There are two kinds of people in the world, the 'why' people and the 'why not' people. 'Why' people are negative. You tell them you want to do something and they say (verbally or with a condescending facial expression) "why do you want to do that?" just because they don't understand your reasons. 'Why not' people are far more positive and say "Sure, why not?"
"I want to make a movie (or some other creative project)." (nose crinkes up) "Ew, why you wanna do that?" "Because it's fun!"
Or..."I want to make a movie." "Sure, why not! Sounds fun." To a 'why not' person "because it's fun" is a legitimate, satisfactory reason 'why', so they say "why not!"
Now, this is not to say that 'why not' people don't care about consequences or will do anything just because. If there are legitimate reasons not to do something, a 'why not' person can still be intelligent and realize the answer to their own question. "Why not?...oh, that's why!" They may seem like a 'why' person to someone who wants to do the foolish thing, but only because they asked 'why not' FIRST (being positive) and came up with good answers to said question.
"I want to smoke crack." "Well, why would you want to do that when (insert smart reasons not to smoke crack here)."
Notice that even though the 'why not' person is asking 'why', it's only because he has collected some reasons 'why not' and is sharing such. He is still a positive thinker. He just feels that your course of action is unwise. There is a BIG difference between that and someone judging your course of action and saying "why you wanna do that?" just because they don't get it.
The above examples illustrate how 'why' people can bring you down in creative endeavors, but they are particularly dangerous in spiritual matters. (Mark 8:31-33) Imagine a young person telling a non-witness 'why not' person (maybe a relative) that they want to go to Bethel and the person says "Sure, why not! It's something you believe in. You're young. Volunteer work is good for you. They train you, right? Go for it!" Even if they weren't witnesses, didn't understand the spiritual benefits and/or had concerns about the young one making a living, they were still positive. "Sure, why not?" It might be rare for a non-witness to think that way, but it illustrates how a positive 'why not' person can be a good influence on someone, how much better it is to surround yourself with 'why not' people and how inexcusable it would be for a witness to be a 'why' person when someone has spiritual goals, to pioneer etc. "You wanna pioneer? Why you wanna do that?" vs. "Sure why not? (pause) Oh, you got reproved last month? Well, um, I guess that's a reason why not, but once you get your restrictions lifted--why not? Go for it!"
Monday, April 15, 2013
Simon Baz vs. Miles Morales
In 2002, Marvel Comics came out with a line of comics called 'Ultimate', where they took their characters and de-aged them, starting their stories over again in a modern world of younger characters. Ultimate Spider-Man, Ultimate X-Men and The Ultimates (their version of the Avengers) were among my personal favorites and I collected them for a time. Then, I got broke and stopped collecting and when I tried to catch up, I found that the Ultimate line was doing these big, confusing events that they do sometimes to keep readers or boost sales. These big events that involve a million characters and sometimes they kill off characters or change things in some other big way. I don't care for those larger stories. I enjoyed the down-to-earth aspects of the younger Spider-Man and X-Men, so this did not catch my interest enough to get me collecting again.
Now, one of the ideas behind 'Ultimate' was that Marvel has allowed their characters to age. Spider-Man in the 'regular' Marvel universe was now in his 40's and he was a teacher and I think he and MJ were separated for a time and arguably Spider-Man is better as a younger character that the readers can relate to. This was why I personally liked about Ultimate Spider-Man at the time. But, wait ten years, I may start buying 'Middle Aged Spider-Man' (battling The Proctologist!!!) and eat it up.
At any rate, a year or two (or more) ago, the Ultimate Marvel line killed off their younger version of Peter Parker (Spider-Man to the layperson) and it was made clear that this would be the direction that the Ultimate line would be taking and this wasn't some one-issue plot twist. After Peter's death, brilliant writer who had done Ultimate Spider-Man for some time, Brian Michael Bendis, introduced a new half-black, half-Hispanic teenager (Miles Morales) that would take Spider-Man's place as the new Spider-Man in the Ultimate comics. We still have the older Spider-Man in the regular universe, but this would be the NEW Ultimate Spider-Man.
I thought that this was a terrible idea for a few reasons. But, first, I will explain what I had NO problem with. This was obviously an attempt to get more cultural diversity into comics, which I have no problem with. That is a long-welcome change. Not every black superhero in Marvel Comics should have the word 'Black' in their name (Black Panther) or be an African princess (Storm). Yes, I had an emotional attachment to the younger Peter Parker because I related to him more and thought he was funny and was sad to see him die. I guess what confused me about Miles Morales was that IF the attempt was to have the first multi-racial superhero in comics (which I am all for), why stick him in the costume of an established superhero instead of making him his own man? Wouldn't people who care about the racial aspect think that Marvel was pandering by the lack of creativity associated with "Yeah, Spider-Man's multi-racial now. Like Obama"? Why can't Peter Parker make a half-black, half-Hispanic friend who becomes a superhero (with his own identity) and they work together and Peter helps him through some prejudice that he suffers or something like that?
Now, I will freely admit that I have yet to read a Miles Morales Spider-Man comic book. These thoughts are just reactions to the concept. I love Brian Michael Bendis, I just purchased 'Spider-Men' (the comic where older Peter Parker and Miles meet in Peter's ‘alternate’ universe) and I have not read it yet. Maybe my thoughts will change, but I will always think that Spidey works better as a young character, whether Miles Morales wins me over or not.
I will now illustrate the problem that I had with Miles Morales replacing Spidey by talking about one of my favorite new comic books, the extremely original 'Green Lantern' over at DC. The writing (Geoff Johns) has been brilliant from the first issue. I love the unsteady alliance between Hal Jordan and Sinestro, how the Guardians are ‘shady’ now and the cliffhangers. I also love a recent storyline where the ring was bestowed to a Muslim man named Simon Baz. Usually, the ring gives itself to beings with noble qualities like being fearless and heroic. We meet Simon Baz, a criminal who had just stolen a truck not knowing that someone else had put a bomb in it and he gets accused of terrorism when he was just trying to make a living (dishonorably, sure). Then, the ring shows up and starts talking (Green Lantern rings can talk), telling Simon that he has been chosen, but the ring keeps saying ‘error…error’, like a damaged computer. The ring does give him super powers, allowing him to escape the feds. Simon tries to use the ring to set matters (that he messed up) right again, so maybe the ring did see something good in him. But now, the government is suspicious of the Green Lantern Corps. “I thought those rings chose people based on noble qualities!” says President Obama during a two-page cameo in one comic, before enlisting the Justice League to find Simon and take him in. And there’s a great cliffhanger in the last issue where his ring runs out of power because no one gave him a ‘lantern battery’ to recharge said ring and that alien GL who looks like a squirrel shows up and you’re like “I remember him! Awesome!”
“Now, wait a minute…” you say. “Green Lantern is an established superhero. Why is THAT not pandering, sticking a racial minority into that world?” And my answer is that, since Green Lantern is part of an intergalactic police force, there are millions of GLs already in that story, from all over the galaxy, including Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner and Guy Gardner (three white boys and John Stewart) from Earth, that there is always room for another and Simon Baz gives this group some cultural diversity, which is a good thing. From the moment we found out that there were GLs from all over the galaxy, there was always cultural diversity and this just brings that closer to home.
I may ‘soften’ about Miles Morales when I read ‘Spider-Men’, but I still maintain that he should have been introduced as his own thing. Killing off a teenage Peter Parker was unnecessary and done for shock value. DC didn’t need to kill off important main characters like Hal Jordan to introduce Simon Baz and that makes him a better fit to his respective universe.
Now, one of the ideas behind 'Ultimate' was that Marvel has allowed their characters to age. Spider-Man in the 'regular' Marvel universe was now in his 40's and he was a teacher and I think he and MJ were separated for a time and arguably Spider-Man is better as a younger character that the readers can relate to. This was why I personally liked about Ultimate Spider-Man at the time. But, wait ten years, I may start buying 'Middle Aged Spider-Man' (battling The Proctologist!!!) and eat it up.
At any rate, a year or two (or more) ago, the Ultimate Marvel line killed off their younger version of Peter Parker (Spider-Man to the layperson) and it was made clear that this would be the direction that the Ultimate line would be taking and this wasn't some one-issue plot twist. After Peter's death, brilliant writer who had done Ultimate Spider-Man for some time, Brian Michael Bendis, introduced a new half-black, half-Hispanic teenager (Miles Morales) that would take Spider-Man's place as the new Spider-Man in the Ultimate comics. We still have the older Spider-Man in the regular universe, but this would be the NEW Ultimate Spider-Man.
I thought that this was a terrible idea for a few reasons. But, first, I will explain what I had NO problem with. This was obviously an attempt to get more cultural diversity into comics, which I have no problem with. That is a long-welcome change. Not every black superhero in Marvel Comics should have the word 'Black' in their name (Black Panther) or be an African princess (Storm). Yes, I had an emotional attachment to the younger Peter Parker because I related to him more and thought he was funny and was sad to see him die. I guess what confused me about Miles Morales was that IF the attempt was to have the first multi-racial superhero in comics (which I am all for), why stick him in the costume of an established superhero instead of making him his own man? Wouldn't people who care about the racial aspect think that Marvel was pandering by the lack of creativity associated with "Yeah, Spider-Man's multi-racial now. Like Obama"? Why can't Peter Parker make a half-black, half-Hispanic friend who becomes a superhero (with his own identity) and they work together and Peter helps him through some prejudice that he suffers or something like that?
Now, I will freely admit that I have yet to read a Miles Morales Spider-Man comic book. These thoughts are just reactions to the concept. I love Brian Michael Bendis, I just purchased 'Spider-Men' (the comic where older Peter Parker and Miles meet in Peter's ‘alternate’ universe) and I have not read it yet. Maybe my thoughts will change, but I will always think that Spidey works better as a young character, whether Miles Morales wins me over or not.
I will now illustrate the problem that I had with Miles Morales replacing Spidey by talking about one of my favorite new comic books, the extremely original 'Green Lantern' over at DC. The writing (Geoff Johns) has been brilliant from the first issue. I love the unsteady alliance between Hal Jordan and Sinestro, how the Guardians are ‘shady’ now and the cliffhangers. I also love a recent storyline where the ring was bestowed to a Muslim man named Simon Baz. Usually, the ring gives itself to beings with noble qualities like being fearless and heroic. We meet Simon Baz, a criminal who had just stolen a truck not knowing that someone else had put a bomb in it and he gets accused of terrorism when he was just trying to make a living (dishonorably, sure). Then, the ring shows up and starts talking (Green Lantern rings can talk), telling Simon that he has been chosen, but the ring keeps saying ‘error…error’, like a damaged computer. The ring does give him super powers, allowing him to escape the feds. Simon tries to use the ring to set matters (that he messed up) right again, so maybe the ring did see something good in him. But now, the government is suspicious of the Green Lantern Corps. “I thought those rings chose people based on noble qualities!” says President Obama during a two-page cameo in one comic, before enlisting the Justice League to find Simon and take him in. And there’s a great cliffhanger in the last issue where his ring runs out of power because no one gave him a ‘lantern battery’ to recharge said ring and that alien GL who looks like a squirrel shows up and you’re like “I remember him! Awesome!”
“Now, wait a minute…” you say. “Green Lantern is an established superhero. Why is THAT not pandering, sticking a racial minority into that world?” And my answer is that, since Green Lantern is part of an intergalactic police force, there are millions of GLs already in that story, from all over the galaxy, including Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner and Guy Gardner (three white boys and John Stewart) from Earth, that there is always room for another and Simon Baz gives this group some cultural diversity, which is a good thing. From the moment we found out that there were GLs from all over the galaxy, there was always cultural diversity and this just brings that closer to home.
I may ‘soften’ about Miles Morales when I read ‘Spider-Men’, but I still maintain that he should have been introduced as his own thing. Killing off a teenage Peter Parker was unnecessary and done for shock value. DC didn’t need to kill off important main characters like Hal Jordan to introduce Simon Baz and that makes him a better fit to his respective universe.
I didn't buy the shirt
I was online, considering the purchase of a 'Han shot first' T-shirt when I started thinking about all of the changes that have been made to the original 'Star Wars' trilogy over the years. Some of them I mind and share the nerd rage that you might read on certain websites and others I don't care about. Many of the changes that have been made were made back in the 80's, when my generation was young, things that no one even talks about. Even adding 'episode IV: a new hope' to the original was a change because it was not there in 1977. There were other changes made to those movies, even before the 20th anniversary Special Edition in 1997, just improving the quality of the film and making certain things clearer and no one complains about getting a more up-close shot of the Jawas Sand Speeder than was there originally or the echo before Luke and Leia swung across the shaft. I understand changes that were made to improve special effects that they could not do well in 1977-83 AND (unlike some fans) I like the changes they made to sync up all 6 movies (the old with the prequels)...except for one (read on). I like making the Mos Eisley spaceport bigger and more spacious and busier-looking because it makes sense that a spaceport would be busy like an airport. I understand getting a more up-close shot of the Stormtroopers riding on dewbacks because in the original, all they had was a rubber mannequin that they could stick in the background and move the head. They were there to begin with and so they didn't change anything, although some fans thought that was an addition. The same goes for seeing more of the Wampa in 'Empire', the explosion of Alderaan and the Death Star looking cooler, the song and dance sequence in Jabba's palace and making the windows in Cloud City look like it is a city in the clouds, because it is. I don't even mind Yoda being computer generated in 'Phantom Menace', because it matches the rest of the prequels (as long as they don't touch the puppet in 'Empire' and 'Jedi'). See, I am nostalgic sometimes. Yoda was CG when he was walking at the end of 'Menace' and he doesn't do much but sit in that movie anyway, so let him look like the other prequels.
Yes, the first thing that comes to people's minds when they think of Star Wars changes was Greedo shooting first. The reason that this angers fans is because it changes Han's character, from a tough space pirate who softens when he falls in love with Leia and/or gets direction in his life by joining the Rebel Alliance to a softer character to begin with. And if you think that, since Han Solo is a nice guy at heart, it makes more sense that he would only shoot Greedo if he was shot at first, watch the scene in 'Return of the Jedi' in Jabba's palace where Luke uses his force powers to steal someone's blaster and tries to shoot Jabba in the face before he falls into the rancor pit. Luke is a full-fledged Jedi at this point and he has no moral objection to shooting a bad guy in the face, why wouldn't the (agnostic?) smuggler who doesn't believe in the Force shoot Greedo first?
And the scene that puts Jabba the Hutt in the first 'Star Wars' film? Nostalgia tells me that 'Star Wars' was cooler when Han kept talking about Jabba and you never saw him until 'Jedi'. Storywise, the dialogue between Han and Greedo covers the same points as his conversation with Jabba. Yes, they added Boba Fett so that the 'Star Wars Holiday Special' is no longer his first (adult) appearance chronologically, but no, that was still not an improvement. Seriously, if a 'vile gangster' was owed money by someone and was threatening him, would he tolerate him stepping on his tail? Picture that same scene in the 'Godfather', someone stepping on Don Corleone's tail. He'd get shot. Alot. By James Caan.
AND, I know that I will get some fans rolling their eyes, but I like Darth Vader yelling "Noooooo!" at the end of 'Jedi', simply because it bridges the gap between 'Jedi' and the prequels. It doesn't ruin the impact of that scene, which is Darth Vader looking back and forth, mirroring a scene in 'Sith' where he kills Mace Windu and making the right choice this time, throwing Palpantine into the reactor instead of protecting him. That scene connects 'Jedi' to the prequels anyway, so adding "Noooooo!" doesn't ruin anything. Either does the Ewoks blinking. No one likes the Ewoks anyway. Let them blink and enjoy the dark drama in the Emperor's throne room just like you did when you first saw it as a kid. I have mixed feelings about the changed music to the ending of 'Jedi', though. I like the idea of showing the other planets celebrating the fall of the Empire, but my rose-colored nostalgia glasses tell me that 'Yub-yub' was a better song. They should have shown the other planets and kept 'Yub-yub'.
Now, the one change that is arguably worse than Greedo shooting first is putting the younger Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) as the 'force ghost' at the end of 'Jedi'. Yes, Anakin was a good guy when he was younger, but he redeemed himself as an older man. And when Luke looks over and sees Yoda, Obi-Wan (Obi-Wan is older) and his father, how would he even recognize the younger version of Anakin? He just took the helmet off of the older version and saw what the older version looked like. Anakin got toasted on a lava planet before Luke was even born. You could always argue that Luke could 'sense' who it was with the Force, but...no...putting the younger actor as the 'force ghost' makes no sense. When Marty saw the younger version of his father in 'Back to the Future', he looked confused. Luke looks over at young Anakin and has the same smile on his face. He would have been like "Um, Obi-Wan? Who's that guy?" And then all of the children that Anakin slaughtered in 'Sith' would have also appeared and made the whole scene 'Shining' creepy.
So, as you can see, I am not as uptight as some fans, but Han should have shot first, Jabba shouldn't be in 'episode IV' and they should have kept the older actor for Vader at the end of 'Jedi'. Yub-yub.
Yes, the first thing that comes to people's minds when they think of Star Wars changes was Greedo shooting first. The reason that this angers fans is because it changes Han's character, from a tough space pirate who softens when he falls in love with Leia and/or gets direction in his life by joining the Rebel Alliance to a softer character to begin with. And if you think that, since Han Solo is a nice guy at heart, it makes more sense that he would only shoot Greedo if he was shot at first, watch the scene in 'Return of the Jedi' in Jabba's palace where Luke uses his force powers to steal someone's blaster and tries to shoot Jabba in the face before he falls into the rancor pit. Luke is a full-fledged Jedi at this point and he has no moral objection to shooting a bad guy in the face, why wouldn't the (agnostic?) smuggler who doesn't believe in the Force shoot Greedo first?
And the scene that puts Jabba the Hutt in the first 'Star Wars' film? Nostalgia tells me that 'Star Wars' was cooler when Han kept talking about Jabba and you never saw him until 'Jedi'. Storywise, the dialogue between Han and Greedo covers the same points as his conversation with Jabba. Yes, they added Boba Fett so that the 'Star Wars Holiday Special' is no longer his first (adult) appearance chronologically, but no, that was still not an improvement. Seriously, if a 'vile gangster' was owed money by someone and was threatening him, would he tolerate him stepping on his tail? Picture that same scene in the 'Godfather', someone stepping on Don Corleone's tail. He'd get shot. Alot. By James Caan.
AND, I know that I will get some fans rolling their eyes, but I like Darth Vader yelling "Noooooo!" at the end of 'Jedi', simply because it bridges the gap between 'Jedi' and the prequels. It doesn't ruin the impact of that scene, which is Darth Vader looking back and forth, mirroring a scene in 'Sith' where he kills Mace Windu and making the right choice this time, throwing Palpantine into the reactor instead of protecting him. That scene connects 'Jedi' to the prequels anyway, so adding "Noooooo!" doesn't ruin anything. Either does the Ewoks blinking. No one likes the Ewoks anyway. Let them blink and enjoy the dark drama in the Emperor's throne room just like you did when you first saw it as a kid. I have mixed feelings about the changed music to the ending of 'Jedi', though. I like the idea of showing the other planets celebrating the fall of the Empire, but my rose-colored nostalgia glasses tell me that 'Yub-yub' was a better song. They should have shown the other planets and kept 'Yub-yub'.
Now, the one change that is arguably worse than Greedo shooting first is putting the younger Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) as the 'force ghost' at the end of 'Jedi'. Yes, Anakin was a good guy when he was younger, but he redeemed himself as an older man. And when Luke looks over and sees Yoda, Obi-Wan (Obi-Wan is older) and his father, how would he even recognize the younger version of Anakin? He just took the helmet off of the older version and saw what the older version looked like. Anakin got toasted on a lava planet before Luke was even born. You could always argue that Luke could 'sense' who it was with the Force, but...no...putting the younger actor as the 'force ghost' makes no sense. When Marty saw the younger version of his father in 'Back to the Future', he looked confused. Luke looks over at young Anakin and has the same smile on his face. He would have been like "Um, Obi-Wan? Who's that guy?" And then all of the children that Anakin slaughtered in 'Sith' would have also appeared and made the whole scene 'Shining' creepy.
So, as you can see, I am not as uptight as some fans, but Han should have shot first, Jabba shouldn't be in 'episode IV' and they should have kept the older actor for Vader at the end of 'Jedi'. Yub-yub.
LEGO my childhood
I am one of those geeks who is quite snobby about making changes to something that I have liked for years when they make a movie out of it, but I am not as bad as some. Changes made to a character's costume to make it more realistic (Wolverine's yellow spandex) are fine. Organic web shooters on Spider-Man are fine as long as he is a relatable character who becomes a superhero. Flames on Optimus Prime are fine. Optimus Prime's character was the only thing that was well-done in all three Transformers films. My basic rule is that any changes to the character or any indication that the filmmakers are not taking the characters seriously is the problem with alot of these adaptations. Batman's parents were murdered in front of him and that's why he's Batman, which is why any version of Batman where they try to make him light-hearted doesn't work. The Ninja Turtles work both dark and funny ('Secret of the Ooze' was siller than the first film, but took the characters seriously), Batman does not work funny. Star Wars fans were upset that Greedo shot first because Han Solo's story arc was supposed to be that he grew up hard (read the Han Solo trilogy books) and softened when he met Princess Leia. It changes his character if he is a nicer guy at the beginning of the story.
Because of this, I do tend to roll my eyes when they come out with something like 'Brave and the Bold', a cartoon network Batman cartoon that does a great job of teaming Batman up with many DC characters that have not been done before, but...it is a little 'Adam West'. I also tend to roll my eyes at LEGO Batman and LEGO Star Wars and all of these Lego versions of better things. I do tend to forget that, I would not know much about any of the DC superheroes if it were not for the always-corny 'Super Friends' when I was a kid. Yes, 'Justice League' was a better written, more character-driven version (Same with the Ninja Turtles, the original cartoon was corny and then they did a better one in the 2000's) but I know many comic book fans whose first exposure to superheroes was 'Super Friends'. And it was the original 1980's Turtle cartoon that helped me to sniff out the original comics. They were actually the first time that I realized that the superheroes I was watching on TV came from comic books. They may have changed things to appeal to a younger audience and sell toys, but we live in a country that frowns upon comic books. They have ever since the book 'Seduction of the Innocent' blamed comic books for juvinelle crime in the 1950's. Japan's comic book industry has as many comic books as there are TV shows. There, it is not uncommon for old ladies to be seen reading soap opera comic books on the subway, but in this country, anyone over the age of 12 who collects comic books is seen as 'a little weird'. The comic book industry needs the watered-down versions of these properties that appeal to younger kids and sell toys to survive. And then every now and then, you will get 'Batman: the animated series' that appeals to older fans as well. Or they will make a movie like 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' that goes back to the original subject matter despite the campy changes that the cartoon made.
So, I have concluded that LEGO Batman and LEGO Star Wars is the 'Super Friends' of this generation, a 'gateway drug' into good comic book adaptations just like 'Super Friends' was for me. It is less violent than the real thing (the characters fall apart and come back together) and it gets kids hooked on those characters for when they get older and pushes the genre forward in a way that it is difficult for a comic book snob like me to admit.
Because of this, I do tend to roll my eyes when they come out with something like 'Brave and the Bold', a cartoon network Batman cartoon that does a great job of teaming Batman up with many DC characters that have not been done before, but...it is a little 'Adam West'. I also tend to roll my eyes at LEGO Batman and LEGO Star Wars and all of these Lego versions of better things. I do tend to forget that, I would not know much about any of the DC superheroes if it were not for the always-corny 'Super Friends' when I was a kid. Yes, 'Justice League' was a better written, more character-driven version (Same with the Ninja Turtles, the original cartoon was corny and then they did a better one in the 2000's) but I know many comic book fans whose first exposure to superheroes was 'Super Friends'. And it was the original 1980's Turtle cartoon that helped me to sniff out the original comics. They were actually the first time that I realized that the superheroes I was watching on TV came from comic books. They may have changed things to appeal to a younger audience and sell toys, but we live in a country that frowns upon comic books. They have ever since the book 'Seduction of the Innocent' blamed comic books for juvinelle crime in the 1950's. Japan's comic book industry has as many comic books as there are TV shows. There, it is not uncommon for old ladies to be seen reading soap opera comic books on the subway, but in this country, anyone over the age of 12 who collects comic books is seen as 'a little weird'. The comic book industry needs the watered-down versions of these properties that appeal to younger kids and sell toys to survive. And then every now and then, you will get 'Batman: the animated series' that appeals to older fans as well. Or they will make a movie like 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' that goes back to the original subject matter despite the campy changes that the cartoon made.
So, I have concluded that LEGO Batman and LEGO Star Wars is the 'Super Friends' of this generation, a 'gateway drug' into good comic book adaptations just like 'Super Friends' was for me. It is less violent than the real thing (the characters fall apart and come back together) and it gets kids hooked on those characters for when they get older and pushes the genre forward in a way that it is difficult for a comic book snob like me to admit.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
reflections on turtlegate
Before the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie came out, there was news on the Internet that Sam Raimi was changing one aspect of the Spider-Man character. When Peter Parker got bitten by the radioactive spider, he was going to gain the ability to shoot webs out of his wrists. "Hasn't he always spun webs out of his wrists?" you ask because you have never read a comic book and your only point of reference to Spider-Man prior to 2002 was the cartoon in the 70's where he roomed with Iceman and that was a long time ago. "Well, yeah," a comic book geek would reply. "But he built a machine to attach to his wrists. In the comics, they didn't come out of his wrists organically. They changed that for the movie." Then, the comic book geek would get a dirty look and you'd be like "whatever" and you'd be right. Giving Spidey organic web-shooters did not change the character at all, Spidey was still a high school nerd who becomes a superhero and makes nerds, geeks and dweebs in the audience cheer for him. I DO like how they are giving Spidey back his regular web-shooters in the reboot (summer 2012) AND that they are having him date Gwen Stacey first (like in the comics), which I found a far more offensive change than the web-shooter thing. But despite the fact that I was cool with it, the Internet is usually abuzz with hateful posts when they change the slightest little thing from the original subject matter. For the record, I didn't care that they put flames on Optimus Prime in 'Transformers'. He was still the same character. He was voiced by the same guy from the cartoon. The things that were horrible about the sequels had nothing to do with Optimus Prime having a flame decal on the side. He was still a great character and the best part of two terrible sequels. The reasons that 'Green Lantern' was a terrible movie had NOTHING to do with the fact that his costume was computer generated (an idea I actually liked), something that bloggers were complaining about. It was the story and the acting and everything else that movies are about that made GL suck. Comic book fans will cite 'The Dark Knight' as being one of the best comic book movies ever made, DESPITE the fact that they completely changed something that has been a staple of Joker's character for years, the fact that he fell in acid. Chris Nolan completely ignored that, but the movie was SO awesome that nerdy bloggers who usually complain about stuff like that didn't even notice that the Joker was an anarchist in clown makeup.
As you can see from the above examples, changes to the 'mechanics' of a comic book character are okay in the name of giving the movie more realism (no yellow spandex on Wolverine), as long as the character is not changed. As long as the Joker is still a murderer who laughs at his own antics, Optimus Prime is still the highly-respected leader of the Autobots, as long as Wolverine is Wolverine, as long as Spider-Man is a nerdy kid who gets superpowers (unlike that bad 1970's TV show where he was an adult) and as long as Han Solo shoots Greedo first in cold blood under the table because he was kinda shady before he fell in love with Princess Leia.
Which brings me to the matter that is the subject of this essay, 'turtle gate', as it is being called. Citing the above examples, I can say that fans of comic book adaptations DO tend to complain about things that are not important to making a good superhero movie. Their complaints are only legitimate if the change alters the character dramatically. So, when Michael Bay made an announcement about the new Ninja Turtle movie and said that they were "from an alien race", every comic book fan that was staring blankly at their computer started to run the TMNT backstory in their mind, from the cartoons, the comics AND the movie (which was a mix of the comics and the cartoon). "Wait a minute? Did he say that they ARE aliens? I mean, I was hoping they would have some aliens in the movie, cuz they have better special effects now and there were aliens in the comics, but...huh?" Every TMNT fan started wondering why Master Splinter was not mentioned, as his involvement in the turtles' origin is why they are ninjas to begin with. "Is he going to be an alien too? Another planet of rat people, somehow involved with Turtletron (or whatever)? Are they going to take him out completely? What of his connection with Shredder and the Foot Clan? Is Shredder going to be in it? Is Shredder like Darth Vader now? Darth Vader with spikes?" Michael Bay's assurance that the turtles would LOOK awesome visually and his mention that he was working with one of the original creators of the Ninja Turtles did NOTHING to stop the nuclear bomb of hateful posts from fans who KNEW what a big change this alien element would be. As you can tell, I follow comic-book movie news and I have NEVER seen anything like this. Not just a few whiny comments about Spidey's wrists, angry posts from people who have a legitimate cause for complaint, as this is a much bigger change than a costume or a flame decal.
When Peter Laird wrote some obviously sarcastic comments on his blog about how 'brilliant' the new alien idea was, it was obvious to real fans which one of the turtles creators Michael Bay was working with (Kevin Eastman). "Kevin's work is always awesome! He does the new IDW comic! It's really good! They're still mutants in that comic! Has Kevin Eastman sold us out??? Peter Laird doesn't like the idea!" Michael Bay's assurance that they would still act like teenagers, even though Paramount Pictures had shortened the name of the movie to just 'Ninja Turtles' (cutting out the 'Teenage' AND the 'Mutant') did nothing to make fans ignore the worst part of this whole controversy...."they're making the Ninja Turtles' ALIENS???"
Enter Jonathan Liebesman, the director of the Ninja Turtle reboot, who addressed the controversy in an Internet video by saying that he was glad that Ninja Turtles has such an enthusiastic fan base, following his comments about being in a room with Kevin Eastman working out the details by saying "I'm not saying that what Michael said is what the movie is..." He also mentioned how he is a big ninja turtle fan and how "real fans" would know that the ooze came from aliens. "Yes, you idiot!" screamed every TMNT fan in the world. "That's what we're mad about! The OOZE came from aliens! NOT The turtles!!! Just tell us they are MUTANTS again and we'll go back to bashing DC's New 52!!!"
Having a man who was NOT responsible for ruining the Transformers comment on the controversy seems to have calmed things down amongst blogging TMNT fans. I would love to have Professor Xavier's power to read minds when Liebesman said that to find out what he was really thinking. "I don't want to tick off Michael Bay because he's producing this movie, but we're milking this controversy for all the press we can get and yeah, he misspoke, the OOZE is alien! We'll announce that later, but right now, Michael Bay is making me be cryptic. He's a jerk, seriously!"
As I am writing this, I am hopeful that Bay misspoke and that they will announce (soon, I hope) that the turtles WILL be mutants. I, for one, welcome a big-budget TMNT film where the turtles look super realistic and FIGHT aliens (like the Utroms...maybe the Triceratons in a sequel). This may blow over, but after this, even though it altered Han Solo's character, Greedo shooting first doesn't seem like a big deal.
UPDATE: A few more comments have been made about this film by co-TMNT comic book creator Kevin Eastman. He has said a few things about how the new film should be faithful to the original subject matter ("or we're gonna get killed") Both he and Liebesman point out that the Turtles have always had alien origin in that the OOZE came from space, but they talk about it like THAT and making the turtles aliens themselves is the same thing. "Yeah, what's the big deal? They've always been from space." I maintain that the fact that Master Splinter has not been mentioned by any of the news about this movie is the most alarming thing of all.
As you can see from the above examples, changes to the 'mechanics' of a comic book character are okay in the name of giving the movie more realism (no yellow spandex on Wolverine), as long as the character is not changed. As long as the Joker is still a murderer who laughs at his own antics, Optimus Prime is still the highly-respected leader of the Autobots, as long as Wolverine is Wolverine, as long as Spider-Man is a nerdy kid who gets superpowers (unlike that bad 1970's TV show where he was an adult) and as long as Han Solo shoots Greedo first in cold blood under the table because he was kinda shady before he fell in love with Princess Leia.
Which brings me to the matter that is the subject of this essay, 'turtle gate', as it is being called. Citing the above examples, I can say that fans of comic book adaptations DO tend to complain about things that are not important to making a good superhero movie. Their complaints are only legitimate if the change alters the character dramatically. So, when Michael Bay made an announcement about the new Ninja Turtle movie and said that they were "from an alien race", every comic book fan that was staring blankly at their computer started to run the TMNT backstory in their mind, from the cartoons, the comics AND the movie (which was a mix of the comics and the cartoon). "Wait a minute? Did he say that they ARE aliens? I mean, I was hoping they would have some aliens in the movie, cuz they have better special effects now and there were aliens in the comics, but...huh?" Every TMNT fan started wondering why Master Splinter was not mentioned, as his involvement in the turtles' origin is why they are ninjas to begin with. "Is he going to be an alien too? Another planet of rat people, somehow involved with Turtletron (or whatever)? Are they going to take him out completely? What of his connection with Shredder and the Foot Clan? Is Shredder going to be in it? Is Shredder like Darth Vader now? Darth Vader with spikes?" Michael Bay's assurance that the turtles would LOOK awesome visually and his mention that he was working with one of the original creators of the Ninja Turtles did NOTHING to stop the nuclear bomb of hateful posts from fans who KNEW what a big change this alien element would be. As you can tell, I follow comic-book movie news and I have NEVER seen anything like this. Not just a few whiny comments about Spidey's wrists, angry posts from people who have a legitimate cause for complaint, as this is a much bigger change than a costume or a flame decal.
When Peter Laird wrote some obviously sarcastic comments on his blog about how 'brilliant' the new alien idea was, it was obvious to real fans which one of the turtles creators Michael Bay was working with (Kevin Eastman). "Kevin's work is always awesome! He does the new IDW comic! It's really good! They're still mutants in that comic! Has Kevin Eastman sold us out??? Peter Laird doesn't like the idea!" Michael Bay's assurance that they would still act like teenagers, even though Paramount Pictures had shortened the name of the movie to just 'Ninja Turtles' (cutting out the 'Teenage' AND the 'Mutant') did nothing to make fans ignore the worst part of this whole controversy...."they're making the Ninja Turtles' ALIENS???"
Enter Jonathan Liebesman, the director of the Ninja Turtle reboot, who addressed the controversy in an Internet video by saying that he was glad that Ninja Turtles has such an enthusiastic fan base, following his comments about being in a room with Kevin Eastman working out the details by saying "I'm not saying that what Michael said is what the movie is..." He also mentioned how he is a big ninja turtle fan and how "real fans" would know that the ooze came from aliens. "Yes, you idiot!" screamed every TMNT fan in the world. "That's what we're mad about! The OOZE came from aliens! NOT The turtles!!! Just tell us they are MUTANTS again and we'll go back to bashing DC's New 52!!!"
Having a man who was NOT responsible for ruining the Transformers comment on the controversy seems to have calmed things down amongst blogging TMNT fans. I would love to have Professor Xavier's power to read minds when Liebesman said that to find out what he was really thinking. "I don't want to tick off Michael Bay because he's producing this movie, but we're milking this controversy for all the press we can get and yeah, he misspoke, the OOZE is alien! We'll announce that later, but right now, Michael Bay is making me be cryptic. He's a jerk, seriously!"
As I am writing this, I am hopeful that Bay misspoke and that they will announce (soon, I hope) that the turtles WILL be mutants. I, for one, welcome a big-budget TMNT film where the turtles look super realistic and FIGHT aliens (like the Utroms...maybe the Triceratons in a sequel). This may blow over, but after this, even though it altered Han Solo's character, Greedo shooting first doesn't seem like a big deal.
UPDATE: A few more comments have been made about this film by co-TMNT comic book creator Kevin Eastman. He has said a few things about how the new film should be faithful to the original subject matter ("or we're gonna get killed") Both he and Liebesman point out that the Turtles have always had alien origin in that the OOZE came from space, but they talk about it like THAT and making the turtles aliens themselves is the same thing. "Yeah, what's the big deal? They've always been from space." I maintain that the fact that Master Splinter has not been mentioned by any of the news about this movie is the most alarming thing of all.
Monday, March 5, 2012
What I like about 'The Man of Steel'...
The new Superman movie, coming in 2013, is (reportedly) going to be called 'The Man of Steel'. Everything that I have read about the production of this film, I totally like. Here is a list and why.
1) CHRIS NOLAN: The man who successfully rebooted Batman in the movies 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight' is going to be the producer on this new Superman film. David S. Goyer wrote both the above-mentioned films and he will be writing this one.
2) ZACK SNYDER is the director. As long as he is not allowed to write the film, like he did with 'Sucker Punch', he will no doubt use his awesome eye for special effects to show off how powerful Superman is. Awesome director. Sucky writer.
3) LAURENCE FISHBURNE. Morpheous from 'The Matrix' will the first black actor to portray Daily Planet editor Perry White. Ignore the color of his skin, watch his performance in 'Mission Impossible 3' as the no-nonsense leader of the IMF team and tell me that he is not perfect to play Perry White. I like the innovation of looking past his skin color as well as him as an actor.
4) REBOOT. Bryan Singer tried to make a Superman movie that was connected to the Richard Donner Superman film and it was incredibly boring. Another studio tried to make a Ninja Turtle cartoon movie that was connected to a long dead movie series and that sucked. Star Trek and Batman Begins started over with a fresh take and they were great. This is what they are doing with Superman and that is awesome.
5) RUSSELL CROWE as Jor-El. Because they are starting over, there will be scenes that take place on Krypton, flashbacks or otherwise. I hear Russell Crowe is a jerk in real life, but he's a great actor and he'd make a good Jor-El.
6) KEVIN COSTNER and DIANE LANE as Jonathan and Martha Kent. I like Martha Kent better as a younger mother than the doting old lady that was shown in the Christopher Reeves Superman films (and the comics for some time) They picked an attractive older woman similar to what they did with Annette O'Tool playing Marha Kent in 'Smallville'. Also, it's cool that they are doing the more recent comic book storyline where Jonathan Kent survives into Superman's adult life, instead of having him die before Superman leaves the farm, like in the first film. I assume they are, judging by Kevin Costner's age. Dude is getting up there.
7) GENERAL ZOD is the villian. One of the reasons that Superman Returns was so incredibly boring was that Superman had no one that he could actually fight, despite the fact that the comics have given him countless characters that could pose a physical threat to Krypton's last son (Parasite, Metallo, Darkseid etc.) The only person in Superman Returns who got beat up was Superman himself. He got stabbed with a Kryptonite shank (like a chump!) 'Superman II' (back in the 80's) had the promising concept of Superman fighting three Kryptonian villians, but the special effects were so poor at that time, the scene is rather laughable (and it probably was back then too). I love the idea of someone with Zack Snyder's talent for special effects tackling an epic fight between Superman and someone he can really duke it out with.
8) AMY ADAMS as Lois Lane. I am just curious to see someone who is known for playing sugary-sweet characters (The Muppets. Enchanted.) play tough as nails reporter/bad speller Lois Lane. She's a good actress. I'm sure she can pull it off.
9) HENRY CAVILL as Clark Kent/Superman. Looks the part. Hope he's a good actor. Should be awesome.
10) NEW DC COMICS CONTINUITY COSTUME. I am surprised that they haven't taken the red underwear off of Superman's costume sooner, but this movie will be following suit with the newest DC Comics version of his costume. My only complaint is that they don't have the red belt that he has in the comics. Because Superman has had red underwear over his pants for 70+ years, the red belt works because you instinctively want to see more red on his costume. Maybe they will add the red belt later or maybe I will get used to the extra amount of blue. Either way, the costume looks awesome, as I prefer the bigger 'S' on Superman's costume that this movie seems to have.
1) CHRIS NOLAN: The man who successfully rebooted Batman in the movies 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight' is going to be the producer on this new Superman film. David S. Goyer wrote both the above-mentioned films and he will be writing this one.
2) ZACK SNYDER is the director. As long as he is not allowed to write the film, like he did with 'Sucker Punch', he will no doubt use his awesome eye for special effects to show off how powerful Superman is. Awesome director. Sucky writer.
3) LAURENCE FISHBURNE. Morpheous from 'The Matrix' will the first black actor to portray Daily Planet editor Perry White. Ignore the color of his skin, watch his performance in 'Mission Impossible 3' as the no-nonsense leader of the IMF team and tell me that he is not perfect to play Perry White. I like the innovation of looking past his skin color as well as him as an actor.
4) REBOOT. Bryan Singer tried to make a Superman movie that was connected to the Richard Donner Superman film and it was incredibly boring. Another studio tried to make a Ninja Turtle cartoon movie that was connected to a long dead movie series and that sucked. Star Trek and Batman Begins started over with a fresh take and they were great. This is what they are doing with Superman and that is awesome.
5) RUSSELL CROWE as Jor-El. Because they are starting over, there will be scenes that take place on Krypton, flashbacks or otherwise. I hear Russell Crowe is a jerk in real life, but he's a great actor and he'd make a good Jor-El.
6) KEVIN COSTNER and DIANE LANE as Jonathan and Martha Kent. I like Martha Kent better as a younger mother than the doting old lady that was shown in the Christopher Reeves Superman films (and the comics for some time) They picked an attractive older woman similar to what they did with Annette O'Tool playing Marha Kent in 'Smallville'. Also, it's cool that they are doing the more recent comic book storyline where Jonathan Kent survives into Superman's adult life, instead of having him die before Superman leaves the farm, like in the first film. I assume they are, judging by Kevin Costner's age. Dude is getting up there.
7) GENERAL ZOD is the villian. One of the reasons that Superman Returns was so incredibly boring was that Superman had no one that he could actually fight, despite the fact that the comics have given him countless characters that could pose a physical threat to Krypton's last son (Parasite, Metallo, Darkseid etc.) The only person in Superman Returns who got beat up was Superman himself. He got stabbed with a Kryptonite shank (like a chump!) 'Superman II' (back in the 80's) had the promising concept of Superman fighting three Kryptonian villians, but the special effects were so poor at that time, the scene is rather laughable (and it probably was back then too). I love the idea of someone with Zack Snyder's talent for special effects tackling an epic fight between Superman and someone he can really duke it out with.
8) AMY ADAMS as Lois Lane. I am just curious to see someone who is known for playing sugary-sweet characters (The Muppets. Enchanted.) play tough as nails reporter/bad speller Lois Lane. She's a good actress. I'm sure she can pull it off.
9) HENRY CAVILL as Clark Kent/Superman. Looks the part. Hope he's a good actor. Should be awesome.
10) NEW DC COMICS CONTINUITY COSTUME. I am surprised that they haven't taken the red underwear off of Superman's costume sooner, but this movie will be following suit with the newest DC Comics version of his costume. My only complaint is that they don't have the red belt that he has in the comics. Because Superman has had red underwear over his pants for 70+ years, the red belt works because you instinctively want to see more red on his costume. Maybe they will add the red belt later or maybe I will get used to the extra amount of blue. Either way, the costume looks awesome, as I prefer the bigger 'S' on Superman's costume that this movie seems to have.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
No More Muppets for Brian
There is a scene in the new 'Muppets' movie where the Muppets are going from one TV station to another, trying to find someone who will air a telethon that will (hopefully) save their old theatre (from the original Muppet Show) from getting bulldozed. The TV exec who finally gives them a shot initially turns them down by telling them that they are not popular enough anymore and showing them their most popular show, a game show called "Punch Teacher". Now, the whole "Punch Teacher" segment simply makes the point that alot of children's entertainment today sends the wrong messages (too true!) and that the Muppets were never like that (when Jim Henson was alive, before his son Brian messed up alot of things). After seeing 'Punch Teacher', Kermit starts to say "Y'know, I think kids are better and smarter than all this..." before getting clobbered with an opening door, allowing the movie to make its point without getting preachy and getting back to the silly fun, mixed with satire, that the Muppets have always been about.
The Muppets (under Jim Henson) were all about being upbeat and positive, but with a certain mischevious quality to the humor that keeps it from being 'Brady Bunch' corny. Kermit enjoys show business because he gets to make "millions of people happy". He believes in his friends and won't do commercials for a restaurant that sells frog legs because he has integrity. All he can see are 'millions of frogs on crutches'. But when Brian Henson took over after his father's death, he started sticking the Muppets in movies where the human characters were front and center, movies based on classic literature (Treasure Island, A Christmas Carol) where the Muppets played other characters (Kermit as Bob Crachitt etc.) Also, he started making Muppet movies that were obviously for younger kids, but with a few adult (sometimes inappropriate) references thrown in, because the Muppets are supposed to be for adults too. Well, there is a BIG difference between a movie being for EVERYBODY (like the first three Muppet films...and most Pixar movies) and throwing adult references into a kids' movie. The most offensive example being a TV/direct to video movie called 'Muppets' Wizard of Oz' in which one of the bad Muppets (a member of a biker gang called 'The Flying Monkeys') excitedly blurts out something about wanting to be spit on and called names. Yes, Janice used to say stuff about people wanting her to pose nude (in the Jim Henson Muppet movies), but she was pretty adamant about not doing it, which made her a good role model for young girls in show business (kinda) and it was a joke for the adults. Statler and Waldorf have made a few jokes about going on vacation and seeing bikinis, but there is a BIG difference between that and 'please spit on me'. It's the kind of thing that parents complain about with the first two Shrek movies, but (again) there is a big difference between a reference to an R-rated film that would go over a kids' head (with nothing bad actually shown) and some puppet blurting out something dirty.
So, maybe when Kermit said that kids were better and smarter than 'Punch Teacher', he was apologizing for some of the creative choices that were made after Jim Henson's death. "This is not what we do. The Muppet Show was much classier than our later work." Maybe, in a future Muppet movie, the story will go back into why the Muppets went their seperate ways to begin with and it will be because. after Jim Henson died, they lost their creative spark and they needed a fan who gets what they were about (Walter) to reunite and inspire them. In real life, it took Jason Segel to bring the Muppets back to where Jim Henson left them. They even based a good chunk of the script for the new Muppet movie on what Segel experienced trying to make the movie (studio execs thinking the Muppets weren't popular enough) so Jason Segel is the real-life Walter. I'm not expecting the future Muppet movies to crack on Brian Henson the way I am, but maybe the fact that the Muppets lost their spark after Henson's death could be worked into a future story. They were sad. He was their producer. He inspired them. He had a talent-less hack of a son who drove their act into the ground. (Or whatever.)
At any rate, the BEST thing about the new Muppet movie is that Brian Henson's name is nowhere in the credits. He sold all of his father's characters to Disney and they gave it to someone who gets the Muppets. Fun songs. Intelligent writing. Positive characters with a mischevious sense of humor. A nostalgic trip to the days of the Muppet Show. And no vulgar S&M references. "No, Rhianna! You can't be in the sequel!"
The Muppets (under Jim Henson) were all about being upbeat and positive, but with a certain mischevious quality to the humor that keeps it from being 'Brady Bunch' corny. Kermit enjoys show business because he gets to make "millions of people happy". He believes in his friends and won't do commercials for a restaurant that sells frog legs because he has integrity. All he can see are 'millions of frogs on crutches'. But when Brian Henson took over after his father's death, he started sticking the Muppets in movies where the human characters were front and center, movies based on classic literature (Treasure Island, A Christmas Carol) where the Muppets played other characters (Kermit as Bob Crachitt etc.) Also, he started making Muppet movies that were obviously for younger kids, but with a few adult (sometimes inappropriate) references thrown in, because the Muppets are supposed to be for adults too. Well, there is a BIG difference between a movie being for EVERYBODY (like the first three Muppet films...and most Pixar movies) and throwing adult references into a kids' movie. The most offensive example being a TV/direct to video movie called 'Muppets' Wizard of Oz' in which one of the bad Muppets (a member of a biker gang called 'The Flying Monkeys') excitedly blurts out something about wanting to be spit on and called names. Yes, Janice used to say stuff about people wanting her to pose nude (in the Jim Henson Muppet movies), but she was pretty adamant about not doing it, which made her a good role model for young girls in show business (kinda) and it was a joke for the adults. Statler and Waldorf have made a few jokes about going on vacation and seeing bikinis, but there is a BIG difference between that and 'please spit on me'. It's the kind of thing that parents complain about with the first two Shrek movies, but (again) there is a big difference between a reference to an R-rated film that would go over a kids' head (with nothing bad actually shown) and some puppet blurting out something dirty.
So, maybe when Kermit said that kids were better and smarter than 'Punch Teacher', he was apologizing for some of the creative choices that were made after Jim Henson's death. "This is not what we do. The Muppet Show was much classier than our later work." Maybe, in a future Muppet movie, the story will go back into why the Muppets went their seperate ways to begin with and it will be because. after Jim Henson died, they lost their creative spark and they needed a fan who gets what they were about (Walter) to reunite and inspire them. In real life, it took Jason Segel to bring the Muppets back to where Jim Henson left them. They even based a good chunk of the script for the new Muppet movie on what Segel experienced trying to make the movie (studio execs thinking the Muppets weren't popular enough) so Jason Segel is the real-life Walter. I'm not expecting the future Muppet movies to crack on Brian Henson the way I am, but maybe the fact that the Muppets lost their spark after Henson's death could be worked into a future story. They were sad. He was their producer. He inspired them. He had a talent-less hack of a son who drove their act into the ground. (Or whatever.)
At any rate, the BEST thing about the new Muppet movie is that Brian Henson's name is nowhere in the credits. He sold all of his father's characters to Disney and they gave it to someone who gets the Muppets. Fun songs. Intelligent writing. Positive characters with a mischevious sense of humor. A nostalgic trip to the days of the Muppet Show. And no vulgar S&M references. "No, Rhianna! You can't be in the sequel!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)