If there is one thing in the entire world that pisses me off, it's when the revealing booty shorts that I fight crime in ride too far up my ass. It's like, can't a guy do a high kick and look good without showing the recipient of that kick his junk at the same time?

Wonder Woman never seems to have this problem. She's always roundhouse kicking thugs and doing the splits and whatnot, and fans have never once been subjected to an eyeful of the goods. Do you know why this is? Why Wonder Woman has never had a nip slip or a Brittney-esque photo-op? Because A) animated nudity freaks people out, and B) that's the way it works in the DC comic and animated universe. We all know that if the laws of physics that apply to our reality were applied to the DCU, Wonder Woman would be the comic version of a skin flick.

This is one of the reasons that a Wonder Woman movie has had such a hard time making it to the big screen. Her costume would not translate well into a live action feature film. I've never seen an episode of the Wonder Woman television show starring Lynda Carter, but I imagine that any fight choreography was forced to work around the restrictions of that cumbersome costume.

In a move that could potentially make her more viable for a big screen adventure, DC has opted to update Wonder Woman's outfit for the comic's 600th issue. Take a look:

Here's what the man responsible for the change, J. Michael Straczynski, had to say about it:

It’s a look designed to be taken seriously as a warrior, in partial answer to the many female fans over the years who’ve asked, ‘How does she fight in that thing without all her parts falling out?’ She can close it up to pass unnoticed… open it for the freedom to fight… lose the jacket or keep it on… it has pockets, it can be accessorized… it’s a Wonder Woman look designed for the 21st century.

With the latter part of that statement, it seems like he's trying to sell a Barbie doll. I'm wondering if those female fans that they are attempting to appeal to are all that interested in Wonder Woman's ability to accessorize. But, what do I know? I'm a guy who's sweatpants have formed a permanent bond with his skin.

Nonetheless, I'm still in favor of the change. Anything that makes a character or a concept more realistic seems to be all the rage these days, i.e. The Dark Knight. Not to mention that covering up some skin on the most well-known Amazon would help to remove the stigma that male readers only enjoy female characters if they are, let's say, provocatively drawn.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is a step forward toward the production of a Wonder Woman film. It would be nice to see a high quality female superhero flick for a change.
Are you a fan of the traditional costume or the new one? How do you think it'll effect the chances a movie happening?


Source: Screenrant
As a short, white, former high school basketball player, I can tell you what it's like on the bench... It's awesome. You can get water whenever you want because you're always next to the cooler; you get to sit in the front row at every game, and sometimes you can get through all four quarters without producing a single drop of sweat.

But, despite all the perks to riding the pine, there is a downside. Once, I was put into a close game right at the end of the second quarter. Much to my chagrin, someone passed me the ball right before the half was about to end. As I spastically dribbled down the court, the crowd began counting down, “eight...seven...six,” etc. Just before they shouted “one,” I launched the ball from half court and watched as the ball bricked off of the backboard. I waited for the buzzer to go off as the ball rolled back toward half court, but it never did. Confused by the sound of laughing around me, I looked up at the clock; there were still 10 seconds left. The ball did a slow, pathetic roll out of bounds as the buzzer sounded for real.

The crowd of the opposing high school at which we were playing had collectively punked the shit out of me.

Now, what is the moral of this story? Always distrust large crowds of teenagers. But also, this shameful tale tells us what happens when you toss an untested player into an important situation.

Imagine that the Marvel roster of heroes is a basketball team. Coach Xavier's starting five would be as follows: Captain America at point with twenty assists a game, Iron Man at power forward shooting 100%, Wolverine at small forward with the all-time record for flagrant fouls, defensive player of the year Spider-man at shooting guard, and the Hulk with the most and only full court dunks in history, at center. They play every minute of every game and they haven't lost in about seventy years.

Now, you can't just go tossing an untested Dr. Strange, or Black Panther into that mix during an important game situation. That'll mess with with team chemistry and it's a recipe for embarrassment. You've got to get their feet wet by putting them in when you're up by fifty points in the fourth quarter.

Luckily, that's exactly what the suits in the front office at Marvel are rumored to be doing. It was recently reported that Marvel may be looking into introducing some of its secondary characters (a.k.a. “The B Squad”) via ten minutes shorts at the beginning of their feature films a la Pixar. We may be getting heroes such as Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and Black Panther playing the role of the acorn chasing squirrel whose “nutty” adventures—yeah, I said it—take place before the Ice Age movies.

This is an extremely cool idea in my opinion. Not only is it a relatively cheap way to gauge fan interest in some of these lesser known characters, but it also gives moviegoers more for their dollar when they pay for a ticket: Two Heroes for the Price of One!

I'm not to sure how a Luke Cage or Iron Fist movie would turn out, but I would definitely be interested in seeing what could be done with the Black Panther. There is also a rumor floating around that Dr. Strange might get his own feature length film in the future (Grey's Anatomy's Patrick Dempsey is rumored to be interested), so we may see him in a short to test the waters as well.

What do you think about this idea? Are there any heroes you'd like to see get their own short film? Anybody want to expand on this sports metaphor?


Source: Screenrant

Let’s just get this out of the way right now.  The movie is called The Karate Kid.  In the movie, they are practicing kung fu, not karate.  I don’t know why this is the case, but that’s the way it is.

But anyway...

I know as a white person, most of us were probably afraid when we saw the ad for the film: Jaden Smith? China? Where will the white people be?  How can a film exist without the creaminess of our complexions?  Well fear not, whities. Not shockingly, the very first kid  Dre (Jaden Smith) meets in China is an extremely blonde white kid.  That’s not really a spoiler considering he has no value to the story and we never see him again after first, say, twenty minutes.  I just wanted you to know: white people made it in there somewhere.

The action and fight choreography are updated, which is nice for those of us hoping that they wouldn’t mess up everything that was good about the original.  The remake of the scene in which Mr. Miyagi saves Daniel from the Cobra Kai kids is a fun improvement over the original, and they found a way to make it look like Jackie Chan wasn’t just beating up a bunch of little kids.  

And as if we need another excuse to be afraid of China...

From what I gathered from the movie, China trains all of their male children to be acrobatic face kicking machines. In the original film, it was obvious that most of the actors didn’t know karate in reality, possibly least of all Ralph Macchio. But, these kids are all clearly proficient in kung fu.

When I first heard that they were going to remake The Karate Kid, I was immediately not in favor.  My first thought was, “there are so many shitty movies out there that could benefit from a remake.  Why mess with a beloved classic?”  Then I got to the movie theater.  Among my fellow Saturday matinee attendees was an entire dojo of little karate practitioners, all wearing karate outfits--it was awesome.  Little kids were all over the place, so much so that it necessitated a station that would paint Chinese characters all over your face (mine say “waterfall face punch”).

It all became clear to me:  It’s a remake for little kids who love kicking and punching so much that they can barely contain themselves.  During every fight or training scene I could see kids mimicking the moves out of the corners of my eyes.  The nine year old next to me even started applauding in the middle of a scene. Surprisingly enough, the spastic behavior of the little kids actually made the movie more fun to watch.

But this is a remake. Don’t expect any surprises in terms of plot points.  Some scenes are almost exactly the same as they are in the original film.  This fact alone is evidence of the movie’s target audience.  Conceptually, when you consider the time period, it makes more sense to target children.  When I re-watched the the original, I couldn’t help but reflect on the fact that karate was definitely not cool in high school.  In movies it was cool, but if you were taking classes yourself, you may have well sewn a pocket protector on to your gi.

The biggest complaint I have is that, for a while, I forgot what the stakes were.  For a considerably large chunk of time, we go without seeing the dicks who are beating up Dre.  He gets his initial beat downs, then we don’t see any significant interaction with the antagonists again until the tournament.  We forget why the original conflict mattered.

The fact is that the movie is carried by the setting. The country looks amazing, but without the “oh, so that’s how it is in China” moments, the movie is just average.   For adults, you’ll probably feel that something is missing from what made the original a classic.  Maybe it’s a main character that’s reached puberty, or maybe it’s Pat Morita’s stoic demeanor; it’s difficult to put a finger on.

To summarize: Plot Same/Action Better/Little Kids will love it.

Anyone seen it? What did you think?


I was making my rounds through the internet today when I came across something that took me back to one of my fondest childhood memories.  I can scarcely recall a time when I felt as happy.  One summer afternoon when I was around nine or ten years old, my dad and I sat in the living room.  It was one of those warm lazy days in late August where you can't really do much other than sit around. Dad was sitting on the coffee table, I was sitting on the floor, and Mom was in the kitchen making us all big bowls of ice cream!

Dad looked down at me sitting criss-cross applesauce on the floor below him and smiled like a happy, proud father. I looked up at him, smiling, and noticed the break in his focus, so I kicked him in the face. There was so much blood that I started laughing.  He got up off the ground, seemingly unphased.  With reptile-like agility, he ran up to me and gave me an uppercut so hard that my feet virtually left the ground.  I recovered quickly and noticed that Pops had backed himself against the wall.  Taking into account that he had nowhere to go, I gave him a series of sweep kicks (it was almost unfair) until it was time to finish him.  While he stood there dazed, I walked up to him and tore his head and spinal column clean out of his body.

"Dad! I did it! I tore your head off! Mom, come look at Dad's headless body!" I yelled with youthful glee.

"Wow! Great job, Bud. Look, his body is still standing without the head! Oh, nope there it goes." said Mom.

"This is bullsh--...this is B.S. He's nine years old! How does he keep beating me?" Asked Dad.

And that is the story of my first Mortal Kombat Fatality.

So, what prompted this blood soaked trip down memory lane? Today a trailer pertaining to a Mortal Kombat project appeared on Youtube, and I've got to say I'm pretty damn intrigued.  There has been a little talk of a Mortal Kombat movie project floating around, so this could be the real deal. Take a look:

Yes, that was Michael Jai White (Spawn, The Dark Knight) and Jeri Ryan (Star Trek Voyager, Dracula 2000) as captain Jackson Briggs and Sonya Blade, respectively.  That is some high quality production for a video game trailer.  It could easily be a ploy to generate hype for a new movie.  Taking the mystical elements out of the storyline is defintely a way to appeal to viewers who have hopped on the "gritty reality" bandwagon.  It reminded me a lot of The Joker graphic novel by Brian Azzarello, with Killer Croc having a skin disorder similar to what Reptile had in the video.

But, I also read a while back that the minds behind the MK video game were looking for a way to reboot the franchise, so this may be it.  We've seen some very high quality short videos associated with video games in the past; Niell Blomkamp's Halo featurettes and the recent Call of Duty: Modern Warefare videos. It's possible that fans are being prepped for a revamped Mortal Kombat videogame franchise.

Personally,I'm more inclined to think that it's for a game, but I would be happy if it were either.  I enjoyed the first Mortal Kombat film, but the second was so awful that I almost retired my Nintendo.  It would be great if they could create a legit movie using a video game concept (for once).  But, I also want to freeze someone and break them into little pieces like I did back in the good old days.

What did you think of the video? Do you want an Mk movie or a game? Or would you be happier with neither?


Source:  Screenrant
After months of trying to figure out what Christopher Nolan's (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) responsibilities will be as the “godfather” of the Superman reboot, we get our first actual hint by way of an interview with Empire magazine. Here is the most relevant and reproduced excerpt from the interview:

It was the first time I’ve been able to conceive of how you’d address Superman in a modern context I thought it was a really exciting idea. What you have to remember about Batman and Superman is that what makes them the best superhero characters there are, the most beloved after all this time, is the essence of who they were when they were created, when they were first developed. You can’t move too far away from that.

If he is the one doing the “conceiving,” it seems like “writer” is a more apt term than “godfather” for Nolan.

It looks like I haven't been giving the guy enough credit. The above quote describes perfectly what Nolan did with Batman. Before Batman Begins, the association with the campy television adaptation starring Mayor Adam West still lingered in people's minds. As anyone familiar with the comics knows, Batman is not a campy narrative. 

His quote allays a major fear of mine concerning how a new Superman film would be handled. Because of the success of Nolan's darker, realistic take on Batman, I was concerned that his involvement would mean that Superman would get the same treatment. Batman definitely benefited from the gritty departure from its previous campy installments, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. But, as I've said before in a previous post,Superman doesn't brood.

As far as taking the characters back to "the essence of who they were when they were created," I don't know if that is necessarily where they want to go either; Batman originally killed people and Superman's character was kind of a dick when he was first created.  However, they're on the right track in terms of trying to convey they essence of the character. What Superman became after his creation was a sort of manifestation of a savior that people were looking for in the years after the Great Depression; Superman battled Nazis, poor working conditions, and organized crime, among other things.  There is no way to avoid soundng corny while saying this, so just bear with me: Superman's character is a reflection of the hope that real people feel when faced with adversity. There I said it. Is it wrong to feel dirty after saying something positive?  If Christopher Nolan can capture that aspect of Superman's character and modernize it somehow (Superman vs The Nazis might be a tough sell), then I have high hopes for The Man of Steel.


When I see anyone, whether it be a stranger or my own grandmother, standing dangerously close to the top of a set of stairs or the edge of a ravine, I get a very specific urge. Contrary to what you might think, the urge is not to warn the person of imminent danger. It is, in fact, to do the opposite. As they stand there teetering on the edge of a devastating drop, I get an almost overwhelming urge to boot them in the chest and tell them our exact location. For example, if we were at the Grand Canyon and you were standing at the edge of the chasm admiring the view, in my mind the scene would play out like this:

You: This view is beautiful.

Me(looking thoughtful): Beautiful? (Dramatic thoughtful pause) This...is...the Grand Canyon!

Then I would front kick you into the Grand Canyon.

Or maybe if we were in my backyard...

You: I can't believe you don't have a guard railing on your deck. That's pretty stupid.

Me(looking thoughtful): Stupid? (Dramatic thoughtful pause) This...is...the backyard!

Then I would front kick you off of my back deck.

It has nothing to do with you personally. I probably like you, at least enough to go to the Grand Canyon with you, or let you into my backyard. It's just that Gerard Butler made it look too damn awesome to kick someone in the chest into some kind of abyss. Moments like that are what makes 300 one of my all-time favorites.

So imagine the pants-peeing fit that ensued when I read that the creator of the 300 comic, Frank Miller, is releasing the prequel comic to 300 next year. The six part series, entitled Xerxes, already has production companies interested, as well as 300 director Zack Snyder.

Although I'm interested in the prospect of another film, there is something that sits funny with me about this 300 prequel. The story will be centered on the title character, Xerxes, but...aren't we supposed to hate that guy? He killed our beloved Spartans; should we want to see him do anything but get his ass kicked by the Greeks? I will admit that there is something attractive about finding out how a man turns into a ruthless, slave driving ruler; origin stories are some of the most interesting parts of just about any comic, or any longer narrative for that matter. But, 300 was engaging because of the heroism of the Spartans and their crazy warrior society.

The 300 saga seems to be going to the Star Wars route by creating a prequel in which we find out how the villain (Darth Vader in that case) came to be. At least in the Star Wars prequels, we still got the heroic Jedi in the mix. In Xerxes, as far as logical continuity goes, we probably won't be getting any Spartans, let alone Leonidas. I would think that would be one of the benefits of creating a prequel: getting to use dead characters for a new story.

The bottom line is that it could be weird without the Spartans.

But I suppose in the comic world, if anyone knows what they're doing, it's Frank Miller. Miller is responsible for Sin City and 300, as well as many other well respected comics. His 1986 comic, The Dark Knight Returns, is responsible for the current darker rendition of Batman in the Batman movie franchise (excluding Schumacher's Batman Forever and Batman and Robin). Aside from his ill-advised attempt at directing The Spirit, Frank Miller can almost do no wrong.

What do you think? Is Xerxes a character that you'd like to see explored further? Would you see a 300 movie without Gerard Butler's Leonidas?


Source: Screenrant