Marvel at #SDCC 2017: Captain Marvel, Thor, and Infinity War

This will not be a comprehensive look at everything Marvel had at San Diego Comic Con this year.

In part because they dropped an Avengers trailer during SDCC .... and it's been leaked, and taken down in short order. It's come back and forth from being released online, and taken down.

So, to start with, the most important piece of news ... Punisher will be in The Defenders.

And if he isn't, they've got a trailer to explain (the 60 second mark)

Well, that didn't add much ... but show us that Stan Lee is still alive. Good for him.

And now, we've got Thor: Ragnarok

I was a little worried that they were going to be focused on the wrong things in this one. I like that Bruce Banner appears in the trailer as Bruce Banner. It could have been all too easy for them to have the not so jolly green giant have all the screen time. But seeing Mark Ruffalo is reassuring. And ... is that Hulk versus Fenris? Really? Huh.

Though I'm amused that Jeff Goldblum is even in the franchise now.

I especially like how Loki is revealed here. I was wondering how they were going to handle it. Also, gee whiz, they're using GUNS. Heh.

But, damn it, I want to see how Doctor Strange shows up in the film. I'd rather it would be more than just a glance at the end.

Again, we've got more of a humor vibe here, with our opening to the trailer. Definitely more of a Guardians, over the top vibe here.

Also the Avengers Infinity War trailer opened with the Guardians running into space debris ... Thor. Who looks pretty much like he does here, only far more run down.

Speaking of Avengers Infinity War, it's got some poster art.

So, there's that.

In other news, they're discussing Captain Marvel. In the comics, Carol Danvers, air force fighter pilot, was kidnapped by aliens called the Skrulls, experimented on, and turned into a neigh-invincible, flying juggernaut who shoots lasers out of her hands.

In the Cinematic universe .... Captain Marvel will be set in the 1990s.

... What?

Okay, it's been confirmed that the Skrulls will actually show up. They've been wary about showing another alien race here. Though I'm wondering why they haven't used the Skrulls before this, given that they've had ample excuses and opportunities to do so. Especially since, in the Comics, the Skrulls have been at war with the Kree (of Guardians) forever ... why were the Kree at war with the Nova Corps in Guardians? But I suppose that legal issues have been settled, and Captain Marvel will settle the Kree-Skrull war? Who knows?

The film will also star Samuel L. Jackson with two eyes. Because the 90s.

Yeah, I have no idea why they'd set it in the 90s. The actress they have for Captain Marvel, Brie Larson, looks like she's 12. Unless they're going to say that the powers have slowed down her aging ... but if that's the case, where the bleep has she been through: three alien invasions, a robot army, and a SHIELD meltdown?

The answer is probably ... IN SSSSSPPPPPPAAAAAAAAAACCCCCEEEE.

But we'll see.

All in all, it looks like Marvel is going to stay on top for a while. As long as you don't count their network TV shows. Those just look like they suck.

Thor: Ragnarok, a Teaser falls

For all those women who have been awaiting the latest in the Shirtless Hemsworth series, I give you: Thor: Ragnarok

In the original comic books, the Ragnarok storyline was all about getting Thor off the map for the Civil War event of 2005.

Mysteriously enough, at the same time, also before Civil War, Hulk was shipped off planet, via rocket ship, to land on an alien world where he would eventually rise to become ruler.  The title of THAT event was Planet Hulk.

I guess that the films decided that they were going to do two of them at the same time.

For those people who remember, when we last saw Loki, he was taking over Asgard disguised as Odin. And here, we see Hela, queen of Hel trashing Asgard. This version may or may not be related to Loki, like the original myths, but it's a really long story or Marvel doing whatever they like with mythology.

So, Hela trashes Asgard. Thor becomes a gladiator on an alien world but by Jeff Goldblum, and runs into Hulk. There will be smashing.

I suspect that the three act structure of this one will be-- Asgard is toast at the 40 minute mark, Thor, Banner and Loki are able to get away from the alien gladiator world by the end of act 2, and act three will open with Strange consulting/

Yes, Cumberbatch is confirmed to be in this movie as Doctor Strange. In fact, if you look at the IMDB page, the cast list starts with Loki, then Strange, Idris Elba's Heimdall, Cate Blanchett's Hela, and THEN, Chris Hemsworth.  He's getting fifth billing and he's the title character? Oy.  Obviously, this will not be in the credits for the film, they'll have a different arrangement, but still....

SPECULATION: As I said before, just going off of the title, this will enable Thanos to get his hands on the Tesseract / Cosmic Cube from Avengers. Or, as I said,

This means that Ragnarok will either have Thanos attacking Asgard, or will have Thanos in a final, post-credit scene in which he goes through the wreckage of Asgard, coming up with the gauntlet, and probably the Tesseract.

Now that we know Thanos is not attacking Asgard (directly), I expect that his post-credits scene from Age of Ultron will be the actual end of Ragnarok. 

With Thor going to other planets in this one, will Marvel take this opportunity to has him run into the Guardians of the Galaxy? I would, if only to bring them more into the fold.

Also, right now, we have five Infinity gems accounted for, there's one outstanding. When last we looked, Dr. Strange has one, Vision has one (putting two on Earth), The Collector has one, Asgard has one, and the Nova corps has one.

Guardians 2 and Ragnarok are perhaps the best opportunity for Thanos to get three out of six -- but there is Captain Marvel and two more Avengers films that should provide ample opportunity. At the very least, I expect to see the final infinity gem revealed this year. (Yes, I also said that it's possible it could show up in Wakanda. If it doesn't show up in the main MCU films this year, that's the only option left)

But we'll see.

Speaking of superhero like topics
My books
The Love at First Bite series. 

    

Election Day: Who Would Superman Vote For?

Between Captain America, Green Arrow / Green Lantern, Spider-Man (Peter Parker), and Batman (Bruce Wayne), it's already been a busy day.

But for those of you just showing up, we're doing an expanded version of the 2012 post where I broke down comic book characters by politics. Because the 2016 election has been a joke since the nomination process.

This will be an all day thing. One post per character ... mostly. The shorter ones will be grouped together. After all, there's no much I can do with Deadpool.

Superman, aka Clark Kent

Clark Kent is a big city reporter, and over 90% of journalists are Democrat supporters, so it should go Hillary. Kent has also recently given up a job with the Daily Planet because it was bought but someone who kinda resembles Rupert Murdoch -- evil big business, after all.  So, that would be left-leaning.

On the other hand, Clark Kent was raised in Kansas by a rural farming family. So there's a possibility for Trump.

However, as Superman, he once rescinded his American citizenship for five minutes.

Hillary's decorum thus far would probably put him off.

Trump's decorum would probably put him off.

Superman is an illegal alien, so Hillary.

He wears red white and blue, so Trump.

And Kansas is a really strange place to start with, so who only knows what people are thinking.

VOTE GOES TO: It depends on who's writing Superman at the time.


Bruce Banner, aka The Incredible Hulk 

Dr. Bruce Banner, fugitive from practically everybody on the planet, he likes the back end of nowhere, and staying as far from military and local authorities as humanly possible.

Enter Hillary, who seems to want to cut the military budget and the US involvement in foreign affairs.  And she has anger management issues.

VOTE GOES TO: No one. Bruce Banner is probably not even registered to vote.

Nick Fury

Like Captain America, the original Nick Fury is yet another World War II vet. He is also a spymaster, will defend the planet against enemies foreign and domestic, which will make him both socially conservative and pro-military.

Then again, he'll want someone he can manipulate.  Or would he want someone who agrees with him already?

Either way, Trump's policies (the few he's discussed, anyway) wouldn't offput Fury. He's dealt with bigger jerks. There would be very little reason to vote for Hillary, though

VOTE GOES TO: Whoever Fury has rigged the election for, so .... Trump? Maybe?


See the previous posts: Captain America
Green Arrow / Green Lantern.
Spider-Man (Peter Parker)
Batman (Bruce Wayne)
Iron Man (Tony Stark)
Daredevil
Deadpool
Catwoman

Or, while we're all here.... Murphy's Law of Vampires, sequel to the second place Sad Puppies 4 nominee for best novel, and Dragon Award nominated novel Honor at Stake came out yesterday. 

Enjoy.

Flashback blog: Strong Female Character Syndrome

Yes, today is the last day of voting for Sad Puppies 4 nominations. Yes, I know that this is a thing that can lead to all sorts of interesting possibilities. And yes, I'm recycling a blog. Why? Because time. And radio shows. And because I fisked this latest one in October. And I'm having heart palpitations just thinking about SP4, okay? Just vote or read, please.



I believe it was Stuart West who told me in private correspondence that he appreciated how many strong female characters I have. I was a little thrown there because it took me a moment to figure out what he was talking about.

In my novels, I have Manana Shushurin, who's a spy that's more James Bond than George Smiley.  She reads, likes music, has a degree from Wittenberg university .... has no social life, and technically, lives with her mother (technically, I say, because she really lives in her office). She also has a secret that's eating a hole in her life.

I also have Maureen McGrail.  She's an Interpol detective, local Dublin cop, relentless, tenacious, and she knows about three martial arts.  She's also pining for a guy who came into her life, swept her off of her feet (just by being himself, really) and disappeared, without showing even a hint of romantic interest in her.

Then there's Wilhelmina Goldberg, who is 4'11", computer nerd, daughter of two esoteric languages nerds. She likes science fiction and fantasy, programs her computer to talk like characters out of Lord of the Rings, and has a subscription to Security magazine.

In context, I should point out that Stuart was using the strong female character comment as a segue into a completely different point, an issue he found in my writing. (Apparently, I shouldn't be putting in bust size as far as describing a female character.  I neglected to tell Stuart that if I knew anything about clothing, I would probably include men's jacket sizes to paint a clearer, more accurate picture of them, too. But I don't know any men who are the sizes I need. Me? OCD?  Nah....)

In any case, the SFC term struck me, and stuck with me.

And then there was this article, entitled I hate Strong Female Characters.  If you read through it, you might find a few points to agree with, and a few problems.

Now, I agree with the author on the initial point.  I also have problems with the SFC label. I really do, because it tends to detract from, oh, the point. In the example they used of Buffy-- she was smart, witty, with outside the box solutions to non-vampire problems (shall we start with the fertilizer bomb in the high school, or the rocket launcher?).  But "Strong" is the only descriptor one can come up with?

In my own work, I spent so much time on developing characters like Manana and Wilhelmina, their quirks and habits and hobbies, that I feel a little awkward if the best description anyone can come up with about them is just "strong."

Though you want my problem with this author?

Agents of Suck, DOA

That's it. I'm done with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.  Period.

We know that, with Fox holding the license to X-Men in a stranglehold / death grip, AoS started using the Inhumans in place of mutants.

I just didn't know they'd be doing so much of the X-men plot -- not the awesome plot where they're fighting intergalactic empires, but the plot where people with superpowers are persecuted, and whine about how they have awesome powers and no one understands them.

Yeah. That.

You know what? When they started using SHIELD in place of the X-Men in an attempt to put together Secret Warriors from the comics, I should have known they would go the same exact route as X-Men -- angsty "WAAAHHHH, I'm a monster" bullcrap.  I'm sorry, Mr. "I shoot lightning, but I just want to be a surgeon," get off your pansey ass, grab some spandex, and throw lightning at some bad guys. "Waaah, I'm a Monster?" yeah, well, so's the Incredible Hulk, and the movie Bruce Banner is a lot less whiney than you are.

And you know what? That wasn't the only problem.  The problem was the entire plot is being effected by this. The whiney is spreading.

The last episode pretty much put a nail in the coffin for me. We had two stories -- which, right now, have nothing to do with each other.  Nothing. At All.

One's a swaggering badass. The other is on Agents of SHIELD.

On the one hand, we have an Inhuman from the camp led by Skye / Daisy / Quake's mother last season.  He's an MD who shoots lightning out of his fingers.  Really. And we spent the entire plot thread following this sky, who spends most of the time brooding and on the run, and he doesn't do it half as well as Bill Bixby. And, of course, once "Daisy" tracks him down and starts making out with him...

Wait? What?

Review of Avengers, Age of Ultron

UPDATE: The Novel Ninja has a review as well

The Marvel Universe is back, baby, and it is awesome.  Ignore all those reviews -- the one that says "oh, this character is mopey" or "WWWAAAHHH SUMMER MOVIE!!!! CORPORATE FIAT!!!!" (looking at you, NY Times).

This was just plain fun.  And we've had a dearth of fun at the theaters lately.

Let's start someplace simple: If you have been following Agents of SHIELD, you saw Coulson and Co find a mad scientist named Baron von Strucker, who is in possession of Loki's scepter from Avengers one -- but then, you knew that if you hung around at the end of The Winter Soldier, so same difference.  We open in the middle of a full-on Avengers attack on the final Hydra base standing.

Enter Wanda and Pietro Maximof, "the twins" of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. These two are oddly charming ... okay, he's oddly charming, she's a little off, but that's fine, so's everyone else here.  The attack goes off without a hitch, and the scepter is recovered, it's millah time.

Unfortunately, before Thor just takes the scepter away, the resident mad scientists get to play with it, and that's when things go crazy.  Due to mad science and Heinlein's law of technology, Tony Stark finds that the scepter, and the jewel within it, are the key to his ultimate goal, an AI to protect the entire world in a post-SHIELD universe.

Unfortunately for Tony, the scepter has its own ideas. The result is Ultron, a killer robot who runs on snark and hatred. First, he will destroy the Avengers, and next, THE WORLD. BWAHAHAHAHAHA

And the execution? Flawless.  In terms of the overall narrative of the MCU, it fits wonderfully.  At the end of Iron Man 3, Whedon said "NOW what am I going to do with Avengers 2?"  He then picked up the ball and ran with it, since Iron Man 3 also gave him his solution (not the Mandarin, the "House Party" protocol from the film.... you'll see in the opening how Tony uses it to supplant SHIELD to some extent).

Whedon also weaves in everything from the previous movies. The House Party from Iron Man 3. Thor is still on Earth after the events of The Dark World. Falcon swoops in to discuss "our missing persons project" with Captain America from The Winter Soldier. And, of course, we have a further discussion of the infinity gems, from Guardians of the Galaxy. It ties up and ties off everything from the rest of phase two, and starts leading into phase 3 nicely -- probably a direct lead to the next Thor film. Whedon is also going in for world building.  Because the world is being built, and Captain America has the nails. It's the end of the movie, and you're going to like it. You really are.

Now, some of character bits of business.  Along the way, the Scarlet Witch will be playing with the heads of our heroes, and she really causes the entire movie to happen, just by playing on the fear of "What if I can't save everyone?" and we go from there.  The mind-screwing isn't harped on too much, just enough to slow everyone down at the appropriate moments -- but, it doesn't slow down the film. In fact, messing with Bruce Banner's head leads into, well, smashing stuff.

Avengers: Age of Ultron round 3

This? This just looks cool.

SFCS -- "Strong Female Character Syndrome."

I believe it was Stuart West who told me in private correspondence that he appreciated how many strong female characters I have. I was a little thrown there because it took me a moment to figure out what he was talking about.

In my novels, I have Manana Shushurin, who's a spy that's more James Bond than George Smiley.  She reads, likes music, has a degree from Wittenberg university .... has no social life, and technically, lives with her mother (technically, I say, because she really lives in her office). She also has a secret that's eating a hole in her life.

I also have Maureen McGrail.  She's an Interpol detective, local Dublin cop, relentless, tenacious, and she knows about three martial arts.  She's also pining for a guy who came into her life, swept her off of her feet (just by being himself, really) and disappeared, without showing even a hint of romantic interest in her.

Then there's Wilhelmina Goldberg, who is 4'11", computer nerd, daughter of two esoteric languages nerds. She likes science fiction and fantasy, programs her computer to talk like characters out of Lord of the Rings, and has a subscription to Security magazine.

In context, I should point out that Stuart was using the strong female character comment as a segue into a completely different point, an issue he found in my writing. (Apparently, I shouldn't be putting in bust size as far as describing a female character.  I neglected to tell Stuart that if I knew anything about clothing, I would probably include men's jacket sizes to paint a clearer, more accurate picture of them, too. But I don't know any men who are the sizes I need. Me? OCD?  Nah....)

In any case, the SFC term struck me, and stuck with me.

And then there was this article, entitled I hate Strong Female Characters.  If you read through it, you might find a few points to agree with, and a few problems.

Now, I agree with the author on the initial point.  I also have problems with the SFC label. I really do, because it tends to detract from, oh, the point. In the example they used of Buffy-- she was smart, witty, with outside the box solutions to non-vampire problems (shall we start with the fertilizer bomb in the high school, or the rocket launcher?).  But "Strong" is the only descriptor one can come up with?

In my own work, I spent so much time on developing characters like Manana and Wilhelmina, their quirks and habits and hobbies, that I feel a little awkward if the best description anyone can come up with about them is just "strong."

Though you want my problem with this author?

1)  "I want good complex characters!"

.... And then, let's focus completely on Buffy, because she's the STRONG character.... and ignore Willow, who saves the day repeatedly, but is physically as strong as your average anemic? Faith, who's as physically strong as Buffy, but a broken character? How about Cordelia, who starts out a vacuous California mean girl, and becomes more interesting within the first half of season 1? Anya, who goes through a fairly strange character arc of her own?

And, while they're talking about complex characters, they boiled Buffy down to only "SFC." How about witty? Smart? Creative? The example used in the article was the end point of a two-episode arc exposing just how vulnerable Buffy really is. Yes, she's got superpowers, but she's still a teenager, with all the problems that comes with it, in addition to waging a constant war against everything that came to kill her, swallow the Earth, etc. The author managed to ignore the entire point of a two-part story!

Who demands good complex characters! and then ignores them when s/he gets them?  If this article had said that the "SFC" label shoved a character into a box and left them there, then I could agree to some degree.  But this author seems to be guilty of doing just that.

2) I want a 1:1 ratio of complex characters, male and female! 

The author prattles on about Peggy Carter of Captain America: The First Avenger, complaining that she was unbalanced and cartoonish, making a lot of assumptions.


The author mentions that Peggy Carter shooting Captain America's shield is a temper tantrum that no guy would have gotten away with. Obviously, this person never saw the 100 generic Stupid People Tricks that are on cable, and mostly male.  The author assumed that in firing, Peggy had been too stupid to not be listening to the toymaker Stark prattle on about his cool toys for however long she'd been in his general orbit. The author also assumed that no one in the entire room knew that the shield was bulletproof-- which is kind of like people in Q's lab not knowing to duck on a regular basis.

The author then insists that this "over-the-top" reaction is because she's one of two women with a speaking part, and there be more women on screen to counter stuff like this. (Which is odd, since I counted four -- which included a grandma with a tommy gun, and a SHIELD agent at the end of the film).

My real problem?  First, the author makes these above assumptions and then kvetches that they could have shoe-horned in more women. Why? Just to shoe-horn in more women. So we could have a 1:1 ratio of women in the film. Really?

Hey, maybe we could have put in more cardboard cutouts. Besides, if you really want equality, then Captain America: The First Avenger, was perfectly equal. There were only two complex characters in the whole film.  Tommy Lee Jones was playing....Tommy Lee Jones.... Zola was Mad Scientist #2 ... The Red Skull was Psycho Villain #6 ... Eskine was "Dr. Littleoldmun" from Mel Brooks' High Anxiety. And Stark was very much "Howard Hughes Carbon Copy #1."  Outside of the sidekick Bucky (Plucky Sidekick #9), are any of Captain America's team referred to by name?

In short, Carter and Rodgers were the only two characters of any substance in the film. This isn't a complaint. I'm sure they were plenty deep in character design, but there was little enough of it on the screen. Not to mention-- it's a movie. If you're Peter Jackson, you get nine hours of films for develop all of your character. If you're a Marvel film, you have, at most two hours and thirty minutes.  If you have two well-written and developed characters, you're ahead of the game.  I feel fortunate to have one, some days.

But for the 1:1 ratio this author wants?

Maybe this author would have liked more 2D characters. As she suggest, let's gender swap.... Dr. Zola?  So we can have a weak, simpering little woman be bullied by Tommy Lee Jones? Dr. Erskine? So we can have a little grandmother figure play the martyr?  Hey, we could gender swap Tommy Lee Jones, and have him played by Kathy Bates!  Why not have the Red Skull played by Angelina Jolie?

Now, a reasonable argument I got from Karina Fabian is from the point of view that, there were certainly a heck of a lot more women in the WW2 military than were seen in the film. There were secretaries, WACs, women who transported planes, codebreakers, nurses, etc.  That way, we could have had a lot of women.... but they would have been in the background, and probably would have completely boiled away this author's argument.

3) Women are at the back of the bus...um, movie poster, like Black Widow.

"Strong women are supposed to kick ass and keep their mouth shut." Really?

How about, oh, that Black Widow WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO OUTSMARTED LOKI?  IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE! GAAAHHHH!!!

How about that BLACK WIDOW WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD CLOSE THE PLOT DEVICE DESTROYING NEW YORK?

How about the fact that there were maybe five deep moments in the entire film, and Black Widow was in two of them (The five moments were Stark and Banner in Lab, Stark and Rodgers reconcile, Coulson, interrogating Loki, and Black Widow and Barton, post-brainwashing....six scenes, if you count Black Widow and Bruce Banner in India, giving her half the deep moments in the film).

Oh, hey, how about Sam Jackson? Maybe we should say The Avengers was racist, because he was in the back of the poster?

I'm sorry, but unless you're Iron Man or Thor, you're in the back of this poster.

4) Where's Thor?

Seriously, where's the movie Thor in this discussion?  You know, the movie that was mostly Kat Denning and Natalie Portman handling Chris Hemsworth as he was enduring culture shock? With some occasional exposition from Mr. Skaarsgard? Portman's character, astrophysicist Jane Foster, isn't "strong," in this sense, is she? Because last time I checked, most of my female friends could break her like a toothpick. Foster is instrumental in Thor's change from prick to hero, but is she thrown on the bonfires of the blogger's vanity because she doesn't come with a complete bio and genealogy?

Or does this author consider her merely as a damsel in distress?  Which would be odd, because if you were in the New Mexico town in Thor, you were in distress, up to and including the three beefy supporting characters and the Valkyrie that (quite literally) drop down out of the sky.

Or does this not count, because the end of the movie involves the Warriors Three, Odin, and Loki? Making it three more male characters on screen than women?  Do we count Freya, who tried to stopped three assassins coming to get Odin? Or because she wasn't on screen that often, should we throw her aside?

While not physically strong, I thought Jane Foster was very well written. She was the love interest, sure, but that love motivated both of them to be better.  He was motivated to be a better person, and she was motivated to continue pursuing interstellar/inter-dimensional travel.

Am I wrong? Or, as I asked, does she just not count?

Conclusion: Equality!

As I said at the beginning, I don't like the SFC label.  If you can shove my characters into a nice neat little box, I'm going to be pissy -- either at you for demeaning my characters, or at myself for making them cardboard cutouts.

I would have liked this article more if it were less obvious. It's clearly pushing an agenda -- not about creating good characters, but numerical "equality!" for "equality's" sake. By the end, I felt like I was reading a review of 300 that insisted that there should have been 150 female Spartans at Thermopylae (this is not a joke, I did read one of those).

I honestly couldn't tell you the ratio of my characters if you dared me to.

In A Pius Man, I've got Maureen, Manana and Wilhelmina named above as main characters. Is the ratio 1:1 if I include Giovanni Figlia's wife, the forensic specialist?

Is the ratio no longer 1:1 if I count the three priests in the background?

Is it all right if I have Scott "Mossad" Murphy, who can't shoot, is pale, anemic-looking, and pair him up with the sexy gunslinger Manana?  Does that make him weak, even though he will take gunfire and is a pivotal part of the book?

Does Wilhelmina Goldberg not count if she doesn't shoot anybody, but is a key part to hunting down the bad guys by the end?

At the end of the day, the SFC label is too simple. But so is reducing "equality" to numbers of people on screen and counting lines.  If you're keeping score with 1:1 ratios, exactly what will satisfy you? I have no idea.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I have to go write a scene where Manana has to save Scott. Again.

Who would Captain America vote for? An election special

With Halloween only days away, and my city being screwed up by a hurricane (cue Scorpions song here), I decided to take a more original approach to looking at the upcoming elections.

A while ago, someone decided to take a look at the politics of Captain America, something I thoroughly made fun of him for, though the original author at Salon.com found my article, and declared he was completely tongue in cheek. Honest he was.

In the spirit of going completely and utterly over the top, I figure I would take it one step further.  However, I'm going to tell you right now that this is a joke from minute one to minute last.

Batman, aka Bruce Wayne 

Click to read.

Bruce Wayne has approximately more money than God, deals in advanced technological research, and while he has been known to contribute to the occasional ecological issues, he's also been known to draw the line at basic, reasonable limits (he won't, say, be in favor of sacrificing lives to save an endangered squirrel or something similarly ridiculous).

Also, can you imagine Batman dealing with an Occupy Gotham movement?

There would be pain, there would be fear, and then, they would run screaming for their mommies.

VOTE GOES TO: I think we've got a Romney voter here

Oliver Queen, aka Green Arrow (DC Universe). 

Why, yes.
I do think I'm Robin Hood

For those of you who don't know Green Arrow from the comic books (not the tv show Arrow).... personally, he's sort of like the anti-Batman. Or, as Novel Ninja Matthew Bowman put it, the comic book Green Arrow was like Batman if he had been bitten by a radioactive Robin Hood.

While also from a rich, industrial family, Oliver Queen is Left-Wing. I don't mean Democrat, I mean Left-wing, pseudo-socialist.  Half his conversations with the Justice League involve him screaming "You're all a bunch of fascists!"  I'm not even certain he knows how serious he is about such things.

In any event, it's kinda clear that he'll vote for the most Left-wing politician there is. The only politician like that who will reliably show up on the national stage, including Queen's fictional Starling City, would probably be Barack Obama.

However, since Ollie had been Mayor of Starling City once, he'd probably put himself on the ballot, and promptly vote for himself.

VOTE GOES TO: Either Obama, himself, or the farthest Left-wing candidate available.

Captain America (Steve Rodgers)

Because I'm Captain America, damnit.

Pro-Army, pro-gun, pro-Apple pie, Captain America has spent his entire existence dealing with foreign policy issues.  On social issues, Steve would be very 1940s -- abortion was a dangerous, illegal procedure, and any pills like birth control or contraceptives were also illegal, so that entire issue is a nonstarter.

Economically, his attitude would probably be very much on the order of, "People get their own jobs, right? Well, a little hard work, everything will be fine." Between those two, I think we've got a one-issue voter.   Given the rate of speed the Benghazi disaster is shaping up, I can't imagine him voting for anyone other than Mitt Romney.

VOTE GOES TO: Romney

Iron Man (Tony Stark)

This is a tough one. Despite the movies, billionaire industrialist Tony Stark mostly resides in New York City, which makes him a definite shoe-in for a Democratic voter, no matter who the candidate is.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of Wall Street tycoons are supporters to the Democratic party -- John Corzine, Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs), Citibank, and George Soros (Democrat and Obama's biggest supporter), Brookfield Asset Management, Lehman Brothers (who now work for the Obama Administration).

On the other hand, Tony Stark is a pro-weapon kind of fellow -- let's face it, he's gone a few steps beyond the second amendment, and his father made the nuclear bomb -- and let's look at most of Tony Stark's villains. He fights Soviet Russians, Communist-Chinese, as well as other competitors. In the comic books, Stark was pretty much supposed to be pro-American, right-wing, supports America's wars sort of fellow.

And he made a killing on all those predator drones....

VOTE GOES TO: Either Stark is a Romney voter, or he'll be spending election day at home, drunk.

Superman, aka Clark Kent

Clark Kent is a big city reporter, and over 80% of journalists are Democrat supporters, so it should go Obama.  Kent has also recently given up a job with the Daily Planet because it was bought but someone who kinda resembles Rupert Murdoch -- evil big business, after all.  So, that would be left-leaning.

On the other hand, Clark Kent was raised in Kansas by a rural farming family. So there's a possibility for Romney.

However, as Superman, he once rescinded his American citizenship for five minutes.

VOTE GOES TO: Romney and Obama, depending on who's writing Superman at the time.


Bruce Banner, aka The Incredible Hulk 

Dr. Bruce Banner, fugitive from practically everybody on the planet, he likes the back end of nowhere, and staying as far from military and local authorities as humanly possible.

Enter Obama, who seems to want to cut the military budget and the US involvement in foreign affairs.  And he has anger management issues.

VOTE GOES TO: Obama.

Nick Fury

Another World War II vet, Nick Fury is a spymaster, will defend the planet against enemies foreign and domestic, which will make him both socially conservative and pro-military.

Then again, he'll want someone he can manipulate.  Or would he want someone who agrees with him already?

VOTE GOES TO: Whoever Fury has rigged the election for, so .... Romney? Maybe?

Daredevil, aka Matthew Murdock

A New York trial lawyer, Daredevil is a natural Obama voter. The ABA backs democrats automatically. Mathew Murdock is also all about community. I could see him as a supporter of Occupy Wall Street, if his super sense of smell didn't cripple him every time he found a client who never showered.

On the other hand, Matt Murdock has always been Catholic.  He's very Catholic .....

Then again, he's a bit of a man-whore in the Marvel Universe. He'd be interested in contraceptives, if only to keep potential child support payments to a minimum.

VOTE GOES TO: Obama

[MORE BELOW THE BREAK]

Review of The Avengers

"Why, yes, there are seven of us."

So, I finally saw The Avengers on Sunday. Yes, I was a little late.

To be honest, I went in half-expecting this to be over-hyped by every fanboy across the land. I know that Joss Whedon was good with ensemble casts.  And I half expected the film to be a matter of "Here's Robert Downey Jr. and Sam Jackson making snarky remarks with Agent Coulson, Scarlett Johansson will be standing in for Buffy, and there'll be a few other guys."

Then, on the other hand, there was the New York Times review, which can be summed up as follows: "WAAAAAHHHH, this movie was forced upon us by evil Disney executives! This is movie making by corporate fiat!  We hate Summer Movies! And superheroes! And children! And anyone who sees this film is stupid...."

Obviously, I didn't think much about what the Times had to say.

Then I saw the movie.

Damn that was AWESOME.

That's the short version. The longer version .... well, let's go over a few things.

THE PLOT: Loki has gone through some changes since Thor. By the end of the film, he was definitely a little unstable. Here, there's no question. Marbles are missing from the bag. He's struck a deal with an interstellar bad guy, and he has an army on loan from ... someone to be revealed later. He comes to Earth with a philosophy that's heavy on the nihilism, and a plan that's heavy on manipulation (but it's Loki, that's his job). The owner of the army wants the Cosmic Cube (the glowing toy from Captain America: The First Avenger), and with it, they're going to have a little party, just Loki, the evil overlord in the background, and about seven million of his closest, heavily-armed friends.  There's only one thing standing in the way, and that's seven people with some nice costumes, and cool toys.

Everyone gets screen time in this. This is not Iron Man's movie, or Thor's, or Captain America's, or anyone else -- this is about a team. A slightly dysfunctional, occasionally self-destructive, team.  Ignore any review that insists that someone got more screentime than anyone else, or that Captain America, or whatever their favorite character is, got short-changed. Those people are whiny fan-boys/girls who probably can't shut up for five minutes during the movie.

"Enjoy the view. I'm going to hurt you in a minute."

Also ignore anyone who makes a big deal about the back end of Black Widow. While Scarlett Johansson has nice features all around, it wasn't shoved at the audience ... even in her low-cut little black dress, she spends more time kicking ass than showing off her's.

At the end of the day, this film worked. It is an ensemble where everyone's strengths came to the fore. When the shooting starts, Captain America leaps into the fray, giving orders about the deployment of forces, while at the same time fending off seven-foot aliens who are trying to kill him. Thor and the Hulk are heavy hitters. Iron Man is air cavalry, and Hawkeye makes for a spotter. Yes, Hawkeye has screen time in this one. And he is also awesome.

Relatively new member to the franchise is Mark Ruffalo, playing Dr. Bruce Banner. Now, those of you who might be weeping for Ed Norton will stop about three minutes into Ruffalo's performance.  He gets some of the better lines in the movie, and so does the Hulk. Yes, the Hulk was done well.

"I make this look good."

And then there's Loki, who's mightiest ability is the power to piss off everyone he comes in contact with. Much like the last major villain on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Loki's mind games don't quite work as expected. Tom Hiddleston seems to have studied Loki, and gives the impression that Loki is quite insane, possibly knows it, but is going to enjoy himself anyway. Not to mention that he can get away with making horns look cool.

And, oh, yes, everyone takes a shot at Loki, even the super-powerless, like Black Widow and Hawkeye, get some nice shots in.

Not to mention we also have the cast of the Nick Fury movie already set and raring to go. You'll understand when you see the film.

And the one-liners. You will have to see the movie at least twice. Yes, twice. The second time will be for all the lines you missed on the first viewing.

Some of the better lines?

Captain America: "There's only one God, ma'am, and he doesn't dress like [Loki]"

Agent Coulson: "We make this gun to fight the Destroyer [from Thor]. I don't even know what it does. Let's find out." [He didn't even have to say "Do you feel lucky?"]

Tony Stark to Hawkeye: "Clinch up, Legolas."

Captain America to Hulk. "Hulk .... Smash."

Bruce Banner: "Wanna know my secret? I'm always angry."

And Loki might have the best line in the movie, though it's very contextual, and very spoilery, so I won't.

Oh, and I should probably mention the forty minutes of nonstop blowing up New York's Park Avenue and trashing Grand Central Station. That was fun, too.

How good is this movie? I heard that Joss Whedon had to cut 40 minutes from the theatrical release.  I want to see the full, three hour version.  That's how much I liked it.

Be well.

Disasters to Marvel At: A Comic Discussion.

While I generally leave anything referring to comic books or superheroes to others, I am now stepping in.  The disaster known as Marvel Comics has become a wasteland of jibberish for years now.  Finally, there is a solution at hand.

Dear Disney, you own Marvel now. Have Joe Quesada walk the plank off the roof of 666 5th avenue. You can have Johnny Depp hold the sword that nudges him off, if you like.

Why do I say that? About five years ago, DC Comics started their epic of the week. Marvel, in perfect monkey-see-monkey-do fashion, has tried to keep up. In this effort, the result has been … nothing I can adequately describe using PG-13 language.

Let's see if we can all follow this round of abject stupidity.