So, I have reviewed Supergirl #1 for the Superman Homepage, and while the full review will be up there probably on Monday, I will mention here that I was unimpressed. Almost nothing happens in the book, and I don't mean that metaphorically. I mean that literally almost nothing happens. There's 5-6 pages of story tops (possibly less, with good panel layout) and the rest is just filler and fluff. IN THE FIRST ISSUE.

What the heck.

Also, perhaps the most confusing aspect of the entire thing? The explanation of Supergirl's new costume:



That is her graduation outfit.

Her GRADUATION OUTFIT.

Because nothing says "learned and intelligent woman" like making women wear knee-less boots and a singlet with leg holes cut so high that they show off their entire thighs and sides almost up to their belly buttons.

Krypton must not like women very much if they have to wear that to GRADUATE.

Or maybe she was graduating from stripper school! My bad, I shouldn't assume.


And because, as dragonblink says, I apparently like punching myself in the nuts, I also checked out Wonder Woman #1 and Catwoman #1.

Despite me still being angry at Brian Azzarello for his disastrously boring "For Tomorrow" run on "Superman" years back, "Wonder Woman" at least has me mildly intrigued. It wasn't fantastic, but it wasn't horrible.

Although, Diana was shown sleeping in the nude with only a sheet wrapped around her, naked from the back and also showed off some naked side-boob. And y'know, she's an Amazon, I get that she might not be modest about her body, but why is any of that necessary in a book that contains Hermes and centaurs?



Diana can't just be shown IN that armor, no. Gotta be naked first.

It would have made more sense for the centaurs to be naked on top. If you want to put some nudity in, how about where it at least makes sense? What the heck, it's not that hard.

But of course they weren't naked on top, oh no. How can you respect a centaur if it's naked on top? I mean... OH.




For extra WTFery, the centaurs "grew" out of decapitated horses, and yet somehow had... armor... on their torsos? And weapons? And... masks, to hide their... true... centaur identities? The heck?

EDIT: Okay, a re-examination of WW shows Lady in Peacock Cloak who showed up and decapitated the horses to make centaurs BROUGHT the weapons. But not the armor, so...

Oh, and under her peacock cloak? NAKED!

EDIT TOO: The woman Diana spends the entire issue helping? I just noticed SHE IS IN HER PANTIES FOR THE ENTIRE ISSUE! *headdesk*headdesk*headdesk*


And then there's... Catwoman #1. Selina is seen in her bra THREE DAMNED TIMES IN ONE ISSUE.

There's also the scene with her and Bruce rubbing each other under their costumes and a full-page splash of them having sex with their costumes on.

Catwoman #1 actually read like a Catwoman porn parody, minus all the good explicit sex.


All that considered, Supergirl #1 is actually the least offensive of the three, at least in terms of its treatment of women as eye candy. And when you consider her "graduation" outfit, that's kind of saying something.

I like pretty ladies (and naked ladies!) plenty, but seriously, where the hell is the respect? Even Selina, who is sexual and sensual and will use her sexuality to get what she wants isn't like THAT. What the hell, I remember a time where I read Catwoman comics drawn by Jim Balent, of all people, and we didn't see her bra once in six years, let alone three times in one issue.

Whaaaaaaaat the hell.

Once again I've found myself in the position of having lots I'd like to say and post about, but little time or inclination to actually post. Busy is as busy does, or some other such cliche nonsense.

SPEAKING OF CLICHE NONSENSE...

I forced myself to read the new "Action Comics" #1, because I couldn't with a good conscience discuss it without having read it, and people have asked what I thought.

It was a bit more cohesive than "All-Star Superman", but then it's one issue and not 12 so let's give that some time and see. There were still several bits of dialogue, however, just like there were in "All-Star" where I'm just left wondering WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

For those who don't know, I'm comparing this to "All-Star Superman" only because they were both written by Grant Morrison. Anyhoo.

Ok, so... this is a young Superman, I get that. He's new, he's fresh in Metropolis (relatively speaking), he has a lot of life lessons to learn.

He is also, however, a giant fucking asshole.

I do not like this Superman, and I can only abide him if he's truly on his way to changing and becoming, well... SUPERMAN.

I've seen a lot of comments from people who previously hated Superman, saying that this made them finally love him. Yes, congratulations, all DC had to do was take the Superman out of Superman to make you like Superman. Fabulous.

Still, as an examination of who Superman is, there IS some merit in seeing where he came from and how he got there (provided, again, that he actually GETS THERE and does not remain with this attitude). I would prefer him to learn these lessons while in high school in Kansas, but the Kents are both entirely dead in this continuity, and apparently without their guiding hand Morrison thinks Clark would be a giant douchebag.

Protecting the innocent I am all for. Being a dick about it, I am not. Or to clarify, BATMAN can be a dick about it, and I dig that. But not Superman, thank you.

I know this is paying homage (at least in some ways) to the original Action Comics, but that was a product of a different time. Superman, in 2011, should NOT be throwing humans out into a bay where they break both hips... and NOT CARING. Superman shot NOT be putting normal humans THROUGH WALLS or THROUGH PIANOS.

He did all of those things in this issue, and... with the latter two, I don't see how we can be expected to believe those guys are alive, because I don't think the human body can survive what they were showing. The book seemed to play it up for kicks, ha-ha, look what Superman did to those fools!

But Superman takes no pleasure in hurting ANYONE, even the most horrible of people. THAT is what makes him Superman. He's better than that, he cares more than that, he believes EVERYONE can be redeemed and won't ever use more force than necessary. Is that what we have here? Absolutely not, and if he doesn't evolve into that by the time this book "catches up" with the main universe, then that's a true travesty. And here, there's not even the slightest hint of remorse for injuries (or collateral damage) caused. Put a metahuman supervillain through a piano? Awesome! Do it to a normal human? Lethal.

I've made no secret that I'm not a big fan of Morrison's work on Superman, but it just seems to me that he doesn't get it. People lavish praise on "All-Star Superman" as well, and I find it largely a piece of self-indulgent, misogynistic nonsense.

"Action Comics" #1 was also rife with cliche one-liners ("I'm your worst nightmare"? REALLY? COME. ON.) and when Lois and Jimmy confront the dude on the train who apparently did something bad but it's all convoluted and unexplained (a bit of a Morrison trademark in his past Superman work), it's JIMMY who jumps on the guy.

Um, sorry, no.

I love Jimmy, but Lois would have told the kid to take a seat while SHE beat the crap out of the guy pulling a gun on her. But as Morrison's affronts to the character of Lois Lane go, this one is relatively minor. I just wish I had more hope for her future portrayal.

In any case, IF this is setup for moving him to actually being Superman, then it only fails in dialogue, clarity and character (and the physics of the human body).

If that never happens, as I fear, then it's a failure just about all around.

I do not like a douchebag Superman, Sam I Am. I do not like him here or there, I do not like him anywhere.

And yes, I tried him, Sam-I-Am.


Final Grade: D
(Screw C-, I'm too angry for that)

ETA: Upon further inspection, it appears Jimmy AND Lois grabbed that guy, the panel is so chaotic I couldn't tell at first (and Jimmy is the one who says "Got him!"). My bad. Then again, the art is so chaotic Lois might also just be getting punched in the face. Hard to say.

ETA II: Perhaps Superman punched a hole in the wall and smashed up the piano, and then gently laid the unconscious bad guys in them! Also my bad.

THIS:


Clicky for big version with lots of detail

I found during the run up to and release of "Superman Returns" that a lot of people were asking my opinion on everything, what with me being the biggest Superman nut you may ever meet. So I thought I'd just head folks off at the pass and get right into it with the first officially released photo (as far as I can tell) of Henry Cavill in "Man of Steel", which is now slated for Summer 2013 I believe. I may be wrong on that, but you know... it's early and I don't care. Let's talk about THIS image, shall we?

The cape is rather ridiculously long, but then this is just one still. I fully believe they used that for a more dramatic effect (which it achieves) and would have shorter ones for when he's walking and flying, otherwise he'd look like he had a bridal train behind him everywhere he went.

The spit curl is noticeably absent. I'm okay with that should it actually go that route, but I also believe they probably shot this like they did that horrible first publicity photo of Brandon Routh in the suit for "Superman Returns"... at 3 am, with no prep, they stuffed him in a suit and on a set, snapped a photo and paid it no more mind (though a little more effort looks like it was put into this one). I won't be surprised if his hair is different in the movie, but that's not that big of a deal to me (though I'm not really used to a Superman with "high" hair).

I'm not sure why they feel the need to make the suit scaly, but it's lightyears better than the armor they will soon have him in in the comics. I can understand wanting to texture it so it's not like the shiny spandex Christopher Reeve was in, but I'm not sure shiny scales are the way to go. But again, just the first promotional image, so who knows.

Also worth noting is you can't see his crotch (har har) as it's in shadow. Was that on purpose because, like the new comic suit, they're doing away with the red undies and wanted to avoid fanboy outrage? Or am I seeing conspiracies where there are none? No idea, really, and maybe it's just an innocent angle and he's got the briefs on there and we can't tell. But I did find that curious.

What I find most curious is something Susan noticed first, which is the kind of sharp point the top of the S comes to (inside the shield, not the shield itself). I get they're trying to make their own version, and every Superman movie has tried to alter the S just a little to be its own version, but that looks very weird to me. Not saying it's bad, and it's tough to tell without seeing it head-on, but I don't really care for that part of it from what I can see. It also looks like the shield might be a bit fatter and rounder overall, more like the silver age comics shield and the George Reeves shield, which would be interesting to see in a modern movie. I could dig that.

This is all just nitpicking the trivial details, however, so don't take it as anything more than that. The biggest thing I get from this photo is tone. That first, horrible promo shot of Brandon Routh at least got one thing right... it was Superman looking to the sky. There was a sense of hope and peace to it, which I dug, even if the rest of the photo was crap.

But here you can see an entirely different tone. Not only is there destruction behind him, but he looks fucking pissed off and a bit smug about how much of your ass he's going to kick. Now I enjoy seeing Superman lay into a supervillain with some mega action heroics as much as the next person, but that's not what he's all (or even primarily) about.

I'm not going to put too much stock into Cavill's expression here, because again it could have been done in 30 seconds at 3 am and I'm sure *I* am thinking about this way more than the WB suits were. But the destruction in the photo implies a very different tone from previous Superman movies, but I think that's what they're going for. Snyder isn't known for his subtleties, they picked him because he's good at action and they wanted a movie where Superman tears it up. From this image, my guess is that's exactly what we're going to get.

I very much look forward to some otherworldly superhero action that only Superman can pull off, but I shall remain cautious about the tone of the movie/characters because I would hate to see this turned into another Batman franchise or to sacrifice heart and hope for violence and fisticuffs. I shall hope they can get a good mixture of them all, I shall worry that they won't, and I shall be there on opening day to find out.

ps - if this photo turns out to be a fake, well... good job, faker!

pps - I don't know how I missed it, but the pointy-tip on the S is reminiscent of the silver age Earth-2 Superman's costume. which is... an odd choice to go with, but I am not opposed to a bit more of a retro feel. Just as long as the characters are right, which I shall continue to worry about

A few weeks back we got our first visit from a male Anna's Hummingbird, which has a magnificent iridescent pink head. He's been coming back quite a lot recently, and yesterday I had noticed he was being incredibly territorial over our feeder.

That's pretty normal, the hummies are out there chasing each other in the most amazing dogfights all the time, but usually only if they happen to run into each other at the feeder. Pinky here was hanging out in the tree, watching over the feeder like it was the most precious thing in the world. He's a selfish little bastard. :)

Anyway, I was watching him from the couch and I noticed he kept going back to the SAME spot on the SAME branch over and over again. He looks rather puffy so he may be molting (or a juvenile? dunno, I'm no expert) and I guess he found the perfect spot where he could sit and preen and still chase off any interlopers.

So I figured... what the hell, let's try to get some footage of him. I figured I'd scare him off, but nope. He's a brave little selfish bastard, and so I got a ton of really great HD footage of him. I'd never actually seen a hummingbird preening before, because they never sit still long enough to notice it much less keep going back to the same spot over and over again.

I shot for about 20 minutes and got him on camera for SEVENTEEN of those. I edited out over seven minutes from the footage below where he was doing nothing but sitting there blinking at me. Which, you know, I find adorable and could watch all day, but I figure not everyone is as into hummingbirds as me. :P

Anyway, here's a little less than ten minutes of the best footage. You can only see the pink on his head when the sunlight catches it the right way (iridescence is difficult that way), but when you do see it there's this awesome flash of brilliance. There's some good shots of it, and if you stick around through all the footage at the end you can see him even bigger and in more detail, because I was able to get about three feet away without him really caring at all.

And now thoughts on "The Princess and the Frog". I wish I could say I liked this more than I did, but it's just riddled with problems.

First, I think people had a valid complaint when they said this is the first Disney animated movie to star an african-american female and then she spends the majority of the movie NOT being an african-american female.

But second, I think people were crazy when they complained that the prince was "white" because he was nothing of the sort as far as I could tell.

All that stuff aside, the movie just fails on several fronts. There's all kinds of bloat in the middle, to the point where it feels like you're NEVER going to get to the third act. How many more random obstacles and random new friends to help them on their journey can they really find? I mean honestly, it just kept going and going and none of it served any purpose except to lengthen the movie.

Facilier was a terrible villain, as he was only a villain the "muahahaa I want money and power!" sense, and lacked any real motivation or personality.

Raymond's death was pointless and came way too late to build up the villain any, so it also served no real point. I guess you can argue the case that it made his story kind of mirror Tiana's story (though she didn't have to die).

But that brings me to Tiana... oh lord, the message this movie gives you via this poor girl with the noble dream of opening a restaurant. That part I liked. She worked and worked and saved and saved her entire life to open the restaurant (also good)... only to have it arbitrarily taken away from her (via the whole "someone else offered to pay more, you have three days to match their price!" shtick that feels like it's right out of a sitcom) and then she has to ask a rich man to save her. Only he can't, so then at the end she gets the restaurant for her original price through threats of violence from Louis the crocodile.

Siiiiigh.

I did like Louis, though, and Prince Naveen (mostly his voice, I could listen to Bruno Campos all day), and there were parts of the movie that were great (the different animation style for Tiana's dream about the restaurant at the beginning was fantastic and worked really well I thought), but on the whole it's just kind of a mess.

Perhaps I'm being harder on it than I should be after seeing the nearly perfect "Tangled" so recently... at the very least it's certainly helping to highlight all the ways in which "Princess and the Frog" fell short, and reminds me how much "Tangled" really, really got right.

or:

The worrisome trend in Pixar

or:

Tangled kicks ass

( This is REALLY long )

In case any of you missed these last year, or just to help you get in the spirit of things this year, here's a set of icons (some animated, some not) that I did done made myself (it's true!) from the mega-awesome "How the Grinch Stole Christmas".

Enjoy. :)

          

         
         
 
 

My review of "Superman/Batman: Apocalypse" for SupermanHomepage is now up.

Watch the last 20 minutes if you want to see some kickass superhero battles.

Watch the preceding 58 minutes if you like a hot mess of a story written by someone who apparently has no idea what to keep or cut when adapting a long comic series to a 75-minute animated feature.

And oh yeah, there's the whole Horribly Blatant Sexism thing.

From SUPERMAN.

Siiiiiiiiiiiigh.


http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=apocalypse-review1

ETA video at the bottom!

This morning while Clark was happily spending his Saturday morning watching SpongeBob cartoons, there was a sudden loud THUNK on our balcony window. Looking over, there was... A HAWK.

What!

It had been chasing a raven (for breakfast, we've learned) and accidentally slammed into the window.



She flew over to this pomegranate tree next door and had an expression of o_O for about 10 minutes or so while she recovered. I was able to get some photos and even some HD video (which isn't as exciting as it sounds, because she was mostly just sitting there looking confused).



Our apartment complex has a sidewalk that is about two feet in front of that tree, and I quietly went over there to get even closer photos, but the camera wouldn't focus right and she got spooked and went over to a huge nearby pine.

I followed her over and was able to get a few more shots.



She called a few times while up in the tree. We've done our best to identify her as a female Northern Harrier, and they only call when by their nests, so I think she's got some babies up in that huge pine. We'll have to keep an eye out and maybe we'll see her again.

It was pretty cool, though.

Thanks for stopping by, lady! :)

By way of lithera, here's an article (with a pic) of Wonder Woman's new costume.

http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2010/06/29/unveiling-wonder-woman%E2%80%99s-new-costume-direction/


The jacket is... too much an attempt to be "hip" and the "shoes" are just asinine (why not boots? wtf?).

The rest of it isn't bad, though. But it also looks very "2010" and not timeless. I'm not a big fan of her "bathing suit" look either, mind you, but something a bit more gladiatorial would have suited her better. Right now she looks like someone kind of crying for attention in a Seattle coffee shop. :p

Anyway, I expect this will last as long as her LAST costume revamp with a jacket did in the early '90s. Or the electric Superman suit. Or the Jean-Paul Batman armor. Et al.

Meh.