A Visit to WB's Second Century Building

Capusle Reviews in the Time of Coronavirus (7)

Mike Nichols: A Life

I like to say I’ve been a fan of Mike Nichols since I saw the Graduate, one of my favorite films of all time, but after reading this book, I have to admit I found I was not as fully aware of the breadth of his film efforts and, particularly, his stage work, for which he’s won 9 Tonys (in fact, he’s an EGOT!).

I was already familiar with most of the broad outlines of his biography as a Jewish refugee from Europe, a groundbreaking improv and skit comedian with his comedy team partner-in-crime Elaine May, and a film director. But this book, written by Mark Harris—who also wrote the terrific Pictures at a Revolution and Five Came Back—showed me the full breadth of his work, encompassing pictures he directed that I’ve seen and/or had forgotten, such as Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf, Silkwood, and the Birdcage. And there were several I was shocked I had never heard of (or didn’t recall) like Day of the Dolphin, Wolf, and the Fortune!

But it was the breadth of his theater work that was a revelation, ranging from “Barefoot in the Park” and “The Odd Couple” in the 1960s (pairing with Neil Simon on several occasions) to “Spamalot” in 2006.

Of special interest to me, of course, is his cartooning connection—one of the first plays he tackled as a director was by cartoonist Jules Fieffer, who discovered that Nichols and May were fans of his own work (upon seeing them on stage, Feiffer found them to be kindred spirits, doing work similar to his own “but better”). Nichols would later go on to direct the film, Carnal Knowledge, on which he had Feiffer on set for most of the shoot.

As I noted in my review a few years back of Feiffer’s memoir, Backing into Forward, Feiffer (and Nichols) grew up during a fascinating era in the 1950s and ‘60s when artists, entertainers and actors, intellectuals, playwrights, movie directors and, yes, cartoonists like Feiffer seemed to mingle and cross-pollinate. I’m not sure if this was a reflection of the era or particular to the New York City social scene, but Nichols’ friendships with Feiffer and others like Simon, Richard Avedon, Leonard Bernstein, Jackie Kennedy, Gloria Steinem and, as he transitioned to Hollywood, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor (first befriending the former along with Julie Andrews when his show with Elaine May was at the Broadway theater next door to where Camelot played), Jack Nicholson, Warren Beatty, Whoopi Goldberg and more demonstrate his wide circle of connections that span decades.

While for some reason I thought Nichols to be a genial sort, like a lot of gifted artists, his personal life and demons belie that. Born to an unloving mother, prone to depression and (most surprising) addicted to coke and crack at various times in his life, he could be cruel to actors and crew on set. Like many immigrants and performers, he also was someone who reinvented himself – a Russian-Jewish immigrant by way of Germany with the birth name of Igor Mikhail Peschkowsky, he escaped Germany before the Holocaust. As he faced his demons as he got older—internalizing his guilt as a Jew who escaped Europe before the Holocaust—Nichols found a measure of peace. This was due in large part to his happy marriage to television broadcaster Diane Sawyer, who generously worked to ensure he maintained a healthy relationship with his previous wife and children. I found the book to be a compelling read about a comedian and director who had a huge impact on both the film industry and stage, and the book offers fascinating glimpses into the art that went into this work, with plenty of great anecdotes about the great figures (and their eccentricities) of the time.

Some Nichols and May, in one of their most famous sketches:

Justice League: The Snyder Cut

Director Zack Snyder is a divisive figure among movie and comics fans. While I was incredibly impressed by his film adaptation of Watchmen, like many, I’ve been put off by his incredibly dark approach to the DC Comics film universe as reflected by Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, a tone that has permeated many of DC’s other films. While it’s perhaps not fair to compare Marvel’s films to DC’s/Warner Brothers, Marvel has admirably built a franchise brand that exists as an interconnected and cohesive movie universe where the films share a common DNA yet still allow for a wide range of variety and expression, ranging from period pieces like Captain America: First Avenger, to political thrillers with Captain America: The Winter Soldier, to near-comedies like Thor: Ragnarok and Ant-Man. It’s a world-building approach they are now expanding into their DisneyPlus streaming shows, such as WandaVision and Falcon and Winter Soldier. Ultimately, most of the Marvel films have a sense of fun and are great popcorn movies. Their success also is the result in the complete conviction and faith in the strength of their intellectual properties.

While DC’s characters are just as rich, without the single guiding hand of someone like Kevin Feige, DC has never shown the same conviction and belief in their characters and universe as Marvel did at the very outset. A case in hand is the fate of Justice League. After Snyder and his producer-wife left the project following the tragic suicide of his daughter, Warner Brothers Studio hired Joss Whedon, who played an early role in Marvel’s success, having directed the Avengers and Avengers 2, to complete the film. As it was eventually revealed, Whedon significantly revised and simplified Snyder’s script and vision, and it may have been partly the result of Warner Brothers getting cold feet (again) over the density of the mythology.

I won’t say that I disliked Whedon’s Justice League as some fans, but neither did it make much of an impression on me nor was I among those clamoring for the “Snyder Cut.” That said, now having seen it, I must agree it’s a somewhat better movie — while I’m still not convinced that Snyder’s dark somewhat joyless approach to the characters is the way to go, at least this film reflects his singular vision and it’s  better for it. Not only did he get a mulligan to improve the CGI design and character arc for the film’s original villain, Steppenwolf, but he gives him a richer back story and motivation (as opposed to simply wishing to take over the world); in fact, in this version, he is actually a low-level toady to an even bigger villain, Darkseid, that expands the DC film Universe further.

The film’s plot is also slightly re-jiggered, with Cyborg playing a more central role to the plot and having a clear character arc, which Whedon completely wrote this out of his version. We also see a little bit more of Superman and more of an origin background for Flash.

Of course to accomplish this, Snyder also made it a longer movie with a running length of 4 hours. For the most part though, the movie moves along, notwithstanding the excessive use of slow-mo.

But at least the Snyder Cut is finally out there for the world to see. While it doesn’t appear that Warner Brothers has any plans to continue the path that Snyder began with this movie – and tries to tease with epilogue scenes — at least his vision has been realized.

More Capsule Reviews in the Time of Coronavirus (4)

Batman and Bill

When I went to see the film Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, I remember gasping in surprise (and excitement) when I saw Bill Finger—a comics writer widely acknowledged but never officially credited as instrumental in developing the character of Batman—receive screen credit in the film’s opening title sequence. I was aware that Bob Kane, who came up with the initial idea of Batman, had contractually been given sole official credit as the character’s creator from the very beginning and that Finger, a prolific writer who primarily worked as a ghostwriter in comics for most of his career, had died penniless and in obscurity.

The Hulu documentary Batman and Bill tells the full story that led to the credit Finger received on the film and now on all subsequent Batman productions. Much of the film focuses on the relentless detective work of Marc Tyler Nobleman, a writer who became obsessed with uncovering the story of Finger, his involvement with the creation of Batman, and his crusade to get Finger credit.

Finger’s involvement with Batman has always been an open secret in the industry—though Kane came up with the initial idea of the character, Finger wrote most if not all of the earliest stories and reportedly suggested many of the elements that became a signature of the character, such as the cowl, dark colors, scalloped cape, the batcave, batmobile, and many of the villains. Finger was essentially considered an early member of Kane’s shop—a ghost who also did other work for DC—and died in obscurity in 1974.

Unlike the more naive Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who created Superman and notoriously gave away the rights to the character for $130, Kane shrewdly leveraged a sweetheart deal with DC Comics that gave him sole creator credit and a share of the licensing and profits. As far as I know, the contract has never been made public, which the documentary seems to confirm.

Adding to the mystery was the fact that Finger had no known direct heirs or descendants, who would be the only people with any standing to make a claim. His line seemed to end with Finger’s son, who died in the 1990s of AIDS. However, in a quirk of fate, Nobleman discovered that Finger’s son actually had been briefly married and produced a daughter. After Nobleman connected with the family, he learned that Finger’s involvement in the creation of Batman was part of family lore and had hung over the family like a dark cloud. Both Finger and Finger’s son made occasional attempts to get DC Comics to make amends with little luck. While DC never denied Finger’s claim outright, they never, of course, made any concessions. (Throughout, the family made clear their main goal was simply getting Finger credit).

(Kane himself does not come off well—while in moments of guilt he acknowledged Finger’s work, including in his memoir, at the end he seemed to double-down on the myth that he was Batman’s sole creator.)

Though the family by then felt they no longer had the energy or resources to pursue the claim further, with the encouragement and support of Nobleman and others, including family and friends who were attorneys, they again approached DC. To their credit, again due to Finger’s well known involvement in the creation of the character, DC treated the family amicably and with a degree of understanding, inviting them to premieres and other events celebrating the character; his granddaughter also was invited to comics conventions where she got the opportunity to speak about her grandfather and their cause. After some legal back and forth, an agreement was soon reached—the family prudently came to an agreement rather than pursue a protracted legal fight, though they used the threat of potential litigation as leverage. The outcome was the credit given to Finger on the film and in other media where creative credit is given: “Created by Bob Kane with Bill Finger.”

I found the documentary moving—after Siegel and Shuster (and, over at Marvel Comics, Jack Kirby), Finger’s story ranks among the great injustices in the comics industry. Fittingly, an award presented annually at the San Diego Comic-Con that recognizes comics writers—one deceased and one still living each year—who have not been adequate recognition during their lifetimes for their work was named the Bill Finger Award.

Professor Marston and the Wonder Women

Professor Marston and the Wonder Women tells the fascinating and salacious story of William Moulton Marston, creator of Wonder Woman, and the women with whom he appeared to have lived with in a polyamorous relationship, Sarah Elizabeth Holloway and Olive Byrne. (Marston was legally married to Holloway, had children with Byrne, and the two women continued to live with each other after Marston’s early death at age 53).

Though the family has dismissed the details of the story—which the filmmakers acknowledge is based on conjecture—it is nevertheless, at times, a moving account of their complex relationship and arrangement. The story is less successful when portraying their sexual life—though rated R due to subject matter, the film nevertheless keeps the portrayals relatively tame and in good taste; however, given that their relationship may have involved BDSM (which is partly relevant because the early Wonder Woman comics notoriously featured such acts explicitly in the comic book), these scenes sometimes unintentionally come off as humorous. While all the actors are fine, including Luke Evans as Marston and Bella Heathcote as Olive, Rebecca Hall particularly shines as Elizabeth.

Nevertheless, by the end of the film, I felt sufficiently moved by the story and their love for each other that I could get past these scenes. 

Rebel in the Rye

Actor Nicholas Hoult, who has been on a roll lately (and who I’ve followed since his film debut in About a Boy when he was about 13), has become the recent go-to actor of portraying writers: he recently played J.R.R. Tolkien in Tolkien (2019) and also appeared as J.D. Salinger in 2017’s Rebel in the Rye. I actually saw Tolkien in the theaters on its release earlier this year and was not aware of Rebel in the Rye until I came across it recently on Hulu.

What’s striking about the film is that they are similarly about two writers who were deeply scarred psychology by war, which manifested itself in their writing: Tolkien was gassed in World War I whereas Salinger saw combat on D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge and other skirmishes in World War II (which included liberating the Dachau Nazi concentration camp).

Of the two, I found Rebel in the Rye to be the slightly better film, though it only lightly touches on Salinger’s questionable behavior related to pursuing (and perhaps grooming) much younger women. (The film came out about the time the #metoo movement was born.) In contrast, Tolkien focuses more on his relationship with the woman who would become his wife. Nevertheless, both are fine movies that provide some insight into the writers and the experiences that informed their writing.

Margin Call
I want to give a shout out to the outstanding film Margin Call, a perennial favorite of mine which I have watched several times over the years (meaning it’s shown up more than once in my end of year Entertainment Roundups!)

Set at a fictional Wall Street investment bank over a 24-hour period during the start of the 2007–08 financial crisis, the film’s events are set in motion by the discovery of an investment bubble that threatens to bring down the firm by a low-level risk management officer (Zachary Quinto), who is given a head’s up by his boss who has just been laid off (Stanley Tucci). The discovery prompts a late-night/early-morning emergency meeting that leads to the fateful decision to save the firm by essentially selling back and unloading all their investments and positions back onto their unwitting customers and clients before the meltdown occurs and they’re found out. (Investment bank Goldman Sachs similarly moved early to reduce its position in mortgage-backed securities, which triggered the great recession of 2008.)

The film itself feels like a taut suspenseful thriller. At first, this might sound like hyperbole since the movie itself consists of talking heads (in fact, the film feels like it could be produced as a stage play), until one remembers that ordinary people’s very livelihoods and futures throughout the country and around the world were very much impacted by the over-exposure to risky investments and their collapse.

Nevertheless, while the film gives enough information to viewers to understand what is happening, it focuses on the people and their varying degree of culpability and sense of responsibility/conscience of what is occurring. It does seem to suggest that the higher up you are in the chain, the more entitled and less responsible you feel—but make no mistake, these are indeed the so-called “Masters of the Universe,” as portrayed in Tom Wolfe’s book about Wall Street, The Bonfire of the Vanities. It helps to have a topnotch cast; in addition to Quinto and Tucci, the film also features Kevin Spacey, Paul Bettany, Jeremy Irons, Simon Baker, and Demi Moore.

The cast is equally excellent all around, but Irons as the somewhat amoral head of the company is particularly delicious in a relatively small role—underscoring how complex and inscrutable high finance can be even to the people running the companies, at one point asking that the problem be explained to him as simply as possible: “Speak to me as you would a two-year old or a golden retriever.”

I always enjoy such these financial drama, though they vary widely in quality. I count Margin Call and 2015’s the Big Short among the very best of these (one could also include the influential Glengarry Glen Ross here, though the financial shenanigans there are more incidental to the plot rather than the centerpiece). Wall Street, the Boiler Room, and Too Big to Fail are additional films in this category that are less successful. Wall Street certainly hit the zeitgeist of the time, and while it's a great time capsule of the ‘80s financial world, I don’t feel it’s aged well.

More Capsule Reviews in the Time of Coronavirus (3)

Following the cancellation of the San Diego Comic-Con earlier this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Warner Brothers (WB), the owner of DC Comics, announced DC FanDome, an entertainment and comic-book convention that would be held virtually on Saturday, August 22, and not participate at Comic-Con@Home, the virtual version of this year’s Comic-Con. 

Though the event was vaguely on my radar, I didn’t make a point of noting the date on my calendar. The morning of the convention, however, I got a text from my brother reminding me of the event. My family and I ended up turning it on and streamed it through YouTube all day, watching more of it than we expected (it helped, of course, that like many across the country, we were sheltering at home).

What was a bit awkward about the timing of Fandome was the announcement the week before of massive layoffs and restructuring at Warner Brothers that reached down deep into DC Comics as well. Several senior and longtime staff at DC were let go, though DC chief executive Jim Lee remained among the last people standing as DC Chief Creative Officer/Publisher. (Indeed, on a panel about the Multiverse of DC’s head honchos that included Lee, President of DC Films Walter Hamada and showrunner Greg Berlanti, who oversees DC Comics’ TV shows on the CW, it was clear that all decisions related to the direction of any DC characters were run through Lee.)

That aside, for the most part, the event was engaging and entertaining. Like regular Comic-Con, there was something for everyone, including gamers, fans of the DC Comics superhero films and, hey, even comics! And, as noted on the above panel, there was a very evident focus on developing an international audience—indeed, many of the hosts and fan questions were from overseas.

The main anchors of the virtual event were clearly the upcoming Wonder Woman, Snyder Cut Justice League, Suicide Squad and Batman films, along with coverage of TV shows like the Flash, and upcoming video games. There were brief bits on the Flash television show, highlights of fan art, an announcement about the return of DC imprint Milestone, one of the first comics companies founded by African-American cartoonists, and like a normal comics convention, even a “portfolio review”!

FanDome was held as a continuous, single stream, with “panels” following each other successively on a schedule during a 24-hour period, with the content taken down soon after.

In contrast, Comic-Con@Home, San Diego Comic-Con’s 2020 edition, like the regular Comic-Con, ran a gamut of panels concurrently and have kept the content online. While Comic-Con@Home received good-to-mixed reviews, it’s not really a fair comparison: while Comic-Con@@Home depended on a wide variety of people and companies to provide content, WB of course had more control over the content, execution and production, and presented it as a single stream, all in support of a single message and brand. (I presume it was also cheaper to mount.)

While it’s possible WB has developed a model that other conventions may want to emulate going forward, that doesn’t necessarily mean the traditional in-person convention is suddenly obsolete. Perhaps the main advantage of the virtual convention is the egalitarian nature of it--open to all, to anyone around the world. But, of course, it doesn’t beat the advantages of being able to interact directly with fans in person. It’s clear WB is partly following the model Disney has created with its D23 conventions, which has resulted in Disney partly pulling back on its presence at Comic-Con, I’m not sure WB and its DC FanDome would have the same reach and impact. No doubt they’re assessing though.

Comics Distribution War

While I’m no longer beholden to the mainstream comics distribution system, the business side of the comics industry still fascinates me and is something I occasionally cover at this blog.

It’s for this reason I thought I’d weigh in on the momentous announcement by DC Comics to sever its ties with Diamond Comics Distribution and partner with two other distributors.

This move has potential serious consequences for Diamond, for comics retailers, as well as the stability of the market as a whole.

First, DC—home to the “granddaddy” of comics superheroes like Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman—commands just under less than a third of the share comics market. That essentially means Diamond will lose that percentage of their sales income, at least in new comics.

For comics retailers, this means having to sign up with new distributors if they are going to sell DC’s comics. Many retailers are upset and concerned that this will increase their shipping costs for products that already have razor thing profit margins. It’s important to note that most if not nearly all comic-book retailers (usually referred to as the “direct market”) are essentially mom-and-pop operations. Overseas retailers are also concerned because the new distributors do not appear yet to have the same system in place as Diamond to affordably ship comics overseas.

Regarding the stability of the market—DC made this announcement in the middle of a pandemic, with some stores already currently shuttered; on top of that, Diamond temporarily had suspended shipments due to the pandemic, which disrupted flow of both comics and income. Indeed, Diamond suspended payments during this time. During the closure, DC temporarily sought new distribution channels, which may have partly led to this decision.

The flip side of this issue is the feeling by many that Diamond was a “monopoly” and perhaps had stagnated the system.

While I’m not enough of an expert to comment on this, I will say that making such a surprise announcement, in the middle of a pandemic and with virtually no leadtime doesn’t seem very prudent or fair. (The announcement, which was a surprise to Diamond as well, is effective the end of this month.)

As a bit of background, the last time there was this much of a seismic shift in the distribution system was in 1994. At the time, there were several competing and regional distribution systems that served the direct market. However, under new ownership, Marvel Comics similarly made the decision to distribute exclusively with a company called Heroes World. This led to the subsequent realignment of the distribution system—anxious to ensure its financial viability, Diamond signed DC to an exclusive contract. In an effort to ensure continued competition in the direct market distribution system, many of the remaining alternative publishers signed exclusive deals with a rival, Capital City Distribution. However, these alternatives did not have enough market share to keep Capital City viable, leading to that company’s eventual collapse and the alternatives flocking to Diamond. Marvel’s experiment with Heroes World failed for similar reasons and ended up with Diamond, making the distributor the sole surviving company. While the federal government did look into whether Diamond was a monopoly it ultimately took no action—I have always thought it was because the market was relatively too small to merit such action.

So here we are, in the middle of a pandemic and a seismic change in the comics industries. It’s anyone’s guess how it will play out, but there is understandably a lot of concern, given that it’s on top of a devastating pandemic that has led to store shutdowns and curtailed sales—when the economy tanks, it is usually “luxury” non-necessity items like comics that are the first to go.

For ongoing coverage of this, see Bleeding Cool here, here and here. A good history of the distribution market to 2011 can be found at the Delusional Honesty website.

Remembering the King

Cartoonists Alex Toth and Jack “The King” Kirby are often held up as the cartoonists who represented the two main competing “schools” in comic-books—at the risk of oversimplifying, Toth was more naturalistic while Kirby more operatic. When the superhero genre came to dominate the industry, Kirby’s more immediate, hard-hitting style—coupled with Marvel editor and writer Stan Lee’s chummy banter—became the template for the comic-book industry for a generation or more.

Toth came from the “school” of cartooning that has its roots in the newspaper adventure strips, most notably studio-mates Noel Sickles and Alex Toth, who themselves were preceded by Roy Crane (to whom Toth equally credits as an inspiration). I’ve written about Toth, Sickles, Caniff, and Crane extensively over the years, so it’s no secret where my own stylistic influences lie.

But this year marks the centenary of Kirby’s birth (August 28), so I thought I’d add my own tribute and appreciation—the San Diego Comic-Con celebrated Kirby’s centennial birth this year (as it did cartoonist Will Eisner, born the same year) and numerous articles and tributes appeared on his birthday.

Having been born in the early 1960s, I was a little young to see Kirby’s heyday at Marvel in the mid-to-late ‘60s when, in a dazzling burst of creativity, with cohort Stan Lee, he created the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, the X-Men, Spider- Man, and more (he had already co-created Captain America with then-partner Joe Simon in 1941, right before the U.S. entered World War II). And by time I was fully into comics, in addition to my fascination with classic newspaper adventure strips by the artists mentioned above, my comic-book reading gravitated more towards characters and series like Batman and Sgt. Rock than to Kirby’s more cosmic work.

With that said, as someone with an interest in the history of comics, I was nevertheless very familiar with Kirby’s place in comics history, particularly through Stan Lee’s take-it-with-a-grain-of-salt memoir, Origin of Marvel Comics (1974). I have a vague memory of being fascinated around this time by some back issue of the Fantastic Four and, as a World War II buff at the time, reprints of the Boy Commandos that were reissued by DC Comics during the ‘70s. It was during my personal “Golden Age” of comics reading (i.e., age 12) when Kirby left Marvel for DC to create his Fourth World/New Gods meta-series, Kamandi, the Last Boy on Earth, and work on other books like Jimmy Olsen. The New Gods series was not a hit at DC and Kirby would eventually move on for greener pastures to work in animated television as a concept designer and return later to do more work at Marvel, DC and even the independent market.

But anyone with even a minimal interest in comics—or who has seen a recent superhero movie—has been touched by Kirby. Aside from his creations and origin stories being the foundation for the Marvel films, his New Gods creations appear to be the source for the next phase of DC’s films as well, with the confirmation of a New Gods character, Steppenwolf, as the villain for the upcoming Justice League film. (I actually first became more familiar with the New Gods through the Superman and Justice League animated series, which I thought was a stroke of genius because they were characters who could finally give the nearly invincible Superman and his super friends a real run for their money.) So it’s remarkable to note that the major story arcs of both current Marvel and DC film franchises carry Kirby’s creative DNA.

Like many of the great cartoonists of his generation, Kirby was respected but never fully appreciated—nor fairly compensated—for his work or creations. Indeed, when comics companies began returning original artwork to artists, Kirby’s art was essentially held hostage by Marvel as it tried to impose stipulations on his work’s return. Then after Kirby’s death, his family, through his estate, pursued litigation against Marvel, which involved an effort to regain ownership of Captain America.

However, in 2014, days before the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to discuss whether it would review the case, Marvel and the Kirby Estate jointly announced that it had amicably settled the matter. Though the terms have never been disclosed, Kirby has since received much deserved and overdue credit on the films and comics, and it is assumed that there was a significant financial settlement. Further cementing the reach of his contributions is the fact that the Disney Company, now the owner of Marvel Comics and the de facto beneficiaries of Kirby’s genius, this year named the artist a “Disney Legend.”

Like many comic-book artists of his generation, Kirby came from hardscrabble Jewish immigrant roots and was focused on providing financial security for his family, often becoming frustrated that he did not receive proper credit for his work, let alone a fair share of the profits generated by his creative work. While Kirby was a visionary, like many cartoonists, he was a poor businessman. Nevertheless, while Kirby did not see these wrongs made right in his lifetime, thanks to the overdue credit and financial settlement to him and his family, Kirby’s legacy and contributions have been firmly cemented in history.

For a couple of excellent comprehensive overviews of Kirby's career and legacy on his 100th birthday, see Mark Evanier's blog and Jeet Heer's New Republic article.

REVIEWS: SW and BvS

With Star Wars: The Force Awakens now available on BluRay/DVD, and Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice well into its theatrical run, I thought I’d weigh in on these two films that are tentpoles for two major franchises….

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

After successfully revitalizing and updating Star Trek, Abrams was persuaded (with some prodding) to tackle Star Wars. In some quarters—particularly among older fans—there was the feeling that the prequel trilogy that George Lucas produced (Episodes I-III) had somewhat tarnished the brand. With Disney now the owner of Lucafilm—and Lucas’s handpicked successor, Kathleen Kennedy, now running the studio—there was a lot riding on plans to continue the series. Abrams had the (seemingly) unenviable task of pleasing the old guard while introducing new characters that would hopefully in the same way capture the hearts and imaginations of a new generation of fans as the original iconic cast of characters.

Most reviewers and fans have agreed that Abrams achieved this goal and then some. Like many, the film for me brought back that same feeling I had after seeing the original Star Wars (now Episode IV: A New Hope) when I was 14 years old. To be frank, it’s not a feeling I’ve had for a long time.

While some have noted that the plot of the new Star Wars film echoes the beats of the original, it nevertheless is a successful melding of old and new, with the original characters (and actors) passing the baton to a new generation.

At the heart of this, for me, is actress Ridley Daisy, as Rey. The extent of her popularity among audiences (even among males who are often thought to be resistant to a female action lead) reportedly even surprised Disney. Daisy gives a remarkable performance — Rey’s facial expressions and reactions can break your heart and though lonely and wounded, she is a strong figure who has been universally embraced because of her strength, courage and resilience, not because of her gender. Starting with Rey, with this film Abrams has also brought greater diversity to the Star Wars cast and universe, which is essential to reflect the realities of our own world, as well an acknowledgment of a more diverse and international media market. However, by no means has the series’ new direction meant that the original characters are being cast aside—as the last shot of the film demonstrates, Luke Skywalker clearly will play a central role in the next installment.

In terms of production value, Abrams (along with screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan, who wrote Episodes V—considered the best in the current canon—and VI), wanted to bring back the gritty, analog quality to the films that Lucas displayed in the first trilogy but strangely eschewed when he worked on the prequels trilogy. His over-reliance on CGI and green screen on the later movies made them antiseptic, sleek and hard to relate to.

Abrams is a true fan who gave the franchise back its heart. The most important goal was to make audiences feel as invested in the new cast as the original. And it appears he has succeeded—so here’s to the coming SW: Rogue I and Episode VIII!

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Like Abrams, filmmaker Zack Snyder faced a daunting challenge with Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Though a simple sequel was initially planned to 2013’s Man of Steel, not wanting to be left behind by Marvel Studios’ success with its series of universe-building franchises—anchored by the Avengers films but ably supported by a satellite of successful films featuring A- and B-list properties ranging from Captain America and Thor to Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy—the film soon represented Warner Bros. (DC Comics’ owners) nascent steps down the path of building its own integrated movie universe.

Towards that end, DC decided to start off with a bang and strong statement by teaming the two eldest statesmen of comics properties, Batman and Superman, on film for the first time. And if that were not enough, they also introduced Wonder Woman and included brief cameos of Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg, as a preview to the upcoming Justice League film, which will also be preceded by some satellite films featuring, at least, Wonder Woman and Aquaman, as well as ancillary characters like the upcoming Suicide Squad.

It was a tall order and the film has a lot to squeeze in. As a result, as some critics have noted, the film is overwrought at times. The epic, climactic battle between Batman and Superman—which itself would have been the fitting end of any big-budget film—turns out to be only a bit of a prelude to an even bigger battle with a super being named Doomsday created by iconic Superman arch nemesis Lex Luthor.

Reviews have been mixed to savage, but to tell you the truth, I liked the film (and there has been a bit of a backlash to the backlash). To be fair, in many ways, this film is more faithful to the comics than many other superhero films—however, that also may be its weakness because it speaks more to the hardcore geek audience/comics fans than it does to mainstream audiences.(In contrast, Marvel has been incredibly effective in balancing the need to please existing comics fans while also producing appealing, mainstream “popcorn” films.)

Despite all the business in the film, and perhaps aided by the film’s 2 hour and 45 minute length, I never found any of the characters shortchanged (though I did feel it took awhile for Batman to appear onscreen).

Among the highlights: Affleck is great as Batman/Bruce Wayne; the connection that finally makes Batman see Superman’s humanity is a clever and effective moment that reaches deeply into the characters’ history; Gal Gadot makes a totally kick-ass Wonder Woman, making the shot of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman itself worth the price of admission. (Like Star Wars' Rey, Wonder Woman has been a breakout female hero that has been universally embraced by geeks of all genders.) And the ending was a surprise, setting up, presumably, the upcoming Justice League film.

There have been some complaints about Jesse Eisenberg’s performance as Lex Luthor, some feeling that he didn’t even seem to be in the same film. Personally, I thought his performance was fine; if nothing else, his Lex Luthor certainly was a more serious villain than the ones portrayed by Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey on film, where their obsession with real estate bordered on comic relief. In contrast, in BvS, Luthor is a man jealous of Superman’s godlike power and uses the same feelings of fear and awe he shares with Batman/Bruce Wayne shares to exploit the animosity between Superman and Batman. I'm glad that the film ends in a respect between the two characters, unlike the ongoing dislike between the characters in the current comics.

Perhaps my one negative response was this is a Batman that certainly kills a lot of people. This did seem a bit at odds with the character’s history, but I guess it is a reflection of the times we live in.

Uber-Batman fan Kevin Smith felt there wasn’t a lot of heart or humor in the film. Frankly, the lack of humor in the DC Universe films has always been an issue – while it’s probably unfair to compare the WB/DC films to the Marvel films when both acknowledge they have taken different approaches, Marvel nevertheless has found a way to have fun and be humorous while not sacrificing spectacle or the integrity of the characters; in contrast, DC’s films tend more humorless and take themselves a bit too seriously.

But I do believe there was heart in the film; it just takes some digging to get there.

"I always wondered when Warner Brothers would figure out that they owned DC Comics?"

Shortly after I had scheduled to publish my comments below about the Disney/Marvel announcement, another huge entertainment-related news story broke which threatened to overshadow the Disney/Marvel story....

I'm speaking, of course, about the announcement that Ellen Degeneres is joining "American Idol."

I'm kidding, of course—I'm actually referring to the shakeup over at DC Comics, in which in a move similar to Disney/Marvel, the venerable comic-book publisher of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman now becomes DC Entertainment and more fully integrated within its parent company at Warner Brothers.

To be fair, a move like this takes a lot of planning so it's likely been on the boards for awhile. The timing of the announcement, however, was no doubt precipitated by Disney's action, perhaps in an attempt to suck some of the air out of the excitement over Disney's move. While I personally found the timing poor, conveying a sense of desperation, I guess WB felt that if it waited longer (or until the new year), they might otherwise look like total also-rans that were copycatting Disney. By making the announcement sooner than later, they can say they meant to do it all along.

Indeed, such a move was expected at some point. It was generally agreed that WB had never done a good job of managing or fully exploiting its superhero properties—an example being the fitful way the company dealt with the re-launch of the Superman franchise earlier in this decade (at one point, a Batman/Superman film was on the boards), and the off-and-on again Wonder Woman movie.

WB has owned DC since the '70s, but the huge conglomerate generally kept the comic-book company at arm's distance, meddling little in its affairs, and licensing out its characters piecemeal, no doubt seeing the company as a minor licenseable property within its multimedia empire. (As one columnist noted, "I always wondered when Warner Brothers would figure out that they owned DC Comics?")

Marvel, too, had similar problems maximizing the potential of its properties—witness two on-the-cheap film adaptations of Captain America and the Fantastic Four from the '90s that the studio paid to bury so embarrassing were the results. But when the Spider-Man films proved the worth of their properties, Marvel—being a bit smaller and, hence, nimbler than the WB-owned DC—moved to clamp down on its properties and assert greater creative say and control by establishing its own movie studio. With comic-book properties now becoming the source of highly successful tent-pole franchises, WB has clearly seen the light, and is now hoping to emulate this integrated approach that creates some continuity and synergy in the way DC's characters are handled.

To echo what I wrote below about the Disney/Marvel partnership (and written before WB's announcement), it’s likely that new DC Entertainment President Diane Nelson—who self-admittedly is not "by nature a comic fan"—does not plan to manage DC Comics or its comic-book publishing operations on a day-to-day basis. Like Disney with Marvel, as long as DC makes money and supports its own operations, DC likely will be allowed to continue publishing its comics as it sees fit, if for no other reason than to continue producing the content that will be the source for other more lucrative new media platforms. Nelson’s job is not to run a comic-book company, but to migrate those characters and their decades of content to films and new media.

While I would prefer to avoid the term "winners" and "losers," in such shakeups there invariably always will be collatoral damage. Chief among them is now-former DC Comics President and Publisher Paul Levitz. Levitz is a true-blue fanboy, starting at DC in his teens (particularly known for his writing on the Legion of Super-Heroes), who got an MBA while he remained working with the company, and rose to the position of president and publisher. Generally recognized as one of the "good guys," Levitz will return to writing (including Legion) and work as a "special consultant" due to his extensive knowledge of the DC universe. While it's not clear whether Levitz was given an opportunity to remain in a management position at DC, the change likely would have made him a mid-level person in the new new DC Entertainment chain of command, so he likely opted to exit as gracefully as possible.

---

Above cartoon from the New Yorker

With much of the dust now settled, I thought I might as well weigh in on my own thoughts about what likely will be one of the biggest comics/movie/entertainment news stories of the year: Disney's acquisition of Marvel Comics for $4 billion.

Though there have been a few reported predictable fanboy rants like the one below (quoted at The Beat)—

This is like disgusting in many levels......

Disney has always been in their entire existence to buy out the competition or aquire it and then ruin the foundations it was based on. Although it may be a “sweet deal” to everyone who has stock Marvel will forever be a Disney product and I will not buy anything from Marvel again. 4 billion is “chump change” to Disney, Marvel will “lose” out again in making more money on their own!!!!!!

I think this is a “bad” idea for Marvel to “sell out” to Disney I mean the reason Marvel is doing well is because of us “kids” who are now in to their 40’s and 50’s who still appreciate the characters we grew up with and totally support all of the merchandise involved with Marvel heroes.

—for the most part, I doubt the average person (or, indeed, even most comic-book fans) will see much of a difference. (The above rant typifies the distorted view of some fans who equate emotional investment of a product with actual ownership.)

Marvel Comics will undoubtedly continue to produce their comics—and probably even their films—under the Marvel Comics imprint, with little if any meddling by Disney. Disney acquired Marvel for the strength of its brand, and I doubt Disney would do anything to risk damaging that brand, under the "why fix what ain't broke" axiom. Disney will likely grant Marvel the same degree of independence it has given Pixar, leaving well enough alone (keeping in mind this never would have been possible under former Disney CEO Michael Eisner's stewardship).

So if Disney isn't interested in directly running a comic-book publishing company, what do both sides get out of the bargain?

The $4 billion Disney paid for Marvel wasn't for the joy of publishing comic books, but rather for Marvel's rich goldmine of 7,000 characters and 70 years of story continuity. So while Marvel will continue to publish its comics as it always has done, no doubt Disney will work with Marvel to bring its characters to new, more lucrative platforms.

With this acquisition, Disney also finally has an instant, credible foothold in a market that so far has eluded the house of mouse: young male adolescents. While Disney Channel has evolved into the de facto channel for tween girls, Disney has met with less success finding ways to appeal to boys (witness Disney's launch earlier this year of the XD Channel). Marvel solves that problem.

And on top of all this, of course, any profits generated by Marvel will trickle upwards towards Disney's coffers.

For its part, Marvel gets the muscle and access to the deep pockets of one of the most recognized and largest multimedia companies in the world. Despite its success, Marvel has struggled finding adequate resources to achieve its goal to self-finance its films—witness the embarrassing attempts to save money that nearly resulted in the exit of director Jon Favreau from the Iron Man sequel and of Samuel L. Jackson as recurring character Nick Fury.

Yes, this is a sea change—but remember that Marvel's main competitor, DC Comics (publisher of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman), is itself owned by Warner Brothers. Most changes will be transparent to consumers, and will occur more on the business/platform side of things rather than content, particularly as Hollywood continues exploring new media platforms as traditional print, television and film struggle to re-invent themselves. Marvel's established characters and fan base will give Disney recognizable content to more aggressively explore new arenas.

To me, aside from the actual acquisition, the real story behind the announcement was that it was such a well kept secret. The news took everyone by surprise, turning it into an even bigger story as news outlets scrambled to get up to speed. Most observers quickly saw the great genius of the partnership, and even rival companies found themselves kicking themselves for not thinking of it first.

For a detailed report on how the deal happened and an assessment of the Marvel acquisition, I recommend entertainment blogger Nikki Finke's recent coverage of the news.