Kevin Marshall's America » On Film

Everything I’ve Written for Spike.com (so far)

kevinmarshall — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:32:37 +0000

-or- THIS IS WHY YOU DON’T SEE SHIT HERE NO MORE

You’ll notice that this blog has been…well, sparse as of late. Mostly I just use it to remind people that I’ll be performing stand-up comedy, such as TOMORROW NIGHT!

Boo-yah! Gotcha. You can’t escape that shit. I’m too quick. I’m like a self-promoting comedy cat, springing out at you when you least expect it. You are a mouse in my jaws. Come out tomorrow night or I’ll tear you apart.

Anyway, here’s everything I’ve been working on, since people keep asking me to send them the links of the stuff I’ve been writing as if I somehow don’t have all this fucking work to do and because they can’t use Google, or poke around Spike.com for five minutes. I’m not bitter, honest. I’m just really hot in this office and cranky and on the man rag.

Also, if you’re on Tumblr, take a peak at KEVIN MARSHALL vs. THE INTERNET, which is for all intents and purposes my main blog now.

Also, do you follow the All Access Weekly and Spike TV Tumblr blogs? If you do, THAT’S ME, SUCKAS! Surprise again!

So here’s the articles. Please note that this doesn’t include stuff like me covering the releases of the iPad Mini, Call of Duty, Halo 4, etcetera and so on that are more time-specific/spec listings.

Articles for Eddie Murphy: One Night Only (premiering tomorrow night at 10/9c on Spike):

The Many Faces of Eddie Murphy – a profile of Murphy’s wildly varied career, from SNL character actor to outrageous stand-up to family friendly film lead to Oscar contender.
Let Your Soul Glo: Our 5 Favorite Moments from “Coming to America”
Eddie Murphy’s Great 8 Film Performances

For All Access Weekly:

My Editorials for MMA Uncensored Live:

Hansel and You Have to Be Shitting Me

kevinmarshall — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 20:57:03 +0000

Jesus Christ.

Marshall vs. Marshall: on “The Dark Knight Rises”

kevinmarshall — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:09:01 +0000

Rick Marshall (no relation) is a friend and writer living in NYC. We’ve both shared our thoughts on “The Dark Knight Rises.” I liked the film a lot more than he did, even though I did note some noticeable flaws. Few of which, interestingly enough, line up with what Rick disliked about the film and, in fact, run almost counter to them.

Rick’s review for IFC.com

Recently he posted a list of 15 things that bothered him about “The Dark Knight Rises.” These are more logistical than critical problems; things like inconsistencies and plot/character turns that don’t make any sense. A friend of his, from all accounts a fairly decent fellow, posted his rebuttal on his website Batman-on-Film.com. He had some valid points, but unfortunately leans heavy and early on fanboy appreciation and particularly the “it’s just a comic book movie” sentiment, a defense that is as critically frustrating as it is potentially insulting to the filmmaker.

Anyway, I did want to touch on some of Rick’s issues.

Again, read this first: 15 Things That Bugged [Rick Marshall] About the Dark Knight Rises

Then read more after the cut (warning: SPOILERS).

1. The Gotham City Police Department’s crack team of investigators

RICK’S ISSUE: John Blake is the only guy who figures out that Bruce Wayne is Batman, even though both dropped out of sight at the same time.

I (somewhat) DISAGREE. With Wayne’s romance and feelings towards Rachel being public knowledge and likely tabloid fodder, it would be a fair assumption that Wayne would sink into a depression. I do think other factors, like the resources at Batman’s disposal, would cause at least some to suspect a connection. But given the circumstances and scope of what happened in the previous film, it would be assumed that Bruce became a recluse because of Rachel and that Batman went into hiding because he allegedly murdered Harvey Dent.

2. Bruce Wayne gives up being Batman because of his girlfriend’s death

RICK’S ISSUE: Bruce Wayne puts on the cape and cowl to fight crime and puts his life on the line, but gives up because his ex-girlfriend dies.

I DISAGREE. Nolan seems conscious of people making this assumption and goes out of his way to talk about how the aftermath of Dent’s death led to the passing of an act that almost single-handedly eradicated organized crime in the city. As Jett pointed out, too, Wayne himself (as Batman…kinda…) tells Gordon that he quit because Batman wasn’t needed. Yes, he was speaking as Batman and yes, emotionally, he felt like he had failed and was depressed over the loss of Rachel. But if the threats he battled in the previous two films were still present in Gotham, he wouldn’t have gone into retirement.

3. The part when Alfred takes off and leaves Bruce on his own

RICK’S ISSUE: Alfred just up and leaves Bruce because he can’t watch him put himself in danger as Batman.

I AGREE. I bought that Alfred would be very worried and torn up over Bruce going back out as Batman after all these years and given all that he’s lost. I don’t buy that he would then surmise that it would be even remotely okay for him to leave Bruce completely on his own. It would be one thing if we were talking about, say, Rachel. But not Alfred. And that isn’t fanboy attachment to Alfred Pennyworth; just looking at the character in the vacuum of the Nolan trilogy, it’s a move that doesn’t make any sense for that character to make.

“You’re like a son to me. I’m leaving so that it’s easier for you to die.”

4. Gotham to wherever-that-prison-is must be a direct flight.

RICK’S ISSUE: Bane beats up Batman, breaks his back, flies to an overseas prison, talks to him for a couple minutes, then flies back before dinner (essentially).

I AGREE. This drove me crazy, as did the treatment and passage of time in this movie (Rick goes further into it than I will). Suffice to say, this was really quite jarring.

5. Repairing a broken back with a hard punch to the spine is my new favorite medical procedure

RICK’S ISSUE: Seriously. Bruce’s broken back is fixed with a hard punch to the spine and push-ups.

I AGREE. One of the things I took Nolan to task for in my review was that he went to such great pains to keep this series grounded in a reality more like ours than other comic book movies, and yet such a serious injury is treated flippantly. It’s a laughably dumb moment for a franchise that prided itself on staying away from them.

6. Time is weird in Gotham.

RICK’S ISSUE: Wait, how long are they there? How’re those cops okay still?

I AGREE. Go read Rick for more thoughts, because he pretty much nails it.

7. What is Bane’s plan, anyways?

RICK’S ISSUE: Why didn’t Bane just blow up the city in the first place?

I (somewhat) AGREE. The justification, as presented in the film, is revenge. He wants Bruce Wayne to see Gotham devolve into anarchy, not only undoing all the work he had done to bring order to the city but leaving it worse than Wayne had ever thought it could be. Yet it seems silly even in this context that Bane would want to prove this point to the world and then blow everything up, himself included. Forget the socio-political inconsistencies in Bane’s motivations; the Talia al Ghul reveal at the film’s climax means that this guy who sacrificed himself time and again for her – not for a cause but for her - and devoted his life to fulfilling her mission would then allow her to accompany him on a suicide mission. Doesn’t make a Hell of a lot of sense either way.

8. Surprise! All you had to do was punch him in the mask!

IRICK’S ISSUESUE: Batman got his ass kicked during their first meeting, but didn’t think to go after that glaring weakness – the mask – until their second one.

I AGREE. Even if you are to argue, perhaps correctly, that Batman was in a better state physically and mentally during their second encounter, him not going after the mask when they first met was a glaring oversight.

9. The Batpod: It’s like riding a bike.

RICK’S ISSUE: Catwoman knows how to expertly drive The Batpod, a highly complicated and illogical piece of machinery.

I AGREE. This was the least of my problems with the Catwoman character, but it was still pretty absurd.

10. I’m crippled and at your mercy! Wait, no… it’s just a flesh wound.

RICK’S ISSUE: Batman is stabbed by Talia al Ghul and sells it for a few minutes, but then is up and walking around and fighting again and flying a plane like nothing happened.

I AGREE. Lazy writing. You can’t establish that a character is physically weak and near death and then conveniently forget about it.

11. It was a six-mile radius. Six. Miles.

RICK’S ISSUE: Batman escapes the bomb even though it’s a radius of six miles.

I AGREE. In fact, I was with a large group and it was the first thing out of everyone’s mouths. Then again, maybe he was able to stop time entirely and give himself enough room and space to escape the blast radius. After all, Gotham is a magical place where time is malleable (see #6).

12. “Frobbledee gramderbin wampavern Gotham! Fropp gramderbin ashes!”

RICK’S ISSUE: …what the fuck did Bane just say?

I AGREE. I was glad they did the additional ADR work to make Bane more unintelligible. It helped. There were still scenes, though, where I didn’t know what the Hell that boy was on about.

13. It’s like an ’80s action movie, except more ridiculous.

RICK’S ISSUE: The story of the hero returning, failing spectacularly, returning to his roots, and then coming back to achieve victory is the same basic narrative of most 80s action film sequels (Karate Kid II, etc.)

I (somewhat) AGREE. It’s hard to argue this, but it also fit the story Nolan was trying to tell.

14. We have how much time left? Oh, crap! Time for some tie-ins!

RICK’S ISSUE: John Blake (maybe) becoming Robin was shoe-horned in.

I AGREE. Particularly distressing was the “oh yeah haha your real name is Robin LIKE THE CHARACTER ROBIN” bit was lame.

15. So the big twist is that Bane’s just a henchman… again.

RICK’S ISSUE: The film spends two and a half hours trying to convince you that Bane is the brilliant and most toughest man on the planet, only to reveal in the last fifteen minutes that he was just Talia al Ghul’s goon all along.

I DISAGREE. I thought Talia made it pretty clear that Bane was a partner, if not the more important part of the pairing.

My Very Important Thoughts and Deep Critique of The Dark Knight Rises Will Incite a Riot In Your Dorky Soul

kevinmarshall — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:15:24 +0000

DON’T WORRY, YOU WHINY BASTARDS! NO SPOILERS!

Yesterday I finally got the opportunity to see “The Dark Knight Rises,” which including the six or seven theatrical trailers and nonsense they show before the film itself puts the total amount of time spent in the theater somewhere in the neighborhood of what they used to call “a fortnight.” Many blame Christopher Nolan for the lengths of these epics, though I think it’s fair to note that Marion Cotillard has it written into all her contracts that no movie she’s in shall ever have a runtime less than 200 minutes (see also: “La Vie En Rose”).

Pfsh! French actresses.

All in all, I thought the film was great but far from perfect. You’re likely to come across most blogs and almost break your neck from slipping on the frothy liquid combination of fanboy saliva and their tears of frustration over a small handful of critics deigning to give it a slightly less than glowing review, resulting in a Rotten Tomato aggregate score below 90%. As if that’s a real fucking thing that people – adult people – should ever give a shit about.

Not me, friend. I’m going to tell you that I loved this film but also acknowledge that it has some glaring and, perhaps, troubling shortcomings.

“Did you say when Gotham is plastic, I have your permission to die? So you’re an anarchist but also one of those guys who buys furniture and then covers it up so that you never get to see or use it? Man, you are FUUUUUUUCKED UUUUUUP!”

First and most importantly, I was desperate for this franchise to escape its one over-arching pitfall: its female characters exist only to either provide male characters with motive or be redeemed by the protagonist. Nolan goes out of his way to give his films perspective through numerous eyes, but all of them are males. This point will, I imagine, be dismissed by many reading this because of their tendency towards hemming and hawing at anything that even hints at a discussion about gender. But it’s not nit-picking to call Nolan out on what is a very troubling tendency towards a narrow and borderline misogynistic narrative. “Inception” was probably the worst example of this, with the major female character being an imaginary antagonist (for fuck’s sake!).

Which brings us to the goddamn mess of a character that is Catwoman (played by Anne Hathaway who did her damndest and remains one Hell of an underrated actress as well as one of the most beautiful women that ever lived), whose conflicting motives and emotions make her not complicated so much as confounding. The script and Hathaway’s performance go to great lengths to show how much thrill and excitement she gets out of burglary; it gives her a sense of purpose and obviously provides an adrenaline rush. We’re shown that she steals some items simply to possess them. But then she’s also shown as someone looking for a “clean slate,” which in the film comes in the form of some magic software that completely removes a person’s criminal history from their background. So she loves it, but somehow is also only doing it because she absolutely has to. One might be able to reconcile this, most likely through the clumsy excuse of pathological behavior or addiction, neither of which is even hinted at. It’s a lot harder to reconcile the idea that she welcomes the socio-political edge of Bane and the League of Assassins but is also shown committing acts on their behest under duress and threat of extermination. While these are not mutually exclusive scenarios, they way they are played tries to give Selina Kyle depth but instead results, ultimately, in confusion. The film spends too much time trying to explain who she is and why she’s Catwoman, yet somehow in the end leaves us somehow knowing her even less than when we first see her.

Bane, on the other hand, was handled fantastically despite his character’s history. The announcement of the character as the main antagonist in the film was, for me, a disappointment. Bane, in the comics, a laughably bad construct; acting as either a brilliant parody of 1990s comic book villains or an accidental metaphor for the artistic shortcomings of the 90s comics industry (an uber-muscular guy in a mask with tubes coming out of his head breaks the back of the iconic Batman). He is and has every sort of character trait you can imagine, being brilliant and tortured and sympathetic and cruel and on steroids and conflicted and a villain and an anti-hero all at once. Normally such complications are due to continuity conflicts created by a succession of writers, but all these attributes were thrown at Bane at his inception. I’m still not clear why he was chosen other than every other member of Batman’s rogues gallery was disqualified due to Nolan’s desire to stay away from supernatural, fantasy, or hard sci-fi elements; though a central plot device is so over the top and silly that it completely obliterates that motif and leaves you wondering why Nolan was so insistent on keeping this whole thing “grounded.”

But Nolan, to his credit, makes Bane in this film a character unto himself. There are elements of his origin and, actually, in the overall plot itself that invoke storylines from the comics themselves, and not just the obvious reference/re-enactment to his most famous turn in the “Knightfall” story arc. Unlike Catwoman, Bane’s complexities in “The Dark Knight Rises” sort of make sense, except for his lack of self-preservation that I can’t get into without spoiling it. Let’s just say that unfortunately, at the end of the film, given the twists that come in the third act we are left wondering why he’d be so willing to do what he was threatening to do all along.

Which is the one major storytelling problem with this film: the twists are arbitrary and a bit silly. Again, I can’t go any further without spoilers, but suffice to say that the treatment of a certain character’s arc is interesting but perhaps unnecessary. At first it’s intriguing, but in the end we’re left asking why, again, Bane would go through with this plan given what we know about him and another character.

So that’s all the bad (oh and the fight choreography stinks too; in the midst of some Judo grappling Bane throws a spinning downward cross that looks like something out of a bad John Woo film).

Thankfully, there’s plenty of good, and it’s mostly in the execution. Nolan knows how to pace a film so that you’re hoping for another half-hour rather than staring at the watch and waiting for them to get from Point A to Point B. Much of this is owed to the strength of the supporting cast, not just in performances (from the likes of Gary Oldman and Joseph Gordon-Levitt) but also in how secondary and tertiary characters are handled. Each are given subplots and we care about them, even when they’re given only a fraction of screentime (or maybe it just seems that way in a movie with a runtime exceeding 160 minutes).

It’s also a gorgeous film, owing to the genius of Wally Pfister. So often we praise directors while forgetting that often it’s their Director of Photography who deserves much of the credit. In addition to this trilogy, Pfister also worked on “Inception,” “The Prestige,” “Moneyball,” and “Insomnia,” all of which ran among the most beautifully shot films of the last decade.

And it’s fun. And it’s Batman.

In short: I liked the film, warts and all.

Simply awful.

kevinmarshall — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:01:59 +0000

Seriously, enough already. This isn’t a chance for you to blow off steam about issues you have with gun control or violence or the media or gun restrictions or whatever. A mentally ill shooter went on a rampage and the most important thing right now (in fact I’d argue the only thing right now) that matters is that 14 people are dead.

Like Jessica Redfield:

She didn’t make it out of the theater alive. She just wanted to see a fucking movie, and her family and loved ones deserve better than to see people using their loss to prop up some logical fallacy.

So enough with the hemming and hawing, the snarky comments over gun control/gun restrictions (I’m seeing it occur both ways amazingly), the claims that it’s a continuation on the attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs (seriously?!), the pseudo-intellectual musings about what this says about our culture and how it somehow relates to themes in Nolan’s movies and blah blah. It’s not an act that in any way can be rationally connected to anything, no matter how high-minded you may think your position is.

The “Great” Gatsby

kevinmarshall — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:57:31 +0000

I turned 30 in January and I’m just now, this week, starting F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, which puts me anywhere from 12-15 years behind everyone else in my peer group. I wasn’t given the gift of having the book as required reading for the New York State Regents; for whatever reason, the school or the Board of Ed decided not to sneak it into my High School curriculum.

That’s probably for the best. With a handful of exceptions – most notably Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and the works of Orwell and Steinbeck – I have a mental block that prevents me from enjoying a book when it’s compulsory. Gatsby is exactly the sort of thing I’d probably loathe if not skip reading altogether. I was good (too good) at faking it. I had at least two perfect scores on essays for one book I never read (Richard Wright’s Native Son) and another I never finished (Pearl S. Buck’s The Good Earth). I don’t know if it was out of laziness, rebellion, or a combination of both. Regardless, I’m sure I’ve missed out on great things, and I’d write an apology to the authors if they’d not been dead for decades.

Anyway, I’m enjoying Gatsby every bit as much as I’m dreading the film adaptation from Baz Luhrmann.

It’s appropriate that DiCaprio’s in the movie, because what I see here stinks a bit like that mess of an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet (titled “Romeo + Juliet”) that stuck everything in a modern setting while preserving Shakespeare’s prose. I think the intentions of all involved in the project were noble, in so far as exposing Shakespeare to an audience that might not otherwise enjoy it. But Luhrmann’s execution put a focus on aesthetics and hipness to the detriment of the material. It tried to be daring, but instead ended up just looking kind of silly.

I get the feeling the same will be said of Gatsby. The CGI’ed cityscapes and vehicles look awful. There’s one shot of a CGI vehicle that made me laugh. They’d have been better off using Benny the Cab from “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.”

I think it’s one thing to be artistically courageous, but if you’re not going to remain true to the spirit of the original work and/or make decisions that distract and detract from it, then why bother adapting it in the first place?

Moreover, it’s okay to not adapt some things. I’m not saying that a screen version of a novel can never achieve greatness, because that’s ludicrous. There are plenty of books that are practically screaming (in some cases intentionally) for a film adaptation. But there are also many, many books that simply don’t translate well to film, and some are outright unfilmable. Catcher in the Rye is the most obvious example of the latter while Gatsby, from what I’ve read thus far, seems to be in the company of the former, though I can’t say for certain having not seen the previous attempts to adapt it to film (although all reactions I’ve read and heard have been negative). It doesn’t have quite the same hurdles as Catcher in the Rye in that there’s much more of the story that can be shown, but it does have the same issue of interior perspective and reflection that makes a screen translation very difficult. I imagine that it will, or may have to, employ voiceover narration, which is just an awful thing to do to a film.

Anyway, I’m enjoying the book. But I think I’ll pass on Luhrmann’s film adaptation.

“Prometheus” was Fine, You Miserable Bastards

kevinmarshall — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:48:45 +0000

"Ooooooo...prettyyyyyy!"

I saw “Prometheus” last night.

What the fuck were you all on about? It was fine!

It seems like all I’ve read about this film is how disappointed people were by it, or that they outright hated it. Sure, the dialogue was garbage and the character constructs were pretty lazy (“I’m here for the money” was an oft repeated phrase; show, don’t tell, guys). It also seems like it’s trying too hard to prove to you how smart it is. (That’s a problem with a LOT of sci-fi, though. They get unnecessarily defensive in anticipation of not being taken seriously and as a result end up creating plot holes, confusion, and an overabundance of pretension.)

Other than that? The film was breathtaking. Visually astounding. The cast didn’t have much to work with, but they were more than capable. Between this and “Snow White and the Huntsman,” I’ve officially added Charlize Theron to my list of future ex-wives. What an amazing human being. For all the roles and acclaim she gets, she’s still underutilized. That’s how good she is. Also, Fassbender is fantastic as the android David.

Anyway, you need to see this film and you need to see it in theaters. There are a handful of scenes that were so aesthetically pleasing that I nearly cried and peed myself at the same time. Far from perfect, but what do you expect? Apologies if it was the film that it was instead of what you specifically wanted it to be, which is…”Alien,” I guess? But that movie was already made! Three of them, in fact. So quit your bitching.

“Prometheus” is probably the most underrated film of the year. Go see it and decide for yourselves and don’t listen to people who go on and on and on about how disappointed they were because blah blah who gives a shit if it’s an actual prequel or not?

In a weird way I’m glad that my expectations for this were so low, because it probably allowed me to enjoy it more. But I can’t help but be pissed off and frustrated at some of the venom spit at this film.

So, to make up for it, here’s some things I don’t like that you probably adore. I hope it pisses you off. FEEL MY PAIN!

THINGS YOU LIKE THAT SUUUUUUUUUUCK

Radiohead after “Kid A” It’s great because they put soooo much work into it yet it’s so unlistenable! My pee is hard to drink, that doesn’t mean you should drink it just because I was extra careful to pee directly into the cup without spilling or wasting a single drop.
The Flaming Lips I guess they’re wonderful if you’re one of those people that gets a chubby for anything that revels in its own proggyness. And Wayne Coyne’s kind of a dick. Dude, don’t fuck with Erykah. She’s better at everything.
St. Vincent She’s okay but boy is that album dull. On a somewhat related note:
Iron & Wine and the litany of indie folk shit they’ve spawned Chill the fuck out with the reverb and please stop whispering and start actually singing. This shit’s getting out of hand and quickly becoming 21st Century Yacht Rock. Speaking of which:
80s Music and especially Hall & Oates type Shit Remember when you were ashamed to be a Hall & Oates fan and didn’t revel in the irony like a dog rolling in another animal’s shit? I really, really miss that.
Empire Records It’s nothing like a record store and the music was nothing like what real people who love music listen to. And Liv Tyler!
People playing the ukelele and pretending it’s an actual instrument It’s fine if you’re fucking around at the house, but if you’re at so much as an open mic, it’s time for you to pick up and play an adult instrument.
Zooey Deschanel What is up with that iPhone commercial where she whines “Siri, is it raining?!” as she’s looking out at the rain and then tries to order tomato soup? Is she mentally defective?
The Departed Oh my God. Overacting up the ass, annoying accents, a stupid third act and an amazingly shitty final shot. Why do you like this movie so goddamn much? Is it that you just haven’t seen other (good) crime movies?
That food truck you went to for lunch and blogged about Congratulations on liking cheap street food that doesn’t taste like hot garbage. It’s great that we live in a time that is exactly like every other time, but now we have instagram and twitter and blogs where people pretend this is somehow a revolutionary concept.

Charlize, you are wonderful.

You’re Not Going to BELIEVE the Real Reason “GI Joe: Retaliation ” Got Pushed Back to March 2013

kevinmarshall — Wed, 30 May 2012 11:00:58 +0000

"We have to avenge Duke. He's...he's in a coma."

I’d heard it tested poorly, but I had no idea that one of the main things that they need to go back and change is that test audiences were upset that Duke, played by Channing Tatum, died in the beginning of the film.

That’s right. THEY’RE UNDOING DUKE’S DEATH. AGAIN.

The fact is that Paramount became extremely concerned about G.I. Joe 2‘s box office prospects worldwide after test scores were mediocre to bad. Reshoots were needed. Plus, the moguls realized what a complete miscalculation it was to kill off Channing Tatum in the sequel. And even more so at the start of the film. You will remember that Tatum wasn’t a star when the first G.I. Joe was released. But since then his back-to-back successes in The Vow and 21 Jump Street have made him into a draw. And it turned out that the only bright spot for audiences as a result of the G.I. Joe 2 testing was the aborted relationship between Tatum and Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson. Plus look at the movie poster for Retaliation: you wouldn’t even know Tatum is in the sequel. Now the movie is being reworked – and reshoots don’t lose a valuable leading man like Tatum by killing him off.

(((read more from Nikke Finke at Deadline)))

Fucking. Hilarious.

In case you miss the reference, the death of Duke in the animated “GI Joe: The Movie” had to be undone in post-production because kids were very, VERY upset. Their fix was to add lines of VO dialogue where someone notes “he went into a coma” and, during the victory celebration after the climatic battle with Cobra, someone randomly yells out something like “Duke’s gonna be okay!”

They should’ve just done the same thing here. That would’ve been awesome.

Well, anyway, this film’s going to be even worse than the first one and anybody that thought otherwise needs to have their head examined. A big problem with the first film is that it was one of the goofiest films I’ve ever seen, and yet it still somehow managed to be completely and utterly joyless. If it had been done on purpose, I would consider it art.

THIS WEEKEND: Performing at Comic Syndrome, Donate to the Hero Initiative

kevinmarshall — Fri, 04 May 2012 13:14:51 +0000

REMINDER:

Facebook event page

====================

Also, if you’re going to see “The Avengers,” consider making a matching donation to The Hero Initiative to help offset the injustice being done to Jack Kirby.

If You’re Going to see The Avengers This Weekend, I Have a Challenge for You

kevinmarshall — Wed, 02 May 2012 03:18:51 +0000

Hey folks. In case you didn’t know, there’s a little movie coming out called “The Avengers.”

As much as my inner dork (which I hate talking about because it’s really not any different from any other type of fandom it’s just been given a pedestal it doesn’t deserve by marketers) wants so badly to part with my hard-earned money to see The Hulk smash things while Iron Man flies around and Cap throws his shield and Thor throws his hammer and Hawkeye shoots arrows and we pretend it’s not ridiculous that he’s a part of this group and ditto for Black Widow, I have a moral conundrum.

Marvel’s poor treatment of Jack Kirby and his family’s estate in light of all he did for the “House of Ideas” is well documented. Really, the only reason Marvel gets as much of a pass as it does is because they’re not as awful as DC Comics has been to Siegel and Shuster and their respective estates. Stan Lee gets all the credit because he made a sweet deal with them and was a good talker. Kirby, on the other hand, was always a bit of a quiet guy. Raised in the inner-city with a hard-nosed work ethic, he shied away from attention and praise. It cost him dearly. Because even though he was probably more responsible for shaping Marvel and superhero comics as a whole than any other creator, Kirby’s name doesn’t appear on anything.

It won’t be anywhere in the credits for “The Avengers.” And that bothers me.

But as Robot 6 reports…

Fortunately, Jon Morris has an awesome solution. “So how about this?” he writes. “You’re probably going to go see The Avengers and, judging by the early reviews, you’ll probably enjoy it. How about — as a thank you to the creators who brought you these characters in the first place, who gave you something to enjoy so much — you match your ticket price as a donation to The Hero Initiative?”

Perfect.

http://www.heroinitiative.org/

The Hero Initiative was created to combat just this sort of injustice. From their website:

The Hero Initiative is the first-ever federally chartered not-for-profit corporation dedicated strictly to helping comic book creators in need. Hero creates a financial safety net for yesterdays’ creators who may need emergency medical aid, financial support for essentials of life, and an avenue back into paying work. It’s a chance for all of us to give back something to the people who have given us so much enjoyment.

So here’s the challenge: make a donation to the Hero Initiative matching the cost of your ticket to “The Avengers”. Or, Hell, double it! While Marvel, Stan Lee, and the others rake in all the money with fake heroic exploits, you can make a real one. While actors play pretend at saving lives, you will be doing the real thing.

So. You in?