"Isn't the patriotism in your heart? Why do you have to wear it on your sleeve? Like, can't she just be that person? She still is. She's Wonder Woman! She's f**king saving the world! She's not just saving America; she's saving the f**king world! And she's wearing a great outfit and she's kicking ass. She doesn't need to wear a f**king star to be a f**king patriot."
So said actress Olivia Munn and author of the book, "Suck It! Wonder Woman" (2010) at a San Diego comic book invention last year on her opinion of the new controversial costume makeover the Amazonian princess received from publisher DC Comics to celebrate the comic book’s 600th issue. Gone were the familiar red and white striped heeled boots and white stars meant to symbolize the American flag. In the comics, Wonder Woman now wore black leggings and a dark blue jacket looking more like a biker chick than a crime fighter.
Munn’s comments could now apply to the costume actress Adrianne Palicki will wear in the new NBC reboot of the iconic character in a television series this fall written and produced by writer David E. Kelley, whose previous creations include the successful long running dramas "Ally McBeal" (1997-2002), "Boston Legal" (2004-2008) and "Chicago Hope" (1994-2000). Instead of black leggings, Palicki’s Wonder Woman will wear what appear to be blue spandex pants and boots. I hope for Palicki’s sake they aren’t the kind of leather pants David Schwimmer’s Ross Geller wore on a date in that "Friends" (1994-2004) episode where upon taking them off they shrunk from all the sweat and couldn’t put them back on.
Palicki’s Wonder Woman costume, which has been getting a lot of negative backlash on the Internet since its online unveiling March 18 brings up how today’s superheroes, with the help of comic book artists, writers and Hollywood are veering away from the notion they represent American patriotism.
I admit I wasn’t that crazy about DC Comics doing away with the familiar red, white, and blue costume fans have been so used to for years at first. Like most fans I prefer the original costume actress Lynda Carter wore when she played the character in "Wonder Woman" (1975 – 1979) and I would love to get my hands on a 27 x 40 poster of Megan Fox as the superheroine that an artist that can be seen on wonder-who.com, if one ever gets made.
My attitude about DC Comics makeover last summer was if they are going to give Wonder Woman black leggings now, then they might as well add some black leather high heeled boots and replace her “Lasso of Truth” and bracelets with a cat-o-nine tails whip and a couple gold pairs of steel handcuffs and make her into a superheroine/dominatrix.
Looking at Wonder Woman today in the comics and the upcoming television series now, not only have I come to terms with her new look, but I am also comfortable of doing away with the notion that superheroes represent “only” America.
I am not an avid reader of Batman and Superman but when the Man of Steel’s parents sent their son to Earth, they did not program the ship to land in New York’s Smallville. I may be wrong, but America was never mentioned by Superman’s parents in the first issue as his new place of residence. When millionaire Bruce Wayne decided to become Batman, he did it not only to avenge his parents’ deaths but to fight crime in Gotham City. Wonder Woman (aka Diana Prince) is not from America. She is based on Greek mythology. Let’s be honest here. If you were a superhero, are you telling me you will only fight evil in America and not the world? It is like saying James Bond only fights villains who threaten England.
In fantasy world, superheroes belong to everyone. Not just to Lady Liberty.
As the saying goes, “Controversy sells.” Perhaps this new TV series will have what Lynda Carter told Fox News when asked her opinion about Wonder Woman’s new comic book makeover last summer.
“She’s got an attitude, and if this is the new thing she wants to wear, well by God she’s going to wear it,” Carter said. “And I like that. And I hope somewhere in the story someone mentions, ‘where’s the old one?’ And she says, ‘Get over it.’”
Well, I may be in the minority here, but I have gotten over it. And I am not just saying that because the Amazonian princess has me tied to a chair right now with her “Lasso of Truth” demanding I write a column saying that doing away with the American flag colors is not such a bad thing.
"It's not a great movie, but it is a thriller ride, fairly realistic depiction of Marines, and very rough-even the camera movement is unsettling and not a carefully crafted Hollywood story... it's ANTI-AVATAR to the bone, and if it had subtitles it would say "F.U. James Cameron!”"
That was an email I received from a friend of mine Sunday night after he saw "Battle: Los Angeles." Up until my reading that, I wasn’t sure after seeing all the negative reviews from film critics bashing the $100 million plus budgeted alien invasion movie if I should go to a before noon showing Monday, where the price of admission would be five bucks or go after noon and pay the $7.50. I choose the before noon showing but even after seeing "Battle: L.A.," I probably wouldn’t have been too upset if I had paid the additional 2.50.
The reason had to do with the following comments my friend said about the film in a brief second paragraph that gave me some hope I wouldn’t walk out demanding close to two and a half hours (when you count in the previews) of my life back.
“Marines are great heroes,” he wrote. “Americans are caring people, and aliens are not giant peace-loving Smurfs but rather a predatory species looking for natural resources...It's the kind of movie that makes you ask..."Shouldn't we have more arms for our troops?"
My friend is not a fan of "Avatar" (2009). Neither, for that matter, am I. Now that I have seen "Battle: Los Angeles," which grossed $36 million opening weekend, I can verify his comment that it is “ANTI-AVATAR to the bone.” Unlike "Avatar" which was nothing more than a liberal bashing “I hate America – America is evil – America is responsible for 9/11 – America plunders other countries, in this case planets, of precious resources - Marines are gun-toting mercenaries for hire” blockbuster, "Battle: L.A." is the kind of movie John Wayne probably would have starred in just because it shows our nation’s armed forces performing the kinds of everyday heroics they continue to display on a daily basis overseas.
At one point in the film, a Marine complements Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) for his “John Wayne” heroics in taking out one of the alien ships. Then someone asks, “Who’s John Wayne?”
Perhaps the real question should not be “Who” but “Where’s John Wayne” when it comes to the lack of positive war movies where American forces are the heroes and not the enemy. I still have not seen Wayne’s Vietnam War movie, "The Green Berets" (1968), but what I do know is “The Duke” liked to portray his characters as heroes, even if they died in battle, which he did portraying Davy Crockett in "The Alamo" (1960).
I thank God I cannot remember the less than a handful of negative Iraq war/war on terror themed movies that have been released over the past ten years. Like last year’s anti-Iraq war best picture winner, "The Hurt Locker" (2008), none of those films did any box office business. The reason was because of their negative portrait of America and our armed forces. Sure, I was happy when Kathryn Bigelow won the best director Oscar last year. When I heard her dedicate her win to the men and women serving overseas, however, I found it a little hypocritical since "The Hurt Locker" is anything but positive when it comes to the Iraq war. I just don’t believe one can say they are for the nation’s military and then bash the mission they have been sent to carry out.
That’s what makes Battle: Los Angeles such a refreshingly welcome change. No, it’s not going to receive any Oscar nominations but it’s certainly not bad enough to receive any Razzies either. With the exception of Eckhart’s Nance, most of the characters lack so much depth that when some of the military servicemen do go down in the line of fire, we don’t know them well enough to care while the jerky camera movements look as though half the film was shot using a hand held device like in "The Blair Witch Project" (1999).
The focus here, though, is not so much about the aliens plundering Mother Earth of its precious resources and wiping out civilization. It’s about our nation’s military marching in to do a job no one else has the guts to do. In "Battle: Los Angeles," the United States Marines do it without question. There is no political grandstanding. It would be no more different than if this country came under attack by foreign invaders.
I don’t know what director Jonathn Liebesman and screenwriter Christopher Bertolini’s intentions were when they made "Battle: Los Angeles" but the film offers two things: American patriotism and respect for our nation’s military, something sorely lacking in a lot of today’s liberal America bashing movies.
There is a scene from the film, "Observe & Report" (2009) where a detective, played by Ray Liotta, decides to play a joke on Seth Rogan’s bipolar mall security guard character making him think he passed the police exam when he failed. Liotta lets one of his fellow detectives hide in the closet and listen in.
After a minute, the other detective comes out and says, “I thought this would be funny, but this is just sad.” The same could be said now of actor Charlie Sheen whose recent on-air interviews on radio and television have people questioning whether he could be suffering from either drug addiction or bipolar disorder.
Hours after Sheen’s on-air interview Feb. 28 on the "Today" show, I had planned on writing a column highlighting not just the actor’s behavior but the delusions of grandeur that just happened to be reported the same day in separate interviews with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi (“They love me…all my people with me, they love me all.”) and Bernie Madoff (“I am not a horrible person.”), the former investment broker serving a 150 year prison sentence for defrauding clients billions of dollars.
The column would have found me serving as an Oscar presenter announcing Sheen, Gadhafi, and Madoff as nominees for my own “F.A. Delusional Award” (F.A. meaning “F----n a$$). Yes, I would have listed Sheen as the winner.
There are no doubt the actor’s on-air rants against his former employers, Warner Brothers and CBS, that carried his popular sitcom, "Two and a Half Men" (2003-2015), and about his private life made for some great comedic moments for late-night talk show hosts.
Even broadcast journalists and reporters couldn’t believe it. WFAA news anchor Shelly Slater couldn’t get through reporting on Sheen’s ABC interview without laughing on the Feb. 28 5 p.m. news. WFAA chief meteorologist Pete Delkus, shortly before the Sheen story aired said the actor’s crazy.
“No question he’s (Sheen) not normal,” said NBC reporter Jeff Rossen in a March 1 interview with the actor. “But he likes it that way.”
Sheen’s most colorful statement to ABC reporter Andrea Canning about his drug use made me want to use such a line should I ever go off the deep end and need an excuse to give to family, friends, and coworkers for my behavior.
"I am on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off, and your children will weep over your exploded body."
I would put that quote up there alongside the Starburst commercial where the dead zombie tells the guy on the bus, “You’re boring me to death and I’m already dead. You’re boring me back to death.”
Within hours of Sheen’s second interview March 1 with NBC reporter Jeff Rosen, however, it was revealed the actor’s two sons were removed from his home via court order in Los Angeles filed by the actor’s ex-wife Brooke Mueller.
What started out, however, for everyone including myself as humorous commentary is now downright serious and perhaps life-threatening. Sheen falls in that category of other celebrities such as Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and singer Britney Spears whose unusual past behaviors have had people questioning if they exhibit symptoms of bipolar disorder where individuals suffer from mood swings ranging from depression to manic highs or if it’s something else.
I have to say I feel sorry for Sheen, and it will be a tragedy if he doesn’t get the help he so desperately needs.
Of all the comments the actor has said, I sure hope he is sincere on this one speaking to his fans.
“Don’t be worried. Celebrate this movement. And I love and I’m so grateful that you have supported me and the show for so long. I will not let you down. Trust me.”
"Well, opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one."
Such was the comment uttered by Inspector Harry Callahan, as played by Clint Eastwood in "The Dead Pool" (1988). That is a quote, however, I have heard long before that final sequel to "Dirty Harry" (1971) came out. It’s also a comment I believe still holds true today.
I came to that conclusion long before reading all the downright hateful disparaging comments a number of faceless, nameless, pathetic losers posted at the end of many articles found on websites about Emmy-nominated KCBS-TV entertainment reporter Serene Branson’s on-air mishap at the Feb. 14 Grammys.
Watching Branson’s panicking facial gestures as she struggled to speak coherently, I did not need Hugh Laurie’s Dr. House to tell me she may have suffered a mini stroke on live television. Branson, days later, said in interviews that upon seeing her doctor, it was revealed she suffered from what is referred to as a “migraine with aura” which is associated with language problems.
“As soon as I opened my mouth, I knew something was wrong,” Branson said in an interview on KCBS. “I knew what I wanted to say but I didn’t have the words to say it. To be honest with you I started crying because I was scared. I was embarrassed. I was terrified and confused.”
Even if her symptoms had been the result of drinking, taking illegal substances, or being on medications, which I believed was not, I still didn’t find her condition to be something to joke about.
That, however, did not stop others on the Internet from taking mean spirited potshots at her.
“The same thing happened to Obama the other night, but it was heralded as a great speech,” said one post by some loser named “Tim.” Another winner named “gamesfreak699” posted the comment, “blonde moment.”
Another whose name was “Bill Clinton caused 9-11” posted “She just left the hotel room where Charlie Sheen was at. She snorted mounds and mounds of coke.”
Thankfully, for every idiot who made such posts, I noticed several others who sympathized with Branson offering their two cents saying they either knew someone or suffered from the same type of symptoms the reporter experienced and said her medical condition was nothing to laugh at.
I have to wonder reading the garbage these jerks posted if any of them bothered thinking about what they said, or in this case, typed before posting. I wonder how any of them would feel, if while working they suddenly lose the ability to communicate to co-workers, friends, or family members. I wonder how they would feel if others made fun of their sudden medical condition.
These posts remind me of a couple quotes from two movies. The first was from "Talk Radio"(1988) where self-loathing talk show host, Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian) says, "Sticks and stones can break your bones but words cause permanent damage!"
My favorite quote, however, which I find to be the most pertinent when it comes to Internet users posting online comments is from Thomas Haden Church’s Mr. Griffith from last year’s film, Easy A (2010).
“I don't know what your generation's fascination is with documenting your every thought... but I can assure you, they're not all diamonds. ‘"Roman is having an OK day and bought a Coke Zero at the gas station. Raise the roof."’ Who gives a rat's ass?”
As Mr. Griffith says, very few of any of these comments I have read are “diamonds” if any.
I have no problem with sites allowing people to comment so long as those individuals have something constructive to say as to why they liked or didn’t like the story, column, review or whatever in question. The problem is I find an overwhelming majority of what’s posted is worse than the gibberish Branson uttered. At least Branson had a valid excuse for her behavior. The ones I’d like to hear from are from those who felt the necessity to ridicule her.
I seriously doubt any of them would be able to come up with any justifiable answer except to say they felt like making jackasses of themselves.
The best advice to follow when reading such trash is to just ignore them. Half, if not all the time, I never read them anyway because they’re most always negative. Rarely is any criticism considered positive.
There is some consolation I got after reading a lot of this online excrement about Branson’s unwanted 15 minutes of viral Internet fame. Hours after it posted on the web Feb. 15, the video clip was used in a Facebook scam where upon clicking the link, users would be told to fill out an application that allows them to access profiles and post messages on the walls of Facebook accounts. Scammers would get a fee if anyone filled out the application according to the site, ConsumerAffairs.com.
I do, however, believe in something much bigger. It’s called karma.
To quote another saying, “What goes around comes around,” karma has a real funny way of eventually biting someone on the ass.
So to all those individuals who mocked Branson’s on-air mishap, you people are going to get yours one day.
If not in this life, you’ll most certainly get it in the next.
