Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

WARNING: SPOILERS (Although if you saw any of the trailers released in the last three months, then the entire thing has already been spoiled for you anyway. Seriously, there's like, ONE thing that happens that is sort of "surprising," but everything else you can spoil, the trailer already did.)

I. An Introduction

If there's one thing we can be sure of with the superhero genre, it's that using your current film primarily as set up to future films and/or expanding the universe will result in bad movies. If there's another thing we can be sure of, it's that Warner Brothers has no idea what it is doing in their efforts to create a cinematic universe to rival Marvel's. And if there is a third thing we should be sure of at this point, it's that Zack Snyder is not the person to lead that charge.

Snyder has made a name for himself by copying other creators. 300 succeeded largely by sticking closely to the visuals of the source material. If Watchmen was decent, it's because he deviated little from the graphic novel. Some of the things people have liked most about Batman v. Superman are the instances in which he straight up lifts the images from the comic. It's telling that Snyder's "best" works are things in which he is leaning heavily on other creators. Some of his worst works, though, have come where he is in complete creative control. Suckerpunch was awful and highlights why his style fits with Frank Miller comics - a shared teenage boy's sense of "cool" regardless of how hollow it actually is. And Man of Steel failed because Snyder tried particularly hard to put his own spin on the Superman character.

To be fair to Snyder's efforts here, it's a bit hard to tell where his shortcomings as a director start, and where the failings of the studio and its lack of direction end. Batman v. Superman is essentially four or five movies crammed into one. Bubbling under the surface are some interesting ideas for a Superman film. When his story begins, Clark Kent is struggling to figure out what his role should be. In the aftermath of the Kryptonian invasion, many in the world fear and hate Superman. There are even Congressional hearings about how the government should handle him.

Batman, on the other hand, has been hard at work defending Gotham City while scheming up ways to bring Superman down. The film opens up with flashbacks to the Kryptonian invasion, where Bruce Wayne was rushing to help the people at Wayne Enterprises. In more thematically shallow 9/11 imagery, he witnesses the building collapse and presumably hundreds of employees killed (if not more). All the while, he stares up and watches Zod and Superman fighting. This is the central root of Batman's grudge.

I hope that's the signal for a better director and writer!

II. Character Issues

What we wind up with are two characters with distinct, clear motives for a showdown with one another. Clark wants to put a stop to Batman since he's playing fast and loose with vigilante justice. This is a man who plays judge, jury, and executioner.  Bruce, meanwhile, wants to put a stop to Superman because he's extremely powerful and that power makes him inherently dangerous. Both men are full of hypocrisy, of course. It's strange that Clark hates Batman because he operates outside the law while he himself does the same as Superman. Similarly, it is inconsistent that Bruce has a problem with the public damage and danger created when Superman tried to stop Zod, all while he has no problem destroying cars, launching missiles, and spraying bullets throughout the city to stop some henchmen. These inconsistencies don't actually feel like a bad thing; rather, it makes them feel like actual people. We all have double standards and hypocrisies.

The main problem, though, is that they throw Lex Luthor into the mix. Luthor's weirdly convoluted, yet simultaneously stupid conspiracy plot to pit the two superheroes against one another not only disrupts the pacing of the film; it also undermines any and all thematic significance of their positions. The two don't ultimately come to blows because Clark doesn't like what Batman does and Bruce doesn't like that Superman even exists. Instead, they fight because Luthor has kidnapped Martha Kent and threatened to kill her if he does not kill the Caped Crusader.

This issue is ruined even more by the fact that neither Superman nor Batman seem to mind killing people. Yes, yes. The film makes it clear that these criminals are the worst of the worst. Batman kills a ton of anonymous henchmen involved with serious crimes like human trafficking. Superman, meanwhile, kills a terrorist. Snyder is careful to keep it black and white with the killing. We as an audience are not meant to feel at all uncomfortable with the idea of these heroes killing. That itself feels a bit disingenuous, but it also ignores another option for organic conflict between the two titular characters. If Snyder would ever let Superman actually be kind of like Superman for more than two minutes at a time, then there could have been a conflict wherein Superman refuses to kill again, sees Batman killing a bunch people, and sets out to stop him.

Instead, we get the Luthor plot, which ruins the idea of these two diametrically opposed characters, with two fundamentally opposite philosophies on their vigilantism, going at it organically.

III. The Lex Luthor Problem

Actually, about Lex Luthor. From the trailers, Jesse Eisenberg's take on Luthor has been a source of concern. The guy commits to his performance, and he actually is entertaining to watch as a result. Purists will hate it because it's a dramatically unique take. Casuals, though, may be split on the matter. His performance is interesting to watch, but the character of Lex Luthor is a mixed bag. As mentioned, it throws a wrench into the gears of an otherwise organically moving conflict. It strips the film of its central themes and concepts, instead tossing them out mid-film for your typical "villain has to do villainous thing." (Of all the changes Snyder has made to the Superman character and the genre itself, you'd think he could have avoided that trope to some praise, at least.)

But Luthor's motivation is never particularly clear. In fact, it's kind of all over the place. He hates Superman, but why? In one line of dialogue, he even explains that Superman's destruction of Metropolis was good for his business! So why would he be hellbent on destroying him? Even more, if he knew Batman felt similarly, why did he need to do anything at all to get them to fight when they would have done it eventually on their own? More still, why did he need to create Doomsday, a theoretically invincible monster that would destroy pretty much all life on Earth apart from just Superman and/or Batman? (That element gets virtually no explanation.)

So we're meant to assume that Lex hates Superman for the same reason Batman does; a sense of uneasiness with a being powerful enough to destroy the planet. It doesn't get explicitly clarified, but that would make sense. And yet, he rambles incessantly about "gods" and "angels" and "demons." At some point it stops sounding like he has a reasonable concern over Superman's existence, and instead just that he has some weird religious hangups, that he wants himself to be seen as a god. (I'm also pretty sure that the whole thing might be an ad for the video game Injustice: Gods Among Us. Lex uses that phrase about half a dozen times out of nowhere.)   At other times, though, it seems like he's just this weirdly deranged maniac. It almost seems as though the Joker were supposed to be in the film with Luthor, but they just combined the two instead.

By the end, he is reduced to a sniveling prophet. Like Batman in the film, he has evidently had a vision of something horrible occurring in the future. It's certainly Darkseid, but this still doesn't really explain the motivation behind Luthor's schemes. And again, Doomsday comes out of nowhere. The action is mostly fine in the film, with some of the best Batman sequences on screen yet, but the finale feels super strange, rushed, and - despite having some moments (like Wonder Woman's smirk as she recovers from being hit) - there isn't ultimately much to it other than to be this weird visual light show.

Eisenberg goes all in. An...interesting...take on the character. Unfortunately, he gets no help from the writer or director.

IV. Wait, Why Is Doomsday In This?

The whole final act with Doomsday feels rushed. It comes out of nowhere with no real explanation, and then it moves too quickly for its own good. You get these weird things like the military randomly knowing that Doomsday is "unkillable" and that every attack makes him stronger, or Wonder Woman observing after a few hits that "Doomsday feeds off of energy." (Not totally sure how she determined that.) Just the unveiling of Doomsday is rushed, as it's in there just so there can be a battle featuring DC's holy trinity.


*THE ONE BIG SPOILER THAT ISN'T SPOILED IN THE TRAILER, SO SKIP TO THE NEXT MARKER IF YOU DON'T WANT IT SPOILED*

I have to address the Doomsday stuff in general. It makes no sense in any capacity. Here's the thing: As much as I love Superman, he doesn't exactly have a great rogues gallery. Doomsday is not a compelling or interesting villain. The sole purpose of his creation was to give Supes an enemy that he could really throw down with. The Death of Superman story is one of the most overhyped in all of comics history (maybe just ahead of, or just behind the other inspiration for the film, The Dark Knight Returns), but that final issue was awesome. Each page was a splash panel featuring a hard hitting battle between the two fighters.

Point being, Doomsday is someone that exists for Superman to physically punch. It makes little sense, then, why they would bring Doomsday into the fold and have it result in a number of ranged attacks. The most interesting part of the battle was a very Dragonball Z-like laser beam back and forth between the creature and Superman. A lot of Doomsday's attacks were energy waves. It runs counter to the point of the character, which may be expected in a Zack Snyder film, but still.

But the biggest problem is that yes, this film does conclude with Superman "dying" in a last ditch effort to stop Doomsday. That is the one big, unexpected thing. (I mean, maybe you were expecting it because it's pretty common knowledge that Doomsday was the villain that brought Superman down.) Here's why it's a weird decision.

The Death of Superman was a powerful moment in comics because Superman was the most firmly established, most inspirational hero in DC's toy box. His "death" had a huge impact on everyone else in the DC universe. Here, though, most of the world seems to hate Superman. Batman spent two hours of the film scheming up ways to kill him.

Now, on some level, the "death" makes sense. Given that the film spent a good deal of time showing why people aren't the worst for fearing Superman and his Kryptonian biology, sacrificing himself to stop Doomsday is a relatively solid way to turn the world around. People see that he is a hero, and do a complete 180 on him.

But it happens so quickly. Washington literally goes from holding hearings about how to regulate Superman, questioning his involvement in a terrorist attack, to throwing him a hero's funeral and building a new monument. It happens as quickly as Batman suddenly decides not to kill Superman because both of their mothers were named Martha. (Oh yeah, by the way, that's not hyperbolic. That's literally why Batman decides not to impale Superman with his Kryptonite spear.)

All of this culminates in an incredibly lackluster and dry scene that - I think - was trying to be very emotional, complete with bagpipe renditions of "Amazing Grace" and canon shot salutes. Except we're literally in the first real chapter of the DC cinematic universe. Killing one of your primary three superheroes in the first movie is not going to make anyone think that there's a chance Superman is dead. Sure, we already think that about superheroes anyway, in large part because of the source material. But we obviously know that Superman isn't just going to be gone from this universe right at the very beginning. It's a really weird decision for building a universe. It would be kind of like Fox setting up the future of X-Men movies by killing Wolverine in the first film.

Of course, the other issue here is that no one really even knows these characters. Their character writing is so inconsistent, and we've gotten so little time to actually connect with them on screen that any and all connections are built on prior knowledge of the character. If you're sad to see Superman lying there "dead," it isn't because of anything in Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman. It's that you already know who Superman is because of popular culture. It fails to stir an emotional response. (Seriously, not a single person in the theater flinched when Superman was impaled.)

*THE ONE THING NOT SPOILED FROM THE TRAILERS RANT OVER****

Yes, because this already bloated film needed the Abomination...er... I mean Doomsday

V.  They Spent So Long On This Script?

The dialogue is cheesy and poor. Ben Affleck is a pretty damn good Batman, but even he struggles at the end with the contrived dialogue he must have with Wonder Woman about starting the Justice League. All those cheesy lines in the trailers are present and stand out even more glaringly in the film than in the previews. Almost every line Lex Luthor says is corny, contrived, and illogical. It is only topped by his forcing comic book lingo in at the end when he awakens his monster before saying, "This is your Doomsday!" (I do admittedly have a soft spot for the crappy ways they try to work names into these movies. They're always terrible.) Even his fourth-wall breaking joke (also in the trailers) is poorly written. You know what I'm talking about. When meeting Clark and Bruce together at his party, he shakes Clark's hand and says that he has a good, strong grip. He then turns to Bruce and says, "I would not pick a fight with this guy!" HA HA! GET IT YOU GUYS!? BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY SUPERMAN AND THE OTHER GUY IS ACTUALLY BATMAN AND THIS MOVIE IS CALLED BATMAN V. SUPERMAN SO WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE GOING TO FIGHT! (Seriously, how can Snyder even lack subtlety with the four jokes he lets into the movie?)

The Justice League "cameos," might have been the single laziest attempts at world building in any of these comic book movies. Quite literally, in some completely unnecessary plot in which Diana and Bruce are having this weird back and forth thing (also, every part of Diana's storyline is shrouded in mystery and unexplained - and unnecessary to this film), it results in Bruce sending her an e-mail with information about other metahumans. We see security footage of the Flash stopping a thief in a convenience store. There's an underwater camera that captures Aquaman just before he destroys it. And then there's a vlog entry from a scientist working on Cyborg. None of this means anything for this film. It's crammed in there. It feels like the film interrupts itself just so they can provided teaser trailers for future films.

There is also a strange kind of short-hand that becomes problematic for folks who aren't long-time comic book nerds. A lot of minor "Easter eggs" actually give a good amount of insight for the knowledgeable viewer. There's a moment when Bruce stares at his Batman costume, then pauses and looks at another costume in a case. The camera holds on it for a couple of beats, then moves on. This is actually in the trailers too. It shows a Robin costume with graffiti over it that says, "HA HA HA! JOKES ON YOU" (or something).

Here's the thing: for anyone familiar with comics, that has a ton of meaning - especially in context of this film. For those in the know, that costume is a clear nod to the "Death in the Family" story arc in which the Joker kidnaps and tortures Jason Todd, the second Robin, to death. The graffiti, with the "HA HA HA," is clearly the Joker. The costume is clearly Robin's. More importantly, this gives a surprising amount of detail about the world we're in and why Batman might have gone over the edge. See, most people who know Batman are familiar with the concept that Batman doesn't kill. This was even part of the Nolan movies, which Snyder borrows some imagery from. Yet he kills easily half a dozen people, at least, in this film. This is a world where Bruce Wayne not only lost a building full of employees in the Kryptonian invasion; he also lost his protege to a longtime villain. It's actually really telling about the state Bruce is in, and why Batman has gone over the edge.

But this only translates if you're "in the know." This goes beyond a mere "Easter egg," rewarding fans. This thing actually has substantial meaning and adds depth to the Batman character. When I left the cinema, I heard individuals explaining this significance to their groups of friends. To someone not familiar with comics history, that shot is completely meaningless. This isn't clearly a world established in which the Joker exists. Because Snyder hates color, that suit isn't even clearly Robin (it is if you know what to look for, but it's far from the iconic outfit even non-comic fans are familiar with). To the point, any and all meaning derived from that shot is completely lost on those people, and it's not nothing!

The end of the film makes no sense either. Batman refers to Superman as his "friend" when talking to Martha Kent, but he was literally all set to kill him just ten minutes earlier. At the end, he has some of the dumbest, most forced dialogue with Wonder Woman, essentially saying that the big memorial for Superman won't do the dude justice. What? Again, he just tried to kill him, went all racist on him ("You're not brave. Men are brave!"), and now he cares about doing right by him?

Why did this dream sequence need to be in here, again? 

VI. Batman's Origin Change

One more thing that most may disagree with me on is a seemingly minor change to Batman's origin story. First of all, can we just agree to stop depicting Thomas and Martha Wayne being gunned down on film? How many times have we seen it now? Like Spider-man's origin, do we really need it? Who that has lived in our current society, in the current pop-culture climate, does not know this origin story?

But there's one minor change that I'm not so sure is all that minor. In most versions of the origin story, Thomas Wayne is gunned down either trying to shield his family, or by trying to talk to the mugger in an effort to calm him down. In this way, Thomas is depicted as more than just an innocent victim. He's a hero, a strong moral compass. For all the trauma Bruce will experience as a result of seeing his parents gunned down, the last thing he sees his father do is either protect the innocent (him and his mother) or, better still, try to help a common criminal, trying to diffuse a potentially violent experience.

Zack Synder's version is a bit different. Instead of Thomas trying to do either of those things, his last action is taking a swing at the mugger. This idea might not seem like a big deal to anyone else, but to me, it actually changes the meaning of the origin. We don't see Thomas Wayne as heroic because he tried to help people. The idea presented here is that Thomas Wayne is heroic because he tried to fight the criminal. Apart from just oversimplifying criminals and crime in general, it does distract from the tragedy a little bit. Yes, he's still a victim, but on the other hand, no crap he got gunned down. He tried to punch a guy who was pointing a gun at him.

The reason this changes the origin is that it alters the ideal form of heroics. Thomas Wayne isn't seen shielding his family. He isn't seen possibly even trying to help the criminal at the same time, showing him as a mature and intelligent adult who understands that many of these types of criminals are probably desperate rather than simply evil. Rather, Snyder's brand of heroism is violence. Thomas "protects" his family by trying to beat up the mugger. He is depicted as "inspirational" because he went down swinging. Essentially, the message here is that the best defense is an aggressive, violent offense. You don't fight crime by treating criminals as humans, showing some form of compassion and education.  You fight crime by literally trying to rough them up. Certainly, it speaks to those who maybe think that pretending many crimes are committed for reasons beyond simply "they're bad people," who view anything other than the harshest punishments as "weak on crime," even if it's not effective policy. But it's a bit telling about Snyder's understanding of justice, crime fighting, and the point of these superheroes.

Maybe that's digging a bit deeper than most people go, and maybe I'm reading too much into it. Still, I can't help but see that as the subtext to that scene and its imagery.

We get it, Zack, you are obsessed with forcing a Superman/God connection.

VII. Snyder's Middle Finger to Critics

I have to address all of the meta-commentary which comes off as if Zack Snyder and David Goyer want to give fans of these characters the middle finger for criticizing their works. It's never been a big secret that Snyder especially has had some trouble understanding what about these characters - Superman especially - are appealing, or what makes them distinct and compelling characters. Many criticized Man of Steel for the changes they made to the fundamental core of the Superman character.

Throughout Batman v. Superman, there are these in-your-face responses (because Snyder also doesn't understand subtlety). These come largely from Perry White in response to Clark Kent. First, it's strange that Clark is much more of the "boy scout" than his Superman persona, but that's the issue of not understanding the character.

At one point in the film, Clark gets into an argument with Perry about the Batman. The Daily Planet has been ignoring the story, which Clark sees as wrong. His argument is essentially that since law enforcement isn't doing anything about him, it's their obligation to write about him and try to stop him. The first meta-comment from Perry is pretty straightforward: "You don't get to decide what's right."

Taken on its own, it might sound like a stretch to interpret that as anything deeper or more meaningful. Given the amount of criticism Snyder has taken for his (extremely flawed) take on Superman, it felt a bit more like they were trying to shout down fans of the character. It reads like Snyder and Goyer trying to say that no one gets to decide who these characters are except the creators. If Snyder wants to have a Superman who snaps necks and slams people through brick walls, then that's who Superman is. "You don't get to decide what's right" comes off a lot more like, "You don't get to decide who our Superman is, and whether our Superman is Superman or not."

There's some validity in that argument, to be sure. Yet it also shows a complete lack of understanding of how the comic and movie industry have otherwise worked, and feels like a giant middle finger to long time fans of the character who actually have been a big part of why Superman has remained relevant and special throughout the decades.

The other thing Perry White shouts is what - in my opinion - solidifies the idea that these are meant as barbs towards critics and fans more than Clark Kent, young reporter. Snyder, again having no concept of the subtle, has Perry saying along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here): "It's not 1938 anymore! Newspapers don't cost a penny. And stop being so damn idealistic."

Again, this is Snyder not only berating Superman for being Superman; he's almost telling fans of Superman to shut up. He's essentially doubling down on his gritty, dark, brooding, murderous version of the character by saying that Superman shouldn't be idealistic and the big, blue boy scout of the comics. Given that a central theme for the first hour of the film tries to tackle the question of whether the world needs Superman, it could even be argued that this is Snyder suggesting that if the world does need Superman, it doesn't need the purely good and upstanding version of the comics. "It's not 1938 anymore," a direct reference to the year Superman was first published, suggests a pretty dreary way in which Snyder sees the world.  And all this serves as a giant, "Shut up" to fans and critics who have been frustrated at his lack of understanding of the character and why having him is still significant, even in an age where grown 17-year old boys are still making comics and making Hollywood blockbusters.

It, frankly, highlights the maturity level that one might expect from his testosterone-simplified film resume to date.

Probably the face Zack Snyder makes when reading critical responses to his films.

VIII. The Good

For all of that, if you've made it this far, there are some good things in the film. The biggest frustration for me is that there are a couple of halfway decent films bubbling below the surface here. Batman's story is intriguing. Almost across the board, people have praised Ben Affleck's portrayal. The action scene in the warehouse has been touted as one of the best Batman sequences ever shot. "That is Batman," many have said.

That is, of course, unless you don't mind Batman breaking his number one rule of never murdering. It's the most "Batman" we've seen Batman, unless you like your Batman not being much like Batman in that Batman straight up murders dudes without a second thought. Ultimately, it's poorly executed within the film, but there is an interesting and compelling story in there somewhere. Between losing his employees in the Kryptonian attack, and with the presumed loss of a protege (with the Robin suit I referred to earlier), there's definitely the groundwork for a good Batman story there. This is a man who has lost so much in his crusade on crime that he's now a man who has finally crossed the line. He's finally gone over the edge. Alfred even hints that this is happening.

It doesn't work here because it doesn't get the attention, but there's a good Batman movie hiding in there somewhere. Similarly, Superman also gets a fairly interesting sub-story somewhere. Look, a brooding, mopey Superman is not what any fan of the character is looking for, but we're also just two movies in. Having him deal with the aftermath of Man of Steel and trying to find his place in this world would be compelling. Given what his crappy father said in the first film, it's not even that hard to see why he might not be sure what his responsibility even is.

Within the first hour, there's a storyline about government figuring it all out too. How should they go about dealing with Superman? How do they hold him accountable for his actions, if they need to? Should they build super weapons to destroy him just in case? Is that ethical? Should Superman work more closely with the government? Even more, given that they still haven't figured out how to use Lois Lane in these movies, the question of whether he can be Superman and be Clark Kent, a normal person working a normal job and is in love with someone? Yeah, that's still very much something to explore.

Like Batman's story, there's a halfway decent Superman movie hiding in here too. These things don't get anywhere near the amount of attention to be legitimately good in this film. After all, they had to cram in Lex Luthor, Darkseid premonitions, Justice League set up, The Death of Superman, The Dark Knight Returns, and Wonder Woman. They barely had time for anything. But to discredit the film entirely when there are some solid nuggets laid throughout the film is a bit unfair to it too.

Additionally, Jeremy Irons kills it as the snarky, grounding Alfred. All due respect to Michael Caine and Michael Gough, but Irons is the best, most entertaining Alfred we've seen on screen. Though he doesn't get to do too much, and he practically disappears after the 90-minute mark, he definitely leaves a positive impression. While tales of Affleck's greatness as the World's Greatest Detective may be a tad exaggerated, if the Batman solo feature coming out of this stars Affleck as Bruce Wayne and Jeremy Irons as Alfred, then the foundation is pretty strong.

The action sequences are pretty cool, even if Snyder spends a bit too much energy on recreating panels from The Dark Knight Returns. It's hard to give it a complete backing though when there are about four action scenes total in a film that runs over two and a half hours, features Batman murdering dudes, and features one of the most generic and obscured finales of any comic book movie, but everything outside the final Doomsday fight is fun and good action. And while the Doomsday fight was tedious, boring, predictable, rushed, and hard to follow due to the bright flashing lights, the generic overuse of CGI, and tons of smoke used, there were aspects of it that were cool. The moment that stood out for me was a quick one where Doomsday knocks Wonder Woman flying. As she recovers, she wipes her mouth and smirks. It's a little thing, but it was cool to see that she was enjoying the battle, as she is an Amazon.

Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL worked together on the score, and it's definitely memorable. It might just be one of the best original scores in any superhero movie. Zimmer has been one of the greatest composers in cinema history. Mixing his sensibilities with Junkie XL works to spectacular results. If you're not familiar with Junkie XL, watch Mad Max: Fury Road. Though application of some tracks might be hit or miss, the songs themselves are great. Really, the only one that might stand out as strange is the electric guitar riffs over Wonder Woman's appearance. I personally liked the track and its application, but many I've spoken to about it feel differently. Either way, the score itself is great and tonally connects to Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, which Snyder borrows several visual and audio cues from.

IX. Conclusion

Look, the film is disjointed, incoherent, nonsensical, idiotic at times, and inconsistent. The writing is generally bad. The pacing is choppy. The editing is poor. It's overstuffed, with Warner Brothers trying to do in one movie what Marvel specifically spread out over the course of five. It suffers for that. Being that it's the super serious and moody Snyder-verse, it's also quite joyless and bleak. By no means is it a "good movie," but it's also not a particularly great comic book movie either. It is far from the worst (especially given Fantastic Four came out not even a year ago).

On the one hand, it's certainly admirable that Zack Snyder has tried with his two films to make a different kind of superhero film. You can hardly blame them for wanting to stand out from the Marvel crowd, to distinguish themselves as a different experience. Unfortunately, in a movie titled, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, you need some camp and silliness. In a movie like this, especially with all the poor and contrived writing, you have to make it somewhat pleasurable.

On the other hand, like Man of Steel, Snyder lacks any clear focus for his film. He forgoes substantial allegory for shallow imagery. He's obsessed with concept of Superman being a god and will not let it go. He still hasn't figured out what it is people like about Superman, and hasn't quite grasped fully the character of Batman either. Stylistically, the lack of color is still making it a chore to watch, and his inconsistent display of dream sequences and hallucinations can get a tad confusing and definitely disruptive at times.

It's almost like Batman v. Superman is one of those crappy essays you get in English class where your homework assignment is to go through and make all of the corrections that the original author failed to notice. Snyder's film has so many holes, problems, and flaws that it's almost more entertaining to watch the film so that you can figure out what they should of done than it is to watch it and enjoy what they did do.

Again, there's stuff there that is solid. It's a terrible movie, but I didn't hate it. I'm sure the years and years of anticipation and hyping didn't help the film either. Unlike Man of Steel, I actually don't regret seeing it in theaters. It's probably worth it to see it on the big screen. Maybe go on one of those discount days. But it's painfully obvious that Warner Brothers has no idea what they're doing in trying to create a cinematic universe, and it's even more obvious that Snyder is not the person to give the reins.

Many people do seem to be enjoying it, though. And if you do, that's great! I wish I could have enjoyed it myself, but it's just so bloated and broken that I couldn't.

But either way, maybe it's about time to stop letting Zack Snyder take control of popular, beloved characters. Sure, he's great at causing controversy and discussion, but I'm not so sure you want your movies to be so split if you're Warner Brothers. (Man of Steel has a current rating of 56% on Rotten Tomatoes while Batman v. Superman has a rating of 29%. In contrast, the lowest rated Marvel film is Thor: The Dark World at 66%. Marvel has produced thirteen movies, and not a single "rotten" film. Warner Brothers, in contrast, has just two films in their cinematic universe, and neither has broken 60%. Their only "fresh" films are outside this universe are the Christopher Nolan Batman films.)

There's no way this movie is as bad as Green Lantern, despite having similar ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, but it is still bad. If you're able to overlook the countless flaws and problems, then great! It's hard to blame people who couldn't, though. They were as numerous as parademons in that random Batman premonition dream sequence.

Daredevil - Season 2 (SPOILERS)

SPOILER WARNING: Heads up! Though I will try to not get into too many specifics of the show, proceed with caution. It's hard to really break down the entire season without getting into at least some spoilers.

The first season of Marvel's venture into a series of Netflix shows was something of a revelation and breath of fresh air. Daredevil was darker, more violent, and more intense than anything we had seen in their cinematic experiences, or in their rather lackluster attempts at network television. Netflix serves as a place where they can change up the tone from the typical light-hearted, easily accessible to a wider audience content. In essence, Netflix has become the MAX imprint. Jessica Jones took it further with more mature themes as well. Both shows have been well received both by fans and critics, showing that Marvel is just at the top of the game come the comic book superhero genre on screen.

The much anticipated second season improves on a number of things in many ways. The action somehow manages to be even more fun, dramatic, excellent, and exhausting. The plot moves more briskly. We actually get some actual chemistry between Matt Murdoch and another character, especially Frank Castle. Similar to the inaugural season, the Daredevil (and Elektra) costume and dialogue aren't great, but they're improved a bit. Fortunately, while Vincent D'onofrio's Kingpin isn't heavily featured, we still get one totally gripping performance in Jon Bernthal's take on the Punisher. Ray Stevenson's Punisher in the under-appreciated Punisher War Zone might be the most accurate capturing of the comic book character we've seen on screen, but Bernthal's Frank Castle is arguably the most interesting Punisher there's ever been. It's a bit telling that so far through two seasons, Daredevil has been one of the least interesting characters in his own show. Part of that is inevitable, given his black and white moral code, and how - like Spider-man before him - that whole guilt complex can get a bit tedious and annoying after a little while. Still, a lot of it has to do with stellar performances from both Bernthal and D'onofrio.

And of course, all of the ninjas! In fact, the action of Daredevil is probably the best action in any television show. The choreography is great and entertaining, but the coordinators have done a great job defining each character with their own traits and styles. Even in the poor lighting, you can tell who is who based on their stances, the way they defend themselves, the kinds of punches or kicks they throw. It's pretty cool to see such choreography used to further define characters.

The show picks up about a year after the events of last season. One thing the show's creators have done well is use previous events as the set-up to the current ones. In season one, the devastation caused by the aliens in The Avengers is the backdrop for Wilson Fisk's rise to prominence and his ability to take over the city during reconstruction. Here in season two, it's the power vacuum created when Daredevil revealed Kingpin's illicit activities and put him behind bars. Several gangs had taken up arms to fill the space, which gave birth to the Punisher. Similarly, the events of last season allowed the Hand to operate in the shadows more fully, as they were trying to keep out of Daredevil's metaphorical sight.

The pacing of the show could be described as break-neck through the first four or five episodes. There's the obvious juxtaposition of moral boundaries between the Punisher and Daredevil, where the former puts the bad guys down for good whereas the latter has faith in the justice system. This is the source of their conflict, and it's the big theme for most of the show. This is how they thematically connect the Punisher story line with the Elektra line too.

For some, the season might feel a bit disjointed. The specifics of the Punisher stuff and the Elektra stuff are completely separate. They aren't related. The conspiracy behind Frank's murdered family and the sting operation gone south doesn't connect in any real way to Elektra, Stick, and their war with the Hand. However, they do connect thematically for a while. The conflict between Matt Murdoch and the other players is the same. Frank Castle doesn't have the same faith in the system that Matt does. He tells him outright that he puts the criminals down for good, so that they can't hurt anyone else ever again, whereas Daredevil puts them behind bars where they may eventually get out and go back to a life of crime. Similarly, Stick and Elektra are preparing for a war with the Hand. They are going to have to get their hands bloody with all the ninjas they'll wind up killing. Both Elektra and Punisher view their crusades as a war, and both of them acknowledge that they're killers. Even Karen Page gets in on the action with her support of Frank, getting into an argument with Matt over the fact that she feels the Punisher's tactics are effective for keeping the city safe.

It is Daredevil that can't handle any of it. It pits him against Punisher. It creates conflict with Elektra. And it causes tension with Karen. Being the good Catholic boy he is, he firmly believes that it is not their decision on who lives and who dies. His Catholicism actually comes into play several times throughout the season, which is kind of nice as that has been something of an unexplored element of his personality.

The big crisis for him comes after the return of Fisk. When Matt finds out that Fisk is still exerting his power and influence from behind bars, he has a bit of a crisis of faith. Despite regularly arguing with Frank that people don't need to die, he caves late in the season and argues that maybe just this one time on this one case, they'll kill someone. Daredevil doesn't kill anyone, obviously, but it shows just how much he's lost of himself by that point.

In many ways, this is the most "Daredevil-y" thing ever to exist outside the comics. We've got the problematically self-righteous Matt pushing everyone he loves away while talking about how much they ground him. He preaches his moral code to a bunch of other vigilantes. There's a conspiracy occurring behind the scenes in which Fisk is involved. And then there's a ton of ninjas that he has to fight off. You don't get much more Daredevil than that!

Not everything works, of course. While they thematically connect Elektra and Punisher, their stories are completely separate. This results in something of a disjointed final act, wherein you've got Karen investigating the Punisher conspiracy and Matt hunting down the Hand. They don't cross paths on screen, and once the war with the Hand begins, thematic connections go out the window, creating a bit of a mismatch of tones. Some new fans from the last season might be a bit turned off by the absurdity of the ancient ninja organization with an affinity for mysticism, but the Punisher conspiracy and the Kingpin control elements are very much in line with the first season. As a long time Daredevil fan myself, I loved finally seeing the Hand come into play in full force. Halfway through the season, I tweeted about how Daredevil without ninjas is sort of like Iron Man without technology, so it was great to see so many ninjas show up! But it could be a bit too weird for fans of the previous season, and it feels a bit like a tonal mismatch with the more grounded Punisher story.

Even more, Elektra's story is a bit lackluster. Fans of the comic book character should tone down expectations going into it, as she resembles little of the source material. Still, other than that she fulfills one of my most hated plot devices (character with an inevitable destiny), she did grow on me eventually. Her being the secret weapon of the Hand felt a bit clunky and awkward, and the idea that she's just naturally a killer maybe allowed for a brief thematic connection to the Punisher stuff, but at some point just became a bit of a contrived means for drama between her and Matt. Additionally, the Punisher story - and his difference with Daredevil - doesn't get the amount of time and focus it deserved to be fully explored, in order to make room for Elektra and the Hand.

The final two episodes feel a bit rushed as well. It's vastly improved from the finale of last season, but there are a number of elements that come out of nowhere or make sudden jumps. Finding out that Clancy Brown's character is behind the Frank Castle conspiracy feels cheap, as he was never really in the show save for one brief courtroom scene. His motive also doesn't exactly make the most sense either. Then there's a strange series of events wherein we see Karen struggling to write her article, cut to Matt talking to a detective who reveals someone was looking into who Daredevil has saved, and then cut to Karen kidnapped by the Hand. It's a weirdly edited sequence that also comes out of nowhere. Doesn't help matters much that after the final battle with the Hand, we cut to Karen returning to her office to work on the article. They apparently had to just randomly interrupt that with a kidnapping.

And this is to say nothing of how awfully convenient it is that Foggy just happens to show up on the scene of the battle between Matt and the Hand. Or that Punisher - who has been off doing his own, totally separate thing for more than half the season at that point - shows up randomly at the end, just to shoot two ninjas and give a little nod to Daredevil before leaving. (We don't even really get to see his sweet armor getup that well, since it happens pretty quickly.) And then Stick shows up at the very end to finally kill Nobu (probably?) even though we last saw him tied up in Matt's apartment. There are just a lot of things that happen really quickly at the end. It feels rushed in a similar way to last season.

Fortunately, the final few episodes are also jam packed with awesome action sequences. In fact, most of the season plays out with enough redeeming qualities as to make up for the weaknesses. If Fisk were gripping enough of a character to cover for the poor dialogue and stilted chemistry among the cast in the first season, the action sequences and thematic connections between Punisher, Elektra, and Daredevil make up for some of the similarly mediocre dialogue, similarly stilted chemistry, and dangling or unclear plot elements (like Daredevil's loss of hearing through a couple of episodes, or what exactly was going on with his hearing in the tunnels, or what's the deal with those creepy kids?).  There might not be anything as instantly incredible and lasting as the hallway fight in episode two of the first season, but there's a ton of top notch, close-quarter combat in this season.

It's another strong outing from Marvel, improving on the success of the first season and of Jessica Jones. What has been really nice about the Netflix series is the way they handle world-building, or rather, don't do it. They generally work in references to the larger world more subtly or organically, but the lack of regular nods gives these series a more contained atmosphere. We all know there are other things happening, but those don't matter to the story these writers are telling. It allows these shows to be a lot more focused. It's also been rather refreshing to get away from the typical kind of origin stories we see happening all the time on the big screen or on the CW.

I said that they don't exactly do a lot of world-building. What I mean by that is in most cases, this world is already built. When Elektra shows up, Matt already knows who she is. They already have a history. Same thing happened with Stick in the first season. The Hand is already a thing with a long history. They've already been setting their plan in motion. Wilson Fisk is already a criminal mastermind when we first see him. Frank Castle's family has already been killed, and he's already determined to find who was behind it all. Even at the start of the entire series, Matt Murdoch has already been engaging in vigilantism. The same thing happens in Jessica Jones as well. She's already tried the superhero thing. She already has a history with Kilgrave. Luke Cage is already a character and already has his powers. What we as viewers are seeing is a world that is already built and established. What the creators do, often through effective use of flashbacks, is unveil it for us. It's a neat way to handle it, and quite different from the way the movies do things, where we have to kind of see everyone's origin story or they have to reference or slowly introduce each character. (That's been a bit different in Phase 2, which has seen a bit more of the Netflix style, but we didn't exactly see this approach on the silver screen until after we saw it on the small one. It's definitely a nice change of pace.)

Season two has, in my opinion, been quite an improvement overall. The lack of a strong centralized character maybe makes it feel a bit disjointed at times, particularly late in the season, but there's enough improvement everywhere else to mask it. Plus, the themes are a bit more intriguing and relevant to the Daredevil character. It is a lot more violent, which is to be expected given its heavily featuring of the Punisher and Elektra, so if you found that element of season one to be a bit much, then season two might not be for you. And the stuff with the Hand might get a bit too weird for some viewers as well, so if you loved the grounded nature of the first season incredible, you may be in for a bit of a surprise there too.

In my mind, though, this is the most Daredevil thing on screen to date in a number of ways. Working in the mystical element definitely opens the door more for Iron Fist which should be in production soon, I'd imagine. The promo for Luke Cage looks promising too. I don't want all of this stuff to be dark and gritty and brooding, but it's nice to have something more mature. The Marvel movies are a ton of fun, and I love them, but no one wants the same thing over and over again. Daredevil is proving to be a great counterbalance to the Guardians of the Galaxy's of their content.

Splinter Cell (2002)

Stealth games seemed to have had their day in the sun (or, rather, the shadows). Many stealth games have gone a long way to become more action-packed, trading some of its soul to appease a wider audience. It's not hard to blame developers for trying to expand their base and appeal to a wider market. Video games are a business, after all. Still, there's something to be said about earlier stealth games. Not for everyone, but if you are someone who enjoys gameplay built around patience and observance, Splinter Cell is one of the premiere titles.

The original Splinter Cell certainly requires patience. Sticking to the shadows and avoiding confrontation is the key to success. Most of your ammunition is likely to go towards taking out lights rather than taking out guards. In classic spy fashion, you get a multitude of neat gadgets to aid you, and not many of them are lethal. You'll use optic cables to see behind doors, or sticky cameras to see around corners, or smoke grenades to distract enemies. Few games make you feel more like a super awesome super secret special forces agent, never mind one of the coolest and most badass in Sam Fisher (portrayed by the always excellent Michael Ironside, whose voice became so iconic that it created a bit of a hullabaloo when it was announced he wouldn't return to voice the character in Black List).

Let's just talk about Sam Fisher for a second as well. On the surface, he's your stereotypical military shooter character. Fit and grizzled white dude who kills people for a living without second thought and is capable of everything from picking locks to defusing mines to supporting himself between two walls by doing the splits. Except when you really break it down, he isn't really your typical action hero. For starters, he's on the older side. At the time of the first game's release, Fisher was supposed to be 45 years old. On top of that, almost every cutscene reveals that the only thing he truly cares about is his daughter. He's constantly trying to get in touch with her while he's deployed. He even mentions her in the field at times, because he's eager to get back and call her. What's also interesting about Fisher is that he always seems a bit more annoyed during a mission. Most action heroes take a weird pleasure in their line of work (think Nathan Drake or literally anyone from Call of Duty). Yet Fisher gets annoyed by the politics of the situation. He's intelligent and beyond capable, but he doesn't often seem to really enjoy the work. Instead, he seems to simply recognize that he's the best there is at what he does, and what he does ain't nice, to quote Wolverine.  Yes, he still has a lot of elements typically found in your generic action hero, but Fisher is more compelling than most, even today.

As for the game itself, it's hard to say if it's aged particularly well or not. Modern games don't like to send players down linear corridors. The lack of map space will be a turnoff to newer and younger players who tend to complain about linear level design. Of course, it's important to recognize that this came out in 2002 on clearly outdated technology. Splinter Cell plays a bit more like a puzzle game than a typical stealth game too. A lot of time will be spent sitting in place and watching guards walk around. Players are likely to just observe their pattern, then plan accordingly. It rarely takes a long time to figure it out, but there generally is a simple solution to "solve" each level. The linearity of the levels doesn't hurt the game at all, but it does contribute to it feeling a bit more like puzzles to be solved than a mission to be accomplished.

Additionally, the game isn't very forgiving. While figuring out a solution isn't difficult, executing the plan sometimes is. If you mess up, you could be in for a world of hurt. Since it's a stealth game, shoot outs are discouraged. The game wants you to stick to the shadows and sneak around. Killing people is fine (unless the politics in the story don't allow you to), but you better make sure to hide the bodies after. If not, unseen guards may stumble upon them and sound an alarm. Either way, you need to be pretty careful when you move throughout a level. A missed shot could call the attention of a guard and suddenly the pattern is off. Or you may even shoot or throw something too close and suddenly guards know where you are.

Of course, this makes it extremely frustrating when the game forces you into shoot outs. There are nine missions in total, and there are only two random moments throughout wherein you must get involved in a firefight. This was also true in Black List, but the key difference is that later Splinter Cell games made it a point to work gun play into the game prior to these sections, or distributed these moments evenly throughout the game. In Splinter Cell, it doesn't work like that. Instead, the game is entirely built around the player staying out of shootouts. It wants players to avoid confrontations like that. The difficulty spike throughout a level when you are seen, largely because guards start shooting at you, clearly acts as a deterrent to being noticed. So when you get to those two moments in the game where you aren't given a choice, it becomes extra difficult. It's poor design, frankly. Fisher only takes a few hits before he dies, and your guns aren't powerful or accurate enough for firefights to be particularly smooth or fun. It creates an unnecessarily frustrating scenario, and betrays the very nature of the game, the theme the game is entirely built upon.

Other than that, the game is still fun to play, although its controls are sometimes a bit on the clunkier side. Gamers who grew up in the age of "mark and execute" might even find it borderline unplayable, but it's pretty solid gameplay overall. (Although if you stick with the franchise and go on to play Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory, you can't help but notice how much they iron out over the years.)  So the controls aren't exactly the best, and few games from the PS2-era aged well visually, but as an overall game, it's still solid and worth revisiting.


As an aside, I should mention that I re-played Splinter Cell and the first mission of Pandora Tomorrow on the PS3 HD remaster collection. If you have an older copy, just play that. The HD "remaster" is horrendous. First of all, it doesn't even look that much better. In fact, some scenes are straight up worse. The final cutscene in particular was little more than just a serious of blurry images. Secondly, the game play is somehow worse. Your pistol is insanely inaccurate, to the point where you're missing lights while aiming from three feet away. The guards have suddenly become so much more intelligent, which itself wouldn't be a problem until you notice that if you shoot and miss them while their back is turned, all the guards in the area know exactly where you are. Even worse, it's next to impossible to sneak up on them. Seriously, the number of occasions my footsteps "alerted" the guards despite literally not being able to move any slower was extraordinarily frustrating.

Then there's the issue of frequent freezes. I never had one so bad that I needed to reset my console, but it came close a few times. And while I never had much of a frame rate problem with Splinter Cell, I had to completely give up on Pandora Tomorrow because it got so bad so as to become unplayable. All of this on top of the weird audio and visual bugs. It's hard to imagine anyone put in any actual work on these remasters, which is a shame because if any franchise deserves a remaster (apart from Battlefront), it's Splinter Cell. Supposedly Chaos Theory is actually well done, though they remove the insanely fun multiplayer modes for some reason, but I haven't tried it.

As I move onto Pandora Tomorrow, I'm abandoning the HD remaster and returning to my PS2 copy, because that is weirdly superior...

Ghostbusters trailer: A Reaction

Reaction videos are weirdly popular online for some reason, but I can't quite do that for the new Ghostbusters trailer. It's not just that I don't actually have a camera to use, but I also just have way too many thoughts. So instead, here I am, writing what will likely be a way-too-long-for-its-own-good reaction piece to the debut trailer.

To begin, though, I must recognize a few things. First, I'm a huge Ghostbusters fan in general. The original film is one of my all-time favorite films (definitely a top five). While I agree with most assessments of the sequel from a logical, analytical breakdown - namely that it's basically just a rehashing of the first - I still really, really enjoyed it and it's one of my favorite sequels. Additionally, I grew up on The Real Ghostbusters animated show, had all the toys (or rather, have all the toys), drank Ecto Cooler (even though it's actually gross), and played a bunch of the video games. One of my favorite jokes I've ever made was a reference to the fact that Winston was cropped out of a shot during the home video release. That should tell you that I'm rather familiar with many aspects of the film and the fictional world it exists within. I know Tobin's Spirit Guide. I can recite Gozer's backstory (during his third itineration, he was a giant slor). And if you asked me what type of ghost Slimer is, I could tell you that what you've got there is a focused, non-terminal repeating phantasm, or a class five full roaming vapor (a real nasty one too).

Right off the bat, it's easy to dismiss any possible negative comments I could make about the new trailer as being that of just a hard-to-please fanboy. Certainly, I would admit that I didn't actually want a new Ghostbusters film to begin with, simply because A) it's Sony and Sony screws almost everything up and B) I don't think as a property, it lends itself to quality work when franchising, that people have maybe under-appreciated just how good of an original film the 1984 movie was.

Here's the other thing worth noting: I desperately want this movie to be enjoyable. I knew from the get-go that it had no shot at surpassing the original (few remakes or relaunches do), but I had hopes. They chose Paul Feig as the director, who I generally like. Then they announced the cast with Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, and Melissa McCarthy, and I became a bit more concerned, but still hopeful. (We'll get into this in a moment.) At the same time, I don't want this movie to be bad. I'm not actually this smug fanboy who feels superior because he knew that the original was "way better." I want to enjoy this movie, because I am going to see it and I want to enjoy myself. Also, there was so much misguided crap about the casting choice - built almost entirely around the fact that it was going to be all female Ghostbusters - that if this movie bombs or isn't well received, everyone (especially studios) is going to use it as "proof" that "women don't sell movies!" And that's just stupid.

Yet, watching this trailer, mixed with all the things I'd heard from the production, I'm struck with how many red flags this feature has going into it.

1. The cast.

So hear me out. On a surface level, that cast is awesome! I love it as a whole. They're all hilarious women. Many people got weird about it, forgetting that the original Ghostbusters came out from SNL collaborators. It makes sense, and is in the spirit of the original, to cast members or former members of SNL as well.

But the casting of Melissa McCarthy seemed strange and worrisome. Nothing against McCarthy, who I also generally like and find funny, but she's largely been stranded in the slapstick comedy genre. When you think of Ghostbusters, slapstick isn't exactly what pops into your head. What made the first film so great was that it was a surprisingly intelligent comedy. In fact, it wasn't even really an outright comedy. Can't fault people for throwing it in that category, but it wasn't the same as something like, say, Vacation or Caddyshack.

Then there are all of the announced cameos. First of all, knowing that Sigourney Weaver and Bill Murray and Annie Potts are making random appearances kind of spoils the surprise. Second of all, knowing that they're making cameos as other characters makes it strange too. This isn't a sequel, apparently, so there is no Peter Venkman or anyone else in this world, but this also means that these cameos are going to be distracting. People are going to be awaiting the moment these actors show up, and you know what we're going to see? Actors, not characters. It's kind of like how Stan Lee cameos in Marvel are a waste of time and have become something of a game, where everyone is waiting for that moment they can go, "There's Stan Lee!" Who cares what his character is supposed to be doing in that scene! It's all just a "meta-joke."

2. The slapstick.

If the decision to throw McCarthy in was a red flag - again, all due respect to her as one of the top female comedy actors in the business - then the source of comedy in the trailer essentially confirms it. The jokes are...practically non-existent. Instead what we get is two minutes of non-stop slapstick and physical comedy. You get Jones going over the top in her "bitch slapping" McCarthy free of a possessing ghost, adding one super predictable unnecessary hit after she's been freed as "the joke." You've got Wiig just getting vomited on.

Obviously, this movie is going to be loads different, which is a-ok! However, I still reserve the right to be disappointed if it does indeed turn out to be heavy on the slapstick. The original film was actually a pretty smart and well-crafted comedy. Joke structure was a lot more organic, with many jokes coming in very subtly. Overall, the source of comedy wasn't that the film built itself to be funny. Instead, it put wise-cracking, funny, average Joes in what was actually quite the serious situation. It was not constructed like many comedies today, wherein you need to have X number of jokes per minute.

3. The characters.

The strength of the original film is in the way it had some actually pretty well-grounded characters. Egon was maybe something of a caricature, but everyone else was pretty realistic and normalized. No one looked like a cartoon character. Even Ray, the nerdiest of the bunch, was just hyper enthusiastic. Even side characters like Annie Potts's brilliant, yet brief appearances as Janine felt like a real person (although it could be argued she herself is just a New Yorker stereotype).

After re-watching the trailer, I do actually really like the visual look. The ghosts - in my opinion - look pretty solid, and I really totally dig the aesthetic of the equipment, jumpsuits, and definitely love the new Ecto Mobile. The trailer was not without its positives as well. But the character designs seem weird. They look like they are jumping off the page of a comic book or out of the animated shows. On the one hand, when you really think about the tone of the film - based on the trailer - that might actually fit way better. On the other hand, that has to make for a worse and less interesting movie. None of that means it won't be funny or good, but that it just won't have anywhere near the kind of overall quality and staying power of the original.

4. The advertising is already just confusing.

They've said multiple times that this new film will be a complete reboot, not a sequel. That's maybe not the approach I was hoping for, but I understand the logic. The argument goes that they want these characters to feel empowered, that they created their own technology and are their own scientists and they're doing their own thing. That might very well provide better characters over the alternative of having just a bunch of people who simply learned the tools that were already created by other people. It's a bit of a mistake to think of the original film as an "origin story," although it is somewhat. But really, it's better to have the film be about people starting something than continuing where others left off.

However, the trailer starts off with text about how thirty years ago, four scientists saved the world. This is obviously referencing the original Ghostbusters. (As an aside: many have noted that it "wasn't four scientists; it was three scientists and a guy." But was it? Peter Venkman had his PhD in social sciences - psychology and parapsychology. Did that really make him a "scientist"? I know he calls himself that, but there's that great moment where Walter Peck asks him, "What exactly are you a scientist of?" So really, thirty years ago, it was saved by two scientists, a psychologist, and a guy.)

If you've followed production, you know that that title card on the trailer is misleading. It implies that these new Ghostbusters exist in the same one as the old ones. It's clearly a means to target fans of the original. They're drawing a canonical connection that won't actually exist in the film.

More than that, though, is the way they present Leslie Jones's character. Many people - myself included - have wondered why the black woman can't just be a scientist too. The trailer presents her as just this stereotypical black woman who has nothing really to bring to the table except that she knows New York City, since she is an employee of the MTA.

When you dig deeper online, you find comments about how her character is actually a historian as well. That's where her real skills are. While not a scientist, that's still pretty refreshing to see. Winston is a horribly underrated and under-appreciated character in the 1984 film, and he served to ground the other characters and the film (plus provide the religious context that the "scientists" were oblivious too, all because Winston was a grounded character), Jones does not appear to have anything resembling that. In the trailer, she does feel a bit like just a "token black character" to match the racial breakdown of the first film. And yet, they don't cut the trailer in a way that makes her seem particularly valuable to the team. She doesn't look grounded like Winston, so she doesn't appear to serve much narrative function. Despite the fact that she's supposedly a historian, they just present her as someone who knows the city.

Literally, they gloss over the well-educated aspect of Leslie Jones's character to instead paint the picture that the black woman "knows the streets." I'm not entirely sure I understand why they've made some of these decisions to present this film as something it isn't and paint a character as more simple than she is supposed to be.

5. It's still Sony Pictures.

Let's just be real here too: unlike the original film, the new Ghostbusters isn't coming out of any sort of cultural zeitgeist obsessed with the occult. The cultural context won't exist. Instead, this is coming out of Hollywood's need to franchise everything and turn every property into a "cinematic universe." Sony is already working on another Ghostbusters movie that will build off of this one, to hopefully create a cohesive universe and build a solid world.

But when exactly has anyone other than Marvel done particularly well at that? Fox may have just had a massive hit with Deadpool, but we can't forget that it nearly blew its universe with Fantastic Four. Or that Fox has also nearly blown their cinematic universes with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Even now, with the guiding hand of Bryan Singer, they still seem a little confused as to how to properly build their universe. Warner Brothers hasn't exactly made much headway in their universe building. In the time since they announced Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Marvel has made four films, with a fifth coming just before WB announced the official beginning of their universe.

And, of course, let's not forget about Sony Pictures and their failed attempt to build a Spider-man universe that not only ended up with a bunch of canceled projects; they also had to awkwardly turn to Marvel Studios to help them. With all those hacked e-mails too, they really have not looked like a particularly great or worthwhile movie studio of late. I'm not sure about anyone else, but the fact that they announced they were trying to build a Ghostbusters universe was the biggest red flag possible.





But, to be fair, I do like Paul Feig. I do genuinely like all these actors. It might not exactly be what I would hope for in a Ghostbusters movie, but there's enough reliable talent on this project that I'm able to disconnect the quality of the trailer from the quality of the film. This isn't a Fantastic Four situation, wherein the trailer looked terrible and then the director was not great to begin with, so it was safe to assume the bad trailer equated to a bad film. We'll still have to wait a while to find out if this Ghostbusters is any good, but I think that this trailer is just a really bad trailer.

Judge for yourself. Do you think this is a good trailer? I still think the film is going to be fine, but this is a bad trailer that, in my opinion, is cause for some alarm that maybe it won't be.