The Killing Joke Review

the-killing-joke

While DC is struggling to get critical approval with its live-action films, as the (partly) undeserved roasting of BatmanvSuperman and Suicide Squad demonstrate, they have an impressive record of success with their animated features. In my opinion, the quality of the DC Universe Animated Original Movies (DCUAOM) has declined in recent years with Justice League: War and Son of Batman. However, there have been some bright spots such as Gods and Monsters, Assault on Arkham and Batman vs. Robin. I was hoping that The Killing Joke would continue that trend. It isn’t a bad film, but as a whole, it does not measure up to some of the aforementioned bright spots.

As a spoiler- free summary, this story involves The Joker escaping from Arkham Asylum and kidnapping Barbara Gordon (Batgirl). There will be some relatively minor spoilers throughout this review. I haven’t read the graphic novel in years and I wanted to do so before seeing this film. However, I ended up rushing ahead and watching the film first. For that reason, I won’t be able to compare this film to the finer details of the comic.

I was told by friends that the film added a prelude that explained more of Barbara Gordon’s backstory, prior to her kidnapping. A little research online also showed that this section also resulted in most of the criticism for the film. I tried to ignore these critiques and form my own opinions so that I wouldn’t unfairly bash the film. I have to say that some of the criticism is justified.

The most valuable insights that come from this prelude are:

  • Barbara still views crime-fighting as a thrill, not an unhealthy obsession the way Batman does
  • Conflict over this issue is what led to Barbara ending her role as Batgirl

These two insights are valuable, but my issue is some of the execution. The Batgirl prelude centers around a single criminal, Paris Franz, who becomes obsessed with Batgirl. However, Franz’s obsession is more like a delusional and arrogant fanboy, as opposed to the twisted dependency we see with The Joker and Batman. Franz ends up being a very forgettable villain and the writing for his character is mainly what makes the prelude unwelcome.

batman-and-batgirl

Another issue, is the infamous sex scene. Sorry if it is a spoiler but it is a part of the story that I can’t review this film without mentioning. If I simply said there is a sex scene, then it would still be pretty easy to figure out which characters I am referring to. Although I am not personally a fan of a Batman/Batgirl relationship, I know it exists in some of the comics. What annoys me most about the sex scene isn’t the fact that a relationship I like to think of as father-daughter is changed; I just hated the fact that it was precipitated by a slap-slap-kiss trope. I didn’t even know that this was a trope until a year ago, but seeing it time after time led me to believe that other people must have noticed how often it pops up in romantic situations. Two people are fighting; they often start pushing or come to blows. Then they suddenly stop, stare into each other’s eyes, and kiss. It is hack writing at its best.

With that said, the rest of The Killing Joke is much better. Firstly, we have a better villain. Mark Hamill plays The Prince of Crime, and also plays The Joker in flashbacks that reveal how he became The Joker. The graphic novel is famous partly for introducing a tragic Joker origin story and the transformation from Jack Napier to the Prince of Crime is one of the film’s most haunting.

the-killing-joke-2

The Joker’s actions in this film make you hate him, but you also can’t deny his charisma and his skills as a wordsmith. I enjoyed John DiMaggio as The Joker in Under the Red Hood but it is great to have Hamill back for this role, alongside Kevin Conroy. One of my favourite parts of the film is a Batman monologue near the beginning. While Conroy is famous for portraying Batman’s menace, his ability to convey the character’s (often hidden) warmth was also a treat to watch.

Joker’s kidnapping of Barbara is the central crux of the story, and the scene is a tough one to watch. The animation, the music (or lack thereof) and the voice acting make it one of my favourite scenes among all the DC animated films. Hamill brings a blend of menace and humour to the role, while navigating his way through one of the most pivotal moments in Batman’s history.

mv5bmtc0ndy0mjy4mv5bml5banbnxkftztgwmta5otq3ode-_v1_

The kidnapping also represents a high-point in the film, which is followed by the final showdown between Batman and The Joker. From what I remember, the kidnapping of Commissioner Gordon was more enthralling in the graphic novel. Here, the voice acting from Gordon and Joker’s gang of freaks brought this section of the film down.

Overall, I enjoyed The Killing Joke. However, the faults I’ve mentioned prevent it from being among the top-tier of the DCUAOM films. As it stands, it is a decent entry that had a lot of potential.

 

 

 

 

Arkham Knight

Hello everyone,

Aside from comics, tv, and movies I am also a gamer, which helps to bring more diversity to my geeky repertoire. I wouldn’t say that I spend most of my free time playing and I purposely try not to. However, I do enjoy playing a few hours a week. Some of my favourite series include Halo and the Arkham games. I completed the story mode of Halo 5 and before I delved into the online play, I decided to finally start Arkham Knight.

I played Arkham City when that first came out in 2011 and I have been hooked on the series since. Arkham Origins was somewhat forgettable but still an enjoyable game. I did also like the fact that it added online challenge modes, where you could actually compete in real-time with other players. The only online options for Arkham City allowed your score on challenges to be ranked with that of other players.

I am only about 10% of the way through the story so far, not to mention all of the riddle challenges and trophies. However, there was one aspect of the game that I love and hate at the same time. After looking up my issue online it seems like a lot of people feel the same way. Getting to drive the batmobile is a great new feature, at least in theory. It offers something new to the gameplay while also giving players access to Batman’s full arsenal. The design is amazing and while the controls take a big of getting used to, riding in the batmobile can be a great experience. The only problem is that the batmobile isn’t only a cool side feature, it is an essential part of gameplay for many levels so far. Whether it is riddler challenges or puzzles in the main story, the batmobile is crucial. At times, the action/adventure game becomes a racing game for long stretches at a time. If you don’t like racing games, that’s just too bad.

Gameplay with the batmobile can get repetitive at times since its combat offers more limited options than Batman’s. There are three main weapons/ tools and that’s about it, compared to the myriad combination of gadgets and fighting techniques that Batman offers. There are entire levels or checkpoints that involve the batmobile taking on unmanned tanks. These entire levels will be the same combo of dodging and shooting. Those who don’t like shooting games, probably won’t like these parts. Of course there is nothing wrong with the game incorporating elements from numerous genres, but it does represent a pretty fundamental shift from the previous three games, which all focused on stealth or combat modes. Those who have become accustomed to this by now could very well be thrown off completely by the change. There is one level where the batmobile has to take on tanks and a helicopter at the same time. You must then eliminated about seven hostiles while trying to dodge a barrage of missiles.

After failing for the fifth time, I looked up a walkthrough for this part online and the comments reveal the same level of frustration I had. One person even said that they returned the game since they couldn’t get past this part to enjoy the rest. Of course, I didn’t do that. I was able to beat the level after a few more tries, using some tips I found online. However, I think a big part of why people might be so frustrated or willing to quit is because of the change in playing style that they might not have anticipated. Although we might want variation in stories, certain genres of games have conventions that many people might want a game to follow. If Halo 5 introduced more puzzles, people might be thrown off by that.

I’m still enjoying the game and I look forward to playing more, but I can’t help but think the combat sequences with the batmobile will only get more repetitive as the game goes on.

The Irony of the MCU

 

download (1)

I saw Captain America: Civil War recently and I currently rank it as my second favourite MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) film, with The Winter Soldier still being #1 for me. Despite the love I have for some of the MCU, I can’t help but notice the criticism people always levy at DC films. I am no DC “fanboy”, I recognize that they don’t have as solid a film universe, since they got a later start on it. However, I have previously discusses my disdain for people who say that DC movies have a problem with their tone. Many negative reviews will at least mention the darker tone of the DC universe films as being a problem, as if darker=worse.I realize that Marvel has dark properties on Netflix, like Daredevil and Jessica Jones, but I made this post specifically to discuss the MCU on the big screen. Reading comprehension is a dying art, so let me break this down a little further. I am not saying that BvS or Man of Steel are amazing. MOS was a 7.5 for me and BvS a 6.5. I am not saying these films have no flaws. I am saying that I don’t think their tone is one of their flaws.

Obviously BvS had issues aside from its tone (I’m looking at you Eisenberg) but I can’t stand this relatively
new idea that darkness is a bad thing in itself, and that “dark” and “good” are mutually exclusive. Of course, there have been dark comic book films that have been relatively well received, like The Dark Knight and the more recent example of X-Men: Days of Future Past. However, times are changing. Go to Rotten Tomatoes and see how many negative reviews of Apocalypse mention the “dark”, “grim”, “joyless” tone as being an issue. I’ll wait.

There is a pervasive mentality that a comic book movie must be “fun”. It shouldn’t take itself too seriously and should have plenty of comic relief, otherwise it has failed as a film. The MCU is now held up as the standard of comic relief and as the benchmark for the tone that a comic book film should have. It is easy to see why people latched onto them since they have had the most prolific comic book film output of any studio.

What I find ironic, is that the “fun” mentality is what held comic book films back for so long. Many critics and members of the general public who flock to see MCU films now would have once scoffed at the idea of a critically revered comic book film. Of course there are classics like Superman (1978) but Superman did not usher in an era of consistent comic book films and box-office domination by comic book films. This era started slowly with films like Blade, then X-Men and then Spider-Man. Then came Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy and then the birth of the MCU with Iron Man.

Many critics once thought comic book films would never have the success they do now. They might be silly fun, but no one would take such films seriously. The idea of Oscar winners or nominees regularly starring in comic book films would have been deemed preposterous. Marlon Brando’s appearance in Superman was such a big deal due to the pedigree that he brought to the film. The first big successes of the modern era (Blade and X-Men) used a tone that many would now view as overly dramatic, “dark”, “pretentious” etc. but that is what allowed comic book films to gain more popularity and critic recognition. If it weren’t for these films we might not have the MCU. Yet everyone now forgets the stigma comic book films had to overcome and wants everything to be “fun” and “colourful”. There was a time when people thought that was all comic book films would have to offer, and it seems like fans now want history to repeat itself.

 

Full Circle -From Comic Book to Film and Film to Comic Book

I originally wrote this piece for comicommand

****************************************************************************************************

With the plethora of comic book films currently gracing the big screen, it is obvious that comic books have greatly affected film and mainstream entertainment as a whole. However, a less obvious feature of this golden age of comic book films, is the impact that comic book adaptations have on their own source material. Comic book Superman didn’t fight for “The American Way” until after 1940s radio broadcasts said he did. Superman also didn’t fly until the radio series added that feature. Additionally, characters such as Harley Quinn and Terry McGinnis made their first appearances in animated television shows such as Batman: The Animated Series and Batman Beyond before entering the comics. These events bring up the point that it is unavoidable for adaptations to influence their properties to some extent. I originally considered writing this piece as a pros and cons article, but I realized that the list of benefits would be counteracted by only one very obvious con.

When films begin affecting films more, then financial motives can quickly overpower the values of storytelling and creativity. Characters such as Star-Lord now have new solo titles (Legendary Star Lord). It seems unlikely that the series is not somehow related to the success of the Guardians of the Galaxy. Film can allow more obscure characters to shine, breaking through the monotony of superhero films. However, this can also help to usher in monotony. Each “phase” of the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is pre-scheduled to focus on certain characters and certain stories.  Marvel currently has all its filmsmapped out until 2019. Marvel also has general plans for phase 4, which begins in 2020. Of the next ten films, five are introducing new characters into the MCU. One will be the first solo film for the MCU’s Spider-Man, the rest will introduce Captain Marvel, The Inhumans, Black Panther and Doctor Strange.

qfwagadsaesfdv

With four new characters being introduced, the spread between new characters and old seems fairly even. Since Black Panther comics are currently struggling, according to Marvel’s editor-in-chief, a boost in sales from a movie could do the franchise wonders. However, what happens if Marvel comics start to focus on the comics that have had popular films, or are about to? I doubt this would be the first time this has happened, but with the MCU’s prevalence, the impact could be much more drastic. Marvel could devote more resources and better writers to comics that have a movie coming soon. Meanwhile, other properties could be left to either stagnate or remain doomed to relative obscurity, until Marvel Studios decides to adapt them to film. This could potentially create a system where comic book publishing is essentially dictated by film-making. This suggestion may seem drastic at the moment, but it is important to consider that the MCU is only eight years old. The MCU did not invent comic book adaptations and older ones such as Blade (1998) and X-Men (2000) are just as vital to the success of comic book films. However, as I’ve discussed before, the MCU is the most saturated and popular engine for comic book films.

Steven Spielberg predicted comic book movies will reach a saturation point and go the way of the western, dying out and making way for a new hierarchy for tent pole films. It’s possible that Spielberg is right since it seems obvious that people will become fatigued from superhero films and desire less of them at some point. However, it is important to realize that Westerns thrived in mainstream Hollywood for decades before they became the anomaly they are now. For all we know, the MCU could thrive for twenty years before unsatisfactory box-office totals start to necessitate a change in Hollywood. In eight years we have already seen some of the effects of films on Marvel comics, what could twelve, twenty or even thirty more years of box-office domination lead to?

wefadvaesvfad

ComiCommand and updates about the blog

For those who do frequent the site you may have noticed I haven’t posted in a little while. I’ll be getting back to it but I do have two previous blog posts now uploaded on http://comicommand.com/ 

http://comicommand.com/2016/03/21/x-men-apocalypse-and-mystique-what-can-we-expect/

http://comicommand.com/2016/03/14/dc-versus-marvel-marvels-secret-agenda/

The creators of the site reached out to me through instagram and they were gracious enough to allow me to submit two previously published pieces to the site so far. I am trying to write a new one each week, so on top of writing for this site, I may have to simply link to the comicommand articles. It is a great feeling to be part of a small but growing website and community. I am very excited about what the site could become.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ComiCommand

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/comicommand3000/

On top of the blog itself I also have a new instagram account specifically for my writing –https://www.instagram.com/wmoviegrapevine/

This is in addition to https://www.instagram.com/moviegrapevine/ – which is dedicated to film, tv and comics.

I try to post to wmoviegrapevine at least once a day and moviegrapevine at least three times a day.

On top of that, I also recently made some progress with the search for an agent for my science fiction novel. One agent asked to see the first three chapters of the novel, and if she likes it then I will be sending the rest of the book to her for consideration. If she likes the book, then she will try to get it published.

There are still a lot of “ifs” at this point so I don’t want to get ahead of myself yet. However, the request for the three chapters is better than a rejection and is a step in the right direction. Editing the manuscript will be taking up more of my time  if the agent decides to take it on (no complaints about that), so that may also cut into the time I have to write for the site. That is not to say I will be forgetting about it completely.

I have been writing a second novel, The Visitor. I am about a fifth, maybe even a third of the way through. However, I have put that on hold for the moment to focus on “Elseworld”.

Overall, I feel hopeful about the future and want to thank anyone who’s checked out the site for your support.

 

 

DC vs. Marvel: Marvel Brainwashing and The Loss of Reason

I have heard many people say that there has never been a better time to be a comic book fan. While many people still view comic books as childish or ashamedly nerdy, comic books are now the inspiration for some of Hollywood’s most profitable and critically-revered films. Earlier works like Blade (1998), X-Men (200) and Spider-Man (2002) paved the way and later works like Iron Man (2009), Captain America (2011) and Avengers (2012) have cemented their status as marketable works. You may notice that all of the films I just listed are either Marvel comic book properties, or Marvel Studio properties. That is not because Marvel has made the only good comic book films. I think I ended up writing only Marvel films because I am a victim of some of the same brainwashing I am to criticize in this post.

This is another post that is a result of online ramblings I have come across, whether they are on YouTube, Instagram or IMDB. I do love some of Marvel’s films, such as the Captain America films, the first Iron Man and Avengers 1. However, I do have qualms with some of them, and I am able to acknowledge that they are not perfect and that they are not definitive examples of what a comic book film should be. The general public has a tendency to get attached to what comes first. Some people saw Jack Nicholson as their first Joker in a Hollywood film, so they refused to accept any other actor as Joker afterwards. For some people, Ledger was their first, and they already hate Leto simply because he is a different interpretation. Twenty years from now, there will probably be people saying that no Joker will ever top Leto’s.

In terms of Marvel, this tendency to like what comes first, manifests itself through a love of all films Marvel and a hate for anything else. Although DC had earlier successful comic book films such as V for Vendetta (Vertigo comics, which was then acquired by DC) the general public has now been saturated with marvel studio films that overshadow all other comic book properties. This saturation results in a high number of Marvel films that stamp themselves onto the public consciousness far quicker than any other comic book properties can. With Marvel films imprinted, people become less open to seeing something different. People may be open to different characters, but the Marvel v DC debate makes it clear that people are not open to other things, such as tone.

Marvel studios’ films are known for their light-heartedness, their humour, their “fun”. They have been cementing this style and reputation since 2008 with the first Iron Man. To this day, Marvel will even hire a comedy writer so that he can make a script about Asgardian doomsday more light-hearted. If any movie deserves a dark tone, it is Thor: Ragnarok, but I guess some studio executives disagreed.

I am not anti-fun or anti-humour. I simply do not like it when the device is overused. While some Marvel films have juggled it well, such as The Winter Soldier (2014), the Thor series has been severely brought down by terrible and consistent one-liners imho. While Loki’s humour is handled well, Jane’s (Natalie Portman) and Darcy’s (Kat Dennings) end up being the Jar Jars of the franchise. My problem is not only the overuse of humour, but how Marvel has successfully conditioned people to believe that this humour is the mark of a good comic book movie. Nowadays, any film that lacks the same level of levity is deemed too “dark”, “gritty”, “depressing, “brooding” or “pretentious”. A lot of the criticism levied towards Man of Steel (MOS) before it was even released came from this misconception. The trailers were serious in tone, nothing about them screamed “dark” or “brooding”, but people were so used to Marvel’s marketing by this point. The MOS trailers did not have enough one-liners, enough levity in comparison to Marvel’s trailers, so people were thrown off. Everything is relative, and since the MOS trailers were found to be lacking in humour, they were immediately deemed too dark.

This brings up another issue I have with Marvel’s brainwashing. I often hear people throw around the word “dark” like it is an insult in itself. As if saying a film is dark is as bad as saying the acting was terrible, the writing was terrible etc. A film can be “dark” and also be good, which seems like a fact that is lost on many members of the Marvel horde, and among Marvel studio executives. Dark does not equal depressing, gritty or pretentious.

While Marvel has darker material in some of its films, and has Netflix shows with much darker tones (Daredevil, Jessica Jones) it appears that Marvel’s status gives it more room to experiment than any other property has. Marvel’s trailers, films and tv shows can have darker tones without people complaining about them trying to “copy Christopher Nolan”, “not being fun” etc. While Marvel is allowed to experiment, change and adapt, DC is now forced to appeal to Marvel sensibilities in order to be less divisive among audiences.

The first Suicide Squad trailer was leaked, featuring a lovely cover of I started a joke. It was a serious, dramatic trailer but was subjected to the same talk of not being fun enough, in comparison to Marvel of course. Some of you might want me to cite specific websites and links, but honestly this chatter is all over the Internet: the same thing you are currently on. Google my arguments and you’ll come across them aplenty.

The second trailer came out, making great use of Bohemian Rhapsody, and also having more humour. What do you know, some of same people who love this one are happy to see that the film will still be “fun”. I have no problem with the second trailer’s lighter tone, or the film’s tone (from what we have seen so far). However, I hate the mentality that every film has to be “fun”. Is Saving Private Ryan a bad film because it isn’t “fun” enough? Maybe that example is a bit hyperbolic but hopefully it gets my point across. A film does not have to be “fun” to be good. Some characters are darker than others. Additionally, many comic book characters have histories spanning numerous decades. Some of their comics are darker than others. MOS used some of the more serious storylines for the film and then gets chastised for daring to be different and not following Marvel’s mould of being “fun” enough. I have even had someone on IMDB tell me that Superman was too serious since brow was too furrowed when he was learning how to fly. So they ignored the huge grin on his face when he was flying and instead criticize the scene because Superman wasn’t grinning ear to ear the entire time.

This brings me to another point about Marvel’s brainwashing. The desire to love everything Marvel often leads to nitpicking of anything that is not Marvel. While Man of Steel is deemed a terrible film and a terrible adaptation of Superman due to all the damage done during the final fight, The Avengers gets little or no hassle for the damage to New York City. This is the same damage that is mentioned in Daredevil and plays a part in Wilson Fisk’s efforts to rebuild the city. So while Man of Steel continues to get flack for showing that a city will get damaged when two super powered people fight in it, no one cares that New York got damaged since they love Marvel. This nitpicking not only affects films that already came out but also affects any new releases. I have heard someone criticize Jared Leto’s joker because his hair is dyed green, yes…really. I forget exactly where in the video the guy says it, but my comment on the video acknowledges him saying it. To me, it just seems like this person is either

  • Attached to Heath Ledger’s portrayal, which brings up my earlier issue of the general public getting attached to what comes first. This then leads to nitpicking of newer adaptations
  • Simply a Marvel fanboy (in the sense that he does not want to like non-marvel properties) and is looking for reasons to hate this new DC release.

Either way, his comment demonstrates the extent of stupidity that bias can lead to. I am not saying Suicide Squad, or any DC movie is guaranteed to be good. However, I think criticizing the film and saying they’re making “joker a punk” because his hair is dyed green is a little ridiculous.

The bias for Marvel sometimes does not only result in DC (or Warner Bros) vs Marvel, but also leads to people nitpicking any film that is not specifically a Marvel Studios production. People saw the design for Apocalypse in X-Men: Apocalypse and some of them started crying for the rights to go back to Marvel. These people were willing to ignore everything the previous X-Men films did well (ignoring X3 and the Wolverine films). Despite how great Deadpool looks, I have read blogs, forum posts and other miscellaneous talk where people rant about how the rights should go back to Marvel. It’s obvious why they want that to happen. They just want Marvel studios to adapt the properties. Yes, I want the X-Men and Deadpool in the Avengers universe too, but I won’t hope a film fails just so that can happen. People are now so brainwashed they think Marvel is the only studio capable of handling a comic book film well.

You don’t like the shirt a character is wearing? Cry for the rights to go back to Marvel

You don’t like a character’s design? Cry for the rights to go back to Marvel

 

The Internet allows us access to so much information, but also allows us to customize our searches. We can choose what information to find and what information to cut out. This phenomenon has been explored mostly in regards to political polarization, but I think it is also relevant to entertainment preferences. Either way, it makes us dumber.

 

 

 

Eisenberg as Luthor

Since its announcement, Man of Steel 2 a.k.a Batman vs Superman, has had a wave of rumours and legitimate news follow in its wake. Aside from the multitude of sites that peddled supposedly confirmed news, forums exploded with terrible fan castings. Suggestions such as Dane Cook as Batman, to Gina Carano as Wonder Woman initially infuriated me, but I learned to ignore such suggestions since it was obvious the crew behind Man of Steel would have more sense that the hordes flocking to IMDB. Apparently I was wrong.

When Henry Cavill was cast as Superman, I was initially skeptical. I took his terrible performance in Immortals into consideration and I was sure we would get a repeat. Instead, Cavill was surprisingly good in the role, embodying the character well with his physique and the sense of humility, compassion and righteousness that he exuded on screen. Discovering that I was wrong about Cavill made me more open to other decisions that the crew behind Man of Steel made. When Ben Afleck was cast as Batman I was…surprised. His acting career had been a joke for a while, but then he recouped as a director and an actor in his own films. His performance in The Town showed that he is talented, although his Boston accent in that film has been the butt of many jokes. I decided to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, if Cavill can greatly improve, surely Afleck can too.

When Gal Gadot was cast as Wonder Woman, my mind went to her only performances I saw on screen. As Gisele Yashar, Gadot barely had any lines or any character development. Of course this wasn’t surprising but I had to wonder how that performance was enough to convince executives that she could portray one of the (if not the most) popular female superhero of all time. Gadot’s weight was also an issue, but since she is working with the same team that transformed Cavill, I figured she’d be able to at least look the part when the time comes.

Then Jesse Eisenberg was cast as Lex Luthor, and now I can no longer put blind faith that this film will work out. Lex Luthor is one of Superman’s biggest foes, in terms of their history and the threat he poses. Some of the films have overused him and painted him as a feeble old man who needs kryptonite to be of any danger to Superman. However, Lex Luthor is supposed to be cunning, charismatic and deadly individual able to effectively manipulate others for his goals. Whether Lex Luthor attacks the ones closest to Superman or orchestrates with powerful super villains, he is always a great threat.

Numerous people have compared the backlash Eisenberg is receiving to the same backlash Heath Ledger received. They then point to the spectacular performance Heath Ledger was able to deliver. Eisenberg is a great actor in my opinion, and I want him to deliver. However, I believe that people need to stop pointing to the example of Heath Ledger. Yes, there is always the possibility that we are pleasantly shocked by a performance again. My problem is that the supporters act as if such a situation is a common occurrence. What happened with Ledger should be seen as an exception to the rule, where it can happen but is not guaranteed or even likely.

The role of the Joker allowed Ledger to drastically change his physical appearance, making it somewhat easier to lose himself in the character. I am not saying that the fact that he wore makeup and hair dye for the role makes his performance easy to recreate, or makes it less worthy of praise. The physical appearance was only a small facet of the character. For Lex Luthor, Eisenberg will be bald and we will have to see him as a formidable threat. Although Eisenberg is 30, he looks younger, and unless they are chronicling the origins of Lexcorp I believe an actor who looks older should have been selected. Luthor is often depicted as older than Superman, with a reputation forged by decades as a powerhouse in the business arena. In 2016, we will see the actor well known for playing geeky characters as one of Superman’s biggest foes. Lex Luthor is intelligent, but intelligent and geeky are not always the same. Batman is also highly intelligent, but that does not mean Jesse Eisenberg can play the character.

This brings me to another point: Portraying a character is not only about being a good actor. Sometimes an actor’s age, appearance, voice etc can affect the range of roles they can effectively play. Michael Fassbender is my favourite actor and I think there are numerous roles he can pull off, but there are some I do not think he would be suited for. Hypothetically, if Wolverine was being introduced in the next X Men film, Fassbender would not be one of my choices. This is not because he is a bad actor, but because I don’t believe he has the right look for the character. Obviously Jackman is too tall for the role (I do not mind personally) but aside from that his performance as the character has been well received by critics and audiences alike for embodying the character physically and emotionally.

We still have until 2016 before we see Eisenberg on screen and perhaps we will see Eisenberg’s Luthor through advertisements in 2015 or early 2016. Although I still hope for the best, an objective look at the facts can show that this is a role meant for another actor.