Nerd Rage! Man of Steel. Part 1.

This is about many of the things that are wrong with Man of Steel. It sucked. The movie net something like $300 million dollars and I hate the film. I had reservations about Amy Adams playing tough talkin', big city livin', woman-in-a-man's-world Lois Lane, Russell Crowe playing fatherly scientist Jor-El, and Diane Lane playing motherly, heart of America, salt of the Earth, Martha "Ma" Kent. There were so many things that I didn't like about the movie it's gonna be a long post.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Let's get to it.

First of all I really, really like Amy Adams. Enchanted was awesome, she was great in The Fighter, I really liked Julie & Julia, and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby is one of my favorite movies. In each of the characters Amy Adams plays in those movies feel like either small town, or very naive, or both. Her acting as Lois Lane feels like a small town girl trying to make it in the big city. To describe each: Lois is dark, sensual, alluring, cunning, hardened, and untrusting. Amy Adams looks sweet, beautiful, open, trusting, light and honest. The two feel as opposite as can be, but Adams does her best to cover the distance, but she falls short. Adams doesn't feel like Lois Lane. Lois has to be quicker and more cunning than any man in the field of journalism. Lois has had to use every tool in her arsenal to scoop the men, and prove her self with every story she writes. To the world and to herself. With Adams even her voice doesn't fit the character. Her voice reminds me of beautiful music, or soft wind chimes, even at her most intense moments in the movie. To me Amy Adams is just too pure to play someone who's used her sexuality to get a scoop, or has blurred the lines of right and wrong to get ahead. None of these things is Amy Adams fault of course, the role is just not right for her, and that's the fault of the directors.

The things that should have been changed are the amount of times Amy Adams uses passive tense. It is quite noticeable in the first scene in the Daily Planet building. Multiple times Perry attacks Lois's article and she backs herself up with "What about the civilian contractors who corroborated my story?" which should have been a active statement than a passive question such as "I have (x amount of) civilian contractors who corroborated this story!" She then tries to plead with Perry with "Perry, come on, it's me we're talking about. I'm a Pulitzer prize winning reporter." Lois Lane does NOT plead. She makes bold statements and spits in the face of authority. The line should have read more like "Perry it's ME you're talking to. A Pulitzer prize winning reporter, not some gossip columnist!" She gets shut down again and retorts meekly with "Print it or I walk." It seemed more like a desperate ploy than an actual threat, much like a child threatening to hold their breath or run away. The delivery of the line should have been much more angry. Everyone has been so angry at their job they have wanted to quit at some point, and many people have believed in something so passionately they'd put their reputations on the line, so the line should have been delivered: "Print it or I walk!" Perry then reminds her that she can't and that she's under contract. She then just sighs as Perry lays into her about aliens and how he'll never run the story. She passive-aggressively smiles and that's the end of the scene. My experience with strong willed, direct, and stubborn people, like Lois might be, they will NEVER let you have the last word. Casual disagreements get pretty heated, and when you don't believe them after a bit that person gets seriously pissed off. Forget about two shots fired and no retort.

There are several other things that might go unnoticed like when you first see Lois in the chopper she fumbles around trying to get down and Superman casually lifts her out and she meekly thanks him. First, the drop looks to be about 3-4 feet off the ground. It seems like a journalist who would be "...imbedded with the First Division" wouldn't be afraid of such a drop, nor be unfamiliar with jumping out of a grounded helicopter. In all honesty to fix this bit would be to have her directly tell Superman to help a lady out, and instead of the thanks she should have complemented him setting up a slight attraction to him. The shot of her finding out where she's staying and asking about tinkling? The story just set up that she was with the First Division, so the cot in a storage room with a space heater would look like a resort in comparison.

Next up is Russell Crowe as Jor-El.

Ok. The Gladiator as one of the foremost scientists on a more technologically advanced alien planet? It would have been easier to swallow Crowe as a scientist had they not clad him in armor with such ridiculous bulk.

What scientist wears this?

Shoulder pads? A freakin' cape? Robes? I don't get it, is this supposed to be some fusion of the 16th century and some weird future? For some reason I can't imagine spaulders coming into style, nor can I see them being used for ANY kind of science. Science is about logic and facts, spill a bit of acid on your exposed forearm unitard? I guess you're losing an arm because it'll be too late for you to take off all those clothes. Oh it's an alien material you say? Then what's the deal with the cape? Oh that's for the meeting with the council of scientists? So Jor-El is planning on shoulder checking someone? Also the house of El's crest is the "S"? It stands for "hope"? That's cool, the diamond crest with a character that means "hope" just happens to look like an "S" and that he happens to send his son to a planet that uses that same symbol as a letter. Come on. That's terrible writing. While we're at it the portrayal of Jor-El is much too aggressive for my taste. He takes out three armed guards, then one shot one kills two back-up guards, runs outside and jumps onto his flying mount. I mean come on! Why make Jor-El out to be a knight?

I'd rather have A Beautiful Mind Crowe. The genius mind but less paranoid-schizophrenia type of acting. In my mind Jor-El was the greatest scientist of all Krypton. His mind went up against Braniac's and tried to expose the machine's true intentions, but was shut down by the bureaucracy of the council, so he developed a vessel for keeping his new born son alive, as well as plotting trajectory of said vessel to not only a viable planet, but one to which his son would blend in with his surroundings and potentially find those that would care for him. If that doesn't scream super genius then I don't know what does.

To wrap up the side characters, Diane Lane as Martha "Ma" Kent.

This is from the last paragraph of her IMDb page:

Her immense talent at playing human and real characters, her "drop dead gorgeous" beauty and down-to-earth grittiness...

She is great at gritty characters, characters that have real depth, and those that get down and dirty to do the right thing. Ma Kent is not one of those characters. Lane would have been great at Lois, but as Martha it was like Diane Lane was struggling to grasp the character. Lane looks tough, she feels like a big city woman, and most of all she's much too beautiful. Ma Kent is small town, motherly, and completely non sexual. I remember thinking while watching the scenes with Diane Lane that there are only so many emotions that she's feeling and that she didn't quite feel right as Martha. It never felt like she made the connection with Clark. Martha is always the one to hold onto her son, to keep him close, and to worry for him. I never got that feeling in the movie. It felt like Ms. Lane was trying to find some dynamic tortured soul but was also being told to hold back. Martha says motherhood to me, but not the motherhood she dreamed of. In my mind Martha was a popular girl in Smallville, and she married Jonathan soon after high school. She dreamed of the children she'd have since she was a little girl, and those dreams were dashed when she found out she couldn't have children. She had her husband and she thought that it would be enough. When Clark's ship crashed and they found him as a baby Martha knew she'd gotten her wish at a child and this was her chance to have her perfect family. She'd be over-protective, but lovingly supportive. Unnecessary risks are out, and she'd worry over her son's aimless wandering, but when there is something that needs to be done she'll be the first to tell him to do it; knowing that her son has the strength to pull through. Martha Kent is much deeper than what we got to see in this portrayal by Ms. Lane in Man of Steel.

Nerd Rage! DC vs Marvel

I wouldn't call myself a DC fanboy, but something that irritates me to no end is when Marvel fans hate on DC and cite how over powered Superman is, and how his weaknesses are terrible. I agree that most things about Superman are quite ridiculous and his powers and abilities are quite inconsistent, but that's what happens when there are a bunch of different writers of different abilities writing different books at different times with different artist. Things are not always going to line up perfectly. Superman has been around forever, and everyone has a different idea about his powers and abilities; just like every other comic book hero. Even Deadpool has varying degrees of violence, paranoia, regenerative powers, and he even looks less ugly from time to time.

Next is how impossible it is for an alien to live among us and do good. This is hard to believe, or just so impossible that it would never be one of us? I'm sorry to burst the bubble here and say that no one is ever going to clench their fist and have three blades pop out between their knuckles. A spider bite and a life time of guilt isn't going to make me a superhero. Ever. Doing good is in all of us. The choice to do what is right and taking the hard road. Being raised properly goes a long way in deciding what is right and making the decision to do so. Who is to say Clark didn't do what Peter did and try to use his powers selfishly? They both had strong father figures to help them sort out right and wrong, but Jonathan Kent lived longer than Uncle Ben, and would have helped Clark become a more responsible man than Peter.

Are stories are more compelling? I think not. There are compelling arcs, but none as successful as the death of Superman. That made it onto the news! One of the most recognizable characters on Earth died and everyone knew about it. I haven't heard of another arc that has been in the news. Has Jean Grey made the news ANY of the times she died? Professor X? Captain America? None of the heroes that have passed were more recognized than Superman.

A lot of the hate Superman gets are from people that know him from the movies. The movies blow. I get that. Superman Returns? Terrible. Man of Steel? Don't get me started. The villains he had to fight are also terrible. Everyone knows Lex Luthor, but he's a mastermind, not a movie villain. His plans happen over arcs and he plays the long game and that's something movie writers can't grasp. Why would the end game be an island created out of kryptonite? Why would Superman take it upon himself to lift that out of the ocean? My point is that movie Superman sucks.

I agree that Superman is not the best superhero, and his powers are inconsistent and over the top, but those things are also true of every other hero. Sometimes superheroes get powers that serve them for one arc and never use them again, or they use their powers like normal when they should be altered in some way. Cyclops can shoot beams from his eyes that can level mountains, but often times it's difficult for him to blast something like a wall or heavy door. Cyclops also doesn't have an unlimited source of those beams. His body converts solar energy into optic blasts, so he should at least be cautious of the amount of energy he uses at night and inside, but he isn't and he uses his blasts as well regardless of the amount of light he can use. This is but one character out of thousands in any universe. There are no perfect characters because there are no perfect writers. Let go of the faults you see in these creations and enjoy them for what they are. Except for the Superman movies. I won't let go of that...

Nerd Rage! Vibranium

Ok I have some beef with Vibranium. I know that Vibranium is a fictional metal with large ore deposits in the fictional African nation of Wakanda. Great. Why do I have a problem with that? It's a huge writers crutch. Especially when it comes to none other than Captain America. His shield specifically. Either adamantium/vibranium alloy, or proto-adamantium (vibranium/iron alloy) makes no difference because both are Wakandan vibranium; which possesses the unique nature of absorbing all vibrations as well as kinetic energy.

"The more energy vibranium absorbs the tougher it becomes." Right from the wiki. It is impossible for the shield to absorb something and become stronger, but for the sake of the argument if the shield could absorb the kinetic energy of an impact things like Captain America throwing his shield and having it bounce and harm multiple assailants then return to him is impossible. Regardless of how many times he has thrown his shield the properties of vibranium would inhibit a single bounce. There is only a certain amount of potential kinetic energy in a thrown object, and when that object hits its target a percent of that energy is expelled into the target, but the entire time the object is in the air it is also losing energy from wind resistance.

Vibranium in the Marvel universe is the source of near infinite energy. The shield as shown that it can absorb more kinetic energy than it imparts on impact AND loses from wind resistance. In a vacuum  the shield might bounce forever. Cap's shield is one of the most bogus writing holes in all of comic-dom, and people go along with it because he's America's hero, or a fan favorite, or for whatever reason. That's not what we should expect from comics and that's not what we should swallow either.

I grew up reading comic books, and I love all the heroes. That's why I decided on this subject. Writing holes are not what I want to see in my childhood. These people are paid to write comics, and make movies (Joss Whedon). If I can see these things shouldn't they? Suspended disbelief works until you snap the viewer out of the experience and then you see actors on screen, writing mistakes, wardrobe and setting goofs, all those things can happen, and for me and vibranium it was in the Avengers. Captain America blocks a blow from the mighty Thor (who goes blow for blow with the Hulk) unscathed, but a grenade blows Cap out a window? Momentum of the blast carries Cap out of the window? Oh, so where does he go when Thor hits the shield? Nowhere. That's the mystery to me.

Photography and Film

I have always been a sort of shutter bug. In high school I frequently hung out in the photography classes. I enjoyed the developing process of black and white photography, but I preferred my pencil and paper. After high school I really enjoyed taking snapshots with my digital point and shoot, but never really took it any further. That all changed with dslrs with hd video recording. I could finally combine multiple passions in a single, (relatively) inexpensive platform.

Capturing motion had captured me from early on in life. My uncle had the first home video camera I had ever touched. I was enthralled from the beginning. Zoom was my all time favorite function. If I remember correctly the footage looked bizarre, like a person on land, but also on a boat, and wildly flying in and out at a guy. To look at it now, it might give me some sort of seasickness or something. Fast forward a few years later and I got my own video camera for Christmas; I think it was a Sharp Viewcam...

Oddly enough people are STILL selling this on Amazon.

I loved it. It shot standard square video onto tape, a big ass lcd screen (3 inches!?!? whaaaat?), 300 degree swivel and all the controls right at your thumbs! The only thing was... I had no way of editing the videos that I took, so pretty much I only used it for family functions... bummer.

Since the introduction of dslr hd video recording a few years ago I have kept an eye out on entry level cameras. It takes me forever to decide what I should buy, I ended up deciding on getting a Canon t4i. Then they discontinued the model in favor of the not much changed t5i. I figured since I'd waited that long I'd just wait a bit more and get the t4i once it dropped in price. It didn't. People bought up the t4i since it was essentially the same as the t5i only slightly cheaper. So then this was my choice, t5i or t3i?

T3i

T5i

I opted for the t3i since I am new to digital photography and video and if I fail miserably I'll have saved a few hundred bucks. See the difference? Yea, me either. You have to look at the spec sheets to find the real difference, and it's a touch screen, all cross type auto-focus points, hybrid CMOS sensor and the new STM motor system. What do all these things mean?

The reason I was going for the t4i was that the touch screen would make changing settings a snap, just touch and change. A hybrid CMOS system means that you can use continuous auto-focus while shooting video; which is important for making sure your video is in focus. The new STM lenses have a new super quiet focusing motor that makes almost no noise to interfere with capturing audio. The t4i also does better with higher ISO settings than the t3i, and has on camera stereo microphones. With all these great things, why didn't I spring for the t5i?

The t5i with the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 is stm lens is currently selling for $850 while I bought the t3i for $400. I ended up spending about $500 for the camera, kit lens and a 50mm f1.8 prime lens. Here is the question, does the t5i's benefits out weigh $450? For me they do not because with that money I can purchase the Shure VP83 for ~$200 (record to camera version [if I'm patient...]).

VP 83 and VP 83f. The 83f records it's own audio onto SD cards.

One of the biggest things in visual media, be it theater, movies, television, internet or gaming is audio. Audio is king in making a professional level video. Good audio separates home movies into something much more real and immersive. Poor audio snaps the viewer into disbelief and the video might as well be a slide show.

The nifty-fifty, or the Canon 50mm f1.8 mark 2 is a lens I purchased right away. I picked it up with the body and kit lens, and cost $100 from Canon, but can be purchased second hand for about $80.

The 50 1.8 mk 2 is just about as cheap as in-production Canon lenses go. It's sharp all through the aperture/f-stop range and produces wonderful bokeh. What does that really mean? Unlike some lenses, this particular lens can be opened to it's widest setting without fear of haziness that other lenses get, so when you take photos the lens won't give you a weird ethereal look that you weren't going for. Also the smaller the f-stop is, the smaller the focal range is. This means that if you wanted to you could photograph a person's head at 3/4 view and have one eye in focus and the other eye a bit blurry and the background completely blurry. This lens will give you that great shallow focus depth of field in video as well. At f1.8 this lens will let in a lot of light onto the sensor, so it's great for low light/indoor photography. There are cons to this lens though. It is completely plastic, even the mount is plastic, so if you're not careful you can easily break it. The motor in the auto-focus is nothing special so in a quiet setting like a wedding ceremony it might be distracting, and the auto-focus sometimes struggles to lock onto the target you intend. The build quality of the 50mm f1.8 mk I is better with a metal mount, and a distance scale on the lens for about $150 used, if you can find it. The next step above the production 1.8 is the 1.4.

At ~$350 the f1.4 is a bit faster with the construction properties of the mark 1 1.8 with the added benefit of the ultrasonic motor which knocks down the amount of noise the auto-focus system makes.

By buying a good quality mic, and a nice learning lens you save about $150 over the single kit lens and the t5i which is why I decided on this route. The kit lens from the t3i is useful for it's IS and 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 covers the most basic shot distances at 22mm, 31mm, and 53mm which are 35mm, 50mm and 85mm equivalent on full frame/35mm film. The kit lens is reasonably sharp but with a maximum aperture of just 4.5mm at the wide end it doesn't work well in low light conditions. This is why I have the 50mm 1.8. The 50 is great for low light situations, portrait photos and blurring backgrounds, as well as pulling actors into focus and really giving them some weight in a scene.

Hunter Zolomon

Growing up reading comics my generation of DC characters dropped Hal Jordan and Barry Allen for Kyle Rayner and Wally West. These two were my Green Lantern and Flash. In my opinion, Wally's greatest foe is Hunter Zolomon.

 Zolomon is Zoom 2.0, he's faster, meaner and has a vendetta against Wally. How can you defeat someone that has broken past the speed of sound, light, time, dimensions and the speed force? You slow down time in relation to yourself. Now the physics are iffy at best, but honestly slowing time to beat a super speedster is awesome. Wally has a direct link to the positive end of the speed force and thus can siphon speed force from other users so if Zoom were to use the same force that Wally does, Zoom would always have a disadvantage. Since Zoom has time manipulation powers Zoom has the upper hand. If he can slow time down but not stop it, Zoom can move faster than anything. He can defeat Flash at any time, making him one of the most dangerous meta humans in the DC universe.