name_already_chosen

If you pay attention to Spicer and Conaway and all the rest of Trump's spokespeople, you will see something worse than falsehood is going on here.

When they use the phrase "alternative facts", they are not arguing that their falsehoods are true.

They use the phrase "alternative facts" to encourage a tragic conviction among their target audience that ALL facts are arbitrary and that NO facts have any basis in reality.

They use the phrase "alternative facts" to claim that truth and falsehood are all labels applied by whoever has the political power -- that when Obama was in power, the facts quoted by him and his supporters were true for no reason except that he said so and, therefore, now that Trump is in power, any facts made up by Trump must be true for no other reason except that Trump has said so.

They use the phrase "alternative facts" because they refuse to believe in an objective reality, and they see countervening evidence as nothing more than political efforts to overthrow their reality with usurper facts.

That is what is going on.

I have read comic books and enjoyed nerd-worthy films and television series for several decades, and thanks to reprints and research, my comic book and nerdworld awareness goes back to before World War II.

Like any American, I enjoy a good nostalgia-fest and a chance to see characters from my childhood and young adult years in new adventures once in a while.

But I think it's time to stop. Trying to cater to both my nostalgia and the modern tastes of new readers or viewers makes no one happy.

For example, Future Quest has been a fun little romp. The child in me squees at seeing Johnny and Hadji again and seeing them interact with Jann from Space Ghost. But aiming this series squarely at people like me wouldn't make enough money or bring in a big enough audience, so the writers try to modernize it -- in ways that clash with the original feel rather than update it! The new female Impossible makes about as much sense as the much-hated female Ninja Turtle that briefly appeared in the live action TMNT television series. She doesn't appear to be a natural and welcome continuation of the series but only a cynically manipulative way to shoehorn some political correctness into the team. Similarly, the changes in Buzz Conroy the Boy Genius seem contrived and false-hearted rather than genuine updates, as do the changes with Dr. Zin.

The result is a series that is pleasant but no more than pleasant to long-time fans, because the changes seem artificial and insincere enough to dampen any genuine nostalgic thrills, and pleasant but no more than pleasant to new readers, because the story is so clearly steered by characters who could only have been created in the 1960s. We have nostalgia that is diminished by writers who seem to be ashamed of the roots of the characters in their story.

Another example would be the animated Batman 1966 movie that recently came out. It is enoyable to hear Adam West, Burt Ward, and Julie Newmar voicing their classic roles, but the film tries so hard to force together 1966 tropes with modern tropes that in trying to please both nostalgic fans and newer fans it ends up pleasing no one, a pleasant use of two hours but nothing more, a film enjoyable to watch once but likely never to be watched a second time. Older fans would recall that the fan-favorite Bat-villain of the 1960s TV series was The Penguin and not The Joker. This is made clear in the 1960s Batman film in which The Penguin captains the submarine used by the villains; he is given full loyalty by The Joker, who seems to love following The Penguin's orders because it frees him from the boredom of having to take charge himself (the sole exception is a single moment when he calls The Penguin "bossy"). However, the recent animated film tries to please newer fans by focusing more on The Joker and giving him clear priority over The Penguin. The moments of nostalgia seem to have little to do with the film itself except as a loyally rote exercise in obtaining the nostalgia-driven dollar.

I will not go into detail about those remakes and reboots that change so much they lose all charm, such as the Transformers trilogy.

Instead of revising my childhood memories, I wish the modern era would focus on making memories of its own. No more nostalgic romps. No more reboots and revisions and generational appropriation. As cute and sexy as Chris Pine might be, let him play someone other than a role that already had been made famous decades ago by William Shatner. Instead of a female revision of The Ghostbusters, let's see a female team with its own identity and its own creativity. Instead of bringing back Jason for yet another Friday the 13th, give me a new horror figure instead. If I want to see Robo-Cop or Mad Max or Big Trouble in Little China again, I have access to a DVD player -- let the talented actors involved apply their creative powers to new franchises instead of necromantic retreads that have already had their day in the sun and then retired.

Hanna Barbera's Frankenstein Junior followed in the footsteps of Gigantor and Giant Robo while remaining its own creation, so if the time has returned for giant robots, let them create new giant robots instead of rebooting Frankenstein Junior and then trying to scrub him clean of his 1960s roots.

They're doing a remake of War Games, updated for today? This is a joke, yes? PLEASE BE A JOKE!

Commissioner Gordon imagining an arch-criminal team-up in the 1966 Batman movie:

"Penguin, Joker, Riddler... and Catwoman, too!

The sum of the angles of that rectangle is too monstrous to contemplate!"

Yes, and as a light-hearted replication of the Silver Age Batman, for a television series of the time the series is surprisingly accurate (even though the TV series never gave us a rainbow Batman and he never ended up on other planets).

As I watch the series anew, I've become increasingly impressed by Adam West's timing and deadpan command of the material and even more so by Neil Hamilton's straight-faced depiction of a very Silver Age sort of Commissioner Gordon whose ability to say even the most delightfully absurd lines in total seriousness constituted its own superpower. The understated wit is a charm of the series one never notices as a child and becomes one of the treasured discoveries as an adult.

Over the years, I have read various writers admit that the 1960s Batman series strongly inspired the more serious depictions in the Bronze Age and now Iron Age of comic books. I recall reading that the mad horror of the modern Joker owes less to the Silver Age Joker than it does to the manic menace of Frank Gorshin's depiction of The Riddler in the TV series. I recall reading that Julie Newmar in her sexy catsuit was one of the inspirations for transforming the Catwoman from a high society dilettante cat burglar in a purple dress into a leather-clad "bad girl" with streetwise cunning and prowess. I recall reading that Burgess Meredith's memorable depiction of The Penguin is what raised the character from a second stringer about to be forgotten into a figure that writers repeatedly worked on rebuilding until he could finally fit into the modern Batman continuity. I have heard rumors but no confirmation that the snarky Alfred popularized by The Dark Knight limited series was inspired by the snarky moments given to Alan Napier's Alfred at a time when the comic book Alfred was still a comedy relief character.

Back when comic books were struggling for respectability, a certain defensiveness about the 1960s TV series might have made sense, but today, there is really no reason not to enjoy the series for what it is and never pretended otherwise to be.

So I take it that this involves either Kryptonians who have no vulnerability to magic or else involves the version of Odin whose magic is not actually magic but instead is actually a Sci Fi cosmic power that people call "magic" and therefore has no particular advantage over Kryptonians?

Surely they could find a way to bring back Catseye and return her dignity!

Her initial appearance and her banter with Wolfsbane (and the White Queen's inability to discern for a certainty whether she is a human mutant who takes feline form or a rare cat mutant who takes human form) remains memorable even all these years later.

> Why is DC Cinema such an embaressment to pop culture?

My personal opinion is that DC tries too desperately to appeal to the lowest (and therefore most profitable) common denominator with their live action films, whereas their animated features are aimed at comic book geeks as well as teens, young adults, and the young-at-heart-adults.

It makes sense from a purely economic perspective. Because live action films cost so much more than do animated features, DC must appeal to a far broader range of viewers. The most famous DC superhero is Superman, but from a cost perspective, he is incredibly difficult to do well in a live action film; the second member of DC's superhero trinity, Wonder Woman, is nearly as difficult to handle unless one nerfs her down to a snarling version of Jaime Summers the Bionic Woman -- or hides the SPFX problems under a camouflage of camp, as they did with the Lynda Carter television series, or under a camouflage of the most desperately hackneyed and disingenuously mean-spirited "bad ass" vibe, as they attempted with the abominable recent Wonder Woman TV series that lasted just one episode. Small wonder then that The Batman has been the most successful of the DC live action franchises both on television and in the films.

Thus, in a humiliatingly naked bid for pop culture street cred and for all the money that comes from shameless catering, we end up in our 21st century live-action movies with a petty, spiteful Superman who calmly threatens torture and allows the deaths of thousands, a Wonder Woman with a serious case of testosterone poisoning, a Green Lantern who is less a hero than a caricature of a clueless adolescent boy in a man's body, and a Batman who mistakes heavy breathing for a tough pose.

In contrast, Marvel superheroes are relatively easy to depict -- and they handle nerfing quite well. Sure, The Hulk in the live action TV series was so much less powerful than the comic book Hulk, but they managed to make it work (and having The Hulk spend most of his time as Bruce Banner -- pardon me, David Bruce Banner -- cut costs as well). Similarly, the mechanical nature of the Iron Man suit makes it far easier to get away with a CGI Iron Man than it is to get away with a CGI Big Blue Boy Scout.

If you pay attention to the narrative patterns and subject matter, you will notice that Marvel aims its live-action films at the teen and young adult and young-at-heart adult market (as well as tossing in a few easter eggs for the comic book geeks), the same market at which DC has aimed many of its animated series and films, such as Batman: The Animated Series or Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths.

Why are Marvel animated series so terrible in comparison? Because Marvel never aimed them at people like us; Marvel aims those squarely at the kiddies, something DC seldom does any more (with the exception of a few series as Teen Titans Go!). Don't compare them to Batman:TAS or Justice League Unlimited; compare them to Pokemon.

On the positive side, things are looking up a little with recent DC television series such as The Flash.

My friend, everyone who is on Comicvine is "cool"!

Ah, from a certain point of view. (footnote)

( -- Well, everyone except for those who liked Man of Steel and Jar Jar Binks, but magnanimously we give them the chance to pick up the coolness of the rest of us via osmosis... )

footnote= Obiwan Kenobi, *The Empire Strikes Back*, 1983 -- and if you recognized that reference without having to look here, you are definitely part of the Comicvine Old School!

Good point! I will alter my post #15 to reflect your reminder.

DC's New 52 and Marvel's sometimes desperate pandering have driven more than a few people from superhero comic books, while superhero comic books remain exciting for new readers --

new readers who have no memory of earlier DC continuities and therefore can not miss them or feel disrespected or betrayed by DC's latest devolution,

and new readers for whom the latest Marvel storyline retread will be their first and therefore an exciting experience, whether it's yet another retread of Tony Stark's alcoholism or of Ben Grimm's angst about his appearance or of the government's recurrent amnesia about all the good superheroes have committed or of the X-Men's surprise that no one else seems to care about violent prejudice against mutants.

A decade from now, the current new guard at Comicvine will have become the old guard, driven away because the current DC continuities will have been replaced by future ones that pander cynically to the newest generation and intentionally hold no meaning for the previous and the Marvel retreads will no longer seem like exciting new experiences but as retreads, and the new guard of 2025 will wonder what had happened to them.

Meanwhile, a few of us periodically return, because our love for superheroes in general outweighs our distaste against or simple boredeom with the current interpretations, and some of them, such as Batman, seem immune to even the worst of retconning and revisionism and some of the current crop of superhero movies, while devoid of the best of the comic book storylines, are overall fun experiences for a couple of hours in an air-conditioned theater.

Not too long ago, I used an example from Harry Potter for my first year college students, and they could follow the general gist; but when I used an example from Hunger Games, they enthusiastically connected with that instead of the Harry Potter references. When I later made a reference to the Jackson LOTR film trilogy, one student told me, "That's a movie our *parents* watched."