Up In The Sky!

In the wake of the unexpected phenomenon that was Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight,’ it would seem that the bigwigs at DC Comics are trying to seize an opportunity to match the sudden rise of Marvel Studios, currently raking in a considerable profit from ‘Iron Man 2’ DVD sales, with no fewer than three expected blockbusters- ‘Thor,’ ‘The First Avenger: Captain America,’ and the highly anticipated ‘The Avengers’- forthcoming.

While the writers at DC haven’t the luxury of their own film studio, next year will see the release of ‘Green Lantern,’ starring the action hero/funny-man Ryan Reynolds, and based on the fan-favorite hero of the same name. As with Marvel’s upcoming ‘Thor’, ‘Green Lantern’ is new to the big screen, leaving him plenty of space to thrill audiences with only a passing familiarity with the source material. And as we all learned from ‘Iron Man,’ a little originality can go a long way at the box office.

Of course, originality isn’t always such a good thing, especially when you’re dealing with, say, a character who has been around for over 70 years and whose storyline is familiar to most Americans born after 1938.

We’re talking, of course, about Superman, soon to return to theaters courtesy of producer/general overseer Christopher Nolan and director Zack Snyder (‘300'). Considering that Nolan and Snyder are respectively responsible for two of the most successful conservative films in recent memory (referring to ‘300’ and ‘Dark Knight,’ of course), news that they’d be working together on any project would be enough to thrill the countless blacklisted Hollywood conservatives, not to mention the legions of conservative audience members currently starving for an ounce of sanity from American filmmakers. But a SUPERMAN film, of all things?

Be still my comic-loving heart.

Now, is there still a chance they’ll screw it all up? Of course. With a character as near and dear to America’s heart as Supes, that chance is multiplied tenfold. But besides the challenge of locating a suitable actor, finding the right balance and style for the visual effects, and the innumerable technological difficulties presented by a film as large in scope as the newest addition to the Superman franchise is sure to be, let’s just hope the filmmakers don’t forget about Superman himself. The story may provide the bricks, but the characters bring the mortar.

Correctly identifying Batman’s unshakable reliance on Moral Law and sheer willpower was one of Christopher Nolan’s most important achievements in ‘Batman Begins,’ one that was only magnified in ‘The Dark Knight.’ Removing or diminishing this feature of Batman’s personality would remove the foundation upon which the new Batman franchise was built. In Superman’s case, the most important character trait that Snyder and Nolan must remember is Superman’s unshakable virtue. Like it or not, the king of the superhero genre is still just an old-fashioned Kansas boy, a Boy Scout who, despite all his godlike power, wouldn’t hurt a fly, unless this particular fly posed a danger to the Earth. Or maybe just Lois Lane.

Anyhow, here’s to you, Mr. Snyder, in the hopes that you can find it in your gory, Spartan heart to give audiences, especially children, the Superman they deserve, a Man of Steel who still fights for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

You know what they say: You don't tug on Superman's cape.

Wonder Woman Goes Urban: DC's Biggest Mistake Ever?

“Diana is far too undervalued by this world. This must change.”

So states an unnamed character within the pages of “Wonder Woman” No. 600, reflecting the new direction that DC’s artists are hoping to take the third member (along with fellow Justice Leaguers Superman and Batman) of DC Comics’ so-called “Holy Trinity”, named so for the three characters’ enduring popularity amongst comic fans and the general public. The problem is that, despite her regular association with characters like the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel, Wonder Woman- aka Princess Diana of Themyscira- just doesn’t earn nearly as much at the comic book stand as her muscle-bound brethren.

Considering the character’s lack of development outside the realms of comics and animation, the fact that Wonder Woman has proven less profitable than her Trinity counterparts shouldn’t come as a big surprise. Unlike Batman and Superman, who have both added multiple film franchises to their names over the decades (with sequels and reboots aplenty forthcoming), Wonder Woman has never been afforded the opportunity to try her luck on the silver screen. Besides the famous role of Lynda Carter in the live-action TV show of the 1970s, the Amazon Princess has thus far been unable to procure the runway, a la cinema, on which she might strut her stuff- and kick some serious supervillain tail, of course. With Batman as popular as he’s ever been, and a revival of Superman just around the corner (thank you very much, Christopher Nolan), who wouldn’t want to see that golden lasso in live action and, who knows, maybe some gimmicky “eye-popping 3D”?

The trouble is, DC Comics has made a creative decision that may well spell doom- at least in the short term- for the unheralded Amazon beauty. Stripping her of her iconic armored one-piece and red heels, artists have redressed her thusly:

At first glance, the costume looks great. The character looks beautiful, stylish, and tough, especially with those nifty whatchamacallits armoring her knuckles. Most of her skin is covered, so it’s clearly an advantage if she’s trying to maintain a low(er) profile, and in general, it seems a heck of a lot more practical.

But there’s just one problem: This is NOT Wonder Woman’s outfit.

"What woman only wears one outfit for 70 years?" Asks DC artist J. Michael Straczynski. "What woman doesn't accessorize? And more to the point, as many women have lamented over the years . . . how does she fight in that thing?"

If comic fans were that concerned with the tactical maneuverability of superhero costumes, they’d just watch The Incredibles (which, by the way, is one of the best movies of the last decade). Hasn’t this “artist” ever heard the phrase “Don’t tug on Superman’s cape”? If women have such issues with Wonder Woman’s costume, why has it gone unchanged for the past 70 years (which is about the same amount of time that both Superman and Batman have gone almost totally unchanged)?

For an answer, let’s briefly examine the definition of the word “iconic”: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an icon; Art executed according to a convention or tradition. The new costume is not at all characteristic of Wonder Woman, nor has it been designed in accordance with her traditional image, and therefore the artist has reduced an iconic character to a pop-culture fashion statement. Once again, while we all surely respect the sensibilities of Edna Mode, this development is nothing less than tragic. Does DC not understand that sacrificing Wonder Woman on the altar of ever-changing fashion trends could irrevocably hasten the demise of what ought to be the universally recognizable symbol of fiction’s greatest female warrior?

But there’s one more factor at play here that no one is talking about: The classic Wonder Woman costume is, if nothing else, one of the most patriotic superhero outfits ever designed. While progressives have often tried to use her as a symbol of radical feminism and advance the culture of death yet further, it’s hard to deny the overwhelming appeal of a supermodel armored by the stars and stripes beating the tar out of Stalin-esque villains to readers of a conservative, death-to-all-evil disposition (For more on how feminism tends to ruin Wonder Woman, check out this superb analysis by BigHollywood’s James Hudnall: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2010/07/02/wonder-woman-reboot-strident-feminism-is-the-problem-not-the-costume/). The new costume exhibits no such patriotism. As others have observed, the new Wonder Woman fails to stand out much at all, let alone in a manner indicative of her American origins as a character.

This new “global” mindset is one force that has done more damage to the superhero genre than any other. Superheroes are a uniquely American invention, and for good reason: Here we believe(d) in individual exceptionalism. Here we believe(d) in fighting against tyranny for the sake of individual liberty. Here we raise(d) our flags with pride when confronted by the forces of evil.

Raise the flag. Keep on believing.