Green Lantern Corps and the Case for Jessica Cruz

Who knows what the heck DC/Warner is up to these days when it comes to their movies. They're obviously still trying to catch up to Marvel by trying so hard not to be Marvel. Jared Leto's going to be the Joker again, right? But now Joaquin Phoenix will be The Joker in a solo Joker movie? Why is the Joker getting his own movie?

As of this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they have all of their movies be nothing but a big buildup to The Wonder Twins. (And yes, I know that Wonder Woman was fantastic. And I actually liked Justice League in spite of its obvious flaws.)

Last I heard, the plan for Green Lantern was to make a Green Lantern Corps movie. Essentially it would be a buddy space cop movie with Hal Jordan and John Stewart. This is good because since Stewart is African American, we can get a little bit more diversity in our superhero movies.

But I'm going to make some longtime fans upset and utter something potentially blasphemous.

I say ditch Hal Jordan.

That's right. Forget Hal Jordan.

He had his chance. Was it the fault of Ryan Reynolds? I don't think so. I blame a half-baked script and awful special effects. But we've seen him on the big screen before, and it didn't work.

I realize that many longtime comics fans aren't going to like this. Hal Jordan is the original (unless you count the Golden Age) Green Lantern of Space Sector 2184. He's the classic model. Sure, he's been replaced in the comics before, but it pretty much always comes back to him. Whenever DC does a big crossover event and the Justice League needs a Green Lantern, he's the one we get. He's the one that most people recognize (except for kids who grew up with John Stewart in the Justice League cartoon).

If we don't get Hal Jordan, then who do we get?

We get the one who has the potential to be the greatest Green Lantern of them all.

Jessica Cruz.

Let's get the easy reason out of the way first why it should be Jessica representing 2814. She's both female and Latina. The first one is a pretty good bonus for diversity, the second one his huge. Don't tell me that there aren't any Latina superhero fans out there. I go to comic book conventions. I know that they're there. And I'm sure that there are some little girls who would love to see somebody who looks more like them up on the big screen.

Honestly, I feel as though that reason is good enough. But for me, I have something personal to relate to when it comes to her. I'm neither female nor Latin, but Jessica deals with anxiety just like I do. To be fair, I don't deal with the absolute crippling anxiety that she does, but I deal with it enough to relate to her.

And it's her struggle with anxiety that makes her the greatest Green Lantern. (That's right! I said it!) For those of you who don't know, current continuity posits that not just anybody can wield a green lantern ring. Other heroes have tried (notably Green Arrow and Batman) and while they were able to get some results, it was absolutely agonizing for them. A Green Lantern is somebody who can overcome great fear and possesses tremendous willpower.

While Jessica's story is far more complex than this, part of her backstory is that she went camping with some friends, and all of them were killed while she managed to survive. She has post traumatic stress syndrome, and it resulted in her shutting herself indoors for three years. Being a Green Lantern has been a struggle, and she has had difficulty creating constructs with her ring.

You might be wondering then, how can a shut-in with anxiety possibly be the greatest Green Lantern when they're supposed to be able to overcome great fear?

Because for Jessica, every time she walks out of the house, she is overcoming great fear. One of my favorite issue of Green Lanterns had her struggling to build up the nerve just to go to Simon, her friend and fellow Green Lantern's, house for a dinner party. Pretty much every moment is a struggle for her.

Some supervillain comes along who wants to rule the universe? He's secondary to just walking out the front door.

There is so much potential for this character, and I really hope that they continue to do great things with her.

Jesus is a friend of mine

Hey, Christians, are you tired of people referring to your relationship with Jesus Christ as a "religion"? (If you're fine with it being a religion, as I know many of you are, then just move along.)

Hey, religious skeptics, are you tired of Christians who are in denial about the fact that they are followers of a religion?

Guess what? I think that I can fix this for the both of you.

First off, I'm going to step out of my wheelhouse here and try and get into the mindset of the Christian who doesn't think of what they're doing as a religion. I hope that any "it's not a religion" Christians read this and correct me if I get anything wrong. Obviously, you all don't see things the same way, but I'm fairly confident that I can get the basic gist down. I could be wrong though, and I'm willing to write an update and/or have a conversation in the comments section until I accurately depict your point of view.

The word "religion" has a lot of baggage. There are a whole lot of people out there who have ruined it by being judgmental, violent, controlling, etc. That's not what a relationship with Jesus is about. Jesus came down to save us. He offers eternal salvation, and all you have to do is accept him into your heart and believe in his sacrifice. Doing so doesn't just win you a one-way ticket to heaven. It transforms you, on the inside. It changes your whole perspective on life, and you realize that you're living for a greater purpose. All the trivialities fall by the wayside, as Jesus makes it clear that whatever you're dealing with now is insignificant next to what he has to offer you.

Is that good? I think that's pretty good.

Religious skeptics? Are you still with me?

I know what you're thinking, because you're thinking what I'm thinking. Once you get past your huge inner "OH, COME ON!" groan, you'll point out that Christians have rituals and supernatural beliefs about the nature of this world. They're also organized, with some groups being more hierarchical than others. Those are all of the trappings of what we call religion. It doesn't matter if you think that you have a personal relationship with Jesus or that Ganesha has an elephant's head. It's all religion.

Christians, are you still with me? Because here's where I try and bring it all together and make everybody, or maybe nobody, happy.

For the religious skeptics, we need to realize that calling Christianity a religion comes off as being dismissive. When you lump Christianity in there with Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Norse Paganism, and the crockfest that is Scientology, you're not acknowledging the very personal nature of Christianity.

I know what you're thinking. "But other religions are also deeply personal!"

Yes, they are. And when we're looking at it from the outside-in, that's what we're seeing. But for the believer, it's not the same thing as all of those other beliefs. Christians have something unique, and they want to acknowledge that.

Yeah, yeah, "But all religions are unique in their own way!"

Again, to the believer, this isn't what matters. The way that Christianity is unique is what's important.

For the Christians who are still reading, maybe you can see why the talking point of "it's a relationship not a religion" doesn't get much traction with us skeptics. For me, even if it turned out that your religion was 100% the truth, and you really, honestly, literally have a relationship with the Creator of the Universe, then I still can't get my head around the idea that it's not a religion.

I guess what I'm saying there is that Christians should say, "To me, it's more than just a religion." That demonstrates the personal nature of the belief while not ignoring the definition of the word "religion" as it's understood by most people. (And again, I know of plenty of Christians who have no problem with that word. If you're one of those Christians, why are you still reading this? This isn't for you! Geez.)

And if a Christian words it that way? What should the religious skeptic say?

Nothing. Let them have it. Because to them, it's not just a religion. 

It's not just a religion in the same way that your mother isn't just "some lady". Yeah, she's "some lady" by the meaning of the term. She's simply "some lady" to most people on the planet. But she's not "some lady" to you.

And then when we're all done, we can rock out to the following:

Nobody reads a blog post about blog posts

Two years.

It's been two years since I've written in this blog.

Sure, I've ranted a bit on Facebook, and I've even written some longer, thoughtful posts that very well could have been a blog post.

But I've neglected this blog.

I'm going to keep this short, because posts about not posting and/or plans for future posts aren't interesting. However, I feel like I should acknowledge the absence.

Lots has happened in those two years. My son was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. I fell into a deep funk the day Trump was elected. I've been dealing with anxiety and depression (formally diagnosed even).

I've also read a lot of comic books. I want to write about them again.

I still really like beer. I don't drink much nowadays, but I suppose that I still have something to say as I haven't quit drinking. I just average a few a month as opposed to 1-2 a day.

I have started riding my bike a lot. I ride anywhere from 20-30 miles when I get a chance, which is usually once a week. Maybe I'll post about that.

But enough of this. I'm not even going to post this to social media. I'm just going to leave it here in case anybody notices the huge gap.

I have a few things on my mind. I'm going to write about at least one of them before the night is over.

San Francisco Comic Con

Wonder Woman by Mike Mayhew

Since the departure of WonderCon to Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area has been making several attempts to replace what was easily the biggest comic book related event of Northern California. It was looking like the Big Wow Comicfest might have taken its place, but that seems to be a thing of the past, and it's been replaced by the Silicon Valley Comic Con. I didn't attend that one, mainly because it seemed like more of a media convention and I was still hoping that Big Wow might be making a return. (I'm not including the East Bay Comic Con. I've been to the past two of them, but it's a pretty small, although worthwhile, show.)

Since that idea is apparently a bust, I went ahead and bought a ticket to the San Francisco Comic Con. The ticket price was a bit steep at $50 for a Saturday ticket, but I have been dying to go to a big show, so I ponied up. It didn't have nearly the star-power of the Silicon Valley show, and there weren't too many artists in attendance that I wanted to see, but when a buddy of mine expressed interest in going, I figured that was a good enough reason to at least check it out.

Overall, I think that it was a pretty good convention. While there weren't a lot of comics professionals there, the ones I got to see where kind of a big deal to a long-time comics fan like myself. For some reason, I've managed to go nearly 30 years of reading comics without meeting Mike Zeck, who drew one of the greatest Spider-Man stories, Kraven's Last Hunt. He's also the guy who designed Spidey's black costume.

I not only got his autograph on the first part of the aforementioned Kraven story, I had him sign the issue of Secret Wars that detailed how Spider-Man received the black costume. On top of that, I got the signatures of the inkers: Bob McLeod on Kraven's Last Hunt and John Beatty on Secret Wars. One more signature topped off the Secret Wars, and that was writer (and former editor in chief of Marvel Comics) Jim Shooter.

I also parted with some money when I bought some art prints with some classic covers that Zeck did, along with a really cool profile of The Punisher. (I had two Zeck-drawn Punisher posters hanging in my room when I was a kid.)

Writer, penciler, inker - all signed

Those guys were all some of the best in the business, but you don't find them doing much in comics lately. Zeck and Beatty informed me that they work more in licensing now rather than do the monthly comics grind. I'm assuming the same is true with Bob McLeod. (McLeod also signed the first two issues of The Amazing Spider-Man that were penciled by Todd McFarlane. In my opinion, his inks improved McFarlane's art. I told him so, but he said that McFarlane didn't think so.)

I did get to meet one artist who's currently putting out some great work, and that's Mike Mayhew. He has recently illustrated a couple of issues of Star Wars that feature the exploits of Obi Wan Kenobi and young Luke Skywalker, filling in some gaps between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope. I got him to sign those tow comics, but I was disappointed to hear that there weren't any more issues like that in the works. I also got into an interesting conversation where I got some insight into the workings of Disney and Marvel regarding keeping all of the continuity straight between the movies and comic books. Just like with Zeck, I also purchased some pretty cool art prints from him. One was with Wonder Woman, one with Batgirl, and one with Jean Grey of the X-Men.

One other thing I observed was the overall quality coming from the independent comic book publishers. Usually it's pretty easy for me to bypass what they're selling, and maybe once in a while I'll see something interesting. This time I found myself passing on a lot of stuff that looked pretty cool. (But I did pick up a couple of them - most notably from Emet Comics. Their focus is female creators and female characters, but I was drawn to the obvious quality of the artwork. I haven't read them yet, so I can't speak to the quality of the stories. One way or the other, the female angle is definitely not just a gimmick.)

As for shopping, you'd be happy if you were looking to buy some classic comics (think Golden and Silver Age) as there were a few vendors specializing in those. I didn't see as many dealers selling trade paperbacks and graphic novels as I'm used to seeing, and I didn't see a whole lot of toys or cool T-shirts either.

They apologized for looking exhausted,
but they were good sports as I geeked out.

I only checked out one panel, and that was the one with Ian McDiarmid. You probably know him better as The Emperor from the Star Wars movies. He took audience questions and shared stories from filming the movies and his stage career. Fun fact - he does an uncanny impression of George Lucas.

Of course there were also plenty of cosplayers, which is a bigger deal now than when I started
reading comics. There were the ones you'd expect like Boba Fett, Stormtroopers, Deadpool, Spider-Man, and Batman. I only caught a few surprises like a 90s era Superboy and Captain America's dancers. (I did the closest thing to a catcall in my life when I saw them on the street, pointed at them and shouted, "Awesome!" They thanked me, so I guess I can keep my Not-a-sexual-harasser card.)

I'm glad I went, but I'm also glad that I just went with a friend and fellow comic book fan. I didn't bring the wife and kid, and I'm not sure if they would have enjoyed themselves as much as they did at Big Wow. There wasn't as much kid-friendly stuff, and it was a lot more crowded. It's not that I think my wife would have hated it, but I don't know if she would have wanted to stay as long as I did. Hopefully this is just the beginning for this con, and we'll see an even more impressive guest list for next year.

Suicide Squad - movie review

For those who haven't read any of my comic book movie reviews before, I should probably start with the disclaimer that I'm almost always positive when I write about these films. In some cases, like Batman V. Superman, I could recognize the movie's shortcomings while still enjoying it. In other words, it's pretty tough to create something that I don't like so long as it's based on comic books.

With that said, I really wasn't going in to Suicide Squad with super high expectations. I've never read the comic, and the only characters that I cared about were the ones who were Batman-related. And while I realize that many people loved the trailers, I was a bit underwhelmed. That feeling only sank when the negative reviews started to pour in. I wasn't going to let that stop me from seeing the movie, but I continue to worry that Warner doesn't know how to handle its DC properties the way that Marvel Studios knows how to handle theirs.

Once again though, I'll say that while I understand the negative criticism, I still liked the movie. Much like DC's last effort, Batman V. Superman, I found this to be a pretty frustrating movie, only I have less personally invested in this particular property. I thought that the movie had a really great original style, but it seemed to be the victim of (once again) too much executive interference with the creative process. And Warner is still trying to artificially catch up to Marvel by throwing as many characters in one movie as possible. (How cool would it have been if we already knew most of these villains from various superhero movies and then have this become an anti-Avengers by having them all team up?)

One thing that I can definitely say for it is that the movie really kept up a nice, brisk pace up until the final act, which got caught up in the whole "Why are they all fighting this guy?" trap that so many of these movies do. I thought that the director, David Ayer, made good use of various classic rock songs throughout. Sometimes when people do that, it feels like they're ripping off Scorsese, but I guess it doesn't feel that way when it's done in this particular genre.

All right, here are some scattered thoughts:

Jared Leto as The Joker - I was more than willing to give Leto a chance, and I didn't really pay too much attention the fact that the guy seems to be a real creep. Obviously, Heath Ledger's performance is still fresh in a lot of people's minds, so that would be tough to top. Leto was going to have to take the character in a different direction if he was going to stand out? Did he do that? I guess, but he didn't really do anything all that interesting with the role at all. The Joker just felt like a generic bad guy.

I also think that, with the exception of the flashback scenes, the character felt pretty perfunctory in this movie. I'm not entirely sure what he added to the story other than that.

Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn - She was probably the perfect choice for this part. She's a very pretty woman, but she's also able to pull off crazy pretty well with that wide smile of hers. It was pretty clear that she looked to the character's original portrayal in Batman: The Animated Series for inspiration. (And you actually get to see her in the original outfit! And you quickly realize why they changed it.)

I think that we can blame the issues with The Joker on the fact that the movie had Harley in it, as her origin is so tied to that character. Still, Robbie's portrayal was interesting enough that I think that they could have had her merely hint at her origins.

Will Smith as Deadshot - I don't know too much about the character, but I liked Smith's portrayal. He's always pretty likable, and he was a good choice if they were going to make at least one of these villains have a bit of a heart. I'd be really happy to see more of him in other DC films.

I don't think that this is the sort of movie that will win over people who normally don't like comic book movies. It might even turn off a lot of people who like what Marvel has been putting out over the past decade. As I said, I get the negative reviews, and it's a bit of a mess toward the end. Still, there was enough for this comic book nerd to enjoy, and I hope to see it again (especially if there's a director's cut.)

Ghostbusters (2016) movie review

I have a confession to make. I never saw the original Ghostbusters in the theater even though I'm pretty much the perfect age to have done so. (It came out when I was in the fourth grade.) Back when I was a kid, I was easily scared of anything that looked even remotely scary, and my neighbor describing the scene with the librarian ghost at the beginning was enough to frighten me away until years later when I finally saw it on video. After that, it quickly became one of my all-time favorite movies and I watched my crappy VHS copy of a copy over and over again.

I did see Ghostbusters 2 in the theater, and I remember being really excited for it. I went out of my way to see it on the last day of school of my freshmen year of high school. And even though my standards were a lot lower back then, I remember being really disappointed in the whole thing. It just felt like a less funny and less exciting version of the first one. I watched it again recently when I bought a blu-ray combo pack of both movies, and I continue to be disappointed.

When I heard about the current remake/reboot, I was interested. I most definitely did not join the chorus of fans who freaked out when there were going to be four female Ghostbusters this time around. The last one had four men, and that wasn't a problem. Why would four women be a problem? I also am not somebody who bemoans the "lack of originality" in movies, as I teach Shakespeare and that guy was all about rewriting previously told stories.

The only thing that I cared about was whether the movie was going to be good or not. Four women is fine so long as they are four funny and talented women. The story also had to be good. It had to capture the spirit of the original while not simply giving me what I've already seen before.

My hopes were raised when they announced the cast. I was only really familiar with Kristen Wiig, who I think is awesome. Even the weaker Saturday Night Live bits with her in it were usually worth watching just to see what she'd do. I also liked Bridesmaids, and she's hilarious as the yoga instructor in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. (You have to watch the extended edition of that movie to catch that scene.) I also think that Melissa McCarthy is pretty funny as well, as she had a lot of the best bits in the aforementioned Bridesmaids. I didn't know too much about Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

If I'm totally honest, I did have an opinion regarding the all-female buster casting. It made me root for this movie to succeed because I'm a big believer in the notion that we need more diverse and positive roles featuring women. I'd personally like to see more completely original stories with female protagonists, but this is a decent step in between male dominated action movies and a more diverse fare.

Still, I figured all of this would be for naught if the movie stunk, so while I say that I was rooting for it, I was rooting for its potential to be something good. I wasn't going to praise it no matter what.

Which leads me to the first preview.

Egads. That did not look good. I know that I'm not alone, as I heard a lot of other people chime in, including Kevin Smith on his podcast. In fairness to Smith, he was quick to blame whoever cut the trailer, as he couldn't imagine how that cast with director Paul Feig could possibly make something that looked so horrible. All of the gags were slapstick and obvious. I mean, there was an Exorcist reference. What year is this? And it didn't help that Leslie Jones's character seemed to be a stereotype of a black woman.

I really wanted to be wrong, but I was ready to accept that for the second time, there was going to be a lousy Ghostbusters movie.

My hopes raised a bit when I saw some other trailers, but not too much. I figured that I'd wait until the reviews came in, and if they were mostly positive then I'd make the effort to see it in the theater. Lucky for me, that was the case, and I went to see it with my wife.

I don't know if anybody is outright praising this movie, but I absolutely loved it. In a way, it made me hate the trailer even more, as it really did the film a disservice. Maybe the problem is that the really funny bits require a certain context. Whenever there was a silly slapstick moment, what was usually funny was what the other characters were saying or doing as it was happening. I'm eager to see the film again, as there were some moments where I was laughing so hard that I no doubt missed two or three other funny lines that came right after them.

What else did I like? I thought it did a really good job of capturing the heart and spirit of the original without being slavish to it. The characters didn't evenly line up with their male counterparts from the original. At best, you could say that Kate McKinnon's part was a combination of Egon and Venkman. Other than that, they all brought something new to the franchise.

Wiig and McCarthy didn't disappoint, and Jones's character rose above the stereotype to the point where I didn't even think about it anymore. It was really McKinnon who nearly stole the movie for me though. She was definitely not quite in her right mind, but she had enough charm to her that you could believe that she'd get away with it.

I was also pretty surprised with Chris Hemsworth, better known as Thor from the Marvel movies. I knew that he could be funny, as he's had some good bits as the Thunder god. However, he really got to show his comic timing in this one. He was a complete airhead, yet he still was able to inject his character with enough humanity to make him more than just a figure to laugh at.

I don't think that this is ever going to hold up to the original, but it was loads better than Ghostbusters 2, and hopefully if they do a sequel, they can outdo the previous franchise.

Hope for the Ark Encounter?

Utnapishtim's, ahem...Noah's ark

Depending on how much you pay attention to issues regarding religion, you may or may not have heard of the Ark Encounter. In a nutshell, it's a museum devoted to the Biblical flood story, and it's a life-size reconstruction of Noah's boat. I suppose it's more of a construction than a reconstruction for the simple fact that NOAH'S ARK NEVER FRIKKEN' EXISTED.

Yeah, I'm being a little harsh, but if you think that the Noah story actually happened, or you even entertain the possibility that it happened, then the rest of this post isn't going to appeal to you. Unless you can provide some AMAZING evidence (you can't) of a global flood, I'm going to put flood believers into the same category as Scientologists who learn about Emperor Xenu and still stay in the organization anyway.

It opened on July 7th, and from what I've read, opening day didn't have quite the turnout that they were expecting. Maybe there aren't as many Biblical literalists as they were hoping for? Or maybe the literalists just don't care that much? Who knows? I'm not expert in these matters, and I haven't seen any official figures, but I have to wonder if this thing will one day go the way of Jim Bakker's Heritage USA, and become a monument to religious folly.

 

Let's just assume that I'm right and this thing will eventually go bankrupt and have to close down one day. Overall, this would be a good thing. Perhaps it's too bad that the state of Kentucky is losing out considering how many tax breaks Answers in Genesis (the company that built the thing) got for it, but the good far outweighs the bad. For starters, the place is basically devoted to spreading ignorance and anti-science. Even worse, it's targeted at children with its inclusion of dinosaurs. (It's funny how for some people the dinosaur thing is what puts it over the top into Crazy Town territory. Guess what? It's crazy without dinosaurs.) It will also be good to see the end of a place that has discriminatory hiring practices (no non-Christians, no gay people) while receiving taxpayer money. 

With that said, I wouldn't want to see the place get torn down. I also wouldn't want to see it just sit there and rot. Here are some possibilities as to what can be done with it:

1. Turn it into a science museum. Have a big part explaining how flood geology is riddled with fallacies.

2. Have it be a museum devoted to mythology. Utilize much of what's there, and keep the dinosaurs in a section entitled "What happens when people take myths literally." Include displays for various flood myths, paying special attention to Utnapishtim and his similarities/differences with Noah. 

3. Make a nautical museum. Yeah, it's in a landlocked part of the country. Well, who would be more starved for boat-related stuff than them? People on the coasts have their fill of that sort of a thing, thank you very much.

4. Make it a literal monument to religious folly. Have displays ranging from the weird to the outright dangerous like snake handlers and Jim Jones.

5. Why was the world flooded? Because of sin, right? Make it a museum of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. People will love it. Throw in some hookers while you're at it. See if the firmament opens and the waters pour forth.