On the 'No Kill' Superhero policy...

A hot button topic in modern superhero movies - particularly DC movies directed by Zack Snyder - is the 'No kill' policy: that idea that certain characters draw a moral line in the sand that they will never under any circumstances cross.

In general I prefer stories in which the protagonist isn't a cold blooded killer.  That said, I enjoy mindless action pictures like James Bond and Indiana Jones.  That type of movie tends to have a high body count.  So I don't tend to loose my mind if an action movie has a bit of carnage and the protagonist is the one responsible.

The 2013 film 'Man of Steel' is quite controversial largely due to the fact that Superman - all American boy-scout - is shown to take a life.  And from hearing disillusioned fans talk about it, they made it sound like a straight up act of murder.  Superman taking out General Zod the way he did is an inexcusable act.  But when I saw the movie for myself I had to ask: did I even watch the same movie as these fans?  Yes, Supes snapped Zod's neck like it was a twig.  He did it to save a bunch of kids.  No, it wasn't a decision he was happy with.  Yes, it was the only option in that scenario, other than to 'just let people die' when there was something he could do to prevent it.

Fast-forward to 2016.  'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' is in theaters, and audience response is mixed at best.  One significant complaint is that Zack Snyder's interpretation of Batman doesn't have a no kill policy.  In the months since the movie's release this has become one of the first things to come up when people state there reasons for hating the movie.  Personally, I didn't even notice that Batman killed anyone.  It wasn't until watching compilation videos such as this one that it became evident to me that, yeah, Batman is responsible for a good bit of carnage in downtown Metropolis.  However, I'm not quite sure why this is the one thing fans fixated on?

Granted, Batman's no kill policy in the comics is pretty much the only reason Joker is still alive.  There are fans who think that it's inconsistent to have Joker - who has murdered one of the Robins in this continuity - running around Gotham and have Batman be ready and willing to take out Superman 'If there's even a 1% chance' that he's a threat.  There's much more than a 1% chance that Joker is a threat.

However, the 'Batman never kills rule' has never been a set rule in the movies.  Particularly not in the Tim Burton movies.  Even in the climax of Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' there's that bit between Batman and Ra's al Ghul - 'I won't kill you...But I don't have to save you!'  Morally speaking having the ability to save an individual's life, but standing back and allowing them to die...well at the very least it's obeying the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

But lets take a look at the MCU for a sec.  The fun loving kid friendly Marvel movies.  In the context of the movies, does it make sense for The Avengers to have a no kill policy?  ...Not really?  And they don't seem to.  Let's take a look at Captain America.  He is by definition a Super-Soldier.  From WW2.  He's seen action.  In 'The First Avenger' you see him chuck a live grenade down the open hatch of an occupied tank.  He also casually tosses Hydra agents out of an airplane.  Cap doesn't seem to have a no kill policy, and in the context of a soldier in an action movie, he probably shouldn't.

Thor.  Thor is basically Conan the Barbarian, but with a bigger vocabulary.  He's a mighty warrior.  True, usually when he does battle it's with Frost Giants or some other mythic entity, but these are still sentient beings, right?

Iron Man.  Let's see,  Tony Stark starts out his heroic journey as the head of a weapons manufacturing company.  Series villains Obadiah Stain, Whiplash, and Aldrich Killian all fail to live through the climaxes of their respective movies.


Black Widow.  She's an ex-assassin and a super-spy.  Need I say more?

Back to BvS:  It looks like most of the times Batman 'kills' it's usually more public endangerment and property damage rather than intentional homicide.  A car chase in a James Bond movie would have the same type of body count.  Ol' Bats should probably have his drivers license revoked.  The other main 'Batman is a murderer!' scene is the one where Batman is beating up Lex Luthor's thugs in a warehouse.  And while this fight scene is rather brutal, how is it different than Captain America or Thor on the battlefield?

It's fine with me if you don't like Batman v Superman.  I jut wish people would either say that they don't like it because they just don't like it, or give a better thought out reason than 'Batman doesn't kill people!'  I feel like the superhero 'no kill policy' is an odd thing to fixate on in a summer blockbuster style action movie.

One of the best on-screen adaptions of the superhero no kill policy is the Netflix Daredevil series.  And the reason it works is that the no kill policy is highlighted and shown to be a big deal.  It's a major issue that Matt Murdock is wrestling with.  It's a line that he comes dangerously close to crossing multiple times over the course of the first season.  Because of this the last couple of episodes are really intense because you are aware that Matt is capable of killing and at this point you really really don't want him to.  And this is the way it should be done.  If you are going to bother with a no kill policy you should have something to say with it.  Otherwise what's the point? 

The no kill policy isn't something that is addressed in most of the Marvel movies because that's not the story they're trying to tell.  I personally don't think it's the story Zack Snyder was trying to tell in BvS either.

-Geekboy.

Batman Returns (1992)

One of my odd quirks is that I remember what year people were born based on movies that came out the same year.  My Grandma shares a birth year with the original 'King Kong' for example, and I have a brother who is quite proud of the fact that he was born the same year 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' was released.  Thanks to 'Batman Returns' the ol' Geekboy can also remember when HE was born.

'Batman Returns' is a follow up to Tim Burton's 1989 'Batman'.  Like the '89 Batman, this movie spends most of it's time focusing on the bad guys.  '89 Batman only has one main villain however, the Joker, whereas 'Batman Returns' has THREE villains.  Penguin, Catwoman, and a sleazy businessman named Max Shreck who is pulling all of the strings in this puppet-show.  As you may guess, Bruce Wayne/Batman once again gets a little lost in the mix, particularly since he didn't have the focus and character development he deserved the last time around.

Visually speaking this is an all-out Tim Burton movie, and the visuals are the strongest part of the movie.  Burton ditches the Noir/Gangster inspiration from the last time around in favor of Gothic/German Expressionistic style costuming and architecture.  The German influence is evident as Penguin's look is clearly modeled after the titular villain of 1920s 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' AND Max Shreck is named after the actor who portrayed the Vampire Count Orlok in 1922's 'Nosferatu'.

So, let's take a look at the villains of the film.  They're clearly the characters Tim Burton was most interested in anyway.  We start off with the birth of the hideously distorted Oswald Cobblepot, an infant with a taste for any sort of raw meat he can catch.  He is quickly abandoned by his high-society parents and ends up in the sewers of Gotham where he is discovered and raised by sewer penguins.  No, I am not making this up.  Tim Burton is the one making this up, because that's not Penguin's canon comic book origin.

Two minutes on Wikipedia will tell you that Penguin was bullied as a child for his strange looks.  He was raised by a very human mother and he fixated on her pet birds.  There's nothing in there about sewer penguins.  That said, I do enjoy Burton's take on Penguin.  Burton took a villain who is rather hard to take seriously, cast comedic actor Danny DeVito to play him, and turned him into a truly terrifying figure lurking in the sewers and devouring raw fish.

It's Christmas in Gotham City, and as this is a Tim Burton movie, Christmas is the most scariest time of the year.  LAST year I actually watched this on Halloween.  It works well for either holiday.  Businessman Max Shreck is doing great humanitarian acts to schmooze up to the mayor so that the mayor will approve of the new power plant Shreck wants to build.  The power plant is important.  The power plant is what motivates Max Shreck, and Max Shreck is what - in one way or another - motivates all of the other villains in the story.

Penguin wishes to return to his rightful place in society.  He kidnaps and blackmails Max Shreck so Shreck can help Penguin with his goal.  Shreck reluctantly agrees, but he has plans to use Penguin for his own agenda.

Meanwhile Shreck's timid and mousy secretary Selina Kyle accidentally discovers Shreck's real plans for his so called 'power plant'.  He wants to build a gigantic capacitor that will steal electricity from Gotham for some sinister purpose that is never fully explained.  To shut her up Shreck pushes Selina Kyle out of a skyscraper window.  But because Selina had been shown as being nice to alley cats, the cats are in turn nice to Selina.  Selina is brought back to life by the cats, and now somehow has nine lives.  She's also rather mentally unbalanced and out for revenge on Shreck.

Just like Penguin, this portrayal of Catwoman has very little in common with her comic book  counterpart.  She's an ordinary cat-burglar in the comics.  There's nothing supernatural about Catwoman, She doesn't have nine lives, and she's one of the few sane members of Batman's rouges gallery.  These changes to Catwoman are less easy to justify than the changes to Penguin.  I personally don't think they add that much to her as a character.  I'm personally left scratching my head as to how somebody who adapted Joker's origin faithfully to the comics in the previous film would take so many liberties in the follow up movie.

I would like to point out that by the time all of the villains are introduced and their motivations are set up we are half an hour into the movie and Batman has only been in one scene and hasn't yet had a single line of dialog.

Max Shreck hatches a plan to make Penguin into a local hero.  Penguin 'rescues' the mayor's son after first faking his abduction.  Shreck then talks Penguin into running for mayor of Gotham, thinking he can use him as a puppet and get him to approve of that oh-so-important-to-the-plot power plant I mentioned earlier.  They plan to make the old mayor, the city's law enforcement, and Batman look completely incompetent in order to obtain this task.

Meanwhile Catwoman is taking her revenge on Shreck by vandalizing one of his department stores.  Rather than outright killing him, which is allegedly her motivation.  As his secretary she should know his daily routine well enough to take him out at any time.  Maybe the logic is that like a cat she's toying with her prey, so I suppose this is justifiable.  Anyway, she crosses paths with Batman, and after he bests her in battle she decides she wants revenge on him too now.

So.  Catwoman teams up with Penguin to discredit Batman even though Penguin is already clearly working with her arch nemesis Shreck.  Huh?  The two of them frame Batman for kidnapping Gotham's 'Ice Princess' a bubble-headed blond who is a big part of the Gotham City's tree lighting celebration.  While Batman is occupied with trying to rescue the Ice Princess, Penguin's henchmen hijack the Batmobile.  Penguin then frames Batman for murdering the Ice Princess - causing Penguin and Catwoman to have a falling out - and then he takes over the Batmobile by remote control.

The part where Batman is trapped in the Batmobile as Penguin is controlling it is actually my favorite part in the entire movie.  It's a very Pulpy/Cliffhanger Serial idea - careening through the streets at high speeds and trying desperately to regain control of the vehicle.  Penguin plans to kill two birds with one stone - eliminating Batman and showing him to be a reckless driver to further discredit him.

But Batman escapes and manages to turn the tables on Penguin - revealing to the general public that he is truly monstrous not only in look but in deed.  And at this point the movie falls apart structurally speaking.  The first half of the story is pretty good.  The plot to discredit Batman is interesting and well done.  But like the '89 Batman, after the bad guy's first evil plan fails the story just becomes a series of backup evil plans.

Remember Max Shreck's evil power plant that has been the driving motivation of all the characters in this story?  This plot thread goes no where.  After the plot to make Penguin the new mayor is thwarted Shreck is demoted to a really minor villain.  Even though he was the driving force of the entire story up to this point.  Now Penguin is somehow the main villain and the plot quickly degenerates from something as sophisticated as framing Batman for murder to strapping missiles to an army of remote control penguins.

My consensuses?  This is a very flawed - but still enjoyable - movie.  It takes a ton of liberties with the source material - particularly with Catwoman's character - doesn't deliver on plot threads that we are tricked into believing are really important from the very beginning of the story, and Batman is once again barely in his own movie.  But when all is said and done I actually like this movie a little better then Batman '89.  Unfortunately that only makes the weak parts of 'Batman Returns' all the more frustrating.

I may be in the minority, but I personally believe that 1995's 'Batman Forever' is the best of the pre- 'Batman Begins' Batman movie.  Next time I blog Batman you should find out why.

Merry Christmas.

- Geekboy.

Batman (1989)

To fans who grew up with Tim Burton's 1989 Batman, the film is the definitive Batman movie.  Michael Keaton is the definitive Bruce Wayne, Jack Nicholson is the definitive Joker, and the Danny Elfman soundtrack is the definitive Batman theme.  Can't argue with that last one.  Danny Elfman is awesome.

As a Sam Raimi Spiderman fan, I think I know how Tim Burton Batman fans feel.  Tobey Maguire will always be MY Peter Parker, no matter how much I enjoyed Tom Holland in the role in Captain America: Civil War.  But I personally didn't grow up with the '89 Batman.  I had seen both Adam West and Christian Bale play Batman prior to Michael Keaton.  So, how well does this movie hold up WITHOUT the nostalgia factor?  Answer - a little better each time I watch it.

I really like the way this movie approaches Batman's origin.  There's a fakeout in the beginning as we see two muggers attack a married couple and their young son.  We're supposed to think that the boy is a young Bruce Wayne and we're witnessing his parents murder, but then the thugs are stopped by Batman.  What's going on here ---?

We aren't show the actual deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne until much later in the story.  Instead Batman - and Bruce Wayne - are presented as a mystery that is slowly unraveled by our viewpoint character, photojournalist and golden age love interest Vicki Vale.

We are also introduced to villain Jack Napier, a mobster who wants a bigger slice of the pie AND has his eyes set on the ladyfriend of his boss Carl Grissom.  Grissom apparently finds out Jack's true intentions and sets him up as a fall guy.  In a showdown with Gotham's finest - and the mysterious Bat vigilante - Jack Napier falls into a vat of chemicals and is transformed into the Joker.

Even though the movie is more or less set in 'modern times' (or the late 80's) all the gangsters look and act like they belong in a 30's mobster movie - complete with fedoras, trench-coats, and pinstripes.  Batman '89 is the only movie going for the golden age feel.  'Batman Returns' is visually a Tim Burton movie first and a Batman movie second,  'Batman Forever' and 'Batman and Robin' are slightly campier silver age Batman, and everything after 'Batman Begins' has been inspired by Frank Miller.  But this movie has Batman fighting mobsters like in the golden age, has a golden age villain (Joker first appeared in 1940) Batman's golden age girlfriend (Vicki Vale's first appearance was in 1948) and the creation of the Bat-Signal (which first appeared in 1942).

So how is Nicholson as Jack Napier/Joker?  Is he the best interpretation of the character?  I'm not really a Joker authority - personally Two Face is my favorite Batman villain - but this version does seem closer to the Joker of the comics then 'The Dark Knight' Joker does.  His origin is the same.  True, in the comics his identity before he falls into the chemicals is unknown, and he isn't the one who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents, but other than that he's spot on.  But I actually like Nicholson's performance better BEFORE he's transformed.  It's a bit like Norman Osborn and Green Goblin in Sam Raimi's Spiderman.  To quote Weird Al Yankovic: 'He's riding around on that glider thing, and he's throwing that weird pumpkin bomb.  He's wearing that dumb Power Rangers mask, but he's scarier without it on.'

What about Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman?  Well, he's fine as Batman, but if you ask me he's a little lacking as Bruce Wayne.  He's happy-go-lucky, absent minded, very earnest, and shy.  Except for a few brief moments he doesn't really capture the darkness of Bruce Wayne's character.  In my opinion Val Kilmer and Ben Affleck are both superior in the role because they show the necessary brooding qualities of Bruce Wayne in 'Batman Forever' and 'BvS: Dawn of Justice' respectively.  Also, one downside of spending so much time developing Vicki Vale and Joker is that it cuts into the amount of time that CAN be spent on Batman/Bruce Wayne.

Back to the plot: After his transformation, Joker seeks revenge on Carl Grissom for stabbing him in the back.  He murders Grissom and makes himself man on the top.  He then becomes obsessed with all the press Batman is getting.  He's jealous because apparently mobsters want THEIR names all over the newspaper too.  (Sarcasm).  So he goes after Vicki Vale, first to find out more about Batman and then because he's developed a creepy stalker crush.

The second half of this movie really starts to feel like it's more about Joker than it is about Batman, and I think I figured out why that is.  The two characters are playing a chess match.  Joker makes a move and Batman blocks him.  Batman is never driving the action UNLESS Vicki is in danger.  Up until the climax he never tries to stop Joker for good.  He's just trying to stop Joker's current plot.

This does make the movie a little episodic as well.  Joker does something evil, and then Batman stops him.  So Joker comes up with a new way to cause trouble, and Batman stops him again.  Repeat spin cycle.

Since Joker is the one driving the action and Vicki Vale is our viewpoint character, Batman comes across as a third wheel in his own story.  This movie isn't about Batman as a CHARACTER so much as it is about Batman as an IDEA.

All that said, some of the things that seemed like flaws the first couple of time I watched the '89 Batman really didn't bother me as I watched it again for this review.  This is an enjoyable movie with more of the look and feel of the comics than more modern Batman movies like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.  And the Danny Elfman soundtrack ROCKS.

-Geekboy.

Daredevil (2003) Vs. Daredevil (2015)

So I just recently watched the first season of Netflix Daredevil.  Yeah, I know what you're thinking.  "Geekboy, as a comic nerd and Daredevil fan you should have seen it ages ago!"  Some of us don't have Netflix accounts okay?  Some of us are now waiting impatiently for season two to come to Amazon, okay?  OKAY?  Good.

As someone who doesn't hate the 2003 movie quite as much as everybody else, I thought it would be fun to do a little compare and contrast.  What did the show do better than the movie?  What elements of the movie still hold up?

I think when people look back at the movie they forget the time period it was made in.  2003.  The same era as Sam Rami's Spiderman, (Which holds up pretty well) Brian Singer's X-men, (Holds up okay, X2 more so than X1 and X3) and those Fantastic Four movies (which really don't hold up well at all).  In my opinion, Daredevil holds it's own with X-men, is better than Fantastic Four, but is not quite as good as Spiderman.

Then 2008 happened.  DC/Warner Bros. The Dark Knight blew away critics and fan alike, and Marvel got their own studio and the complete creative control that comes with having your own studio.  A few years down the road Disney and Marvel Studios would merge.  Marvel received additional financial backing and a beefed up marketing campaign out of this deal.  The budget, storytelling quality, and respect for the source material of superhero movies has been climbing ever since, and it's easy to forget that when you look back at the earlier superhero movies.

All that being said, Daredevil 2003 does have some problems.  I think the main reason people hate this movie is that it's overcrowded and rushed.  They tried to squeeze every iconic Daredevil thing into ONE MOVIE.  So, we have Daredevil's origin, his fight to take down Kingpin, battling his nemesis Bullseye, and most of the Elektra saga in an hour and 40 minute runtime.  (Please note that I'm talking about the Theatrical release.  I haven't seen the Directors Cut, but I've heard it expands the Kingpin storyline, gives Nelson and Murdock more screen time, and overall vastly improves the story.)

Ideally it should have been a trilogy, with part one starting with Matt's origin and ending with the death of Elektra's father.  Part two would pick up with Elektra joining The Hand for her Ninja training and then returning to Hell's Kitchen to take out Daredevil, and ending with her death and the hands of Bullseye, whom Daredevil would take out in the climax.  The third movie would bring in Stick and The Hand, deal with Elektra's resurrection, and end with Daredevil going toe to toe with Kingpin (who has been pulling the strings this whole time).  At this point we could have an Elektra spinoff in which Elektra and Stick battle what remains of the Hand.

So the biggest weakness of the movie is taken care of in the show.  They can take their time to tell the story.  My favorite thing about Daredevil 2015 is the way they focus on and develop the supporting cast.  Foggy Nelson, Karen Page, and Ben Urich all get lots of screen time.  And although the show is 'dark and gritty' Foggy and Ben bring a lot of humor.  It's not humor like all of the Joss Whedon quips in 'The Avengers' though.  It's a more realistic Film Noir style humor that feels like real people having a real conversation.  It's a little cynical, but it's laugh out loud funny.  The villains also get more development and backstory thanks to the format of a 13 episode miniseries.

That greatest strength of focusing on the supporting cast can also be a bit of a weakness though.  It's called Daredevil, but there are places where Matt Murdock feels like a third wheel in a story about Karen, Foggy, and Ben as they fight to take down a sympathetic Wilson Fisk.  Compare that with the movie, where Matt is NARRATING HIS OWN LIFE STORY.

So kick off this compare and contrast, let's take a look at each character in turn.

Foggy Nelson:

I honestly think the relationship between Foggy and Matt is a lot of fun in the 2003 movie.  The continuing playful argument about Alligators in the sewers of New York, a clever nod to all those times Daredevil fought Sewer Alligators in the comics, that scene in the office where Foggy repeatedly misses the basketball hoop and Matt gets it on the first try, and that bit where he gives Matt mustard instead of honey for in his tea, and then Matt switches drinks with Foggy when he isn't looking.  Foggy doesn't necessarily get all of the screen time that he deserves, but it's clear that Matt and Foggy have a fun and believable working relationship.

I enjoy Movie Foggy so much I was a little worried about the show, but Netflix Foggy KILLS IT.  He's funny, has a believable relationship with Matt, he's willing to roll up his sleeves and do some grunt work - literally when they're helping out an elderly woman fix up her apartment - and has moments of bravery beating up thugs in a dark alley.  Then there's that part where he's in hospital bed, and Karen has to make sure he stays there rather than hop out of bed to search for Matt when he's missing.  Plus his relationship with Karen is super sweet.

This feels a little close to call.  I love both versions of Foggy.  But Netflix Foggy does have more time to shine, and they are able to show us more aspects of his character.  But I really think this is the TV show format rather than quality of writing or actors portrayal.

Karen Page:

This one is no contest.  In the movie Matt and Foggy do have a blonde secretary in one scene.  She only has one or two lines of dialog, and I don't even remember if she's named as Karen.  The movie was focusing on Daredevil and Elektra though, so it makes sense to pretty much skip Karen Page.  As I can't really talk about Karen in the movie, I can't talk about Elektra much either -not until I see Season 2 at any rate.

But Karen in the show is worth talking about.  She pretty much kicks off the story.  As the first client for Nelson and Murdock, she's the one who pulls our heroes into the web of intrigue that is the organized crime of Hell's Kitchen.  She also brings Ben Urich aboard.  She's the glue that holds Nelson and Murdock together later on.  I've read that the actress wanted to find a middle ground between the girl-next-door Karen Page of the Silver Age and the darker, post 'Daredevil: Born Again' Karen.  The show does a really good job with this.  Karen starts out as a good person in big trouble, and by the end of the season, after all the poking around in the hornet's nest that is Kingpin's crime organization, she's battling some inner demons.  She's done things she regrets.  She's carrying a lot of guilt for some of the consequences for her actions.

Ben Urich:

This one is tricky.  On one hand, I feel like the Ben Urich of the movie does a better job of adapting Ben's relationship with Matt and with Daredevil.  In the comics, Ben figures out Daredevil's secret identity and struggles with whether he should print it in the Baily Bugle.  On the one hand, story of a life time.  On the other, it would ruin Matt's crime fighting career.  Ben decides Daredevil's secret is worth more than a Pulitzer prize, and he and Daredevil become allies similar to Batman and Commissioner Gordon.  And the movie adapts this story.  The show does not.

In the show Ben and Matt share very little screen time.  The season is half over before they even appear together.  BUT.  But this Ben has so much more development than the movie's Ben.  We're rooting for this guy from the beginning.  He's introduced by fighting the insurance company that doesn't want to pay for his sick wife's medical care.  He's frustrated by the paper he works for and the small stories he's forced to work on when bigger things are being swept under the rug.  He's a crusader with so much to loose, but that doesn't mean he's going to stop fighting.

So.  Point to the movie for Matt and Ben's relationship, but ultimately a point to the show because Netflix Ben is awesome.

Wilson Fisk (AKA: The Kingpin)

Personally I think movie Kingpin feels more like the Kingpin of the comics.  Maybe the actor's size has something to do with that.  He's huge.  It's totally believable that he can hold his own against Daredevil in the climax.  Also, he never looses his cool.  The Kingpin of the comics is cold and calculating.  He's a bit like a Bond Villain that way.

The Kingpin of the show is more fleshed out.  He's more human.  There's all this wonderful build up for the first three episodes where criminals are afraid to even whisper the name Wilson Fisk.  So when we first meet Fisk, he comes across as a bit of a paradox because he seems like a slightly awkward nice guy.  Until he snaps.  Then he goes into something that's a cross between a berserk rage and a temper tantrum.  He's the exact opposite of keeping his cool.  I do think it's interesting that the only time Kingpin gets his hands dirty is when it's personal.  If he thinks you're going to hurt some one he cares about, or harm his relationship with that person, he will kill you with his bare hands.  I like how they included Fisk's relationship with Vanessa.  In the comics, Vanessa was Kingpin's one weak spot.  She managed to talk him into giving up a life of crime until she's kidnapped by a rival mob.  The show puts it's own spin on the Fisk/Vanessa relationship.

This is another close one, but in my opinion the Kingpin of the movie is more accurate the comics, so point goes to the 2003 movie.

Okay, now for some more complex stuff.  Daredevil himself.  I feel like I need to break this into a couple of parts.

Origin Story:

The movie is a sort of frame story, beginning with a Daredevil who has been injured in his battle with Bullseye.  One of Matt's first lines is in the form of voice-over: "They say that just before you die, your whole life flashes before your eyes.  That's true...even for a blind man."  Personally I think this is a really clever way to start.  Some people think the voice-over narration is kind of cheesy, but as a fan of Film Noir era detective stories and 80's action shows like MacGyver, I see voice-over as a good narrative technique.  And this bit of narrative prepares the audience for a flashback AND tells newcomers who may not be familiar with the character that he's blind from the get-go.

We're then told how Matt was blinded as a child, and his increased abilities, of his father - a boxer who is murdered when he refuses to throw a fight, ect. ect.  Pretty faithful to the comics.

The show follows the same beats, but they drag it out over about four episodes, and they expand on everything.  They go into greater detail of Matt's relationship with his father, making Battlin' Jack Murdock's death really tragic.  They have an episode devoted to Matt's training with his mentor, Stick, and finally an episode devoted to his college days with Foggy and why he first put on the mask.  This is where I have my first real beef with the show.  In every other telling of Daredevil's origin story I've seen IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEATH OF MATT'S FATHER IS WHY HE FIRST STARTED FIGHTING CRIME.  That's not the case here.  Matt is first seen taking out a sexual predator.  I'm still scratching my head about this change.  Was it to make Matt seem more selfless?  Maybe.

But there's a bit of a disconnect between Battlin' Jack's death and the rest of the story if Matt's initial motivation isn't bringing his father's killer to justice.  The only clue we have that this is part of Matt's motivation is that he keeps his costume in a secret compartment in the trunk that holds all of his father's boxing gear.  This is a nice shout out to Daredevil's original yellow and red costume, which he made from his father's robe.

So the movie messes with this part of the Daredevil Mythos as well.  It's revealed at the end that Kingpin used to work as a mob enforcer, and that he was the one who pulled the trigger and killed Jack Murdock.  This was done to make the final battle personal and tie everything up in a neat bow, so I can see the reason for the change.

To be fair, I haven't watched season 2 yet, and I heard that 'The Fixer,' the man who had Battlin' Jack killed makes an appearance.  So I can't really judge the show's origin fairly yet, BUT so far it's my opinion that the two origin stories are tied.  The Netflix origin story may be fleshed out, but leaves out what I feel is a crucial detail.

Daredevil's Powers:

One interesting thing the show does is it really plays down the fact that Daredevil is a superhero.  This makes sense for the feel the show-runners were going for.  I recall producer Jeph Loeb stating in an interview that they wanted to make Daredevil a good crime drama first, and a superhero show second.  And that's apparent in the way they depict DD's powers.  We're only shown the world as Matt sees it once or twice.  If you've ever read a silver age comic you probably noticed how Matt is always telling the audience things like: "I just love being blind.  My other senses are better than seeing.  I can tell you how many grains of salt are on a pretzel, just by licking it!"  Who cares how many grains of salt are on a pretzel?  WHAT KIND OF A SUPERPOWER IS THAT?

To contrast, Matt never brags about his powers in the show.  For him, it's just a fact of life.  At one point he informs Claire that she just reopened a nasty wound by moving around to much.  "How do you know?" she asks.  "I could taste copper in the air," he responds, in a 'can't everybody taste copper in the air?' sort of way.  She like: "Copper, of course." in a rolling her eyes -I-think-you're-a-little-crazy- sort of way.

But since the movie is from Matt's point of view, we're shown how he sees the world on a regular basis.  My favorite is the way he sees the world more clearly when it rains because the raindrops echo off all the surfaces they hit.  This leads to a sweet moment with Elektra, a really sad moment at her father's funeral, and is foreshadowing for the climax.

So I don't think there's a clear winner or a loser here.  Both do a great job of showing Daredevil's powers, it's just that the one does it in a more realistic and understated way.

Moral Values:

I've said before that Daredevil is pretty much my favorite superhero because of his dedication to fighting justice.  The movie doesn't always do the best job of showing this.  For example, that rooftop scene with Elektra in the rain I mentioned earlier: Matt hears someone being beaten in the alley below.  Does he go to the rescue?  Nope.  He's too busy hanging out on rooftops with his new girlfriend!  Fans have called this scene out for being out of character, and they're right.  Matt Murdock would never do this.

But the show gives us a Matt Murdock who is on a slippery slope morally speaking.  At the beginning of the show we really don't know where he stands and which lines he's willing to cross.  We see him in a confessional seeking forgiveness "Not for what I've done father, but for what I'm about to do!"  He almost starts as an antihero, on the path to becoming a real hero.  Or not.  We don't really know until the end.  He also comes across as a little hypocritical, calling out Foggy and Karen when they're sneaking around like amateur detectives, saying they need to take out Fisk through legal means.  True, he's trying to keep them safe, but he's a vigilante sneaking around at night trying to take Fisk down.  Hypocrite.  Also, he had me really worried early on when he takes on a client that he knows is guilty.  Matt!  No!  You only defend the innocent!

The show had me on the edge of my seat when it came to Matt's moral condition, and that's a good place to be.  Point goes to the show!

I have one more point - and this one is kind of minor.

The Soundtrack:

Even people who hate the 2003 movie (AKA, most people) acknowledge that the soundtrack is awesome.  Songs match the moods of scenes they're in.  My favorites are the two tracks from Evanescence - 'My Immortal' during the funeral for Elektra's father, and then 'Bring me to Life' during her training montage.

But some of the soundtrack decisions really have me scratching my head.  And I'm not just talking about how Tamer's 'Beautiful Crime,' the awesome song from the trailer is never featured in the show. (Disappointing---!)  There are two places in the finale where the music doesn't work for me.  One is in the beginning of the episode, a funeral, where this blues 70's thing is playing and killing the otherwise somber mood.  I think a slow instrumental piano or cello piece would have been more fitting.  The other place is where the FBI are rounding up mobsters in slow motion as opera music is blaring.

Not all of the music is this mismatched.  I love the part and the end of the first episode where an instrumental rock piece builds in intensity as Matt trains in Fogwell's Gym, and we're shown glimpses of the criminal element he'll spend the rest of the season fighting.  And the theme music is beautiful, with somber piano, strings and bells.  But when the music doesn't quite work it's really jarring.

Point goes to the movie.

Bottom Line: I really like both.  The movie is underrated and unfairly criticized in my opinion, but is not without flaws.  The show absolutely lives up to the hype.  Great storytelling and fully developed characters that feel like real people.  With adaptions superhero origins that have been told and retold over and over again in comics there is definitely room for more than one interpretation on film.

Why You Should Read: The Tick

The Tick.  A character created by a by young Ben Edlund, a fan of superhero comics during the 1980s, which was one of the most influential decades for superhero comics.

The 80s gave us creators like Frank Miller and Allan Moore, who pushed the envelope of what was and wasn't acceptable to depict in comics.  These individuals thumbed their noses at the Comics Code Authority and all the regulations that made sure comics stayed squeaky clean and kid friendly.  So much of what is going on in comics and superhero movies now is a result of the 80s.

Early issues of Ben Edlund's original run of 'The Tick' walk a line between affectionate parody that outright mockery of the darker and edgier comics of the time.  At one point the Tick declares: "I'm a SUPERHERO!  I don't want to STOP crime!  I just want to FIGHT it!"  These were funny and relevant when they were written, and in a post Christopher Nolan society where people are still throwing around buzzwords like 'Grounded' and 'Gritty' in relation to superheroes 'The Tick' is still as funny and relevant as ever.

The increase of violence and the brooding nature of heroes in superhero comics is parodied.  The Tick spends a lot of time standing on rooftops and narrating his own adventures in third person Film Noir dialog.

"He stands...like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant.  Staring out over over the city he's sworn to...to stare out over..."

"Blood covers the city like a big red afghan..."

As a Daredevil fan I particularly enjoy issues #3 through #5:  'Night of a Million Zillion Ninja,' 'A Big Fight' and 'Early Morning of a Million Zillion Ninjas'.  This story arc introduces Oedipus, a thinly veiled Elektra parody.  The Tick joins Oedipus, her old guy mentor Shing, and Paul the Samurai in their battle against the incompetent Ninja forces of darkness.  "Ninjas aren't dangerous.  They're more afraid of you than you are of them..."  This story arc also introduces the Tick's sidekick Arthur.

Superman and transparent Superhero disguises are also mocked.  The Tick dons a hypnotic tie over his costume in order to convince the general public that he to is an ordinary citizen rather than a nigh-invincible superhero.

One thing about The Tick, the original issues do have a bit of salty language, so it's not as kid friendly as it may seem.  I picked up a reprint of the first issue on Free Comic Book Day a few years back, and they altered a lot of the dialog to make it appropriate for all ages.  It must have been a little shocking for parents who went out and bought the comic for their kids afterwords.  It's mostly just PG-13 language though, no F-words or anything, but I do feel like it's something you should be warned about.

Probably my favorite thing about The Tick is how quotable it is.  "Speak up Amigo, I can barely hear you over the roar of this yawning abyss!"  It's a bit like 'The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra' or 'Galaxy Quest' for me that way.  There is no wrong time to quote The Tick.

"Spooooooon!"

On Daredevil...

"This Daredevil guy is awesome.  He's like Marvel's version of Batman!"  I've said this early on in my days as a Daredevil fan, and I'm not the first to make that comparison.  Some may even go as far as to say Daredevil is a cheap Batman knock-off!  But is this a fair accusation?  Let's take a look at some of the similarities AND differences between ol' Hornhead and the Caped Crusader.

Some background: I'm a huge fan of the Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale graphic novels, particularly their Batman work (Batman: The Long Halloween - Batman: Dark Victory) and the Color Series (Daredevil: Yellow - Spiderman: Blue - Hulk: Gray - Captain America: White) over at Marvel.  Daredevil: Yellow was my first encounter with the character.  It was a fantastic book.  Sad, funny, nostalgic, and it somehow managed to make me care about boxing.  I've never cared about boxing!  Anytime a book can convince you to be passionate about something you ordinarily couldn't care less about?  That's good writing.  After that I decided to check out the 2003 movie that everyone hates now.  I really enjoyed it at the time, and still do today as a guilty pleasure.  It's not necessarily a completely faithful adaption, but it's a fun movie, and easier to re-watch than those Fantastic Four movies they made back in the day.  It was after this that I started reading Frank Miller's Daredevil run.

We can thank Frank Miller for all of those comparisons between Batman and Daredevil.  Miller helped  reshape and redefine both characters for the generations to come back in the 80's.  Christopher Nolan's Dark Night trilogy is heavily inspired by Miller's 'Batman: Year One' as well as Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's 'Batman: The Long Halloween' which was intended to be a direct continuation of 'Year One'.

Before Frank Miller came along, Daredevil more closely resembled Spiderman than the Dark Knight.  Let's take a look at their origin stories:  A young man gains superpowers because of an encounter with a radioactive substance: in one case a spider bite, in the other a mysterious cylinder that strikes him across the eyes.  That young man receives a great personal loss: the tragic death of a father figure.  He dons a colorful costume in order to bring justice to those responsible.  Afterwards, he begins the double life Superhero, swinging around rooftops with either his grappling-hook-billy-club combo, or using spider-webbing.

So what did Frank Miller bring to the table?

Mobsters:  Miller brought in a minor Spiderman villain, 'The Kingpin of Crime,' and turned him into Daredevil's nemesis.  It the early days ol' Hornhead fought the occasional gangster - 'The Fixer' and 'The Owl' come to mind, but Frank Miller turned it into a full time gig.  'Batman: Year One' also deals with organized crime in the form of Carmine 'The Roman' Falcone, and the Falcone crime family can be found throughout 'Batman: The Long Haloween' and it's sequel 'Batman: Dark Victory'.

Ninjas:  Frank Miller did his best to turn Daredevil into a Kung Fu movie.  The Hand, DD's mentor Stick, his crazy ex girlfriend Elektra, ect. ect.  'Batman: Year One' introduces us to a Bruce Wayne who has just returned from the far east where he has mastered the secrets of Kung Fu so he could fight corruption in Gotham city.

Femme Fatale Girlfriends:  Catwoman and Elektra.  Something about both of these heroes is that they are both into bad girls.  This here is Film Noir influence.  Frank Miller didn't create Catwoman, and frankly I'm not crazy about his take on the character in 'Year One'.  But he introduced the ninja assassin Elektra in the very first issue of Daredevil that he wrote solo.  There's something about having a love interest who operates on the other side of the law that gives our brooding hero one more thing to brood over.

So.  Are Batman and Daredevil basically interchangeable?  Yes, but also no.

Multi-Millionaire vs Every-man.  Daredevil is a little more relate-able than Batman because he has a day job.  And with that day job comes the supporting cast of a day job.  Who is Matt Murdock's best friend?  His business partner Foggy Nelson.  Who are Bruce Wayne's best friends?  His butler and his kid sidekick.  I don't have a butler for a best friend.  Suddenly I can no longer relate to Batman!  Okay, that's a little extreme.  Bruce Wayne's best friends are his surrogate family, and I can totally relate to that.

But let's get back to that day job thing.  This is important.  This is why Daredevil is just about my favorite Superhero.  Matt Murdock is a lawyer by day and a vigilante Superhero by night.  Think about that for a minute.  Daredevil is basically fighting crime 24/7.  Matt Murdock is wholeheartedly devoted to bringing criminals to justice.  I challenge you to find another Superhero who is that dedicated to doing what they do.  On the flip side, Bruce Wayne sits around Wayne Manor brooding by day, and doing the vigilante stuff at night.  Fighting for justice is more like a part time job for Batman.

So, there you have it.  As near as I can tell, those are the key similarities and differences between Batman and Daredevil.  Feel free to tell me about your favorite Superhero in the comments.

Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice - My initial reaction

I just saw Batman Vs. Superman yesterday evening with friends at our local second run theater.  It was just us guys, because two superheroes punching each other in the face was deemed as too masculine by all the girls that I hang out with.

Did I enjoy the movie?  Overall, yes.  I don't think it deserves the mixed to negative reviews it received.  And I think those negative reviews tainted my movie going experience.  For example, I was informed by everyone on the internet that BVS is a confusing muddled mess.  So every time I was just a little bit confused by what was going on, rather than waiting for the story to make sense as it progressed, I would rush to judgement and say, "I'm confused by this!  The critics were right! This movie is stupid!" Even though about 95% of the time what I found confusing was either explained later, or was something I had forgotten from "Man of Steel" which I haven't watched in well over a year.

You'd think that with all of the movies I love that have flopped at the box office I'd be immune to the opinions of critics by now.  But in the 21st century "group think" is so prevalent.  Good media and bad media are determined by the masses.  Opinion is now absolute fact.  I think if we all lived in a bubble and decided for ourselves what we did and didn't like, we'd get more out of entertainment AND be more rounded individuals.

I don't really know yet if I liked or didn't like BVS.  I would need to see it again, preferably after re-watching "Man of Steel."  But I know what I DID like.

Batman's origin.  There is a school of thought that superhero origins in movies are no longer relevant and just bog the story down.  We all know how Thomas and Martha Wayne were gunned down by a mugger outside a movie theater because you already told us about it in Batman, Batman Forever, Batman Begins, and the TV series Gotham.  But it was so well done here in BVS.  I love the way Zack Snyder weaves the mugging and Bruce's discovery of the Batcave together, all with minimal dialog while the opening credits play.  It's a beautifully done sequence, and it doesn't take any more than 5 minutes.

Batman and Alfred's interaction.  These were some of the best moments in the movie for me.  Alfred's dry humor was spot on perfect.  This is very much a grim-and-gritty-post Christopher Nolan DC comics movie, but most of the laughs this movie got from me were either from Alfred or Perry White.  As you may recall there was a great deal of internet outrage when Ben Affleck of 2003's "Daredevil" was cast as "Batffleck" but he really is terrific as Batman.  What was that I was saying earlier about popular opinion not always being right?

Wonder Woman.  I really didn't expect Diana Prince/Wonder Woman to be as cool as she was, but she has a mysterious bad girl quality in her introduction, and great action sequences in the climax.  Some people in my gang thought she hogged the spotlight too much in the climax, but if you put Wonder Woman it your movie, you do need to use her.

Lex Luthor.  The Lex of BVS is another polarizing element of this movie.  Yes, he is an obnoxious little twerp.  Some fans resent the fact that this movie turned Superman's nemesis into a twerp.  But twerpy as he may be, he is also truly menacing, and a diabolical chess-master.

Visuals/Action.  This is a no-brainer.  It's a Zack Snyder movie.  Awesome stylized visuals and great action sequences are a big part of why you watch.  Going in I knew that even if the movie was a train-wreck, it would be a truly spectacular train-wreck.

What didn't I like?

The surreal dream sequences.  Particularly that middle one, where Post Apocalyptic Batman fights Post Apocalyptic Superman in the Post Apocalypse.  This entire sequence is too long and, as near as I can tell, rather pointless.  It seems like Zack Snyder was trying to repeat "Suckerpunch" in this scene.  Now I for one like Suckerpuch.  It's in my top 10 really weird artsy movies.  But BVS isn't Suckerpunch.  It's Batman Vs. Superman.

(Spoiler Alert) WORSE than this dream sequence is the Flash cameo.  Time traveling Flash from the future pops out of Bruce Wayne's computer screen to warn Bruce about future stuff stating "Lois Lane is the Key!" and, when Bruce is just as confused as the audience, Flash states that he "Was too soon."  So.  Is this about the climax of this movie, in which Lois does play a role?  Or is it about the upcoming Justice League movie?  Because Flash wasn't in the climax of this movie, and shouldn't have known how Lois would be involved---!

So, I don't think BVS is a perfect movie, but it is an enjoyable movie if you have the intention of enjoying it going in.  Few movies are perfect.  Don't let that stop you from watching them and forming your own opinions about them.  Because if you just listen to the critics all the time you could miss a few gems.  I know I almost did.