The Daily Procrastinator

May 1st is going to disappoint a lot of Wolverine fans. It’s going to enrage a lot of every single Deadpool fan. Gambit and Emma Frost fans are going to feel slighted. Hell, the three Blob super-fans out there are going to have to commiserate over a bucket of fried chicken skins after seeing Wolverine: Origins. To a Marvel comic book reader, the movie is that bad.

To non-comic book readers, the movie might be a mindless, action-filled romp, which is apparently all Fox wanted this movie to be. To fans of the comic book characters, the movie will be yet another example of why Fox should keep their hands off of Marvel properties.

Think about it. The most successful comic book movies have been films that, above all, stay true to the characters they are representing from the comic books. The Dark Knight takes enormous liberties with the details of how Bruce Wayne manages to be the caped crusader, but the movie never falters on the reasons why he does what he does. The first two Spider-Man films might diverge from the stories as presented in the comics, but they don’t infringe on who Peter Parker is, who Spider-Man has historically been (and even the third can only be faulted for how poorly the symbiote’s influence on Parker was portrayed). And the first two X-Men films, while not presenting the exact stories from the books, get the characters right.

Even with Storm's bad hair, you can still recognize each character

Look at the failed superhero movies: Daredevil, while not a complete bomb, tried to make the Man Without Fear into a Spider-Man/Batman hybrid. He’s not. It should be the simplest thing in the world to make a solid Punisher movie, but it hasn’t happened yet. Elektra might as well not have been about the Marvel character. The Fantastic Four films chose to go cheap on characterization, heavy on the campiness, and any sense of these characters beyond cartoons is never allowed. The casting wasn’t all that great, either (note: when re-booting, keep that guy who played Johnny Storm, can the rest – yes, including Jessica Alba – and make the Thing CGI).

Shouldn't The Thing look more physically imposing?

Wolverine: Origins commits the same damn mistake that those latter films do: it’s not true to the source material. Listen, I could care less how Ryan Reynolds character becomes Deadpool, so long as the figure called Deadpool is a mouthy killer who’s good with all kinds of weapons. He shouldn’t shoot Cyclops’ beams out of his eyes nor should swords the length of his arms come out of his forearms, AND HIS MOUTH SHOULDN’T BE SEWN SHUT! And it follows that if a prior film suggests that Wolverine has a dark past (you know, like X2 – and all of Marvel continuity – suggests), I’d expect to see some dark times rather than a character that is utterly heroic and noble throughout his entire life. As the tagline suggests, what Wolverine does isn’t very nice.

FOX studio's version of Deadpool - I'm not kidding.

I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the most successful comic books films remain true to the source material. There’s a reason these characters have remained popular with readers for decades, and when a studio disregards these qualities in favor of a chance to dazzle with some meaningless special effect, they are not creating a Wolverine movie, a Marvel movie, or a DC movie, but a _______ studio movie.

And that’s not what comic fans are paying to see.

With The Watchmen hitting theaters this past weekend, and the reports of its levels of violence, sexual scenes, and grim themes, it’s time that Hollywood re-tool its ratings system to bring it more in line with sanity and reason.

Honestly, I have no idea what “R” means to Hollywood, other than that it means the film is for restricted audiences, i.e., the 17 and over crowd (side note: parents, if you take your pre-teen kid to The Watchmen, you are an imbecile and proof that we should require licenses to become parents). Beyond that, it seems to have no real definition. Let me illustrate: There Will Be Blood and The Watchmen received the same rating. Gladiator and the new Friday the 13th received the same rating. Wedding Crashers and Hostel received the same rating.

Do you see something wrong here?

The MPAA website defines each rating here, explaining that an ‘R’ movie “contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously.” I could probably make a case that The Dark Knight deserved an R rating based on the above criteria, but it was given a PG-13. This is a movie where, among other scenes, the Joker slams a man’s head onto an upright pencil, another man has a cell phone rigged with explosives sewn into his stomach, half of Harvey Dent’s face is burned away, and, because of its serious (“adult”?) themes, it was considered a possible candidate for Best Picture. Why was DK not given an R? Because most of the violence was either off-screen or not bloody, there was no nudity, and the “hard” language did not include the word fu*k. And it works – DK is a PG-13 movie because of the steps the director/producers took while filming and editing, knowing that Batman is a comic book first, and thus will pull in a younger audience.

The R rating, though, is often a failure because there seem to be no set limits to an R movie’s content; the MPAA Rating Board’s decision-making appears arbitrary, at best. The Watchmen‘s Dr. Manhattan, for example, is naked throughout the film. Now, I’m a fan of the comic, and the film doesn’t blink on his nudity (except in its advertisements where he always has the briefs on), and I understand that he’s a demi-god: he’s beyond clothes. Still, male frontal nudity has ALWAYS received an R rating (and, yes, I recognize the MPAA’s double standard with regard to full frontal female nudity), and Manhattan’s nudity is at times sexual in nature. Then there’s the non-blue penis sexual scenes, which are explicit. Beyond this is the language, which is most definitely “hard.” Then there’s the violence, both stylized and graphic. Blood flows, limbs and bodies are destroyed, and the camera does not flinch. All of this, in the MPAA’s mind, adds up to an R rating.

Compare this to Gladiator. In Gladiator, there is no nudity. None, not even a male backside. There is, to my knowledge, no cursing, and if there is it is tame. The word “fu*k” is not uttered. There are no sex scenes; Commodus’ (Joaquin Phoenix) feelings for his sister are implied, though nothing happens between them, on screen or off. The only “objectionable” material is its violence, which is, of course, graphic, as Roman gladiators tend to be violent. Ridley Scott’s Oscar winning film received the same “R” rating as The Watchmen: to the MPAA board, there is no significant difference between the two movies’ content to warrant a different rating.

But you and I know better.

The interesting thing is that the MPAA has another recourse: the NC-17 label. The MPAA site describes that an NC-17 rating “can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.” Who here believes that The Watchmen does not fit this description? The Comedian attempts rape on screen. He also kills a pregnant Vietnamese woman. And if Rorschach’s behavior is not “aberrational” (even while being held up as a hero of the film), then whose behavior is?

But we all know why The Watchmen received an R rating rather than an NC-17: profit. NC-17 is seen as a kiss of death for any film because of the stigma associated with it, and it severely limits the film’s ability to be marketed. Many theaters would not carry a film tagged as NC-17. Directors often go back to make cuts to their films to avoid the rating, knowing that an R can mean millions more at the box-office. So much for artistic integrity, huh? And the MPAA turns a blind eye to it all, as if cutting 30 seconds from a sex scene here, two impaled bodies there, makes the difference.

This discrepancy is particularly egregious when considering The Watchmen. Despite its actual content, it has been marketed as a superhero movie, and I suspect many venturing into the theaters this weekend had no idea what they were getting themselves into. Yes, this is partly the fault of the film-goers; there are plenty of reviews out there that warn of the content. But I know plenty of parents who take their kids to “R” rated films (my dad took my brothers and me to see Rambo: First Blood Part II when we were 13, my younger brother 10 ), and that’s the problem: the R rating does not sufficiently describe the film. There is a definite difference between the R of Rambo, of Gladiator, of Wedding Crashers, and the R of The Watchmen, and the MPAA has done a real disservice to its audiences in pretending otherwise.

If the MPAA is truly interested in rating its films, then it needs be honest in its classifications and its ratings decisions. A good first step it could take is using the NC-17 label more regularly, allowing the label to give people a better idea of what a film contains, and take away the “verboten” stigma the label now holds because of disuse.

At the very least, such a step will allow me to concentrate on the film, rather than the 8 year old sobbing in his mother’s arms.

This is NOT me.

I admit it – I’m over 30 and I collect comics. I’ve got six long boxes stored away in my closet packed with Marvel and DC comics dating back to when I started collecting in the early 80s. I quit my habit when I got to college, then restarted about five years ago when a student of mine gave me a copy of New Avengers #1. It was as if the gift had reawakened a long dormant addiction within me, and I was hooked again (Thanks, Chaz). I now make my weekly Wednesday run to the local comic book store to pick up my pull list, which varies from two to eight books a week (“books” – a euphemism of mine), and spend the evening after the kids are in bed reading about characters with names like Iron Man and Captain America saving the world.

Or beating the hell out of each other, as it were.

A grown man collecting comics is suspect, to say the least. Matt Groening’s “Comic Book Guy” often comes to mind, the comic-and sci-fi obsessed loser who wields his superhero knowledge like a weapon. And while I have seen fellow comic book geeks who fit the stereotype, it’s just not me. I’m married and have two daughters. I run half-marathons, I play sports. I have a rewarding career teaching college English. In other words, I’m an adult. But comic book collecting is often seen as a kid’s pursuit, to be outgrown before one hits puberty and moves on to more “adult” interests. And yet I still look forward to Wednesdays.

I guess I just don’t buy into the argument that superheroes are inherently childish. For as long as we’ve had stories to tell, we’ve had our superheroes. The Bible tells the story of Samson, the original strongman, the loss of his long locks his Kryptonite. The ancient Greeks had Heracles and Achilles, among many others. Beowulf, Robin Hood and King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table are our early western heroes. All are stories still told and taught today, valued for what they tell us not just about ourselves but also for suggesting what we can become.

And so it is with today’s superheroes. They are today’s myths, tomorrow’s legends. Look at the organization of the Justice League, with its god-like heroes: Wonder Woman (Hera), Superman (Zeus), Batman (Hephaestus), The Flash (Hermes), Green Lantern (Apollo) and Aquaman (Poseidon). The Marvel heroes, however, are more human, often flawed in some way (Tony Stark is an alcoholic, Peter Parker is driven by guilt), just as Beowulf and King Arthur were, yet we still admire them.

Seriously, how cool is this?

There are certainly real heroes I can identify in my life, both intimately familiar (my parents) and anonymous (the 9/11 firefighters, e.g.), and all are a testament to the human capacity for love and sacrifice. Superheroes, while not real, exhibit these same qualities each week, and, for me, remind me that there is a potential for greatness in us all, despite an inability to lift 20 tons, turn invisible or fly. We just have to try.

Idealistic? Sure. But that’s why I still read comics books.

Thor #600 is the latest effort by the powers-that-be over at Marvel to rip the hearts out of Thor fan-boys like me. And you know the worst thing about it? It is the culmination of the best storyline Marvel has published in the past year.

It is clear that J. Michael Straczynski, the writer of Thor who has done an exquisite job of resurrecting him, loves an evil scheme. In issue #600, Loki’s machinations, which have been several lifetimes in the making, come to fruition in a big way.

The story opens with Loki restoring Bor, the father of Odin, in the middle of New York City.  Bor goes mad due to Loki’s manipulations, threatening to lay waste to the entire world. This draws Thor into a battle that he realizes can only end one way, although he makes every effort to avoid it. He even calls on the Avengers only to be betrayed by a wicked Dark Avengers cameo. This ultimately forces his hand against Bor, and thus Loki’s trap is sprung which will have major implications for Thor, Asgard, and the Marvel Universe.

[On a side-note, let me get this straight: Thor has the Odin-force, can take out Bor (a god) AND the entire squad of Dark Avengers, yet he gets beat up by the Red Hulk? I'm calling bullsh*t on that entire red Hulk series.]

While it comes at considerable cost, I expect Thor #600 will mark Thor’s return to a more active role in the “real world” of the Marvel Universe as opposed to his Asgardian realm. It also sets up the Asgardians’ possible role in the coming Dark Reign storyline due to the “graciousness” of a certain power-mad monarch. While this is indeed a dark day for Thor and his fans, JMS has created an epic storyline that demands attention.