Stumbled onto Batman Replacement Rumours

I hope people are not expecting sound arguments and objective viewpoints. This is a blog, it’s obviously not going to happen.

Nonetheless, let’s start with something objective. The DCEU is in shambles. We have not seen a copycat this bad since Justin Bieber. There have been five movies in this universe with four having flopped both commercially and critically and one having soared; I guess kudos for that one. There are so many problems with their movies and Warner Bros is in damage control mode, so I understand that changes are discussed. But those changes should NOT be Batman!

Those changes should perhaps be Snyderisms.

This is a bold way to start a blog post, but here it goes. Is anyone satisfied with Snyder’s take on the DCEU? Man of Steel was boring, Batman v Superman was terrible and Justice League was abysmal. I know people are now asking for Zack Snyder’s cut for Justice League and blame the mess on Joss Whedon and I have to ask; really? The guy that made Avengers is to blame? The way I see it, Warner Bros decided Batman v Superman was good enough to show the world. They, however decided Justice League was not. I do not want to know what was presented that made them go ‘This is not up to Batman v Superman standards’. Joss Whedon was damage control, Snyderisms were the damage.

Those changes should perhaps be chronological.

Let me explain. I have read this on numerous articles, so it is not really an original idea but it is an important one. The MCU worked so well because it introduced most characters before bringing them all together. That is, independent movies first, fun collaboration later. Batman is a complex character, the best there is! So, why is our first introduction to this new version of Batman alongside Superman and Wonder Woman? And let’s say that this decision was based on the previous Batman installations being quite recent. What about the Flash? Cyborg? Aquaman? Why did we have to meet all of them, resurrect Superman, forgive Batman, travel to Themiscyra, AND defeat a villain in one movie? Of course it’s not going to be any good! All I know about this Flash is that he needs a lot of pizza to function.  And I generally love the Flash, I’d love to know all about this one.

Those changes should perhaps be the villains.

There. I said it. Everyone complains about MCU villains, well, it’s time you listened to what we have to say about DCEU villains. They suck! And their CGI sucks! And their plans suck! They suck, I say! General Zod was good, but I think the real villain in Man of Steel is the casting director that selected Amy Adams as Lois. As wonderful as an actress she is, she looks like Henry Cavill’s aunt Sybill (which might explain why he has to go save her every four minutes). Lex Luthor was The Riddler on cocaine and his plan was idiotic (and you know it). Doomsday was an extraterrestial Flubber and literally nothing more. Like, nothing. He is not an interesting villain even after killing Superman, the man that cannot die. I have not mentioned Wonder Woman because it was a beautiful movie, but I will now; because Ares was not a good villain. First of all, professor Remus Lupin is not a villain! Another swing-and-a-miss for the casting director. Secondly, when revealed as a villain he became CGI. It’s almost like a virus in the DC universe. The enchantress was just weird and not the good kind. Actually, I cannot talk about Suicide Squad, I will pretend it never happened and hope DC does too. Which brings us to Justice League with… that… guy… with…CGI from five years ago… and the boxes? That’s all I got.

Those changes should perhaps be the godawful little details.

‘Here in the DCEU we will spend 25 million to ruin rather than fix the small details that make modern superhero movies blockbuster material’. I am, of course, referring to Henry Cavill’s CGI upper lip. Maybe it was kept as a distraction from the poor plot and dialogues. Speaking of dialogues, how did they manage to ruin the ‘Do you bleed?’ line? That was the most badass moment in all five of these instalments! Why repeat it? Why waste its brilliance and downgrade it to a catchphrase? I am going to stop here, because as I am typing I am re-living the frustration I experienced leaving the Justice League theatre. Rest assured, there are numerous small, disturbing details.

Those changes should perhaps NOT be Ben Affleck.

Does anyone remember the outrage when Ben Affleck was cast? I think Trump was more favourable among Hollywood celebrities than Affleck was among comic book fans. And with good reason. No one trusted the man who spoiled the blind defender to play the best hero DC has to offer.  I was part of that outrage; I haven’t been as active on YouTube since. And then the trailer for Batman v Superman came out and everybody, including yours truly, shut up. We all agreed that we had been biased and harsh and wrong and Ben Affleck was the Batman he needed to be for this depiction of old man Batman. And that it the last piece of positive feedback DC got until Wonder Woman came out! So stick to your guns! You showed us up and good for you, you fought hard and won!

It’s not just the trailer. The only good thing about Batman v Superman WAS Batman! He had sound motivation to hate Superman, reasonable reactions to what was happening, a heroic yet ruthless manner that Batman is known for and kickass fight scenes! Such. Good. Fight scenes, oh, they were beautiful! Ben Affleck is a great Bruce Wayne, a tough vigilante and can keep his lips shut (that one is for all the Christian Bale fans). His character development was good, unlike anything else in that film regarding either character or development. Okay. His character development was good, until Martha. Whoever greenlighted that Martha thing was a complete idiot. But I think Ben Affleck is the best 40-year-old, run-down, bitter Batman we could get. Justice League gave him one-liners and a lover’s quarrel with Wonder Woman; admittedly we did not get the best depiction of Batman. But it’s not just Ben Affleck; Gal Gadot, the amazing lead from Wonder Woman’s solo movie, was reimagined as a heartbroken heroine with a flirty smirk. Jason Momoa’s script was reduced to videogame combo exclamations (Yeah! My man!). All characters were treated badly and we therefore struggled to see good performances, but Affleck’s work as Batman is admirable when the material allows it.

Wow that was long! And this is the cut version. If you want to read the whole three-hour-long post about everything that is wrong with DCEU, blame Joss Whedon; that always seems to make sense.

Stumbled onto... well, all of the sexual assault allegations

Has anyone noticed all the sexual assault allegations happening in Hollywood? She asked sarcastically.

The story burst with the very sick Harvey Weinstein, who apparently did not have access to psychological therapy, manners or a mirror. The general public was shocked firstly because of the magnitude of allegations and the secrecy that surrounded this behaviour. A-listers had kept quiet, journalists were put off from shedding light to this story and meanwhile Weinstein was ejaculating into close-by potted plants. The response was relatively unanimous; everyone denounced the behaviour, Facebook and Twitter crucified this disgusting man who abused his power and forced himself on women because he felt entitled. So far, so good. He deserves the fall from grace he got and the Hollywood myth was debunked.

But then, Kevin Spacey assaulted a fourteen year old some twenty-five years ago. And since, he has been accused of predatory behaviour towards younger male crews members on House of Cards and while director of The Old Vic. He was fired from House of Cards and from pretty much every project he’d been associated with. There is a good chance that this admittedly amazing actor’s career is over. So far, the story reads the same. But something different happened this time. This time it wasn’t a Hollywood executive nobody felt an emotional connection to. The general public, Facebook and Twitter did not care about Weinstein, they did not know Weinstein; crucifixion was easy. But Frank Underwood? Verbal? Those are iconic portrayals worthy of admiration and awe. Suddenly, ‘he was drunk’, as if he was forced to down all that alcohol. Suddenly, ‘it was one time’, as if that is not enough to traumatise a young boy. Suddenly, ‘Rapp said it to become relevant’. I personally believed Rapp because of Spacey's statement. Spacey has a team of publicists that suggested he come out in order to take some of the heat off. And they also suggested he admit to the assault and claim drunkenness. The publicist’s job is to make the best twist of events; THIS was their best twist of events. Then some more philosophical arguments; ‘the artist is separate to the man’ when this man abused his power for the actor he was. He felt entitled and enjoyed luxuries a common creep never would. Lastly and most compellingly, ‘it was so long ago’; it really was 25 years ago (plus) and he cannot even be legally prosecuted. In that case, perhaps social prosecution is a form of justice. Hopefully, the man will go into therapy, work out his issues and manage to stay away from the public eye for the rest of his remorseful life, rather than be repeatedly tormented by the media; he did lose his everything. But are we really baffled that organisations like Netflix distance themselves from Spacey? Are we really defending this man’s actions?

To sum up, people felt connected to Spacey because of his performances as an actor, because those made you feel as if you personally knew the man. Now, let’s move up another level of familiarity. Comedians. Louis CK. The best comedian of our day; no doubt about it. Five women came forward saying that they were sexually harassed by Louis, with some visually disturbing descriptions involving him stripping and masturbating; mind you he did ‘ask’ for consent. And we all rush to make excuses, because we love the guy! It is nowhere near as bad as the aforementioned; everyone was of age and no one was explicitly or implicitly threatened; it is just perverted. But he himself, or rather his publicists, admitted that it was abuse of power as these women admired him and once again, we are getting the best twist of events. It is simply perverted and it puts a lot of his jokes in perspective; which is unfortunate. So yeah, it is definitely not in the Weinstein/Spacey ball area, but let’s not completely ignore his ‘masturbating man’ bit; during and off stage, that is.

So all these men are being shunned, society seems to be in the right. Then, Ed Westwick is accused of rape at two different occasions, Brett Ratner of sexual misconduct, Hollywood keeps on tumbling down. But this is what bothers me; the sounds we hear and utter are ‘ugh, yeah, yeah boring’. As if these people’s lives and misfortunes are part of a badly written, repetitive script! People I admire wonder why everyone is coming forward with this simultaneously. That is the dumbest question I have ever heard! Because you cannot take someone in power down as a single person! Because they felt they were not alone! Honestly, for the same reasons anyone is more likely to speak out when there is a little bit of support. Maybe some claims are a ruse, maybe some are a cry for attention; but is it not sad that we make this our primary assumption to excuse our favourite actors and entertainers? Is that not part of the problem? I live and breathe pop culture, I binge-watched House of Cards, I’ve spent hours on YouTube watching Louis and I have cried with Miramax productions. Of course, it is not pleasant that these people we love and admire are bastards, but at least it is bringing attention to the very disturbing standards our pop culture generator accepts.

I am just wondering, if it weren’t Hollywood, if say we were bombarded with all the sexual assault cases that are happening in the common world, would we start getting bored and start saying the victims are doing it for attention or the perpetrators were drunk? I just hope we have not all reduced to attention spans equivalent to Jimmy Fallon videos; short and silly.

Stumbled onto a free Cosmopolitan

This blog post is a milestone! I actually stumbled onto something rather than either intentionally encountered or have worked it up in my head for a long, long time! Finally the title of this blog post is relevant and true! I shall celebrate by complaining/mocking the Cosmopolitan world I so unexpectedly re-encountered.

I am not going to pretend I haven't spent money in the past actually buying these magazines as a teenager. My friends and I would sit around and read through the make-up sections, the celebrity gossip, the outfit suggestions and the flirting/relationship tips as if they were gospel. We outgrew said phase once we actually started wearing make-up, good looking clothes and flirting/dating boys. I sort of feel that this was not a coincidence. I’ll be honest, though, I’m still up for the celebrity gossip.

I was initially going to read through the magazine and complain, but life is too short and the psyche too fragile, so I just skimmed through it. But no worries, I can still complain just fine.

Let’s start with how ugly a magazine it is. I am not saying I expected the graphic design of i-D (that is as hipster as I go), but if we are talking about a magazine in the popularity levels of Marie Claire and Vogue, they could have made the pages look like something other than a five-year-olds sticker book, with leopard coats standing in for the sticker bit. Honestly, they employ photographers and graphic designers; make them work for it.

Secondly, there are interviews with two celebrities, obviously women, who talk about literally nothing. And I do not generally mind, but this is the time where the name Harvey Weinstein can be overheard in a stranger’s conversation at least once a day. It is easy money and a good opportunity to talk about gender inequalities or sexual harassment or something other than the strangest item in Kate Hudson’s fridge (placenta pills, if you were wondering). This magazine addresses a specific age group which is usually exposed to silly, useless celebrity facts (and we love it), but it is simply too good an opportunity to pass, now that this important issue has been Hollywood-ified.

I feel like the tone of this post has become a tad heavy so I will move on to a funny point in my stereotypical-girl-oriented journalism. There was an investment section! I am not joking! It was ‘Best Dry Shampoos’  on one page and ‘How to Set Up a Business’ with quick tips on equity on the next. First of all, I have lived with many finance enthusiasts and the only thing I have learnt regarding equity is that I need to read more than a speech bubble to understand what it is (I haven’t, I don’t). Also, the contrast was insane. Maybe include a transition article, like ‘How the Pricing on Dry Shampoo Works and If You Think This Article is Boring, Skip the Next One’.

The final complaint for this Stumbled On magazine will be a bit more general. I want to actually complain about the unrealistic, compartmentalised bullshit tips this magazine provides that can make a young girl feel inadequate. The pop psychology sections are and will always be a shame to journalism and the unfortunate parasite to light entertainment. For example (a real example) saying all women meet the man they will marry by 23 is both idiotic and unnecessary. So dear Cosmo, write all you want about dry shampoos (best discovery ever), lipstick, tan creams, cellulite creams, swim suits, lingerie, sex toys, smoothie parlours, homemade hair masks, Oscar appearances, bags, tags and rags but STAY WAY FROM MY SCIENCE!

I feel ashamed cause Cosmopolitan is an easy target and other than the aesthetic complaint, you get what you are looking for, I guess. 

Well, I suppose I needed to use words in a syntax to feel as if I retrieved the missing IQ since I read about the placenta pills.  

Stumbled onto a Private Investigator in Soho

Last time I wrote a post, Sherlock had just finished. Therefore, it is fitting that the next post would be about the new detective on the BBC block, Mr. Cormoran Strike, PI! (it is important not to be confused with General Stryker; Mr. Strike did not make Wolverine the weapon he is today, I mean was… it’s really been a long time since I wrote a post). As this is a new detective series and as the true writer of the books it was based on is J.K. Rowiling, I think we can all agree I was meant to write a post about it.

Time for some background info. Rowling chose to write the Cormoran Strike novels under the pseudonym Robert Gallbraith, as she did not want them to be connected with her previous work in any way. Nonetheless, in the chaos that is modern literature, the books did not climb the ladder well (because chaos…is a… nevermind). Then, someone accidently let it slip that it is Rowling’s work and she accidently made more money. That’s not to say that the books are not worth the attention; they are really good! The woman has a gift for underdogs with unwanted fame, it’s undeniable.

Cormoran Strike is a war veteran that lost his leg and is now working as a PI in Central London. He is also the estranged son of an old rock star and a groupie/model, because why the hell not. As PI’s are a ridiculous occupation in the modern world, Strike is poor, has unpaid debts and lives in his office. One sunny morning, the beautiful Robyn enters his life as a temporary secretary, as does the brother of dead supermodel Lula Laundry. And this is where we meet our hero, with a brand new employee and a high-profile case to turn his financial situation around.

The book was really good, but this is not the place to talk about the book. I am here to congratulate the best casting director in the UK, because these characters were so spot on, it was spooky! Strike is described as ugly, but with a certain charm, but as this is the magic box, they could not cast someone who is too ugly. Tom Burke comes in with his scrappy upper lip and chubbiness and those eyes and manliness, he is perfect! Needless to say, I developed a much deserved crush that I had not felt since, well, Sherlock, who is monopolising this post. Robyn is gorgeous in a girl-next-door way and the most important thing; her chemistry with Strike is wonderful! That’s not to say she is not doing the character justice independently, but their interaction cannot be overlooked; it is exactly as the book had promised.

London is also portrayed in all its gloomy glamour, with old, empty pubs and dodgy Indian food parlours. Then you get the over-the-top, marble white, high-class houses all the celebrities live in and the hip areas of east London, where coke-loving models and hipsters mix. There are some beautiful little details that further ensure you that this is the London we know and love; Robyn lives far out because she cannot afford central London and commutes long hours every day. Strike lives in his office in a fold-out bed because he cannot afford an apartment and every nicotine junkie smokes outside like an exile. It’s really beautiful in its own, strange, London-y way!

And now for the complaints, yes we all knew they were coming. While the three episodes do not deviate much from the book and they also take care of a couple of issues, such as that vile attempt at rap lyrics by MC Row-bling, they were… flat. Like the visual depiction of someone sitting in a chair and narrating the book. Television is a different medium and especially of late, TV shows have caught up with cinema and can be works of art! I would have rather seen something less faithful to the book but something that would have worked without Rowling’s name attracting the crowds. I am going to mention Sherlock one last time. Of course, half the work in Sherlock is Benny and Marty and their chemistry, but the other half is beautiful directing and, I am assuming, a larger budget. And this brings me to my final question; why is Rowling not giving her work a larger budget?

It’s more than Strike; as of late, everything feels rushed and mediocre and this from a woman who wrote Harry Potter. I am not a fan of the movies, but they involved recognised actors, beautiful effects, Alfonso Cuaron (at a time) and a general feeling of polished work. And then we get Casual Vacancy as a miniseries, which just made you feel like it was done to be done; a checklist outcome. I can’t help but feel like this falls under the same category; it could have been done more carefully, it could have been up in Sherlock territory (okay, I lied before). She is a billionaire, so is it still about the money? Is it all a hit-and-run? Is it that her name only carries weight when Harry Potter is involved? I don’t know, but I think that this story line and these leads had so much more potential. I was really hoping for this series to be my substitute for Sher… for that other detective series. 

Now, am I going to watch the Silkworm this Sunday? Of course! Because I believe in Strike and his potential and I am hoping this second installment of the series will be better, because it still was very, very enjoyable and because Tom Burke is a hottie! Had to be said.

Stumbled onto 'The Final Problem'

(WARNING! SPOILERS! SPOILERS EVERYWHERE!)

(SECOND WARNING! IT IS A BIT BIG)

Isn’t it funny when a blog always starts its posts with the phrase ‘stumbled onto’ when in reality it means ‘very intentionally and passionately spent time on this matter’?

The final episode of season four and quite possibly the whole series of Sherlock was such a huge deal for me that I tried to work it into as many conversations as I could; for example ‘I am not feeling well, maybe I should see a doctor, or maybe we should see if Dr. Watson was shot in the head after "The Lying Detective"’. I am subtle, I know. You don’t even want to imagine the rants I would go into when I would see an Aston Martin (I live in London now, it happens).

Before I go into detail I should say that season four was a roller coaster for me in a way. I was not insanely pleased with t'The Six Thatchers', as it pretty much embodied all my problems with season three; little deduction, a lot of feelings, introversion, and Mary being the centre of everything. The second episode was a stroke of genius, it was good old Sherlock (Mary has just died, coincidence?) with a wonderful case, deductions, wit and a lot of emotions yet rightly placed. Not to mention the INSANE TWIST AT THE END! What the fuck was that?! How wonderfully did it all tie up together? ‘There’s an east wind coming’, ‘You know what happened with the other one’, and my own personal favourite: Sherlock’s first and only mistake when meeting John was taking for granted that John’s drunk, distant sibling was a brother! Do you see?! It is the same mistake we all made about the third Holmes! How awesome is that?

My expectations for the last episode were very high, as I think everyone’s were. It was a very intense episode, stressful dare I say, and I was much invested while watching it. And while I am very, very positively biased in regard to this series, I have some complaints. I think I liked the episode, but had the whole series been these last two seasons, I would not have. Let me start with the positives. As mentioned, it was very intense and suspenseful, no argument there.  I don’t even have to mention that the directing was beautiful and the actors were great because those are kind of givens. I have to mention three scenes I just adored though.

The first one was the missing glass. You try to figure out why she wants him to move closer; is it just psychological torture? Is it a laser alarm? No, it is simple and wonderful! I swear, when their hands touched, I felt my skin crawl!

The second scene was James Moriarty showing up listening to Queen’s ‘I want to break free’. I love how this series keeps on toying with our heads, it sticks up its middle finger and says ‘Oh, you think we will ridiculously resurrect Moriarty just because Andrew Scott is such a cool villain? IN YOUR FACE’. Loved it!

And the last scene which has received some backlash by some over-the-top feminists was the one with Molly Hooper. While a man killed himself, Sherlock almost had to kill his best friend or brother and a little kid was left to die in a well, this scene was somehow the saddest because we know how she feels for so long. It is beautiful!

Molly: I can't say it because it's true, Sherlock. It's always been true.

Sherlock: Well if it's true then say it anyway.

CHIIIIILS! Who knew that deducting robot could be so freaking sweet! I like that Sherlock is more human, I know many people don’t, but as it has been explicitly shown in this season that is how he overthrows all those of superior intellect (although I still think Mycroft is not the smart one as he claims). And I also think it is a wonderful character development as the best character developments come from character interaction, a.k.a. ‘John Watson rubs off on Sherlock; he is more than a passive sidekick’. I also think it provides a good platform for Benny to show off his acting chops; he can play emotionally distraught just as well as high functioning sociopath. 

Now, for the complaints. I feel like the sister was such a good twist and it was wasted in this episode. It opened and closed, it had no permanent effect! All the plot twists in this episode were for the sake of having plot twists; she is back in the asylum and now good?! No one had to compromise his ethics, the little girl didn’t die (OR EXIST) and 221B Baker Street looks as if no bomb ever went off! The only thing that had a permanent effect (and be there another season, I expect them to honour) is the new emotional situation between Molly and Sherlock.

I have so many problems with Euros’ character. First of all, she is built up as this cold, cynical character, worse than Mycroft, and in the end she is driven by loneliness and rejection? While that is psychologically sound, when you want to top the insane Moriarty as a threat, the villain cannot be beaten by a brotherly hug. That was ridiculous and sudden and unfounded. She lacks emotion, that is her deal! Also, this might just be me, but shouldn’t she be more mad at Mycroft than Sherlock? I mean, I know he preferred Redbeard and did not play with her as a child, but Mycroft locked her up for the rest of her life in an inhumane island. Wasn’t Sherlock already revenged when she drowned Redbeard? Last problem with Euros’ character; supposedly she is brilliant, so intelligent that she could predict the days of the last three terrorist attacks after an hour on twitter. Why not show us all that deducting magnificence? This is what we fell in love with in this series to begin with! What does she notice that Sherlock and Mycroft can’t? AND THE LITTLE GIRL NOT BEING REAL WAS ‘LOST’ ALL OVER AGAIN! 

The other thing that bothered me that very likely did not bother others is the location of this episode. I feel like Sherlock is an homage to London and while I wouldn’t mind a random episode to be shot elsewhere, like so many have, I kind of wanted the last ever Sherlock episode to be in London. It is more of a sentimental thing. Further advocating for London as a background, Sherlock notices what is there that should not mean anything yet he makes sense of it. But in this ‘deduction arcade’ everything he sees is meant for him to notice! It kind of defeats the purpose. In all other episodes the surroundings guide the case and in this one, the case directed the surroundings. Also, this laboratory background in itself does not attenuate the Holmes’ lack of sentimentality, it actually overshadows it.

Last but not least, WHY DID MARY CLOSE THE SHOW? Haven’t we dealt enough with her already? She had to have the last word!

I feel like a spoilt child, whining about how the villainous sister wasn’t villainous enough, or the location relatable enough. I should just shut up and enjoy, For Sherlock is an amazing series and in all honesty, this was a good wrap up for an epilogue. Till the very end…