HOW TO REVIEW part II: Rating

Presenting an evaluation of a piece of entertainment is not an exact science, but some traditional guidelines have formed for good reasons not least of which the rating scores.  Many things need to be addressed in order to give the reader a complete picture on what the prose novel, graphic novel, film, or video game entails.  But generally the most demanded part and biggest takeaway from a review is the overall rating.  It never takes the place of a full review but rather a conclusion.  It’s been said that in an essay like a review the structure normally goes a) tell them what you’re going to tell them, b) tell them what you want to, and c) tell them what you told them.  It’s a funny way of saying to introduce and end your argument in a way that summarizes it.  The rating is the concluding summary, and it’s important to communicate it consistently and effectively through all of your reviews.  I personally call it

The Verdict

 But first here some ways NOT to do it

My biggest pet peeve in reviews is the non-sensical rating system that some reviewers use.

The 10 Point System

In a 10 point review system, a 5 is a terrible movie and typically the first 5 points rarely get used.  Anything below 6 is merely to evaluate how awful the movie is.  That’s partly because users think it equivalent to school grades where below 60% is “F” for failure.  A 1-10 score rarely mean the same things to the same people.  The scale is too large.

 Additionally, systems with precise scores that include decimal points only serve to compare individual media, and over time reviewers are likely to accidentally rate a better piece .1 or .2 less in value than a slightly inferior piece of work.  Fractions in scores are difficult to keep track of, and no reader needs to know your score that precisely to understand what you think about it.

 Letter Grade System

Letter systems do not translate, and if you were/are an overachiever where a B+ in school is beyond horrible, you understand why.  Lettered grades do not mean the same thing to everyone.  Typically in school, an “A” is earned if you did everything correctly.  Only in weighted university courses does an “A” actually show how much better than others you are, and even when you do earn one, you aren’t necessarily perfect.  And media is seldom perfect.

4 Star System

 Most people confuse a 4 star system for a 5 star system and there is not enough room for critical evaluation.  Like the “thumbs up” system, there’s not enough room to accurately represent the media.  It sort of faces the opposite problem as the 1-10 system.  Is a 3 star movie great but not perfect or only just above okay?  It just does not flow.

 This brings me to the system that should be used:

5-star system with half star options

(It doesn’t have to be stars)

In order to give readers of this article good examples, I only present pieces of art where acclaim is largely consistent i.e. not controversial.  Also, pay attention to the words I use next to each star rating.  Using them in your review is tantamount to scoring them with the corresponding number.

5 stars – Masterpiece–

This is the highest echelon of praise and nothing but the best should be awarded such an honor.  Every 5 star awarded movie belongs in the best picture conversation for its entertainment value and elevated level of presentation executed with the utmost precision.  Every element involved from music to character complexity to special effects must be heavily scrutinized before being credited as 5 out of 5.  If a reviewer gives away 5 star ratings to undeserving art pieces, their opinion will not only be dismissed, but the greatest works will not stand out as such.  However, if never used, the reviewer’s opinion will be just as scoffed at.  For movies specifically, there is typically only one and sometimes two 5 star worthy film(s) a year.

 

Well known examples of 5 star works throughout media: To Kill a Mockingbird (prose), Kingdom Come (graphic), Schindler’s List (film), Princess Monoke (animated), and The Last of Us (video game).

4.5 stars –Exemplary–

4 stars –Outstanding–

A piece awarded a 4 out of 5 rating has everything that can be reasonably expected of a particular work, but comes with a flaw or two.  This work executes its intentions well and leaves the viewer, gamer, or reader with an undoubtedly positive impression.  It is a worthy ambassador for its genre, but not the best.  A movie with 4 out of 5 may still be nominated for Best Picture and may win if there is no better competition.  There are evident problems that do not overshadow the greatness of the work, but such issues must be expressed in any descent review.

Well known examples of 4 star works throughout media: Animal Farm (prose), Identity Crisis (graphic), Little Miss Sunshine (film), How to Train Your Dragon (animation), Diablo (video game).

3.5 stars –Great–

3 stars –Good–

Any work awarded 3 out of 5 is good, but still leaves much to be desired.  There are a considerable number of gripes concerning the piece in question that weight it down.  The disclaimer “overall” must be added when talking about the positive nature of its quality.  It is still worth watching, reading, or playing, though perhaps not always for the money it costs depending on the interests of the consumer.  This rating may bring down a highly anticipated work without insulting it.  To less hyped piece, a 3 star rating may deem it a pleasantly good surprise without overstating how good it is.

Well known examples of 3 star works throughout media: A Farewell to Arms (prose), Persepolis (graphic), Moulin Rouge (film), Titan A.E. (animation), Dynasty Warriors (video game).

2.5 stars – Mediocre–

2 stars –Inferior–

When a work is 2 out of 5, the problems outweigh what it does right.  However, it is not a complete waste.  It has some redeeming value, but the overall impression is of something second-rate.  Such a project is not a good representation of the genre and may depend on clichés, gimmicks, or niche desires without artistic value.  The majority of works should be valued at 2, 2.5, and 3 where 3 rates as somewhat positive and a 2 rating is somewhat negative.  Designating something widely liked as a 2 may make readers question the reviewer’s judgment, fair or not.

Well Known examples of 2 star works throughout media: The Giver (prose), Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (film), Shrek the Third (Animation), Batman Forever –Sega Genesis (video game)

1.5 stars –Bad–

1 Star –Awful–

These are the pieces everyone hates, and they get uniform revilement from the community.  Media this far gone very rarely gets the “so bad it’s good” label attached.  It is difficult to sit through an entire viewing, but such a task can at least be done.  Though they’re not, they are often considered to be the worst such-and-such of all time.  Production value may be there or not.  If it is, then it is not executed well.  They can also damage a franchise, and the ones below this rating definitely do. Going below 1 star is not done on many platforms since anything at or below this rating is insulting.

There are not many well-known examples except for films and video games as these pieces often fade into obscurity.  Modern parody movies fall here most of the time.  I have personally seen stoners walk out of the theater during Meet the Spartans (film) calling it stupid.  I have not played it, but E.T. (video game) also has such a reputation.

0.5 stars –Abomination–

Example: The Last Airbender (film).

0.0 Stars –Worthless–

The actual worst of the worst. There is zero redeeming value, and it is physically painful to watch.  You have not heard of them, and it’s remarkable when they ever get off the ground as a project.

Concluding Thoughts:

Don’t reference Rotten Tomatoes (and others) when giving reviews.  Your opinion should not be influenced by what others think.  Do not compare.  There is no winning if you refer to them.  Either you’re a copy-cat or “wrong.”  Only reference Rotten Tomatoes when writing articles other than reviews.  You must build trust with your audience.  Do not reference IMDB.  It has no worth.

A number is finite, so take your time until you know how to rank it.  Reading your own words may help you make up your mind in that case.

Ranking the Best Picture Nominees 2015

Part of the thrill of watching the Oscars ceremony every year is rooting for your favorite movie to win Best Picture.  For many, a reason to view the awards or even look at the list of nominees is to be informed on what movies (often overlooked by general audiences) to watch.  I’m telling you that this year all of them are worth your time.  It’s a great year for Best Picture nominations, snubbing very few movies in the category without great debate.

Not many of us have seen all the nominees and often only cheer on the one or two we have seen.  When a movie we haven’t seen gets the win, we don’t know how to feel about it since we don’t actually know whether the right choice was made or not.  Often people will assume the topic of the movie or pretentiousness gave one film the edge over the bigger blockbuster we all saw.  If you’d like to know how they really do stack up against each other from someone who has seen them all and can comment on them with critical evaluation without prejudice or pretension, read on.  It’s a good list to know even if you have no intentions of watching the event.  So here they are in ascending order.

8. The Imitation Game

It says something about 2014’s movies when The Imitation Game is the weakest of the candidates for Best Picture.  It’s based on the remarkable true story of Alan Turning, a British cryptanalyst, who played a large role in inventing a machine in order to break the Nazi “Enigma” code in World War II and became the father of computer science.  This movie explores various cerebral concepts such as how we define intelligence.  The conversation is pertinent in our modern day world as we approach the reality of artificial intelligence.  It also explores the differences in the way human minds think and what they mean to our existence.  Much of this movie’s power comes from Turning’s tragic end after being exposed as a homosexual and is chemically castrated.  While the movie comes close to achieving a high level of insight, it ultimately fails short of the mark.  The transparent deviations from history made to increase the tension and fit a movie format more concisely run the film afoul.  While liberties with historical fact run rampant in movies as a whole and are not sins in themselves, easily spotted changes and cliches are unacceptable.  The visuals are also so glaringly poor that they’re worth noting.  Benedict Cumberbatch plays Turning and received a Best Actor in a Leading Role nomination for his part, but is essentially another version of his Sherlock Holmes character in the BBC series.

7. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Director Wes Anderson’s fingerprints are all over every frame of this witty comedy.  That means symmetry, bright colors, and unorthodox but effective moments of characters pausing.  If you have seen and liked any of his previous films, you will enjoy this one as well.  Superb acting, charmingly painted facades, and likeable characters give plenty of reason to see Wes Anderson’s great piece of filmmaking.  While his earlier films can be seen as courageous for risk taking, this style is more of the same as before.  Therefore, all that separates this film from his others is the plot.  It follows three characters: an author listening to an elderly hotel owner narrate the majority of the movie, the narrator as a lobby boy, and the concierge the lobby boy worked for referred to as Monsieur Gustave H.  Gustave is a charmingly candid and civil man trying to prove his innocence after his is framed for the murder of the hotel’s owner, Madame D, who leaves him a priceless painting.  It’s hilarious and is absolutely worth a watch for those than appreciate alternative filmmaking styles.

6. Whiplash

While certainly the smallest picture in the list, it is not lacking in great moments.  Andrew Neyman (Miles Teller) is a jazz drummer in a prestigious music school vying for the respect of a ruthless and physically abusive teacher Terrence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons).  Fletcher demands the best, and Neyman is determined to excel.  The film boasts the unhinged performance of J.K. Simmons who earned a nomination for his part.  Music plays a tremendous part in this movie.  By the end you, the viewer, are able to hear the difference between good and great.  The movie stops and starts repeatedly in the way of music-then-dialogue with actors’ well done expressions making the audience care about both parts.  It is not for those whose attention easily drifts when watching movies as each moment is crucial to gaining a completely experience.

5. Boyhood

Twelve years in the making, this film takes a grownup view of a fictional character’s path from child to young adult.  It showcases believable characters and situations going through life troubles.  It jumps from year to year without announcement and blends stages of adolescent life well.  The film is short on plot beyond what happens in a particular year but heavy on theme.  Vision and preparation helped make the movie what it is today.  While an impressive feat of filmmaking, the story is not quite enough to warrant a higher place on the list.

4. The Theory of Everything

Another biopic, this film follows the life of renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking from his time at Cambridge University when just meeting his first wife (before his onset of ALS) to after their separation, the release of A Brief History of Time (which he authored), and to the loss of most of his muscle use.  The portrayal of the scientist by Eddie Redmayne is heartbreakingly realistic and is more than worthy of this year’s Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role.  He performs the various stages of motor-neuron disease so well that it pulls moviegoers in believing it completely.  Stephen and his first wife, Jane, are sympathetic and human in this piece.  In it, they are coping under debilitating circumstances while Stephen continues to excel in the field of science and earns status as a celebrity.  What is done with the story is so creative and beautiful without at all compromising the integrity of reality.  This is a must-see.

3. Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

This film may lose moviegoers in the first couple minutes with the immediately identifiable pretentious alternative title and opening credits.  Indeed the beginning moments of action are questionable.  But as the movie gets going, it reveals itself to go deeply into criticism and desire of acceptance.  The movie is in part a commentary on pretension.  Michael Keaton plays an actor who used to play a superhero called “Birdman” and creates a play to gain respect from critics who have long ridiculed him for his blockbuster past.  The reality of Keaton having played Batman adds a little something to it.  Those in the art community or any other exclusive field can directly relate to Keaton’s struggle, but his character takes it to a mentally unhealthy level.  The movie follows one continuous shot that jumps in time until the climax when it suddenly abandons the style.  Unfortunately, the ending seconds are non-sensical and are the point of some debate.  The cast is phenomenal throughout and could carry the movie on their own if they had to.  This film is best enjoyed by those that like to intensely think while watching.

2. American Sniper

Those who revile this movie outright fail the litmus test.  To say that the film is pro-war and dehumanizing is to admit the inability to view movies without prejudice.  This is perhaps Clint Eastwood’s greatest masterpiece.  It follows the life of the most lethal sniper in United States history, Chris Kyle.  From the opening scene during the Middle Eastern war we understand exactly what we’re getting into with Kyle’s dilemma on killing a woman and child who seem to have a grenade  ready to use against American troops in an evacuated zone.  Snapping back to Kyle’s childhood, a lecture by his father about sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs sets viewers up to understand Kyle’s mindset throughout the remainder of the movie.  Bradley Cooper completely immerses himself into the role of Chris Kyle physically and mentally.  Through him, any slightly insightful moviegoer should understand the difference between what Kyle says and really feels.  (Unfortunately, some don’t understand and either rally like mindless bigots or crucify him.)  While the people of the Middle East are NOT savages, there is nothing not-savage about Al Qaeda or what they do.  Sometimes the soldiers half-heartedly view the people and terrorists as the same.  The movie very much follows his particular experiences and in doing so shows us a small window into the war unique to him.  Being so specific is a tactic taking by many recent movies in their story telling.  One example is in Lincoln (2012) showing the struggle in passing the 13^th amendment rather than the whole of the president’s life.  It works quite effectively.  The reason American Sniper is not the number one movie of the year is due to its unsatisfying ending.  The real life Chris Kyle was tragically killed by a fellow veteran that he was trying to help through post-war stress.  The movie chooses to end as Kyle gets into the car of that man while his wife looks out through the window.  Here it begins to serve as a memorial to the soldier rather than portraying a narrative.  The way it happened took away emotional impact.  Had the film ended five minutes earlier or later, the piece would be much stronger.  The producers did not want to give the killer “glorified” screen-time or graphically show such a thing when his children would see it.

1. Selma

The fourth and final biopic of the Best Picture nominees, Selma follows Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement in Selma, Alabama.  Like Lincoln (2012), it follows our central character in a specific time and place.  Like American Sniper, it is also criticized most by those that haven’t seen it.  Selma is absolutely the best film of the year.  It courageously takes a graphic view of police brutality and citizen violence against King and his compatriots.  It manages to show all major figures in this piece as both flawed humans and as we remember them –not least of all MLK and Lyndon Johnson.  The relationship between the two characters is the main controversy surrounding this film.  LBJ is not the shining white night many reminisce in this picture.  He is a politician and someone with multiple priorities.  However, nothing in the film goes outside the realm of believability.  In the end, LBJ does in fact choose to be a hero and serves a critical role in passing needed legislation.  (I find it curious that people suddenly care about this film’s so-called historical inaccuracies while they glaze over other movies.  Accuracy has never been a sticking point for the Academy.  Just ask Gladiator (2000).)  It becomes shocking when depicting known acts committed by law enforcement in one of the most racially divided states in US history.  Many moviegoers may have adverse reactions to it and rebuttal subconsciously by calling it a black point of view.  While some can arguably say that about the recent events in Ferguson due to essential facts being truly unknown, the need for the civil rights movement to reach Selma of 1965 was real and the struggle was indeed painful.  Director Ava DuVernay deserved to be at least nominated for Best Director.  It also boasts by far the best ending of all nominated pictures.  Everything about this film is precise and well done.

HOW TO REVIEW part I: Before You Review

Writing reviews for entertainment media is very popular among casual consumers and hobbyists today.  YouTube, WordPress, Tumblr, Blogger, and Twitter make producing widely available content quite easy.  Perhaps you’re a writer trying to gain some notoriety or an online personality looking to add some content.  Most people just like their opinion to be heard.  But before you do publish reviews, consider first how to do them the right way and what you should review.

I’m not suggesting that I tell you what to pick to review based on content or genre but rather what is right for you.  What is your goal and who is your target audience?  For example, do you want to be taken seriously as a movie critic or is nonchalant comedy more of your thing?  Are you appealing to people who browse the internet trying to find out if a movie is worth seeing or are you trying to get your say on whether it is deserving of an Oscar?  Think about these kinds of things before laying the groundwork of your platform.

This is HOW TO REVIEW part I: Before You Review

I will be using examples and the experience of myself and others to help demonstrate some cases.

YOUR IDENTITY 

The most important step in laying the foundation of your website is deciding how much to reveal about yourself.  Once on the internet, it is there forever.  If you’re not 100% confident that what you’re producing straight out is your best work, then don’t use your real name or it may embarrass your later.  Using a pen name is a great alternative since it can be abandoned at any time.  Omitting a name is alright too, but if you want to build a following or reputation, it is not a good option.  Realize that anyone can stumble upon what you put out there so don’t give out any information you wouldn’twant a creep or identity thief to have.  That means no birthdays with the year.  For those of you with an IMDB it’s probably already too late, sorry.  Also, leave your children out of it if you have any.

The second part of your identity is what kind of character you present to the public.  Will you be the complete authentic, candid version of yourself?  You could be many other things.  Other great options include a hammed up you, a comic, or a well-spoken someone presentable to an employer.  If you’re just sharing thoughts with friends, then it doesn’t really matter, but otherwise go with what you and other people would enjoy.  You might think of yourself as a character actor who “turns it on” when they’re in front of others that know them.  You could go the Stephen Colbert or Angry Video Game Nerd route and invent a character alter ego altogether.  No matter who you decide to present to the world, think of what kind of platform you’re trying to build.

CHOOSING YOUR PIECE

First I want to talk about the worst article National Public Radio (NPR) ever produced in my opinion.  Why was it the worst?  Because the person they got to write about Marvel’s Thor “becoming a woman” was completely ignorant on the topic.  They chose someone who openly knew nothing about the character’s history, the industry’s history, or what was even taking place.  The writer’s one qualification: her gender.  NPR is almost always an organization that I find knowledgeable, discerning, and informative, but there was none of that in this one article.  My point is that you should always be knowledgeable, discerning, and informative.  You should know enough on the topic you’re discussing to speak intelligently.  And comedians should be just as a well versed as critics.  Jokes flop if the audience thinks the comic (separate and distinct from the joke itself) is stupid.  It’s funny when it’s true or purposefully untrue or holds-fast some politically incorrect part-truth.  In short, know what you’re talking about.

Another example on choosing your piece.  I wanted to review a certain work that got widespread publicity, and I had a very strong, intelligent opinion on it but I didn’t write one.  The writer was (and still is) a very high-ranking person in the comic book industry who I would give a limb to work for.  The problem is that the graphic novel was the second worst thing I have ever read in the entirety of the medium.  Writing that review could have thinned my already narrow chances of working in the industry or impair ladder projects.  When you’re not concerned about insulting the individual creator’s work, consider the companies that make the works.  Sony and Paramount know that not everything they’re going to make is gold, so it’s okay to rate some of their works low.   However, do not attack the companies directly if you hope to someday join their or their friends’ ranks.  Just talk about the piece of media that is there in front of you.  Remember again that anything you put on the internet is there forever and can reemerge years after you’ve forgotten it.  Be prepared to accept any consequences if you feel so strongly about it that you feel compelled to state it.  Personally, I feel that fervently about NPR’s article on the female Thor that I would be willing to let my opinion block me from working there because I value my journalistic moral authority above that.

It is not okay to be a fanboy.  A fanboy is someone who always sides a certain intellectual property (IP), person, or company’s side regardless of fact or value associated with their product.  It’s a common insult and often a term used to dismiss someone’s opinion.  But fanboys are out there in great numbers.  Unable to be reasoned with, they annoy and infuriate thinking people.  The only time it’s okay to be a fanboy is in satirical comedy.  The recent trend of people self-admitting to be a fanboy is when the meaning of the word is misunderstood to mean “fan.”  The term “fan-girl,” though seeming similar, is unrelated –meaning rather someone to gushes overdramatically at an IP, person, or company.  Before you review anything, observe whether or not you are a fanboy over anything and do not review that thing.  Additionally, consider that you might like something solely or more than others due to emotional attachment to it.  You may not be aware of it until you compare your opinion next to others.  For example, I decided not to review the new Godzilla (2014) because I loved it so much more than everyone else.  I couldn’t dismiss the vast majority of others’ criticisms, and I soon realized my affinity for the Godzilla character affected my judgement.

Do not write for fanboys.  Many people like yes-men and enjoy hearing someone affirming their own beliefs, but don’t or else you’re an asshole.  If you write that Nintendo sucks and Microsoft is the best in each and every way, you may grab some viewership, but will never grow beyond the inane.  You will also get hate from fanboys no matter what you write.  If you’re clear-minded and can deliver yourself from bias, then you will gather more respect than those that do not.  Don’t be discouraged by hate.  I got major hate for my 3/5 star review of the first Hobbit movie, An Unexpected Journey.  After readers finished their visceral reaction to the Hobbit movie not living up to the Lord of the Rings 5 star standard, the general census swayed in my direction.

INVEST

Always work to improve, and that means you have to keep writing until you finish (and then write some more).  Don’t hamper yourself by worrying about what others may think of you.  There is no way haters will be finding you unless you’ve already acquired some sort of following.  The best thing you can do for yourself is to write –even if it’s only for your eyes.

Proofread your work.  No one will take you seriously if you confuse “your” and “you’re” or if you misspell.  Today there are too many resources at your disposal to check your writing for there to be excuses.

Invest in your platform.  Sometimes this means you have to spend money.  If you want to post to YouTube, get a camera that can deliver what you want it to.  If that’s too expensive, get a decent microphone or lighting fixtures.  Use Photoshop or another program to design yourself a signature image for your website.  Buy your own domain.  Carry business cards with you.  However far you want to go, make sure to give yourself the best chance to succeed.

Share this:

Acclaimed Hostage Movie Comparison: Argo & Captain Phillips

2013 Golden Globe nominee Captain Phillips is an American hostage rescue movie off the coast of Somalia.  How does it compare to last year’s winner and another rescue movie, Argo?

Article on the Artifice Online Magazine        -by LWM writer J. Bryan Jones

Why the World Needs Superman

By J. Bryan Jones

It is easy to say that the world we call Earth needs more good people.  Any one person on this blue rock who exhumes intrinsic good does much more than improve the course of our interconnected lives.  If anyone who ever existed in reality or fiction were to be such a person, it would be Superman.  And the world needs Superman for more than that.

If Superman were to become existent in our present reality, it would do much more than add another good person to the population.  Superman’s mere presence as a superhuman and alien being adds many layers to the complexity of human existence.  How significant can we mortals be in the shadow of a man who bears the power of a sun in his hands, is invulnerable, and can fly?  People would no doubt feel impotent and indulge into more reckless behavior with the sense of triviality.  Our religions, technology, laws, and anthropocentric perspective must be completely reassessed in such a case.   People may purposefully put themselves in danger or become in-genuine villains just to meet him.  If a superman’s presence could do all that, then whether or not it would result in something better requires many more layers of analysis to reach a philosophical and subjective answer.

A fictional case of such a super-human becoming realized in a grounded reality has been explored before in Alan Moore’s Watchmen.  In Moore’s world, the presence of Dr. Manhattan, whose powers are like a god, stirs up all of the thus-far mentioned issues and more.    Manhattan’s presence creates an inherit unbalance in the world’s superpower nations, the United States and the U.S.S.R. and raises political tensions just by being there.  The US military performs acts of a war with increased abandon, knowing that such an unequaled force is there to bail them out in the case of failure.  The course of such events enviably approach global disaster.  But Superman is not Dr. Manhattan, and that is not all of what Superman’s being here would do.

Despite being alien and isolated, Superman chooses to be a part of his earthly world.   Clark Kent, the man who would become and is Superman underneath the figurative red & blue mask, must be alone because of who he is and what he can do.  No matter whether the people see him as a savior, a hero, a villain, or not at all, he is without peer.  Even many of those who read his adventures do not find him relatable.  The responsibility he bears and decisions Clark has to make will change the world no matter what they are, and this kind of life keeps him completely alone.  Clark is still a very tragic character full of eternal, internal struggle even without the typical background of loss.  He sees electromagnetic waves that are invisible to us and in colors that we cannot imagine.  Concrete and steel are non-obstacles to him, and all the physical constructs that ground humans are only abstract concepts to him.  He has every reason to see humans the same way –like inconsequential shadows in a world without boundaries, but he does not.  Clark Kent is not Dr. Manhattan.

One thing that makes Superman what the world needs is his belief in humanity.  Without it, every fear and every one of the worst possibilities for a super-human’s appearance becomes realized.  When everything he does not do matters as much as what he does do, belief in humanity makes him a leader rather than a ruler.  Superman in fiction rebuts to being the savior, saying that you (humans) are the saviors.  He takes to being miscalled a human by other DC heroes a compliment.  As much as people would feel trivial compared to Superman, the Man of Steel himself considers the people to be the most important.  Hearing that sort of speak from a being with absolute power would reassert mankind’s confidence and understanding that we are the shapers of our universe.  Through him, our growing belief in humanism will be paramount to all of us building a better world.  Superman would give us hope.

Superman’s legacy would be the impression he leaves in the hearts and minds in the human race.  Outdated –say the people of his values so much so that DC actually made a title called “What’s so funny about Truth, Justice, and the American Way?” –which is a point that should be agreed upon.  Granted, the “American way” means many different things to people, but in Superman’s case, it is congruent with Truth and Justice.    The term alone makes Superman a man out of time in the contemporary setting.  First conceptualized in 1933, his values may not be consistent with the laws of his era that kept women and minorities down, but they are nevertheless timeless.  Truly, he belongs in no time that has yet come, and he is virtually alone in a world without a moral compass.

World leaders today do not have the character of Superman.  Our elected leaders seek reelection solely for power and power’s sake instead of what is best for the people –a truth that their voting records verify except in some extreme cases.  In America, there are two political parties that fight for ground but do nothing with it once they have it except to grab more power.  But power itself is not an end, it is a tool.  The most powerful being in the universe, Superman, Kal-El of Krypton, is reluctant to use his power and does not seek more.  If Superman were to enter our reality, the people and the government would at first fear and try to neutralize him.  They would worry that he would do what they understand people to do –corrupt absolutely under absolute power.  The apprehensions of the people will later become wishes, wanting a benevolent dictator who has character and is feasibly capable of solve all our problems.

Superman is the exception.  Every other version of Krypton’s Last Son, whether it is from the Red Son (2003) timeline or the “Justice Lords” alternate reality, is a corrupt malformation of the Man of Steel.  The constant conflict in having to make the wise and proper decision makes Clark Kent a tortured soul.  The choice he eventually takes makes him a hero.  In the DC Universe, he co-founds a self-monitoring legion of superheroes called the Justice League.  Superman saves the people without making their decisions for them.  While political tensions will rise with his presence, Superman makes it clear that he is there for the good of Earth and not just the United States.  In Superman: Earth One (2010), Superman comes face to face with a foreign totalitarian who is slaughtering his own people and letting the rest die in famine.  While Superman is unable to help the people without putting them in danger, he eventually finds a way.  His touch is enough to instill truth and justice, but not so much that he becomes a dictator.

There are those who would relentlessly accuse him of aspirations to become a tyrant and an affliction on this earth.  Where Batman has taken precautions, Lex Luthor has to challenge him.  Such a man as Alexander “Lex” Luthor would surely exist and have the jealousy and tenacity to become him and the benevolent dictator Superman chooses not to be.  Luthor is modeled after a kind of person that exists in real life, and is Superman’s antithesis.  In a world with Superman, his presence would cause all kinds of problems like escalation in collateral damage from evil men’s amplified rampages.  Political tensions would rise and our way of life will have to be rethought.  These, however, are difficulties that already exist and would not simply be aggravated by Superman but instead finally addressed and solved.  Ultimately, it would not be Superman facing these crises but us.

Fictional character Lois Lane in many fictions wrote an article called “Why the World Needs Superman.”  Several people have thought to say the world needs Superman’s fiction, but what we truly need is a physical, living, breathing Superman.  We need Superman because he will make us better men.  If a man such as Superman can exist with all his power, tact, and character in this world, then it is proof that this Earth can be saved.  Having borne our own redemption, it would justify human existence.  The planet needs a guide, not a king.  This is not a movie, and we do not know in the end if truth and justice will win the day, so we need Superman.   Until then, we will just have to settle for him being real in our hearts.

Iron Man 3 Video Review

No Spoilers

When the theatrical trailer for Iron Man 3 first came out, one of my artistic friends posted her opinion about it in response to the people calling it “dark” by saying “Schindler’s List is dark; Iron Man is a guy with rocket boots.”  Aside from this statement being elitist, I thought it also unfair to compare anything supposedly dark to a movie so disturbing that the average person is only willing to watch it once.  And having rocket boots doesn’t mutually exclude the Iron Man character from being deep or serious.  With the tone of the trailer, deep is what audience expected, and it did not receive.

If you’re simply a casual movie appreciator who liked Iron Man 2 or are in the (for lack of a better term) general audience, then don’t let this review bring down your excitement and just go see it.  Otherwise, with any good amount of taste, you won’t like this movie very much.

The trailer didn’t just showcase the most interesting parts of the film; it is downright deceptive in order to –surprise- get audiences to see something mediocre.  It isn’t serious; it’s comedic to a fault.  Scenes that seemed to be reaching more meaning are broken up by comedic moments so often that the laughs for me stop out of irritation.  The movie does not present itself to be a barrel of fun like the Avengers, so trying to cram so many jokes in doesn’t feel right.

The most disappointing thing about Iron Man 3 is the quality of the source material it failed to capture.  Earlier on Leather Wing Media, I reviewed the graphic novel Iron Man: Extremis, the best Iron Man story I’ve experienced so far –and largely contributed to the modern telling of Iron Man’s origins portrayed in the first movie.  Extremis has moral implications and character development of Tony Stark in his battling of inner demons while at the same time using technology to build the plot as opposed to using it as a storytelling crutch.  Iron Man 3 succeeds at none of this and instead merely borrows the powers the “extremis” gives in the comic as well as a few characters.

See LWM’s Review of Iron Man: Extremis here.

It does, however, have raised stakes and drama, pushing Tony Stark to his limits.  The movie also thankfully builds on its predecessors in a positive way and refers to the events in the Avengers.  At times the tension is palpable and builds hope for the film’s quality, but ultimately leads to a letdown coming to nowhere near expectations.  Don’t trust the great reviews it’s been getting that are laughably off base.  Iron Man 3 can be an enjoyable experience, but those looking for story won’t find it satisfying.  Instead expect the quality of this film to be barely above Iron Man 2.

VERDICT: 2.5/5

42 Movie Review (Video)

Jackie Robinson integrated professional sports and became a symbol for America.

His number, 42, is the only number retired throughout all of baseball.  42 the movie is his story.

The national sport of baseball has symbolically represented America from the organized crime generated dive that the Chicago Black Sox took in 1919 and in the war effort of World War II.  In 1947, Jackie Robinson and Brooklyn Dodgers part-owner Branch Rickey challenged the unwritten color-barrier rule that split the nation in two.

42 conveys the significance and tribulations of this event brilliantly, and in that is its greatest triumph.  Telling Robinson’s story on the silver screen (in color) is way overdo, and I’m happy to see that the script we have been hearing about floating around Hollywood for years turned out to be sharp, smart, quick-witted, and real.

The events in the movie take place from Branch Rickey’s decision to integrate the Major Leagues in 1945 to Jackie Robinson aiding the Dodgers in earning the National League pennant in 1947.  The script constantly quotes from Jackie Robinson’s autobiography, “I Never Had it Made,” and from interviews from the Dodgers of that era –faithfully showing the prejudice Jackie and Rachel Robinson faced even in the New Orleans Airport to creating the most memorable lines in the film such as “I’m looking for a ballplayer with guts enough not to fight back.”  Overall, the historical accuracy could not be more satisfying to Dodger history buffs –and as it should be because the actual history requires no embellishment to be an extraordinary tale.  Other critics may disagree on this point by calling it “safe,” and for the years we observe I earnestly disagree.

The cast in the film are strong with Chadwick Boseman leading as Jackie Robinson.  He has only a few moments to showcase his acting abilities, choosing instead of Jackie’s higher pitched nasally voice a more intense one.  But the acting highlight in 42 is by far Harrison Ford, who in his portrayal of the funny-but-wise Branch Rickey puts on his best performance since The Fugitive (1993), worthy of various Best Supporting Actor nominations depending on the competition coming out later in 2013.  Direction ranges from okay to brilliant –giving us some of the coolest shots in any baseball movie such Jackie sliding into 2^nd base from underneath, but ultimately being one of the weaker parts of the film and is the valid reason why critics can call it “safe.”

This movie doesn’t go soft and justly represents the hate that both these two men went through and in doing so floods the movie with the word “nigger.”  Robinson gets thrown at and stepped on, but none was worse to Jackie than the struggle not to fight back.  His pride forces him not to lean on his wife, Rachel, or his essential friend in the black press, Wendell Smith, but eventually learns that these people and the fans that support and depend on him can give him strength to go on.  42 culminates in multiple ways from Jackie’s inner struggles to his teammates such as Pee Wee Reese fighting for him to his athletic achievements without compromising the facts.

Every baseball fan and every passionate American needs to see this movie and watch the film depicting one of the most important people in the civil rights movement.  No longer will anyone question whose jersey I’m wearing when I sport the blue 42.

VERDICT: 4.5/5

Review by J. Bryan Jones

Would The Dark Knight have been Nominated for Best Picture under Current Rules?

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) recognizes movies every year for filmmaking excellence through Oscar nominations for Best Picture, but some of the best are still ignored.  Such a film is The Dark Knight (2008), which earned practical universal acclaim.  The news of not being nominated arguably received greater attention than the 81^st Academy Awards themselves from audiences and critics alike.  When remembering which films did earn a slot in 2008, it’s easier to recall “not The Dark Knight,” than any of the nominees that year.

In 2009, the Academy expanded the number of films that could be eligible beyond five for the first time since 1943 up to 10.  In 2011, the Academy again changed the Best Picture nomination rules to make it so that movies required 5% or more of first place votes in order to be nominated with a minimum of 5 and maximum of 10 slots filled.  The question remains: Would The Dark Knight have been nominated for Best Picture in 2008 if current rules were applied?

Many, including myself, maintain that the reason for the 2009 rule change is due to The Dark Knight’s epic snub.  In Time Magazine’s list of “Top Ten Oscar-Nomination Snubs,” the article maintains the same sentiment, and deadline.com agrees.  While this move seems to insinuate The Dark Knight’s would-have-been nomination, this would mean breaking the superhero/ comic book movie barrier into the Oscar’s most prized category.  Surely many of the Academy’s pretentious members would be against it, perceiving smaller films as more artistic than successful action movies.  With another potentially exemplary superhero film coming out this summer in Man of Steel, the question of whether such a barrier is permeable becomes increasingly relevant.

While many say that it should have been nominated for Best Picture because in 2008 it earned the 2^nd most all-time in the box office, large financial gain has made little difference in films’ chances to be nominated for the last couple decades –while it seems to have made a difference in the past.  At first look, there does tend to be the requirement of a wide-release, which means that the movie would earn more money.  However, most of the time, it has to do with eligibility.  Of the domestic all-time earners adjusting for inflation, the highest ranked movie not be nominated for Best Picture that is neither animated or a Star Wars sequel/prequel is Jurassic Park (1993) at #20.   However, of the top 20 earners, only 4 are newer than Jurassic Park with one being a Star Wars prequel and another being animated.  Of the unadjusted domestic all-time top 20, 13 of the 15 made since 2000 were not nominated for Best Picture.  While this makes it apparent that The Dark Knight’s financial success does not help its chances there are several other patterns to consider.

One the things to consider when determining if The Dark Knight would have been nominated is acclaim.  It seems inherently obvious that great reviews from critics should be prerequisites for the highest honor in film.  The Dark Knight earned a 94% Rotten Tomatoes Critics score & 96% with Audiences, 4/4 from Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, 10/10 with IGN, and currently sits as the #7 Movie of All time (formerly #1) in the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).  6 of the top 20 on the list of IMDb were not nominated for Best Picture.  The Dark Knight earned a higher Rotten Tomatoes quotient than every 2008 Best Picture nominee, beaten only by WALL-E overall among wide-releases that year.  However, a good Rotten Tomato aggregate score does not directly equate to the Best Picture category.  Since 2000, 16 films nominated in the category received scores less than 80%, including winners, with the lowest of all being 47%.  2 of these low rated nominees came in 2008 with The Reader (61%) and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (73%).  When taking these facts into consideration, it is clear that the Academy already ignored the difference in critical acclaim in 2008, so The Dark Knight’s reviews cannot confidently indicate if it would have nominated for Best Picture under the current rules.

Buzz makes a huge difference in the movie awards scene.  The Oscar buzz surrounding The Dark Knight was immense, especially surrounding the late Heath Ledger.  When the time came, even many Hollywood insiders were surprised that The Reader earned the 5^th nomination over The Dark Knight at the 81^st Academy Awards according to Michael London, producer of Milk (LA Times 2009).  However, the buzz for the Oscars tends to follow the nominations for the Golden Globes –which The Dark Knight did not earn.  From 2000-2008, the Golden Globes did not nominate the eventual Academy’s nominees for Best Picture in their Best Motion Picture –Drama, Comedy or Musical, or Foreign Language categories a total of 4 times.  Since 2009, 20 of the 21 films nominated in the Globe’s Drama category have been nominated for Best Picture.  Under current 2011 rules, only 2 of the 18 Best Picture nominees were not nominated for a Best Motion Picture Golden Globe.

Though 9 films were nominated for Best Picture for both 2011 and 2012, the Academy’s press release on dealine.com says “If this system had been in effect from 2001 to 2008 (before the expansion to a slate of 10), there would have been years that yielded 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 nominees,” (2011).  To determine if The Dark Knight would have been nominated, the competition must also be examined.  Other likely nominees include WALL-E (when observing Toy Story 3 and Up’s nominations in 2009 and 2010) and Revolutionary Road –the only Golden Globe Best Motion Picture –Drama nominee not be nominated for Best Picture that year.  It is also possible for some of the Globe’s nominees in the Comedy or Musical category to earn a nod, such as Vicky Christina Barcelona, Burn After Reading, and Mamma Mia! and possibly edge out The Dark Knight.  However, the nominations of quality popular successes District 9 (2009) and Inception (2010) suggest that after satisfying the thirst for small “artistic” movies, the Academy can make room for such content.  Therefore, there is no doubt that under 2009-2010 rules, The Dark Knight would have been nominated for Best Picture in 2008.

With 2011 rules, The Dark Knight would have required 5% of first place votes.  For some perspective the eventual winner has averaged 20.5%.  Its financial success would have made no difference since it is a recent film, and its critical acclaim has already been ignored.  While it had massive buzz, the Golden Globe snub may have doomed it.  However, the push and eventual change to a system allowing up to 10 nominees after The Dark Knight’s epic snub gives reason to think its would-be-nomination is implied.  Since 2008 was such a weak year, it may be possible that The Dark Knight received 5% of first place votes despite the prejudice against it.  The only way to know for sure is to have the nomination voting results.  My guess is yes, and it more than deserved it.

What do you think?  Sound off in the comments below.

Lincoln & the Oscars for 2013

I am usually an avid dissenter of the picks for Oscar nominees, but the 85^th Annual Academy Awards have the best line up in recent history.  That is not to say that I have seen every film that received a nomination throughout all the categories, because I have not, or that the picks are perfect, because they are not.  Once getting passed the usual, unconsidered snubs due to genre such as The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, my qualms are far and few between.

The 2013 Oscar Awards Ceremony is one to watch simply because there are so many good movies to root for.  Many years, a pretentious a list of unfamiliar films lead the race for Best Picture while this year audiences should be at least be knowledgeable about the nominees except perhaps Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild.  As per usual, the most popular and familiar films among mainstream audiences receive one of their few nominations in the Visual Effects category, though the effects themselves were overall weak in 2012.  However, such popular action-packed films often lack the artistic precision that the Academy values, and better replay value and entertainment high does not necessary make the best movie.

The question that has audiences wondering is if Lincoln, the front-runner of the Oscar race, deserves or should win the honor of Best Picture.  The answer: Absolutely.  As it should be in historical war pieces like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List, Lincoln focuses on a single aspect of the time, and in this case, it is the USA’s 16^th President getting the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution passed to ban slavery.  In showcasing such a significant and complicated struggle, Lincoln is the best movie of the year.

Daniel Day-Lewis is flawless as a passionate, wise Abraham Lincoln that many of us imagine him to be.  As historians characterize, Lincoln in the film is a story teller with funny, relevant tales to orate given the situation, and Day-Lewis’ delivery is excellent.  The movie is adapted from the book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln and it features exactly what such a title promises.  Lincoln shows how the president bridged the partisanship between the two parties in having rivals in his cabinet and getting the votes he needed to pass the amendment.  The movie also addresses some philosophical issues concerning the legality and ethical implications of what the Abraham Lincoln did in order to do the just thing in freeing America from the evil of slavery.

Day-Lewis is backed by Tommy Lee Jones and Sally Field with their characters’ complexity and remarkable delivery earning them all Oscar nominations.  Steven Spielberg’s work here has an excellent chance to earn him his 3^rd well-deserved Academy Award for Best Director.  Additionally, the sets and costumes are brilliant to every detail.  This high budget historical feature recreates the setting with admirable ambiance.   In short, Lincoln deserves its breadth of nominations and possible wins throughout the categories.

Lincoln appeals to anyone who cares about the time or events which take place during the film.  Abraham Lincoln himself is a fascinating figure whose character and complex life extends well beyond the timeframe of the movie.  His struggle to grant African-Americans basic human rights is one of the most important in the history of the United States, and the film does this event justice.

VERDICT: 5/5

“Kid’s Stories” Can Be an Elevated Art Form

Pretentious snob and director of Cosmopolis (2012), David Cronenberg, gave The Dark Knight Rises (2012) a bad review that gained momentum while it was still in theaters not only insulting its fans with curse words but added “I don’t think they are making them an elevated art form. I think it’s still Batman running around in a stupid cape…  A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it’s comic book. It’s for kids. It’s adolescent in its core.”

Never mind that the esteemed Dark Knight Rises is not a kid’s movie.  That is self-evident.  Cronenberg also managed to insult both the graphic novel medium and anything made for kids.  It only takes one word such as Watchmen, Sandman, or Persepolis to demonstrate that not only are many graphic novels not made for kids, but can be explicitly for adults only.  Additionally, there are several examples of Batman comics unequivocally for adults such as The Dark Knight Returns.  Instead, here I will demonstrate that entertainment made for and targeting kids can be an elevated art form that Cronenberg claims it cannot be by citing specific cases.  All of these examples are animated.

The top 100 children’s films list by the New York Times is unsuitable to make such a case because it chooses anything suitable for kids rather than made for kids.  The list even includes Casablanca, equipped with Nazis, alcohol, gambling, smoking, complex adult situations, and all. 

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Beauty and the Beast is famed as the only animated feature to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture until the number of available nominations doubled to 10 in 2009 following the infamous snub to The Dark Knight (2008) where Up (2009) earned the nomination.  The film’s recognition for an animated feature is unprecedented -winning the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy, 5 total Oscar nominations, becoming the first animated feature to be adopted into a Broadway Musical, and being selected into the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

Aside from recognition, Beauty and the Beast demonstrates itself to be an elevated art form in its own right.  The film’s hand-drawn and painted imagery is incredible throughout.  Combined with the music and score, mood is conveyed flawlessly from the peril of the woods and persecution of the Beast to the romantic ballroom scene.  Beauty and the Beast is also only the second animated film to use the Computer Animation Production System simulating multiplane effects panning across the ballroom.  The Song “Beauty and the Beast” sung during the ballroom scene became the eventual winner of the Academy Award and is merely a highlight in the superb vocals and cinematics across the film.  Voice acting proved strong and charming throughout.

The story heralds back to old Hollywood magic and mysticism brought to life with new energy from Disney.  Diverting from the original French tale from which it gets its name, the changes are for the better.  Disney’s version begins transforming the Prince into a beast to reflect his inner self through stained glass panels setting up the style of animation and architecture of the castle.  His imprisonment of the beauty and awkward misunderstandings of social interaction reveal his still spoiled princely adolescent tendencies.  The Beast’s transition into learning to be civilized and fall in love is a fine example of three-dimensional character pieces this film boasts.  The film’s refined visual, audio, and story art truly elevate it above its peers in Hollywood.

Toy Story 2 (1999)

Representing Pixar’s strong run and various Best Animated Picture Academy Award winners, Toy Story 2 is the defining moment in Pixar’s history of art.  In the documentary The Pixar Story (2007), it reveals that Toy Story 2 originally targeted a straight-to-DVD release with a lackluster story Pixar determined did not live up to the standard it wanted to set.  Pixar restarted from scratch with a seemingly impossible timeline, but ended up producing a visually stunning, musically captivating, and meaningful film.

This sequel to the first full length computer animated feature begins where it left off following Woody the cowboy and Buzz Lightyear the space ranger, toys that come alive when people aren’t looking and desire more than anything to be adored and played with.  When Woody is stolen and being sold to a Japanese toy museum, he faces a choice.  He could escape and go back to his owner, Andy, who will eventually grow too old to play with him anymore or he could go to the museum and live forever behind glass.  He may live a full life that will eventually end or live half a life where he will be adored but never played with and will last for ages.  This parallels classical tales of weighing the choice of living without the joys of it eternally instead of living a full, terminal life.  As Pixar puts it, when the song “When She Loved Me” plays over a montage of a toy’s abandonment, the audience feels and realizes that this is more than just a kid’s story about toys.

The Iron Giant (1999)

Instantly familiar but distinct, The Iron Giant is a charming tale of a giant metal robot that fell from space, lost his memory and develops a friendship with a boy named Hogarth in 1957 Maine.  Once the government learns of the iron giant, they believe him to be a weapon of the Soviet Union and Hogarth must keep his new friend safe.  The theme of the story is revealed in the Hogarth’s comic books where the robot admires Superman.  However, the nemesis in comics is a giant destructive robot.  Hogarth assures the iron giant that he can choose who to be –the hero or the weapon.

The Iron Giant is simple in the best way.  It does not dilute the story with unnecessary plot complications, yet is not so straightforward to be mindless.  There are few other stories with as much heart or evokes as much pure emotion as The Iron Giant.  Its 1950s environment is charming, but anything but bland.  Fleshed out characters balance the story well and make it a piece of art to be remembered.

Avatar: The Last Airbender –Series (2005-2008)

Produced by Nickelodeon Animation Studios, Avatar is the epitome of art in animation, design, story, and substance.  If there were ever moving pictures or paintings crafted with enough precision to be deemed an elevated form of art, Avatar is that picture.  Avatar: The Last Airbender takes place in a fantastical world of four nations divided by the four classic elements Earth, Water, Fire, and Air where gifted people may control an element through Chinese Martial art movements.  The Fire Nation’s 100 year war to conquer the world can only be stopped by the power of the Avatar, master of all 4 elements and reincarnating connection to the Spirit World, but he disappeared around the beginning of the war -trapped in an iceberg as a 12 year old boy named Aang.  Once he is discovered by a South Water Tribe brother and sister, they must journey together to help Aang master all 4 elements and end the war.

The world established here uses various Asian influences to subtly make the nations and tribes distinct from each other.  While the Fire Nation adornments and architecture resemble Mongolian societies, Water Nation tribes are fashioned after Inuit, Air Nomads after mountain Buddhist monks, and the Earth Kingdom after China with several small pockets representing other cultures.  The fantastical animals are cleverly entertaining, often being a fusion between two real life species such as the “turtle-duck.”  The spirits and the Spirit World offer a layered extension to the already expansive setting that conveys great significance and meaning.

The story fleshes out every nation with dozens of intelligently fully-developed and complex characters.  The Fire Nation Prince, Zuko, is a determined teenager looking to redeem himself after exile by capturing the Avatar guided by his Uncle Iro.  Zuko finds his identity as an anti-hero through a complex and trying journey of self-discovery helped by Iro’s subtle hand and heart.  He questions the long-held assumption that the war was the Fire Nation’s way of spreading their unparalleled prosperity with the world.  The Fire Nation’s power is gained through industry thanks to the help of fire benders.  However, fire also leads to uncontrolled destruction, as Zuko learns to contain himself for the common good.

Avatar: The Last Airbender teaches that one should not lead an isolationist or xenophobic life.  It is vital to understand the world and the balance thereof.  Its craft in utilizing war strategy and character development make every single episode a must-watch.  Comedy, action, and drama are all cleverly written and woven seamlessly to make the entire series wildly entertaining.  This “kids show” is one of the greatest masterpieces in the history of television, and calling it elevated art is an understatement.

Batman: The Animated Series (1992-1995)

What better a way to demonstrate that not only can kid’s stories or comic book derivatives be elevated art, but Batman stories can be with the 4 time winner and 13 time Emmy nominated Batman: The Animated Series.  This dark deco style series is darker in tone than most American animation and featured serious, non-cartoony voices such as Kevin Conroy to deliver the caped crusader faithfully to animation.  Though not every episode is golden, it builds up the Batman character over time defining him through his various foes that are dark reflections of him.  Having risen from tragedy, Batman stands up for the weak while walking a precarious line outside the law.

Bruce Wayne’s development and complex character is strongly conveyed in this series.  The series is highly praised for its sophistication and maturity, appealing to a wide range of audiences.  Set ambiguously in the era of black and white television, it sometimes borrows modern technology, but the art of Gotham City and the surrounding environment is stylistically appealing.  The anti-hero Bruce Wayne became is a reflection of the city and vice-versa.  In Batman: The Animated Series, the Batman character is as complex and compelling as Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and remains one of the greatest creations in all of fiction.  Batman has not just had three Christopher Nolan movies, but has persisted for almost a century and has many works of art to his name.

Never mind the countless Dr. Seuss children’s books or the various Newbery Award winners, works of art targeting kids exist throughout film and television.  Old Disney produced many worthy elevated art pieces such as Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King.  Pixar has brought numerous masterpieces to computer animation.  These films and television series show that mediums and categories do not define something as only being suitable for an unrefined audience.  Such examples demonstrate that “kid’s stories” can be elevated works of art and to say that they cannot be is pure ignorance.