Tagged: Iron Man

Netflix Commissions 4 Marvel Series Leading to The Defenders

david-slade-exits-foxs-daredevil-6386840Marvel’s cinematic Avengers will be joined on the smaller screen by The Defenders, the culmination of four series just commissioned by Netflix. Luke Cage, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and Iron Fist were announced this by Variety morning as each receiving thirteen episode commitments. The linking device is that all four series will be set in New York City’s Hell’s Kitchen, which, in the comics, has been Daredevil’s base of operations dating back to the 1970s.

This rumored set of series was revealed without naming producers, writers, showrunners or casting but would be expected to debut some time in 2014. The announcement did not acknowledge if this quartet of series will be set in the same reality as the film series. If so, it would also connect these shows to ABC’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Netflix has received great attention thanks to their original series, a move now being imitated this month by Amazon Prime and soon by Hulu and YouTube. Their House of Cards was the first internet series to receive an Emmy nomination and will be back for a second season in the winter. The pay channel’s Orange is the New Black is their most watched original series and will also be back for a second season, as will their Hemlock Grove.

Since Jeph Loeb was added as a VP for filmed material, Marvel has filled in a vital gap with live-action television, something they seemed unable to crack. Beyond these four, and the subsequent Defenders teamup project, Marvel has been said to be eyeing a Peggy Carter spinoff based on the short film with Haylee Atwell that was attached to the home video release of Iron Man 3. Other series apparetly also ebing pitched to other networks.

Disney’s Marvel movies will move from Starz to Netflix after the current dea for the studio’s output expires in 2015, just in time for The Avengers 2.

DC Entertainment aso has numerous television series in development, mostly at their co-owned CW network with the Flash expected for the 2014-15 season. Fox is also developing a Gotham City series featuring young James Gordon, long before Bruce Wayne first dons the cape and cowl.

REVIEW: Iron Man 3

iron-man-3-packaging-300x181-8032545Like most people, I enjoyed the heck out of Iron Man 3; it was fast, loud, noisy, and things blew up really well. The handoff from Jon Favreau to Shane Black was a step in the right direction and the casting was superb.

The movie, out now from Paramount Home Video, is definitely a sequel to The Avengers and not Iron Man 2, which everyone now seems to have declared a misfire. Clearly, the United States government has backed off demanding the armor now that they owe him their lives. It didn’t hurt that he allowed Jim Rhodes to keep the War Machine armor for America’s use.

Having Tony Stark deal with the aftermath of nearly dying while trying to end an alien invasion gave the film a nice weight, allowing us to explore the character from a new perspective. The metaphor of his anxiety and the malfunctioning Mark 42 armor was nicely handled without being heavy-handed. This was definitely a Tony Stark movie and Robert Downey Jr. nailed it. We saw his cockiness, insecurities and sheer brilliance, but all the same person.

While Stark is tinkering on armor after armor to combat his sleepless nights, a global terrorist named the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) has reared his head, hijacking the airwaves and demonstrating a cold-blooded approach. He keeps promising the President of the United States (William Sadler) a lesson and Black’s script gets fuzzy about what it is the Mandarin wants.

robert-downey-jr-iron-man-3-teaser-trailer-tony-stark-marvel1-e1379880305405-3085354Meanwhile, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) arrives at Stark Industries seeking something and again, what he wants is unclear but Pepper Potts nicely turns him down. As we have already learned, Killian has cleaned up nicely since his 1999 encounter with Stark when he first explained his desire to form a company called Advanced Idea Mechanics. In between, he wound up partnering with Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall), the brilliant scientist Stark blew Killian off to bed. The two have wound up creating a bio-repair formula dubbed Extremis that not only can repair injuries but somehow superheats the body. Early experiments resulted in subjects going boom but Killian and his flunky Savin (James Badge Dale), and others have mastered it, becoming superhuman engines of destruction.

Now that we have all the elements in place, Black stirs the pot and things happen. Unfortunately, they don’t all blend terribly well so you have the richness of Stark’s dilemma but Hansen’s fall from grace is half-baked at best, a disappointment and waste. As much as the film is a joy to watch, I came away thinking it could have been better had everyone but Tony Stark been given more to do.

Pepper has no character arc this time around. She loves Tony, is frustrated by him, and becomes a damsel in distress, looking great all the while. But, she’s given no time to actually reflect on what happens to her in the final act and how that colors her view of the world that has changed around her. I also missed the wit of the exchanges between them that came from Joss Whedon’s pen. Here, it was perfunctory. Same with Rhodes. There’s a nice running gag about War Machine being renamed Iron Patriot but he just flies around and banters with Tony. The President and Vice President (Miguel Ferrer) should have had more to do than be chess pieces Black rapidly moves around the board.

Speaking of rapid, the ease with which the armors attach and detach themselves to Stark (and others) strained credulity throughout the film. When all the armors arrive for the fiery climax, they are readily shredded making on wonder if they are attached with Velcro. There’s been a steady increase in speed with which the suits of armor can come on and off, which is to be expected, but this has gone too far, too fast.

As for those who will complain about the radical reinterpretation of The Mandarin from his comic book past – I sympathize. But even when he was introduced in the early 1960s he was already a bit of an anachronistic foe. Frankly, this was the best way he could have been used without inviting commentary about it being a racist gesture, angering their Chinese co-producers. And by casting Ben Kingsley, you couldn’t have asked for a more perfect choice. He steals every scene he’s in.

The film kicks off Marvel Cinema Universe Phase 3 but does nothing obvious to continue the threads we saw at the end of Phase 2, the threat from Thanos. The closest we come is seeing that time has passed and Tony is still hanging around with Dr. Banner. I’ll be curious which film really propels us towards 2015′s Avengers 2. Despite the total absence of SHIELD in the film, the world is richer with the addition of AIM and Roxxon, elements we will no doubt be seeing on film — and television — in the future.

As for the video edition, it comes in the usual assortment of packages so decide which combo pack works best for you, including those who think 3-D TV is the future. My standard Blu-ay disc looked fabulous, with sharp detail and rich colors. I’m not sure it will get better than this, aided by stellar sound. The DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 surround track lets you hear every engine roar through the skies.

Thankfully, you won’t have to scurry from store to store to secure all the bonus content but what there is leaves you wanting more (which will make you wait for the Phase 2 box set sometime in 2015 or 2016).

Black and co-writer Drew Pearce provide some interesting color commentary showing how much thought went into structuring the film given all that has come before it. You do get a fairly standard Restore the Database Second Screen Experience assuming you want to download the Jarvis app and locate the content (which is becoming as annoying as the AR moments embedded in the comics).

Additionally, there is Iron Man 3 Unmasked (11 minutes), a routine behind-the-scenes featurette that should have been far longer and more detailed. Instead, they give us Deconstructing the Scene: Attack on Air Force One (9 minutes), showing how much was real versus CGI, which is impressive these days. There are also Deleted and Extended Scenes (16 minutes) which is interesting, entertaining, and mostly thankfully not in the final product. As one would expect, anything with Downey in it means the Gag Reel (5 minutes) is funnier than usual although Cheadle nearly steals this featurette. And in case you missed that Thor: The Dark World is arriving in November; you get a two minute sneak peek.

The bonus highlight is Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter (15 minutes), focusing on Peggy Carter, Captain America’s paramour from his first feature. Hayley Atwell is back in the title role (now rumored to being considered for a television series), joined by the always entertaining Bradley Whitford, and the return of Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark. She runs, jumps, kicks ass and we love it.

John Ostrander: Fashion Statements

supermaninatux-3138530My good friend Martha Thomases, as usual, wrote an interesting column this week on her way to the Baltimore Con. She wrote about choosing what to wear at the Con and that, in turn, set me to thinking and provided grist for my own essay mill. Some weeks I need a lot of grist.

Something that’s important in comics and too little discussed is the importance of clothes. The fashion choices made by a character says something about that character. What you wear makes a statement about who you are even if that statement is, “I don’t care.” As often as not, my criterion still is, “Is it clean? Is it clean-ish? Does it at least not smell? Does it not smell too badly?”

However, I can dress up. I clean up fairly well, to be honest. I’m not keen on wearing ties but I know how and when to do so. I like hats, especially fedoras, although the Irish cloth cap works well on me. One wonderful fan made me a beret like GrimJack wears and I like that a lot and can be seen at conventions with it.

Some people dress for success. Some people dress to be invisible. Choices are made even when it appears to be a non-choice. If you say, “I don’t care how I look; I don’t think it’s important,” that’s a choice. It says something and don’t bother maintaining that it doesn’t or shouldn’t matter. It does. We make up our minds about people right away depending on how they appear to us. They do the same with us. Assuming the phrase, “Dress for the job you want, not for the job you have.” Is true, why is it true? The answer is we want people to perceive us in a certain way even if our goal is not to be perceived, to blend in.

When I was working with student artists, I wanted them to look at different source materials for the way people dressed. Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne would be more likely to dress out of GQ whereas Peter Parker might dress from the Old Navy store.  Here’s an extra-points question – how would Tony Stark dress differently from Bruce Wayne? Bruce’s suits are a costume for the playboy image he plays whereas Tony’s wardrobe is who he is (and, yes, I’m including the Iron Man costume).

Certain costumes can be a short-hand to who the character is – in Westerns, it used to be the good guys wore the white hats and the bad guys wore the black hats. Made things simple – an oversimplification, really. Clothing and costumes can describe a character but they can’t be substituted for characterization itself.

Clothing can reveal character: who the individual is, how they think of themselves, how they present an image of themselves. We do it (deny it if you want) and so characters do it as well. What’s true in life should be true on the page.

A very fun aspect of this in the past few years has been the rising importance of cosplay (costume playing for those of you who don’t know the term) as part of fandom. Fans become the characters they see in the comics or on the screen. The costumes can be elaborate or silly or elaborately silly or anywhere in that spectrum. They’ve become fixtures at most conventions these days and are often stunning. They’re a merger of the person who is wearing the costume and the character they represent.

Whether it’s in a drawing or in prose, clothes can make the character and if you want to work as an artist or a writer, you’d do well to remember that.

MONDAY MORNING: Mindy Newell

TUESDAY MORNING: Emily S. Whitten

John Ostrander: The Essence

ostrander-art-130804-3794866A week or so ago I was talking about how in the Man of Steel movie they had Superman kill someone. No spoiler alert: if you haven’t seen the movie yet, it’s your own damn fault. It did violate one of the traditional tenets that marked Superman as Superman – he doesn’t kill. Lots of innocent bystanders must have also died during his battle with Kryptonians in Smallville and Metropolis but hey – collateral damage.

I did note, however, that characters that have been around a lot need an updating to keep them relevant to the times in which they are being read/watched. The question to me is – how much change is acceptable before you’ve altered the character so much that they are no longer really that character. What defines each character? What are the essentials?

I read in a recent Entertainment Weekly that Andrew Garfield, the current movie Peter Parker/Spider-Man, suggested that the next Mary Jane actually be a guy. Have Peter explore his sexuality with a guy. Even the director, Marc Webb, when asked if he had heard Garfield’s idea, seemed to do an eye roll.

That idea certainly isn’t traditional Peter Parker and got some discussion, but is it that far off? I’m not saying I endorse the idea but wouldn’t it make Peter more contemporary, something to which younger readers/viewers might relate? Would a bi-sexual Peter Parker be any less Spider-Man? Would a Peter Parker in a lip lock with a guy be more shocking than a Superman who kills?

The comics’ Spider-Man has taken it further. In the book, Spider-Man’s old foe Doctor Octopus has taken over Peter’s body and life and identity of Spider-Man with Peter looking real dead and gone. Otto Octavius is now Spider-Man. WTF?

The powers are the same, but the character sure isn’t. Is it the powers that define who Spider-Man is or is it the man behind the mask? If the latter, is this really Spider-Man?

This isn’t the only character to which this has happened. Iron Man has had people other than Tony Stark in the armor. Batman has had a couple of people under the cowl. And let’s not start on Robin. Or Batgirl.

The stories of Sherlock Holmes have also lent themselves to numerous interpretations. There are currently two TV series that put Holmes into modern day. I only really know the BBC series, Sherlock, but despite changing the era it feels so Holmesian to me. It feels like they got the essentials right.

I did it myself with my own character GrimJack. First I killed off the main character, John Gaunt, then I brought his soul back into a clone of himself and then, eventually, I had him reborn into another person, James Edgar Twilley, although again, it was the same soul. Munden’s Bar remained but the supporting cast was different and I had bounced the whole thing down the time line a hundred years or so and the setting of Cynosure was also changed.

I knew why I did it at the time. I felt my writing was getting stale and the character was as well. We hadn’t been around all that long but I felt we were getting tripped up on our own continuity. Sales were eroding. My editor asked me to come up with some way of making the book dangerous again.  That’s how I chose to do it.

Was it still GrimJack? Yes, I felt it was – in its essentials. An alienated and violent loner in a strange city living by his own code. Same soul, two lives. It still felt like GrimJack.

I’m willing to bet that most re-examinations of a given character or concept stems from that – to look at it all with fresh eyes, to make the reader/viewer do the same. To me, that’s trying to get to the essentials.

Maybe we aren’t all agreed as to what the essentials are in any given character or concept. That may vary from person o person, fan to fan. I think that’s why there are quibbles right now about Man of Steel; if Superman not killing is essential to the character, there’s a problem with the newest version. On the other hand, if “do not kill” rule is just like wearing red trunks, then it’s not essential. Is the Man of Steel Superman?

That comes down to you.

MONDAY MORNING: Mindy Newell

TUESDAY MORNING: Emily S. Whitten

 

John Ostrander: We Have Met The Enemy

ostrander-art-130623-7497194Finally got around to seeing Iron Man 3 this week (which I enjoyed). Yeah, I know. We’re way behind on our movie viewing at this url. At the rate we’re going, we won’t see Man Of Steel until Labor Day.

In any case, I was struck by the underlying premise of the movie and certain events of the past week. (SPOILER ALERT: To discuss this, I’m going to have to tell things about Iron Man 3. If you are even more behind in your movie going than I am but still intend to see it and want to be unspoiled, you may want to avert your eyes.)

Central to the whole plot of Iron Man 3 is the idea of creating a terrorist threat to provoke a reaction in the American public and justify certain acts. In the news in our so-called real world this week, it’s been revealed that the NSA has not only been reading our emails but is creating a massive building to store and analyze everything they read. All in the name of “National Security,” of keeping us safe from terrorism. The idea is that we trade in our freedoms and we are safe from the hands of terrorists.

Except we’re not. To quote Rocket J. Squirrel to Bullwinkle J. Moose who was trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat, “But that trick never works.” Not completely. Of course, the justification becomes that the measures the government is taking makes terrorism more difficult, that some plots are stopped even if you can’t stop all of them, that some American lives are saved. Doesn’t that make it worth it? If it saved your life or the lives of those you cared about, wouldn’t the sacrifice of those freedoms be justified?

I think of the British people during the Battle of Britain in 1940. To break the ability of the UK to defend themselves in the air after the fall of France, the German Luftwaffe launched massive air attacks that escalated, finally, to terrorist bombing missions against the civilian populations in key British cities, notably London. Everyone has seen the photographs and newsreels, especially of the aftermath – the burning buildings, the shattered homes, the struggling people.

The purpose of the terrorism was to drive the British government to an armistice or even to surrender. That’s one of the key things to remember about terrorism – the acts of violence are not the purpose in and of themselves. As terrible as they are, the purpose is to achieve some other goal.

The Germans failed in 1940. The British people stood defiant. They did not break.

The purpose of the acts of violence on 9/11 was not the death and destruction alone that they caused. The purpose of the architects of those acts of terror was to change us, to make us destroy ourselves, our values, our way of life. We’re doing that.

For an illusion of safety, we seem to be willing to trade in at least some of our freedoms.

When we allow the government to tap our phones willy-nilly, to spy on us, to even kill some citizens deemed hostile combatants without any pretense of due process of law, the terrorists win.

The alternative is to live with the threat of destruction, of death for ourselves or those we love, of more horrific, terrifying images such as we saw on 9/11. To stand firm as the British did in the face of Nazi terrorism and not surrender.

In hard boiled fiction, the “tough guy” is defined not so much as the one who can hand out punishment but take it and not give in. Today, we seem more interested in someone who is “bad ass” – who can hand out the blows. Personally, I’ll take a “tough guy” over a “bad ass” any day of the week. They show more character.

So, gentle readers, what do you think? Do we trade in some outdated “freedoms” and maybe sleep better at night or do we take some chances in the interests of being who we are or are supposed to be?

You tell me.

MONDAY MORNING: Mindy Newell

TUESDAY MORNING: Emily S. Whitten

 

Downey Signed for Avengers 2-3 — What Happens Next?

Iron-Man-II-Tony-StarkTo the surprise of few, Marvel announced on their website today that Robert Downey, Jr. would don the armor at least two more times. What’s interesting is that the two films he signed for are Avengers 2 and Avengers 3, the latter of which has yet to be given a formal green-light or spot on the Disney release schedule.

Downey has been handsomely rewarded for his early participation in the Marvel film universe, earning a reported $50 million for his work in the first Avengers film in addition to his salary from the first three Iron Man movies.

As the Marvel Film Universe continues, Phase 2 is well mapped out and with the claiming of two weekends in 2016 and 2017; Disney is clearly staking their territory for Phase 3. Speculation abounds as to what Phase 3 will be comprised of but with today’s announcement, it is increasingly clear the solo Iron Man series are done for now. Instead, other characters will fill the void with projected second sequels to Captain America, Thor, and one for Guardians of the Galaxy leading the way. Should Edgar Wright’s Ant Man succeed, that too would spawn a sequel. Meantime, an armload of other heroes and heroines are being eyed for the Big Screen.

050412-the-avengersAt present, Marvel has not announced if Black Panther, Doctor Strange, The Inhumans, or Heroes for Hire are being seriously developed or merely teased. No one saw Guardians coming so the possibilities are really limitless.

Add into the mix the recently returned rights to films featuring Blade, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil and Marvel has an embarrassment of riches. All of which leads one to wonder when the saturation point will be felt. That could come as early as next summer when four Marvel films from three studios are released in four months, starting with April’s Captain America: The Winter Solider leading the way, followed by The Amazing Spider-Man 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Guardians. Sony has also just announced third and fourth installments of the current Spider-Man series of films with several plot threads added in the second film.

It has been speculated that Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD television series may be used as a launching pad for new film properties or television series. While the CW’s Smallville trotted out numerous spin-off possibilities from Aquaman to Booster Gold, none of them succeeded and there’s no guarantee Marvel will be any more successful, even with Joss Whedon’s intimate involvement.

DC Entertainment has finally succeeded with getting their cinematic universe off the ground with the smash success of Man of Steel. While its sequel is being fast-tracked for, most likely, a 2015 release, they’ll be playing catch-up well into the 2020s. By then, though, audiences may have been super-heroed out reminding one that Denny O’Neil always described them as “DC Misses the Boat Comics”.

Saturday Morning Cartoons: “How Iron Man 3 Should Have Ended”

Dennis O’Neil: Iron Man Grows Up

oneil-art-130516-2774612I think I know what I liked about Tony Stark when I first encountered him back in Cape Girardeau. I was a cheap-seats journalist who was just rediscovering comic books after forgetting about them for more than a decade, spinning the rack at the drug store, scanning the displays in the bus terminal, killing time in a strange town by reading these relics of my childhood. And liking them.

I particularly enjoyed some of the mags that bore the Marvel Comics logo, and among these, staple-to-staple with Spider-Man, The Hulk, The Avengers – the beginnings of Marvel pantheon – was Tales of Suspense, a title that delivered two stories, two heroes. These were Captain America, a super-patriot I dimly remember enjoying when I was six or seven, and a new guy, Iron Man. His other name was Tony Stark.

There was a lot not to like about ol’ shellhead, as he was sometimes called. Let me count the ways… He was an arms dealer and, to a peacenik like I was, arms dealers belonged somewhere deep in hell. He was a capitalist. (Okay, nowhere near as bad as being an arms dealer, but I did not count the Rockefellers among my role models.) He was a technologist and, like a lot of hippie-types, I did not trust technology. (There is evidence that technology has been exacting revenge ever since. Note to technology: I was wrong, okay?) And finally: it was suggested, though maybe not much shown, that our Tony was both a conspicuous consumer and a womanizer. Two more nixes.

A lot not to like.

But he got his powers from a device he invented to deal with a heart damaged by shrapnel. For some reason, that appealed to me. I’m pretty sure that I’d never read the story of the centaur Chiron – Catholic schools in the 50s were not big on “pagan” mythology – and so I didn’t know the tale of the half-man/half-beast who was wounded by a venom-tipped arrow and could never be healed. Chiron was a great teacher but what qualifies him as a possible predecessor of Iron Man is that he later gave up his life to redeem Prometheus and that gives him hero cred. (The other side of the story is that Chiron, being immortal, was doomed to countless eons of agony because of that damned wound and he could have seen the Prometheus situation as a quickhop off the struggle bus. But he never really existed, so mind.) Anyway: even with twisting and tugging of the myth, it’s hard to make a case for a direct connection between Tony and Chiron, and yet Chiron was the closest analogy to Iron Man I could find. Why bother? Because maybe by rummaging around in antiquity, I’ll be able to figure out why I responded favorably to an tin-plated lounge lizard.

Later, Tony redeemed himself and became a good guy I could like without those nagging reservations. But those first meetings…Well, I liked womanizing assassin James Bond, too. Still do.

FRIDAY: Martha Thomases

SATURDAY: Marc Alan Fishman

 

Dennis O’Neil: Much Ado About Iron Man

Iron-Man-II-Tony-StarkMaybe you’ve been on a vision quest in the Himalayas, or maybe you’ve just been in a coma, so I’ll try too negotiate the next few hundred words without dropping any spoilers. The subject is the movie that looks like it will be the summer’s monster, Iron Man 3, and by now, most of you have seen it, or are planning to see it, or have at least read reviews. As a lowly scribe who once wrote the Iron Man comic book – yes, kids, it was a comic book first – I might be expected to have an opinion about it and I do. But I did promise no spoilers and to state what I liked about it would probably constitute a spoiler…

What’s a fellow to do?

Go at the problem from another angle? Okay: What I did not like about the movie was all the kabooms. Lots and lots of fireworks. Big explosions. Then more big explosions. Hey, no elitism here: I understand the entertainment value of pyrotechnics and to complain about explosions in a film designed to be a summer blockbuster is kind of like attending the opera and bitching about all the screechy singing. But maybe a little moderation? I wearied of all the noise and shrapnel and flame coming at my 3D glasses. Enough was enough. Less might have been more. Anything stuffed down your throat will eventually make you gag.

There you have my major kvetch: the explosions.

I guess I could complain that the villain’s motivations could have been more thoroughly explained, but you might not agree. And if we got rid of a few explosions, the movie would have been been a tad shorter and that might have benefitted it. But none of this constitutes major inadequacy. You pay for your ticket and you get what you paid for, that special kind of summer respite that only happens in cool theaters on hot days. It has been significant pleasure in my life for some 40 years and it still is. (You think I’m not going to see The Man of Steel and The Wolverine and even The Lone Ranger when they grace the multiplex in a month or two? Ha!)

But superhero movies are maturing, as did westerns and badge operas and science fiction before them. While still delivering the spectacle and fantastic heroics that characterize the genre, they’re being put to other uses, too. They’re telling the kind of stories that help us define ourselves, which is something stories have always done. First, there was The Batman trilogy, which was, beneath all the swashbuckling, a tale of redemption.  Now, we have the Iron Man movies, which, if you squint a little, also constitute a trilogy and use the character of Tony Stark to…

Whoa! I promised no spoilers. So, if you haven’t already seen it, watch for the scene in which Tony mentions a cocoon and the shot of Tony standing on a cliff. They’ll tell you what I think the movie is really about.

FRIDAY: Martha Thomases

SATURDAY: Marc Alan Fishman

 

Clips from Upcoming Summer Films

As the clock counts down to the May explosion of genre releases, additional clips are rolling out. For example, with a week to go, we get one more glimpse from Iron Man 3:

Meantime, two weeks later is Star Trek Into Darkness and here’s an extended moment already teased in the trailers:

And here’s the final Monsters University trailer ahead of its June release.