Glorifying a villain as misunderstood due to a deprived, troubled childhood is beyond inappropriate. It’s reprehensible and diminishes the hero, who should be the one being glorified and romanticized or what the heck is the point of the hero? The hero is not the supporting character, what part of “hero” do some hack writers not get? Romanticizing the villain without the character fully and permanently redeeming him or herself isn’t even good writing in terms of character development nor plot so there is no real point of doing it.  Particularly when they are as twisted and evil as DC’s The Joker. There is no redeeming factor for some of these devils as much as can be said for some real life people out there who are just plain evil. Some do it by choice, for others it’s in their nature.  Whatever the case, they commit terror against other people who have every right to live out their lives, so NO. It isn’t grey. It’s clear cut. They kidnap, rape, torture, and kill people in barbaric ways. He or she chose to do the bidding of evil. They are the bad guys. PERIOD. There should be no shades of grey here. A perfect life is rare, even for the hero. This incessant need to humanize villains is off center. It is the victim and the hero with whom the reader should identify with. Not the character who chose the wrong side of justice. We all have problems which is why we should tolerate and be kind to each other instead of miserable. It is part of being a mature, responsible adult and citizen. Most of us still know to take the loss and still do right by others, but glorifying and romanticizing villains, be it mobsters like those seen in The Godfather, The Sopranos, Scarface, and Goodfellas to comic book villains in the upcoming Warner Brothers feature film Suicide Squad, it’s twisted.

Marvel Comics’ The Punisher (Frank Castle), saw his entire family get murdered. He became a vigilante. He took the law into his own hands because he saw the law as slow, full of loopholes, useless. The law frowns upon vigilantism because of population control. The government doesn’t want everyone going around taking the law into their hands. It doesn’t justify the existence and authority of the police and the judicial system, so it’s seen as a crime in its own right. In real life, President Andrew Jackson supported vigilantism. If it was fine for the Democratic President, then it is fine for fictional soldier and citizen Frank Castle; especially when you have an inept criminal justice system and people whipped into fear through shaming and political correctness.

People refer to the Punisher as one who is glorifying guns, others see him as a hero who is getting rid of some bad guys before they hurt others. His character is reminiscent of Charles Bronson’s character in the Death Wish franchise and Clint Eastwood’s character in the Dirty Harry series.  Punisher is doing Batman‘s job but in a more permanent way that goes against Batman‘s views.  Both characters are known in their respective universes as needing psychiatric attention; Frank Castle is Dick Tracy on steroids. He just happens to be a more believable character than Bruce Wayne is. One whose existence could be possible and probable. He doesn’t have the luxuries Wayne has so he needs to come up with money and he needs guns.  It’s hard to fight evil without a gun when evil has guns. He has to fight fire with fire. The difference is, the gun in Punisher’s hand is used for good; to take out evil. The guns in the bad guys hands are used to carry out crimes, usually heinous ones. Yet both Batman and The Punisher find that more often than not they have to work under the cover of night where there are less witnesses out and about. The night gives them the extra chance to disappear into the darkness without being caught by the local and/or government authorities who despise vigilantes because vigilantes are doing a better job than the ones deputized to do the work in the first place, particularly in literature.

Writers need to stop humanizing and glorifying a depraved individual like The Joker. When the final installment of the Christopher Nolan Batman movie premiered in a theater out west, a lunatic shot up a movie theater and killed a number of people. That sick individual did it for the notoriety. What made him into the monster that he is, isn’t guns or comic books. It was the medication he was on and his warped feelings toward society. Taking gun rights away from all Americans wouldn’t have changed anything. When you get an evil nut like him out on the street, he’ll figure something out to kill a large number of people. From building a homemade bomb to simply locking everyone in the theatre from the outside and setting the building on fire.

The movie theater tragedy re-ignited the gun debate. The irony  is not lost here. The Batman character himself has his origin in gun violence as we have seen it played out time and time again in the comics, on film, and in animated media. As a result of  what happened to his folks, Batman does not carry a gun. He originally did but that was before they concocted his origin; after his origin was explained, he never really carried a gun again and he never killed until recent reboots of the character by DC that is. Bad move on DC because DC just destroyed the most admirable part of the character. The issue here is mental illness, not the gun. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have guns and they have them at home to protect their families. Hundreds of thousands of these guns were not used in a crime today. It’s not the weapon. It’s who has possession of it. Much like Batman’s utility belt, the gun is a piece of technology and like any other piece of technology, it can be used for good or bad. The Punisher uses guns for the side of good; his enemies use them for evil.

The movie theater killer is an insane guy who got dressed up as the equally insane Joker with the only difference being that The Joker is fictional. He committed a heinous act while an audience watched the Batman movie, something like The Joker would do in the comics. Maybe that nut was trying to call out a real life Batman to his real life Joker.  Surprisingly, the Media and the politicians did not attack comic books over this issue.

They chose not to because superhero movies are big box office for Hollywood and Hollywood is politically active. Hollywood gives lots of money and perks to the politicians who do its bidding. There is the crime that really goes unpunished. Comic Books are glorifying guns and evil as much as the rest of the entertainment industry is. It’s where the money is.

To quote the late professional wrestler Randy “Macho Man” Savage: “Where money lies, honor dies”…and usually it’s with a body count.

The post Are Comic Books Glorifying Guns and Evil? appeared first on .

Nah, Deadpool is NOT one of the worst superhero films ever..although that Wolverine film he was in…

Recently and in the past few decades we have seen some critically acclaimed and financially $ucce$$ful films based on comic book characters . The Captain America Trilogy, Christopher Nolan’s Batman Trilogy, Guardians of the Galaxy, and the aforementioned Deadpool are recent blockbusters. Before these films, Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992) were financial successes that were nominated for Academy Awards with Batman winning one; Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy (1990) won three Oscars, and Superman: The Movie (1978) was nominated for three Academy Awards, winning an Oscar for Special Achievement for Visual Effects for a total of four Oscar nods.

However, we have also seen box office bombs like The Rocketeer (1991), Billy Zane’s The Phantom (1996), and 1987’s He-Man and The Masters of The Universe (Frank Langella is positively deliciously evil as Skeletor and you Jack Kirby fans will have a field day with the references to Kirby’s New Gods/Fourth World work).  These flops are entirely watchable and entertaining films. They have since developed popular cult followings which isn’t nothing to dismiss. Zane’s Phantom movie did very well in VHS and DVD sales and is presently on Netflix. Remember, even the classic 1939 musical The Wizard of Oz was a commercial flop. That family favorite film property is worth millions now.

AND THEN there are the colossal stinkers. The ones that put the “B.O.” in Box Office (B.O. means smelly body odor in American slang). Movies so bad you wonder how they got made in the first place and who was fired for approving the script, cast, and film be it on the big screen or on television. Some were surprise bombs–Jonah Hex is a great character; the film had a great cast. Yet the storyline was lousy.We all have heard the comments about bombs like Ben Affleck’s Daredevil, his estranged wife Jennifer Garner’s Elektra, Seth Rogen’s The Green Hornet, Halle Berry’s Cat-woman, and Ryan Reynold’s Green Lantern; but these films did not make the list of the top five biggest stinkers. What could be worse than these films? Let me jog your memory.

5. STEEL (1997)

Kenneth Johnson created the television series “V” and “The Bionic Woman” and was instrumental in developing the television shows “Alien Nation” and “The Incredible Hulk”. Shaquille O’Neal was an NBA superstar and champion. Together they made this abysmal flop about the supporting DC character from the Superman mythos who had his own comic once and long ago in one of DC’s many reboots. A heavily and overly exploited joke in this film is the reference to O’Neal’s inability to complete free-throws. Yep. That’s about it for this disaster. NEXT!

4. THE FANTASTIC FOUR (2015)

What could be worse than all previous versions of the Fantastic Four live action films? THIS ONE. A totally revamped version of the first family of comics when the fans were begging BEGGING I SAY for one great film and what did they get–a science fiction film that would have stood better off alone on its own rather than be attached to the familiar family property. It did not help the fate of this film that some of the lead actors made arrogant and ignorant remarks prior to and during the filming of this movie; nor did it help that the media plagued the film with its constant barrage of political correctness mud slinging. The director fighting with cast and crew and leaving the project in this one act debacle pretty much sealed its doom that no doctor could have saved.  Hope you caught the pun-NEXT!

3. SUPERMAN III (1983)

It’s a shame that after two great Superman films Christopher Reeve ended up playing second fiddle to an out of place Richard Pryor in this film. Both men seem to be just waltzing through this after they got a paycheck for this poor excuse of a sequel.  This is how evil Superman’s twin is: he straightened out Italy’s Leaning Tower of Pisa. Any more evil and he might have gone as far as stealing Bruce Wayne’s left socks. NEEEEE–XT!

2. SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987)

It’s a shame that after two great Superman films Christopher Reeve–whoa. Deja vu! What the heck? Yep, another abysmal Superman sequel starring one of if not the best men to don to iconic cape and suit. This one is an incredible train wreck. The premise is ridiculous. Superman is practically tyrant of the Earth as he informs all governments that he is getting rid of their nuclear weapon, and they just blindly accept his “generous” act?  Seriously? That act would make him world enemy and global threat #1 to nations of the planet Earth. Who is he to dictate world policy and step on the sovereign power of each country? We also get to see the Mariel Hemingway as Clark Kent’s new love interest breathe in outer space. What? This film is a face palm from start to end. Regardless how you feel about the last three Superman films, they were better than this and made a whole lot more money than this film and Superman III. This brings us to…

The worst comic book adaptation to film is THE MAN-THING (2005). Even George Lucas’  Howard The Duck was  better than this production shown on the Sy Fy (nee: Sci Fi) Network.  Have you seen it? Good! Then don’t! His powers are different, his origin is different–you figure the people behind the 2015 Fantastic Four film would have paid attention to this disastrous formula in bringing a property to film but nooooooo!  IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT! His costume looks like a reject of the Spawn suit from the awful 1997 Spawn film (which made number 6 on this list!) painted in green! The character was liked by the fans as it was! You mess with it, you get what you sowed! A disaster!  The Man-Thing in this film is more like DC’s Swamp Thing who had TWO enjoyable films and his own series. You’re far much better off watching Swamp Thing than the unrecognizable Man-Thing mess.

The post The 5 Worst Superhero Adaptations on Film EVAH! appeared first on .