Rebooting...

Seems Superman is getting rebooted in more ways than one. Both the comic and movie sides of the character are getting a makeover, and not just in looks. Granted, there's not much known about the movie version, as it is still filming, but the DCnU thing has been going around for a while now, and it seems to me that it's both interesting and counter-intuitive. A few points on the new (comic-based) Superman:

New Costume - There are a couple different versions going around, I guess since the two main series take place in different times (again, why?) but it basically comes down to either Supes in bluejeans and a short-sleeved version of the "traditional" suit, or the more regal armor-looking suit. Neither of these ideas are bad, really, they both make sense in a certain way based on the character, but I'm not sure why they needed to be done. Kevin Smith said it best: "The two more iconic things about Superman are the suit and the flying." The flying stays, of course, but why does the suit have to change? It's been around in one form or another for over 70 years. (Minus the couple years of "electro-Supes," but we don't talk about that.) Granted, they're not hugely drastic changes (red, blue, big "S" on the chest, cape, etc.) and, at least for me, it's not as concerning as other things on this list, but it does set a bit of further precedent of "Change is Good," when that's not true for some things, Superman included.

More Kryptonian - I've read in a few different places that he's being written for this "reboot" as being "more alien than human." So, how do you get him to relate to the (mostly) human audience you're trying to convince to read these new books? Kids can't look up to someone they don't understand, and adults (or adult-ish-es) aren't going to buy a book about a guy they don't like or relate to. Part of the magic of Superman (and there's a whole 10 years of television to support this) is that despite the pressures and conflicting emotions and responsibilities that he has, both about himself and the world around him, he's going to react as a good-natured human man is going to. There's a reason he was the leader of the Justice League for so long: he does seem to almost instinctively know the difference between right and wrong, and will always try to find a solution that works for everyone. Naieve? Possibly, but that's also why Batman's his best friend. It's called "counter-balancing." The "traditional" vision of Superman was already paying tribute to his heritage; hell the suit was made of his blankets from his ship, the Fortress of Solitude was essentially a "gift" from his father Jor-El, and the "S" was his Kryptonian family crest. Do we really need to mess with his brain, too?

Single & Orphaned - These might be the things that make me not want to buy these books. No longer married to Lois, and both parents are dead (again). So, once again, the things that tie him to Earth, emotionally at least,

are just gone.

I'm having trouble figuring why, besides the obvious "attracting new readers" angle that's so popular these days. It's a drastic move, and I'm not sure it'll keep some of the most important readers: those who have been reading for years already. Granted, I haven't read any of these new "#1" issues, but I don't know if I want to; if the history of these storied characters is of little consequence to the creators, I'm having trouble seeing how the future would be any more so.

TF2 thoughts

Since Team Fortress 2 went Free T.  o Play a few weeks ago, more of my friends have gotten in on the action, which oddly enough, I never really got into.  I bought it as part of the Orange Box a few years ago, packaged with stuff I Actually Wanted To Play: Portal and the Half-Life 2 games.  I played it for about an hour and left it be. I allowed a small part of my brain to follow how it was coming along, in terms of updates and features being added and such.  I was intrigued when microtransactions got added, and had an inkling that it would more than likely be popular enough to sustain it for a long time, maybe even make the game itself free.  But for a while all I heard were complaints about the store overcharging for "hats," whatever that meant.  (Turns out, they actually meant hats.)

So when the good folks at Valve released it for free (causing yet another mini-backlash, but whatever) it meant that a) my friends who were into that sort of thing would be able to play, giving me a reason to jump in, and b) the surge of new players would cause consternation (to put it mildly) among the "hardcore" players.  Which is to be expected.  Nerds can be very protective when they think they've found something special, especially when that thing can be affected by the other people enjoying it.  So as such, the amount of maliciousness coming from these people is astounding: mods that kick F2P accounts off servers, experienced players screaming (over both voice and text chat) at newer players over every little mistake, alongside the usual name calling and such that usually goes on in games like this.  (You know, ones that are connected to the internet.)  Myself and my friends have been lucky enough to find a few servers where this behavior is pretty minimized, and folk are actually willing to help newer players learn the ropes, such as using the "mentor" function that the game created explicitly for this purpose.

That being said, we've had to quit out of servers on numerous occasions because of the crass and stupid behavior of some of the more "hardcore" folk.  I put quotes around that because I'm sure that the number of hours and achievements they've racked up make them feel superior, but the fact is that I don't really care.  I'm playing this game to have a good time, not get screamed at by a guy who puts more hours per day into this than he does sleeping.  I'm not "hardcore" by any real stretch of the imagination; I like games in general, but playing them should not be like a job.  It's the same reason I can't really get into MMOs; once I feel like a game requires my constant attention to be worthwhile, at least mechanically, then it stops being fun, and the point is lost.

The game is great, don't get me wrong, and I can see myself playing it for a good long time.  I recommend it to everyone, especially since it's free, and can run on a pretty wide range of machines, Macs included.  I would recommend hitting the offline "practice" mode first, though, just to get the hang of the various classes and such.  Also, PC Gamer is doing a big "Beginner's Guide" for the game, with each class getting it's own write-up with basic and advanced strategies, recommended items to get, and so on.

Rango Was Pretty Good (or, My Love and Hate Relationship with Movie Trailers)

I got a chance to view (don't ask how) the "extended" version of Rango recently, and a couple things popped into my mind while I was watching it: first, that the trailers for this movies made it look really stupid; kid stuff, but stupid kid stuff. Second, that this flick is on par with a lot of Joss Whedon's stuff, in as much as it tells multiple types of stories without beating you over the head with them, using a lot of metaphor and imagination that even makes the silly stuff mean more than it seems to at first glance. It was a shock and surprise, to say the least.  As previously mentioned, the trailers that i saw for this movie made it look supper-kiddie-Cars-type stupid, and despite the talent behind the scenes, I mentally brushed it aside. The difference between the trailer and the actual movie were night and day.

Don't get me wrong, I do honestly think that trailers can be works of art in and of themselves.  Teasers in particular, which have to reveal (or, you know, tease) just enough information to build excitement with little to nothing in terms of confirmed or completed footage, fall into this line of thinking for me. I do tend to forget that trailers in general are also (read: primarily) marketing tools, designed to get as many folks into the theater as possible.  So many is a time that trailers will mislead an audience into thinking that their movie is something that it's not.  An example of this is the great movie Man of the Year, starring Robin Williams.  A wonderful movie, but watching the trailers you'd think it was a screwball comedy about a comedian being elected president.  The truth is that, while that is indeed a plot element of this movie, it barely covers a third of the entire concept, which involves heavy drama about political manipulation and self-worth.  It is, in fact, primarily a drama, or I suppose dramedy would be a closer term to the truth.  Why did the trailers misrepresent the movie like this, especially when it was a great flick to begin with? Again, we come to the answer of marketing people thinking they know what America wants to see on the big screen.

A similar situation came up with X-Men: The Last Stand.  The trailers not only showed scenes, effects and stunts that were drastically changed in the final film (and not for the better) it even showed performances by the actors that were completely different in the final film (again, not for the better).  The prime example of this is Ian McKellen's speech (if you could call it that) to the Brotherhood in the woods, convincing them to join his cause.  In the trailer, he speaks with great emotion and weight, building energy up, ending with a flourish that honestly brought Malcolm X to mind, which is appropriate, considering that's who that character is based on.  In the final film however, this same speech is given with almost no emotion at all, almost as if he's reading it off of a newspaper or a goddamn cereal box.  I understand a director asking an actor to give multiple versions of a speech or line, it can help find character moments that you wouldn't find any other way.  But when a revolutionary is giving a speech that brings up mental images of Hitler in one take, and a bored husband at the breakfast table in another, you go with the first take.

Anybody else have any instances of this? Leave a comment, either here or on my Facebook page.