You are viewing seriousfic

Everyone's lost but me!
02 September 2014 @ 08:30 pm
I’ve heard that the new (already shitty) Fantastic Four movie is being based on the Ultimate Fantastic Four series. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but that series was pretty unappreciated, right? I know Ultimate Spider-Man was very widely acclaimed, so it makes sense for them to adapt it into Amazing Spider-Man (even if that series ended up having more to do with my last bowel movement than it does Punk Rock Gwen or Peter’s Best Friend Mary Jane or the fact that USM was based on the Raimi Spider-Man movies in the first place). But all I remember of UFF is a standard-issue Muppet Babies/Guv’Mint Sponsored Superteam set of tropes in lieu of innovation. It seemed like the most thought that went into it was giving Doom goat legs and explaining that Reed didn’t have internal organs anymore. Riveting stuff.

In fact, the really well-liked runs of FF, aside from the obvious Lee/Dikto stuff, all had Reed and Sue married, the Baxter Building established, Franklin having been born, etc. I’m thinking John Byrne, Mark Waid—and in fact, the FF run penned by Mark Millar, same guy who did UFF, was widely reviled for a sophomoric “villain even worse than Dr. Doom!” plot.

UFF itself was canceled seemingly pretty quickly and went over to the usual gimmicky bullshit of Sue and Ben getting married instead of Reed and Sue, Reed becoming a supervillain, and Johnny moving in with Peter Parker (not like that, slash fans). So it just seems weird to me that Fox would go from adapting Days of Future Past with X-Men, a story that is very well-loved by comics fans, to adapting UFF for Fantastic Four, when the only thing that storyline seems to offer is an excuse to make all the actors dirt-cheap CWagers.
Everyone's lost but me!
02 September 2014 @ 08:19 pm
I think they could’ve come up with a better title. You’re just gonna go with the setting as a title? That’s okay if your story takes place in a Space Station on The Edge of Space (great Vin Diesel movie, that), but if you’re just set in a random American city… I mean, you don’t see anyone calling Spider-Man “Queens” or X-Men “Westchester.” Oh, the movie.

Okay, quick summary: Philadelphia is set in the early 90s. Tom Hanks plays a gay lawyer with AIDS who has been fired from his law firm. They say it’s because of incompetence, he says it’s because they realized he was HIV-positive. He hires Denzel Washington, a homophobic lawyer, to represent him in a wrongful termination suit.

I think it holds up pretty well. As kind of prestige piece, it doesn’t go in for a lot of Movie Bullshit and strikes me as fairly realistic for the most part. The villains are suitably assholish without being caricatures—I like how the lawyer for the bad guys quietly says “I hate this case” after having to grill Tom Hanks to make her case.

As a Jonathan Demme movie, I don’t think it’s on the same level as Silence of the Lambs, which was kinda doing the same thing only with regards to sexism instead of AIDS/homophobia. I think SotL worked better because it was less on the nose, a bit more subtle. Like, there’s a brief exchange between Clarice and Crawford in the movie where she chastises him a bit for basically playing the boys’ club card so he could move the investigation forward, and in doing so he inadvertently perpetuated this attitude of sexism Clarice has been struggling against. I could believe real people would have that conversation.

Philadelphia, though, there are a couple scenes where Demme shoots a character looking directly into camera and saying that you can’t get AIDS from shaking hands, or reading the legal definition of discrimination, and it just comes off as preachy. Now, at the time the movie came out, I can see this as being BRAND NEW INFORMATION, but it just hasn’t aged well. There’s also an Oscar Clip Moment where Hanks’s character is listening to opera and describing what the singer is saying and he’s kinda literally going “I’m a saintly gay man sent to educate you about tolerance” and it’s all a bit much.

On a similar note, if you’re in the mood for a double feature, I’d actually recommend first watching Eddie Murphy’s Delirious, a stand-up special released about ten years prior to this movie. At the time, I believe Murphy was one of, if not the biggest box office star in the world, and he’s still making fun of homosexuality and AIDS in some very harsh, ignorant ways. I watched it a few days prior to seeing Philadelphia, and I think it was coincidentally enough a good way to set the tone of what the general attitude was at the time of Philadelphia’s release.

The chief criticism I’ve seen of this movie is that not much emphasis is put on Hanks’ character’s homosexuality. He’s in a relationship with Antonio Banderas’ Miguel, but I don’t recall them kissing or embracing or anything. It’s not a deal-breaker for me, at least, because for most of the movie, Hanks is suffering from the later stages of the AIDS virus and not much emphasis is put on Washington’s heterosexual relationship either. If the straight man had a whole ‘falling in love!’ subplot and the gay guy just, I don’t know, read books, that would be more of a situation for me. I do think the movie could’ve used, I don’t know, some candid moments of Hanks and Banderas kissing or cuddling spread throughout the movie to sell them as as affectionate a couple as Washington is with his wife, but it’s a little thing to get outraged over when the movie really isn’t a romance at all.

One thing I didn’t like: they make Washington’s character a pretty virulent homophobe and it struck me as the kind of Movie Bullshit that Philadelphia avoids for the most part. I get it, they want a really dramatic character arc for him to go from hating gay people to accepting them, but I don’t buy that a guy like that would take Hanks’ case in the first place. I’m not saying he has to be a saint, but I think the movie would work better if he were more ignorant or misinformed than actively hateful, and instead of Hanks saintly transforming him, he just became more aware of what gay people went through and learned to emphasize with them better. I don’t know, maybe at the time, the attitude he had was more realistic, but it comes off as kind of gimmicky high-concept “KKK member defends black man on death row!” sort of thing. 
Everyone's lost but me!
24 August 2014 @ 09:59 pm
So I'm looking at those offering betas for the DC Big Bang and the Marvel Big Bang, which I signed up for, and as you might expect, a lot of the people there are more concerned with boyslash than anything I'm liable to write--the plotty sex comedies you might expect. So before I wade through a cavalcade of negatories, I thought I'd try asking for a beta from those more inclined. I'm doing four fics, each of them will be around ten thousand words. There's an X-Men movieverse fic, an Iron Man movieverse fic, a Power Girl fic, and a JLI fic. All of them are explicit, with plenty of m/f and f/f smut, but I also try to keep them character-driven and vaguely witty. So, if anyone would be willing to parse something like that, let me know.
Everyone's lost but me!
So here’s my plan. After I get published and have a few novels under my belt, I come up with a bare-bones premise and outline for a story. I write some character descriptions, very broad stuff, nothing specific about race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality. Like, uh—‘Love Interest A: The child of Villain B, a canny person with an interest in AI programming and an extremely literal sense of humor. Drawn to Sidekick C.’

Then I put what I’ve got online and let my fans vote on who the characters will be. So if you want the hero to be a gay Muslim paraplegic, you just vote for that. And when all the votes are tallied, I write the novel, having left the specifics entirely to the internet. If the Hero and the Love Interest are both male, it’s a gay love story. If the internet has voted that every character is a woman, then it has an all-female cast.

Then, whenever anyone asks why I don’t have, I don’t know, an Eskimo in my stories, I’ll just say “You should’ve voted for an Eskimo.”

Also, votes cost one dollar a piece.
Everyone's lost but me!
09 July 2014 @ 12:44 pm
An interesting, but not altogether successful effort. I’m conflicted over recommending it or not, given the (in my estimation) near-fatal decision to populate the storyline with TWO separate subplots that really have nothing to do with the main story, but are in place mainly to set up the season two storyline (also the focus of the last two episodes; by all rights, the season finale happens ten episodes in). So I’ll try to review this by plot.

1. Sonya/Marco – The chief plot, and probably what you would think of as the premise. An unknown man shuts down all surveillance on a bridge between the United States and Mexico, before leaving an apparent body right on the border line. It turns out to be two women—the torso is that of an American woman, while the lower body is that of a Mexican, thus forcing Sonya Cross (an El Paso detective) and Marco Ruiz (a Juarez detective) to work together to catch the killer. Later, the killer releases a mission statement: “Why is it that one dead white woman north of the border is more important than thousands of lives lost to the south?” And so begins pretty much a one-man war against the concept of a border.

Unfortunately, this intriguing premise pretty much goes nowhere; soon, it turns out that the whole border thing is a red herring and the killer is really carrying out an obscenely convoluted revenge plot against those who’ve wronged him, so the murder might as well have taken place on the border between Ohio and Indiana. It pretty much makes no sense. The killer puts so much effort into doing things that are only useful as a red herring, actually more effort than he puts into the guy who actually pissed him off, just to give himself away purposefully once the narrative is done playing coy.

Also, I’ll take issue with the character of Sonya Cross. She has Aspergers, so this is kinda my area of expertise, though obviously she’s on a different place on the spectrum than me. Now I appreciate that the show isn’t doing the defective detective thing; it’s not Monk or Hannibal. However, in those shows, they make a point of the main characters being so good at their job that it justifies their unsuitability in other areas. Both Will Graham and Adrian Monk aren’t actually allowed on the police force, they’re just used as consultants. Here, Sonya is just an unremarkable police detective who happens to have a neurological situation. It doesn’t make her any better at her job, she doesn’t have any superhuman insight or anything.

However, that itself is the problem. She’s only competent at her job to begin with, and then her neurological condition makes her borderline incompetent in a way the show keeps (unintentionally?) making a point of in a really broad, dumb sort of way. I guess apparently in Texas, there’s so little prejudice that a woman with a debilitating mental condition can ascend to the rank of homicide detective and be put on an extremely high-profile case without anyone being rude enough to say “hey, maybe the woman who needs emotions explained to her in words of two syllables shouldn’t be the one to interview a traumatized witness or inform a civilian about a loved one’s death.”

It’s less like she has Aspergers, or whatever, and more like she’s the Obligatory Sexy Star Trek Lady Who Doesn’t Understand Emotions, Nerds. Like, if the premise was “Seven of Nine is a cop now!”, I don’t think there’d have to be any rewrites. I’ll give you an example that hit me. It’s FX, so there’s one episode where Sonya finds herself getting horny, goes to a bar, finds the first good-looking guy, and after a kooky misunderstanding with him trying to buy her a drink (because how would someone with Aspergers ever know from pop culture that flirting men will buy women a drink?), she immediately says she wants to have sex and it’s back to her place for some spicy Diana-Kruger’s-bare-back action. Okay, sure.

Is this the first time the character of Sonya Cross has ever gotten horny? Wouldn’t it make more sense for her to have a fuckbuddy or two that she knows isn’t a potential psycho (something you’d think a policewoman would be really wary of) and doesn’t have any STDs already? And that would make the same point about her character, just in a less ‘edgy’ way. I don’t know, I like that they seem to be keeping the Cross&Ruiz partnership strictly platonic, for now at least. But this storyline just falls flat for me.

2. Daniel Frye

The story of a drug-addicted journalism and his lesbian sidekick who get drawn into the murder case. Okay, at least it’s relevant, even if Frye’s struggle with addiction seems (like a lot of this show’s subplots) to be a Cliff’s Notes version of storylines other prestige shows engage with more. Oh, and obviously Adriana Mendez doesn’t have a girlfriend or romance plot; her lesbianism is mainly important to her dealings with her intolerant mother. But fine, it gets a pass.

3. Charlotte Millwright

Ehhhh? This is one of the storylines that is almost entirely unrelated to the murder case. It seems to just be here because the writers wanted to do a Lifetime Network version of Breaking Bad’s ‘mild-mannered whosits becomes a crime lord” story. Only it doesn’t make any sense. Let me just sum it up for you.

Charlotte: My rich husband has just died and now I see he was getting paid off to house a tunnel to Mexico on his land! I’m closing this tunnel immediately!

Obligatory Female Cartel Boss: Keep the tunnel open or I’ll kill you.

Charlotte: Okay, the tunnel’s open. So this situation’s resolved and there’s no drama or conflict here unless someone does something unimaginably stupid. (beat) I should probably call up my obviously untrustworthy and incompetent ex-boyfriend to put him in charge of the strenuous task of accepting envelopes full of money.

Ray: Thanks, Charlotte, and also for the FX Network PG-13 lovemaking. Now allow me to fuck everything up, repeatedly.

Ray: *does*

Charlotte: I guess I have no choice but to become a crime boss. Season two!

The only way this storyline really makes sense to me is as a subtle indictment of racism. The obvious choice for Charlotte to put in charge of the tunnel operation is Caesar, her property’s foreman and someone who is already intimately familiar with the set-up. And she does make him a partner in the venture and split some profits with him (though he still ends up doing most of the manual labor). However, instead of promoting from within, despite Caesar’s clear respect for her and above-and-beyond competence, she brings in an obnoxiously ill-equipped white guy to order Caesar around, though it’s clear she thinks of herself as a good liberal (see the profit-sharing above). And that’s an interesting point to make. But do we really need The Asylum version of Breaking Bad to get to it?

4. Linder

Some white guy is smuggling abused Mexican women into Texas so they can find new lives at a compound of militant Christian fundamentals (OF COURSE). Whatever.
Everyone's lost but me!
25 June 2014 @ 06:12 pm

This movie is so damn weird, you guys. I mean, it's trying to be both a straightforward faithful adaptation of the book (the title is Bram Stoker's Dracula) and at the same time a revisionist take where Dracula is the good guy and the vampire hunters are big meanies who just aren't cooooool, maaan. This results in a plot that could best be described as "a man is in love with a woman who is way too young for him; wants to rape her but it's okay because she looks like his dead wife."

-It's been said before, but I'll say it again. Keanu Reeves is almost entirely terrible in this. I've heard he was forced on Coppola, but honestly, that should've been a dealbreaker. Unless he was trying to gimmick the love triangle by casting likable block of wood Reeves on one side and Even-Good-In-Call-of-Duty:-Black-Ops Gary Oldman on the other. That still doesn't explain Winona Ryder, though.

-At least this movie is memorable, though. It's not good, by any means, but the visuals are so eclectic, almost iconic, that it at least leaves an impression. Probably it's best contributions to pop culture are the parodies that resulted from it; a Mel Brooks movie with Leslie Nielsen as Drac *and* a Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror segment. And it only seems fitting: the bits where Dracula's shadow is miming strangling Jonathan while he's unaware, and all this supernatural shit is happening right in front of Harker's nose and he's reacting as... err... Keanu Reeves... it makes Sam Raimi look like The Mist. The ending of The Mist.

-On the other hand, and I'm mostly sure this was unintentional, you could read all of Harker's time in Dracula's castle as a date rape scenario. He's trying to play along with this eccentric foreigner and do his job while the guy is creeping on him, getting in his personal space, making weird comments... finally, he sees Dracula literally feed a baby to his brides. In I think Reeves' only good acting moment, he finally lets out all the frustration and fear he's been feeling, screaming his lungs out as Dracula laughs. And then the brides do rape him; even if it is later referred to by Van Helsing as "infidelities" (I'm not sure how much the movie wants us to take Van Helsing at his word and how much it wants us to disagree with him as a sort of unreliable narrator. More on this later). However, I fear this would require way more self-awareness than the script otherwise shows.

-The main problem with the movie, I'd say, is that it wants to make Dracula sympathetic and more of a complex character. This is fine, in moderation. But it does so at the expense of every other character. Lucy becomes a slut, Seward becomes a drug addict, Van Helsing... God, they have him humping Quincey's leg while talking about how Lucy is the Devil's Concubine AND, when Vampy Mina tries to seduce him, he goes for it! Van Helsing even says, towards the end, "we have all become God's madmen." Yeah, what a bunch of assholes you were, trying to stop a vampire from raping and murdering his way through London! Shame! Shame!

-I'm serious, Mina even calls Van Helsing a murderous bastard for killing Lucy when THEY CAUGHT HER in the process of drinking a toddler's blood.

-She also gets mad at Dracula for killing Lucy first--yeah, you'd think--but after we cut away for a minute, we go back to the same scene and she's all "I love you, Dracula, you're my life, Dracula!" I didn't know Jared's sold diamonds that big. (Sisters before misters, Mina).

-Really, the whole movie has this weird dudebro sensibility. It's like Coppola wanted to make an erotic thriller about Dracula, then tried to reedit it into a legitimate movie on a dare. Dracula's the cool rock star sex god guy, so he's always right and awesome and everyone who doesn't like him is bad. Lucy is a one-woman show of Sex In The City; I think ninety percent of her lines are about sex. She even has a lesbian kiss with Mina.

-So get this [/Sam Winchester]. Initially, Dracula turns into a wolfman to rape-bite Lucy upon arriving in London (yeah, that's much scarier than a ghost ship full of vampire victims running around *rolls eyes*). It's played as a rape scene; Dracula even uses his psychic powers to roofie Lucy and an interrupting Mina into forgetting, though Lucy is still clearly traumatized. Then the rest of Lucy's storyline is almost played for laughs. She lies in bed and has orgasms (you know what's sexier than anemia and acute blood loss? NOTHING!) while all the guys stand around like "WOT WOT, SEX? BUT WE'RE BRITISH!"

-Also, how am I supposed to take this "grand love story" between Dracula and Mina? He contrives to bump into her, starts in on his gentleman routine, she tells him that she's married and to piss off, so he stalks her until she gets upset with him. Then, when he acts contrite, she feels sorry for him and he guilts her into going to see a science expo with him (where a porno film is playing, because SEX. VAMPIRES. VICTORIAN TIMES. SUBTEXT.). Whereupon he drags her into a corner while she says "no, stop," and he tries to bite her before stopping at the last second. So, pretty much ninety nine percent date rape, but if you don't actually penetrate someone, doesn't count.

-Again, it's just so weird that I guess the movie is trying to criticize Victorian sexual mores (yes, I know, it's a courageous stand to take, saying that maybe the Victorians just didn't have a healthy attitude about sex), BUT AT THE SAME TIME, it's pretty much saying "you know what women like? Rape. Bitches love rape."

-Oh, and in the book, obviously there was a lot of focus on how Lucy is a victim and she doesn't want to be vamped and by staking her, they're freeing her soul and doing her a solid. In the movie, they have Van Helsing going on about how she's actually a 'willing discipline of Dracula' and such, so I guess she consented to sex with a wolfman and, later, Dracula turning into a wolf and bite-fucking her to death. So... I'm guessing they're trying to make this point where either Van Helsing is wrong and it's foolish for anyone to believe that someone would willing go in for Dracula's victimization (err, except for Mina, I guess), OR they're saying that Lucy chose to be a vampire and it's synonymous with... sexual liberation or something? In which case, feminist women eat babies? I don't know... man, this shit's confusing.

-Real dirty trick: they nod to Dracula being an epistolary novel by often having voiceover narration of people's diaries, letters, etc (usually with both Keanu Reeves or whoever saying "Dear Diary, it is the 27th of May" AND an onscreen caption reading "Jonathan Harker's diary, May 27". Yeah, got it, thanks). However, they don't use the lines from the book, but invent new ones about how Mina is SO IN LOVE WITH DRACULA, YOU GUYS. And what they do use from the book is often taken entirely out of context, like Van Helsing's "God's madmen" line. In the book, Mina at one point feels sorry for Dracula because, hey, he's like Lucy--he was turned into a vampire, he has no soul, and they need to release him from his suffering. In the movie, this is turned into her feeling sorry for him because he's "so hunted." Yes, for kILLING YOUR BEST FRIEND, IDIOT. REMEMBER HER? RAPED TO DEATH BY MONSTERS? But yeah, you're right, Dracula's cute, he should probably be allowed to do that.

-On a more pedantic note, they relate Renfield to Jonathan. A lot of Dracula movies do this; I think the Bela Lugosi one made it Renfield instead of Harker who went to Dracula's castle, but instead of escaping, he was driven insane, and so Jonathan is just Mina's boyfriend in that adaptation. Here, Renfield was the first solicitor Dracula had, but he went crazy, so now Jonathan has to finish the work. Except in the book, Dracula was really careful about hiding his true nature from Renfield/Jonathan and keeping him alive and intact long enough to finish the job so he could get to London, and Dracula could learn from him how to move through polite society undetected. Having him be so clumsy as to drive Renfield crazy and need a do-over on the solicitor diminishes Dracula a bit.

-I mean, I can see Dracula getting Jonathan alone and then so not giving a shit that he's just, yeah, I can climb walls, what are you gonna do about it, nerd? But it lacks in subtlety and it isn't really interesting. if Dracula is basically flinging scary shit in Jonathan's face every two minutes for no reason, there's no build-up, no tension. He might as well just bite the guy as soon as he comes through the door and have it over with.

-In case you were wondering where the one scary thing in American Horror Story--the music--came from, it's this movie.

-Another thing: In the book, there's a very brief scene where Dracula has some gypsies working for him, loading up cargo for his trip to London. Jonathan tries to sneak a letter to them, they show it to Dracula, that's it. It's not the most flattering portrayal, but okay, Dracula is paying some guys who happen to be Roma. In the movie, Dracula has full-on gypsy henchmen who get into a gunfight with the vampire hunters. It just seems weird, like saying... "Dr. Doom and his Jewish minions are here!" There doesn't seem like any reason they can't say "oh, Dracula has some random henchmen working for him, but they don't all belong to any particular ethnic group." And when the movie is making such a point of being critical of the source material, it makes it stand out a lot more when they let something else by.

Everyone's lost but me!
18 June 2014 @ 03:12 pm

So recently EA offered their old game Battlefield 3 up for free on their Steam rip-off service, and since pretty much the only way I'm going to get my games anywhere other than Steam, Amazon, or GOG is to be bribed to do it, I downloaded it. It's about what you'd expect from a military shooter--if you liked Call of Duty, it's pretty much the same thing. This is nothing new in entertainment of course; I can fully admit that a lot of comedies, superhero movies, zombie movies, slasher movies, are so alike that you really have to be a fan of the genre to appreciate the differences; otherwise, the only difference between Halloween 6 and Friday the 13th 6 is what mask the stuntman is wearing. I mean, ever since Bridesmaid, Melissa McCarthy has pretty much played the same character. She has her own subgenre of movies. They could've called The Heat 'When Megan Met Sandra Bullock.'

And I don't think people mind military shooters too much, so much as they mind the overwhelming prevalence of the genre in AAA-titles (and how many of the protags are white guys with stubble. I bet if the next Modern Warfare had a black woman running around carrying an AA-12, suddenly buying it would be giving a high-five to Joe Biden). But why are these games so prevalent? Some have said that it's a Nolan-y desire on the part of gamers to be taken seriously, but it's not like silly games like Portal, Saints' Row, Resident Evil, or Metal Gear Solid have had trouble finding an audience.

And as I was thinking up this review, I thought of one of the things I hated about this game--the melee attack doesn't seem to work for shit. Bad guys can knife me and kill me deader than a C-list superhero in a crossover, but if you're shooting down five terrorists, you run out of ammo on the fifth one, so you have to split-second run over there and knife him in the face before he shoots you--that doesn't work. And I love doing that! That's some action hero shit right there!

That got me thinking--these military shooters are pretty much action movies that give you more bang for the buck. There's been a lot of talk about how video games are supplanting movies, because a two-hour movie with snacks and friends is super-expensive--comparatively, sixty bucks (usually less) for a game, you can play about eight hours on single-player and just about forever on multiplayer. So these games are less really games then they are action movies you play through--scripted events, cutscenes, A-list voice talent. And these games are not trying to realistically depict combat; you fight through Iran while it's having an earthquake, you jump onto a helicopter as it's taking off, you jump onto a subway train to stop an over-the-top villain from blowing up New York with a nuke.

So I think that's why these military shooters are so prevalent. They're competing with action movies and they're doing something Hollywood really doesn't do anymore--hoo-rah Team America war movies where John Wayne smashes up the Axis of Evil.

I hope you won't think I'm some kind of Fox News correspond if I say that Hollywood is largely to the left of the political spectrum. They do make hoo-rah Team America war movies, but they're exclusively about evil aliens that, in the real world, can't be offended and can't be construed as supporting the War on Terror/Republicans (Battle: L.A., the Transformers movies, Battleship, Man of Steel). Just look at Captain America in the MCU. First movie, he patriotically bashes Nazis. Avengers, he patriotically bashes aliens. Winter Soldier, time to take on some terrorists--boom, there's a plot about the corrupt military-industrial complex, just like in Iron Man... and Iron Man 2... and Iron Man 3.

Now I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure a lot of you like the thought of Hollywood being (or trying to be) more thoughtful in their cinematic depiction of war. But that desire on the part of the audience to see Americans killing terrorists hasn't gone away, anymore than it did when Hollywood made movies about Americans killing Nazis or Americans killing the Reds. And if you want that kind of story these days, you either have to buy a book by Tom Clancy or play a video game. And why would the video game industry compete with Hollywood at the evil aliens racket when they have a lucrative field all to themselves?

Everyone's lost but me!
12 June 2014 @ 11:25 pm

From the Everybody Poops Philosophy Store: So let’s say DC gets their head on straight and Dick gets married to Babs (or Kory, they’re both great). I’m wondering… with the endgame and OTP being Dick/lady, how would people feel about Dick being bisexual?

Let me run the numbers real quick: I don’t think Dick would be likely to officially be paired with any of the male Bats; too incestuous, unless you want to ship him with, like—Orpheus or Batwing or someone. Yeah, guy’s bisexual, but I doubt most bisexuals are attracted to their adopted fathers/brothers.

But I could see him having a thing with Roy back in the day. You wouldn’t even have to worry about I guess sexualizing/erasing platonic relationships—Dick could be really good friends with Wally and Garth (same as he is with Donna as a straight man) and then something else with Roy. Makes sense.

My question is—does this really add anything on the reader’s end, Dick and Roy having had a relationship or a fling or a one-night stand, if he’s just going to end up with one of those girl redheads? Would it feel like a bit of a cruel taunt or pandering for there to be a same-sex relationship that only ends up on the ashheap of history like Lana Lang, or would that be good representation assuming he, say, thinks Green Lantern looks hot once in a while?

Everyone's lost but me!
12 June 2014 @ 03:18 pm

Seeing a lot of posts about The Mummy and George of the Jungle lately reminds me that Brendan Fraser was up for Superman Lives back in the day. Now that would’ve actually worked, I think. He looked good, he could do comedy, he had some action chops… it’s the 90s, let’s say Fraser as Supes, Sandra Bullock as Lois Lane, get Frank Darabont, Robert Zemeckis to direct—NO TIM BURTON. Just make a big, fun Superman movie with a bit of slapstick, some romance, a little darkness with Brainiac running amok and needing to get punched through a building or two… but mainly a funny, self-aware, slightly ironic family adventure.

I realize I’m sort of describing Dudley Do-Right, also with Fraser, but fuck it. That’s what I want from a Superman movie.



Also, it’s the 90s… Tim Curry would still be young enough to play Lex Luthor. Or you could get Pete Postlethwaite!


Imagine that motherfucker trying to kill Superman for a few movies.