the Hobbit


…raised by Dwarves…


random thoughts on film character design and
archetype


2012.12.15


I was an Elf raised by Dwarves...
and a few Hobbits. I'm the Nature Child, the Magical Child, the one sitting
under trees trying to figure out how to get them to talk. The one who picked up
a bow because Legolas and Robin Hood made it look cool, who learned how to ride
a horse without saddle or rein (my very patient half-Arabian gelding, Saraf,
helped). My family was Pennsylvania "Dutch", read Deutsch... German... stolidly,
  pramatically, sturdily, rooted in the earth, no nonsense German. They
  did not talk to trees, and horses were for pulling plows.



The zygote faerie clearly hit
turbulence when she delivered me.


York County PA was full of
Dwarves and Hobbits, still is; people of English and German descent who like
third breakfasts and comfortable hearths and no adventures. There are a few
wizards wandering about, and one very tall D&D buddy who was definitely a
Dwarf: his hammer, Henry the Convincer, helped him build any number of excellent
things. One of my friends, the one most responsible for me having a small team
of sleddogs, was a Ranger, surely a descendant of Numenoreans who had been
wandering, but not lost... her favorite Siberian Husky was named, of course,
Strider.


I've known Elves and Hobbits and
Dwarves and Wizards... and a few orcs. You all have. They're archetypes. They
are parts of our True Nature, our subconcious design. They are us. When J.R.R.
Tolkien wrote those books, things surfaced from the deep dark depths of the
Collective Unconcious and filled his pages. He didn't have to think with his
Intellectual Professor Brain to write "in a hole in the ground there lived a
Hobbit"... he already knew them. Hobbits were all around: the folk of the quiet
English countryside, the ones who liked second breakfasts and comfortable
hearths and no adventures, thank you! Just like York County PA.



Archetype. Whether the English
countryside, or the American, or somewhere on an island on the far side of the
world, we all recognize them. We recognize them when we meet the characters in
the book. Sometimes, we recognize them when we see an illustration of the
character. Before I had ever read Lord of the Rings, I saw a Judy King-Reniets
  illustration of the characters in the Fellowship of the
Ring.


"Who's the blond guy on the right
with the longbow?" I knew nothing about Legolas, but something the artist had
  captured in the illustration connected with me. I withheld judgment until I'd
  read the story, after all, it might have simply been an illustration of an
  appealing guy with good hair.


Nope. The artist nailed something
about the Elf archetype, something I recognized. I read the books in 1978,
loved the character, and continue to love him. Like my Ranger friend, I named my
favorite Siberian Husky after my archetype: Legolas (hey, has pointy ears, runs
on snow).


When we read a book, we fill in
the spaces the author leaves us with our own experience, our own hearts'
desires. There's the character with his inidividual quirks, the archetype
underlying him... and we fill in the
rest.


When someone does a film, they
have to give the audience a lot more. An actor with a specific face, a set of
clothes that tell us something about the character, movements and facial
twitches that speak volumes. The audience is left with little space to fill in
with their own experience.


How do you portray an archetype
so others recognize it?


I am an artist. I've illustrated
Elves for years. Easy. I get Elves, or at least, some version of them. I've seen
other versions of Elves that nail the archetype well. And some that are just..
well... gee, there's a pretty fashion statement male human. Bleah. There are the
excellent Brothers Hildebrandt (they did some LOTR illos and at least one famous
Star Wars poster) who must BE Dwarves (theirs are great) but have zero
empathy for Elves. There is the awesome Alan Lee (worked on the LOTR films along
with John Howe) whose Elves and Faerie illustrations I have long admired in the
book "Faeries" (done with Brian Froud); his Elves are different from mine, but
he clearly understands something about a good many archetypes, as well as the
natural world. And horse anatomy, and gear (a rare thing among fantasy artists).
I have trouble illustrating Dwarves, even though I've been surrounded by them
all my life. It's hard for me to illustrate those stout, sturdy, hairy little
guys. And Hobbits, despite the fact that I like them a lot, elude me completely.
Other artists, like the aforementioned Hildebrandts, draw them well. As
archetypes, they are the Common Folk, the Mundane, the Comfortable forced out of
their Comfort Zone into a Learning Experience. Tolkien mentions that he made
them small because the folk he based them on are small minded, not in a bad way,
but limited in their views, their experience, and their wish to go beyond their
boundaries. I think they are small because they are the latest incarnation of
The Little People. Faeries and talking bunnies and mice are a staple of
children’s tales… because they are small and vulnerable like children. Kids
listening to a parent read The Hobbit can relate to Bilbo partly because he is
small, unpowerful, like them. And like all good heroes in kids’books, the Little
Guy proves he has more mettle than his warrior companions
  thought.


How do you put all this on a
screen?


Peter Jackson, and WETA have
brought the unfilmable film to the screen. For years we wanted to see LOTR
larger than life... and they did it. I remember hearing about it, and running to
my friend's computer (I had none) and looking up the casting... going straight
to Legolas. If they screwed up the Elves, the whole thing would be blown for me.
The blond guy with the bow was acceptable ("who the bleep is this Orlando Bloom
kid, anyway???") and became much more acceptable, until I reached the point of
Diehard Fandom. PJ and Crew, and Mr. Bloom, had nailed something recognizable
about the Elves, they understood something about the archetype (even if
all the coolness factor of Legolas was not in the film). Hobbits,
Dwarves, Wizards, orcs... even the wargs... they gave us images that plugged
into some deep unconcious "memory", some deep knowledge of elemental truth.
Archetype.


The Elves of the films generally
work well for me, although they tend to be a bit homogenous (not so much
individuality in face and dress), and a bit high-fallutin', ethereal and Vulcan.
Before you flame me, I am a huge Spock fan. And it has occurred to me and at
least one author I'd read, that Vulcans are the same archetype as Elves, in a
science fiction setting. I guess that makes Klingons the
Dwarves...


Enter The Hobbit. A tale of a
bunch of short guys on a mission to take back a lot of gold from a sleeping
dragon. The tale done on a thousand grade school stages. Read aloud to millions
of kids. The backstory to Lord of the Rings. I always preferred LOTR (perhaps
because of that pesky Elf), but was excited to see PJ and Crew do more Tolkien.
I began to see character designs for the Dwarves (who make up most of the cast)
online... in particular, Thorin and Fili and
Kili.


"Those are Dwarves?"



Nay, it did not match the stout,
bearded, and slightly unattractive image in my head. They looked too heroic. Too
handsome. Too... human? Some naysayer online said they looked like Men, as in
humans.


Back up here a minute Kemosabi.
Archetypes are us. They are human.
They are parts of our True Nature.


PJ and Crew were confronted with
the problem of 13 main characters who are Dwarves. The Hobbit is easy, he's the
guy with no beard. How do we tell apart Fili and Kili, Oin, Gloin, Balin,
Dwalin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Ori, Dori, Nori and Thorin Oakenshield? (I did
that from memory, impressed? OK, moving on...).



I have a great illustrated
version of the Hobbit. the illustrator is the excellent Michael Hague. The
Dwarves are hard to tell apart. Buncha' hairy guys in hoods. PJ and crew gave us
some awesomely unique individuals, even if I am still having trouble remembering
which one is Nori and which one is Dori and which one is Nemo. And the film
gives us some new insight into what is a Dwarf in Middle Earth. They have
stepped beyond stereotype while keeping the archetype recognizable. They're
short, they're stout, sturdy, doughty, they have beards, they have done some
interesting things with facial hair and braids (as humans have done throughout
history).


I was startled to see at least
four Dwarves I consider quite attractive (remember, I'm an Elf, even though I
look quite like a Hobbit).


????WTFili????


Archetype... unique
individuals... great freaking design by WETA. 'Nuff
said.


No, wait, not really enough said.



Elves are our Nature
Child/Magical Child/intuitive/creative side. They are somewhat androgenous
(lacking severe sexual dimorphism, like the bearded Dwarves), and neotenous.



We pause to consult wikipedia: Neoteny
also
called juvenilization, is one of the two ways by which pedomorphism can
arise. Pedomorphism is the retention by adults of traits previously seen only in
juveniles. Dogs are
neotenous wolves (all dogs are a subspecies of Wolf). Some dogs are more
neotenous: think Golden Retriever: floppy ears, short muzzle, manic will to
please, all puppy characteristics. Pomeranians exhibit another version: round
heads, short muzzles, big eyes, like wolf puppies. My Siberians are closer to
Wolf: pointy ears, high prey drive, wolflike appearance, but they are still
Dogs, and therefore essentially juvenile
wolves.


Humans themselves are neotenous compared to other primates (some
ridiculous percentage of our DNA matches that of Gorillas, Chimps and Bonobos,
especially Bonobos). We are Domesticated Primates. I remember seeing a picture
of a newborn gorilla and thinking how spookily it resembled a newborn
human.


Dwarves are the Elves' opposites. In Norse myth (from which
Tolkien drew much) there are Dark Elves of the underground (Dwarves) and Light
Elves of the air (well, Elves). In Middle Earth, Dwarves are the miners,
diggers, finders, delvers, makers, the techies, the smiths, the People of the
Earth and Rock. They feel old and stout and like the bones of the Earth itself
when you read the books. The Elves belong to the sea and the trees, and the
Dwarves to Geology. I always thought of them as looking like the kind of middle
aged to old guys I see here in York County: stout, bearded (and often covered in
the grime of whatever project they were working on). I never pictured them young
and handsome.


But at some point, like the gorilla, they would be babies, then
kids, then young Dwarves, then middle aged warrior Dwarves, then old guys. They
would have that neoteny thing going on for a bit, but not forever like Elves.
They would, as young foolish teens, look exactly like Fili and Kili. Then they'd
be Princely, Awesome, Heroic, like Thorin. Or a bit of a character, like Bofur.
And at some point, they'd be appealing old guys like Balin.



I am amazed at the character design for The Hobbit. I love it. I
got the poster because looking at it, you see this great set of
characters, each with their own history, their own story. Guys you'd like
to hang out with for awhile.


Doesn't hurt that from the female perspective, a few of them are
hot.


 
 

20121212:12:01


The Hobbit


You should know that my heart lies with the Elves. That Elf has been the
archetype I related to since someone in my art class said (of my flowy
Galadriel's yard sale shirt), "you look like an elf in that shirt..." to which I
said; "?!?!?!???" So, here I am in love with a company of Dwarves...


In 1977 Star Wars hit the screen, and a fellow fan dumped a pile of reading
material into my hands. "You must read this," she intoned. I stared at the stack
of verbiage and paled. Lo!, in my copious free time, somewhere in the next
millenium. The epic tome was J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.


Somewhat later, I borrowed a tent from a second cousin twice removed, so I could
spend a week on a desert island called Assateague. He told me about this game
they played: D&D. I showed up, rolled up a character, waved the paper at the
DM and said, "What do I make of this?"

"Play an Elf."

"What?" You
mean like Hermie, in Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer?

"Read Lord of the
Rings."


I did, in 1978. Orlando Bloom was yet in diapers. He would later fill the
shoes of the character that most summed up my worldview (leave no footprints),
my value system (talking to trees and riding horses without saddle or rein), and
my internal archetype.


I may look like a Hobbit, and enjoy second and third breakfasts, but my heart
lies with the Elves. So, here I am, enamored of...


...a bunch of Dwarves???







We (fandom, geeks of the world, nerds inc.) had been waiting
all our lives for someone to turn our favorite piece of literature, impossibly,
into a film. We'd sat around, casting our favorite actors into the unlikely Lord
of the Rings film. Unlikely because it was considered unfilmable.


Then Peter Jackson and company proved the naysayers wrong. After we got done
ooooing and aaaahing and picking apart how PJ's film was different from the ones
in our heads, we said...


...he must do the Hobbit. A clever fan did a fake trailer (using bits
from the LOTR films and, I think, Dragonslayer). We contemplated casting and
character design. We blogged, we arted, we fanficked.


We waited for a decade.


　


And at last, here it is. Of course I was there, an hour before the start of
the midnight showing of the first of the three movies in Peter Jackson's Hobbit
trilogy. Trilogy. Yes, trilogy. The challenge with LOTR, (published in 1955) was
to pare the immensity of that Epic down to something that would fit in a film...
or three. The Hobbit, published in 1937, was lighter, not only in tone (as a
kids' book, meant to be read aloud) but in weight and length. By stretching it
into a trilogy matching LOTR, PJ and crew could expand not only the action and
character development, but the rest of the story; the storm clouds gathering on
the horizon which will erupt into the perfect storm of LOTR. When he wrote the
Hobbit, Tolkien had not yet imagined LOTR, but the world of Middle Earth was
being sketched out... in the trenches of WW1 Tolkien was scribbling bits of
ideas on scraps of paper. His son, Christopher, would later publish those
half-finished tales as the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and the HoME series
(History of Middle Earth). "There is not complete consistency
between The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, the two most closely related
works, because Tolkien never fully integrated all their traditions into each
other. He commented in 1965, while editing The Hobbit for a third edition, that
he would have preferred to completely rewrite the book because of the style of
its prose."


Peter Jackson, working in reverse, has the chance to do that rewrite.


Film 1, An Unexpected Journey, takes us to the point where the great eagles
have left the company of Dwarves, one Hobbit and Gandalf the Wizard on top of a
pinnacle of rock (how the heck did they get down from there?); from there, they
can see the Lonely Mountain, their destination, in the misty distance; in
between are the wilds of Mirkwood, and Beorn's house, some peeved wood Elves,
and a lot of really big spiders. We know, of course, how it all ends, we've read
it dozens of times. The joy is in seeing the characters move, the details added,
Gollum's subtle (improved CG and the brilliance of Andy Serkis) facial twitches,
soaring eagles the size of jet fighters, the orcish maze of Moria, stone giants
that are chunck of mountain come to rock'em sock'em life, trolls both
frightening and hilarious, The Shire, and some really good fight scenes. The
high frame rate kicks us up to a new level of film clarity. The 3D is worth the
price of admission. There are those who have naysayed this technology, saying it
makes things too clear, too sharp, blowing the illusion of fantasy. Tolkien
himself preferred oral storytelling (in his day, special effects were fairly
primitive stage illusions). To that I snort, go see it.


There are immense beauties here, beauties beyond what I might have imagined
reading the book. Beauties beyond what illustrators could imagine, even the good
ones (let's not mention the hideous Rankin Bass TV film, where the Elves of
Mirkwood looked like orcs). There is the Shire, where we all want to visit, if
not move in, the perfect comfort zone from which Bilbo has to venture forth to
achieve anything. Gandalf, the iconic Wizard, wonderfull imagined by WETA, and
brought to life by the inimitable Ian McKellan. There are mountains and
woodlands and rugged highlands (played well by various parts of New Zealand).
There are wonderfully hideous monsters: trolls and orcs and wargs and the Goblin
King. There is the Rube Goldberg maze of the goblin tunnels; we could see this
as a crazy amusement park ride. There are the eagles, plucking our heroes up,
eagles whose every feather, every movement has been studied and lovingly
recreated in magnificent CG (I've worked with birds of prey, and these are
terrific). There is Rivendell, serene valley of the Elves. Galadriel, the
epitome of elegance and wisdom. There are galloping elven warriors, Elrond on a
magnificent black Friesian. Thranduil, Elvenking of Northern Mirkwood, mounted
on a stag that looks like an Irish Elk (a horse-sized deer with a six foot rack,
now extinct).


And the dwarves. I can reel off their names, it's a sort of mental memory
game I play (I have more trouble with Snow White's seven). Tolkien wrote the
Hobbit as if it was a story being told to kids. You can hear the voice of the
narrator/storyteller. The names of the Dwarves (it is NOT Dwarfs, and he
explains, somewhere, why) come in soundalike sets, clearly an aid to remembering
them: two sets of three, three sets of two. Dori, Nori, Ori... Bifur, Bofur,
Bombur... Balin and Dwalin... Fili and Kili.. Gloin and Oin. And their leader,
Thorin Oakenshield.


Tolkien drew much from Celtic and Norse myth. Thor (Norse thunder god) is, in
Hesse Germany, associated with a sacred oak tree. (Odin's "world tree" is an
ash).


Thorin Oakenshideld. Also Thror's map (the map they use to find the way into
the Lonely Mountain). The Dwarves themselves have a strongly Germanic/Norse
quality, while the Elves feel more Celtic. I always preferred the Elves for
their nature child/magical child qualities.


But these Dwarves rock.


First, the character design is amazing. Someone had a great deal of fun with
hair and beards and makeup and costume. Each is a highly unique individual,
unlike the fairly homogenous Elves seen in Rivendell. Bofur has an inexplicable
hat, a sort of northwoods earflap thing, the flaps looking like wings about to
turn him into the Flying Nun... it works, it's cool, it's memorable, and it
makes him look like a likeable and slightly goofy guy I'd like to hang out with.
Fili and Kili are described in the book as the youngest Dwarves, and here they
are clearly designed to appeal to the younger fans... they are ... well... I'd
never thought of dwarves as hot... until now. Balin is distinctive as the white
haired elder, wizardly, kindly, Santa-ish. Bombur is extremely fat, but don't
let that fool you... he kicks butt in battle as well as anyone. Ori has a unique
face, not the typical human standard of beauty, but somehow appealing, he seems
like a gentle heart who would rather join Bilbo in the Shire for third
breakfast. Nori has braided eyebrows. Bifur, inexplicably, has an orc axe
embedded in his forehead. And of course Gloin is easy to recognize... he looks a
bit like his son (from LOTR) Gimli.


And Thorin is just magnificent.


We stop to consider the fact that there are no humans in this film (except in
the very beginning, when we see an ancient city under attack by Smaug... though
we don't see Smaug, only his devastation). LOTR had two humans in the
Fellowship: Boromir, who dies halfway through, and Aragorn who becomes King. And
he isn't a normal mundane human, he's part Elf. Hobbit has Hobbits and Dwarves
and Elves and trolls and orcs and goblins and one Wizard. No normal mundane
humans.


And yet we identify. We relate. For they are Archetypes. They are us, our
deepest ideas of ourselves. Our dreams, fears, wishes for adventures beyond our
own comfort zones.


I still love the Elves. I can't wait till the lost Dwarves are blundering
around in Mirkwood (my favorite place in Middle Earth) trying to crash the
elves' woodland parties. Can't wait to see Legolas, Thranduil, the warrior girl,
and Bilbo when "the chief of the guard had no keys...".


But for now, Dwarves rule.


　


　


　

 (a random musing on the top three comic book superheroes) 


For the Comics-impaired:

Despite being born at the beginning of the Silver Age of comics, I grew up
comics impaired. OK, I watched Superman on TV (the George Reeves version). We
got one channel and it didn't carry Batman (the campy version with Adam West),
but I caught glimpses of it at my cousins' house. It wasn't until the films came
out that I finally got to truly meet the 2nd oldest modern superhero for real.
Having just seen The Dark Knight Rises, I felt the need to contemplate why
several Batman action figures lurk on my shelves. I went to wikipedia to get an
overview of seventy years of Batman (and Robin), I was basically able to skim
the massive mess, and my head is spinning. You'd spend a lifetime simply
catching up on all the real comics and films and TV shows and radio...

So here it is, in a kind of nutshell. A really big one.

The Big Three, according to the Polls:

Superman, Spiderman and Batman rank as the top three favorite comic book
superheroes in several polls. 

In this one, "Top 10 Comic Book Characters" by Aaron Albert, About.com
Guide, it's Superman, Spidey and Bats, in that order. In another on IGN, it's
Superman, Bats and Spidey. 

Superman, as the original Man in Tights, the first comic book superhero, the
icon of the genre, the... oh, you get the picture... he started it all, so he's
at the top of all lists. (First Appearance: Action Comics #1
(June 1938)) IGN says of him: "Superman is the blueprint for the modern
superhero. He’s arguably the single most important creation in the history of
superhero comics. Superman is a hero that reflects the potential in all of us
for greatness; a beacon of light in times that are grim and a glimmer of hope
for the hopeless. He’s an archetype for us to project upon; whether you consider
him a messiah or just a Big Blue Boyscout, Superman’s impact on the genre and
pop culture is undeniable. " 

Spidey, I covered in another blog. But here he is again, just for
comparison: IGN sez: "Peter Parker is
the everyman. He’s the common, average, middle-of-the-road guy that just happens
to be endowed with amazing powers when he’s bitten by a radioactive spider.
Despite Spidey’s fantastic abilities, Peter Parker still has to deal with the
woes of middle-class living. Girl problems, making ends meet, keeping his family
together, getting through school; all the tropes of our everyday normal lives
lived out through the eyes of a superhero. Despite all this, Spider-Man remains
one of the most snarky and fun heroes in existence. His cheesy banter during
combat is always appreciated, and he’s able to make light of even the most dire
of situations. There’s never a dull moment when ol’ webhead is around, and
there’s something to be said for an icon that doesn’t take himself too
seriously." (August 1962, Amazing Fantasy)

Batman: Aaron Albert's Batman blurb reads; "There is something about the
dark brooding sense of Batman that intrigues people. Or maybe its Batman’s
alter-ego, millionaire Bruce Wayne, that people wish they had more in common
with. Maybe the reason so many people identify with him is that Batman has no
truly supernatural powers. Any one of us could be Batman Whatever the case,
Batman has struck a chord with fans around the world. The Dark Knight is hugely
popular with a multiple hit movies and many different comic titles to choose
from." IGN says:

"He’s the world’s greatest detective. He’s the world’s
premier martial artist. He’s the world’s broodiest billionaire. The only human
being to stand amongst the Justice League – alongside gods like Superman and
Wonder Woman – without superpowers. Bruce is a man, for better or worse, that is
so utterly devoted to his mission that he’s sacrificed his entire existence to
fighting a never ending battle. (First Appearance: Detective Comics #27 (May
1939))
 http://www.ign.com/top/comic-book-heroes/3 
 http://comicbooks.about.com/od/characters/tp/topsuperhero.htm

Archetypes, Archetypes:

So sayeth the experts. I like all three characters for much the same reasons
they mention. 

Superman's the iconic Golden Hero, the White Knight, the Cowboy in the White
Hat. The Sky God who comes to Earth to right wrongs. This archetype has existed
in every tale told around every fire since the Dawn of Time. 

Spiderman is another archetype: a gentle trickster, using humor and trickery
rather than raw power. He also makes mistakes, and unlike Loki, atones for them.
In the myths of the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota (the people mistakenly called
Sioux), Iktomi the Spiderman is the trickster figure (as Loki is in the Norse
myths). He looks human, his name means "spider", and he is (unlike Peter Parker)
mainly a negative role model behaving as socially inappropriately as possible.
"Most Sioux stories about Iktomi are consequently very funny, ranging from
light-hearted fables about buffoonish behavior to ribald jokes. But sometimes
Iktomi's misbehavior is more serious and violent, and the stories become
cautionary tales about the dangers of the world." 
http://www.native-languages.org/iktomi.htm

Batman is the Dark Hero. The one who strides the fine line between light and
shadow. Bagheera from the Jungle Books, Zorro, and Dracula. He is "a creature of
the night, black, terrible..." as he states in his origin tale, striking fear
into the hearts of evil. His look, character and gear is primarily evolved from
pop culture of the 1930s, including movies, pulp magazines, comic strips,
newspaper headlines, and even aspects of Bob Kane (Bat's creator) himself. The
Bat Whispers, Doc Savage, the Shadow, Sherlock Holmes, and yes, Zorro (who
dresses like Batman, rides a black horse, and plays the wimpy millionare by day
while battling crime by night). Zorro ("fox" in Spanish) is also a bit of a
trickster figure, like Spiderman (Fox is ever a trickster figure in myth), as
well as a dark avenging angel. Bats is driven by vengeance (bad guys killed his
parents) which brings me to...

Why Are They All Orphans???

Superman: planet blows up, parents throw him in an escape pod and he falls to
Earth. Presumeably parents blow up with planet.

Spiderman: parents mysteriously disappear in plane crash. Raised by Aunt and
Uncle. Uncle dies due to lack of intervention by a young Spidey who hasn't yet
absorbed that Great Wisdom of Uncle Ben: with great power comes great
responsibility.

Batman: parents killed by small time criminal before his very eyes.

There are other Heroes who don't seem to have parents. I can't think of what
happened to Wolverine's. Or Nightcrawler's. Or most of the X-Men's. Luke
Skywalker has no idea who his parents are and his aunt and uncle get killed by
the Bad Guys, then he finds Dad and well, that took 6 films and 20 years or so
to tell... Captain America wakes up in the wrong century and everyone he knew is
gone. Loki gets kicked out of the family. Thor does too, but he redeems himself
and gets to go back home with his parents.

Oh wait, there's always Ragnarok.

Orphans. Why does it always have to be orphans? Perhaps it is Rule #1 of
writing for kids; get the parents out of the way so the kids can have an
adventure. Or it's give the Hero the worst possible angst and obstacles so he
can look awesome overcoming them. Batman seems to have the market cornered on
angst and broodiness. Even the films are dark, noirish, full of the elventy
seven shades of grey found in cities that are under siege by villains. Full of
rain, and snow and eternal night and winter. (from Wiki): "Concept artist
Tully Summers commented on Christopher Nolan's style of cinematography when
asked about the difference between his designs for this film and fantasy-based
designs for Men in Black 3: "The difference for me was Christopher Nolan's
visual style. One of the things that makes his Batman movies so compelling is
their tone of plausibility. He will often prefer a raw, grittier design over one
that is very sleek and product design pretty. It's sort of a practical military
aesthetic. This stuff is made to work, not impress shoppers. The Dark Knight
Rises is a war film."

BRRRRRRRRRRRR! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!

I prefer bright and light and Spidey cracking wise while swinging Tarzanlike
through the canyons of NY.

But wait. I love Batman. Why?

73 years of comics. 7 films. Something about Batman has resonated with a
widely varied audience for a lifetime. He's shifted and changed a bit over the
years, going from dark pulp fiction crime fighter who showed little remorse over
killing or maiming criminals, to softening a bit with the addition of Robin in
the 40s, to less social commentary and more lighthearted juvenile fantasy in the
years following WWII, to pure camp in the 60s, to Frank Miller's Dark Knight
Returns in the 80s, to Tim Burton's films (1989 etc.), and Joel Schumacher's,
and Christopher Nolan's return to the very Dark and stormy Knight. Like most
mythic figures (think Robin Hood or King Arthur) comic book superheroes that go
on for seventy years don't have a real "book canon", what consistency? There is
no consistency! You can't have umpty writers and artists over seventy years
telling one coherent story in the style of, say Harry Potter. So characters like
Batman remain what they are: archetypes, re-imagined over and over again. And
there is the concept of retcon (from Wiki): " Pannenberg's conception of retroactive continuity
ultimately means that history flows fundamentally from the future into the past,
that the future is not basically a product of the past." Comics are always
retconning storylines.

Oh yeah. Why do I love Batman? 

It's not just hunky actors. There's lots of those in awful films I can't
stand (don't even mention Twilight!). Christopher Nolan says: "We throw a lot
of things against the wall to see if it sticks. We put a lot of interesting
questions in the air, but that's simply a backdrop for the story. What we're
really trying to do is show the cracks of society, show the conflicts that
somebody would try to wedge open." Storytellers tell a story. Some use
allegory, which my favorite author, J.R.R. Tolkien loathed,
as allegory relied on the author pushing his ideas and intentions on the reader.
A equals B, so why not just write about B in the first place?
Applicability (Tolkien liked applicability) is telling a
great archetypal tale and letting the readers relate it to their own life, in
their own ways. 

We all can, in some way, relate to Batman and his struggles. We can admire
his determination to perservere in the face of impossible odds, to beat the
villainy, the monsters in the dark, his unswerving comittment to justice and
unwillingness to take life. This unyielding moral rectitude is our ideal. He
also fills that place occupied by the lone Hero; we have goverment and military
and police and various forces in our culture supposedly protecting us, but we
have a very deep need for The Hero. We realize the limits of those societal
forces of justice. We note that they are susceptible to corruption, to not being
there when we need them, to being underpaid and overworked... so we need The
Hero. 

In The Dark Knight Rises, Batman is not the only Hero. Others ranging from
Gordon to Catwoman to ordinary citizens to kids to the young man who's name is
revealed at the end of the film (yeah, I thought I recognized him) do their own
heroics. Batman does not act alone. He acts, he neutralizes villains, but he
also inspires. He inspires us too, in our non-fictional world, to rise above our
shortcomings, our obstacles, our supposed physical limitations.

Here, a review which sums it all up nicely. (Spoilers!) 
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/?a=64767


　


　


　


　


　


　


　


　


　


　


　


　

When I heard they were rebooting Spidey, my reaction was "What happened to
Toby Maguire?" And, "why do they have to keep telling the Origin Story again?"
Just write a new story already, there's only 50 years of comic books to draw
from. (Spidey first appeared in Amazing Fantasy #15, August
1962). Oh, and TV shows, and newspaper comics, BBC radio, and fan films, and a
random bit from, yes, Turkey. Here's the lineup from Wikipedia: "Spider-Man has
been adapted to TV many times, as a short-lived live-action television series, a  Japanese
tokusatsu series, and several animated cartoon series. There were also the "Spidey Super
Stories" segments on the PBS educational series The Electric  Company, which featured a Spider-Man (played by  Danny Seagren) who did not speak out loud but instead used only word
balloons."

I missed most of this. I grew up comics-impaired. My parents listened to the
radio for the "screamin' preachers" and the news. I read books, mostly
containing sagas about girls and horses. I did watch George Reeves' Superman,
(my cousins watched Batman, because they got that channel),Star Trek, read
faerie tales, and newspaper comics. That's where I think I first saw the
web-slinger. Or maybe it was on TV; but we only got one channel of NBC until I
was in high school, then we got that and a couple of channels of snow and
blizzard (if you stuck the tin foil on the antenna just right, you'd get
slightly lighter snow). As an adult, on the heels of movie releases, I caught up
on Batman, and X-Men and a few other random comics that caught my eye. Spidey is
kind of hard to miss, being Marvel's flagship character.

In 2002, Spidey hit the big screen, played by Toby Maguire. We loved it. We
loved part 2, and I mostly forget part 3, but I know I saw it. 

Enter the Reboot.

WHAT?!?!?! Where the bleep is Toby Maguire?!?!?! And why are we retelling the
Origin Tale again? A friend once observed, of my own writing, that I had to keep
track of what was going on and not get on the Road to Inconsistencyville.

Oh, you mean like Marvel. Every time you turn around there's a new version of
the same superhero or team. A new origin story, a new reboot for this decade's
generation. There are so many storylines and versions of, say, Spiderman, that
there is no definitive story. He's become, actually, rather like King Arthur, or
the original Thor (of Norse Myth), an archetype of the collective unconcious, a
collection of tales with meaning for a very broad range of people in all times
and places. He is not at all like a character in a novel, or series of novels,
where all roads lead to Consistencyville.

Enter the Reboot.

A redhaired woman (only slightly older than Spidey himself, and somewhat
younger than Sally Field's Aunt May) walks into a theater... I opted for the
9:30 2D show, because I didn't want to wait, yawning, for an hour for the 3D
show. I work at night, so there are limited options for when to see films. I
sat, I waited... then a couple walked in pushing a baby stroller.

%*&^%*&^%!?!?!?!?! WHAT PART OF 9PM SHOWING OF SPIDERMAN DO YOU NOT
UNDERSTAND!?!?!? Really, this should be illegal. There should be baby-free zones
in theaters, either specific theaters, or specific times; like after 9, you need
to be old enough to understand that if you shriek, talk, burble or blather, I
will drop you off a cliff. If you have enough money to see a movie, you have
enough for a babysitter. Or you can shanghai a relative or friend, or trade
(cooking, laundry, shopping, driving, mowing) for sitting duties. I did not dish
out the Big Bucks to hear your kid's sound effects in my movie. And seriously,
on the kid's side of things; the kid may be sleeping now, the kid may not
actually watch the movie, but he/she will hear it, and that is way too scary for
anyone still in diapers. I walked out, smiled at the nice young men in charge in
the lobby and gave my ticket back, with the assurance I'd be back soon. I got as
far as the parking lot, and realized I'd be doing stuff like this blog the next
day, and doing battle with the privet hedge from hell, and scooping poop, and
Gawdknows what else, and i'd better just suck it up and go see the 10:30 3D. the
nice young men in the theater lobby were amused, I got a ticket, and sat
down...

Andrew Garfield (Spidey) turns out to be nearly 30, which puts him in that
interesting place spoofed so well by the Scream sendup Scary Movie, in which
30-somethings play teenagers. I would never have guessed, I thought he was,
like, 18. Oh well, once you reach a certain point, they all look alike; 18, 27,
34... all the same to me. He's a Jewish-American-Brit who... oh, and a Whovian
(appeared in several Dr. Who episodes)... was a gymnast and swimmer (hence the
chops to play the gymnastic web-slinger), and has already been nominated for a
Golden Globe and a Tony. 

The Amazing Spiderman starts with awe-inspiring visuals and keeps going. You
sort of know when it's CG, but only because you know no stunt guy could do
that.

Or did he? 

There's a lot of nifty Spidey-cam viewpoint as he's diving through the aerial
spaces of NY. There's stuff you can't do in the comics, because comics don't
move. There's stuff that works terrifically in 3D, without being really in your
face or obvious. There are background characters that are absolutely believable.
And I never realized till I read the credits that Martin Sheen and Sally Field
were Uncle Ben and Aunt May. They were that good.

This artist has seen just enough of the comics to be aware that each Marvel
character has a distinct visual style, a distinct way of moving, distinct poses
captured in comic panels. Spidey may be one of the most unique. Even the
web-impaired will note that the film captures these iconic moments as he swings
through the canyons of New York. And the end shot is the best comic book cover
ever, summing up the character on one terrific image. Andrew Garfield is nothing
like Garfield the cat... sort of the opposite actually; lean, lithe, wiry, a
gaunt gangly teenager Spidey in not-Spandex, a crouching spider chasing a hidden
mutant dragon through a fantasy framework of tunnels and skyscrapers and
bridges. In high school halls he's twitchy, quirky, unsure of himself. My first
thought about Andrew was "he's too pretty"... "he lacks the quirky, plain (but
appealing) quality of Toby Maguire". Then he started moving, talking, slouching,
hiding in his hoodie, shifting his feet trying to make words come out of his
mouth when confronted by The Girl. 

Perfect. The post-bitten by genetically altered spider moment when he's
crashed on a subway seat and awakened by a joker who's balanced a cold bottle of
beer on his forehead... let's just say a drop of water wreaks havoc... through
which Peter keeps being wildly apologetic... while wreaking more havoc...
because he doesn't yet realize who he is.

Yes, we cover the ground of the robber, Uncle Ben's demise, and Peter
wrestling with his responsibilities. But it's done from a fresh viewpoint, and
while not brushed off, we don't dwell on a story point we already know. We also
have a nod to the wrestling scene in the first Spidey film, though this Spidey
doesn't take a detour through lucha libre land. There is a funny bit where
Spidey draws his inspiration for the mask from a lucha libre wrestling poster. I
wonder how many of them were inspired by Spiderman? Certainly the variety of
winter Olympics spandexes containing spiderweb designs were inspired by
Spidey.

Which leads us to the scene in the film where Peter Parker is perusing the
web (yes, the web) searching for costuming... "Spandex... spandex... it's all
spandex!" I guess teen boys aren't too keen on spandex. What he ultimately comes
up with is the latest in a long line of superhero costuming: a sort of highly
textured stretchy Not-Spandex that looks like it might actually survive an
encounter with the Villain From Hell, and still shows off those muscles. The
original point of the Spandex Superhero, as I heard it, was that drawing anatomy
is easier than drawing the endless array of wrinkles in clothing. It also shows
off your superheroe's superness. Hence everyone in comics looking like they are
dressed for snorkelling in the Bahamas. (The diveskin is a full suit of spandex
which is very useful for snorkellers and kayakers who do not want to keep
applying sunscreen to wet skin every five minutes. I do not look as cool as
Spidey in mine).

The films necessarily are different from the comics in their continuity... or
again, I say, what continuity? The films must speak to not only the comics-savy
but to the comics impaired who just want to see a great flick. (By the way, did
you know you couldn't use the word flick in comics? the L and the I are too
close together and might form another word.) A bit of diversion here is NYCP
Detective Captain George Stacy, involved in a fight with the Lizard of Doom in
this film, he actually dies in a fight with Doc Oc in the comics. And I kept
going, "where's Mary Jane?" Seems Gwen Stacy is an early Peter Parker
girlfriend. Seems the reason we don't hear more of her is because heroes can't
always save the day: In issue #121 (June 1973), the Green Goblin throws Gwen
Stacy from a tower of either theBrooklyn Bridge (as depicted in the art) or the
George Washington Bridge (as given in the text). She dies during Spider-Man's
rescue attempt; a note on the letters page of issue #125 states: "It saddens us
to say that the whiplash effect she underwent when Spidey's webbing stopped her
so suddenly was, in fact, what killed her." An interesting nod to reality,
after all those moments when Aunt May is hanging by her cane from a ledge
(Spiderman 2, the film), or Peter Parker falls from the top of a 20 story
building (same film)(it's OK, he bounced off several clotheslines and one car
roof).

In the history of the comic, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko get credit. It is also
noted that Spiderman owes his existence to an army of writers and artists. In
the end, he is quite different from a character in one writer's novel, or one
director's film. Because he is shaped by so many, he becomes an archetype, a
character we all recognize some part of in ourselves. Our most iconic heroes are
archetypes: Superman is the Golden Hero, the Skygod, the Cowboy in the White
Hat, the Knight on the White Horse... Batman is the Dark Hero, Bagheera the cat
who walks by himself, the one striding the fine line between light and shadow,
the Hero who is always one misstep away from becoming the Villain... Spiderman
is the Trickster Hero (there is actually an ancient trickster hero in Plains,
Southwestern and Western myth called Iktomi the Spiderman, his costuming,
though, runs to buckskins and racoon). The Trickster can be dark; see Batman's
nemesis Joker, or positive; in many Native American myths Raven is a Creator's
helper, see also: Zorro (the Fox) and Robin Hood (in Norse lands, the word for
raven sounds much like robin). Spidey wears a hoodie in this film... Spidey
Hood, Spidey in the hood, Spidey in da' Hood. 

About that ancient Spiderman: from 
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/tales/inktomi/Ant.htm 
Iktomi comes to us from the Plains, Southwestern and Western Native American
groups. Iktomi has sider-like characteristics and features. From Lakota legend,
Iktomi is "firstborn son of Inyan, the Rock, who was originally named Ksa. He
was born full grown from an egg and was the size of an ordinary human. He has a
big round body like a spider, with slender arms and legs, and powerful hands and
feet. He dresses in clothes made of bucksin and racoon." As a trickster, Iktomi
occupies the audiences of the Santee Dakota and other Dakots groups, and the
Arapaho know the Spider trickster as Nihansan. The Spider figure has many roles,
and even changes gender in tales throughout different cultures. The Navajo have
Spider Man and Spider Woman, Holy People who taught humans how to weave. They
also established the four warnings of death. The Spider appears as creator to
the Pima and Sia Pueblo Indians, and as a heplful elderly woman to the Pueblo.
The White Mountain Apache know Black Spider Woman, and the Spider Man of Taos is
a well-known and respected good medicine man. In Zitkala-Sa's tale, Iktomi meets
Coyote in her retelling of a Sioux legend. The Spider character also encounters
Coyote in another tale from the Plateau tribe known as the Coeur d'Alene. In
this tale "Spider Women are again beneficial beings; they live in the sky and
help Coyote's son drop back to earth in a box."

Archetype.

From Wiki's page on Spidey: A 1965 Esquire poll of college campuses
found that college students ranked Spider-Man and fellow Marvel hero the Hulk
alongside Bob Dylan and Che Guevara as their favorite revolutionary icons. One
interviewee selected Spider-Man because he was "beset by woes, money problems,
and the question of existence. In short, he is one of us." 

This Spidey has the eternal Spiderman issues we can relate to. This film
gives us a fresh view of those issues, a different angle on the problems that
Toby Maguire so elegantly evoked. Andrew Garfield is a younger, geekier, even
more gymnastic, awkward, incredibly graceful Spidey. I can't wait for more.

Near the end, there is a moment in a classroom when a teacher says there is
only one plot in fiction: "who am I?"  This film explores that... amazingly.　



 Oh... and then there's SpiderDan. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Goodwin) On November 21,
1980, Dan Goodwin witnessed the MGMGrand fire in Paradise, Nevada United States,
including the inability of the Clark County Fire Department and the supporting
fire departments to rescue scores of hotel guests trapped inside. His ideas
for rescue rejected by the fire depts, he donned a Spidey suit and scaled some
buildings, just to prove a point. You can learn more by googling Dan Goodwin, or
checking this: http://www.skyscraperdefense.com/building_climbs.html


　


　


　


　

a musing by members of the Longship Company on the anachronistically Brave fantasy-Scotland world of Pixar
 
A posting on our Longship Company yahoo group about Pixar's latest computer
generated faerie tale "Brave" left these comments in its wake. Be warned; we are
manaical historians, horsemen, swordsmen, blacksmiths, cookers of medieval
feasts, weavers of chainmail, descendants of Scots and Vikings... oh yeah, and we
have a 40' Viking longship on which we've road tested all the theories of  sailing, rowing, and dodging Thor's hammer in existence.

 Forthwith, our discussion;

(Teanna) Noted, on second viewing of Pixar's "Brave", that once more
Hollywood thinks you can row and sail a Viking Longship at the same time. OK,
they're coming into dock and the sails are a tiny bit on the slackish side...
comments anyone? (otherwise, it was a terrific little movie... even with the
anachronistic castle and the Clydesdale from the future (the Clyde didn't exist
until approximately the American revolution, she should have been riding a
Highland Pony or an Eriskay). 

In "Beowulf" (the CG version) we also see a Viking ship arriving in the teeth of a gale with the crew rowing... and the sail up. This would definitely cause breakage and destruction; since you can't row as fast as you sail (nooo, not even Beowulf or Thor), you'd catch a very large "crab", the water would rip the oar out of your hands, breaking things along the way; the side of the ship, your arm, your neighbor's head...

(Capn' Atli); Well, you can in light winds; but it gets very messy as soon as
the breeze picks up! Of further note- did anybody notice the steerboards on the
port side? Christi nearly punched me when I pointed it out. Her attitude is:
"Just watch the movie!" ;-)

(Jim) I had a friend who used to go out on
the bay and simultaneously motor and sail. He would do this when there was no
wind -- thus, he would be the only boat on the bay with sails up. He would motor
in reverse. The result was taut sails and, he presumed, confusion on shore.

 (Roger) Might the horse have been a "destrier," a medieval warhorse? I don't
recall anyone in the story providing a breed name. 
Steerboards on the left is a major offense. 
Rowing with slack sails...not so much. Around here they occasionally have
smugglers' races which allow the use of sail and oars both. How you juggle them
depends on your level of experience. 
As for the Viking/Scots mix. My ancestors came from the Isle of Raasay. The
first clan chief on the island, Malcolm Garbh MacLeod, was the grandson of Olaf
the Black, a norseman.

 (Teanna) Noooooooooo that was most definitely a Clydesdale. A beautifullly
cartooned Clydesdale. A beautifully cartooned, animated and anachronistic
Clydesdale... but then some other stuff was also in that vague sort of early
pre-gunpowder faerie tale Pixar time period. Exactly how I (as a kid) pictured
the time between Bible Stories and the American Revolution: that vague place in
which existed King Arthur, Vikings (with horns, of course), Robin Hood, and the
Three Musketeers. Here's to a new generation of histoically cornfused kids. 
But probably they'll be so enchanted by  the story they'll look up the actual
history.I suspect Pixar used the  Clydesdale (like the Scottish highland
Cattle, the Scottish Deerhounds and  the black faced sheep) as recognizeably
Scottish things, without regard to precise period.

(Drey) Before Teanna jumps into this one: Naw, that ain't a destrier. Its
another flub on the part of the filmmaker. Warhorses were not draft horses: but
many people seem to think so anyway.
Still a pretty movie...

(Dave, cameraman, on anachronisms in film) I was hoping to get a lot of good
footage at the 149th anniversary reenactment for stories concerning the 150th
anniversary next year, but I kept having trouble with the camera's anachronism
filter. I'd get a beautifully accurate shot lined up, and just as I'd hit the
record button something or someone from 150 years in the future would wander
through....
Since the "war horse" is, for all intents and purposes, an extinct breed
(like the "Conestoga Horse" of Lancaster County), I can't fault Pixar for going
with the best availiable reference information; and yes, no particular breed was
mentioned.
Agreed, portboards were a major faux pas--at least til an
archeologist digs up a ship with da steering thingie on the wrong side...
Since this was "Fantasy Scotland"--and one damned good flick-- I'm no more
worried about the anachronisms and what we perceive as technical errors than I
was bothered by the horned helmets in "How to Train Your Dragon". What really
worries me is that Hollywood can't seem to make anything look beautiful
anymore without running it through a computer.

 (Teanna; on the steerboard on the port side); (headsmack) DUH! (and, I uh,
saw it twice...) 

"Steerboard" became "starboard"... it's the starboard side of the boat
because that's where the steerboard is! Pixar... you flubbed bigtime! (Dyslexic
Scots?)(or computer artists?. Call us next time you do a film with Viking
ships.

(Teanna) As noted even on the dreaded WIki, the modern draft horse is not the
medieval destrier, or any other heavy horse. the draft is an exaggeration of the
earlier heavy horses, bred for pulling. Somewhere I read the medieval "warhorse"
would look more like a Friesian... Freisian... Frie fri... fro... frum... those
medium sized black hairy footed horses. Reasonably fast, agile, strong, somewhat
heavy of bone, but not a modern drafter.

It's spelled Friesian. "The Friesian horse is unique, truly a breed to be
proud of. It developed from a very old breed which was inherent to all of
western Europe. It's the only horse native to Holland. Historically speaking,
the Friesian horse has been influenced by eastern bloodlines and has often been
threatened with extinction. Thanks to the single-mindedness and dauntless
dedication of true horse lovers, one can still appreciate the many facets of the
Friesian horse today."  http://www.fhana.com

(wiki) "The word destrier does not refer to a breed, but to a
type of horse: the finest and strongest warhorse. These horses were
usually stallions, bred and raised from foalhood specifically for the needs of
war. The destrier was also considered the most suited to the joust; coursers
seem to have been preferred for other forms warfare.They had powerful
hindquarters, able to easily coil and spring to stop, spin, turn or sprint
forward. They also had a short back and well-muscled loin, strong bone, and a
well-arched neck. From medieval art, the head of the destrier appears to have
had a straight or slightly convex profile, strong, wide jaw, and good width
between the eyes. The destrier was specifically for use in battle or tournament; for everyday
riding, a knight would use a palfrey, and his baggage would be carried on a
sumpter horse (or packhorse), or possibly in wagons."

(wiki) "There are many theories as to what type and size destriers attained, but they
apparently were not enormous draft types. Recent research undertaken at the Museum of London using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, suggests war horses (including destriers) averaged 14–15 hands, and were distinguished from a riding horse by their strength, musculature and training, rather than their size. This estimate is supported by an analysis of medieval horse armour located in the Royal Armouries, which indicates the equipment was originally worn by horses of 15 to 16 hands, about the size and build of a modern field hunter or ordinary riding horse."

Actually, the modern Lippizanner is very close to this description.


 　


　


　


　


　






　


　


　


　

Other than knowing a calico cat (who lived to the epic age of  21) named “Pirate Jenny: Agent of Shield”, I had no familiarity with Marvel comics’ Avengers series. X-Men, yes, Batman and Superman (DC), yes: they were  icons of 60s TV as well as the first superheroes of the 20th century. I watched the Bill Bixby/ Lou Ferrigno version of the Hulk, so I knew the big green guy. I
read Norse myth, lived in Aelfheim (a house in State College named by some fellow fantasy fans) and hung out with Vikings (sailing two different Viking longships over the years with the Longship Company) so I knew who Thor and Loki and Odin were. I grew up on Robin Hood (the 50s British version) and fell in love with another archer when I first read Lord of the Rings in 1978... then I
played a few Elvish archers  while kicking orc butt on paper in D&D, and fired a few real arrows into the air (mostly, into the air) with the SCA. Somewhere about 1981 I dyed my hair red,
picked up a sword and spent some time beating up guys in armour.
 
So some of the Avengers is beginning to look very familiar. Verrrry familar: some of it was shot in Pennsylvania.
 
I am sucked through the imaginative wormhole into comic book films as easily as I find my way into Middle Earth, or the worlds of Pixar and Aardman and Lucas and Spielberg and Burton, Miyasaki and Rodenberry. I loved Ironman, Captain America and totally missed Thor. 
 
Bad Viking. Ggzzzzzzzzzzzzzottttzzz!!!
 
The Blockbuster had closed, and I loathe the epic journey into the city to find a merchant for the little round disks that I can put in my magic movie playing box.
 
Then someone put up the Evil That Is Red Box.... right there at the Walgreens on the corner of my not quite rural anymore road. I approached the Evil Box, looked for directions. The screen flashed ominously. I poked at it. 
 
After more poking, some conversing like a mariner, and some mighty wishing for my own version of Mjolnir, I succeded in wresting a copy of Thor from it for a buck and some change.
 
Somewhere in the first five minutes of the film, it was apparent that writer, actor (Chris Hemsworth, you rock!) and director had nailed the character I remembered from the myths. The good hearted summation of the power of lightning and thunder and forge, the warrior who’d take out an entire army by himself to protect his people, then pass around a few dozen kegs. Oh yes, and the overenthusiastic hotheadedness and the Fall From Grace (how often in myths, comics and cartoons it is a literal fall from a great height), and the Learning What It Means To Be Mortal, and the Offering of Oneself In Place of the People as the Sacrificial Hero, and the Regaining of Power... with a bit more wisdom this time. They had done a nifty sci-fi twist on the myths; Asgard and Jotunheim and the rest are actual planets connected by a “world tree” of energy and wormholes in space. A character quotes Arthur C. Clarke at one point (famous sci-fi writer, he did that 2001 a Space Odessey thing); “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Thor is a wonderful fish out of water, floundering about in the 21st century without a clue. He has the heart of a Golden Hero, mere mortal strength (he has some trouble adjusting to that) and a serious problem with a relative. How he regains his power, the emotional arc of the character, all plays beautifully in the midst of some great action and gorgeous settings (Asgard, space, New Mexico). The girl who runs into him with her van (twice) is a science geek who helps him adjust. I hope they bring her back. 

One of my favorite bits of the Thor myth, missing in the film (but apparently not in the comic) is his chariot pulled by goats. I've had a number of goats in my life, including one Toggenburg wether (neutered male) who we taught to pull a cart. He's been replaced by three Siberian huskies in this decade, but I have always loved goats.   Tanngrisnir (Old Norse "teeth-barer, snarler") and
Tanngnjóstr (Old Norse "teeth grinder") are the goats of Thor, mentioned in the Poetic Edda (13th century) and the Prose Edda. Goats generally do not bare teeth, snarl, bite, kick or do much of anything else obnoxious and predatory; they're pretty mild mannered. But, then, these are Asgardian goats.

Perhaps the films could have him driving a Dodge Ram... though the appearance of a goat chariot in the midst of a traffic jam would be hilarious. Especially when everyone expects Heroes to drive up on a White Horse.

I noted that all of the characters in the Avengers (also, Spiderman and other comcic film adaptations) move and fight in very specific ways; it appears to echo the wonderful poses of the comcis... and it does. Here's what Chris Hemsworth had to say about Thor;
      ... gained 20 pounds for the role by eating non-stop and revealed that "It wasn't until Thor that I started lifting weights, it was all pretty new to me". Regarding his take of the character, Hemsworth said, "We just kept trying to humanize it all, and keep it very real. Look into all the research about the comic books that we could, but also bring it back to 'Who is this guy as a person, and what's his relationship with people in the individual scenes?'" About approaching Thor's fighting style, he remarked, "First, we looked at the comic books and the posturing, the way [Thor] moves and fights, and a lot of his power seems to be drawn up through the ground. We talked about boxers, you know, Mike Tyson, very low to the ground and big open chest and big shoulder swings and very sort of brutal but graceful at the same time, and then as we shot stuff things became easier.

It occured to me, somewhere along the line, that Thor is a Leo. Big-hearted, extroverted, strong, thunder and lightning and fire, wild-maned, hotheaded, sometimes arrogant Leo. He is born to be a leader (as Leos are) but must learn compassion and wisdom before he can. And that's what makes him someone I can relate to, empathize with, even though I'm female.

Oh yeah, and he's hot.

In the film, the imagery of Heimdall, the all seeing Guardian of Bifrost, the Rainbow Bridge, was awesome: Idris Elba, he of the awesome real name, and the glowing eyes, the imposing figure in golden armour. Elba's casting prompted a proposed boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens and a debate amongst comic book fans, some insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god. In response Elba called the debate "ridiculous". To these idiots I say: "What part of Rainbow Bridge do you not understand?

And Natalie Portman's take on her character? Worth repeating, especially to young women... 'What a great opportunity, in a very big movie that is going to be seen by a lot of people, to have a woman as a scientist'. She's a very serious scientist. Because in the comic she's a nurse and now they made her an astrophysicist. Really, I know it sounds silly, but it is those little things that makes girls think it's possible. It doesn't give them a [role] model of 'Oh, I just have to dress cute in movies'".
 
I returned the epic on Thorsday, and the Avengers appeared on Friday (which I believe has something to do with Freya). 
 
I postponed a date with Johnny Depp to see this.... ok, I postponed a viewing of Dark Shadows to see Avengers instead...
 
OK, that was fun. Definitely fun.
 
The only characters I was unfamiliar with were Black Widow and Hawkeye. And they were quickly introduced and explained. Hawkeye is the archetypal Archer, the same figure as Robin Hood and Legolas. He of the keen eye, the perfect aim... and mere mortal powers among Superheroes. The Black Widow is a little too slinky, too deceptive, too pretty for me to identify with, but when she goes into action... holycrap she’s awesome crazy!
 
So, we have our band of misfits... (oh, wait, that was Aardman). The Keen-eyed Archer, the Dangerous Beautiful Woman, the Purehearted Golden Hero, a high tech Trickster Hero, the Beast (or Jekyll and Hyde), and another Golden Hero with a good heart and a really big hammer.
 
And a villain: complex as the best are. The interplay between Thor and Loki is great; the tension of brothers, of secrets that grew bigger and toothier in the dark, of power, recognition and love wanted, and lost. And of the difference between Hero and Villain... the line is very thin. Both Thor and Loki have their falls from grace. So far, only Thor has redeemed himself by offering himself up as the Sacrificial Hero.
 
There are two Tricksters here, and a wonderful scene between them. There is Loki, the iconic Trickster of Norse myth, dark and brooding and manipulative, he would probably score quite high on the Psycopath Test I heard about on NPR the other day. Then there is Ironman. Yep, Trickster. A lighter, funnier, generally goodhearted one. And it is his unusual heart that fuels the confrontation. Loki, who has already done Evil Mind Control on Hawkeye and a scientist tries it on Ironman... it fizzles. We laugh. The Ultimate Trickster tricked by another Trickster.
 
There are other great little moments; a knock down (trees), drag out (vast tracts of land), blow heroes) out (of the scene) battle between our heroes (before they figure out they are, in fact, on the same side): Thor, Captain America and Ironman. I think this is something comic book writers love: “Wonder what would  happen if we pitted a demigod with an irrisistable force against a superhero with an immoveable object...” The clash between Cap’s shield and Thor’s hammer... well, epic. Hulk has some great momets, including a clash with Loki himself. Let’s just say it's what you want to do to all the Stupid People you meet every day...
 
The creatures that come through the wormhole to level Manhattan looked a bit like a number of other Epic City Levelling Critters of Sci-Fi-Land. There are only so many ways you can make something look scary to humans, and generally it requires plugging into the unconcious, to the imagery of predators in the dark (glowing eyes, big teeth), slimy tentacles, bones (especially on the
outside of bodies), slithery snakelike movements, and stuff that looks like bugs that are waaaaaaaaaaaay too big.
 
I note that WETA did some of this, and as always, they are awesome. The Epic City Levelling Critters resemble, slightly, the ones from Transformers, Dark of the Moon. Those were mechanical constructions that coiled, slithered and flowed, snakelike, through the city. Avengers’ Critters swim
through the air like giant mosasaur skeletons with photon torpedoes. There’s a great little Jonah and the Whale reference from Ironman.
 
The film is full of GLMs (great little moments); one liners (Thor: “He’s adopted.”), Hulk casually punching out one of his teammates at the end of a fight (payback’s are a stitch), Hawkeye shooting down flying BEMs (bug-eyed monsters) without looking, the Black Widow doing an entire fight
scene... while strapped to a chair. Thor crashlanding spectacularly, then approaching Mjolnir, hand outstretched... and nothing happens...
 
Thor summoning lightning.
 
The Black Widow flying a BEM bike... with the BEM still attached.
 
“Was the Hullk scary?” I heard a dad ask his preschooler (hey, yeah, it’s PG-13). Yes, he was. And the actor playing the Bruce Banner half was the perfect slightly Stephen Hawking scientist.
 
There’s a nifty camera shot of the Heroes in a Last Stand Circle, camera panning around them, one of those Iconic movie Moments.
 
Of Thor and Loki in a confrontation on a dark hill... and two ravens fly past, croaking. A flash of dark feathers and gone.
 
Hugin and Munin, thought and Memory. Odin’s ravens. Dad is still watching....
 
Avengers generally follows the Hero Journey format that works so well for this genre. We gather the heroes, they disagree, they disagree louder and harder, it seems like they will never work as a team, they get a Reason to work as a team, they wade into battle... 

Josh Whedon, on just that subject: (at the 2010 San Diego Comic Con International), what drew him to the movie is that he loves how "these people shouldn't be in the same room let alone on the same team—and that is the definition of family."
 
There are enough surprises to keep you from guessing what’s next. Despite the number of characters, it makes sense, each one gets developed, gets great little moments that endear them to us, make us identify with them, even if we don’t have superpowers, or flying cars, or a really big
hammer. It lifts us, as all good myths do, out of our mundane world into the Realm of Possibilities, the place where we can be our own superheroes.

And it'll surely send some of us to the toy dept. for a set of those Hulk fists, or a Nerf Mjolnir...