Batman vs Superman

Batman vs Superman was two, maybe two and a half good films, frankensteined into one that doesn't quite work.

I actually really liked Superman vs Lex Luthor (except for the bits where they make Lex too Jokerish [not every supervillain has to be the Joker, DC], and the bit at the end where they reduce him to a herald for Darkseid. Which is not Lex Luthor's job.). Lex is evil in a clever way, and Clark gets to be lovely (mostly).

Batman vs Superman was quite good, except for the bits where Clark was an idiot. Because Clark isn't an idiot. I'm even okay with self-righteousness, but I don't think I'm supposed to think 'shut up Superman, you don't understand what's going on. Think a little harder.' at various points. Unfortunately, they gave Alfred the same "logic" and, well, I really don't like going 'shut up Alfred'. I am so totally on Batman's side on this one.

I will even accept their excuse for the new Batsuit, even if, in that sequence, I wanted to go 'Clark, the quick solution to this is to tell Bats what's going on'. I really don't like it when they make Superman stupid. (Also, I know people who can lift more than Batman. That's just wrong ;) )

Despite the fact that I think Wonder Woman was the third best thing about the film (Batfleck and Lex Luthor are 1 and 2), I could have done without that Justice League stuff being shoved in. Most of it (except the wonderful 'some boys share' bit) felt rushed and squashed and took up valuable time in the film.

What I really don't get is how of the characters the one they get right is Bruce Wayne. Who theoretically is the difficult one to do right. I don't like their Superman, I have some issues with their Lois (very few, mostly I love her) and Clark, but Bruce and Batsy I love.

No, really, I want to draw stars and hearts around Ben Affleck's Bruce and I'm actually quite sad that I won't get an Affleck solo Bat film.

It might be that it is easier to do grimdark Bruce and still be true to the character than it is to do Superman grimdark and still get the real Superman in there (I do think it's possible. David Goyer is just not the guy to do it.).

I know the film wants us to go 'yes, Superman and Alfred are right about Bruce weaponising kryptonite' and yet, Superman might not be the only Kryptonian about and there's no point assuming the rest of them are going to be cuddly. I am once again on Team Bats.

Two things really annoyed me:

1 - The evil terrorists at the start, I think I'm supposed to be annoyed when they kill Lois's sidekick rather than being really angry at him (and the CIA) for endangering every other journalist in the world.

2 - Since when is Superman American? Why is he getting a US military funeral? I realise that when the MCU mentions the rest of the world it's ham-fisted, but hey, at least they try. I wouldn't mind if Batman vs Superman was just hyper-focused on Gotham and Metropolis (like the Nolan Bat films are), but it's not, in the oddest ways.

Also, in a much smaller way, why is Luthor suddenly half-German?

I could also have done without Snyder's continuing love affair with the slow-mo, and the constant Messianic overtones with Superman. I have spent enough time in art museums to know most of the archetypal paintings Snyder is ripping off. And it is ripping off, not referencing. 

The other thing I didn’t like is spoilery. 

Superman’s “death”. 

The phrase, 'like you really would’ springs to mind. It robs the scene of all pathos. I think badly injured would have been better and actually more tear-jerking. 

This all sounds more negative than I actually felt about the film.  It’s enjoyable popcorn and would probably be better without its pretensions.

For They're Jolly Good Fellows

I'm not sure where to begin when talking about Paul O'Connell.  For Munster and Ireland he's been involved in and been one of the motivating forces behind several sporting triumphs which have given great joy to both me and my Mum.

If Brian O'Driscoll has the happy knack of making the impossible look easy, and his play had the beauty of artistry, then O'Connell's play showed the starker beauty of hard work and grit.  O'Connell in full flight, monstering the opposition (and his own players) is one of the most glorious sights in sport.

From one of the biggest players on any pitch (to quote friend L, O'Connell can loom sitting down) to a man who was one of the smaller guys in any wrestling ring.

American Dragon, as was, was one of the participants in one of my favourite series of wrestling matches.  He and Danny Williams wrestled in FWA, ROH and somewhere else, which I have managed to forget.  I caught the FWA match on The Wrestling Channel and I just had to, absolutely had to, see the next one (which was the ROH one).  I was even willing to suffer ROH's camerawork for them.  My problem with old school ROH's camerawork wasn't anything refined as artistic issues, no, it made me seasick and I do actually mean that, no hyperbole is involved.  But that match was worth it.

Sadly I missed most of Daniel Bryan's WWE run, including Team Hell No and his championship run, but I'm happy he made it.

And, while I'm sad to see him go, I'm glad he's made the sensible decision to quit given his health.

That's true in both their cases actually, because they're both the kind of stubborn who might not, and both rugby and wrestling are littered with people who should have quit for their own good but didn't.

I think that's something lots of pro-sports, but particularly wrestling (at this point, I'd like to say how sorry I am to hear about Axl Rotten and Balls Mahoney), need to look at - an exit strategy for people too injured to carry on, and too stubborn to realise it.

But to return to my original purpose - let us now raise a virtual glass to Paul O'Connell and Daniel Bryan, for every shout, cheer, curse and delight they've given us.

Our Next James Bond

Is not going to be Idris Elba.  Which is annoying for many, many reasons.  At least partly because I suspect Eon know he's not going to be James Bond and they're only getting people's hopes up.

I'm going to give Eon a pass, because I don't think their main reason is going to be Elba's race (and any fanboys who want to complain about having a black James Bond given the present James Blond are being awfully peculiar about which book details they demand from an actor).  I think his age is going to be the main problem.  Elba is 43, and would be replacing the 48 year old Daniel Craig.  Presuming that it takes 3 years to make a Bond fil, then that's only one or two films before they're likely to bring the next guy in.

I would love for the next James Bond to be Idris Elba having been a fan since Ultraviolet (Ultraviolet still being in the top two shows about its subject matter ever) but I have reached acceptance on the matter.

So who is likely to be the guy that gets the backlash for not being Idris Elba?

For a while it seemed like it might be Henry Cavill, and large chunks of the Man From U.N.C.L.E. acts as a very fine audition tape.  But there is one problem.

Superman.

Given the time and effort it takes to make a blockbuster, if he's already Superman, I doubt Eon would be willing to work around DC/WB's timetable.  Now, in an ideal world, that would mean they'd take Superman away from the people who can't write him and Cavill would be free to play Bond, but since it looks like they're going to be a Justice League series of films, that's not going to happen.

The moment I saw the snow chase scene in Inception, I went "there is our next James Bond".  I would love to have Tom Hardy as James Bond.  He can wear the heck out of a suit, he can do the violence, he can do the character, including that worrying lack of care about violence and he's young enough that they could get a fair few films out of him.  Friend L insists that Hardy couldn't do the suave bits of the Bond character, the way Bond is supposed to be able to choke someone to death with his bare hands while calmly discussing the right wine for the situation.  I think he could do that though.

A more significant problem is that I'm not sure Tom Hardy would want to do a franchise, or certainly not be the lead in one that so heavily relies on its main character.  Maybe if we got Christopher Nolan to direct.  By the way, if Nolan does ever direct a Bond film, I may have to be restrained for my own safety.  I would be excessively excited.

The aforementioned L has two desires when it comes to James Bond: Michael Fassbender to play Red Grant in a 'From Russia with Love' remake and Tom Hiddleston as James Bond.

I try to be supportive, as I've already had my perfect Bond.  (It is Timothy Dalton.  I accept no substitutes.)  L points out that Hiddleston can do the sharpness of Bond, and the well-spoken public schoolboy thing (because he is a well-spoken public schoolboy).  My problem is that I'm not sure Hiddleston can do the dead-eyed violent sociopathy bit.  I worry that he'd be too sympathetic.  I'm also not sure he can do violent menace.  L says I am being ridiculous, and that Michael Fassbender, who I don't want as Bond but can do the violent dangerous bit is every bit the same sort of wiry and lithe that Hiddleston is.  I keep trying to explain to him that Fassbender has dangerous shoulders and Hiddleston doesn't, which he says makes no sense.  The problem is I know exactly what I mean but I can't explain myself properly.  It has nothing to do with whether or not Hiddleston can do stunts and fightscenes.  I've seen enough clips of his Coriolanus to know he can fight.  It's something else, something intangible, which doesn't help on the explaining front.

Of the four actors I've mentioned, I suspect Hiddleston is the most likely at the moment, but that doesn't mean Eon won't go for someone truly random, see also Daniel Craig over Clive Owen much though I <3 Craig's Bond and Daniel Craig himself.

I've had to explain to one of the PhD students that no, Channing Tatum should not be the next James Bond, much though I also <3 Channing Tatum and would be utterly behind him as either the CIA's best and brightest in his own series of films, or Felix Leiter if Jeffrey Wright gets bored of playing him, but not James Bond.

At the minute Tom Hardy is the bookies favourite as well as mine, but that doesn't mean that much because I remember Clive Owen being the favourite before the last announcement.

I think that's a reasonable run-down of the runners and riders.  Anyone I've missed?

On Warren-Ball and Clive-Ball

Note: I am a fan of the Irish rugby team. Nothing to do with heritage, more that tap tackle on Dan Luger by Peter Stringer. After that my heart belonged to any team with Stringer on it.

I am also a rugby league fan who is still somewhat convinced that union is what happens to rugby when it's been bad and needs to be punished. This year's Six Nations is not helping that feeling.

~~~~

The present discussion in the UK (for which read London) press of Warren-ball, it's strengths and limitations, and the damage it causes to players seems to be willfully ignoring that it's an adaptation of the Clive Woodward playing style.

Clive-ball, for those of you who luckily missed those years, is possession-based. Keep the ball, maintain pressure, wait for the opponents to give away a penalty, give the ball to Jonny. (Those people who go on about how many tries the Woodward England team scored missed that they were often because the opposition had someone in the sin-bin and/or were chasing the game.)

Now there are some limitations to this plan, which we'll call 'needs Jonny'. It's also quite hard to come up with a plan against.

All the plans seem to involve some form of 'fronting up' or hitting the team playing Clive-ball hard so that your team get the ball. Now Ireland also added the choke tackle to that plan but that also has certain personnel requirements vis-a-vie the now retired Paul O'Connell and stop-getting-injured Sean O'Brien (also known as stop-getting-caught-punching-Pascal-Pape Sean O'Brien). But the "purest" form of fronting up to confound Clive-ball is Wales's Warren-ball.

It's an intrinsically destructive form of the game where, because the players are picked for size as much as skill, doing something once they've got the ball is the problem.

Warren-ball and its variants are also incredibly wearing.  When Courtney Lawes (highlight reel here) complains that English players (or players in the English Premiership) play too many games and are, pretty much, always sore, it's not coming from a dainty player doesn't enjoy contact.

The other problem is that you end up in an arms race. If their fly half is 6 foot tall, then yours has to be that too and the next one will be 6 foot 1. (Compare the vital statistics of Neil Jenkins [1.78 m, 86 kg], Stephen Jones [1.85 m, 94 kg], Dan Biggar [1.88 m, 89 kg] in the Wales fly-half position.) This has two effects, 1) the slightly smaller than Superman get locked out of the professional game and 2) any contact has more force about it because goodness knows they're still moving at speed. This is true in both open play and the scrum.

I swear that's where most of the sudden increase in injuries has come from. Obviously injuries happen, and always have done, and you'll never have a contact sport (or any sport) where no injuries occur but the number of players of middle career age (25-29) retiring with degenerative joint issues is ridiculous. Oddly, I don't think there's been as large an increase in concussions, I think we're just more aware of them and how serious they are now.

The other problem with Warren-ball is that once your opponents know you're playing it, it's possible to get round it, although this too involves "fronting up" and can lead to the aforementioned injury issues.  Last year, for instance, Ireland finished higher than Wales last year but I swear that was at least in part because they were more terrified of their captain than their opponents (now is a good time for that Paul O'Connell clip).

And while Warren-ball might win you the 6 Nations, it seems to be utterly useless at World Cup level, where the Southern Hemisphere players are big *and* skillful (sneaky evil is a skill and it lies at the heart of New Zealand's game). A variety of reasons has been suggested as to why this is, but while New Zealand remain the pinnacle, I doubt population size is the reason. I do however agree with the general view that the way NZ junior rugby is divided into weight as well as age categories probably helps retain the late growers better, and means that the bigger players have to be skillful (and learn skills) because they're playing against players as big as they are so they don't have the size advantage that you can get between a 13 year old who has had their growth spurt and one who hasn't.

Since that kind of thing, if the Northern Hemisphere unions ever take it on-board, is going to take a generation to work through, I fear I am going to have to rely on an Australian who reminds me of a malicious Yoda to produce fun rugby in the 6 Nations, and since he's the England manager, this fills me with woe.

Dreaming The Impossible Dream

I have been trying to avoid even thinking that Leicester might win the league, lest I jinx them.

Which would be odd enough, but I'm not even a Leicester City fan.  I think the best description might be that I'm a fellow traveller because I spent seven years in Leicester and still miss the city.  So it's more for the city that I want them to win, rather than the football team itself, much though I <3 Kasper Schmeichel, Robert Huth and Claudio Ranieri.

I arrived in Leicester for their last hurrah in the Premiership, and they were relegated at the end of that year.  I was around for that sticky patch in the old Second Division but I left before they got promoted back to the Premiership (and no, Cardiff, I still haven't forgiven you.)

One of the interesting things while I was there was how few Foxes fans I saw.  Clarendon Park was definitely Tiger country (the same way bits of Manchester are City or United).  It did seem to be a class thing, where Foxes fans tended to be people like me, while Tigers fans tended to be, well, a bit more rah (there's a reason why the 'shire' Leicstershire seats are Tory but the 'city' Leicestershire seats are Labour).

The few Foxes fans I did come across were always fun though.  There was a cafe I used to eat Saturday lunch at (a superior greasy spoon that serves chicken kievs and lasagna I can still remember the taste of even now) and a lot of the other customers when I was in were Dads with their kids eating before matches.  Most of the kids will be 12-16 now, but I'd like Leicester to win for them, to make up for freezing Saturday afternoons watching Leicester lose to Millwall.

Book Locations Update

Following on from last year's post on the topic (http://fulltimesportsfan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/book-locations.html), I've been continuing to track the where the books I've read are set.

Books set in the UK still heavily outnumber everything else, and the vast majority of those are set in England.

Part of the problem is that I read a lot more non-fiction than fiction and it tends to be less clearly set in one place, because either science moves or people move. Since the next few books on the 'to-read' list are also non-fiction, I doubt this is going to change.

4 Comic Book Movie Trailers - 4 - X-Men: Apocalypse

This is the review that has used all of the exclamation marks.

All of them!

There are those as yet ungotten and unborn whose lifetime's supply of exclamation marks I have used up already.  Just a warning.

Mostly because the non-spoilery version of my comments on the trailer are:

!!!
!!!!!
!!
Oh Erik, you idiot!
!!!
!!!!
!!! (squee)
!!!!
!!
!
!!!!
!!!
!!  Prof. X. !!!!!!
!

The really worrying thing is that L. actually guessed what shots all of the non-exclamation mark points were from.

The squee was Mystique's 'that's why I'm here, to fight,' and generally being Field Marshal Mystique with a vengeance.  (Because she is my favourite, just don't tell Hank.)

The 'Oh Erik, you idiot!' is the obvious thing, because, you know what, the other three have excuses, by now Erik you are old enough to know better.  And then I realise I am ranting at a fictional character (again) and ... damn it, the X-Men have got me, again.

Magneto doing it at least makes more sense than several of the other characters who do it.  I'm just deeply amused because my original comment from Apocalypse turning up in the end credits for Days of Future past was "(Gambit cut bit that turns out to be wrong and even worse, long) ... even while going "no, don't believe Apocalypse, because he lies."  I can't see them having it be Wolverine that turns into a Horseman because he's very much the viewer's entry character and Apocalypse is the one guy I don't think even Erik would try to use in a "stop humans from killing us".  I want to believe that last sentence so much."

And oh I was wrong but I knew I would be and it's glorious.

Spoilers for the general set up of all the Apocalypse stories follow.

Because there's always one good guy who thinks they can take down Apocalypse from the inside and goes under, and then realises that no, Apocalypse is stronger than that.

And after the first guy has done that the rest of them are bloody stupid for trying it again but it tends to be the gloriously heroic stupid characters that do it and we forgive them for this because ... we're very forgiving.  And Gambit is my favourite.

And I was hoping that Erik Lensherr because of his various 'I bow to no-one' issues might not fall for Apocalypse's entreaties but I knew he would because the one thing that would work on him is 'it's for the good of mutantkind' and even though Apocalypse is only really after his own greater glory that's like catnip for Magneto and well, I am going to keyboard-smash pretty much throughout the whole thing.

~~~~

I try not to get too excited in advance because that way lies disappointment but I can't help myself on this occasion.

4 Comic Book Movie Trailers - 3 - Captain America: Civil War

I can totally see why the Cap-fans are complaining that this is an Avengers film, rather than the Captain America film that the title suggests.

I can see why Marvel have done it though, because there's only really three characters you could use as *the* face for the Civil War story, and Marvel don't own the film rights to one of them, and the other one is pretty much the bad guy* and they want to make more money of him later so if they have to have a figurehead and not just make this Avengers 3 like they should (I said see their reasoning, not agree with it) they had to have Cap as that figurehead.

I don't like the fake-out of Rhodey's death, because there's only one character likely to die in this film and if you know who it is, you know who it is, and if you don't, you don't think it's going to be Rhodey because these aren't even his films.  And fake deaths (see also the concept of Marvel Dead as exemplified by Nick Fury in Captain America: The Winter Soldier) cheapen the real one(s) we're likely to get later.

By the way, if I am wrong and they do kill Rhodey, you will never hear the end of it from me, because Rhodey really doesn't get the respect he deserves in the non-Iron Man films.

The only problem I have with the trailer is that they're trying to shoe-horn comics characterisation into the film, with regard to Steve and Tony's friendship, which just isn't there in the films.  Because they've basically spent two films being barely civil to each other.  Or rather, Tony's been an arse and Steve Rogers, because he is lovely, has been rising above it.  So the 'I was your friend too' bit doesn't work, despite some bang up acting by Robert Downey jnr in that snippet.

I do like that they've tried to make Tony's motivation clearer and more reasonable than in the comics, and that they've built up to this through the past few films.

On a more peculiar note - help William Hurt is playing ancient crabby generals.  I am not willing to cope with this.

* Guess where I stand on the Superhero Registration Act.

I know that some sort of oversight is needed but registration is the worst possible solution.  Either ban it, a la the Keane Act (or Incredibles equivalent), or you know, accept it and carry on.  Don't put peoples's details down when they've got deadly enemies, because there's no such thing as an unbreakable cipher.  And if I know this, so do all the Marvelverse bad guys.

4 Comic Book Movie Trailers - 2 - Batman vs Superman

Put second because despite thinking it's a good, solid trailer I still have doubts about the whole thing.

Starting with Zack Snyder being the director.  And David S. Goyer being the writer.

I spent most of the trailer chuckling over Lex Luthor.  Which I'm not sure I'm supposed to do.  I mean, I chuckled at Kevin Spacey's Luthor but he was still evil through and through but I'm not sure if Jesse Eisenberg can do evil villain that I laugh at that I don't like more than the hero.  (NB - I am also one of the people who liked Superman Returns.)

I believe Henry Cavill's Superman, I just don't believe his Clark Kent.  And I'm still not sure about Wonder Woman.  And I hate the new Batsuit.

But there was this shot of Ben Affleck tied up and angry and not giving an inch and I was all 'Hello Bruce, I've missed you'.

And that's the thing, I am still dubious about the whole film but I'm tempted to go and watch it just for Batman.

4 Comic Book Movie Trailers - 1 - Suicide Squad

Split up for length.

And because otherwise I will use up the world's entire supply of exclamation marks in one go. (Yes, that is a warning that several of these posts will be squee-ridden.)

Suicide Squad goes first because I keep forgetting it exists only for someone to remind me.

Suicide Squad isn't one of my comics, but I know the general gist.

The trailer amused me, and I did like seeing Amanda Waller.

I'm always going to be in favour of any film that gives Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje a role.

From the trailer, I think I'm going to like the Leto Joker a lot more than a lot of people will. Because yes, he looks and feels like the Joker, just not the Ledger Joker.

I'm less taken by their version of Harley Quinn, she doesn't sound or feel like Harley Quinn. No diss intended on the actress who is giving it great guns, I just prefer my Harley more cheerful maniac rather than dark manic pixie girl.

That being said, I will be very sad if she doesn't turn on the Suicide Squad for Mister Jay!

I still have grievous doubts that they're going to be able to pull off the Suicide Squad properly in a film but I'm more than willing to give it a go. If I remember it exists.