Shaken not stirred...

Batman and Robin by Alex Ross

Full disclosure time. If you are reading this and did not realize I was a huge comic book geek now you know.  If you enjoyed any comic book based movie since 1978's Superman and believed a man could fly, you're welcome.  Me and my kind kept the genre alive for Hollywood to rape.  If you are not one of my comic book reading friends turn away now you will be bored to tears.  You that stay probably will be too, can't be helped.

And now the proof.

Cover of Forever Evil #6 by David Finch

Recently DC Comics had a villain reveal the identity of Batman's junior partner (all grown up now) Richard "Dick" Grayson as the superhero Nightwing to the world. They tease that they are going to kill Grayson (they've tried this before with a huge fan backlash) then after suitable drama reveal *gasp* he's gonna let the world think he's dead and be a secret agent. Sigh.

I'm a big (some might argue huge) Batman fan.  I actually grew up with Robin the boy wonder.  Literally. When I was a teen they began aging him.  I was 16 he was 16.  I was 18 he was 18.  I was 22 he was...well , you get it. I grew up and left home he left behind the Batcave and became Nightwing.

He stayed 22 now i'm 42.  They still have a Batcave.  I got the shaft.

The new concept is that Grayson  has been recruited by Spyral, a secret agency (recently revealed to exist in Batman comics) that protects us from god knows what.  Sounds kinda James Bond-ishly cool.  What if Batman didn't wear a mask and worked for the CIA? Not too bad?

This is a horrible idea.  Even before I saw the image I knew this was not good.  The art is by Mikel Janin with covers by Andrew Robinson and so far visually it looks pretty cool.  Based on what I know about comics, (which is a lot) conceptually it sounds like shit.  It's not out yet so I'm going to go easy and review it when it actually comes out BUT really DC?  Really? 

The first image released for 'Gayson' by Mikel Janin

My problem with this concept is threefold.

Perhaps the most obvious issue I have is the fact that the gun is so prominent.  Disclaimer: this is not anti-gun. I am a pro-gun "pry it from my cold dead hands" kinda guy, but it's the focus of both pieces released for the series.  He's pointing it in the direction of the viewer.  It just seems out of character for this young man who has been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the Batman to not use or rely on a firearm to be depicted like this.  I am going to assume that they are going to make a big deal about his promise to not use lethal force. Batman abhors killing and guns (for obvious reasons) BUT he knows how to use a gun expertly and so do his sidekicks.  Character-wise he's an expert marksman Grayson was even a police officer for a time and for arguments sake they they did a good job of him carrying a gun but not using lethal force.  What I don't  like is how important they are making the gun in the images.  It is out of character.  He was taught to use his mind and body as his weapons and guns were for cowardly criminals without super powers or ninja skills. 

Agent Roy Harper art by Dan Jurgens

Second, they tried this same story formula with a friend and contemporary of Dick Grayson, Green Arrow's sidekick Speedy (Robin lite).  Speedy became Arsenal, agent of Checkmate.  It was at times uninspired and other times horrible with a few interesting moments peppered in but really on the whole it sucked.  They eventually brought Speedy back to the superhero world in a grown up version of his mentor's clothes and called him originally enough - Red Arrow.  He even joined the Justice League for a time.  It seems they were kind of forced to make these characters grow up and didn't know how to handle them.  With Speedy the guns made sense.  He shot thing and he shot them at people.  It's what he did and he was good at it. This thing with Grayson doesn't fit.  He had already graduated to an independent adult role with a strong fan following there's no need for the big change.

Lastly, a lot of what makes Grayson or Nightwing work as a character is his history.  Richard "Dick" Grayson has been continually in print as a character for 74 years this month. The character has a long and involved history in the DC universe. Batman is an asshole but Grayson, he has friends.  He's been a leader of several groups, including the Justice League, and is well respected by the other DCU characters, even Superman listens to him.  Batman often used Nightwing as an intermediary when he lacked the people skills to get something done.  DC should be embracing that history and have him interacting with others instead of faking his death and shoving him into an isolated 'pocket' of their universe.

There you have it.  He's the GD Batman. Words by Frank Miller art by Jim Lee.

Their argument is - he's Batman-lite. There's no need for Batman and Batman-lite.  As I mentioned,  Batman is usually portrayed as an asshole. He's borderline psychotic and possibly a psychopath.  He dresses up like a flying rodent and beats the hell out of people.  Bruce Wayne may be suave but Batman has the people skills of a rabid badger.  In a well written Batman story he out thinks the bad guy then beats the hell out of him. Regardless, he's out jumping from rooftop to rooftop compulsively  seeking justice for his parents. Grayson was never the brooding vigilante.  Robin was the bright spot of Batman's world and Grayson continued that as Nightwing.  He enjoyed helping people as Robin and continued as he's got older because it's what he liked to do.  It's not a mission of justice.  It's doing the right thing and helping people because he can. 

The second image released for 'Grayson' by Andrew Robinson

The picture I get is that they painted themselves into a corner by revealing his identity and are now trying to make the best of it.

The thing about comics is it's a place where heroes do extraordinary things they can fly, shoot lasers from their eyes and can manage to stop the bad guys without killing (unless you're and alien or a nazi then they can kill you dead).  In the real world, police officers and soldiers have to shoot people line of duty it a sad necessity but non lethal is always the first option (and last I checked they don't have ninja skills or superpowers). Taking this character that's spent the last 74 years against the need for guns to help people and having him so blatantly tied to a gun seems wrong.  I understand sometimes you gotta shake things up but to me this misses the mark.

*All art copyright DC Comics. All rights reserved.  I wish I had permission to use it please don't sue. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and are in no way related to DC Comics or Warner Brothers. 

Do I look fat in this?

I have decided to start my blog up again.  It started out as an effort to chronicle my attempt at the elusive 4 hour marathon.  I will still touch on that since it remains…elusive but, in an effort to keep the blog interesting to me I've decided to talk about whatever is on my mind at the time.  It may be about family, movies, books or just the living of life after 40.  Read at your own risk you could be bored to death.

Today’s blog was inspired by a conversation with my 16 year old daughter.  I drive her to school every morning.  It’s the highlight of most days.  She's everything a parent could ask for beautiful, talented and intelligent.  Some days she sings me show tunes (she LOVES Broadway), sometimes we talk and, on rare occasions like this morning she does homework (we have a 25 minute freeway drive to school).  Regardless of what she does, we are together and I treasure that time with her.

Like I said, this morning she was working on homework she didn't finish last night.  It was for AP Art History.  We discuss this class a lot because I had the same class and even the same teacher.  I loved the class so much I actually got my degree in Fine Arts (absolutely useless except for these discussions).  Can you say “would you like fries with that?”

Good news! Unemployment is down.  Bad news. The jobs are at McDonalds because they got an Obamacare waiver. 

So anyway, she was talking about portraits and brought up the valid point that artists “idealizing” portraits in the past isn't much different than photoshopping a picture today.  I was blown away by this obvious (in a "why didn't I think of that" way) statement.  This got me to thinking.

Some background on this subject may be in order.  In the dark times, before the internets, when dinosaurs ruled the world and before cameras the only way to record someone’s appearance was through painting or sculpture.  Most of these portraits are commissioned by kings, queens, popes and other of the wealthiest class.  It was common practice to make these patrons of the arts look “better”.  It might be either to ingratiate themselves to the patron or it could be a campaign to show the world how much better the patron is than you (Ramses the great, I’m looking at you).  In short, make them look pretty and important so they won't kill you (again Ramses-looking at you).  These portraits were really propaganda and advertising of a sort.

Completely accurate and to scale. Ramses vanquishing his enemies.

Fast forward to lunch break and what do I see on Yahoo! News but the “Truth in Advertising” bill.  This is the U.S. government (2 female members of Congress, Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and California Congresswoman Lois Capps  along with a male founded feminist website) concerned that photoshopped images in advertising are presenting unrealistic expectations for young girls.  From the Yahoo! article by Elise Sole, "According to the bill, images that altar a subject’s height or weight and erase characteristics such as cellulite, muscle tone, wrinkles, or skin tone misrepresent and deceive people into buying products. The bill doesn't address other aspects of airbrushing such as, say, making a sky bluer smoothing out clothing wrinkles — just as it doesn’t address magazine covers, which are protected under the First Amendment." They are specifically addressing pictures that alter height, weight, skin color, and wrinkles but do NOT address background elements.

(clears throat, steps up on soapbox)

Just so we’re clear, it’s okay to imply that it’s always sunny in Philadelphia by adding a beautiful sunny sky to a photo but not with giving the model a tan by adjusting the skin tone. If I understand this correctly, (highly unlikely) they are urging the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to get involved.  Full disclosure, I believe the least government involvement in ANYTHING the better.  They screw everything up (now I’m looking at you congress.)  The real caveat here is that it CANNOT affect magazine covers because they are protected by the first amendment.  The only place I can think of that this would truly be an issue is ON A MAGAZINE COVER!  All of the fashion magazines that are so "damaging" use this practice of photo-manipulation to full effect.  Many have gone so far as to make the model unrecognizable.

If they can't target magazine covers who are they going after?  Ads.  Ooookay. Also from Ms. Sole's article, "A study published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders found that women had a more negative view of their bodies after viewing media images featuring thin models, than they did after seeing photos of models with average proportions. And according to the National Eating Disorders Association, disordered eating patterns are linked to seeing images of thin women in the media. "  Carl's Jr. has to change their ad strategy but what about all the tiny beauty queens with big fake boobs working as talking heads on every news outlet?  Will the government next tell us that Fox news has to hire models that fit a height/weight/boob profile? I doubt it. 

As long as we have been recording the image of another human being we have been purposefully idealizing that person to be taller, thinner or thicker (Rubenesqe anyone?) and better looking.  It’s amazing how the shift has come from the government endorsing the “improvement” of the royal portrait to this no altering approach because it will hurt your self image.

Gotta' love a big beautiful woman!

I wonder how many politicians had their campaign photos retouched.  No harm to remove a wrinkle here or a pimple there, right?  Dark circles?  Just wear make-up.  Wait a sec…make-up hides what you really look like in a photo. Wearing make-up does not depict an accurate image of you congresswoman (or congressman I don’t judge).  Heels?  You’re not that tall.  Forget about spanks, girdles and hair color.  It’s time to be honest America.

I found this on the interwebs and thought it was funny.

Wait, what?  Congress be honest?  Let’s not get carried away.   It’ll have to be like Obamacare?  It would have to apply to everybody else but not the government?  That would make sense then.

But I digress, I have a wonderful daughter. She’s beautiful, talented and intelligent, but it’s not the government’s job to make sure she knows that.  It’s mine.  My job.  The government keeps trying to tell me how to raise her and they need to butt out.  This is another example of government waste and ineptitude.  They know they won't make a material difference so the goal becomes to start a dialogue.  Are you kidding me?  This is why 'congress' will always be the opposite of 'progress'.  There are too many real problems in the world for the U.S. to become the Photoshop police. Congress and "Mr." President you need to let parents raise their kids and quit giving out the free phones and handouts.

How about instead you fix the economy before China owns us outright.

(steps off of soapbox)

I think I might've stayed off topic a bit.  All of this from an astute comment by a 16 year old.  For the record, although I quoted Ms. Sole's article there is no disrespect intended here for Ms. Sole or her article OR the seriousness of eating disorders.  She merely related the facts of the bill and the studies it used.  I stole her hard work.  I think it's tragic that we as people feel the need to base our worth in comparison to someone else but we do otherwise we wouldn't have the commandment "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."

.