What I Want from Wonder Woman (and Won’t Get): A Pre-Review

Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

Y’all know I’m a Marvel girl. The MCU has been one of the things that’s kept me going for at least five years now, and most assuredly for the past two. So it’s a bit disingenuous for me to talk about DC’s film universe because I know from the get-go I’ll just get labeled as some sort of shrill Marvel shill. But bear with me because, above all else, I just want to be told a good story. I’m the first to call out Marvel when I think they’ve failed (which they’ve done frequently and spectacularly lately) so keep that in mind when I say that DC done lost its fool mind.

I had the misfortune of having to go see both Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad for a podcast that I host with my friend Marc. You can’t talk about something if you haven’t seen it. Marc is much kinder to things than I am. I wanted to burn everything to the ground after enduring both movies. Neither has any depth, plot, or character development. They’re both desperate, slapdash propagations of highly lucrative intellectual property. They rely solely on the fact that everyone is desperate to love the films because they love the symbols in them. DC has always been King. Batman has always been #1. Everyone already adores Harley Quinn.  But Marvel’s film success has DC desperate to get their shit in front of eyeballs because superheroes sell. They seem to have missed the crucial bit that good stories about superheroes are what sell. (The box office returns v. critical acclaim debate I save for another day.)

There are so many problems with the entire situation that I can’t even enumerate them all. I don’t know the ins and outs of DC, Warner Brothers, or comics culture the way others do and DC’s disasters have been endlessly dissected by others better than I could. So what I’m going to talk about is not the horrors DC puts out but what I want from Wonder Woman. Because, to my weird specialized heart, that movie has the potential to be better than Captain America: The First Avenger. (Y’all ever heard me go on about Cap1? There are usually overexcited tears involved.)

Continue Reading

Stop Saying Marvel Movies Are All the Same; You Look a Fool

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Lately, I’ve been minding my own business reading totally unrelated articles about the entertainment industry and media criticism when bam! Slapped in the face with a backhanded insult aimed at Marvel Studios. “They’re all the same,” reviewers opine with a wink and a smile. “Nothing happens in them; they can’t damage their franchise!” critics gleefully deduce, seemingly not paying attention to the films at all.

Let’s just dispense with the idea that all Marvel Studios films are the same and that nothing happens in them. It’s precisely the opposite of the truth and is such a willful misreading it smacks of elitist snobbery.

Continue Reading

Scales of Madness and Goodness in Marvel Cinematic Universe Scientists

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

science and madness in the mcu

There are some things I just can’t let go. Science and scientists in the MCU is definitely one of those things.

Science is a massive part of the MCU’s logistics so most of the stories involve good scientists battling bad ones. The more I thought about it, the more it occurred to me that it was more like altruistic ones fighting mad ones. I already had a minor squee fest about this here. I decided to plot it all out. Possibly my favorite thing about visualizing this idea is that it makes clear that it’s impossible to be an Evil Scientist who is not also a Mad one in the MCU.


Each character is graded on a scale of -2 to 2, with -2 being the baddest/maddest and 2 being the most heroic/altruistic. 0 is perfectly neutral on both scales. Here’s how I defined those categories:

  • Madness – Mad scientists use science to deliberately harm others, to gain power or financial advantage over others in a way that detrimentally monopolizes knowledge, experiment on themselves, or let their quest for knowledge devolve into monomania. Generally, consider whether the character is over-emotional or under-emotional and then how that causes them to use their scientific knowledge (see: this post.)
  • Goodness – The goodness metric takes into consideration whether characters intentionally and wantonly harm others, their underlying motivations, and how actively they engage in altruistic behavior. Additionally, “heroic” and “neutral” characters can slide on the scale depending on how closely they’re aligned with the protagonists.
  • Heroes/Neutrals/Villains – Heroes are main protagonists. Villains are main antagonists. Neutrals are characters who are unaligned or who switch from one to the other.

A few of these data points are fairly arbitrary. Helen Cho, for example, has about 30 seconds of screentime and no discernible character traits so I made all that up. The others I tried to hold up to the spectrum schemata as closely as possible. I was even diplomatic about it and made Simmons a little bit bad and Fitz a little bit mad! As for who is included and who isn’t, medical doctors I generally left off unless they had a research specialty or partook in experimental studies (Lincoln and Dr. Streiten don’t really, for example.) A few side characters are noted to have scientific training but don’t use it extensively for plot purposes (Bobbi, Callie from “SEEDS”). That said, if I’ve forgotten any scientists or you’d like to argue for someone’s inclusion  feel free to let me know!

(The inherent sanity of the author of this post is not up for debate.)

Continue Reading

Post-9/11 Rhetoric and Pop Cultural Dissent Through Billionaire Superheroes

Estimated Reading Time: 48 minutes

A friend convinced me to take my “fake PhD” and actually apply to a Media Studies PhD program. I discovered that I had a woeful lack of suitable material for a writing sample. My brilliant idea? To write a new article completely from scratch. The following is my 9000+ word piece written in one month with only public library database access and an actual mental breakdown thrown in there for kicks. For future purposes, consider this a draft version of any subsequently published material. First completed December 1, 2015.

Spoilers for: Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy and basically the entire MCU. Additional warning that this is in serious academic-speak.

spoiler warning


The official Bush Administration rhetoric contextualized the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 as a large-scale battle between the forces of good and evil, and freedom and oppression. The American public was content accepting that narrative for a time, but as doubts began to form it increasingly processed the national trauma of 9/11 through fantasy and popular culture. During the 2000s, the superhero film genre flourished, breaking box office records and providing a platform for both complicity in the official good vs. evil narrative and dissent from such a simplistic worldview. Two of the most popular and complex characters to launch into the public consciousness were DC’s famous tycoon Batman in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy and Marvel Studio’s answering billionaire arms dealer: Iron Man. Nolan’s Batman films religiously adhere to the heroic traditions of moral simplicity and a battle between good and evil while rigidly maintaining the comic book conventions of lone men, hyper-masculinity, and secret identities. The Iron Man films intentionally toy with and discard all of these conventions, preferring a more nuanced narrative that exposes the underlying imperialistic intentions of the American capitalist and questioning the demonization of foreign peoples. Both film series are in dialogue with the prevailing political narrative, offering audiences the chance to process the 9/11 attacks while also providing an avenue of dissent in a cultural climate that had silenced all objection to nationalistic war.

Continue Reading

The 50-Point MCU Ratings System

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

I have a bit of an addiction to the MCU, which is the understatement of the year. I am basically constantly thinking about it in one capacity or another. When I’m feeling gracious with myself, I like to say “it’s like how Tolkien scholars are about Tolkien stuff! But for Marvel!” When I’m certain I’m being an overbearing crazy person I tend to opt for “I’m sorry, you can tell me to shut up anytime!”

Before this obsession/addiction/whatever was as fully formed as it is now, I used to rate Marvel Studios’ films on a spectrum of “fluffy” to “nirvana.” Daredevil kind of screwed up my MCU spectrum. It was neither fluffy nor nirvana and frankly I didn’t like it that much. But it didn’t go in the Time-Out Corner with The Incredible Hulk either. It wasn’t bad it just wasn’t for me. Cue months of reformulating how I watch, evaluate, and think about Marvel.

My spectrum from before Agent Carter. Things got messy after that.

What I came up with (after many months of thinking way too hard about this) was a fifty-point system with five ten-point categories. I made this up as a tool to investigate my own enjoyment of the media franchise and not as any objective measurement of  a work’s merits, worth, success, etc. etc. This is how I figure out if something is successful for my purposes. These categories also work on the filmic level, the series level, and the episodic level.

Here are my categories, followed by explanations and things that points can be awarded for:

  • Science (Fiction) 10 points
    • Hardcore, down-to-earth, semi-realistic sci-fi science is what drives the MCU, so every story needs science as an integral element.
    • When the logistics of the science itself are both a plot catalyst and a plot device—i.e. they don’t just forget about science once it gives people superpowers—that’s my favorite. Best examples: Ant-Man, Jessica Jones.
    • Special note: this is how Fitz and Simmons on Agents of SHIELD have become 10,000% my favorite characters in the entire MCU. Their whole function is to serve us the science that makes the world-building conceit work. (Lots) more on them at a future date. (Seriously. Lots.)
  • Action 10 points
    • All of these movies are action movies. On the whole, most people go see them for the thrills. Points awarded for spectacle and grandiosity out of principle. When I like the action is when it furthers the plot, when it fits the story being told, and when it makes sense. This is my least favorite category because it gives almost full marks to things like Avengers: Age of Ultron and The Incredible Hulk, which get pretty much no other points from me. This is the easiest box to tick and the most basic.
  • Meta 10 points
    • Genre Savvy – most MCU movies are some other genre in addition to being sci-fi. Genre savvy is how aware they are of, not just science fiction conventions, but the conventions of the other genres they’re playing in. Captain America: The Winter Soldier as spy thriller; Ant-Man as heist film etc.
    • Actual Meta – the work is acutely aware that it is an adaptation of a comic book, is a film/TV show, or furthers the conceit that the story takes place in reality. Best examples: selling actual Captain America comic books in Captain America: The First Avenger, the Smithsonian exhibit in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the Mandarin videos in Iron Man 3.
    • Transmedia storytelling – characters, events, or themes from another entry crossover, effect, or are referenced in this one. Best example: Captain America: The Winter Soldier and the back seven episodes in the first season of Agents of SHIELD.
    • Commentary – the main point of sci-fi is to use another world to comment on our own. The MCU is essentially the universe next door and has no problem telling us about ourselves. Best examples: Iron Man and culpability in Middle Eastern conflicts; Captain America: The Winter Soldier and mass surveillance.
  • Plot/Character 10 points
    • These go together. If the characters are great but the plot sucks I don’t care and vice versa. For the TV shows, the episode plot has to be compelling and make sense but the characters also need to act in-character and experience growth.
    • Drama for drama’s sake will not be tolerated and may lead to angry meltdowns and negative points. I reserve the right to throw temper tantrums.
    • Something must definitively happen and the status quo must definitively change. Characters (and we) must discover new information and move forward, and their actions in the plot must legitimately effect the story and the world.
  • Aesthetics 10 points
    • The shit is pretty.
    • I mean it. It’s visually stunning, aurally stimulating, etc.
    • More than that, the aesthetics match the overall story. Agent Carter is a perfect recreation of Golden Age Sci-Fi aesthetics. Guardians of the Galaxy looks like a neon ’80s acid-trip. Jessica Jones is neo-noir as hell.

*Completely nebulous Bonus Points may be awarded at my discretion. Examples of things that get bonus points: classic sci-fi nerdgasms (think Agent Carter), Fitz and/or Simmons being cute and/or nerding out over science (like all of the above in 3×02 “Purpose in the Machine”), serious meta shit. Things can end up with more than 50 points when I do these evaluations.

And my examples make it painfully clear what my favorite bits are.

Continue Reading

On Star Wars: The Force Awakens: But Is the Damn Thing Any Good?

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

I think it’s appropriate to inaugurate my sci-fi/cult-ish/whatever blog with my thoughts on Star Wars: The Force Awakens, yes? Here goes. 2000% SPOILER-FREE, I ASSURE YOU.

I have complete apathy for any upcoming installments of Star Wars. Ever. I do not care.1 If I cared any less I would probably turn inside out and become a black hole of uncaring. I am not moved by the marketing, I am not swayed by the nostalgia. I actively dislike J.J. Abrams in general. I have no emotional investment in this endeavor, be it positive or negative. I am very interested in film/TV narrative franchises, however, so the mechanics of the thing are fascinating to me. Additionally, my soul revolts at the very threat of spoilers. So I figured, hey, no one will tell me if this movie is actually any damn good irrespective of all the hype. I might as well go and see it before it gets spoiled.

There is nothing particularly special about this film. Overall, when you subtract Luke, Han, and Leia, what you’ve got is a basic, uninspired space opera. Essentially, it’s fan fic. Now, this is by design. The original Star Wars is the quintessential space opera. The space opera to begin and end all others. The original formula of the original films is invoked in full force precisely because it worked, because it is familiar, and because that’s what people are paying to see. But that still means that, every beat the film hits, every homage, and every plot point is laid out and inevitable within the first five minutes of the movie. It’s not even a matter of guessing what’s going to happen: you know. It’s almost categorically impossible to legitimately spoil anything. It’s all a forgone conclusion. (That said, I do not spoil. May I be struck down from on high should I ever spoil something without a warning.) Additionally, at times The Force Awakens almost willfully ignores the fact that the three prequel films happened, thank the stars. It’s a complete return to the atmosphere of the original trilogy which is why, even as inevitable as it is, it works.

It might be predictable, kind of trite, and a bit boring as far as plot, but the movie is still a treat to watch. The special effects aren’t obtrusive but are used in cool ways. The old aesthetic of the original trilogy is back with a vengeance and that’s what lends the film about 80% of its charm. There are Chosen Ones and Saviors and those Seeking Redemption and so-on and so-forth, but even as each character fits snugly into their prescribed role, it’s still fun to watch them in their trials and battles. It’s not ’80s high-camp, but it leans that way.

I’ve seen a lot of kerfuffle over whether Rey is a Mary Sue or not. Let me unpack the term “Mary Sue” a bit. There are two schools of thought: one is that it simply describes an improbably flawless, hyper-competent character (male or female, though “Gary Stu” is an equivalent male version); the second is that it’s sexist vocabulary used to invalidate female wish fulfillment fantasy characters. To my mind, Mary Sues are intentionally and necessarily constructed to have no flaws and very little conflict that they cannot immediately solve. Most Mary Sues that I come across are half-assed attempts at “strong female characters”—the lazy kind who are empty functions that shoot machine guns and blow up bad guys without any motivation, conflict, or personality. The kind you get when writers think they are being asked to include “badass” women when really what people want is fully-formed, well-realized characters who also happen to be female. That’s it, y’all.

Rey is flawless with very little conflict but, in the context of the film and her function within it, I wouldn’t call her a Mary Sue. Both Rey and Finn exist as audience projection fantasies. Neither is particularly developed nor conflicted. Revisiting such an iconic mythos requires that these characters not be too defined. Because we are projecting onto them, to give them too much personality risks alienating the paying customer. As Rey and Finn discover the quirks, references, and homages to the original, culturally omnipresent works, it’s as if the viewers themselves are plonked down in these iconic situations like they’re running around a theme park. Neither character actually has that much conflict, that much background, or that much interest individually. I really loved Rey and Finn’s rapport, their friendship, etc. But the fact remains that, while they’re sometimes goofy, and while they do mess up a few times, they are still blank canvases for all of us to cast ourselves onto. I’m sure there’s a TV Tropes-style term for that, but my encyclopedic knowledge of TV Tropes is failing me at the moment.

I promised no spoilers so I’ll forego the rest of my commentary for now. I will say that I instantly fell in love with Poe Dameron. Every time he was on screen I was grinning like an idiot. But Poe also asserted a definite persona right from the start. Overall, I’d say I still have complete and total apathy for any future installments in the Star Wars franchise. There’s just nothing here that I really care about. That said, I’m sure I’ll go back in the future. Just out of curiosity.

(My actual favorite part: the Captain America: Civil War trailer before the film rolled. You will quickly learn that this blog will mostly be a dumping ground for my Marvel Cinematic Universe rants.)

1 I do feel obliged to mention that one of my best friends is a massive Star Wars Expanded Universe (EU) fan and once ceremonially burned Mickey Mouse in effigy to express her displeasure with the erasure of the EU. Personally, however, I have no real interest or vendetta.

Continue Reading