X-Men First Class made a pretty strong case for consensual sexual tension between James McAvoy's Professor Xavier and Michael Fassenber's Magneto, but this deleted clip from EW's Inside movies blog let's you get into Angel's (among other fangirls') head by revealing Lt. Hicox in all his transvestite glory. The clip is pretty sparse, in that you don't get to see much besides what's captured in the screen grab, but the slash fiction crowd will be glad to have some bonus material to work with.
Months ago, the boyf and I got together with friends to watch X-Men: First Class. I've seen plenty of comic book movies this year but that's the one I keep thinking back on. It was an excellent movie by any number of measures: as an adaptation of comics characters to film, as an action movie in its own right and as a metaphor for the inner struggle of minority populations divided by competing desires to assimilate and to retain their cultural niche. It was big and fun and stuff blew up real good, sure, but it also involves an admirable portion of character, character development and clever ideas. There were things I didn't love, to be sure, but this isn't actually a review so I'm not going to bother spending significant time talking about what I think did and didn't work. I think it worked really well, overall, and inasmuch as it's no masterpiece (The Dark Knight) it's also no relentless atrocity (The Green Hornet).
No, the concerns and perspectives of a review piece aren't what keep bringing me back to it at all. What keeps haunting me is that, deep down, it made me think. Specifically, it made me think that Magneto was right.
I have observed, anecdotally, a really strong identification with the X-Men within the queer communities as a metaphor for the queer communities. Listening to the always-worthwhile ComicBookQueers is basically a crash course in X-History, with occasional episodes devoted exclusively to Mutants.
I grew up a DC kid with the X-Men not even on my radar until later and as someone consuming that content for the first time as an adult it has seemed obvious to me that while Marvel's mutant minority can be viewed as a metaphor for many different targets of discrimination the queer communities make the best comparison for a variety of reasons: mutants' powers/identities tend to form when they are teenagers or young adults; some mutants try to hide in plain sight while others can't or simply won't; there are a variety of competing philosophies within the mutant community; the forms of activism they will or won't support lead to shifting and uneasy allegiances; and finally the ones who can't or won't hide turn their difference from the rest of humanity into a point of pride, a foundation for compassion or some other personal psychological tent pole.
Of course, people have always said that was reading too much into a children's story, something everyone reading this has probably heard a hundred million times too many as it is. How nice, then, to see our view explicitly validated by one of the people involved in some of the most high-profile iterations of the X-Men property. From Zack Stentz's Facebook page:
I helped write the movie, and can tell you the gay rights/ post-holocaust Jewish identity / civil rights allegory stuff was all put in there on purpose. Joss Whedon designed the whole "Cure" storyline in the comic books specifically as a gay allegory, and Bryan Singer wove his own feelings of outsiderdom as a gay man into the movie series. The whole "Have you ever tried NOT being a mutant" coming out scene in X2 isn't even particularly subtle, while it is effective.
The story of a potential "cure" for the X gene - really a treatment that would temporarily inhibit a mutant's powers - comes from Whedon's run on Astonishing X-Men, which remains - for my money - the strongest book with "X-Men" in its title from any time in the last several years. (Obligatory bitchy comment: too bad Warren Ellis sucked all the good out of it after that.) It was an affecting story but also an unmistakable metaphor for the lockstep psychosis of the "ex-gay" movement and its unforgivably hollow and cynical flimflammery. I absolutely saw why it was chosen for inclusion in the movie franchise. That storyline did what the X-Men at their very best are meant to do: represent the humanity and struggle of the Other. In the era of endless iterations of mindless machismo on the silver screen, a ceaseless parade of bullets and braggadocio but little in the way of detectable story, it's so very nice to see a franchise focus on the people who happen to have the powers in order to give viewers something personal with which to connect.
I'll admit to not having seen X-Men: First Class yet, but I plan to do so in the next couple of weeks. Does it live up to the hype? I've heard wildly varying opinions but the media seems to love it.
[X-Men: First Class Screenwriter Confirms LGBT Subtext As Totally Intentional - The Mary Sue]
[A special hat-tip to Vorpal Bunny!]
Watch this now as I have no idea how official it is, or how long it will be up. It's actually a bit more smoothly edited and longer than the footage we saw last night at the Green Lantern movie panel.
Author and Producer Perry Moore, executive producer of The Chronicles of Narnia movie series but better known to us as the writer of the novel Hero, a story about a young gay superhero coming of age, has passed away.
Perry, 39, was apparently found unconscious by his partner yesterday morning and pronounced dead shortly thereafter. There is no official cause of death but it is described as a possible OxyContin overdose.
At one point Perry was working with comics legend Stan Lee to bring Hero to the channel Showtime, but they passed on the project.
Movies and comics sites alike went to town on the news that the Synder/Nolan Superman movie would not be casting the alleged Joe Manganiello, but instead, the softer featured, decidedly less wolfish, Henry Cavill, whom you may remember as Albert in The Count of Monte Cristo, the boy with all the daddy drama.
The actor was under consideration for Superman Returns and was proclaimed by Stephanie Meyer herself to be the ideal Edward Cullen (One can only imagine the crossover slash fiction that would've now ensued...), and will be starring in 300-like shirtless glory in this November's Immortals.
With Nolan on board, I'll assume to keep Snyder's penchant for the fantastic in check, it's curious to hear that Zach aims to "try and make Superman as contemporary as possible." With a burly, modern Clark Kent, it's only a matter of time before Lois Lane speculation begins to pop up.
If there's any benefit from our beloved genre's place in derivative culture, it's that it's got to find real life ab-tastic counterparts for the ab-tastic heroes in print. The third Superman film led by Zach Synder and Christopher Nolan is still looking for its lead role, but the LA Times reports that Joe Manganiello, Flash Thompson of the Spiderman film trilogy and Alcide the Werewolf of True Blood, is "high on a list of potentials" for one Mr. Kal El. Doubtlessly the attached image got your attention first, so I'll stop intruding and give you a moment...
Spoiler Alert! The full post contains some spoilery discussion of events in the film itself!
Rubber Justice suggested last week that we both see Scott Pilgrim vs. the World this weekend then produce a joint review of it. We've both read a portion of the Scott Pilgrim comic book but neither of us has read the whole thing. I thought this sounded like a grand idea and yesterday we hashed out our thoughts.
The short version? We both liked it and we both kind of didn't. It's interesting, because this book is obviously extremely popular but everyone I know has roughly the same set of heavily mixed reactions to it and that's before anyone gets into discussing the character of Wallace. The process of translating a comic into a film doesn't usually do anything to improve the iffy bits, either. All this added up to what I think are a really interesting range of responses to the film.
Read on for Rubber Justice's and Klarion's thoughts on Scott Pilgrim vs. the World!
Really, pretty self explanatory. This shot was released along with a USA TODAY article about Kenneth Branagh and Chris Hemsworth, and how the production team wanted to make sure they were ready for Comic-Con.
Large version of the picture below. Chris has definitely put on a LOT of muscle for the role.
Now that we've all got a look at Green Lantern's costume for the upcoming movie (and a wealth of opinions to match), there are a few assumptions we can make about DC's proposed "image"- namely, I feel that all these recent character modifications indicate that the publisher is more aware of its popular presence. We're all still finding our footing with the recent redesign of Wonder Woman, a switch to a more human, 90's aesthetic. I wouldn't be the only one to point out that Diana's new duds seem to be built with a more approachable real-life duplicate in mind. DC certainly wouldn't want their most iconic female character strutting around in boots and a bustier that can be found on most New Jersey boardwalks, not when the character faces so much exposition from the silver screen. In Ryan Reynolds' case, it seems the designers are going for a more "bad-ass" look; Gone are the dainty white gloves, the domino mask is more angular and edgy and the sinewy treatment for the chest aims to make Green Lantern look something like your standard RPG villain. As with any change though, DC is unraveling the iconic status of its established heroes. This poses a fundamental question; Does DC really need to so radically depart from its status quo to make its character set more approachable? Superheroes appear outside their home medium more and more everyday- if their owners feel the need to compromise their appearance, doesn't that propagate a feeling of alienation from the comics genre, where their original designs were accepted?
Amid the explosion of news this week based around comics in other media, from James McAvoy in the new X-Men movie to Green Lantern's animated series, there was also the confirmation of a Wonder Woman film "in development." Frankly, this comes off as a little dismissive of the project, considering that the prospective movie has been "in development" for nearly ten years now. The concept of Princess Diana on the silver screen is infinitely more appealing to me than the chance to see Ryan Reynold's abs starring as Hal Jordan, so what's the hold up?
Joss Whedon, who worked on a potential script from 2005 to 2007, cited troubles with world-building for the character, who would obviously require a different tone and approach than, say, Nolan's Batman films. Others who stepped up to the task wanted to avoid placing her in a historical setting. But these complaints seem so trivial when just last year, DC released a successful animated movie that balanced the feminist values and action sequences that will naturally spring up in a Wonder Woman script. A live-action venture would obviously cater to a different market, but there's no reason that can defend how long it's taken just to lay some basic groundwork for the film. It's obvious that DC execs can go for months without even thinking about the project, when there are fans who clamor for it every time news of a MAD Magazine movie gets PR. In an industry where every "major" superhero gets a film, this kind of exposure is necessary for Wonder Woman to stay in mainstream consciousness. No more excuses, DC. I want that movie.
Review: Wonder Woman #1 - #5
OK, so a couple of unkind reviews from me of late. Does that mean I hate the whole New 52? No, not at all. Does it mean that I only enjoy the new characters? Definitely not. Case in point: Wonder Woman is one of my favorite books of the relaunch. I think it's very good, with strong writing, an excellent ambience and fantastic art. Read on for why this reboot is the first time I've ever subscribed to Wonder Woman!...
