Socrates said, "Wisdom begins in wonder."
Bill S. Preston, Esq. said, "Ghengis very much enjoys Twinkies because of the excellent sugar rush."
Poposophical sits somewhere between the two: "Wisdom begins in Twinkies."
According to Latino Review, Poposophical's first casting campaign was unsuccessful. Warner Bros. has cast Dumbledore's son as Professor Moriarty. Considering [minor spoiler alert--if you haven't seen the latest episode of Mad Men, consider skipping ahead] he got slapped around by his elderly father in Mad Men, I'm having trouble seeing the sinister in him; however, anyone from that show has my good graces (which are coveted among the collectors of graces from unknown pop-culture blogs). Mad Men has a great cast--one of the main reasons the show's won three consecutive Emmys.
Speaking of award-winning, The Social Network opened this weekend. It's being hailed as the top Oscar-contender. Poposophical would be extremely grateful to anyone who could explain this. I understand the whole David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin thing. But it's a movie about facebook. With Justin Timberlake. And the kid from Zombieland. Which brings me to what I really want to talk about: the Spider-Man reboot.
Wait, you ask. How exactly did we go from facebook and zombies to Spider-Man?
Well, we went from facebook to Jesse Eisenberg, to Zombieland, to Emma Stone--who is being offered the role of Mary Jane Watson in the new Spider-Man movie. But! We could have just as easily gone from facebook to Andrew Garfield, the new Peter Parker, to Emma Stone. There were options. In any case, we're at Emma Stone and Spider-Man, and these are the things I want to talk about.
Despite my concerns about the reboot, I like the decision to offer Emma Stone the role of Mary Jane. She was awesome in Zombieland. And everything I've heard says she was awesome in Easy A. Also, she's not Kirsten Dunst, which helps. (Sorry Kirsten. You peaked with Bring it On.) However, the studio is indicating that Gwen Stacy will be the main love interest for at least the first film; so whether Stone wants to lock herself into a probable three-film contract as a secondary love interest is another question.
I do support the decision to foreground Gwen Stacy, though--it'll help distinguish the new franchise, and provide a ton of dramatic potential, given Gwen's fate in the original comics continuity. Dianna Agron is the current front-runner for the role, according to various IMDb links.
Still, there are some big questions to be answered about the new film. Namely, if this is to be a gritty reboot as suggested by early reports, can the filmmakers balance that with the unique Spider-Man tone? (Can they? Yes. The real question is will they?) I recommend looking to Ultimate Spider-Man for inspiration, especially for Parker's non-heroic encounters. Need proof?
Great Line #1: Parker: Hey! Listen--this isn't what it looks like--unless it looks like that costumed freak Spider-Man punching your firend in the face so he can break into your boss's security system. Because if that's what it looks like...that's actually right.
Great Line #2: Aunt May: I don't want any hanky-panky up there. I mean it!
Great Line #3 Parker: I'm from a planet many galaxies far, far, far away from here where people and spiders mate and live in harmony.
Greatest Line: Jameson: This story has more holes in it than a Michael Bay movie!
But the biggest obstacle facing this reboot is undoubtedly the insurmountable task of replacing J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson [see above]. It can't be done! Cannot! And let's all be honest, he was the best part of the first three movies.
I welcome any challenging opinions (have a better choice for MJ?) or new ideas (is there someone not-from-Glee who can play Gwen?). And look for my next post, where I respond to a reader's short-essay-length comment on my superheroes post.
First, there was Glenn Beck. A month later, Jon Stewart. Less than 30 minutes later, Rev. Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA. They told us Honor had fled our country. Sanity was lost. Fearmongers had downgraded to mere mongers.
Then, they had the audacity to assemble on the nation's second-most sacred location: the Lincoln Memorial. (The most sacred? The Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando.) How dare they desecrate Big Beardy Abe's memorial! As President, Lincoln stood for values like Freedom, Unity, and Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus. By launching their campaigns at the foot of his shrine, these mere mortals are crapping in the face of everything our sixteenth deity achieved in his lifetime!
We here at Poposophical intend to fight back against this outrage. But to stage a rally to upstate another rally is like fighting fire with fire: it only exacerbates the problem, even if it looks really damn exciting. So, even with two casting campaigns still active (We're still behind you, Diddles!), Poposophical announces the Poposophical Sit-On-Your-Ass to Sustain the Status Quo!
Who is this for? People who are sick of all these demonstrations but don't give a shit enough to do anything about it! Or maybe they're not sick of the demonstrations--they might even support the demonstrations hypothetically--but they're still too damn lazy to do anything about it! Other rallies talk about true American values, but Poposophical's Sit-On-Your-Ass is the only one that really upholds them.
What, exactly, is it? This is an international event where, on Monday, October 11th, people will not gather in any significant location, and will continue to do exactly whatever the hell they would normally be doing! Do you have work? Go to work! Do you normally skip work? Hit the strip club! Going in for a root canal? Go in with a party hat and suffer the terrible agony!
Why the hell are we doing this?
Uh...
Doing what, exactly? Our normal, monotonous, day-to-day routines? Well, because they're kind of necessary. Besides, these calls to arms are getting kind of ridiculous. First of all, we've totally forgot about making up absurd names just to create a mildly interesting acronym (SOY ASS Q!). Worse, if we keep pledging, rallying, and marching, the whole nation will be too damn tired to do anything else. What energy will be left for destroying the environment or ignoring our loved ones? None, sadly. Just none.
So on October 11th--and really, the majority of weekdays--sit on your ass and keep doing what you usually do. Before it's too late.
I've made a recent discovery that I felt necessary to share. If you were to type the letters "DC" into a google search at the moment of this posting, here are the first three results, top to bottom, with google's site descriptions:
1. DC Shoes
"Team profiles, a company history and pictures of all the crazy shoes they've put out."
2. DC Comics
"The official DC Comics web page. Plenty of information about all their titles. Listen to the Superman radio show."
3. DC.gov
"The official web site of the Government of the District of Columbia."
Yes, that's right. The capital of the United States of America comes in third. Beaten by shoes and comic books.
Before the article, a couple of things to clarify:
1. Poposophical is still running. Slowly, yes, but still running. I’ve been having a problem with my router, where it automatically redirects me away from certain webpages, and as it turns out, Poposophical is one of them. The problem’s been running for two months, and until I finally solve it, I’ll be working out of other computers. Posts will remain infrequent, but—hopefully—not two-months-apart infrequent.
2. This article will refer frequently to BMI: Body Mass Index. It’s a type of measurement comparing weight against height. This measure is approximate, and best used relatively. I’d also like to note that BMI measurements are less accurate for particularly muscular persons, such as superheroes and athletes. But, for general comparisons, it works.
And now to the article.
In the rush of Comi-Con 2010, I came across an article on io9 examining the BMI of male and female superheroes in comparison to statistics on actual Americans. As expected, most Americans are overweight. Also as expected, there’s a significant discrepancy between superheroes and superheroines. The article defines a BMI under 18.5 as underweight, and over 25 as overweight. Guess what the averages are for male and female characters?
Superheroines average a BMI of 19.3—just barely inside the “normal” range—while their male counterparts balance out around 25.5—a tiny bit into the “overweight” range. Anyone who’s ever even seen the cover of a superhero comic should not be surprised. Professional athletes envy Superman’s physique, and equally professional supermodels would envy Wonder Woman’s, if they weren’t having so much fun rolling around beaches in their bikinis.
When I directed a friend to this article, she pointed out that, rather than answering its title (“Why All Female Superheroes Look the Same”), the article simply acknowledges that “people like skinny women with big boobs” (her words. And well said). So, what’s going on with this? Are there exceptions? And perhaps the bigger question: is this a problem?
Comic books are unrealistic. Let’s just get that out of the way first. All of them in different ways, and some of them in practically every way, but the fact is that the universe of comics is not our universe. In fact, the comics universe is idealized version of our universe. People have superpowers. They have explicit antagonists they can fight. Their words come out in little bubbles! Clearly nothing like real life, where normal-powered people fight alcoholism, child-support checks, and medicinal side-effects without the aid of dialogue bubbles.
So, yes, superheroes (male and female) are unrealistic. I praise Tim Gunn for pointing out (during his 20-minute critique of superhero costumes, which can be found here) that everyone decries comics for presenting unreasonable standards for women’s physical appearance. But guess what—they do the same exact thing with men. It’s just in the opposite direction. Even with the greatest possible workout regimen and eating plan—and a tankfull of steroids—no athlete or bodybuilder will look as astounding as Jim Lee’s superheroes.
Comics—particularly the superhero genre—could give anyone body image issues regardless of sex, age, ethnicity, or fitness level. Personally, the problem doesn’t affect me because I recognize the comics as fantasy. The over-idealized physique is part of the escape from the “normal”; it’s part of what makes the whole thing exciting. I love the Bond films, but does that mean I actually desire being shot at, bedding numerous hot women, and having my testicles smashed in by an asthmatic gambler? No! Well, two-for-three, anyway. The point is: those things are exciting because we get to experience them without actually facing any of the physical danger. Similar for superhero comics: the physique and the superpowers are just parts of the fantasy.
Part of the problem is that images are powerful, and by presenting “idealized” images well beyond the realm of normality, comics seem to suggest that this is what people should look like. So we have boys putting hazardous chemicals into their bodies while girls refuse to put anything into theirs. Each is bad, and I’m not condoning either. Thus ends this portion of Poposophical PSAs.
The major difference between the exaggeration of men and women in comics is that for men, it’s more logical (much like the difference in pant sizes). Here’s what I mean by “logical”: superheroes have to fight powerful foes and armies of henchmen. Thirty-four-inch biceps help with that. Superheroines, on the other hand, usually have waists that are inversely proportioned to their mammary glands. Meaning that their cup sizes greatly eclipse their belts. Which is to say, they are very, uh….
They have huge knockers.
Aside from being a distraction (cf. Powergirl), having enormous boobies doesn’t logically aid the superhero cause. Really, it’s just an appeal to the same fantasy element that gives male superheroes pectorals the size of small redwoods. Let’s look at extreme cases for both sides. Since the io9 article only looked at Marvel characters, I’ll do the same. For the men, we have the Incredible Hulk.
Again, these are extreme cases. But the Hulk is one hell of an extreme. According to Marvel’s website, the Hulk stands somewhere between seven and eight feet tall, weighing over 1,000 pounds. That’s a BMI of at least 80. Remember what was overweight? Twenty-five. When studios had to cast a ridiculously muscled man to play the character in a TV series, they chose Lou Ferrigno, who, when he first won Mr. Universe, was 6’5” and weighed 285—a BMI of 33.8. That’s at least seven inches shorter than Hulk’s official listings, and less than one-third the weight. But in defense of Hulk’s absurd size, he did have to fight tanks. Actual tanks.
On Marvel’s site, she’s listed at 5’10”, 120 lbs. At that height, they can just barely pass off her weight, but it still gives her a BMI of 17.2. However, one look at Storm’s official page suggests that Marvel isn’t being very precise with its measurements. How does this compare with actual women? Victoria’s Secret supermodel Alessandra Ambrosio is 5’10”, 112 lbs, giving her a BMI of 16.1 (below the underweight mark of 18.5). Despite having “super-” in her job title, I don’t think Alessandra is the best comparison for a superheroine. Superheroes fight crime, which should require more muscle. Let’s look at an athlete: Caroline Wozniacki.
Wozniacki’s WTA page lists her at 5’10 and 128 lbs. That’s fairly average for a tennis player, although I’d argue that she has a little less muscle (physical muscle, which adds weight) than her competitors. Still, those stats translate to a BMI of 18.4, which is the smaller edge of “normal”. Compare that to players like Serena Williams: 5’9”, 150—a BMI of 22.1 which is right in the middle of the “normal” range. I argue that Wozniacki is on the lower end of the BMI charts, so even comparing Emma Frost to female athletes is a stretched comparison.
Perhaps this is overanalyzing our pencil-and-ink heroes. Is it really fair to speculate on their heights and weights, using that data to compare them to actual people? No. Would we compare Bond’s MI6 history to actual secret agents? Of course not. (Partially because we wouldn’t have the real-world data.) The io9 article was simply making a point—a statistical one, at that. Do you ever feel like superheroines all look the same, more so than the guys? That’s because their (approximate) height-to-weight ratio has a smaller standard deviation than male superheroes. Without making this a stats class, this basically means that the range of their weights is much smaller than the supermen. The only real outlier I could find is She-Hulk:
Even she only looks like a well-muscled athlete, although she is listed at 6'7", 650 lbs. But this is also the Ultimates incarnation of She-Hulk, part of Marvel's movement to make more realistic superheroes. The non-ultimate She-Hulk is much less bulky, especially in comparison to her male counterpart.
Does uniformity of size make superheroines visually uninteresting? In some cases, perhaps. But does it make them uninteresting as a group? Not at all. If the story is compelling and the artwork draws me in, I don’t really care if Felicia Hardy looks a lot like Supergirl. I just want to watch them beat the shit out of badguys and make witty comments. Just like James Bond.
As my dedicated fanbase is surely aware, I have a special place in my heart/a burning, borderline-debilitating obsession with Batman. Not unlike my affection for Neil Patrick freakin' Harris. And with Christopher Nolan currently working on a script for the follow-up to the slightly-overappreciated-but-not-really The Dark Knight, any mention of Batman grabs my face like the weird hand-thingies in Alien.
The name facehugger sounds just a little too friendly.
The immediate problem of a film like Dark Knight becomes who should serve the forces of darkness in the sequel? The Riddler is the obvious choice, being better-known and more realistic than villains like the Man-bat. But who to play him? Can the world handle the process of casting two villainous masterminds? I've spent that past 692 days trying to solve this problem. So has pretty much everyone else: we've heard rumors that ranged from the fairly uninspired (Johnny Depp) to the downright blasphemous (Eddie Murphy) to awesome-in-theory-but-probably-not-realistic.
But still awesome in theory.
Casting the Riddler is even more complicated than the Moriarty decision for 2 reasons. First is the more obvious, who-on-earth-can-follow-Ledger's-act question. But, four years ago, the same might have been asked of Jack Nicholson's Joker, which leads to the second issue: Christopher Nolan is all about unexpected casting decisions. Again, to succeed Jack Nicholson, he picked the guy who played a cowboy. To succeed George Clooney, the epitome of the handsomely successful American, he picked the anorexic guy from Wales. So any casting rumor that sounds like it would make sense (is that a paradox?) probably isn't going to happen.
Which is why this is the greatest thing I've read all month: Joseph Gordon-Levitt is rumored to play Riddler.
Yes, this is still over two years before the film's release date. And yes, his reps have already denied it. I don't care. This needs to happen. Immediately. Christopher Nolan, if you're reading this, (first of all, I'm honored. We should talk sometime--I have some ideas) please take care of this immediately. You're obviously tight with JGL after making Inception (which is the sparkling jewel in the otherwise unexciting summer lineup). Just call him up and say, "Hey buddy, you're the Riddler. Shooting starts in December." No need to negotiate. Just do it.
As has already been noted over at KMDb, Warner Bros. has officially locked down a date (December 16) for a Sherlock Sequel, and is promising everyone more Moriarty. For anyone who's a fan of Sherlock, Robert Downey Jr. or evil geniuses in general, this is great news. (And, honestly, if you don't fall into at least one of those categories, how much can you really matter?) But these announcements raise one very important question.
"Yes, Watson?"
Who the hell are they going to get to play Moriarty? This is the second-most important casting decision in the entirety of Hollywood! (Penultimate only to another villain--possibly villains--scheduled for release July 20, 2010.) And casting Sherlock Holmes' archrival is no small task. This is a man who has already outsmarted Holmes and manipulated Irene Adler. A man who, in Holmes' frequently-quoted description "is the Napoleon of crime". A man who was authored for the express purpose of killing Sherlock Holmes! He must command the greatest terror this side of Transylvania!
Note that nowhere in that description was there a square jaw or rippling muscles. So, sorry Brad Pitt--you're out. Moriarty's role requires someone who looks menacing, but in a I'm-killing-you-with-my-mind way, not a I'm-about-to-call-the-Bear-Jew kind of way. Poposophical is here to lead the charge in the Moriarty casting debate. So you're probably wondering which candidate Poposphical endorses. Or maybe not. Maybe you're wondering how silly putty picks shit up off comics. (In which case you are the worst audience to ever watch movies and read this blog!) Anyway, here's the endorsement:
Daniel Day-Lewis, AKA DDL, henceforth known as Diddles. Think about it. He's British; he looks the part; he will drink your milkshake! (Or, in Holmes' case, shoot your cocaine!)
Seriously, Warner Bros. needs to cast someone who looks legitimately threatening to Sherlock and Watson. Lord Blackwood's menace (such as it was) depended entirely on his mysticism. Moriarty must be imposing on his own terms. Go ahead, name someone better. Diddles is the guy who cut out his own eye and sent it to his enemy in the mail. It may not be Moriarty-level genius, and while it's not quite as gruesome as a horse head, it is more effective than a nail-polished toe.
Consider this the official start to the Diddles-Moriarty campaign. I even created a campaign picture myself and am giving everyone free reign to spread it around the internet like a surprise STD. No need to thank me. Just make sure you tell everyone you know, and take regular trips to the clinic. But mostly the telling everyone part.
This isn't an exact figure, merely a rough estimate, but there are about eleventy billion songs in official, recorded existence. Somewhere around 70% fall under the love category: either in-love or out-of-love. A decent 15% are uplifting party-style songs. Approximately 8% are Red Hot Chili Peppers songs. And the remaining 7% are songs dedicated to one's homies. But--I've statistically verified this--an astonishing 0% are songs dedicated to creepers! Sure, there are creepy songs (lookin' at you, Sting), but zero songs dedicated to creepers. So I decided to take a creepy song and alter the lyrics in favor of our underrepresented friends stalkers.
This one's for you, buddy.
Thus, I present: Don't Fear the Creeper
[Guitar Hook]
All of my free time I stalk you online Seasons don’t fear the creeper Nor does the President or your dear mom (but they don’t have facebook) Come on baby (don’t fear the creeper) Accept my friend request (don’t fear the creeper) You can see my pics (don’t fear the creeper) And I’ll see your… bumper stickers I am suuuch a creep I am suuuch a creep
I use all my time To stalk people online I used to do this on myspace But facebook is much easier (used to be on myspace) 40,000 men and women every day (they have no idea) 40,000 men and women every day (they should be scared) Another 40,000 coming every day (have to meet a quota) Come on baby (don’t fear the creeper) Accept my friend request (don’t fear the creeper) You can see my pics (don’t fear the creeper) I can see your drunken-videos-that-your-friends-posted-on-facebook-even-though-you-asked-them-not-to-for-exactly-this-reason I am suuuch a creep I am suuuch a creep
Now I know your name Location, and age I memorized all of your interests Favorite movies, TV shows, and songs Your home phone number and all your deepest fears Just the right words to bring you to tears Hey could we meet for a couple beers? (don’t be afraid) Come on baby (yeah, have no fear) No, don’t run away (actually on second thought…) If you want we can both go and smoke some pot (you should probably be afraid) Come on, take my hand (definitely be afraid) Come on baby (seriously, run)
Well, we went from facebook to Jesse Eisenberg, to Zombieland, to Emma Stone--who is being offered the role of Mary Jane Watson in the new Spider-Man movie. But! We could have just as easily gone from facebook to Andrew Garfield, the new Peter Parker, to Emma Stone. There were options. In any case, we're at Emma Stone and Spider-Man, and these are the things I want to talk about.
