An Alternate Reality: I saw Injustice...

DC/WB's newest, animated endeavor, Injustice, is based on the top-selling, Gods Among Us video games and Tom (Suicide Squad) Taylor's prequel, comic-book saga, even though these sources have thus far eluded me. 

I found Injustice entertaining enough, perhaps because I had no choice but to enter it cold. However, I can only go so far liking stories that turn heroes into villains for the sake of instilling some clever contrast. (Even The Boys rattles me on occasion for all its flippant self-assurance.) Anyhow, it bothers me when good guys go rogue, no matter the melodramatic spin, and seeing Superman and Wonder Woman turn Zod/Ursa-like (even per understandable, if not logical, prompts) was surreal in a nightmarish way. (Heck, The Flashpoint Paradox proves problematic in the same way for me, even though I hold it in high regard.)

I also have trouble when heroes who've been depicted as friends betray one another or slug it out due to philosophical differences. Sure, I found Batman v Superman digestible (Captain America: Civil War, too), but as a rule of thumb, ironic, "good-vs-good" clashes (whether by DC or Marvel) are plagued, or perhaps anointed depending on my mindset, by great ambivalence. Injustice contains many such tug-of-war clashes, to the point that it was hard for me to decide which side was the better (or lesser) of the conflicting coin: a disturbing sensation, and still I watched with bated breath.  

To hoist to the perplexity, the story's rifts include cherished, all-American favorites riding the unorthodox edge, not only Superman and Wonder Woman, but such analogous icons as Batman, Nightwing, Robin (Damian Wayne), Catwoman, Aquaman, Hawkman, Cyborg, Supergirl, Jonathan (Pa) Kent, Starman, Shazam, (Captain Marvel), Captain Atom, Plastic Man, Mr. Terrific (Michael Holt), Green Arrow, Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), et al. There's also Amazo, a mechanical menace who gives Superman IV's Nuclear Man a mega run for his destructive money, but his manifestation stews from a peculiar, protective plan, congruent with the story's character upheaval. 

For what it's worth, Batman stays pretty much in sync with his somber side, but even so, he's embroiled in a kind of distrusting contention (as he presses to topple the Man of Steel) that runs against his attentive grain, making his inclusion awkward in the story's later phases (in the pacifist-cusp vein), and I don't like the Dark Knight awkward, even if Anson (The Inhumans) Mount (who was once a contender for a live-action Caped Crusader) grants him an adjuring voice. 

The Joker, on the other hand, is Injustice's counterpoising rescuer for the time he lasts, mainly because he doesn't flinch from his old, sadistic self, and how he leads Kal-El to cause Lois Lane's demise is but par for his sick course. (Beforehand, the Clown Prince of Crime dispatches shocking attacks on Jimmy Olsen, the Flash and all of Metropolis.) Because of the villain's carryover craziness, I was more at ease with him than any other character (though Harley Quinn, Ra's al Ghul and Mirror Master also ride a restful road), but why should I be okay not rooting against Bruce Wayne's pinnacle arch nemesis, especially when he takes his impulses to the apex of offense? Evil is evil, right? (I suppose that's Superman and Wonder Woman's point.) 

In the film's indubitable favor, Matt Peters' direction and Ernie Altbacker's script do speed the reformist procession along in such a way that its harshest parts don't sting for very long (and Nightwing's transcendental, Deadman alteration and Plastic Man's impertinent observations nearly blunt the subsequent mourning), but once the imposing ugliness is etched, it's impossible to erase, despite the plot inserting a shaky reconciliation. (Incidentally, the movie's Superman-v-Superman moment is the misadventure's staggering turn, but its attempt to set the Kryptonian's stance straight falls short of Superman III's dueling irony and inference.) 

I felt obligated to add Injustice to my disc library. I'm not ashamed to place it alongside other such offbeat, DC revisions. I take it for the indignant thing that it is, and though it often rocked me to the moral core, I'm bound to revisit it: a grim confession that screams contradictory but sincere volumes.   

HAPPY 80TH, WONDER WOMAN

PIN-UP TIME: GAL GADOT IS WONDER WOMAN

TERRIFIC TEAM-UP IMAGE: BATMAN/WONDER WOMAN (BRAVE AND THE BOLD)

TERRIFIC TEAM-UP IMAGE: WONDER WOMAN/GREEN LANTERN (HERO QUEST)

TERRIFIC TEAM-UP IMAGE: BATMAN/WONDER WOMAN (THE HUNT FOR ROBIN)

WW84: WANTING MORE (THE GREED DREAM)

Perhaps it's unwise for directors to make sequels based on prior, proven formats. Rian Johnson committed the blasphemous blunder by daring to make The Last Jedi his Empire Strikes Back, while ignoring the blaring, good-vs-evil splendor that distinguished Episode V. Patty Jenkins has been more or less accused of doing the same for Wonder Woman 1984, patterning the Gal Gadot-steered sequel after Superman II (apparently, any cut), though missing Kal-El's action-adventure mark. 

However, unlike Johnson who was compelled to change the underlying Star Wars thread to appease "woke" sensibilities, the criticism aimed at Jenkins is more a matter of forced additives and sketchy continuity, rather than a failure to transfer Superman II's spirit.

Criticisms of WW84's  Here Comes Mr. Jordan/Heaven Can Wait set-up for the channeled Steve Trevor and Diana Prince learning to fly, when it appears later down the line she didn't (couldn't) do so in Batman v Superman and Justice League: the Theatrical Cut, are all well and good (not to mention the armchair leftists' disdain that Maxwell Lord isn't the maligned, Donald Trump surrogate they had anticipated), but if any controversy were to have sprung from Jenkin's sequel, I'd have thought it to be more so political and in an allegorical, economic sense, at that.

Really, has anyone yet noticed WW84's possible stab at capitalism? I mean, it's not that great a stretch.  

Now, I'm not saying it's there for certain, even in an undercover, "Dawn of the Dead '79" way, but somewhere within the sequel's Monkey's Paw retread, that insatiable need to want more (even when "life is good", as Lord proclaims) references a craving for possession and therefore, greed. That the theme surfaces during a time of unquestionable, economic prosperity (the Reagan '80s) should make the matter even more conspicuous. 

One domino topples another in the script's grand, wish-making scheme. The desire to gain more (whether per physical possession or in the symbolic way of love) comes with dangerous consequences, or so we're shown. The story implies that contentment with one's current lot is the more harmonious path to take (be happy with what one has, even if it's Trevor-less), but is that the ideal path to follow?

Is the magnanimous Lord wrong in wanting to establish a successful, oil business and bring success to others through his ambitions? Is he wrong in going that extra, risky mile by snatching a Dream Stone to accomplish the deed, let alone forging a symbiotic relationship with it, regardless of the talisman's fickle results? 

Are others wrong in embracing Lord's vision, his too-good-to-pass-up offer? What he presents to most comes only after the calamitous chips have fallen, which of course, is Lord's fault, but still... For example, Stuart Milligan's President Reagan's response to halt global hostilities with a greater affluence of weaponry only seems sensible in light of the escalating circumstances. (Woke folks might say otherwise, but are they rationale or realistic enough when it comes to any conflict or threat?) 

If WW84 takes a stand against wanting more for the benefit of all, then I disagree with such, but on the other hand, the story does deal extraordinary, mystical circumstances that extend well beyond credibility to denounce excess. Within the plot's far-out context, the virulence of greed is widespread and extraordinary in scope, maybe enough to justify an allegorical warning in the Biblical sense.

I don't know where to stand on the matter without the filmmakers coming forth and confirming all this, but the avarice premise is WW84's strongest trait. That it isn't being debated on all fronts as an influential plus or minus is bizarre.  

Despite its surface-value divisiveness, WW84 merits further analysis on this basis. I suspect there are other plot aspects that I'm overlooking or downplaying (perhaps even one regarding addiction), which others might toss into the ring, if they re-watched the sequel. The catch is, will they revisit?

Good, bad or somewhere in between, WW84 may have more to offer than most claim. If so, for better or worse, the feasible debates it spurs could keep the sequel thriving long after its theatrical and HBO Max runs end. Does that, in itself, signal this submission a worthy sequel? Only time will tell. 

TERRIFIC TEAM-UP IMAGE: WONDER WOMAN/FLASH

TERRIFIC TEAM-UP IMAGE: WONDER WOMAN/SUPERMAN (WORLD'S FINEST)

Collectible Time: Hallmark 2020 Lynda Carter Wonder Woman Ornament

For the sheer sake of it, I've decided to showcase another Hallmark 2020 ornament: Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman, sculpted by Kristina Gaughran.

The piece is based on a famous, publicity still taken for the "Wonder Woman" television series and features an apt, patriotic color scheme.

Gaughran's likeness of Carter is unerring, with the glamorous representation measuring nearly 5" in height.

This one will liven up any Christmas tree, while pleasing both superhero and pin-up admirers alike. At a mere $20.00, why could any true-blue, Lynda Carter/Wonder Woman fan pass it up? 

TERRIFIC TEAM-UP IMAGE: BIONIC WONDER-MENT (LYNDSAY AND LYNDA!)!!!

I saw Wonder Woman: Bloodlines...

DC/WB's "Wonder Woman: Bloodlines" is the latest in its successful run of animated movies, written by Mairgharead Scott and directed by Sam Liu and Justin Copeland. It's also a partial, current-day retelling of Diana Prince's intro, equipped with all the necessary furnishings, including the good, the bad and the deceitful. 

The retelling ties Wonder Woman (Rosario Dawson reprising her vocals) to a young lady named Vanessa Kapatelis (Maria Averopoulos) who seems innocent enough on the surface, but is susceptible to dark-side callings. This set-up contrasts to Prince's rise from Themyscira (Paradise Island) and her inherent need to do good. Courage is required to take either side, but we all know which is the preferable. It's up to dear Diana and U.F.O. tracker Steve Trevor (Jeffery Donovan) to drive the melodramatic point home, if they can. 

In the process, the film spotlights Wonder Woman's queue of adversaries (btw, Cheetah and Medusa are at their monstrous peak) and the genesis of Vanessa's alter ego, the wicked and winged Silver Swan. 

Silver Swan is, therefore, the all-encompassing center of the story, setting it apart from other Wonder Woman adventures, whether live action, printed or animated. Swan a formidable, spiteful supervillainess, but not without pathos, giving the story a redemptive quality.

The story otherwise doesn't (re)define the mythology, but rather carries it in a rich, thoughtful fashion, with emphasis more on characterization than action. The latter, however, still beams bright, and in those scenes where it rolls, man, does it ever deliver in the best two-fisted way.

On the whole, despite its redundancies, "Bloodlines" is a solid entry, which does a resplendent job of promoting Wonder Woman's virtue and veracity. Check it out.