MY AMAZING SPIDER-MAN REVIEW

By Barry Dutter

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is the first chapter in the new film trilogy from Marvel. It could be subtitled, THE MYSTERY OF PETER PARKER’S PARENTS. This is the first time an attempt has been made to tell one semi-continuous story over three movies with the same Marvel character, in the tradition of DC‘s latest BATMAN franchise.

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is the best of all the Spidey movies that have been released to date. It loses a lot of the campy/jokey elements that marred the Sam Raimi movies. Raimi’s first Spidey movie made Peter Parker out to be the biggest nerd/loser of all time, getting mocked on by every kid in the school, including what looked like a twelve-year-old girl on the bus.

Raimi’s movies mostly played it straight, but his “comedy” scenes were so over the top and campy, they brought the whole series down. (I will never forgive Raimi for having Peter use his Spidey powers to deliver a pizza in Spider-Man 2.)

Biggest problem with the Raimi movies was that Peter was too much of a  crybaby. In the new movie, Andrew Garfield turns on the waterworks, too, but not nearly as much as Tobey Maguire did.

I love the fact that this movie eliminates the organic web shooters and goes with the mechanical ones instead. It just makes Peter Parker seem smarter if he invents his own gadgets. By losing that element, Peter just seemed a little less smart in the Raimi movies.

Overall, Garfield does a decent job as Spidey. He does a convincing American accent, though he does come across as the world’s oldest high school student.

The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is a better movie than the AVENGERS by virtue of the fact that it only has one super-hero and one super-villain in it, thus it‘s more linear, not as complicated. Having said that, the story for ASM is not perfect. There are some flaws, and they are big ones.

For starters, there is the (yet again) deviation from the comic book origin. Sigh. My favorite part of the original Spidey origin in the comics is the way that Peter Parker tried to use his powers to become rich and famous on TV -- the same thing that you or I or any real person might do. For some reason, all the movies have left out this crucial part of his origin, and I’ve never understood why. Oh well. Maybe the next reboot will have it…

As far as the actual story that is in the movie: this seems more like the origin of ULTIMATE SPIDEY than the one in the Marvel Universe, but whatever. We’ve kind of gotten used to the Marvel movies picking and choosing elements of both universes.

As the movie begins, Peter Parker has apparently never spoken to Gwen Stacy, even though he sits behind her in class and they are apparently the two smartest kids in the school. Kind of weird that they would have never spoken before, huh? But ok, I get it, it’s  a movie, it’s fun to watch characters meet for the first time.

I know a lot of people are saying that the romance with Gwen and Peter is the best part of the movie, but I feel the filmmakers dropped the ball here in a number of ways.

For starters, Peter and Gwen don’t even get to have their first date together until after Peter’s Uncle Ben dies. Peter never even asks out Gwen on a first date, leaving Gwen to become the aggressor. The actual first date is an a awkward dinner where Peter gets in an argument with Gwen’s police captain dad. Later on that same date, Peter reveals his secret ID to Gwen and makes out with her for the first time. That’s an awful lot to cram into one date. It all felt kind of rushed to me.

The filmmakers seem to have had a hard time deciding what the most important element of the movie would be: the mystery of Peter’s parents or the romance with Gwen. (The trailer for the movie teases several scenes offering clues to the Peter’s parents mystery -- including a line about Peter‘s powers not being an accident -- but none of those scenes is in the finished film.)

I usually don’t like Dennis Leary in anything, but he acquits himself nicely here. I remember Captain  Stacey as being more kind and fatherly, not the sarcastic smart-ass we see here, but whatever. Leary fits the character as written.

Emma Stone is not pretty enough to play Gwen Stacy, but then, I’ve always said that Kirsten Dunst was not pretty enough to play MJ, too. Problem is that artist John Romita Sr. drew both girls looking so sexy and glamorous, it’s hard for regular girls like Kirsten and Emma to measure up. Despite not physically fitting the part, Stone is okay in the role.

A few story points I have to comment on:

There are too many scenes where Peter should be apologizing to Aunt May and Uncle Ben for his increasingly outrageous behavior but instead he says nothing. I guess this is what it means to be "emo": wear a hoodie all the time and never actually speak, apologize, or offer explanations for why you are getting the crap beaten out of you every night. I call it lazy screenwriting.

Some viewers griped that J. Jonah Jameson is not in the film. You don’t really miss him. Capt. Stacy fills the role of Spidey’s main human antagonist nicely.  They can always have JJJ in the next movie. I appreciate that the makers of this movie tried as hard as they could to differentiate this movie from the previous three by focusing on different characters and situations. The Spidey mythos is so rich and well-layered there are many different elements to focus on. (This movie doesn’t even mention Mary Jane, or the fact that she lived next door to Peter and always secretly knew his secret Identity from day one, which is a piece of ret-con from the comics that has always bugged me.)

The Special Effects are better this time than in the Raimi films. The web-slinging scenes no longer look like they are part of a video game.

The part with the cranes was very corny and didn’t work for me at all. It seemed like something out of Raimi‘s run.

Captain Stacy commands a police force of several hundred men, but when he finds out his daughter is in danger at the top of the Oscorp building, he decides to go there alone. I know this allows him to have some private moments with Peter, which helps the story, but it doesn’t work at all from a logic standpoint.

The Lizard is a decent villain. Gotta feel bad for the actor (Dylan Baker) who played Curt Connors in all 3 Raimi movies but never got to transform into his scaly alter ago! That guy has got to be kicking himself now!)

In the screening when I watched THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, the projector stopped at one point, and the audience sat waiting for about 10 minutes for the movie to start up again. A smart-ass in the crowd had the biggest laugh of the night when he shouted out, “I’d give my right arm for this movie to start up again!” That’s an inside joke for all you Lizard fans out there…

Gwen Stacy seems to have made all her fashion choices in the 1960s and gotten stuck there. With her "mod" headband and "groovy" thigh-high boots, she's like a girl out of time! But no one else seems to notice.

At first sight, Sally Field seems too young to play Aunt May. This is the first attempt to play Aunt May as a younger woman and overall it works.

This movie features the deaths of 2 major characters that are close to Peter Parker. I think that might be one too many. Might have worked better to save one of the deaths for the next movie. It’s like they tried to cram 80 issues of continuity into one movie.

In the 1960s comics, Peter’s parents were secret agents. Here, Peter’s dad is a scientist, which is a bit they took from the Ultimate universe. As always, it bugs me any time I see a deviation from the OMU (Original Marvel Universe), but I guess I can allow it this time if it creates a nifty new reason for Peter to have gotten his powers that ties in with his dad’s experiments.

The mystery villain who pops up in the end credits sequence and then disappears in a flash of lightning? Rumor has it that it's Electro! 

Peter never did catch that burglar who killed his Uncle Ben. Guess they gotta save something for the sequel, but it sure felt like one hell of a loose end from this movie.

I’m curious to see the final fate of Peter’s Parents and which actor they will get to play Norman Osborn. I’m guessing we will see a revitalized Green Goblin in the third chapter of the trilogy. I’m hoping this time they get his costume right! (No crappy Goblin armor!)

Spidey's silver booties are the worst thing in the movie, but thankfully, you barely see them.
 
Finally, best Stan Lee cameo yet!

30 COMMENTS/QUESTIONS about THE AVENGERS MOVIE        

By Barry Dutter

I don't see the point in reviewing a movie like the AVENGERS. It's not really a movie, it's more of a media event/ rollercoaster ride/ vessel for selling toys.

A movie like THE AVENGERS doesn't need a plot or character arcs or any of that fancy stuff. It just needs some cool fight scenes, a few token nods to the fanboys, and some quotable lines. In that respect, the film delivers on all counts.

Of course, as a longtime comic book fan (and a guy who read THE AVENGERS comics for over 30 years), I do have some opinions...


1) When Marvel publishes a 22-page comic that is just a plotless fight scene, it costs the company a few thousand dollars to produce. It costs you three or four dollars to purchase and you can read it in ten minutes. When a movie studio produces a big budget super-hero movie that is just a plotless fight scene, it costs the company $250 million to produce, takes two and a half hours to watch, and costs you up to $20 if you see it in 3-D. I guess this is my way of saying I’m a  lot more forgiving of a  plotless comic than a plotless movie.

2) In the original AVENGERS #1, Loki tricked the other heroes into fighting the Hulk. Imagine how much better the Avengers movie would have been if Loki had pitted a mind-controlled Hulk against all the other heroes.

3) At one point in the movie, Loki allows himself to be captured so that he can have access to the Hulk. But then he never follows up on this.

4) Hawkeye needs a mask. And Cap's new headgear looks stupid. They should have kept the mask from his first movie. 

5) The invading aliens face the power of a Norse God, the awesome armor of Iron Man, the limitless strength of the Hulk -- and a red-headed girl with two handguns! Look out!

6) The aliens in the movie were completely ineffectual. Might have been nice to see the aliens actually do something, anything successfully, like maybe capture one of the heroes or defeat one of them in battle. They were basically video game fodder.

7) Joss Whedon’s BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER lived in a town where there existed the Hellmouth -- a portal through which evil creatures could escape to Earth. The AVENGERS MOVIE has something similar. So basically, this is a big-budget episode of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER.

8) The Hulk in the THE AVENGERS MOVIE looks too much like Mark Ruffalo. I liked the way ol’ Greenskin looked in his 2008 movie better.

9) Tony Stark is much more likable in the comics than he is in the movies. Basically Robert Downey is playing an exaggerated version of Hollywood movie star Robert Downey Jr.

10) Steve Rogers wakes up after being frozen for 70 years, and he basically hangs out in the gym at SHIELD HQ and never gets to see the outside world, except when fighting aliens. Really? I thought this movie would have shown Steve venturing out into the world for the first time in 70 years and seeing how it all has changed. This movie completely misses the fact that everyone Steve has ever known in his life is dead and that the world as he knows it no longer exists. I guess they’re saving that for CAP 2.

11) Yay, Cap gets to lead the Avengers! Even Iron Man bows to Cap’s superior leadership ability.

12) Hulk sucker-punches Thor -- best moment in the movie? Yeah, I think so.

13) Hulk throttles Loki -- second best moment. (But Loki getting the crap kicked out of him by the Hulk makes Loki out to be pretty weak for a God.  Asgardians are supposed to be much stronger than humans and Loki‘s magic should have enabled him to put up a much better fight against the Hulk. The least original thing a writer can do is to have your villain get beaten by a hero who punches him really hard. It’s the #1 comic book cop-out ending.)

14) Hulk tries -- and fails to lift Thor’s hammer. Perfect!

15) At one point, Thor tries to summon his hammer to his hand and fails. Huh? What gives? What was the point of this scene? It is never referred to again and his hammer is working just fine later.

16) I never had much use for Agent Coulson, but he is used better here than he was in previous movies.

17) I didn’t like any of the scenes where Nick Fury answers to the council. They were willing to nuke New York? Really? They never even thought to fire the nuke at the portal? Why is it that the government never trusts the good guys to do the job they were asked to do? This reminded me of the 2 Ghostbusters movies where the govt. doesn’t believe in the heroes and tries to shut them down -- despite the fact that the Ghostbusters are clearly the only ones equipped to deal with the ghost problem plaguing the city.

18) Least favorite line in the movie: Fury says to Loki, “You have made me very desperate.” What he should have said: “I just put together a team of the most powerful heroes on Earth. Loki, you don’t stand a chance.”

19) I stayed through the end credits and saw the first extra scene, then I left. Who knew there was another extra scene at the end? Not me!

20) Bruce Banner is “angry all the time.” Sorry, not buying it. The whole point of the Banner character is that he can‘t allow himself to ever get angry because he has no control over his transformations. In this movie, he seems to change to Hulk at will. That contradicts the comics.

21) Favorite line in the movie: When Cap says, “Hulk… smash!”

22) Coolest scene: when Thor’s hammer strikes Cap’s shield.

23) What, Natalie Portman was too busy to do a cameo?

24) Fury’s explanation to the council at the end that the point of forming the Avengers was to send a message to the galaxy that Earth now has powerful protectors. I thought the purpose was to save the Earth from an alien invasion. There had to be a deeper meaning than that?

25) I guess we won’t be seeing Spider-Man or Wolverine joining the Avengers any time soon! (They are licensed to different movie studios.)

26) New members I would like to see in AVENGERS 2: Giant-Man, Wonder Man, the Wasp, Vision, Scarlet Witch, Ms. Marvel

27) The ending of the first THOR movie makes it pretty clear that it will be almost impossible for Thor to ever return to Earth. But he shows up in Avengers with a weak explanation as to how he got back, and it is kind of glossed over. Since Marvel knew all along that all their movies were going to be connected, they could have dealt with this better.

28) The Tessaract? Couldn’t they have referred to it as the Cosmic Cube just once?

29) I wonder if Ed Norton has any regrets about not being the Hulk any more…

30) They should have had the SKRULLS in this movie instead of the SHITAURI…

TALENTED SINGERS THAT DID REALLY CRAPPY MOVIE THEMES

By Barry Dutter

1) 38 SPECIAL: Theme from the movie TEACHERS (1984):  38 Special were responsible for some of the best Southern rock songs of the early 80s, including “Hold on Loosely” and “Caught Up in You.” But they seem to have run out of ideas when it came time to write the theme for the Nick Nolte comedy TEACHERS. The uninspired chorus tells you all you need to know: “Teacher, teacher, can you teach me? Can you tell me what I need to know? Teacher, teacher, can you reach me? Or will I fall when you let me go? Oh no.” Oh no is right. They should have been expelled for that one.


2) QUARTERFLASH: Theme from NIGHT SHIFT (1982). Quarterflash had two of the best songs of the 80s: “Harden My Heart” and “Take Me to Heart.” They had a third semi-hit with the Pat Benatar-esque “Find Another Fool.” But they really bombed when it came time to perform the theme for the movie NIGHT SHIFT, starring Henry Winkler and Michael Keaton. The song was actually co-written by Burt Bacharach, long past his 60s heyday. At that point in his career, Burt would usually bring in co-writer Carole Bayer Sager to sing the song, but in this case, the tune was handed off to a younger, hipper group. Quarterflash was never heard from again.

3) STARSHIP: “Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now,” -Theme from MANNEQUIN: The first thing you might ask is, “Was Starship ever a great band?” Sure. Before they sold out and got all soft and wimpy, they had a couple of the best pop/rock hits of the 80s: “Jane” and “Find Your Way Back.” The MANNEQUIN theme makes the list, not because it was that much different from any other mediocre 80s songs, but because with its generic lyrics, it could be the theme of any movie ever made.

4) KENNY LOGGINS: “Meet Me Halfway,” Theme from OVER THE TOP.  I have to defend Mr., Loggins, who was responsible for some great movie themes, like “I’m Alright” from CADDYSHACK and the theme from FOOTLOOSE. But this one was a clear case of making too many trips to the well. Check out this chorus: “Meet me halfway. Across the sky. Up where the world belongs to only you and I.” Ugh. Mr. Loggins had built up plenty of good will over the years, so we could forgive him for other lesser movie theme lyrics like TOP GUN’s “Highway to the Danger Zone, gonna take me right into the Danger Zone.” But there was no forgiving this one.

5) PHILLIP BAILEY: Theme from TWINS. Bailey did great work with Earth Wind & Fire in the 70s, and had one of the best pop songs of the 80s in his duet with Phil Collins, “Easy Lover.“ But he didn’t fare as well when he joined forces with LITTLE RICHARD to sing this non-hit, which takes the title of the movie and tries to build a song around it. The movie, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito, had a few laughs, but this song was a lost cause. Check out this groaner of a chorus: “We’re twins, united outside and in. When you‘re twins, the magic just never ends.” And when you’re singing a bad song, the magic just never begins.

6) PRINCE: “Batdance” - Theme from BATMAN (1989) To say the song does not hold up today is being kind. People had so much good will for that first Tim Burton Batman movie that they were buying anything Batman related -- including so many copies of this song that they drove it to the number one spot on the pop charts!  “Batdance” came just a few years after Prince created his masterpiece, Purple Rain, and it’s hard to believe both albums were done by the same artist. This was not long after other seminal Prince works like “Pop Life” and “Raspberry Beret.” Reportedly Prince had several songs rejected for the Batman soundtrack, which is mind-blowing because  the songs are all pretty unlistenable. It's hard to imagine the poor quality of the stuff they threw away! A once-creative artist at his nadir.

7) CYNDI LAUPER: “The Goonies R Good Enough” - Theme from GOONIES.” This song gets a dishonorable mention because the word “Goonies’ is never actually sung  in the song. It was just shoehorned into the title in a lame attempt to tie the song to the movie. The song itself is OK. Not one of Lauper’s best, but she certainly had worse. (Actually her worst song was the theme from the movie VIBES (1988), which had one of the dumbest song lyrics of all time: “There’s a hole in my heart that goes all the way to China.” Ugh.)

8) BOBBY BROWN: “On Our Own” - Theme from GHOSTBUSTERS 2. The chorus to this song is respectable, and does an adequate job of summing up the theme to the movie -- that this time, the Ghostbusters have to do it on their own. (Um, wasn‘t that the basic idea of the first movie, too?) But the rap that appears twice in the song is awful, among the worst ever written. It’s definitely a case of an artist trying way too hard to fit the plot of a movie into a song. The part that sucks the most is when Brown raps, “Found about Vigo, the master of evil. Try to battle my boys? That's not legal.” Writing bad raps? That should be illegal too. (Then we would have been spared such travesties as MC Hammer's "Addams Groove" from ADDAMS FAMILY VALUES and Vanilla Ice's "Ninja Rap" from TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES!)

9) A HA; Theme from the James Bond film, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. AH HA was a band that had one of the best “new wave” songs of the 80s (and perhaps the single best video), “Take On Me.” The problem comes when a one-hit wonder tries to write a second hit. For their first movie theme, the band was given an impossible title to work with: THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Rather than trying to come up with anything to rhyme with that title, the chorus simply consists of the band chanting, “Ahhh ahhh ah ah -- the Living Daylights.” It was one of the worst Bond themes ever.

10) AEROSMITH: “I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing,” from ARMAGEDDON: Hands down the sappiest song ever performed by Aerosmith., They didn’t write it, it was penned by songwriting hack Diane Warren. But it became their biggest hit ever, which is kind of sad, considering these guys were responsible for great tunes  like “Sweet Emotion” and “Walk This Way” back in the 70s. This sorry song is about a guy who is so in love with his woman that he doesn't even want to sleep, or even blink, for fear that he might miss something amazing that she does. Trust me me, Steven Tyler, no one is that interesting. Go ahead, close your eyes.

11) BRYAN ADAMS: “All For Love” - Theme from THE THREE MUSKETEERS. It must have sounded like a great idea on paper. Bryan Adams was coming off one of the biggest hits of his career -- “Everything I Do (I Do it For You)” from the movie ROBIN HOOD. Why not have him write another theme song for another period adventure -- only this time, (wait for it) he could team up with two other singers, and they could be just like the Three Musketeers! Great idea, but it was a lame song even by Bryan Adams sappy ballad standards. It was understandable that Rod Stewart agreed to be one of the other singers joining Adams on this Three-Man Duet -- Stewart’s career had been on a steady decline since his 1970s heyday. But why the hell did Sting agree to be the third wheel? Surely he had better things to do than to help sing a hacky Bryan Adams ballad. It was because of the inclusion of Sting , an artist who was still vital and creative at this time, that this turkey makes the list. And lyrics like, "When it's love you give (I'll be a man of good faith.) Then in love you live" didn't help much, either.

13) (TIE) ARETHA FRANKLIN singing “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” for the Whoopi Goldberg movie of the same name? Did we really need that?  Finally, I have to take a jab at BOB SEGER for “Breakdown,“ the uninspired theme from BEVERLY HILLS COP II. Who could forget those unforgettable lyrics? “Breakdown, shakedown, take down. You’re busted!” That’s a far cry from the evocative lyrics of  early Seger hits like “Hollywood Nights” and  “Night Moves.”

MY REVIEW OF BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN'S WRECKING BALL

By Barry Dutter

The arrival of a new Bruce Springsteen album is always something of an event for longtime fans, even if the Boss’ song-writing prowess is nowhere near what it once was.

“Wrecking Ball” is Bruce’s third album in the past five years. Sadly, it is just as uninspired as the last two. None of the three albums come close to approaching the greatness of his early work. In his last three albums, there has only been one song that stacks up with his stronger work from the past: “Radio Nowhere” from 2007’s  “Magic,” and even that song was accused of stealing the riff from a Tommy Tutone song called “867-5309 (Jenny).”
Having one decent song in three albums is a far cry from the Bruce of old, who could always be counted on half a dozen great songs or more on his albums in the 70s and 80s.
“Wrecking Ball,” has songs that were seemingly written by a guy trying to write like Bruce and sung by a guy trying to sound like Bruce. But ultimately he comes off as a lightweight version of his former self. There are no instant classics to be found here.
Bruce seems to have fallen victim to the same ailment that attacks all rockers as they get older: the songs they write in their 40s and 50s juts aren’t as good as the ones they wrote in their 20s  and 30s. There is something to be said for rock being a  young man’s game.
I commend Bruce for trying, but even he must be aware that his music doesn’t have the same impact that it once did.
My biggest complaint about Bruce’s songwriting these days is his tendency to write a  chorus that is just one word or phrase repeated over and over, as if he can’t even be bothered to come up with other words that rhyme with the tile of the song.
There are Bruce purists out there who insist that he only did three great albums, and those were back in the early 1970s. I actually came late to the Bruce party. Yes, I was one of those late-comers who jumped on the “Born in the USA” bandwagon.
There was a time in 1985 when Bruce was unquestionably the biggest rock star in the world, and it was pretty cool to see it happen. His  “Born in the USA” album spawned a  remarkable seven hit singles, and the only reason it didn’t have more was because Bruce decided not to release any more.
“Born in the USA” had been designed as a very accessible “arena rock” album, with big, bold, power-pop anthems. If Bruce had wanted to, he could have done two or three more albums that sounded just like it, and extended his reign as the King of Rock.
Instead, he went in a completely different direction. He fired his band, and released his first solo album, 1987's TUNNEL OF LOVE. The songs were softer and quieter, the exact opposite of those on “Born in the USA.” The album was a dark, introspective look at the collapse of a marriage. It came as a surprise to no one that Bruce got divorced shortly after its release.
After that came a four-year gap, followed by two more “soft-rock” albums that some disdainfully refer to as Bruce’s “Phil Collins period.”
It would be 15 years after “Born in the USA” that Bruce would finally reunite the E Street Band and release another straight-out rock album. That album, “The Rising,” was Bruce’s response to the Sept. 11th attacks.
The songs were meant as a salve to wounded Americans; intendedt to uplift our spirits and illuminate the mood of the nation.
Despite all the positive reviews from critics and the noble sentiment that went into its creation, The Rising never really caught on in a big way. There aren’t really any songs on there that Bruce fans would list as their favorites.
That pretty much sums up his career ever since.
There have been a handful of albums and singles, but nothing truly memorable. It’s admirable that he keeps trying, but I would say that Bruce currently occupies the same zone as artists like the Eagles, the Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, and The Who: any time they attempt to make new music, it is never as good as the stuff they did in the early days.
It is significant to note that when Bruce played the halftime show of the Super Bowl in 2010, the songs that really resonated with the crowd were his hits from the 70s and 80s. He crammed one mediocre new song in there, “Working on a Dream,” but it felt like filler, taking up space until he got to “Born to Run.”
When Bruce releases a new album these days, it feels like he really is working on a dream -- the dream of still being relevant.
Those days are long gone. Bruce once wrote about a guy who was a great baseball player whose “glory days” were behind him. These days, he could sing a similar song about a  guy who used to be a great rock and roller, back in the 70s and 80s.
So what is the solution? Should Bruce just stop trying to write new material (as other 70s rockers like Billy Joel and Rod Stewart did a few years back)? Well, there are very few rock stars who produced any quality work late in their careers.
I can count on one hand the number of rockers who had second acts that equaled or surpassed the first. Paul Simon had “Graceland.” Steve Winwood had “Back in the High Life.” After that, the pickings get pretty slim.
But Bruce doesn‘t really need to make new music. He knows he can continue to entertain fans at live shows for years to come with the classic songs he wrote in his youth. If audiences have to put up with the occasional new tune mixed in with the classics, well, even Bruce’s new stuff is at least listenable. 

“Wrecking Ball” does not hit with the force that you hope it would. If anything, it makes you want to put on an earlier Bruce album. So I guess it does serve a  purpose, even if I’m sure it’s not the one that Bruce had intended it to.

GET LOST, JOHN CARTER! AND TAKE TINTIN WITH YOU!

By Barry Dutter

The past few months saw the release of two movies that I knew were going to flop in America before they ever came out: TINTIN and JOHN CARTER. Why? Because no one in this country cares about either of those two characters and never will.
Tintin is one of those characters that you used to occasionally come across as a kid and no matter how many times you tried to read his strip, you never understood what was supposed to be entertaining about it.
And John Carter was, let’s face it, never seen as anything more than the poor man’s Tarzan. These characters may have enjoyed great success decades ago, but as far as most Americans are concerned, their time has passed.
John Carter was created exactly 100 years ago. Although he has appeared in books and comics over the years, interest in the character seemed to fade out by the 1970s. Over the past 40 years, Carter has been largely forgotten by the general public.
Many actors and directors tried to get a JC movie off the ground in the past few decades, but none succeeded until now. The new film failed to drum up much interest in the weeks and months before its release, and looks like it will go down as the biggest-budgeted flop in Disney history.
Which brings us to my point: John Carter was a hero from the pulp era. He had his greatest success in the 1920s and 1930s.
Is it logical to think that a character who peaked 80 years ago would still appeal to audiences today?
There seems to be a general feeling in Hollywood that all heroes are timeless, that every character can be brought back and redefined for a new generation.
Look at Sherlock Holmes, for example -- according to Guinness, the “most portrayed movie character” of all time.  Holmes was created in 1887, about 125 years ago. He has appeared in books and films (starting in 1900!) ever since.
The two most recent Sherlock Holmes films starring Robert Downey Jr. were the most successful Holmes entries in cinema history. A new Sherlock Holmes TV series airs on the BBC and has just been renewed for a third season, and the books continue unabated. 
Clearly the public appetite all things Sherlock is insatiable. It seems the character will be around for centuries to come.
So why has the great detective prevailed while John Carter seems destined to head back to oblivion?
For starters, Sherlock has been around almost continually since his creation, only lying dormant for brief periods of time. John Carter has faded out of the public eye for decades at a  time -- clearly far too long for a  fictional character to be off the scene.
Secondly, most people regard JC as being second fiddle to Tarzan, that other character created by the late Edgar Rice Burroughs. In the eyes of the American public, Tarzan is an iconic hero who deserves to be immortalized, brought back every now and then for new adventures. And John Carter is just “that guy in a loin cloth who’s not Tarzan.”
The second most popular movie character of all time is Dracula. The Lord of the Undead was created in 1897, ten years after Holmes, and has enchanted audiences for generations. Dracula seems to be another character that, while you can drive a stake through his heart, you can never really kill him.
John Carter was a pulp hero, and very few pulp heroes live on today in any kind of meaningful way. Over the past few decades, Hollywood has shown an obsessive need to revive seemingly every hero who has ever existed, and, when it comes to the pulp heroes, met with dismal results. Comic strip and radio heroes who peaked in the 1930s have fared equally poorly.
The Shadow, The Phantom, Dick Tracy, the Green Hornet, and the Spirit are all characters who have underperformed at the box office in recent years.
It seems that filmgoers just don’t care about these dusty old heroes that were big during the Depression. No matter how many times Hollywood attempts to bring back Doc Savage, the effort is met with a  collective yawn from film-goers.
The one exception to the pulp heroes rule is Conan the Barbarian. Since his revival in the late 60s/early 70s, Conan has been a staple of comics, film and TV.  (Red Sonja has enjoyed similar success, but she was hardly a popular pulp hero, appearing only as a supporting character in one short story.)
Conan-creator Robert E. Howard also sired Conan’s cousin in combat, Kull the Destroyer. But Kull has always been seen by most as a copy of Conan, and has never enjoyed the Cimmerian’s success.
It seems John Carter is destined to suffer the same fate of Kull -- to be regarded as a bastard stepchild, the “other” creation from an eccentric genius. Carter and Kull just seem to lack the essence of an iconic character, that certain element that gets people excited about them and want to see more of them.
Look at Peter Pan, or any of the classic fairy tale characters like Snow White, Cinderella, or Red Riding Hood. These are characters whose adventures are constantly being reinterpreted for new audiences to enjoy.
As for some more modern examples: James Bond turns 60 in 2013, and film-goers never seem to tire of his exploits.
Superman is nearing his 75th year of continuous publication, and his siblings Batman and Wonder Woman are not far behind. Captain Marvel was once more popular than  Superman, but the “Big Red Cheese,” aka “Shazam,” has never recovered from the lawsuit that temporarily ended his comic book run in 1953.
Golden Age Marvel heroes like Captain America and the Sub-Mariner have been around for over 70 years, though Marvel has struggled since the 1970s to keep Namor “afloat.” Even the Silver Age Marvel heroes like the Amazing Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four are now entering their sixth decade of publication, showing that the public never seems to tire of true originals.
Robin Hood seems a Hollywood perennial, as does King Arthur. These are epic heroes who have been around for centuries. The Three Musketeers attempt a cinematic comeback every decade or two, but they never seem to resonate with audiences the way Robin Hood and King Arthur do.
And then there are the Greek, Roman and Norse Gods, the likes of whom are seen in movies like Hercules, Clash of the Titans, The Immortals, and Percy Jackson.
These are characters that have been around for untold eons, and audiences are still intrigued by them.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that there are some characters that are beloved and timeless and some that are not.
No matter how many times Hollywood brings back certain characters, it seems that modern audiences will never warm up to Kull, or the Shadow, or John Carter.
There was a time and place for all of these characters. They all had a chance to shine.
The truly great characters live beyond their one moment of greatness. The also-rans, the inferior characters, never quite live up to their potential.
Not all characters are meant to stay in the public eye forever. Sometimes it’s ok to let go. We already have Conan and Tarzan., We don’t need Kull and John Carter too.
Maybe it’s time for Hollywood to stop trying so hard to resurrect the past. Not every hero is meant to be brought back ad infinitum. Let the pulp heroes stay in the pulps. They had their era and it’s over.
We’ll keep Tarzan and Conan, and forget the rest. Likewise, the golden era of Sunday newspaper strips and radio shows is long gone, too. (Sorry, Yellow Kid, but it‘s true!)
Currently there is yet another Lone Ranger film in the works, but this is another character that has struggled to find an audience since the 1950s.
Zorro had a hit movie in the 1990s, with another in the works. For some reason, modern audiences have accepted Zorro while rejecting the Lone Ranger. I don't know why. Maybe whips are cooler than silver bullets?
But Zorro is definitely the exception to the rule.
Come on, Hollywood. It’s not 1930 any more. People don’t listen to serialized radio shows any more. They don’t read the Sunday Funnies like they used to. Pulp magazines are long gone. It’s not realistic for Hollywood to expect all movie-lovers to be entertained by the same heroes that our great grandparents enjoyed.
I mean, you don’t see people lining up to see Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers any more. Those space jockies have been replaced by more modern heroes found in the STAR WARS and STAR TREK series.
It is worth noting that Harry Potter, the most successful cinematic character of all time, was created in 1997. Clearly audiences are hungry for new heroes.
Every new generation creates its own mythologies. There is no need to be so dependent on ideas that worked generations ago. 
Not every hero is meant to last forever. John Carter is proof of that. I would be surprised if he ever showed up in a movie again.
But as for his brother Tarzan? I can  just picture cinema-goers lining up now to check out this iconic character in his next cinematic adventure, watching him swing through the trees and give that famous yell… proving my point, that great heroes live forever, and second-rate ones exist as  barely-remembered answers to trivia questions.
One can argue that the recent Tintin movie was such a huge hit overseas that it didn’t even need to be released in this country. And that would have been fine with us.
Americans are a stubborn lot, especially when it comes to who we worship as heroes. We have demonstrated time and again that we don’t care how things are done in Europe. We rejected the metric system, we refuse to accept David Hasselhoff as a pop singer, and we know that soccer doesn't count as a real sport.
We don’t care if Tintin is hugely popular in Europe. We don’t care that his adventures ran for nearly 50 years overseas. No one in this country will ever care about him.
Because we’re Americans, dammit. And we choose our heroes very carefully!