to see the Hulk fully for the first time. The film treats it as an event and because of that, viewers are rewarded with a truly exciting moment to take with them. We get to work through a little bit of a mystery as the movie unfolds and we’re made to try and guess how things are going to play out and I like that aspect of things as well. In all, I could see where some might take the slower pace and call it plodding, but i’d call it methodical, deliberate and well executed.

Finally, and you knew that it was going to come up, let’s look that the Hulk for a minute. I’m not even going to do the 2003 film the courtesy of giving any thoughts, but I prefer the look of the 2008 Hulk over subsequent installments. The animation is done in such a way that I can tell that the animators were attempting to make the Hulk look more realistic in this movie. The Ruffalo Hulk looks way too cartoony for my tastes and it could almost be argued that it looks so cartoony that it almost makes the character look like a parody of himself. And since we’re on special effects, there were some really amazing ones in this movie. There’s great use of slow motion and bullet time, which are two effects techniques that tend to get abused more often than not. There’s great lighting and the scenery even manages to be interesting throughout. All-in-all, a total package there as far as I’m concerned.

Hopefully now you understand why I’m willing to make such bold claims concerning this movie. I know that I’m in a minority here and that most didn’t find it very good, but where most see a slow, plodding snoozefest, I see an intelligent, witty, and well executed film that stayed true to its roots and delivered a top notch viewing experience. I highly recommend that you dust this one off and give it another watch. I guarantee that you won’t be disappointed!

Gotham: Lost Opportunity?

To all you folks watching the blogoshpere and stopping in, welcome! My regulars may have noticed that I’m a day late once again, but I’m thinking that Thursdays might just become the new release day as I have far less conflicts in my schedule and more time to really dwell on what it is that I want to tell you guys.

This week, I take a contrarian stance simply for the sake thereof, but also because I think it’s a point of view that gets overlooked quite a bit. By the title you already know that this entry is all about the hit TV series Gotham. As a disclaimer, I just want to say that I really enjoy the show. I find that period of Batman mythology severely overlooked and quite fascinating. However, that does not mean that I find it totally without fault so we’re going to look at one that left me feeling really disappointed after the first season.

For those who aren’t familiar, Gotham is the story of Jim Gordon and his time as a beat detective for the GCPD before he began to move up the ranks, eventually becoming commissioner. Again, it’s a period in Batman mythology that is widely unexplored. This brings me already to the main point that I’d like you to dwell on (It’s going to be a really short article.). Jim Gordon is not a superhero per se. He’s a regular guy. The closest thing that he has to a superpower is his ability to seem incorruptible.

The first season of the show followed this train of thought and as a result, Gotham felt more like a procedural drama than a comic book show. “But wait! It’s about a comic book universe! Shouldn’t it be a comic book show,” you maybe saying. Well, yes, it should be a comic book show, but that doesn’t mean that it has to feel like a comic book show. The first season did a really great job incorporating elements of the Batman mythology while still managing to remain grounded in the idea that the things happening in the show are not so farfetched that they couldn’t happen in our own world. This approach was fresh and exciting, at least to me.

Let me just say that I love procedural crime dramas. I grew up on Law & Order, NYPD Blue, In the Heat of the Night, and various others. These days, I really enjoy NCIS, Criminal Minds, Lie to Me, and a whole slew more and there’s definitely a reason for that. The procedural part of the genre designation entails that the viewer is going to work through the mystery with the characters as the episode unfolds. I really enjoy brain teasers and so I take a great deal of satisfaction from that aspect of those types of shows. And for the first season of Gotham, that’s how the show felt. There were mysteries to be solved each episode and I felt like I was invited to work through the cases alongside the character. Again, a really fresh take on the Batman mythos.

Then season two happened. The producers of the show were getting pressure from the network to make it feel more like the comics and the films and that’s where the show kind of died. It lost that unique identity that only a Batman show could assume and it became just another humdrum comic show. The show jumped the shark with the introduction of Mr. Freeze. He’s a great villain in his own right, but using him as a character in the second season just seems a little too soon in the show’s progression. But the entire tone of the show changed with that move. Now it feels like writers and producers are just trying to shoehorn in all of these villains that we’ve come to love for no other reason than to attract more viewers and that’s pretty sad.

I do have other grievances with the show as well. For instance, I’ve always liked the idea that Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent were roughly the same age, as in Batman:The Animated Series because this gave them an invested relationship and upped the dramatic tension between the two characters. I’m also not a huge fan of Fish Mooney. I feel like the character is just a boldfaced attempt to pull a Harley Quinn and introduce a show character that gets adopted into the comic mythos. The character is not even terribly interesting to watch after the first dozen episodes or so.

That’s not to say that Gotham isn’t without its strengths. I appreciate the ambiance that the show creates with each episode. The sets and locations, the lighting and the music all make for a very Batman-esque atmosphere. The focus on the Penguin was a brilliant idea from the start and Robin Lord Taylor plays him exceptionally well. Along that line, the inclusion of Edward Nigma was also a brilliant idea as seeing his progression from mild mannered clerk to criminal mastermind is really interesting. The use of the (presumed) Joker was a ton of fun because having those red herrings hinting at Batman’s greatest foe kept me wanting to see what happened next. These are all elements that started in the first season. The only element that was lacking emphasis at that point was a metaplot arc, but even then, between Gordon’s work as a detective week-to-week, Penguin’s rise to power within the criminal underground and mystery of the Wayne murders, there was plenty to go around.

Am I saying that Gotham is inherently a bad show? No. In fact, it’s still an entertaining show to watch. What I am saying is that there was an experimental Batman show being produced last season that, unfortunately, died a rather quick death and that’s a tragedy. I think if the experiment had been able to continue unaltered, we would have eventually ended up with a great show instead of one that’s just good. So here’s to the Batman show that we all need, but not the one that we actually deserve.