Captain America vs Ayn Rand - Round One

 Breaking form to get a little political for a moment, yes, it involves comic books.... but be warned...


Captain America: The First Avenger was a fantastic film. Possibly the best film of the summer. Director Joe Johnson imbued what could have been a tongue in cheek film about America's "first" superhero with a genuine sense of character and pride, elevating it into something that worked on a deeper level and made a character that's become a stereotype pop into a three dimensional sympathetic character.

On it's way, the movie does something strange and unintentional. It comments on America and how it's fallen from grace in the past 70 years. Lets step back and look at this for a moment. The movie follows Steve Rogers, a good hearted but frail young man who wants little more in life than to do his part. His friends, including his best friend, are all going off to war to fight the Nazi's (the Japanese are never mentioned in this film, save for one line which seems to comment about the unwarranted suspicions placed upon Asian Americans) and Steve feels that he has no right to do any less than his friends. Steve wants to join the war not to benefit himself, but because he feels it is his duty to help out and prevent the "bullies" of the world from stepping on the "little guys". He's speaking from experience, as we see him get bullied in the film, but never backing down from his attackers, because "once you run, they never let you stop running".

Steve is a stereotype, but he's also the voice of absolute truth. He represents goodness that comes to power, and a true sense of altruism. Steve is the home-front during World War 2.

You're probably saying "Captain America is just Hollywood (and comics)" and to an extent, yes it is Hollywood. Certainly no one was injected with Super Soldier Serum and bathed in Vita Rays during World War II. And certainly we didn't have anyone wearing tights throwing a shield at Bob from Hyrda, or punching out Adolf Hitler.

But the absolute core of the movie is true.

During and after the World War 2 years, the citizens of the United States put self aside and did what was best for the common good. Women who had never so much as seen a factory went to work by the thousands building tanks and airplanes. Children skipped their weekend baseball game and salvaged scrap metal. People bought war bonds to fund their sons, brothers and husbands who fought overseas.

It was an era when people would help someone with a flat tire, and you could ask a neighbor for some sugar or milk. None of this had to do with traditional anything. It had to do with looking out for everyone else. Helping the guy next to you, and knowing he'd help you right back.

Where did that go?

Well, America itself had a lot of problems after World War 2. We had an economic boom, and a culture that had it's head in the clouds, despite a military stalemate in Korea, until November of 1963. When John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, the country fractured. People were looking for answers. People of liberal social values found themselves caught up in the hippie movement, protesting not only the Vietnam War, but "the man" himself.

People of a socially conservative nature  found another icon. Ayn Rand.

Rand's first major book, The Fountainhead was published in 1943. It received mixed reviews (Rand dismissed many of the positive reviews as not understanding the book). The book praised the individual, following an architect would would rather blow up a building than see his personal vision compromised. A film staring Gary Cooper was made in 1949, and again received mixed reviews.

The books theme of personal conviction over the powers of the world seemed lost in the passions and idealism of the time. America was on an all time high after defeating the Nazi's and the Japanese military and coming home to an economy booming thanks to a female workforce and back military pay for soldiers. There was no great desire to force personal conviction on the populous, because the populous was more or less content and busy with starting families.

In 1957, Rand published Atlas Shrugged. In this novel, Rand took her philosophy of "Rational Self Interest" and put it at the forefront of the piece. Wealthy industrialists banded together against absurd government regulation in order to force the economy to tank. Why would they do this? Well, Rand make no secret to their reasoning, having the leader of this cult of greedy millionaires step out of their cave, once the economy has collapsed, and draw a dollar sign with his finger over the landscape before him. "Screw the rest of the world," Ayn said through her characters, "It's all about me. My desires, my luxury, my greed."

Despite a critical bashing (one critic called it an "homage to greed" while Gore Vidal said it was "nearly perfect in its immorality") the book did well. People bought the book, read it and devoured the philosophy. Students read it in high school and college, and latched onto Rand's philosophy of "greed is good" (sound familiar?... wait I'll get there).

The philosophy of "Rational Self Interest" spread and people championed the idea that "If I act in the interest of myself, my life will be good. I can help others, if it will benefit me in some way. If someone is not doing well, it is their own fault, and they are a parasite" or (as Rand calls them in the novel) a "looter". Capitalism became god, and it's followers moved into jobs on Wall Street and as the heads of major corporations. If something benefited them, they did it. They believed that the market would correct itself, so they could do no wrong and instilled themselves as a sort of new bourgeois.

It was this positioning and lead to not only the Wall Street underhandedness portrayed in the film 'Wall Street' (told you we'd get back to 'Greed is Good'), but it also created delusions in the world that when money was put into the top, it would trickle down to the bottom (Owners get government money, they invest it in their business, profits go up, profits are shared with workers.). Laissez-faire was the only way for the only way for the market to work according to Rand's followers, and as they took over not only corporations, but government, the implemented every measure to make sure that laissez-faire would continue.

Well, after Enron, Bernie Madoff, the housing bubble, bank failures, windfall profits for oil companies and a government consistently giving tax breaks to the wealthy while cutting social programs for the poor, it doesn't seem like there's any justification left to say they any of these beliefs are true.

The tragic irony is that all the whole, the same political block that is calling for more Randian measures (more tax breaks, more cuts to social programs, more political clout for megacorporations) is the very same political block that continues to want a return to the way things were when they were children. They pine for the late 40's and 50's like it is a lost paradise, while at the same time screaming "ME, ME, ME! MINE!" like Gollum possessed by the Orange Lantern Ring of Avarice.

Given all of this, is there still hope? Is there a possibility of returning to a national mindset of helping out the guy next to you? Of standing up for whats right, even when it's not always what benefits you the most? Will Captain America return?

Well...

DC Reboot- Good, Bad or Irrelevant

At the beginning of June, DC comics finally answered the big questions it's fans had been asking since the beginning of the year "What comes after Flashpoint?". The answer surprised many, and angered quite a few- DC was relaunching it's entire line of comics with 52 new first issued to launch the first week of September. That meant that Action Comics, which had just reached it's 900th issue, would be restarting it's run. DC said that things would be different, and unveiled an image from it's new Justice League. Not only was it obvious that costumes had subtly changed, but fans were informed that characters would be younger and the worlds history was not different.

This wasn't the first time DC had rebooted their universe. Heck, it wasn't even the first time in a decade that they'd attempted to relaunch. And yet, fans reacted badly. Message boards were filled with complaints and hundred if not thousands of fans wrote angry letters to DC. Many of them threatened to cease buying DC altogether.

Was DC mad to erase their continuity? Were they making the worse business decision they could possibly made? Was this the end of half of the big two?

Well, as I've mentioned above, DC comics, more than it's primary competitor Marvel, has had numerous continuity snares for all of it's major characters. Occasionally these problems have been resolved within a characters individual books, as Grant Morrison has managed to do with Batman and Geoff Johns did to fan acclaim with Green Lantern, but others, such as Superman, have just continued to heap on alternate origins without resolving which story was the new canon and which was simply an alternate universe story.

More than anything, this reboot allows DC to maintain hard control over the history of their world, and by not starting from the literal beginning, DC can allow past stories to maintain their presence in canon. Stories like The Killing Joke and Death in the Family will stay in continuity and their effects will still be felt, but snares can be smoothed out and explanations can be given.

While this may anger old fans, it creates a perfect opportunity for lapsed readers to jump in and gain a quick grasp on the character without having to spend hours looking up old back issues or trying to sort through descriptions on wikipedia.

There is a valid question, though, as to whether continuity has anything to do with the relaunch. It's been revealed that several titles are getting little or no reboot, and will simply continue on with their current continuity. Those titles are all under the Batman and Green Lantern titles. This is a very important thing to note when considering whether the relaunch if worthwhile and what the reason behind it really is.

In May 2011, before DC comics announced it's relaunch initiative, out of the top 20 comic books for the Month, DC had 8 books, one event book and 7 regular titles. Those books were Flashpoint (the event book), Green Lantern, Green Lantern Corps, Batman Inc, Batman & Robin, Batman, Flash and Green Lantern: Emerald Warriors. The next highest seller was Justice League at number 25, followed by Action Comics at 32, Detective Comics at 35 and Superman at 38.

It's important to note that the two franchises that have top twenty selling books are the books DC is not messing with, despite their own twisted continuities.

Now, think for a moment. Out of the top 40 books, only 12 of them are from DC. This is why DC is rebooting. Their sales are flagging. After being the company to originate modern superhero books, DC has found themselves flagging behind Marvel in a very bad way. Marvel is selling roughly 1.5 books for every book DC is selling.

This is why DC feels the only way to get back in the game is to relaunch 52 first issues. Why, you ask, is getting in the game dependent on it being a first issue?

Number one issues sell comics. The top three best selling issues of all time are X-Men #1, X-Force #1 and Spider-Man #1. Recently the first issue of Grant Morrisons Batman and Robin sold a 184,000 copies in a time when the most most mainstream books are lucky to crack 50,000 sales a month.

The reasoning for this is simple, as I mentioned a moment ago, readers are apt to purchase a first issue because there is a presumption, whether true or false, that there is no knowledge required when purchasing a first issue. By it's very nature, a first issue means that nothing has come before it, and if nothing else it's attractive because the average reader can be sure he's not jumping in in the middle of a storyline.

Now, there is an element of presumption on DC's part that releasing a fleet of number one comics that streamline continuity will bring on more readers than who depart, viewing the end of their beloved continuity as a convenient jumping off point in an age where you could either pay $12 for three comic books, which you'll have read in under 45 minutes, or you can spend that money to buy a movie ticket and be entertained for 2 hours. While DC has done a noble thing in "Holding the line at $2.99" with the flagging economy, readers are looking for ways to keep more money in their pockets.

The sad fact of the matter is that while relaunching at number one stands a good chance of bringing in new readers and giving DC a noticeable sales bump for at least a few months as readers decide what they do and don't like, the primary reason for flagging comic book sales is still not being addressed.

Green Lantern vs the Warner Brothers curse

Since it's release on June 17, the film adaptation of DC superhero Green Lantern has divided the fan community. Many very vocal viewers have hated the film. Many have loved it. A sizable majority have walked away with mixed feelings. One thing, however, seems obvious, the film was a major misstep in Warner Brothers plan to launch a fleet of superhero films the way that DC's competitor Marvel Comics has.

The question is why?

What went wrong? Why has a film that seems to calculated to make big box office dollars divided fan community in a way that Marvels films (at least the ones Marvel has had creative control over) generally haven't? DC comic has been a subsidiary of Warner Brothers since around 1969 so in house creative control shouldn't have been a problem, should it?

What follows isn't going to be a review of Green Lantern, it's going to be a genuine analysis as to the creative decisions that have led Green Lantern to make it perform well under studio expectations, and how Warner could have done things differently and not left themselves a hundred million dollars in the red on a movie that should have been a success: