Blue Yonder Updates

News � Five Hurdles for DC's Cinematic Universe

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:56:15 GMT

Full disclaimer: it was a really busy weekend for me, and I didn't get to see "Man of Steel". So I'm not commenting on how "Man of Steel" could or should lead into "Justice League", but rather, a birds' eye view obstacles await DC and Warner Bros. in building a franchise similar to Marvel and Disney.

5) The Nolan-Goyer Monopoly: One of the reasons the Marvel Cinematic Universe really works so well is each fim is done by different writers if not different directors (the one exception being Jon Favreau for the first two "Iron Man" films.) Compare this to DC, where four films have been produced and/or written by Christopher Nolan and David Goyer. While the Dark Knight trilogy supposedly isn't part of this shared universe, it is a bit frustrating the exact same team of the Batman movies are working on "Man of Steel". Don't get me wrong - I'm glad Christopher Nolan is "godfathering" this new shared universe, and David Goyer is a valuable writer since he has done both comics and screenplays. But I can't help but feel the over-emphasis on the two might be stifling DC's plans for a franchise. While it's cool to have Zach Snyder is the mix, there needs to be other writers giving their voice to the characters. One of the reasons "Avengers" works so well is the sheer diversity of the characters and Whedon's ability to draw their stories together on the same screen. If DC wants the Justice League to have the same punch, Goyer and Nolan should take the back-seat as consultants and producers in future films.

4) Where's the Underdog? No, not the cartoon character. But as I've said before, the first "Iron Man" was in many ways an underdog - it was a relatively unknown superhero movie headlined by an actor generally considered past his prime. Marvel owes much of its success at the box office to the explosive results "Iron Man" (and more specifically, Robert Downey Jr.) garnered at the box office. So who does DC have for their debut? Superman. While the Man of Steel offers its own set of challenges (namely making people excited about a character who has suffered not one, not two but three box office disappointments), Supes is far from an underdog. And maybe that's a problem. I can't help but feel DC might have had better luck building their franchise off a relatively less-known character, like survivor-turned-superhero Green Arrow or Amazonian fish-out-off-water Wonder Woman, or heck, even the original fish-out-of-water, Aquaman. There are certain risks attached to these characters as well, but none of them would have had the uphill battle "Man of Steel" faces at the box office . . . well, except for Aquaman. Even after a successful reboot in the new 52, it's still hard to mainstream audiences to get their head around Aquaman being awesome . . . ever.

3) The Super-Fuzzy Math - Even though "Man of Steel" is off to a great start at the box office, there's already a problem with Hollywood math. "Man of Steel" cost 225 million dollars to make. That's actually five million dollars more than "Avengers". So it's safe to assume that a "Justice League" movie slated for 2015 might actually cost more than last summer's "Avengers". The danger is the budget will swell bigger than the box office returns can gross to draw a profit, or even make up the difference. This is the problem the last Superman movie ran into. Even though "Superman Returns" drew in lots of money domestically (200 million to be exact), it couldn't pay back the $270 million budget. If DC isn't careful, it may run the risk of putting the horse before the carriage with "Justice League", counting on an "Avengers"-level success story which might not be large enough to foot the bill. Also, lest we forget, "Avengers" features characters who had more or less successfully held their own movie. With the exception of Henry Cavill, "Justice League" will contain a brand new team most audience have never seen before - including possibly a brand new Batman filling Christian Bale's shoes. And if that weren't enough, the team will be going head-to-head with their comic book competition . . . as "Avengers 2" will also open in 2015.

2) Dueling TV Properties - This year, Marvel will debut "Agents of SHIELD", which heralds the return of Phil Coulson. There's no telling how it will fare, but one thing is for sure - Marvel has brought its franchise to television. DC is no stranger to TV either though - they've made their presence known in everything from "Wonder Woman" to "Smallville". They've successfully launched "Arrow" for the CW this year and are supposedly working on a troubled and oft-delayed "Wonder Woman" project. This raises the question though - will DC's television properties conflict with its big screen aspirations? Television and movies had an odd relationship with DC. A bid for the pre-cape adventures of Bruce Wayne ended up as "Smallville", while Batman's early days eventually ended up covered in "Batman Begins" on the big screen. Likewise, "Smallville" was originally only supposed to pave the way for "Superman Returns", but ultimately ended up outliving Brandon Routh's iteration as the Man of Steel. One thing is for sure, DC will need to figure out something about "Wonder Woman" when they launch "Justice League" as the famous team won't set foot on the big screen without its trinity in place. So the question remains: will the presence of "Arrow" and possibly "Wonder Woman" help or hinder DC's plans for a shared universe ala Marvel?

1) Kryptonite Fatigue - Will audiences even want to see a "Justice League" movie in 2015? That is the 225+ million dollar question. By then, Marvel will wrap up its accelerated Phase 3, culminating in a second "Avengers" movie. But what will the Hollywood landscape look like? A lot can change in two years. Will "Agents of SHIELD" still be on the air? Will "Arrow"? It seems highly unlikely the public's fascination with superheroes will completely cease. Still, DC and Warner Bros. are diverting from the Marvel playbook - Marvel was able to test the waters for "Avengers" by stirring up interest using a series of post-credit scenes, while DC is aiming high with a "Justice League" debut on the heels of "Man of Steel". On one hand, DC is taking a very big risk throwing a completely untested property against "The Avengers", but on the other hand, they are mitigating some risk by using a familiar writer (Goyer has been confirmed to be writing), but as i've said, this carries it's own risk. And if "Justice League" succeeds . . . where does it go from here? Will future emphasis be on the individual members' solo movies (i.e. Wonder Woman, the Flash) or building towards a "Justice League" sequels? It's anyone's guess. The only certainty is all of this is the results will doubtlessly be better than the last Justice League movie.

(That's it for this rant. Check back for news on Blue Yonder's next page very soon!)

News � A Fond Farewell to Diego Diaz

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:18:22 GMT

It was almost three years ago to the day that "Blue Yonder" wasn't just grounded - the wings were practically broken. We had parted ways with our first artist over creative differences, not only scrubbing our launch, but also several months of strips. At that point, I wondered if Blue Yonder would ever get off the ground.

It was a close call when we picked our artist for "Blue Yonder". We mulled over two artists. Our second choice artist had an initial take on Jared that was somewhat different than what we wanted, but there was no denying his talent. Fortunately, he was still available when our first pick wasn't giving us the visuals we wanted.

His name was Diego Diaz.

All of the sudden, "Blue Yonder" started coming alive in ways I never imagined . . . and as Han Solo said, "I can imagine quite a lot." Under Diego's pen, Jared Davenport stopped living in our head and started living on the page. We were blown away from Diego time and time again. At first I thought there was a mix-up, and some professional up-and-comer bound for Marvel and DC had mistakenly set up shop on our webcomic.

Heck, I still think that.

I don't think I've ever been disappointed by any page Diego has done. Every single page has blown me away. Thus, it's also impossible for me to pick favorites, but here are some that stand out.

But Diego's attitude far outshines his personality. He did his best to deliver each page on time, but he was always willing to make corrections to his work. It didn't matter, because you can see his passion and enthusiasm come alive on every thing page he did, making the results instantly fantastic. But when other freelance engagements got in the way, he refused to accept full payment for late artwork. It wasn't just a matter of principle for Diego. It was a matter of honor.

About a week ago, Diego Diaz told us he would no longer he able to work on "Blue Yonder". Corruption and economic strain have taken their toll on his homeland, Argentina, forcing him to take larger and more demanding assignments. Though we all tried to fight it, we eventually agreed we had to part ways.

It's difficult to imagine this webcomic without Diego. The very blood, bone and soul are all deeply rooted in Diego's artwork on this website, and while we're presently considering some very talented artists to take his place, it's difficult to imagine anyone being as easy to work with as Diego Diaz. He's lightning in a bottle, the kind that doesn't strike twice in a great while. He's an once-in-a-lifetime artist, and he will always have my gratitude for not only bring my story to life, but also teaching me about honor among artists.

I wish you the very best, Diego, but I know an artist with your talent and commitment will have no trouble getting it.

"Blue Yonder" will continue, but there will always be a spot for you here. There simply wouldn't be a "Blue Yonder" in the first place without you.

News � Why the Rise in Science Fiction Films Makes for Cautious Optimism

Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:10:51 GMT

I truly believe the trends in Hollywood directly correlate to what people are thinking and feeling. Sure, some people will tell you Hollywood is just picking remakes, prequels, sequels and all manner of franchises to squeeze more money out of audiences, and there is truth to that. But like people clung to superheroes on the onset of World War II and the Great Depression, the films we see tell us a great deal about what we are feeling.

So while watching "Star Trek Into Darkness", Luke leans over at the "Elysium" preview and asks me . . . why are there so many science fiction films coming out? I never thought about it, but he's right. We've got "Elysium", "After Earth" and "Ender's Game" just months apart, to say nothing about the already-released "Oblivion". What does it mean? While the future depicted might seem bleak, I think the trend paints a mood of cautious optimism for moviegoers.

The superhero films are closely related to the science fiction films. They both share their origins in pulp magazines, and many of the heroes hitting the theaters this summer have a scientific origin. We've already seen the third installment of Iron Man's adventures, and before the summer is out we will also seen an alien (Superman), a mutant (Wolverine), and most dangerous of all, and a teenager (Kick-Ass 2). With the latter especially, superhero film speak to the our present, and what we wish we could change, often with fantastic figures taking drastic action. There's a reason Superman initially took to fighting crime in the streets of Metropolis instead of the skies in his first appearances.

Aside from science fiction and superheroes, the other trend shambling through film, televisions and comic books are zombies and/or the apocalypse. Aside the "The Walking Dead", we've also got "World War Z" and "Warm Bodies" on the zombie side and "This is the End" and "Rapture Palooza" on the apocalyptic side, to say nothing of the rise of post-apocalyptic television series like "Revolution" and "Falling Skies". These films speak to our near-future, to the fear that our society is reaching both a boiling point and a breaking point. Whether its aliens, zombies or the divine, these films, comically or not, deal with the fear there's something catastrophic on the horizon our society, for all its advancement, is completely unprepared for.

So that leaves science fiction films. Whether we are looking at a dark future like "Oblivion" and "After Earth", a relatively utopian future like "Star Trek Into Darkness", or somewhere in-between like "Eylsium", these science fiction films inevitably speak to what society will become. And that's why these films are ultimately, if not cautiously, optimistic, because unlike the apocalyptic films, they believe society will ultimately survive, if in a very different form. This isn't always a good thing. There are plenty of dystopian futures out there, thanks in particular to "The Hunger Games", which revitalized the sub-genre. But nearly all of these works project that is society can survive, it can also change, almost always for the better, in the end.

Ultimately, I believe these trends say we're a long way from okay, but still quite a bit better than where we were at the start of the crisis, whether it's the War on Terror or the Recession. Where this resurgence in science fiction will take us is anyone's guess. Will this new brand of sci-fi have as much vitality as the interior decorator for the TARDIS, or will flee quicker than Howard the Duck on an episode of "Duck Dynasty"? Only time - and a more than a couple dreams - will tell.

(That's it for this rant. Stay tuned for news of Blue Yonder soon!)

News � Some Assembly Required with New Avengers Cartoon

Fri, 31 May 2013 14:09:18 GMT

Re-branding is a tough thing for fans. We saw the truly Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon canceled to make way for the less-than-Ultimate Spider-Man. Now, Man of Action, the same team as Ultimate Spider-Man as well as Ben 10 and Generator Rex is working Avengers Assemble, canceling and/or rebranding the previous fan-favorite "Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes" in the process. While the new "Avengers Assemble" isn't as jarring as "Ultimate Spider-Man", it does present fans with more than a few speed-bumps.

The cartoon starts off with the Avengers disbanded and a bored Tony Stark (voiced by "Heroes" alum Adrian Pascar) looking for an excuse to call up his ex-comrades. He finds Captain America being confronted by the Red Skull, but no sooner does he arrive than Cap's arch-nemesis seemingly vaporizes Captain America. Tony sets out to avenge his fallen friend, reassembling the Avengers in the process. It's hardly a spoiler to point out Captain America isn't dead, but by the time Iron Man puts this together, Red Skull has already switched bodies with him, leading to an even bigger problem.

The series gets a much-needed style bump, ditching the Silver Age stylings of "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" for a much sleeker and modern look. It's not "Young Justice", but it works, with updated costumes, darker tones and an impressive-looking CGI Quinjet. Fred Tatasciore as Hulk is the only returning cast member for this new team of Avengers, which now includes Captain America, Thor, Iron Man and Hawkeye in addition to Black Widow and the newest member, Falcon.

Part of the appeal of "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" was seeing the team grow organically as new personalities and new dynamics joined the team. The problem with "Avengers Assemble" is such personalities seem almost set in stone by comparison. Whatever caused the Avengers to disband in the first place must have been the world's most comfortable break-up because these characters have almost no trouble working together. There's a few good lines, but most stands out. Worst, rookie member the Falcon has almost no impact.

The episode itself seemed like a good idea executed poorly. The episode focuses on all the cool things Tony's armor can do, which is fitting because it perfectly sets up the cliffhanger. The problem is Iron Man's capabilities leave some gapping plot holes in its wake. If Tony Stark can track the energy signatures of Skull's teleporter, shouldn't he be able to tell Captain America was simply teleported away and not killed? And for that matter, didn't Tony think it was little odd when the revealed-to-be-alive Captain America started speaking to him in a German accent? Mistakes make the episode feel too rushed and flat-footed.

The biggest problem with the show is that it feels so tailor-made to the "Avengers" franchise while still not being true to either the pre-existing cartoon series or the movie it's attempting to promote. It's no wonder fans are a little upset, because this episode lacks the chemistry of either team. However, fans are also quick to forget that "Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes" wasn't perfect. The show debuted in a ton of mini-episodes which ranged from awesome to annoying, and it took a while before the characters clicked, much less sizzled and popped. While its frustrating to see "Avengers" go such a drastic re-branding less than two years after a successful iteration, the show does have a potential, and I'll certainly be watching. I just hope this show doesn't crash and burn like every Quinjet.

(That's it for this rant. Check out a new Blue Yonder soon!)

News � Arrow's Amazing Turnaround

Tue, 28 May 2013 13:14:29 GMT

When I last reviewed "Arrow" way back in October (has it been that long?), I thought it was a slick if somewhat subpar TV show. Gradually, however, it rose through the ranks of my TV viewing list from "guilty pleasure" to "favorite new show". What changed along the way?

Perhaps the most noteworthy change came from Oliver himself. When it premiered in October, I feared Oliver Queen might be too Bruce Wayne-like, even though Green Arrow has long history of treading close to the Dark Knight. First and foremost, "Arrow" has established itself as a show centered around the development of Oliver Queen. In this new take on Green Arrow, Oliver Queen has no qualms on killing criminals - something which troubled me. But the show isn't making GA, or as he's called in-story, "the Hood" or "the Vigilante", to be Punisher. Over the course of the season, we've seen Ollie expand his mission beyond simply his father's list of crooked city powers to making a positive difference in the city. The parallel island flashbacks, which have steadily become my favorite part of the show, have also detailed Ollie's transformation from pampered rich kid to seasoned hunter

Stepping up the supporting cast also made "Arrow" considerably stronger in the episodes to come. In particular, having David Ramsay's Diggle and Emily Bett Rickards' Felicity Smoak join Oliver's team helped humanize an otherwise stoic and solitary protagonist. On the other hand, pairing the younger Oliver Queen with two fan-favorite DC characters - Manu Bennett's Slade and Celina Jade's Shado - paid of in spades by giving Queen compelling and intriguing characters to work off of. Otherwise, the rest of the cast has made a particularly ensemble turn this season with not one character wasted. I've gradually warmed up to Katie Cassidy's Laurel (though I'm still not sure if I can see her as Black Canary) and I'm interested to see what kind of role "Teen Wolf" alum Colton Haynes will have as Oliver's potential protege Roy Harper.

The action sequences are the other thing which drove this show to the top. The great thing about "Arrow" is, as the name suggests, it's just a guy with a bow and arrow. While other shows like "Smallville" and even "Supernatural" require extravagant special effects, "Arrow" can maintain the same intensity with two guys lopping arrows at one another. Sure, there's plenty of explosions and property damage to go around (especially in the season finale), but the highly-kinetic action sequences, unencumbered by hit-or-miss CGI, remain a major selling point for the show.

So now the question is . . . with all this going for it . . . can "Arrow" keep it up? "Arrow" has firmly stepped into the "Smallville" demographic while rocketing to the top. But with CW picking up several new sci-fi shows, "Arrow" might have some friendly competition to contend with. I've seen more than one show stumble through its sophomore season (the aforementioned "Teen Wolf" springs to mind). Even with the exposition out of the way, "Arrow" still has a tough road ahead of it - namely maintaining the same chemistry after one character death and several developments have rocked the show's status quo.

Ultimately, I have faith "Arrow" won't fail Starling City the way numerous other adaptations have failed the superhero genre ("Birds of Prey", I'm looking at you). But I've been wrong before, and all it takes is a slight change in wind to knock "Arrow" of course. Hopefully "Arrow" can weather the storm of new challenges and a new TV landscape to make season two just as on target as season one.

(That's it for this rant. Check out a new Blue Yonder soon!)

Comic � Blue Yonder: Chapter 3 Page 4

Sun, 26 May 2013 01:36:43 GMT

Added 4 Weeks Ago

News � The Mandarin Revisited

Mon, 20 May 2013 15:56:24 GMT

So it's been a couple weeks since the release of "Iron Man 3", giving me more time to both collect opposite opinions as well as my own thoughts on the movie. After some exhaustive conversations about would-be Iron Man baddie the Mandarin, I still stand by my original assessment that the filmmakers made the right call, and here's why (warning - spoilers follow).

The controversy surrounding "Iron Man 3" steams from the fact that Ben Kingsley's Mandarin - a memorable, fan-favorite villain from the comics - turns out to be a drunken, washed-up actor instead of the powerful megalomaniac some fans were expecting. Some fans contend the source of Mandarin's power - alien tech fashioned into ten rings - would be a much more interesting adversary than vaguely scientific Extremis cyborgs fashioned by Guy Piece's Adrich Killian. They point out that by comparison the Mandarin forces Tony to adapt to technology he doesn't understand rather than fight science with science - and they have a valid point. But the reason the film's approach works is more about Tony than either villain.

I'll admit I was wrong when I called the Mandarin a Cold War relic. The Mandarin has been updated several times to present a more significant threat to Tony Stark. I still don't believe the Mandarin is the arch-nemesis of Tony Stark, the Joker to his Batman, Goblin to his Spider-Man, the Khan to his Kirk and so forth and so on. The problem isn't that the Mandarin is out-dated - the problem is that "Iron Man" underwent a massive paradigm shift in 1979.

David Micheline and Bob Layton published the seminal "Iron Man" story "Demon in a Bottle" in 1979, detailing Tony Stark's descent into alcoholism. From that point on, the message was clear - Tony Stark's greatest enemy wasn't the Mandarin, nor was Obadiah Stane, Madame Masque or the Living Laser. Tony Stark's greatest enemy was himself, whether his enemy was his own addiction, narcissism or ideology.

With that in mind, it's important to look at what "Iron Man 3" was trying to accomplish with Adrich Killian instead of the Mandarian. Killian is a weird case. The inventor of Extremis isn't really a bad guy in the original story, so why is he the true "Mandarin" of "Iron Man 3"? I think it's because Shane Black wanted a character Tony Stark was personally responsible for.

Killian is somewhat of a composite characters - he's based on at least three counterparts from the comics. His explosive walking bioweapons are reminiscent of Zeke Stane, the son of "Iron Man" baddie Obadiah Stane, who weaponized energy cores similar to that of Iron Man's for use in suicide bombings during Matt Fraction's "Five Nightmares" story in "Invincible Iron Man". At times, the movie has more in common with "Five Nightmares" than the actual "Extremis" story by Warren Ellis.

But there's one more character Killian is based on - the original pilot of the Iron Patriot, Norman Osborn. Tony Stark has an interesting history with Spider-Man's arch-nemesis. After alienating half of the his allies during "Civil War", Stark tries to redeem the supposedly now-stable Osborn by putting him in charge of the blacks ops "Thunderbolt" team. Of course, Osborn stabs Stark in the back by running a power-play that puts him - and a Cabal of villains - in charge of SHIELD, now called HAMMER. Through his ego and ill-placed trust, Tony Stark is indirectly responsible for Osborn's rise to power.

Of course, they couldn't use Osborn in "Iron Man 3" because the character's film rights are owned by Sony, along with the rest of the "Spider-Man" characters. So Killian, personally jilted by Tony Stark in the film's beginning, is a composite of both his comic book counterpart as well as Osborn and Stane. The character stands as a villain Tony Stark is personally responsibly for. I'll admit it's not a perfect set-up - Killian is more a victim of Stark's rudeness than anything else - but it is in keeping with the premise that Tony Stark is his own greatest enemy, and has plenty of mistakes to make up for.

This is why the Mandarin doesn't really have a place in "Iron Man 3" - beyond the washed-up puppet he's revealed to be. Yes, as a mystical adversary armed with alien technology, he's a formidable match for Tony Stark's scientific brilliance. But what he lacks is a personal connection to Tony Stark. He's not an enemy of Tony Stark's own making, through either Stark's action or inaction. That is ultimately what is missing from the character.

Could "Iron Man 3" be done better? Probably. As much as I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it was far from perfect. I would have liked to have seen a Killian closer to Stane or Osborn than the bitter ex-nerd we see here. Could Mandarin been a culmination of Tony Stark's past choices instead? That's something I'm going to probably be pondering about all summer long.

(That's it for this rant. Check out a new Blue Yonder this week.)

News � Raising the Stakes: A Study in Escalation

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:21 GMT

(Full disclaimer: I watch all my TV on the the weekends, so I have yet to see either the finales of "Supernatural" and "Revenge". Instead, I'll be writing about the build-up to the respective finales, and what each show did right and wrong. For those late-watchers like me, you don't have to worry about spoilers!)

Escalation is essential to good storytelling. Without it, interest in a story dwindles as the tension stagnates or dissipates altogether. The secret to a pulse-pounding final act lies in raising the stakes to something neither the protagonist nor the audience can ignore.

At a glance, "Supernatural" and "Revenge" couldn't be more different. "Supernatural" is about two brothers who fight monsters; "Revenge" is about a young woman manipulating those responsible for the framing and death of her father. "Supernatural" is on the CW, "Revenge" is on ABC. And lastly, "Supernatural" has been on a whopping eight seasons, whereas "Revenge" has barely been on two. However, I will say this - if "Revenge" wants to see several more seasons, it should take a page or two from the "Supernatural" playbook this season.

The prognosis has been grim for the past two seasons of "Supernatural". The series has never reached the apocalyptic heights of season five - when the brothers faced down the likes of Lucifer and Michael. The departure of showrunner Eric Kripke along with habitual renewal of the show didn't help either. But after a touch-and-go first half, oncoming showrunner Jeremy Carver turned the show around dramatically. How'd he raise the stakes to season five's Armageddon heights? By the having Winchester's frequent baddie Crowley deliver a horrifying ultimatum - either give up their quest to shut the gates of Hell, or he'll kill everyone they've ever saved. And to prove his point, he successfully murders three people the Winchesters have helped, including one who was very close to Sam right in front them. The startling development causes a powerful internal conflict for the brothers, especially the aforementioned Sam, who is now deteriorating both physically and emotionally.

What makes Carver's execution particularly smooth is just how downright plausible Crowley's actions are. The Winchesters' escapades are recorded in a series of trashy paperbacks written by a prophet. Previously, the development was played for laughs, or at most, as a source of easy exposition. Now it's been used against the protagonists as a major plot device, giving the big bad a road-map to all the leverage he'll need to deter the heroes from their quest. It's particularly crafty how Carver and company mentioned the book series in a previous episode - seemingly as a simple callback to previous season - and then used it to devastating effect much later.

"Revenge", on the other hand, tries to move the conflict from internal to external - and takes a lot of flak for doing so. The thrill of last season was watching the stone-faced Emily Thorne rain hell on the Grayson family whom framed and ultimately murdered her father. But her target in season two is the "Initiative", the shadowy organization who carried out the terrorist attacks Emily's father was framed for. The Graysons start to take backseat to nondescript power players with names like "Mr. Trask" and "Helena Crowley" (I'm noticing a pattern here). But while the Crowley on "Supernatural" is a smarmy demon you can't believe root for even at his most sadistic, Helena Crowley and her successor are both bland suits who consistently underestimate the ruthlessness of both the Graysons and Emily's team, making them practically the "Revenge" equivalent of Red Shirts. Despite their ineffectualness, they do pull off a pretty grand escalation - using software extorted from Emily's hacker friend Nolan to take out all the power in NYC.

It's a pretty chilling scene as the entire cast is suddenly covered in darkness during a citywide blackout. The problem is by now the Initiative, sans Trask and Crowley, are pretty much faceless. In fact, they are essentially an afterthought, and while their coup de grace is startling, our emotional involvement up to this point is nil. The penultimate episode has Emily and her allies scrambling to stop whatever they are cooking, but honestly, the whole thing seems like a distraction from her feud with the Graysons. Like Crowley (the "Supernatural" version), the Graysons are character we love to hate - they are basket-case of ambition, treachery and lies intermixed with genuine (if rare) family bonds. In comparison, the Initiative are just soulless corporate fat cats looking to make a profit, lacking two-faced morality which the Graysons the ultimate antagonist for Emily's vengeful quest.

In order to be successful, escalation must raise the stakes on both physical and emotional fronts. "Supernatural" has struggled with this, even during season five, but it seems to have stuck the right balance lately by providing an emotional conflict which organically supplements the main plot instead distracting from it. By contrast, "Revenge" has a long way to go. Hopefully, the shadowy Initiative will take a back seat (or better yet, no seat) in a drama already rife with compelling moral conflict. Otherwise, the only escalation "Revenge" will experience will be in viewers ready to turn the channel.

(That's it for this rant. Check out a new Blue Yonder next week)

Comic � Blue Yonder Chapter 3: Page 3

Wed, 15 May 2013 13:24:35 GMT

Added 1 Month Ago

News � Making Art Better: How to Write Reviews

Mon, 13 May 2013 14:36:38 GMT

So does anyone here have a favorite bad movie? Here's a few of mine: "Dreamcatcher", "Gigl" and "Batman & Robin".

Now all of these movies have one thing in common - they were done by very acclaimed writers and directors. "Gigli"? That's Martin Brest, director of "Scent of a Woman", "Midnight Run" and "Beverly Hills Cop". "Batman & Robin"? That's Akiva Goldsman, writer of "A Beautiful Mind", "Cinderella Man" and "The Client". "Dreamcatcher"? That's based on a novel by Stephen King. It's directed and written by Lawrence Kasdan, who did some of my favorite movies, including "Empire Strikes Back", "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Mumford". And it's co-written by William Goldman, who did "The Princess Bride" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid".

These are ultimately the kinds of movies I like to review, not so I can make fun of them (although sometimes I do), but because I get ask the question . . . what went wrong? How did these extremely talented people make such a movie? I have only one reason for being a critic. It's not to launch a career. It's not to see my name in print. It's to learn from the victories and mistakes of others . . . and try to be a better writer for it.

I started writing reviews when I was in high school for the school paper. I'm sure one time or another, I saw "Siskel and Ebert" on TV and thought that looks pretty cool. So I started writing reviews, first for my high school paper in Byron, Illinois, and then for a small local paper in Byron called The Sentinel. Eventually, I started writing reviews for the Valley Forge at Rock Valley College, and from there, I went to the Northern Star at NIU. In addition to writing reviews, I also learned how to manage deadlines, how to write with a journalistic voice and how to research and write regular articles for the paper.

Upon graduation, I was surprised to learn there were no immediate openings for film critics for the New York Times. So I turned my attention to the next best thing - the blogosphere. While contending with a long and tedious post-graduation job hunt, I wrote a variety of reviews for blogs including Screenhead and Broken Frontier. During this time, I also joined the Rockford Writers Guild and came to write for the Rockford Review. Eventually i found employment as a moderator at FatWallet.com, but my reviewing didn't stop there. For a time, I wrote reviews for FatWallet's blog as part of the B-List Bargain Bin. Nowadays, my reviews are generally limited to my webcomic's website at Blue Yonder, although I still sneak a few into the very short TV picks I write for the Rockford Register Star.

Now, don't let anyone - including myself - tell you there is a right way to write reviews. Different writers review movies differently. My reviews tend to more methodical, play-by-play, but if you look at the late Roger Ebert's reviews, they are more personal, almost like memoirs. So please don't look at the template I'm about to introduce as a how-to, but rather, as something to keep in mind.

Like any good story, I open with a good hook. Something to get the reader's attention. Always pretend your reader had made up their mind on this movie, to see it or not see it. How can you change their mind, one way or the other?

I follow it up with a synopsis of the story. This is where a lot of first-time critics get hung up - over-describing the plot. You don't need to tell the readers everything. This isn't where you make the case for or against the movie. This is only where you lay the groundwork. Be sure to name the players whose performances you think are pivotal to the movie's success or failure. I try to keep everything in designated sections, so I don't have to introduce a character in a paragraph about special effects or musical score or whatever. Remember one of the golden rules of writing also applies to writing reviews: keep it simple stupid.

I usually start by categorically unwrapping what I liked by the film versus what I didn't like. Maybe I liked the performances but I didn't like the special effects. Or maybe I liked the characters but didn't like the editing. I try to consider the proportion of what I liked against what I didn't when writing a review. Regardless, I'm always trying to put myself in the place of the screenwriter or director, if only in the back of my mind. Why did they make these decisions? What would I have done differently?

Lastly, every review has its own final markings. Some do stars. Some do numbers. I even listen to one website which grades by slices of meat-loafs. It's really up to you or your editor. Just be consistent whatever you use. Keep in mind grading out of four or five stars might look more professional, but leave less room for a gray area (under the right circumstances, a 2 1/2 star movie might be a mediocre movie, an okay move or a good, not great movie). But ultimately, it's what you - or your editor - are most comfortable with.

Since I mentioned editors, I might as well get to the business of writing reviews. Let's start with one common misconception - writing reviews generally doesn't pay that much. I was paid by the column inch when I wrote the Northern Star, but I think it translated to roughly $15 a review or so. I made a little more when I freelanced on the blogs - about $100 a month, roughly enough to start repaying my student loans.

Some jobs don't even pay for reviews. As any freelancer will tell you, be wary of anyone offering "exposure". I wouldn't go so far as to call these jobs worthless though. It all depends on what you intend to get out of them. I reviewed webcomics for Broken Frontier for free because I gave me the opportunity to review webcomic, interview creators and have a valuable reference for comic book writing opportunities. I still provide TV tips to the Rockford Register Star, giving me contacts within the paper. Also, during my time blogging, I received several freebies from networks while reviewing properties for Showtime.

Keep in mind working with a structured operation - like a newspaper - will have its rules. Having an editor saves a lot of time. You have an extra set of eyes to lock over your work, cutting down on the time it takes to do revisions. There are a few disadvantages. An editor will most likely assign you movies to review, so you won't always get a choice of what you watch or not. Also, most newspapers don't let you keep freebies so as not to look bias when writing reviews (which is a valid point).

So here's a few things no one tells you about being critic. First among them, it's a tremendous time-suck. How many of you have lots and lots of time on your hands for writing? Now subtract at least 90 minutes to watch a movie. And then at least an hour to put a review into words. You're now down two and a half hours, not counting the time for research or revisions.

Here's another thing. Why do we go to movies? Why do we read books? To entertain ourselves. To escape. But that becomes increasingly harder when you have to do it for work. I'm not saying its hard work, but it is still work, and it's very easy to get burned out. Why do you think romantic comedies get panned by critics a lot of times? It's not necessarily because they are bad, but because critics have to watch them over and over again. I gotta tell you, as a man, the idea of watching that many Katherine Heigl movies terrifies me.

I think it can happen with any genre, even a genre you like. You see the same thing over and over again. And even if its a good movie, the longer it is the more time it is taking from your writing. You'll also have to become an expert in the field you're writing, so you probably should track down seminal works, even if you aren't being paid to review them, in order to educate yourself.

So all and all, burnout is a big problem. This is why I decided to only write reviews when I really feel passionate about the subject matter, because I made the decision I want to be a writer first, critic second. I'm not bashing critics, it's just what I want to do with my life. I want to use my reviews to benefit my art, not the other way around.

I think I've spent enough time talking about the reviewers, so now it's time to start talking about the reviewed. Getting a review is always exciting, no matter what is says. Getting a review provides much-need feedback, but more importantly, it can provide exposure, especially if the review is good.

I've received some question about what I think about this reviewer or that reviewer. I don't think that's the right question. It's not about what reviewer is good or bad - it's about what reviewer is right for you.

Let me give you an example. We really wanted our webcomic to be review, so we googled "Webcomic Reviews" and sent out e-mails to first few results which came up. Now, you might surprised to know most webcomics aren't about superheroes - mostly they are about video games, anime, board games and other facets of Internet culture. So the first review we received was rather mediocre - because the critic didn't know much about superheroes. But the second review we received was very positive, drawing comparisons to Jack Kirby and Silver Age artwork while providing some very helpful feedback.

It's not enough to reach out to people who review your medium or even your sub-genre. You have to find people who read the kind of thing you are writing. I think you need to select where you send your work to be reviewed as carefully as you select an agent or an editor.

So how can being a critic make you a stronger a writer? I think it gives you a reason to really dissect films to their most basic level: the script. No matter what your reviewing, you have to boil the work down the basics and ask what you would do differently.

Sometimes I mull over this question over and over again in my head. The conclusion I've reached is there are no right answers, and its okay to change your mind. This is why I love special features on Blu-rays and DVD's - because the featurettes and commentaries give us insight into the creative process. Currently I find myself thinking about "Dark Knight Rises" a lot. I like how I agree with a lot of what the directors, writers and producers say about Batman, but I'm surprised how little of that is reflected by the film, which is overwhelmed by other ideas which are just as strong but not always as relevant.

I find the ultimate question is . . . how I do l apply this to my writing? Where am I making similar mistakes? In the case of "Dark Knight Rises", am I wondering off-topic, getting overwhelmed by other ideas and not focusing on thesis of my writing? Whatever you are reviewing - books, movies, music, TV - it's not about proving who is better. It's about making art better, for both for you and the world.

(That's it for this rant. Check out a new Blue Yonder later this week!)