Short Attention Span Review: The Predator (2018)

Short Attention Span Review: The Predator (2018)

I am probably the last guy on the planet you could sell a comedic reboot of this material to.  I treasure the first entry from 1987, and I think the sequel was a lesser film but a worthy follow-up nonetheless.  The later crossovers with those other extraterrestial fiends we all know and love so well were average at best, but I found them to be guilty pleasures.  Well, I liked the first one anyway.  All things considered, this is a franchise that I have strong feelings for, particularly when it comes to that original classic, a testament to manliness and gruesome thrills.  So, yeah, the very idea of a comedic reboot makes me cringe.  And yet . . . I guess it's a good thing I'm a big fan of Fred Dekker's filmography, with both Night of the Creeps and The Monster Squad registering as personal favorites.  Make no mistake, this quirky chiller/thriller has his fingerprints all over it.  He may be playing in Shane Black's sandbox (and Black's raunchy humor is on display throughout), but The Predator feels more like Dekker's take on the first two features.  As such, it is a lot of fun.  In addition to being chock full of laughs, it also has some heart, it's gory as all get out, and it has several rollicking action set pieces.  Now, many will not share my affection for Dekker's wit, and thus the shift in tone will drive them up the wall.  It is surely a departure, and not a minor one.  Yet it offers numerous callbacks to the first two outings and assembles a badass* team of its own.  In terms of casting, Black nailed it, with Boyd Holbrook showing serious promise as a leading man while Thomas Jane gives one of his most unique performances to date as a loose cannon with Tourette's syndrome.  The rest of the gang manages to deliver big on the humor front while also holding it down when it's time to throw down.  I'm relatively certain that this one sports the biggest body count of the series by a hefty margin.  The frequent forays into bloody mayhem that litter the screen with corpses should ensure that those who find the absurdist approach bothersome are able to wring some joy out of a viewing.  We're dealing with a different breed of predator, no doubt about it, but I had a blast with this wonky creature feature that bombards viewers with jokes, bullets, and body parts.

*Certifiable, but badass.

Final Grade: B

Boyd Holbrook, leading man? This movie shows that he can do the job.

Stupid Arguments for $1,000: The Social Issues Riot vs. The Sporting Event Riot

Could we please stop comparing riots involving people who are upset about social issues to riots involving people who are upset/happy about sporting events? The only thing those scenarios have in common is that in each case the people who are rioting are idiots. I have no problems with a protest. I don't care if people have a parade or a party. Only a fool wreaks havoc and destroys things or hurts innocent people out of anger or joy.
I will also point out that when I've seen coverage of people rioting after a sporting event, the general vibe of the report was something akin to "look at these dumbasses" and not "check out these merry people showing their enthusiasm for sports. Hooray for them!"

Protest is Good, Riots Pretty Much Suck

I try to stay away from social issues (as well as politics and religion) because those are things that I'm passionate about that DO NOT sell books.  Yet sometimes I feel the need to speak out, and the recent events in Baltimore and much of the social commentary I've seen regarding such events makes this one of those times.  Keep in mind, I'm just some guy who writes books and makes movies, so I could be wrong about any or all of this.  Regardless, for those who are interested, these are a few things kicking around in my brain as I watch Baltimore burn:

I think that there is a need for protest.  I do believe that America has a serious issue in regards to how the police is treating civilians in 2015, and no group is more at risk than members of the black community. 

I also think that officers of the law have one of the hardest jobs on the planet and for every three scumbags in blue, there's at least one worthy soul.  Maybe the scales are balanced, maybe the lousy cops are even outnumbered by the good guys, but I'm not sure.

I think that a dignified protest sends a powerful message--particularly when the amount of people participating is a massive figure.  A multitude of wronged people respectfully expressing their frustration is a driving force for reflection and change.

I also think that it doesn't take many idiots who prefer a good old-fashioned riot to totally change the narrative.  Willful destruction and violence, as well as theft and brutality, serve no real purpose in such a scenario, unless that purpose is to degrade the efforts of those engaged in a peaceful protest.  While a peaceful protest can change minds, I believe that riots and rampant mayhem only reinforce the various prejudices that cause some members of our society to feel that the mistreatment of other members of our society (be they black, poor, or anyone who isn't wearing a badge) is warranted.

I think that many of those fools who are turning to violence and petty crime think they are cranking up the volume on the message being delivered when in fact they are simply drowning it out.

I believe the media sucks.  I hate the media.  I blame the media for many of our problems.  Yet I don't necessarily blame the media for focusing on rioters as opposed to protesters.  Generally speaking, no matter how large a group is, and no matter what the group has gathered for, if a small contingent of that group engages in bad behavior, that will always be the story.  It makes the actions of those selfish souls that much more disappointing.  I can't believe I'm going to bat for the media here, but a dignified display of unity will never generate more headlines than some asshole setting something on fire or smashing something.  That's not the world we live in--and maybe the media deserves a lot of the blame for that, but I digress.

I don't believe in taking shit.  As a society, I believe that we should stand up to bullies.  Yet I don't think that it makes much sense to bully someone else if we are bullied.  Punch the bully in the eye and I applaud you.  Punch some random soul in the eye and you just became another bully. 

I believe that this shit is very complex and there are no easy answers to many of the problems we currently face as a society.  I don't believe that destruction is going to provide any meaningful answers at all.

I believe that I would rather be blogging about a horror movie, yet I don't believe that ignoring situations such as the chaos unfolding in Baltimore is worthwhile.  We need more people trying to have rational discussions about the issues that led to this dismay and looking for legitimate solutions.

To sum this up, I believe that police reform is necessary and I applaud anyone engaging in a respectful demonstration toward that end.  I do respect many officers of the law (who are already doing a fantastic job) as much as I am disgusted by those cowardly public servants who would tarnish their office.  I am also every bit as proud of those peaceful protesters as I am disgusted by those selfish individuals who would use an occasion like this to wreak havoc and distract from their peers who are going about this the right way.

Damn you, Marvel! Damn you, DC! + Serioius Questions About Silly Shit

 It's not easy being a comic book fan, particularly if you're me.  Look, I don't know why, but I tell you this: if I really love a title, it is officially on the chopping block.  Don't believe me?  Just ask the green She-Hulk, the Thunderbolts, the red She-Hulk, or Hawkeye, among others.  Now, Marvel is apparently ready to pull the plug on my favorite title and their most underrated hero, Iron Fist (again), and DC is poised to do likewise with what may very well be my second favorite title (and the only book of theirs that I follow), Swamp Thing.  Bonus points: Spider-Man (my favorite superhero) is finally going to get involved in the film side of the Marvel universe and there are reports that his skin color is about to change.  Let me repeat: it's not easy being a comic book fan, particularly if you're me. 

No Iron Fist title?  Why?  This run has been marked by a gripping story paired with the most sensational art gracing the shelves of your favorite comic shop in 2014 and 2015, both courtesy of Kaare Andrews.  If this title truly ends with issue #12, we riot--or something.  Bitch and moan, most likely.

No Swamp Thing?  Jesus, DC, does everything have to be a Batman book?  Seriously, we can produce 718 Batman stories a month, but I can't chill with Swampy?  If Swamp Thing ends at issue #40, we riot--or something.  Yes, probably just more bitching and moaning.

And now for the powder keg: a black Spider-Man?  First off, this could mean that we're getting Miles Morales.  I don't want to see Miles Morales hanging out with the Avengers.  I don't like Miles Morales.  I like Peter Parker.  Peter Parker is Spider-Man.

No, you're not.  Shut the fuck up, Miles Morales.  Grown people are talking.  I like you about as much as I like the Ultimate universe version of Galactus.  Seriously, I'm a Marvel fanboy, and guess how many Ultimate books I follow?  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  I don't like that shit.  I like the originals just fine, and I'd rather read something new than read something that fucks with the original shit.  Which brings us to the the next paragraph, the one that may piss people off.  Maybe it should and maybe it shouldn't.  I honestly don't know.

So, here goes.  What if it isn't Miles Morales?  What if it's just a black Peter Parker?  Am I a racist because I don't really like that idea?  Okay, first off,  I think I'd rather have a black Peter Parker than Miles Morales, but I'm not 100% sure.  It's hard to choose from two things you aren't really keen on with any confidence.  Truthfully, I like the idea of fucking with Peter Parker about as much I like that Ultimate line bullshit.  Do I think that's racist?  No, I don't.  Not even a little bit.  Guess who would be bitching like crazy if they dropped a white Blade on us?  This guy.  White Luke Cage?  Me again.  I don't like the idea of tweaking stuff in that manner--and that would go for race or sex.  Seriously, a male Storm?  I'm not hearing it.  Deadpool as a chick?  Nope.  Black Widow as a dude?  Can that noise.  I wouldn't like any of that shit.

At the end of the day, I don't know if it really makes a difference or not, but I don't like it.  I know that.  I wouldn't like it if they moved Peter from New York to California.  I wouldn't really like it if they made him blonde.  I wouldn't be cool with it if he became an actor instead of a lowly photographer.  I didn't like the Andrew Garfield "cool outsider" approach as much as the Tobey Maguire "straight-up geek" approach because one didn't feel genuine to me and the other was what I grew up reading.  How much does any of this shit really matter?  Could you stay true to all the things that make Spider-Man so entertaining if Peter Parker was a black actor who lived in California?  Shit, I don't know.  If I'm keeping it real, though, I don't want to find out.  Maybe I am being silly.  Maybe it doesn't matter at all, but if you're going to adapt something to the screen, why not be as faithful to the source material as possible.  Is that racist?  Is it pointless?  Again, I don't know.  Who has the definitive answers when it comes to this kind of stuff?

I will also note this as today's blog winds down: you may have noticed that I pointed out that Iron Fist and Swamp Thing are my favorite titles while Spider-Man is my favorite character.  That may seem odd, but it's true.  Why is that?  Well, as much as I love the character of Spider-Man, his popularity has essentially turned his comics into a never-ending series of publicity stunts over the years.  I'm sure that this approach has been very profitable for Marvel, but as much as I love Spidey, it has made it hard for his books to keep up with the freshest material hitting the shelves every month.  I only point that out because it may figure into this whole "black Spider-Man" debate.  It feels distinctly publicity stunt-esque.  Once again, I bet it would make money, but as a fan I'm far more interested in seeing a good movie or reading a good comic than knowing that Marvel made mad loot.  I'm pretty sure Marvel's making mad loot any way it goes.  Seriously, those motherfuckers probably came out okay with the Elektra movie.

As always, maybe I'm wrong, and if I have offended anyone, well, tough shit.  Some of you people offend me with the way you get offended all the time.  We need open conversation in this society a lot more than we need delicate motherfuckers who are always getting offended.  I'm just asking questions.  Are they serious questions?  Perhaps, perhaps not, and if they are serious questions, they're serious questions about silly shit.  If you have the answers (or think that you do), please share them with me.  Would Spider-Man still be Spider-Man if he was a Canadian Mountie (as opposed to a Jamaican Mountie) who lived in Winnipeg?  Does anyone out there really like Miles Morales more than Peter Parker?  Why can't I have my Iron Fist and my Swamp Thing comics? 

Why does Justified have to end?

Thor is a Woman and the Comic Industry's Love for Publicity Stunts

If you haven't heard yet, Thor is set to become a woman.  No, he's not getting a sex-change, though I imagine it's only a matter of time before Marvel or DC does something like that with one of their signature characters.  Someone else (someone with a vagina) is going to take the hammer and replace the Thor many of us know and love.  I suppose this makes perfect sense; the character has only thrilled millions upon millions of readers (and cinema patrons) since 1962.  This comes after recent reports that we're also going to see a new Captain America shortly, with the odds-on favorite to wear the shield being Falcon.  A female Thor is a definite, a black Captain America is likely.

Yawn.

Look, I don't care what color a comic book character is, nor do I care about the character's gender.  Yet as a Spider-Man fan, I can assure those of you who aren't keen on comics that shit like this is the medium's biggest flaw.  Spider-Man and Batman have probably suffered more than most in this regard, though Superman has also been a frequent victim of the industry's love affair with publicity stunts.  Sometimes it's just about shaking things up dramatically and sometimes I think they really do things just to piss fans off, knowing the ensuing uproar will make enough noise to translate into sales to curious parties who just want to know what all the fuss is about.  Give me another logical explanation for the the Clone Saga, perhaps the most wretched of all these affairs, or that "One More Day" nonsense--which seemed to be engineered solely for the purpose of taking a shot at doing something fans would loathe more than the Clone Saga.

Look, it sells, and I get that, and when you're as big as Marvel or DC, there will always be new readers--so who cares if you turn the old readers off?  Yet comic fans are loyal, spending entirely too much money on their hobby.  Believe me, I know what I'm talking about here.  We are passionate about comics and we have absurd hypothetical discussions about them on a regular basis.  If you don't believe me, ask a Batman fan how the caped crusader would fare in a fight against another comic book character.  Hell, ask them how he would fare in throwdown with God himself and they're going to tell you that with enough planning and the right strategy and equipment Bats would win.

I guess that's why I hate the publicity stunt nonsense so much.  It sells, it's good for business in that sense, and the effects are usually only temporary, but it's like a thumb in the eye to the fans who pay the company's bills.  Dude with a thousand Thor comics and a tattoo of Odin's favorite son on his bicep doesn't want his boy to get replaced by a girl.  Batman's biggest fan doesn't want to read about Bats getting his back snapped like a twig by some second-tier villain dressed like a luchador.  Superman fans don't want to attend his funeral after he gets killed by The Thing's cousin, and Spider-Man fans don't want to learn that the webhead is a clone or see everything they love about the character erased in a deal with the devil.  I'm sure it would be the same if it was the other way around.  Luke Cage passing on his powers to a white accountant named Stanley wouldn't go over all that well with Power Man fanboys, and I doubt She-Hulk readers want to see her replaced by yet another male Hulk.  Maybe a purple one this time.

Think about it: Stephen King could make a fortune if he announced that he was going to write a book where Roland, his beloved gunslinger, died in a car accident.  The publicity would be staggering and the outcry from the fans would only add fuel to the fire.  It would make money, but he wouldn't do that, not in a million years, not unless it happened organically while he was writing a book.  CBS isn't going to replace Pat Sajak with a black guy tomorrow just to get a bump in ratings.  Your favorite sports team isn't going to trade your favorite player tomorrow just to get a little buzz.  The View isn't going to swap Whoopi Goldberg out for Chris Rock next week for a few headlines.  Why?  That isn't how you treat your fanbase, that's why.  Yes, there's money to be made and publicity to be gained, at least in the short term, but there's something to be said for delivering a consistent product to your fanbase--a product that they support and encourage, no less.

I love comics.  The medium has a lot to offer and I treasure the way it requires such collaboration and puts so many different talents on display.  I just can't stand the industry's addiction to constantly shaking shit up just to shake shit up and sell a few more copies in the now.  99% of the time, that's all this boils down to.  Superman rose from the grave, Batman healed, Spider-Man isn't a clone*,and I bet we'll have both the Thor and the Captain America we know and love back shortly.  The issues that caused so much fuss when these sweeping changes were made will become dollar bin fodder and the casual readers who tuned in to see why the long-term fans weren't following their favorite characters anymore will have moved on to something else. 

Like I said before: Yawn.  Call me when it's over.  Also: I'll pass on the special debut issues for these developments, even if they have foil covers or come with 72 amazing variants.  Sometimes the variants are mere sketches.  Sometimes they are blank covers.  True story.  You know what?  I think we're pretty much finished here.

*I don't think he is, anyway.  The more Marvel tried to erase the Clone Saga, the more confusing it got.  I challenge anyone to explain it in a coherent paragraph.  Wikipedia has a whole page on it (see link above) and it reads like something someone suffering from severe head trauma jotted down after waking up from a weird dream.

Is the term "Redskins" a racist description of Indians?

You know what?  I'm not sure that the term "Redskin" is a racist term.  I know that is a common view, but I think it's also entirely possible that it is a common misconception.  I've always been fascinated with Indian history, and as far as I can tell, they originally coined the term.  Additionally, I think they used the term in a neutral fashion, much like we throw around the terms "white people" and "black people" to this day.  Many others used the term in a neutral fashion as well, and even in today's "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words are the worst thing that ever happened to anyone" climate, the use of the term in a neutral or positive fashion is still commonplace.

There is no real evidence that the term has anything to do with bloody scalps as many claim, and when the owner of the Boston Redskins established the name in 1933, he did so as a tribute to the coach,  William "Lone Star" Dietz.  There is a lot of controversy surrounding Dietz's background, but he claimed to be an Indian and the name was meant to be a tribute, not a slight. 

Are there examples that the term was used in a negative fashion over the years?  Sure, but I don't know if any common description of any group of people could ever exist in our world without similar examples of prejudice popping up.

It's a complex issue and  I could be totally wrong here, but there is ample room for various interpretations.  Having said that, I think anyone who thinks it's simple case of prejudice should dig a little deeper.  Here's one of many interesting takes on the topic for anyone who is curious about the origins of the name and the history of the term itself:  The Origin of Redskin c/o Bill Poser

At some point, I think we need to take more interest in intent than what those squeaky wheels who are always clamoring for attention tell us we should deem offensive.  I understand that the term has been used in a racist fashion and I understand many consider it an insult.  Yet I can't understand why we're so willing to define terms by the worst examples of how they are used, particularly when it would be so much more logical to weigh such language by the manner in which it is used and the effect the speaker is striving for.