A Siesta for Saga

I believe that I've documented my experiences with Brian Vaughan's "Saga" around here to some degree in the past. Like many readers, I'm left with a mood of excited curiosity when I reach the story's regular hiatus points, though I tend to arrive at those points later than others. That's because it's generally passed from the fore of my mind before its resumption. I've had similar experiences with half seasons of television shows in the past.

Anyway, I was tardy to the party again, but I came upon the urge to read more of Vaughan's cosmic opus before the end of his recent batch. I basically caught up right on time to be ready for the final issue of this run, which was just released. This feels new to me. I doubt that my satisfaction with the actual comic will, though. 

Bonus Question! 

Why is Windows skipping from version 8 to 10?

Because 9 was eaten! By 7!  

Or the correct version of that joke! 

A Sum of Sams and a Mess of Maxes

Though I never really had any great investment in it, "Spawn" was a franchise that drifted around my periphery. My childhood began in the Nineties. It seemed inevitable. But I only read an actual comic with the character quite recently. I picked it up out of vague curiosity after I heard that the series was bringing back the character who originally bore the title. 

It's alright. Whatever. I've read a few issues since. The current arc began with a heavy emphasis on Sam and Twitch, two police officers. I was already somewhat aware of their ancillary status in the franchise, but whenever I heard their names, I was reminded of "Sam and Max", another property that dwelt around the fringes of my childhood. These characters also happened to be lawmen. They were anthropomorphic animals, but that did nothing to weaken their dedication to serve and protect. I suppose that it didn't do anything to heighten it either. My firmest memory of it seems to be related to my brother's recital of the cartoon's theme song, which I can't even recall terribly well at all. I do remember that the latter name was sometimes replaced with “Mark” in the mouth of my sibling, a reference to the brother of our neighbour Sam. Another level for the tune to work on.

Anyway, my reading of "Spawn" revealed that the given name of the man who bears the nickname "Twitch" is actually "Max". Does that not serve to provide my customary confusion between the two duos with a little extra dose of vindication? 

I don't know. Maybe it doesn't. Probably. But it feels like that anyway.

Bonus Question!

Best Sam? Hain. 

Theme Parks of Past and Future

I was obviously going to see "Jurassic World". I've seen the first on several occasions, including random cinema viewings, though I did miss its recent wide revival. The second still holds a pretty special place in my heart, which isn't hurt by its focus on Jeff Goldblum and the fact that it's the basis for a fairly clear and early memory of good times at the movies. My aversion to the third one was apparently strong enough to inadvertently associate it with a distastefully weird stage of my life instead of the era in which it was actually released. I honestly just discovered that it actually came out in 2001 after "World" hit screens. In fairness, my antipathy could only have been heightened by the lack of Ian Malcolm, who represented the franchise most vividly in my mind. There's even a part in the third movie where the woman who planned the expedition is chastised for excluding that chaos theorist and his intimate knowledge of the featured island, which only made his absence feel more apparent.

I didn't expect him to be in this one, however, and Chris Pratt would have been enough of a draw on the acting side if I'd needed one. But I didn't. It's a new "Jurassic Park" film, and it's not the third one.

But the particular source of my most pleasant surprise lay elsewhere. The Pratt plot was a fairly standard action movie thing, which brought no complaints from me, but I was especially drawn to the kids' adventure through a wonderfully realised theme park that rapidly descended into a state of panic and peril. The emphasis on that atmosphere was welcome in an entry of a franchise that only touched on it briefly in its initial installment despite its very name. At the least, the delivery of that ambience matched its transmission during some of the strongest moments of "Tomorrowland", though it differed in execution, partially by dint of decreased idealism in its execution. It didn't feel like a pristine portrait or a cynical caricature. It felt like a candid photograph, casually conveying all aspects of the scene with reasonable neutrality. 

The juvenile perspective also felt fresh and distinct from that of the children in the first two movies. Thinking about it now, I wonder if the scarcity of youth in the third one may have made it even blander for me.

Oh. And there's also the theme song. That was on point here. Ever awesome. 

Bonus Question!

Best T. Rex? Marc Bolan. 

Dooming Faces

"Secret Wars"! Still pretty good. I didn't seriously think that I'd enjoy it to this extent, but it's a story that's being told quite well. I mean . . .

I'd never seek to impugn the kills of the author Hickman, but the degree of pleasure I derive from his work has varied. Apart from that, there's still a way in which significant chunks of the tale's core concepts fail to smell too fragrant to me at first sniff, but recently Marvel has seemed to put out a fair amount of comics that are far better in execution than they'd feel in a pitch. "All­-New X-­Men"? The idea of a temporally displaced team from the past in the present day didn't really grab me, but the writing, done with Bendis's customary aplomb, did much to make it a favoured title for me.

My first distinct impression of Hickman came from his run on "Fantastic Four", which may have been endeared to me further by the art of Bryan Hitch. At varying levels of consciousness, his stuff still tends to remind me of his work on "The Ulimates", which was coming out around the time of my initial dive into the world of comics. It also happened to be written very well. For that matter, it also seemed like a fairly weak concept to me at the beginning, taking place in a glorified alternate universe. But the early books in that "Ultimate" universe, including Bendis's Spider­-Man one upon which that reality was built, were attached to incredible creative teams. An earlier example of that kind of disparity between idea and implementation that typifies a lot of recent Marvel work for me.

Anyway. Hickman.

That "Fantastic Four" stuff was pleasant, but his "Avengers" work, which did a lot of in the way of preparation for "Secret Wars", didn't always do much to grab me.

But now I'm feeling closer to his world again.

However, I am now becoming acutely aware of the general irrelevance of the preceding paragraphs to the point I had in mind for this entry, which concerns the depiction of Doctor Doom in the third issue of the main "Secret Wars" title. That guy tends to hide behind his iconic metal mask, claiming that his disfigured visage is too hideous to be seen by the world. A very operatic conceit. But his face has been drawn in the past. The version of his origin to which I was first introduced featured a panel of his demeanour's damage, which turned out to be nothing but a fairly rakish scar. I mean . . . Prince Zuko would feel lucky to trade blemishes with him. 

But Doom's a vain one. And eccentric. He fixated on this fairly minor imperfection, which magnified it in his mind. This situation might have been exacerbated further by a basic knowledge of his responsibility for the accident that caused it, which he consciously attributes to his foe Reed Richards. In any case, this led to the acquisition of his mask, an accessory that doesn't really do much to disguise his monstrosity from others. The ones who revile him tend to do so for less superficial reasons. Instead, it can seem to serve more to hide that face from its owner.

But Hickman's new series features a sequence in which Doom exposes himself after a lament about the apparent inability of his new cosmic powers to fix his mangled form. In fairness, what he reveals in this scene does look quite horrific.

But this is a guy who's become close enough to omnipotence to rebuild a universe. Is he really unable to restore himself? Or was the cocktail of vanity, insanity, insecurity, and the recent infusion of extra magical might potent enough to cause the unconscious manifestation of the face he feared? 

Bonus Question! 

Best Face? Ron Wood.

Of Glitches Good and Ill

I first tried to watch “Howl’s Moving Castle” some years ago. I rented it from a video store of independence and solid repute. But the damned disc skipped in the middle. I never got around to trying again.

But a local bar recently held a free Studio Ghibli festival, and that film was screened as part of the deal. Great times. But then it broke down around the same place. Fortunately, the problem was solved through the valiant working of some technological magic, and I managed to enjoy 

the rest of the film. It’s a good one, and it even features Christian Bale’s Batman voice before its appearance in his Batman movies.

The same bar later hosted a "Reboot" marathon, which happened to be followed in the ensuing week by the official announcement of the show's revival. Ominous! 

Bonus Question! 

Best boot? Italy's quite nice. Especially so at this time of year.

Revenant Remakes

I almost wonder if the bile some people have for remakes might be partially due to the often extraneous implications of the term. When you remake a house, you tear the thing down to build a new thing in its place. That’s not really the case for artistic remakes. Those are closer in spirit to building a similar structure across the street. Or an architectural revival. It's not ever as though any bricks are being stolen. They could just share a constitution. The painters may have even taken a look at the inspiration's swatches. 

To me, remakes often just seem like broad adaptations that happen to use the same medium. And I tend towards a general acceptance of that breadth in adaptations of any kind. The source is there for what it is, leaving all kinds of room for interpretation in its spirit.

I think that an ideal remake is the new house across the street that's haunted by some of the old one's ghosts.

Bonus Question!

Last movie you saw? The new "Poltergeist". But I only remembered that after I finished this whole thing about remakes and haunted houses. 

Show on the 11th of June - Linsmore Tavern

Hot Apollo's closing a solid night of music at The Linsmore on the 11th of June. That's this Thursday!

Place is at 1298 Danforth Avenue. Right by Greenwood Station.

The night's first band shall take the stage around 8:00, and we'll be on at 11:00. Just like the news! Speaking of that, a reminder may be left here about the heart of rock-and-roll and the fact that it is indeed still beating. Come by on Thursday and check its pulse. It'll be throbbing.

Reviving Villainy

I just read Magneto’s first “Secret Wars” issue. It might have been among my favourites in the series. Great art. And Namor. That’s always good.

But the big bad name of the actual event is Doctor Doom. Like Magneto and Namor, his villainy has generally been imbued with streaks of idiosyncratic nobility. Like the former, he was targeted in the early years of the last decade by the attempt of an acclaimed author to override those sympathetic elements through acts of freshly fiendish depravity beyond any apparent redemption. In Doom’s case, the story arc, written by Mark Waid, was even called “Unthinkable”. It started with his pitiless sacrifice of an early love to demonic forces in exchange for magical power, and it went on to include sorcerous control over the young daughter of his rival Reed Richards. That kind of wicked thing. Oh. And the daughter was called Valeria, named by Doom after that aforementioned sacrifice.

Magneto’s descent into deeper darkness was the work of eccentric iconoclast Grant Morrison, focusing on the mutant mastermind’s mad bid to eradicate humanity. Magneto’s the dude whose character was lightened fairly early through the revelation of his survival of the Holocaust. He was on the Jewish side of things. As a child. In Germany. A bit of an odd choice for the perpetrator of new genocide.

Apparently, editors thought so, for the man behind those acts was revealed to be an impostor immediately after Morrison left the series, and the true Magneto emerged again to another stint on the heroic side of things, which has been going relatively well to this day. With some bumps. It happens. Doom seemed to recover too. He even worked with the Fantastic Four quite recently, bonding sincerely with the same child he’d previously exploited. Their connection managed to endure even after she succeeded in her endeavours to cure some ailment that threatened him. He somehow managed to accomplish this refreshment of morality without actually losing responsibility for his crimes. He didn’t seem to need editorial absolution to reclaim his histrionic hints of haughty heroism. Despite Stalin’s claims about morbid statistics, apparently one death isn’t necessarily more tragic than millions. And the child lived at least. Unlike the swathes of New York citizens who got thrown in ovens by the false Magneto.

So . . . Yeah. I suppose that I can see why official revision may have been less crucial for the dude with the metal face than it was for the one with the metal powers. And the latter’s had a steadier history of altruism. He's placed there with greater firmness, and that's in effect currently. Currently, Doom is . . . Well, Doom’s ruling over the fractured remnants of countless universes under the title of “God Emperor”. “Doctor” really has lost a fair amount of cachet in recent years.

Incidentally, this is the costume Doom wore when he was working with the Fantastic Four, and it's been made his default for his recent inclusion in the "Marvel Heroes" video game. Appreciation for his good side seems quite resilient after all.

Bonus Question!

Magneto! How does he work?

Mysteriously.

Furiosyeah

The new “Mad Max” is out. Fantastic. Unlike previous classic films I postponed for ages, including one of Mad Mel’s “Lethal Weapon” movies, the road warrior’s other cinematic appearances never seemed to pop back up in the theatre for me. I just gradually caught up alone.

I actually just sat down with “Thunderdome” a short while ago. I can’t imagine that I’d have any trouble with “Fury Road” if I hadn’t, but I maintain the soundness of my decisions on the matter regardless. The series just improved continually. I can’t say that Charlize Theron is an obvious replacement for Tina Turner or anything, but she does her own thing, and she does it well. Quite well. Tom Hardy’s always a fine performer too, and his titular character happened to seem quite eager to part with his old Bane mask, which did occur in due course.

Bonus Question!

Handsomest Hardy?

Despite my general willingness to appreciate the man on the whole, I've not generally been able to adequately grasp the intensity with which some admire Tom's bare visage, though I readily admit that I don't tend to be the finest judge of beauty when it comes to any face that does not appear in my looking glass with regularity. He's obviously not unattractive, but I've never thought that his face was what set him apart. I recall being confused by a scene from that spy romance with Chris Pine in which the female lead's friend salivates over head shots of the two men. The Pine part made a bit of sense, but I'd think that Hardy's hard body would be his advantage from a visual standpoint. After all of that work he put in to mould his musculature to that of the many mighty men he's portrayed? I think that his character might have been acclaimed for his superior sartorial skills too. But he was judged to be a match for Pine with nothing but a facial photograph.

Anyway, I personally think that he was quite comely in that old "Star Trek" movie from the Nineties. The one that steadfastly refused to do any favours for his career. I never actually saw it. Incidentally, I did think that Hoult's "Fury Road" character bore a touch of physical resemblance to Tom's "Trek" creature. Hardy looked quite good here too, though. His guy in "Inception" is probably up there too. I don't really remember. And I probably wouldn't know even if I did.

The Scab of Continuity

Marvel's new "Secret Wars" series is coming out now, bearing some thematic similarities to the DC "Crisis on Infinite Earths". The resemblance hasn't hurt chatter about the potential of "Wars" to reboot Marvel's universe as "Crisis" did for its company. Marvel hasn't historically done stuff like that, whereas DC has done so on several occasions since that seminal "Crisis".

Dealing with continuity in a fictional universe of this grand breadth can  be like having a scab. DC seems to do so with compulsive fervour, constantly picking at it and generating new messiness in the process. Marvel, with its more consistent adherence to the idea of a sliding time scale and a willingness to overlook occasional bits of slight oddness instead of shuffling the cosmos around trifles, is content to let the scab sit and do its own thing, which generally brings less in the way of blemishes.

Bonus Question!

Best crisis? Personality.

Rarity and Mediocrity

I remember discussing Kevin James movies with an old friend and coming to the conclusion that their rarity obviated any considerations of mediocrity. You know? Dwayne Johnson’s always delightful, but a season that contains the glory of “Furious 7” alongside something like “San Andreas”, which has nothing particular beside its lead to draw me in any especial way, can actually result in the skipping of one after distinct appreciation of the other. This doesn’t generally seem to be the case with Kevin James, though, and the perceived infrequency of his cinematic appearances bolstered the highlight status of “The Zookeeper” in my mind. I was thinking about this as I enjoyed the “Paul Blart” sequel a few days ago.

Then I heard that the titular mall cop would also be appearing in the imminent “Pixels”, which I was probably going to see anyway. Two Kevin James movies in such proximity? Absurd and delightful! Let’s do this.

Bonus Question!

Best zoo workers? The Mighty Boosh.

Oedipal Automaton

The Ultron of the comics, built by Hank Pym, was often characterised by forms of father issues in relation to his creator. Though Pym’s own psyche was frequently explored within the panels of various series, I don’t believe that the chain of parental issues, which continued from Ultron in the other direction through the Vision, a rebellious invention of the villain, ever went back up along his way. Hank’s heritage was never really explored.

That’s why the cinematic universe’s placement of Tony Stark in the role of Ultron’s architect makes a bit of extra sense to me. This is a dude who already has father issues. His second movie was partially built around them. I can see how a robot programmed by a guy like that could end up with some Oedipal motivations.

His voice plays into that kind of psyche nicely too. As such personalities tend to rate their worthiness above that of their fathers even as they ignore flaws they may share with them, it seems appropriate for James Spader's Ultron to attempt to sound maturer than his creator in the midst of an arrogant swagger that matches Stark's.

The fact that he can also deliver archetypal comic villain lines is pretty great too. Seriously. He even does that thing of beginning a speech to the assembled heroes by speaking the team's name. So classic.

Bonus Question!

Quicksilver versus Quicksilver?

I probably caught some glimpse of Whedon's speedster around the release of "Days of Future Past", and I recall thinking that his version seemed less compelling from an aesthetic standpoint at least. As I watched the portrayal, however, I had no complaints, and the largely fabricated accent added a touch of extra flavour, though I'd give the larger share of the twins' style points to the female half of the duo. Scarlet Witch struts like a real chaos mage, and she deserves it. Even when Quicksilver isn't hitting the heights of mythic costumery, his is a solid look. His general design has never drifted too far from its original conception in the pages of the earliest "X-Men" books, and it was even recreated without any significant change for his Ultimate appearance, which is a rare feat that's even more notable in light of the attire's age. His sister has had a less steady relationship with fashion, which is why it's nice to see her make her cinematic debut with sartorial surety.

Anyway, I'd still give the win to Fox's Peter over this film's Pietro, and that can stand even if it is due in substantial part to an outfit that looks like the love child of Ramona Flowers's laundry hamper and a can of silver spray paint.

Generation Fap

Young people will always complain about old people, and the old will always do the same about the young. Obvious stuff. I mean . . . People of all types are always going to complain about whatever they want. But these two codified forms of dissatisfaction just passed across my mind. Though there's little of actual relevance in the standard case of either, anyone with a yen to assign points might be convinced to give a slight bonus to the youth for the mere fact that they generally seem to accept the idea that this has always been the state of things, believing that the old are eternally awful, whereas the opposite camps of modernity, ancientry, and all intervening points frequently speak as though their successors are breaking disastrous new ground when they mess up in the same basic ways.

But if that bonus were ultimately given, I suspect that it would be very slight indeed.

Bonus Question!

Greatest generation? Pepsi. 

Well, I don't know about the greatest, but it must surely rank.

Effective Perfection

I vaguely recall having no interest in “Pitch Perfect” when it came out. However, by the time I saw the trailer for the sequel, several members of the cast had become known to me in positive ways. I decided that I’d probably have to catch up at some point before the release of “Pitch Perfect 2”, though I did nothing to hurry that process. This past week rewarded my sluggishness with the opportunity to see the original film at my favoured cinema, and the expected good time was had. Ready for the sequel now.

Bonus Question! 

Best pitch? Curveball. Really curvy. Like that movie "Wanted". With baseballs. I guess. I don't know. Now I'm just thinking about a battle between James McAvoy and Boomerang. Bullseye could come too if he truly did find his path to criminality in baseball like Boomerang. I don't know why professional baseball seems to be such a villainous place in the Marvel universe. The X-Men obviously prove that there's nothing wrong with the backyard variety, and Thing and Sasquatch seemed to be on track for the big leagues with their collegiate football careers before they turned into superhero monsters. I don't know, man. Marvel's MLB can be a dangerous place. 

Fast Times

The blessed line that followed the climax of the previous “Furious” movie, the first one that I saw in theatres, was “How did you know that there would be a car there to break your fall?”

I mean . . . That’s how you know, isn’t it? So good.

If I had to pick a roughly equivalent moment in “Furious 7”, it would be an exchange between Vin Diesel and the passenger in the car he was about to drive off a cliff. It was less explicit, though. The significance is in the implication when Vin tells her to put a helmet on. She questions his lack of cranial protection. He says nothing. But that says enough. For he is Vin Diesel, and his head is a helmet of grandeur.

Also, driving a car off a cliff is one of the less impressive automotive flights that are taken in this movie. This scene came shortly after one in which he was one of a group that drove cars out of a plane. So . . . You know. He’s probably not too worried anyway.

Bonus Question!

Best fast? Lent.

Sky Business

I saw “Unfinished Business”. It was basically like a comedic version of that George Clooney movie. The one wherein he’s a diligent professional who doesn’t have time to build a life because he’s always flying across the world for work. What was that called? “Up in the Air”? I don’t know. I don’t really know anything about the film. I might not even have the right premise in mind.

But I have my assumptions.

And Vince Vaughan has Dave Franco.

So. No problems.

Bonus Question!

Best unfinished Vaughan business? "Saga".

Home Again

I vaguely recall seeing a trailer for “Home” at some point in the past season. Details like the 

name and exact nature of the film were lost to me. Recently, however, whatever concept of the 

movie I had randomly popped up in my head, and the idea that I’d gone to watch it at some 

stage somehow coalesced. I supposed that it had left theatres already. Within a week of the 

formation of this ephemeral belief, the marketing for the movie picked up in preparation for its 

actual arrival. The new posters that have appeared reveal that it is in fact due to arrive upon this 

weekend.

So. I shall be going to see that at some point in the next few weeks.

Bonus Question!

Best home? The one to which you can go again.

Ascendant Elements

I  managed to make room in my schedule to see “Jupiter Ascending”. I had more fun with it than I might have thought. I think that this time in 2014 saw a bit of a drought in cinemas that led me to see “3 Days to Kill” in part because I’d heard that it was done by the guys from “The Fifth Element”. No such drought currently seems to be in effect, which is why I only saw the Wachowski movie recently. It wasn’t a priority. But then it turned out to be fun in that lovely “Fifth Element” kind of way. In a bit of a reversal from that film’s central dynamic, the dude in this is the aloof alien, and the girl he’s protecting is the more relatable earthling. But it still has that feeling of madcap cosmic craziness. It's probably the type of space opera that I was waiting for when I let "Interstellar" pass by me. It’s a flamboyant adventure that’s played fairly straight through all of the outlandish elements it proudly displays. There seemed to be more whispering in this than there was in "Element", though. With the exception of Mila Kunis. But when she did whisper, everyone else’s whispers got even softer.

Bonus Question!

Best Jupiter? Camp.

Time of the Season for Rob Thomas

After “Sandman” and “Secret Six”, “iZombie” was probably my favourite comic published by DC for a good while. I can’t bother to elucidate all the reasons for this. Many are indeed elusive. The Allred charm is there, though, and despite my previous experiences with his work, this was his first trip into my heart. I might even say that it set me up to derive greater enjoyment from his later ventures like “FF” and “Silver Surfer”.

From the first I heard about the television adaptation, I basically assumed that the original’s mojo couldn’t be completely captured in the medium change. It seemed reasonable. I was still curious enough. Now I’ve learned that it’s being done by the “Veronica Mars” guy.

I remember seeing the commercial for that show’s film a year ago. It looked decent before I even knew that it wasn’t just a random movie, and I enjoyed the full experience despite the fact that I’d never had any contact with the series. This pleasure was bolstered by the presence of a wide sampling of the cast of “Party Down”, a program I did watch. That turned out to be from the same guy too. Rob Thomas? Rob Thomas. I think.

Anyway, “Veronica Mars” definitely has its own quirky appeal, and I think that that will function as a serviceable substitute for much of what’s lost in the transition from an Allred comic book.

So good.

Bonus Question!

Best zombie? White Zombie.

It's basically just a White Russian with expired milk.

That I totally just made up.

You should drink it anyway. It'll be good.

And . . . Hey. St Patrick's Day still hasn't technically happened yet. I think that I know what your drink of the night is. Enjoy.

Future Spiders

New and fabulous in the world of arachnids? This thing. It's called the Sparklemuffin.

The colour scheme’s obviously gorgeous, but the name really makes me feel as though something’s making plans to make me like spiders more. I’ve never had a problem with their symbology, though. On a spiritual level, they’re fine. I just don’t want their physical manifestations around me.

I do like the fact that this specimen’s design closely matches that of the Spider-Man of 2099, who was created long before the discovery of this beast. But he is from the future . . . Maybe he looked back and found inspiration in an old biology text from some point in the next few decades.

I believe that I was first exposed to the futuristic superhero through a sticker I got out of some machine in a big toy store in childhood. The new Peter David series is pretty great, though. Incidentally, I just read that guy’s “Tigerheart” because I couldn’t find an electronic version of “Sir Apropos of Nothing”. Solid read.

Bonus Question!

Best muffin? I don't know. It's probably something with a lot of frosting.