Here I go again!*

I was kind of hoping my last post would be the last time I would need to fix a DC superhero movie.

Well, I saw Suicide Squad last weekend, and unfortunately, it can be improved.

Specifically, we see the very Aussie Boomerang a few times with his fluffy pink unicorn (and it’s hilarious)! Later on, he gets shot in the chest, but it turns out the shot was blocked by…a wad of cash?!? Why not get it blocked by the fluffy pink unicorn**? Links it all together, and adds in another opportunity for Boomerang to play up that all-important comic-relief!

Aaaand…ummm...that’s it really!***

Apart from that (actually, even with that), I enjoyed it a lot! Just fun from start to finish, cool characters and nice callbacks to comic moments (such as Harley and Joker dancing):

In fact, I pretty much agree with everything in this (positive) review: http://www.slashfilm.com/suicide-squad-review/ (even though I don’t really care about (or even really noticed) the problems with “pacing” in the movie – I just enjoyed the ride).  

For my own very quick, very flawed review, I’d say it’s kind of like Guardians of the Galaxy, crossed with Escape from New York, one of the Mummy movies, and a really loud music video…

Another couple of positive reviews (they’re hard to find, so I thought I’d put some of them here!) are here and here (and Erik follows that review up with some possible changes, most of which make sense (he doesn’t address the pink unicorn in the room, though)). 

And I don’t agree with all of these, but some of these suggestions would make sense (but keep Captain Boomerang – he may be a mega-douche in the comics, but he was great here, and it seems clear that keeping close to the comics is not what Warner Bros seems to be going for, anyway…)

But, as I alluded to before, positive reviews are few and far between – it’s been getting slammed by the critics. I certainly understood those rage-aholics and their rage-ahol when it came to B V S, but I don't really get it with Suicide Squad.

For example, a common complaint seems to be that Enchantress is not enough of a Big Bad, but I think she, as the villain, totally fits the story – that story being that Amanda Waller will do whatever it takes to cover her ass. The Squad’s first mission is not to save Midway City, but to rescue Waller – it makes sense that the reason she would mobilise her new team of freaks for the first time would be to save herself. Especially when she caused the crisis in the first place, by manipulating, and then failing to contain, the Enchantress. Then, when her chopper goes down and she’s captured by the Enchantress and things start getting real messed up, the Squad goes in to rescue her and take out the Big Bad. The plot and the villain (well, the villain from the point of view of the Squad…apart from Waller...) are therefore very self-contained, and it makes total sense to me.

Another issue people seem to have is that the movie doesn’t include enough Joker, and that Joker and Harley’s relationship is not representative of the one in the comics – i.e., some people don’t like the fact that they seem more lovey-dovey – but I actually prefer it. Harley’s love for the Joker in the comics, in light of the way he treats her (and how many times he tries to kill her), is really disconcerting, as well as tough to believe (let alone understand). But here, it seems he genuinely likes her (while still being mental and bad), and swoops in twice to try and save her. So it makes much more sense in this universe that she would want to be with him – they’re crazy together. Although he does leave her in a car wreck at the bottom of a river at one point, too, so I like that nod to his own douchery.

I also liked his role in this movie – not too much, but with his own genuine Harley-related subplot, that ties in well to what the Squad are doing.

SO, I would say: Get out there and watch it! Don't take it seriously - it's not high art, it's a freaking comic book movie with explosions and stuff. 

What an age to be alive!!!

* With thanks to David Coverdale. Incidentally – "Whitesnake" would be a good name for a member of Suicide Squad (maybe if they release an R-rated version…)

** With even more thanks to @joetwit99…

*** Actually, I do have one more - less Bohemian Rhapsody, please! Not just in this movie, in the world!! I'm over it!!! Help me, change.org!!!!

The Killing Joke - Take 2!

I'm kinda hoping that my blog doesn't just become me correcting every DC movie that comes out*, but it looks like that's what it is for the moment.

My last post was about some problems I had with Batman V Superman, and my ideas to fix them (incidentally, since then I've seen the Ultimate Edition, and it IS better than the theatrical version, but...still...why did Lex want Superman and Batman to fight if he was going to create Doomsday anyway? And..and...oh, I'll let it go...)

This time around, I get to fix the new Killing Joke movie.

The Killing Joke is one of the most iconic Batman stories of all time, involving the relationship between Batman and his arch-nemesis - the Joker. It also contains pretty much the accepted version of Joker's origin (even though the book itself even hedges its bets on this matter).

So the fact it's finally being made into a movie is a big deal (at least, in the Bat-Universe).

It also represents an opportunity for DC to correct one of its fundamental problems - the "fridging" of an important female Bat-character - Barbara Gordon, or Batgirl.

When I first read The Killing Joke, I didn't know what fridging was. To be honest, I didn't even know that Barbara Gordon was Batgirl (it was only the fourth Bat-book I'd read), so the importance of her being crippled (beyond it just being not very nice) was lost on me initially.

But since learning of the practice of "fridging" female characters (the term was coined in relation to a comic where Green Lantern comes home to discover his girlfriend has been murdered, chopped up, and put into his fridge - and it now refers to any instance of a female character being abused or killed in order to provide male characters with a plot-device), I can see it's a classic example of "fridging". even Alan Moore, the author of said book, has admitted as much in retrospect.

It appeared that the people behind the movie were aware of these problems, and decided to tackle them head-on. Bravo!

They decided to add a 30-minute 'prologue' to the beginning of the movie, focusing on Batgirl, no doubt to explain better who Barbara Gordon was, and make the viewer care more about what actually happens to her.

Great stuff, and I was genuinely excited as the movie started, seeing that Barbara was front and centre.

And then the prologue happened and I had to wash my eyes.

The following article includes a live tweet of the movie, and pretty much sums up everything wrong with the movie: http://www.themarysue.com/review-the-killing-joke-animated-movie/

But to summarise, it seems the way they've decided to depict Barbara more positively, and to endear her more to the viewers, is to (a) make her an object of desire for a really creepy new villain that no-one cares about (and she apparently finds that attention flattering - urgh!), (b) have her desiring, and chasing, Batman relationship-wise (with them eventually...gulp...having sex! Dear God No), and (c) being generally bad at being Batgirl, so that she eventually quits. At one point, the creepy guy is obviously leading her into a trap, but because she's slightly flattered by this unwanted male attention and at the same time wants to impress the other male in her life who's not giving her attention (Batman), she walks right into said trap. I'm not into victim-blaming, but if she had been killed in that trap, that would have entirely been her fault.

To summarise it even more succinctly, as Jeremy Konrad now-famously said to the makers of the movie at a panel discussion, they made her a "stronger" character "by using sex, and then pining for Bruce" (incidentally, Azzarello, every time I'm thinking about buying something you're involved with in future, I'm going to remember this - not great marketing, dude).

So, yeah. That's their attempt to depict her more positively, and get audiences to feel more sorry for her when she gets shot. Epic Fail.

It seems a lot of reviews agree on this - it could have been a lot better, and rather than make up for how Barbara was treated originally in the book, they've probably made it worse (and Batman doesn't come out of it too well, either).** 

But it again got me thinking about how they could have done it better. And I realised it could be improved with only a couple of small tweaks.

So here's my quick fix, in Three Easy Steps:

1. Batman and Batgirl do not have sex. Just...no. If they have to go there, they could have Batgirl start something, but then also stop herself. Batman just stares, a little dumbfounded, but they don't do the act. This also makes Batman seem like less of a jerk when he doesn't answer Batgirl's calls - he's still a little dumbfounded.

2. This is my most important change - if I could change only one thing, this would be it. After Batman rescues Jim Gordon, he calls Barbara. Because that's what a normal person would do. "Barbara - it's me. I've found your Dad. He's going to be OK." Barbara thanks him, and then says (still from her hospital bed): "Batman - you have to stop the Joker. But you have to do it by the book. By the book, do you hear me? We have to show him that our way works!" That is, have her deliver the lines originally said by Jim Gordon. This shows that, although she's a victim of Joker's violence, she's the strong one. It can be on speaker phone, and Jim then says "She's right. My daughter's amazing, and she's right. By the book, Batman!"

It changes The Killing Joke a bit (which some people would be upset with, but screw 'em). But it includes Barbara in the story apart from simply being a motivating plot device for the men - she drives the end of the story!

3. Last simple change - when we see Barbara in the wheelchair at the end, simply have Batman talk to her over the comms: "Oracle, I need you!" And she mutters to herself "I know". This clearly juxtaposes her treatment at the start of the movie, when Batman really didn't seem to need her, to now, when she's invaluable. Makes what happened to her a little bit easier to swallow.

Of course, these three quick fixes are simple, but don't really correct everything about the movie. In particular, Barbara's story at the start is still pretty bad - especially the way she reacts to the sociopath desiring her and then trapping her. If I could redo it completely, I would completely change that first story. 

Thusly:

The prologue should show us Batman and Batgirl working together, but in relation to a different case. The subject of the case: the Joker! Why not, it's his movie after all! It could be a brand new story, or something based on a prior classic, like the Laughing Fish or his Five-Way Revenge. Ideally, it would involve Batman going in to confront the Joker alone, telling Batgirl it's too dangerous for her. Barbara then uses her computer skills to work out what Joker's really up to (tying into the end of the movie), suits up, moves in, saves Batman's bacon, and helps capture the Joker. Joker is taken to Arkham, and either:

(a) Batman chews out Batgirl for disobeying orders, she says "Are you serious?!?" and quits (to match the canon where she quits before being shot); OR

(b) Batman praises her for the rescue, formally endorses her as a worthy addition to the Bat-Family, and has her at her peak (less canon, but arguably makes her subsequent shooting even more tragic).

Then add in the second two quick fixes above (no need for the first, because ewwww), and voila! Perfect Killing Joke movie.

Thankyou, thankyou *takes a bow*

Gonna watch Suicide Squad next weekend. Hopefully it won't require a blog post...

* Unless DC wants to start paying me for it! Come on DC, I'll fix your movies for nice price!

** That said, Mark Hammill knocks it out of the park as the Joker.

Batman vs Superman vs Fun and Logic

I know I haven't posted for a while, but something has been happening that is so monumental, a conflict that is so important not just to America, but to Australia (and the rest of the world) as well, a generational change that may affect our lives for years to come, that I had to come back out of retirement, like some kind of vigilante.

I'm of course talking about the most recent DC movie, involving the battle, supposedly, between Batman and Superman (which, spoiler alert, was spoiled by the title to this blog post). 

To provide some background, I only became a Batman-Fan (or 'Bat-Fan' ... or 'Ba-an'?) relatively recently - around the time that The Dark Knight Rises came out - so Batman V Superman was basically the first Batman movie to be released since I became obsessed about the character (and other DC stuff). To say I was looking forward to it is putting it mildly - I invited about 20 friends and family to join me at the screening the first weekend, wearing much Gear O' Geek.

Almost 3 hours later, I apologised to everyone and promised not to put them through such an experience again.

What went wrong? How could anything go wrong? This was Super-freaking-man vs The Goddamn Batman!

A couple of my initial tongue-in-cheek reviews of the movie were as follows:

• "For a Superman sequel, 'Batman V Superman' is a pretty good Batman film"; and
• "For a movie called 'Batman V Superman', it's a pretty good Wonder Woman film!"

But those slightly snarky reviews weren't enough. I obsessed. I went a second time even (by myself that time...well, it was me and 3 other people in the whole cinema, really pumping up those box office numbers). I read so many reviews, some moderately positive, many others less so. And, gradually, I thought of some minor improvements (all right, some were pretty major) that could potentially 'fix' the film. They would avoid a lot, if not all, of the problems that people have had with the movie (especially those people, such as Mrs rilestar, who have very little exposure to the DC Universe and who would appreciate a more comprehensible movie, let alone the millions of children who would also like to watch a movie with BOTH Batman AND Superman that's not SUPER-DEPRESSING).

So, as a quick overview, below are my suggested changes to the outline of the movie (based on the plot currently set out in the Wikipedia entry), with certain scenes cut, and a few moved around or modified or (especially at the end) added in). I've explained the changes in a bit more detail after that.

You'll see I'd be happy to keep a whole bunch of it, especially at the start - some scenes (particularly those with Batman - I like the Batfleck a lot) are great. Some of the stuff is terrible, though, especially  at the end, and even more especially when it comes to logic and the reasons anything happens. My suggestions would hopefully fix a lot of those problems. Basically, it comes down to establishing a good reason for Batman and Superman to fight, a good reason for them to stop fighting, and a good resolution to the conflict (which does NOT include Doomsday or Superman dying*).

Unfortunately, especially given the large changes I would suggest at the end, this isn't really something that can be fixed with some basic edits to the existing movie, although some individual changes could, and I'd be happy if anyone accepted the challenge to make a fan edit based on any or all of these suggestions!

Batman V Superman: Justice Punches Everyone Right In The Face 

Note: To make it clear, the changes to the Wikipedia entry are noted with the cuts being 'struck-through', and the additions/moved stuff in red. However, an easier to read version is below - just scroll down - without the strike-throughs and the red stuff.

Eighteen months after the destructive battle with General Zod in Metropolis in the climax of Man of Steel, Superman has become controversial. Daily Planet journalist Clark Kent, Superman's alter ego, has moved in with Lois Lane. Bruce Wayne, who has operated in Gotham City as the vigilante "Batman" for nearly two decades, sees Superman as a potential threat to humanity. After learning of Batman's activities, Superman also views him as a threat, and seeks to stop him via the Daily Planet articles authored by him as Kent. Wayne learns that Russian weapon-trafficker Anatoli Knyazev has been contacting LexCorp's mogul Lex Luthor. Meanwhile, Luthor tries to convince Senator June Finch to allow him to import kryptonite retrieved from the Indian Ocean following the results of Zod's terraforming attempt, claiming to use it as a "deterrent" against Kryptonians, but she denies the request. He also makes side dealings with Finch's subordinate and demands access to Zod's body and the Kryptonian scout ship. 

Wayne attends Luthor's party at LexCorp, where he meets mysterious antiques dealer Diana Prince, and retrieves encrypted data from the company's mainframe. While decrypting the drive at the Batcave, Wayne has a ‘dream’ of a post-apocalyptic world, where he leads a group of rebels against Superman. He is snapped out of the dream by an unidentified time traveler, who warns him of Lane's crucial role in the distant future, and urges him to find "the others". Wayne later realizes that Luthor is not only experimenting with Kryptonite, but also investigating metahumans. One of them is Prince herself, who is an immortal warrior. Wayne admits to Alfred Pennyworth that he plans to steal the kryptonite to weaponize it, should it become necessary to fight Superman.  

Batman cases out the White Portuguese, then chases the bad guys. One of them (Anatoli Knyazev) shoots Batman (or the Batmobile) with something like fear toxin (or just a tech device) that causes Batman to hallucinate a post-apocalyptic world, where he leads a group of rebels against Superman. The Batmobile then crashes into Superman, who has been lured to the same point by Anatoli with a ruse implying that Lois Lane was in trouble (perhaps the same device that is attached to the Batmobile also broadcasts her screams). In light of Batman’s hallucination with an all-powerful Superman and then running into Superman, and due to Superman’s general distrust of the Bat of Gotham plus the possibility that he may be a danger to Lois, both regard the other a major threat.    Luthor orchestrates a bombing at a congressional hearing where Finch is questioning Superman on the validity of his actions, which have resulted in deaths of civilians. The bomb kills dozens of people, including Finch. Frustrated by his failure to save people, Superman goes into self-imposed exile.  Discovering that Wallace Keefe (the unwitting bomber) was a Wayne employee, Superman believes that Batman orchestrated the bombing to kill Superman. Batman breaks into LexCorp (perhaps with the acquiescence of Luthor, especially now that Luthor knows that Batman wants the kryptonite) and steals the kryptonite, planning to use it to battle Superman by building a powered exoskeleton, and creating a kryptonite grenade launcher and a kryptonite-tipped spear. He also sends Clark Kent a note that says “I know who you are”, with the Bat symbol/brand. Meanwhile, Luthor enters the Kryptonian ship and learns of its functions, as well as recorded alien worlds. 

Luthor kidnaps Martha Kent, Clark's adoptive mother. He reveals that he has manipulated Superman and Batman by fueling their animosity for each other. Luthor demands Superman fight and kill Batman in exchange for Martha's life. Superman tries to reason with Batman, but Batman instigates a fight with Superman and ultimately gains the upper hand. Before Batman can kill Superman with the spear, Superman urges Batman to "save Martha", whose name is also shared with Wayne's late mother. Lane arrives and explains the situation that Luthor has manipulated Superman and Batman by fueling their animosity for each other, and that he has kidnapped Martha Kent for ‘insurance’ (assuming that Superman would survive the fight with Batman), convincing Batman that Superman is not a threat. Upon learning of Luthor's plan, Batman leaves to rescue Martha, while Superman confronts Luthor on the scout ship.

Luthor convinces Superman (who believes Martha is still in danger) to help him get access to the alien ship. Luthor then uses Superman’s presence to restart the ship, generating the electricity etc that threatens the city. But once Superman receives word from Batman that Martha is safe, he attacks Luthor. However, Luthor had been watching everything between Batman and Superman and now knows how to defeat Superman, and uses his own version of weaponised kryptonite gas, along with the Batman spear that his agents have recovered from the fight scene, to subdue Superman. Batman arrives but is also subdued by Luthor (as Luthor has been planning how to take down the Bat of Gotham for some time), or perhaps just by the ship's own defences (controlled by Luthor). executes his backup plan, unleashing a genetically-engineered monster with DNA from both Zod's body and his own. However, Diana Prince arrives unexpectedly. Revealing her metahuman nature, she joins forces with them to fight the creature Luthor. Together, they defeat Luthor and save the city. They are soon outmatched by its power, as it can absorb and redirect energy. Realizing that it is also vulnerable to kryptonite, Superman retrieves the kryptonite spear. With Batman and Prince's help distracting it, Superman impales the monster. As it dies, the creature stabs and kills a weakened Superman with one of its bone protrusions. 

Luthor is arrested, and while confronted by Batman he gloats that Superman's death has made the world is vulnerable to powerful alien threats. A memorial is held for Superman in Metropolis. Clark is also declared dead and Wayne, Lane, Martha, and Prince attend a private funeral for him in Smallville. Martha gives an envelope to Lane which contains an engagement ring from Clark. After the funeral credits, Wayne reveals to Prince that he plans to form a team of metahumans, starting with the ones from Luthor's files to Clark Kent and Diana Prince  , to help protect the world in Superman's absence. After they leave, a faint heartbeat echoes from Clark's coffin and the dirt around it begins to levitate. After watching each of them, Bruce looks at both Clark and Diana and says “So there are even more of you?!?” 

Batman V Superman: Justice Kicks Everyone In The Groin (without all the strikethroughs etc)

Eighteen months after the destructive battle with General Zod in Metropolis in the climax of Man of Steel, Superman has become controversial. Daily Planet journalist Clark Kent, Superman's alter ego, has moved in with Lois Lane. Bruce Wayne, who has operated in Gotham City as the vigilante "Batman" for nearly two decades, sees Superman as a potential threat to humanity. After learning of Batman's activities, Superman also views him as a threat, and seeks to stop him via the Daily Planet articles authored by him as Kent. Wayne learns that Russian weapon-trafficker Anatoli Knyazev has been contacting LexCorp's mogul Lex Luthor. Meanwhile, Luthor tries to convince Senator June Finch to allow him to import kryptonite retrieved from the Indian Ocean following the results of Zod's terraforming attempt, claiming to use it as a "deterrent" against Kryptonians, but she denies the request. He also makes side dealings with Finch's subordinate and demands access to the Kryptonian scout ship. 

Wayne attends Luthor's party at LexCorp, where he meets mysterious antiques dealer Diana Prince, and retrieves encrypted data from the company's mainframe. While decrypting the drive at the Batcave, Wayne has a ‘dream’ of an unidentified time traveler, who warns him of Lane's crucial role in the distant future, and urges him to find "the others". Wayne later realizes that Luthor is not only experimenting with Kryptonite, but also investigating metahumans. One of them is Prince herself, who is an immortal warrior. Wayne admits to Alfred Pennyworth that he plans to steal the kryptonite to weaponize it, should it become necessary to fight Superman. 

Batman cases out the White Portuguese, then chases the bad guys. One of them (Anatoli Knyazev) shoots Batman (or the Batmobile) with something like fear toxin (or just a tech device) that causes Batman to hallucinate a post-apocalyptic world, where he leads a group of rebels against Superman. The Batmobile then crashes into Superman, who has been lured to the same point by Anatoli with a ruse implying that Lois Lane was in trouble (perhaps the same device that is attached to the Batmobile also broadcasts her screams). In light of Batman’s hallucination with an all-powerful Superman and then running into Superman, and due to Superman’s general distrust of the Bat of Gotham plus the possibility that he may be a danger to Lois, both regard the other a major threat. 

Luthor orchestrates a bombing at a congressional hearing where Finch is questioning Superman on the validity of his actions, which have resulted in deaths of civilians. The bomb kills dozens of people, including Finch. Discovering that Wallace Keefe (the unwitting bomber) was a Wayne employee, Superman believes that Batman orchestrated the bombing to kill Superman. Batman breaks into LexCorp (perhaps with the knowledge of Luthor, especially now that Luthor knows that Batman wants the kryptonite) and steals the kryptonite, planning to use it to battle Superman by building a powered exoskeleton, and creating a kryptonite grenade launcher and a kryptonite-tipped spear. He also sends Clark Kent a note that says “I know who you are”, with the Bat symbol/brand.  

Luthor kidnaps Martha Kent, Clark's adoptive mother. Batman instigates a fight with Superman and ultimately gains the upper hand. Before Batman can kill Superman with the spear, Lane arrives and explains that Luthor has manipulated Superman and Batman by fueling their animosity for each other, and that he has kidnapped Martha Kent for ‘insurance’ (assuming that Superman would survive), convincing Batman that Superman is not a threat. Upon learning of Luthor's plan, Batman leaves to rescue Martha, while Superman confronts Luthor on the scout ship. 

Luthor convinces Superman (who believes Martha is still in danger) to help him get access to the alien ship. Luthor then uses Superman’s presence to restart the ship, generating the electricity etc that threatens the city. But once Superman receives word from Batman that Martha is safe, he attacks Luthor. However, Luthor had been watching everything between Batman and Superman and now knows how to defeat Superman, and uses his own version of weaponised kryptonite gas, along with the Batman spear that his agents have recovered from the fight scene, to subdue Superman. Batman arrives but is also subdued by Luthor (as Luthor has been planning how to take down the Bat of Gotham for some time), or perhaps just by the ship's own defences (controlled by Luthor). However, Diana Prince arrives unexpectedly. Revealing her metahuman nature, she joins forces with them to fight Luthor. Together, they defeat Luthor and save the city.  

Luthor is arrested, and while confronted by Batman he gloats that the world is vulnerable to powerful alien threats.

After the credits, Wayne reveals Luthor's files to Clark Kent and Diana Prince. After watching each of them, Bruce looks at both Clark and Diana and says “So there are even more of you?!?”

This involves keeping most of the story from the movie, but moving some bits around and, in particular, changing the ending quite a bit.

Importantly, there’s only one Big Bad (apart from each other), and it’s Luthor (i.e., no Doomsday.). He’s manipulating both Bats and Supes to fight the whole time (as alluded to in the existing B V S, but this is much more clear, possibly only in retrospect). He feeds misinformation to both of them, forcing a confrontation. In particular:

• This ensures that Luthor is at least partially responsible for Batman's hallucination of the dystopian future (ie, where he fights in the desert, and there’s an all-powerful Superman). This could be foreshadowed earlier with Bruce watching footage of Superman in the desert from the start (giving him a reason for this hallucination) – this could even be footage that Luthor has (he did have men there, after all), that Bruce cracks into. It also puts that vision/hallucination in immediate proximity to Batman's literal run-in with Superman, making Superman's apparent danger much more immediate. Therefore, he decides at that moment that he has to take Superman down (but obviously can’t do it then and there). This gets rid of that terrible precognition ability Bruce seems to have. 
• He can still see the vision of the Flash while looking at Luthor’s files – but I think one dream-like sequence is enough at that point in time (and it should probably be explained better, for all the normal people).
• Incidentally, by ensuring Superman is there to be hit by Batman’s car due to Luthor's men luring him there, this gets around the fact that Supes takes out Bats instead of the escaping criminals – i.e., he doesn’t know that Bats is after criminals, and Batman's car is also likely to be out of control due to the hallucinations, not because Bats is an uncaring sociopath.  Therefore (after the car crash), despite discovering Lois is not in trouble, Supes is still suspicious that Bats has something to do with Lois being in trouble.
• Then, when the Capitol building explodes, Superman's discovery (possibly thanks to Luthor again) that Wallace Keefe (the wheelchair guy) was a Wayne employee, makes him certain that Bruce Wayne (who he knows is Batman) has to be taken down.
• I also reckon it would be cool if we saw that Batman worked out who Superman was (he’s the World’s Greatest Detective, plus he's also able to use his imagination to work out what Clark Kent looks like without glasses), so that's why, during his preparation phase, we see Clark Kent get an envelope with the message “I know who you are” with a Bat symbol – this provides even more reason for Superman to fear Batman and take him out. 
• The lighting of the Bat-signal, and the interaction between Supes and Bats (and the consequent fight) could all be done very similarly, except it makes more sense here (and we remove another 'Lois must be saved' scene. At this point, neither Batman nor Superman know that Luthor has manipulated them.
• BUT, just as Bats is about to make the killing blow – and to give Lois's character more of a role – get Lois to have solved the fact that Luthor is behind all of this, and that he has Superman’s mother, and she tells them (she’s an investigative journalist, after all). Or maybe get Luthor to announce over a loudspeaker: “Is that all you’ve got, 'Super'-man? If you die now, you won’t be able to rescue your mother.” Bats therefore realizes it’s Luthor, decides not to kill Supes. OR a combination of both – Luthor trying to egg them on to get Superman killed, and Lois then comes in to stop them and tells Superman that Martha has been captured. NOTE – because Bruce decides not to kill Superman for logical reasons, not because he and his mother have the same name, there's no need to beat us over the head with the “Martha” stuff throughout the rest of the movie. Also, Superman only has to save Lois once in the movie (ie, at the start), not THREE times. 
• As an aside, also cut the earlier scene of Bruce in the family crypt with the weird blood/Bat-demon thing – no need. Plus that thing with Kevin Costner on top of a mountain for no reason can get cut for a good reason (it's pointless). 
• They decide to team up to take out Luthor – Bats goes after Martha Kent, Supes to get Luthor. Batman hides the kryptonite spear to come back for it later, but Luthor’s agents grab it after they leave (this was possibly the point of Luthor getting them to fight in the first place, to find out how to Batman would take Superman down, and now he knows that the spear, along with weaponised Kryptonite-gas, could be the key – we could even see him watching the fight on a monitor, where he remarks, when the kryptonite-gas is realeased: “Gas, of course. Ingenious!”). I would think we might also see that Luthor’s (Eisenberg’s) craziness is just an act, and he’s instead coldly calculating when alone.
• Batman’s fight to then save Martha is perfect and doesn’t need to be changed.
• Luthor is in the spaceship, needing Superman (or maybe just HIS fingerprints/hand?) to gain entry/get access to the tech. It's ridiculous that a human could gain access to an alien spaceship and obtain complete control of it while speaking English. Instead, Superman turns up, Luthor then uses a real, live Kryptonian to get the access he needs, he starts mucking around with the tech and the weird lightning stuff starts happening in and around the ship. Maybe he broadcasts something to the public that the aliens (and a jealous Gothamite?) intend to destroy Metropolis for good this time. Public everywhere very scared. 
• But then Supes gets word that Bats has saved Martha, so Superman beats Luthor around a bit, but then Luthor uses the kryptonite gas to immobilise him. Bats turns up, Luthor also has a solution for taking him out (a bit easier, since he’s human). Luthor even looks at some of Bats’ stuff, sees a Wayne symbol and says “Bruce Wayne must have been drunker than usual to sell this to you. He and I are going to have words.”
• Luthor’s agents turn up, deliver the spear to Luthor. JUST when it looks like Luthor’s won – Wonder Woman shows up. Guitar music. He hasn’t planned for her AT ALL. She liberates Supes, and she and he easily take Luthor down. Bats can yell stuff out from the sidelines. “Let me down! I can help!” 
• Defeated, Luthor probably still makes some vague threat, indicating there’s something else worse than him coming.
• The three heroes walk outside, dragging Luthor. They saved the city.
• THE END! No Doomsday, no Death of Superman.
• Post-credits – They get access to Luthor’s archives and find the information he’s been collecting about metahumans. This makes much more sense as an introduction to the other metahumans than Diana clicking on Youtube videos while the main fight is happening. 

This still introduces Wonder Woman in a very similar way, sets up the Justice League movie, even keeps some in the tank for a potential stand-alone Superman sequel (with Doomsday and the death of Superman, at a time when we might care about it), plus it has Superman finishing as a hero (note that the movie as it is (a Superman movie, no less) currently goes like this: Superman is hated, Superman gets beaten up by Batman, Superman dies). He no doubt gets evidence that Luthor was behind the Capitol bombing, exonerating both himself and Bruce Wayne, and getting a bit of public love back. Not only that, it makes Luthor seem more menacing, and the reason behind Batman and Superman’s fighting more makes more sense (plus their reasons for stopping fighting). Lois is less of a damsel in distress, Batman can’t see into the future (but we can keep that future fight scene, which is pretty kick-ass). 

It’s ALL GOOD.

Whaddaya think?

* Spoiler-alert.

LebowskiFestivus for the rest of us

Unbelievable!
In November last year, I was fortunate enough to be in New York when LebowskiFest happened to also be passing through.
A great night was had by me and Mrs. rilestar at the Brooklyn Bowl, with a screening of the movie, Moby's band Diamondsnake playing, many, MANY white Russians, and other things besides. We didn't get to bowl, though, so a Note to Self for next time: Register on first arriving.

Assuming there is a next time...
Which brings me to my main point.

There's another LebowskiFest in New York this year, but this time it's a little different:

"In celebration of The Big Lebowski Limited Edition Blu-ray debuting on Aug 16th, join Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, Julianne Moore, and T Bone Burnett for a very special evening celebrating all things Lebowski. The date will also mark the launch of Jeff Bridges' self-titled album."

That's right. This year's New York Lebowskifest has a FULL CAST REUNION.

As I said. Unbelievable.

I'm like the unluckiest guy in the world...assuming all other guys in the world have been to at least one LewbowskiFest at Brooklyn Bowl.

I'm entering a world of pain.

I certainly don't Lovett*

So, Andrew Lovett has walked free on the rape charges brought against him by a distressed yet brave woman who pressed her claims all the way through the court hearing, unlike many women who are, or claim to be, sexually assaulted, but who are unwilling or unable to face the prospect of a drawn-out trial and possibly having to deal with their attacker again.

Part of the reason he got off could be because of the sexist, leading, leering questions asked of the alleged victim by Lovett's barrister, David Grace QC, such as these ones at the committal hearing about the length of her skirt:
"Was it a skirt that went from the waist down to your thighs? ... Did it start at your waist or below your waist? ... Was there any flesh visible between the end of the singlet and the top of the skirt? ... What was the distance between the top of the skirt and the bottom of the skirt?"

Unbelievable, right?

Fortunately, the Law Institute of Victoria got involved, via their spokesman Rob Stary, who said:

"The fact that they might be wearing a miniskirt or low-cut clothing really is not, at one strict level, relevant but if through some process of flirtation or invitation, the person's inviting attention or sexual contact then I suppose it can be relevant."

Wait, what?!?!

Well, at least the general public has a reason for not understanding the law, as displayed by this response in the comments section of the above article by "Bloke" from "Toorak":

"he's been proven to be innocent, so that should be the end of the issue for him. the court was there to try him, not the media or the masses."

Ahh, not exactly.

The rilestar could not let this aggression stand, man. This is the tamer of my submissions to The Age for publication in the same comments section:

"Just because a jury could not find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt does not mean they are innocent.
And the questions asked by the barrister in this case are reprehensible. In our society, a woman should be allowed to wear whatever she likes without fear of unwanted or forced sexual encounters. Contrary to what Mr Stary believes, such questions are in NO WAY relevant to the question of whether a rape occurred. Consent is not given by wearing a mini-skirt. If those questions changed the result of the jury's decision, then I would argue that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
I am sorry, on behalf of the male gender, to all of the women who are reading this who have been raped. You shouldn't have to put up with this."

An earlier submission had recommended that David Grace QC should change his first name to "Dis" and then continued to refer to him by his changed name. I also made unflattering - but fair - comparisons between him and Sheikh Al-Hilali. When The Age didn't publish that one I wrote the above comment, but that wasn't published either (except here).

Unlike The Age, I am against censorship. Especially censorship of me.

I'm also against rape (and, yes, especially rape of me), and injustice. It may be that Lovett was innocent, but if the trial allowed cross-examination such as that above, the fact that he got off does not help his protestations at all.

At least he's not with the Saints, anymore. We've got enough problems of our own making without outsiders making more for us...

* Bad opportunity for a pun? His name is "Lovett", and I am a weak man.

Cadel Comedown...or is it?

So, as predicted by this blog (what were the odds?!?), Cadel won the Tour on Sunday - the First Australian to do so. Exclamation Point!
So now the euphoria has died down..wait a minute...the euphoria hasn't died down at all!!
This is still Totally Awesome!!!
Even the New York Times reported his win!
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!! Oui! Oui! Oui!
There were many questions about whether this was the greatest victory by an Australian sportsman ever, and I've gotta say I'm firmly in the "Yes" camp. I've watched pretty much every stage of the Tour for the last five years (barring two weeks last year when I stupidly booked a two-week holiday in Bali in July 2010 - what was I thinking?!?), so I think I was due a Cadel Victory after all that effort I put in.

Greatest moment of the 2011 Tour? Well, there were many. I recall Dave McKenzie saying years ago that every winner of the TDF has really stamped his authority on the race at least on one stage, and Cadel’s win on stage 4 up the Mur-de-Bretagne was clearly a stand-out (especially since he was at the back of the peloton with bike problems and 20km to go, and then he got to the front AND beat Contador BUT Contador claimed the win even though he DIDN'T - all GOLD with a capital G...and O, L and D).
Cadel was clearly a contender from the very beginning, continuously trying to keep himself at the front, and even stealing seconds or placings on such benign stages as stage 3 and 8. But then his efforts in the Alps were what really ended up ensuring he won the Tour.
A guy who really knows what he's talking about also called rilestar had this to say after the monumental stage 18:

"Ummm, @Brian 9:40am, not sure if you've been watching the same tour as me, but Cadel hasn't really been sitting on anyone's wheel...
He's attacked virtually from the beginning - coming second to Phillipe Gilbert on stage 2, winning stage 4, leading the main contenders up to Super Besse on stage 8, as well as the chase of Frank Schleck up to Luz-Ardiden and Andy Scheleck to Plateau de Beille, attacking with Contador and Sanchez on stage 16 into Gap, etc, etc.
In the super-high mountains he doesn't have the same acceleration as the Schlecks and Contador, but you could see last night that he still drove the main contenders in the chase of Andy Schleck, with everyone else sitting on HIS wheel.
I agree entirely with @Si 9:07am - I think his tactic was to watch Contador, mistakenly thinking that Contador and Bjarne Riis had some magical plan to turn things around on the final climb. By the time he realised that he was actually the strongest climber left in the main group, it was almost too late, and he had to do everything himself.
Which highlights the great tactics from Andy and Leopard.
If he can make time back on Andy and Frank tonight (knowing that Frank will probably attack tonight), he's in with a great chance. If he loses time, it may be all over...
Go Cadel!"

In the same comments section, Brett (who must now feel like a goose) stated "As tough as Cadel is , he is never going to win the tour, to win this race you have to attack in the mountians (sic), being a tempo rider and trying to claim the win with a good time trial is never going to cut it." Craig Schwartz rightly gave him a history lesson, reminding him that precisely such tactics helped Miguel Indurain win the Tour 5 times.
So yeah – Cadel didn’t win the Tour on stage 18 (that happened on Stage 20), but he ensured he didn’t lose it. Gimme an AWE, gimme a SOME.
Other highlights of the best Tour evaaa:

• Johnny Hoogerland’s efforts were amazing – after being hit by a car and consequently thrown into a barbed wire fence, he rode on to finish the stage and keep the King of the Mountains jersey, leading to the now classic phrase for anyone complaining about things being a little bit difficult: “Hoogerland the F*ck Up!”
• I don’t know why, but for the first year ever, I think I preferred Paul Sherwen’s commentary over Phil Liggett. That guy sure knows a lot about obscure stuff. Incidentally, I ran into him at Tour Down Under last year and said "Paul Sherwen?!? You're a legend...and you know you are!" (incidentally, I had been drinking up at Willunga a fair bit that day...)
• SBS even played "Mountains" by Biffy Clyro - for mine, the best Tour de France Mountain Song of all time (apart from "Mountain Song" by Jane's Addiction).
• I also discovered the Sag Wagon podcast by Sam Pang, Dave Culbert, and Sophie Smith, and which was a very enjoyable way of re-enjoying each stage the day after. Thanks to them I found a new appreciation for Anthony Tan's microphone technique, and even discovered my own favourite Chateau of the Day (Chateau de Laroque in Toirac).
• A post-Tour highlight was Mia Freedman questioning the importance of the win, and being told in no uncertain terms that it is the most important thing in the world (Dave Culbert tweeted via @Culbert_Report to @miafreedman "Cadel spent y'day not bragging about win in biggest annual sporting event. You spent it bragging about shopping at Sass & Bide").

As for lowlights, quite apart from the ol' standard gripes about Scott Sunderland's T-shirt and Tina Arena's appearance, for mine it was Thomas Voeckler's performance, along with that of his his teammate Pierre Rolland. Or, rather, everyone else going about how great they were. I understand he put in a good effort to get and then keep the yellow jersey, but let's be honest - he only got it because he had raced off on Stage 9 whilst the peleton was being cut to pieces by accidents, including two of his breakaway compatriots being hit by that car. He then held on by riding on everyone else's wheel. In particular, on the infamous Stage 18 where Cadel did his amazing "job of work" (in the immortal words of Paul Sherwen) to make time back on Andy Schleck, Voeckler was the only rider with a teammate in the chasing group, yet both of them sat back (figuratively speaking, it was probably a bit difficult riding in the Alps) and let Cadel do all the hard work. Even though it was only by this effort that Voeckler was able to keep yellow! Then, the following day, Rolland does it again by sticking on Sammy Sanchez's wheel to get up the mountain, then attacking him and Contador at the end to win on Alpe d'Huez.

At least, that's how I saw it.

But enough lowlights! The real highlight obviously came the following day with Cadel's win the following day in the Grenoble time trial, especially when both he and Andy were on the road at the same time, and Cadel's time ticked him over to being in the virtual maillot jaune. Ahhh, much celebration at Fed Square that night with the other 20 people watching it on the big screen...

As we all know, Cadel had come second twice, and was then able to finally win on the Champs d'Elysees. Not too shabby.

Another rider in a similar position was Mark Cavendish, who had also come second in the race for the green jersey twice before, and was then also able to literally win that prize on the Champs d'Elysees, as well as the stage. Chapeau, Missile de Manx!

Sadly, another cyclist who had also come second in the GC twice before was Andy Schleck - he was destined to come second a third time. But he's young - he'll have his chances again! He was also very gracious in defeat. I especially loved his subtle dig at Contador when congratulating Cadel, saying he thought Cadel deserved the win in 2011, though not so much the winner of the year before...
Finally, I'll finish my CADEL IS ACE rant with a comment that actually has some positive advice, as well:

"CADEL Evans will long be remembered for his feat in becoming the first Australian to win the Tour de France. And after a lifetime of hard training and courageous riding with injuries he will rightly be enriched by the flood of sponsorships that follow the yellow jersey like night follows day.
However, Cadel has unwittingly also pointed out a way in which every working Australian can save a million dollars and improve their personal fitness simply by swapping a second car for a bicycle.
Using realistic calculations and assuming a modicum of financial discipline, the million dollar aim or shaving 13 years off your mortgage is not a mere fantasy.
"A lot of people run a second car without a clear idea of what it is costing them -- if you run the numbers you'll find the bomb is costing you a bomb," said Bicycle Victoria chief executive Harry Barber.
"There is so much more people could be doing with that money than burning it up in a vehicle that spends 94 per cent of its life doing nothing."
I have checked Harry's numbers and if anything they are conservative - he has assumed the car is second-hand rather than new and is parked for the bargain basement price of $12 a day, a deal many city workers would grab if only they could find it.
On the other side of the equation, the capital and running costs for the bike are assumed at $1000 a year, which if anything is a little on the high side.
That leaves a net difference of $10,000 a year or $833 a month which is a significant sum in anybody's language.
The magic million dollars arrives if you do away with the second car at the age of 25 and stick with the bike until you retire and grows to an extra $3.58 million if salary sacrificed into superannuation instead.
But even a 45-year-old shedding two wheels and a motor for the commute would save an
impressive $358,000 or an extra $677,490 in superannuation.
If you add in a dose of realism with a mixed commute of public transport for when the weather is nasty, it shows the long term benefits of reducing spending and saving the difference or using it to pay off the mortgage early or pad out the super account.
If only US politicians could see the benefits of cutting spending and debt so clearly."

Hmmm...went a bit Tea Party at the end there, actually, but I'm all for the "On yer bike" sentiment.

Go Cadel.

Yellin' For Cadellin'!!!

I've got a whole bunch of half-drafted posts I need to finish about various issues of high import, such as the carbon tax and religion in schools and Star Wars, but I'm just going to continue ignoring them for a bit and get straight to the most important news ever: Cadel rode the time trial of his life last night, almost winning the stage (only coming second to Tony Martin by 7 seconds), but more importantly - taking almost 3 minutes on Andy Schleck and setting himself up to be the first Australian winner of the Tour de France!!!
Don't get me wrong - I like Andy (and Frank, for that matter - "the Schleck Girls" as my mate Dave calls them) - but he's young and will have plenty of opportunities to win the Tour in future - he can win all of them as far as I'm concerned. But Cadel's got this one. And that's enough for me (and I've been putting in the same time and effort staying up late and watching every stage of the Tour de France for the last five years as Cadel has riding it).
Much like a Saints premiership - I don't need to see years of dominance - I'll be very happy to see just one.
While on that topic, I'm pretty sure that there are only two possible sporting outcomes this year: 1. Cadel loses the Tour de France and the Saints also don't win a premiership, and 2. Cadel wins the Tour de France and the Saints do win the premiership. I can't think of any other possibilities.
So, with a looming Tour de France victory for Cadel tonight, it looks like the Saints will be staging a massive come-from-behind AFL victory in October this year.
That's just maths.
Go Cadel!