A Post for My Sisters: Thoughts On the Aurora TDKR Tragedy

Hi.  I'm back, for a moment.

I know I've been away for a while, and I don't plan on re-posting regularly again for a while, but I felt the strong urge to comment on this.  It is, after all, related to the existence of a comic book property.

Whenever tragedies such as the one that occurred in Aurora, CO last night happen, I am always shocked, saddened, and angered.

Even though I take the occasional snide jab at all the "crazy people" out in this crazy world of ours, it's still mind-bending for me to wrap my head around the idea that someone, somewhere out there, thinks it's okay/permissible/acceptable/part of God's will/destiny to armor up, grab guns and other weaponry, go out in public, and turn them on the general public.  I mean, hell, I often have a hard time just arguing in public, out of a keen sense of not wanting to disrupt other people's lives with my own business.  That someone will willingly go and insert themselves so violently into others' lives is far beyond my understanding.

And it saddens me deeply that this person even got to the point where they felt this way, and that his victims have paid such a steep price, be it through loss of life, bodily injury, or a shattered sense of personal safety and security.  Many of those victims were doubtlessly comic book, sci-fi, or pop culture fans, eager to see The Dark Knight Rises first and enjoy the end to Christopher Nolan's take on the mythology.  Sadly, that will probably be the furthest thing from their minds for a very long time to come.

But I think, right now, perhaps out of shock, I want to focus on my anger.  Because right now, there's so much of it bubbling in me.

I'm angry at the violence inflicted on the public.  The concept of taking any human life, to say nothing of multiple lives, is upsetting and provokes a visceral response from me.  In the moments I hear about it, I get the instinctive urge to lash out at the killer, to cause them as much pain and suffering as they've doubtlessly caused others.  It's further intensified when the violence is as apparently unprovoked and directed at innocent bystanders as this most recent incident was.

I'm angry that this is being and will be sensationalized, compared to Columbine, etc. by the media.  The media, as always, love to focus on the tragedy, the bad news, the shocking thing.  They blow it out of proportion, and, by excessive exposure, glamorize it, whether they intend to or not.  It's gotten to the point that it's automatic for them.  It's just "what they do."  And by continuing this behavior, they send the message to their viewers/readers/listeners that infamy is the only thing that's newsworthy.   That bad and depraved actions are the norm.  And that human life is disposable.  There is so little focus on the more positive, or at least damage-mitigating sides of the journalistic coin, that no one cares for them.

For example, see if you can answer these questions, in the wake of the tragedy:  What resources are in place for the victims of the Aurora shooting?  What resources are there for people like the shooter, who might need help or watching?  How are they doing, funding-wise?  How did the local Chik-Fil-A help out in the immediate aftermath of the shooting?

Any answers I have to these questions didn't come from the mainstream media, who could find this out and report it in a heartbeat.  But no, they'd rather focus on the shooter, the panicked public reaction, and stupid comparisons of the influence The Dark Knight Rises had on the incident.  Grow a pair and try some actual journalism with standards, you morons.

I'm angry that this will be used by idealogues to try to influence the way you think and act.  Much like the media--who will sensationalize this to attract viewers/readers/listeners--pundits, talking heads, idealogues, and Rush Limbaugh will take a similar tack and try to say stupid things, like "This is the result of liberal/conservative stances on gun control! Think and vote the way I do and it'll go away!"  Religious fundamentalists might say this is God's/Allah's/Yahweh's punishment to people who aren't pious enough, and that Batman is the ultimate symbol of that infidelity.  We don't, as a culture, have the propriety to treat this for what it is--a horrific act of a lone madman--and leave it alone.  We have to subvert it for political purposes, and that pisses me off to no end.

I'm angry that more isn't done to prevent people like the shooter from getting to that point.  I'm not just talking about Barry Lyga's very practical implication that insane people shouldn't be allowed access to guns, though that would of course be helpful.  There are services, institutions, resources out there that help people with mental issues like this, and frankly they need more funding and better support from governments at all levels.  We're living in an economic world that is slowly and methodically destroying these resources, even as the need for them increases.  If an ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of cure, then why are we cutting back on spending for mental health facilities, treatment research, and staff to carry out these helpful services?

This last one's the most selfish, and the most personal.

I'm angry that, if it had  occurred somewhere else, any of my sisters could have been among the victims.  This of course applies to all my loved ones and friends, but I can't help it.  Whenever a shooting went on at a school, or any public place, my first impulse is to think of my three sisters and thank my lucky stars that they weren't shot at, or shot.  I'm the oldest child, and the only male among us, so I feel a strong sense of protection towards them, and the idea that even the remotest possibility exists that they could ever be involved in an incident such as Aurora fills me with a rage and uncertainty that I often just have to bury, lest it overwhelms me.

Because at this point, in this world, it ain't goin' away.

So, though I doubt anyone will hear this or be moved enough by it to act, I offer up a plea.  It's directed as much at the reporters and pundits as it is at the potential would-be shooters of the world, and it's this: whenever you act, think about your little sisters.  Think about your friends and loved ones.  Think about the kind of world you want them to live in, that you want to leave behind for them.  Act to bring that world about for them, so that we might all have it.

They don't deserve to grow up in a world where this kind of lunacy exists.  No one does.

Five Comic Book Movies Coming Out In 2012

Since today was the Super Bowl, traditionally a huge day for new comic book movie trailers (though not so much this year), I thought I'd go ahead and give my two cents on which comic book movies scheduled for release this year will likely get my filmgoing dollars.

I'm  generally pretty picky about when I go to see movies.  They either have to be from a franchise or mythology that I have affection for (think Harry Potter, Transformers, Spider-Man, the Muppets, etc.), or they have to be extremely imaginative, well-marketed, or recommended to me by people I trust (The Social Network, Avatar, and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World [at the time] fit this category for me).  Comic book movies generally fall into the first category for me, but even then it's not always a guarantee that I'll go see it.  I didn't, for example, see Daredevil in the theaters, thank goodness, and I've yet to watch either of the Fantastic Four movies at all.

Five fairly big movies are due out this year, though whether or not they all qualify as comic book movies is up for debate.  It seems like overall it'll be a pretty good year for comic book movies--particularly comic book movies that feature women in black leather.  I'll elaborate below:

• Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance--This one comes out in less than two weeks, and I have to say, it looks to be the least promising of the bunch.  Granted, it seems considerably darker and more serious in tone than its cheesy predecessor, but there are a few moments from the trailers that just look contrived, juvenile, or just plain bad.  Still, I rather did enjoy the first Ghost Rider, so I may give this one a shot despite my misgivings.  At the very least, I'll have plenty of words for the review if it's bad.

Scarlet Johansen in black leather?
Check!

• The Avengers--The only thing that would keep me from seeing this as soon as it releases would have to be a serious medical condition.  Seriously.  I've known--known, this was coming since I stayed behind after the end of Iron Man and saw the post-credits scene in 2008.  Iron Man?  Check.  Hulk?  Not the same actor, but check.  Thor?  Check.  Captain America?  Check.  Plenty of cameos tying their films together to create a unified cinematic universe?  Check.  Awesome writer, creator, comic book fanboy Joss Whedon directing?  Check.  Big, titanic, unknown threat to Earth requiring the formation of a team of heroes who otherwise probably shouldn't be working together?  Check.  This promises to be a superhero team movie extravaganza, and it looks like it will deliver the goods in spades at this point.  It was already a foregone conclusion that plenty of comic book nerds were going to check this one out, but with the premier of today's trailer during the SuperBowl, you can be sure that plenty of others will be joining them in lining up to see this one when it opens in about three months.

• G.I. Joe: Retaliation--Okay, a few things here.  First of all, calling G.I. Joe a comic book franchise is a shaky move, at best.  I remember it as a toy and a cartoon before a comic.  Granted, I wasn't reading comics at the time the cartoon came out, but clearly it existed as a toy line long before that.  Still, it had a significant run as a comic book series, so I suppose I'll give it a pass for that reason.  The next issue is the lackluster performance of the last G.I. Joe film, The Rise of Cobra.  Honestly, aside from watching Snake Eyes's action scenes, I was thoroughly disappointed.  With all of that said, however, I will also say that the trailers for this one look promising, as does the basic premise, in which they're framed and all but a few are killed, then must fight back on their own.  Will it get me into the theaters?  I'm not sure yet.  I'll probably wait to hear some initial reviews and make the call then, but at this point, I'm slightly leaning to yes... barely.

• The Amazing Spider-Man--Anyone who knows me has a pretty good idea that I'll see this one.  I'm a pretty big fan of all things Spider-Man, and thought the previous film franchise was pretty good.  This is a reboot, where they start from scratch again, and it looks like they're going to incorporate story elements that were hardly even considered in the first set of films--most notably the use of Gwen Stacey as a major character.  Its tone appears more subdued and dark than the previous movies as well, which I really like.  Oh, and last but not least, it looks like the Lizard is the main villain in this film--one of Spidey's oldest and, pound for pound, most dangerous foes.  You can bet I'll be in the theaters for this one.

Anne Hathaway in black leather?  Check!

• The Dark Knight Rises--Okay, first of all, if you haven't seen the first two Batman films done by Christopher Nolan, I'm forced to question your competence as a living being.  Seriously, like them or not (and there are people who don't like them), they put an important spin on the Batman mythology that continues to influence the comics every bit as much as they were influenced by them in their creation.  The Dark Knight Rises is the third and final story within this franchise.  Will the brutal new villain Bane break Batman, or worse, eight years after the events of the second movie?   Internal and external conflict abound in this film, and it sets up a mood that suggests that perhaps not everyone who used to be in Bruce's corner is necessarily there anymore.  The realism and premise of this franchise absolutely guarantees that I'll be in the theaters to see how this all plays out, possibly at a midnight premier showing.  Given the popularity of Nolan's work with these films thus far, you can bet I won't be the only one there.

Pondering Hero Death In Movies, and Realism vs. Genre Conventions

Man, speculate about a hero's death, and you will get an earful from the fans...

This article on Cracked.com offers up a pretty interesting (and, I think, persuasive) argument for Bruce Wayne not surviving the third of Nolan's film trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises, and that the mantle of the Bat will be passed on to a successor. Who knows if it's true. Regardless of whether or not it turns out to be correct, it got me thinking that it would a pretty brilliant way for Christopher Nolan to end the Batman movies he's worked on.

I told this to a friend, who did not agree, and our 10-minute phone call turned into an hour and a half debate about the conventions and rules that should be observed when working on modern mythologies. It was a pretty spirited discussion, and it got me thinking about some of the ways in which we comics enthusiasts transfer our expectations from the original medium of comics to the very different arena of film. A few points that came to mind tend to work in one medium, but not the other. Here are a few of them:

1. The Hero Must Not Die. By and large, this is overwhelmingly true in the comics. Even when the main character or a major one is killed off, he or she inevitably comes back. Superman, Green Lantern, Captain America, Jean Grey, and even the hated Jason Todd have proved this time and again. I usually blame this on lazy writing, and the fact that fictitious characters (ie, intellectual property) aren't really "alive" to kill in the first place, but even I will admit that in a serialized medium that should in theory never end, it's very tempting to want to bring back characters from the dead. In movies, however, this is less of a problem. Film is, essentially, a re-imagining of the source material, and given how expensive they are to make, one can't reasonably expect them to go on forever. It's reasonable to go in, tell a set of stories, and then effectively end that segment as an interpretation. It's not like films are canon to the comics. I also think that with comics, we're a little spoiled by an elastic timeline that allows us to essentially think of our heroes as ageless. Film does a lot to remove those assumptions, as actors age noticeably over time. Why not take that into account when interpreting the myth for this other medium? What, in essence, is wrong with Bruce Wayne dying at the end of a film trilogy? Wouldn't that be a more realistic end to what has been praised as a realistic interpretation of the Batman mythos?
2. I Don't Watch Movies For Realism. After all, how realistic is a guy dressing up as a bat and going out to fight crime, night after night? Good point. But saying that entertainment should be devoid of realism makes no sense. Why, then, watch anything that has humans in it at all? Humans are real, last I checked. Why aren't we, as grown up children, watching movies about animated bunnies all the time? Because we need a certain amount of verisimilitude in our fiction, so that we have points at which we can identify with it. There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a consistent internal set of rules in which a fictitious world can operate. And, to take it a little further, I think there's nothing wrong with altering those rules within the same mythology when someone else is making their own interpretation. The Nolan films are a perfect example of this. They've been heavily praised for their realism. And realistically, what can we expect in terms of a shelf-life of an individual who fights crime, day-in, day-out, pushing their body every day, for years? My guess is that a decade would be a generous estimate. If you want the legacy to continue, then why wouldn't you do succession planning for it? This is an idea we don't really think about because of the essentially ageless nature of comics, but that we would have to consider when placing our heroes outside the panels and into the "real" world.
3. Death Is Defeat. And therefore, why end the films on such a downer note? It's hard for me to hear this, because it's such an all-or-nothing approach. I've seen superheroes get trounced seven ways from Sunday, and still live to tell the tale. Is that a victory, just because they lived? And what about dying to protect something larger? Say, a city like Gotham, or loved ones, the way Ultimate Spider-Man did? Are those really losses? I think viewing death as an automatic defeat takes the potential for nobility and heroism down considerably for anyone who is supposed to consider themselves a hero. I'm more willing to accept the phrase that Senseless Death Is Defeat, or that Death For Death's Sake Is Defeat. But any death? Heroic sacrifices are a part and parcel of the superhero life, and those that result in the death of the hero are supposed to be the most heroic of all. I acknowledge that a lot is lost, and the victory would be costly, but I don't think it would diminish in any way the idea that a noble or heroic death is a victory.

These, of course, are my opinions, and I acknowledge there are plenty who will disagree with me. But I doubt I'll be the only person cheering the boldness of Nolan's decision, should Bruce's demise indeed come to pass in The Dark Knight Rises. He's done a good job of taking this mythos and exploring the considerations required for a more realistic superhero in a modern world. I'm sure he'll do the same thing again with this film, and this approach would be an indisputably original and unforgettable way to do it.