Batman vs. Superman: 5 Characters Justin Bieber Should Definitely Play

The internet was rocked recently when new evidence emerged that Justin Bieber would potentially appear in 'Man of Steel' sequel 'Batman vs. Superman'. After months and months of worrying press releases that made the film look like it was going to be an inept nugget of bat-dropping things are finally looking up for this production.
Batman vs Superman is a project whose pre-production process has been one littered with negative feedback and poor fan-reactions. From the casting of trained, seasoned actor Ben Afflek as Batman to the fact that it had to follow that piece of cinematic drivel Man of Steel we ask the question today how best can Warner Brothers Studios harness the eclectic talent of the famed Canadian artist?

Here are but five suggestions of cherished comic characters that Bieber will no doubt elevate to a whole new realm of perfection.

5. Jimmy Olsen

When you think of Justin Bieber what are the first two words that come to mind? No, not 'lyrical genius' we're talking about the words 'lovable scamp' and therefore instantly any Superman fan worth his(/er) salt will know that the perfect casting for the Canadian singer/ songwriter is the hapless ally of Superman, Jimmy Olsen.

Olsen is a photographer for the Daily Planet, a young man who even had his own comic run for many years under the title of ‘Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen’ in which Olsen would often put on one of many ingenious disguises in order to solve chin-scratching mysteries. We feel that Bieber would update this part into a modern day Hardy-Boy and would even justify an entire sub plot of his own in the film!

4. Robin (Jason Todd)

The second Robin was also the shortest lived. In fact he died in the panels of Batman comics. We think that if Bieber were to be shown dying on screen then the misery levels of the audience would be cranked up to eleven. Bieber is the one actor who could make this deep and fascinating character’s death even more awful!

3. Robin (Carrie Kelley)

Carrie Kelly may be the second Robin on this list but that’s not because we see Bieber as an irritating sidekick, no it’s because Bieber’s sticky-uppy blond hair matches the hair of the young woman who appeared in ‘The Dark Knight Returns’. What’s more, ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ is the book rumoured to be the source material for the ‘Batman vs. Superman’ film, it’s like they planned this!

2. Police Chief O’Hara

Who isn’t aware of the masterfully made Batman television show of the 1960s? Starring Adam West and Burt Ward as Batman and Robin - this series also gave a starring role to another timeless Batman character, Police Chief O’Hara. O’Hara was the sidekick to police Chief Commissioner Gordon and offered many a hilarious anecdote to keep the show lively and fun. We think that the potential casting of Bieber reflects the same amount of care and devotion to the Batman name that was shown in the production of the 1960s Batman series and so believe that Bieber could fill the shoes of the Police Chief nicely!

1. Reporter 1

Not one of the better known characters from Superman mythology but Reporter 1 is an important part in Superman (1978), the original Superman feature film. Played by Gavin and Stacey’s Larry Lamb the nuanced character in fact had no lines but we believe that just for Justin the writers will beef out this part. Adding in a few lines here and a bit of a back story there, whatever the part however we know that our Justin Bieber will bring his A-game and the cinematic world of the DC universe will never be the same again!

Doctor Who has Become too Much Like Twilight… Really?

How many people in the past year and a half have been subjected to those numerous complaints about Moffat’s take on Doctor Who? I for one am surrounded by people telling me ‘the scripts are just not as good’, that ‘Smith doesn’t live up to his predecessor’ and that ‘the characters are just not that likable.’ I for one see each of these arguments as nothing more than opinion and you can’t argue with peoples’ opinions… I’ve tried. The result is a black eye. But one level-headed argument I’ve heard increasingly often of late is the infuriating claim that Doctor Who is too much like Twilight.

Twilight itself has become short-hand for ‘bad writing’ in a pop-cultural context, at least among those of us who don’t throw on a black cloak and stalk Robert Pattison in a pair of fake pointy teeth but I’m not writing to take a cheap swipe at obsessive fanatics, I after all am writing an online article on my favourite television series so I’ll press on and take you through the logic behind the ‘Twilight Argument’.

Twilight, for those of you not in the know tells the tale of Isabella Swann, an outsider who falls in highly reciprocated love with teen-hottie vampire, Edward Cullen. She later discovers that her teen-hottie BFF Jacob also harbors deep-seated feelings for her. Finally, after much angst Bella chooses to marry Edward whilst their offspring ends up with Jacob (I haven’t seen or read the final instalment of the Twilight saga but I’m informed that this is just as sinister as it sounds)…

Now, take a look at the Pond-saga through Twilight-tinted spectacles… Amy, a young woman living in England meets an exciting older man towards whom she has certain ‘special’ feelings and finds she must choose between a life with him or a life with her boyfriend. Both men possess superhuman powers (at least if you count Rory’s uncanny knack for returning to life after being erased from existence). After choosing to marry Rory, their offspring ends up with the unchosen third wheel the Doctor.

So, with an open mind I guess anyone would recognise a few similarities in a couple of superficial plot points but I never really looked at it like that before because I always interpreted the meanings and themes of the two stories in entirely different ways. With the character of Amy, in The Eleventh Hour we meet a girl whose life has essentially been ruined by the Doctor. He fell into her life when she was lonely and parentless which lead to him filling, in her mind the part of a replacement father-figure or cool older brother who had come to protect and provide her with some much needed familial love. Over the years her love for him became obsessive and twisted in her mind meaning she could never get over the idea that he would one day come back for her meaning that she could never really grow up and live a life with Rory when she always believed in her heart that her father/ cool older brother would come back and take her off with him to see the stars.

Already, we can see a difference between the nature of the love triangles in Doctor Who and Twilight. Bella is in obsessive love with Edward Cullen, Amy isn’t in love with the Doctor. She idolises him, yes but that isn’t the same thing. When the Doctor comes back for her, her emotions are confused further. She loves Rory but she has built the Doctor up in her mind as the ideal man (women, it is said often marry men similar in character to their own fathers) so she feels like she has been making do with Rory and attempts to live her childhood dream by travelling in the stars with her ideal man towards whom she has such strong emotions.

 She later makes advances on the Doctor (at the end of Flesh and Stone) because she needs someone to comfort her, she needs reassurance and wants to feel connected after the terrible experience that she went through episode and the Doctor is just there. She is confused, mixing up her fatherly protector love for the doctor with a romantic passion. This is why the Doctor brings Rory on board so she will have someone to comfort and protect her in his place for the Doctor never had Cullen-esque feelings for Amy. He sees her as the little girl he met in The Eleventh Hour.

‘Doctor: Coming?

Amy: No.

Doctor: You Wanted to come 14 years ago…

Amy: I grew up!

Doctor: Don’t worry, I’ll soon fix that.’

From The Eleventh Hour by Steven Moffat.

Now fatherly love, many might say makes the Amy’s advances and her impending choice a tad sinister but I think there has been a great deal of misinterpretation on the part of certain viewers. Take, for example the story Amy's Choice away from which, I feel many people take the wrong message. It's not that Amy has to choose which boyfriend to go out with, if it were I’m sure I’d sympathise far more with the boys who cry ‘Twilight!’ it's that she has to choose between two ways of life. Does she want to be pregnant in Leadworth or playing with her imaginary childhood friend in space? She needs to choose whether to grow up or not.

Amy’s arc, I feel is concluded in The God Complex when we see how Amy's blind faith in the Doctor is damaging to her very life. She will never be able to grow up and live that life with Rory unless she accepts that the Doctor is not the man that she has idolised him to be. A hugely important moment in a child's life is when s/he learns that their parents are imperfect beings, a moment that will allow them to stop clinging on to the coat tails and start looking after themselves and this moment comes for Amy in The God Complex. She goes off to live a life with Rory. She, in short grows up.  

‘Doctor: Forget your faith in me. I took you with me because I was vain because I wanted to be adored. Look at you, you’re glorious, Pond. The girl who waited for me. I’m not a hero. I really am just a mad man in a box. And its time we saw each other as we really are.

Amy Williams’.

From The God Complex by Toby Whithouse

So, at the end of the day Amy's choice is one between Growing up and staying a child. Bella's is between Jacob and Edward which sexy supernatural does she want to end up with? Perhaps Twilight deserves to be criticised, perhaps its an underappreciated masterpiece but in the end saying something has a similar plot to Twilight isn’t a truly insightful or valid criticism for the Love Triangle is an age old literary staple so there will be various similarities whenever it comes up. But when the love triangle might represent maturity and childishness, denial and acceptance, love and idolisation you can bet that it means Doctor Who is far more than just a cheap Twilight knock off.

The Hobbit (1997) Review

Dear Internet,

I write to you today with my reportings on The Hobbit Movie. No, not the Peter Jackson spectacular but the Rankin Bass creation. In 1977, Rankin Bass beat Peter Jackson to the punch by 35 years; in 2012 Peter Jackson will probably punch the guy who directed it because it’s poor. No, I’m being extremely overly critical here for the sake of an unfunny sort-of-pun. Now I write to you under the assumption that you already know the story of the Hobbit since you took the time to find this obscure Blog Post about an obscure movie with a similar plot to a huge movie and one of the greatest selling books of all time. If you don't know the plot then I apologize.

This film is an animated, made for TV movie and the first thing I should say about it is that I love the story of the Hobbit. The entire set-up of the adventure story where a group of companions go on a quest together, running into mishap after mishap on an episodic basis is one that I love and The Hobbit is probably one of the best and most imaginative renditions of this idea. It paved the way for most of the fantasy worlds we see today from Eragon and Dungeons and Dragons to A Game of Thrones and its numerous sequels. Through the eyes of the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins we are taken on a journey over Hill and Under Hill through forests and fields it’s like a road trip in an entirely new world.

When I was younger I would have argued that The Hobbit was superior to The Lord of the Rings because Bilbo and his company have more adventures. Little did I understand the importance of the character interactions and development in Lord of the Rings and whilst the Hobbit is more in it for the ride – hell half the dwarves are just a list of names whilst the rest fall into these characterisations. Balin is old and nice, Dori is also nice. Kili and Fili are young, Bombour is fat. Thorin Oakensheild is a bit more interesting, he is intensely proud and doesn’t suffer fools gladly but is, at the same time loyal and a good leader. Gloin is Gimli’s Dad.

In contrast of this, however Bilbo is really rather interesting. He is shown to be kind, accommodating, a fierce lover of a comfortable life-style and above all peace. A typical Hobbit but underneath it all he has a yearning to prove himself and, as suggested by his love of maps a secret desire to see the world. He is well meaning but at the start a bit useless. That is before he finds the ring and saves himself from Gollum. From this point onwards he becomes distinctly more of a leader, more resourceful, sneaky and clever. He becomes the Gandalf of the group when Gandalf leaves in the middle of the story. Eventually Bilbo’s decision to steal from the dwarves, giving their most prized possession to their enemies proves to be the most interesting moment of the whole tale as he is doing what he does for noble intentions. To prevent a massacre but he is also manipulating people. It’s a complicated dilemma which flies in the face of the black and white/ good and evil nature of Tolkien’s world.

I think that this is the true strength of the Hobbit story, we are introduced to the world with a good side and a bad side but the more that we and Bilbo experience it the less clear cut the lines become. The Dwarves don’t wish anyone harm but they are selfish and unforgiving. The Wood Elves are judgmental and cruel to their enemies but they are a force for good, fighting off the demonic spiders and only wanting the gold to help their friends the lake men. Both sides are racist and uncooperative and we see that to resolve a problem caused by good and bad people bad things may have to be done for the greater good. It’s a pretty mature message the likes of which aren’t really seen in the Narnia Chronicles and whilst it’s a simple message I think it’s delivered brilliantly. This is why I find the removal of this pivotal, climactic dilemma – where Bilbo betrays his friends for their own good - from the Rankin-Bass film baffling. Rankin-Bass do a good job of showing Middle Earth on screen but the writers don’t seem to understand the point of the story they’re telling. This however is only one of the things that I find baffling about the Rankin-Bass telling of the Hobbit.

Why the way Rankin Bass tell The Hobbit is baffling to me number 1

The songs in the Hobbit are fairly numerous so naturally is would seem logical to try to include some of them in this film but the way that Rankin and Bass decided to go about this is to find a potentially exciting action scene and play their soothing renditions of the songs on top thereby removing any tension.

What’s more, the introduction of the dwarves is terrible. They all do their little act, popping up from behind trees and bushes and tell Bilbo they are at his service.

 So... is it odd for dwarves to be in the Shire? We don't know. Literally all a fresh viewer would know is that Bilbo likes to smoke eccentrically long pipes and all of a sudden, for some reason a bunch of dwarves are singing about… stuff in his living room.

THAT SAID, I really do like the way that they use the Dwarves’ song (Misty Mountains Cold), by mixing the words with a V/O guy's lovely voice it really adds a sense of destiny, depth and danger to the adventure, in fact if it was this sequence that had persuaded Bilbo to join up I would have been really satisfied but for some reason they chose to make him decide to join up before he even knew what the journey was for. At that point we had no idea the kind of character Bilbo was so we are introduced to him as an adventurer making his character development completely pointless later in the film.

Why the way Rankin Bass tell The Hobbit is baffling to me number 2

The character designs… now whilst many of the designs in this movie are pretty good. The wizard looks like a wizard, the dwarves look like dwarves right down to their Disneyesque hats. Actually this is taken to quite a peculiar extreme, as shown below even the dwarves' helmets are designed to look like those of their Snow-White cousins...

But for the rest of the characters and stuff I just can’t see where they were coming from. I mean look at Bilbo he’s really quite cute but that’s not who Bilbo is, he’s got a pretty dark side to him, what with stealing the Arkenstone and cheating at the game of Riddles and surely this should be reflected in the way he looks! 

I guess there’s nothing wrong with making Bilbo so goddamn cute but I think it would have been wiser to try and show some of the toughness of the character in the design rather than trying to make a cuddly toy, for god’s sake during the adventures in Mirkwood he pretty much takes over Gandalf’s role in the party.  Guess it would have been a better idea to use the original designs

 oh… maybe not.

I

 think Gollum looks silly though I will concede that he is a pretty difficult character to get right. He’s so weird and inhuman and in the original concept art you can kind of see how he used to be a hobbit… a froggy hobbity thing but in the final movie, he doesn’t work for me.

The wood elves are weird too. 

I don’t think the film-makers knew that Tolkien thought of elves as tall, slender beautiful people as opposed to weird short mutants and he resented Shakespeare for ‘what he did to them’ in making them short and like in fairytales. In ancient British or Scandinavian folklore elves were like tall, graceful humans and J. R. R. saw those as true elves… as opposed to this.

Finally I would complain about the spiders but there are no spiders in this film, just eight legged cartoon bats so I guess I won’t bother.

Why the way Rankin Bass tell The Hobbit is baffling to me number 3

The story is told wrong. From the stuff they left out to the stuff they dedicated no time building up at all. From the very start of the film Gandalf turns up and is like I brought some dwarves… they’re hiding behind this hill over here, it’s all so random and weird and this sporadic nature of the storytelling leaves the viewer a little bewildered and it makes it difficult for them to get invested in the story being told.

Other problems are scattered throughout most prominent of all is the problem of repeated use of the dues-ex-machina to get Bilbo and the dwarves out of trouble numerous times. Now whilst this is a problem in the book in cases like how the characters escape the burning trees and the trolls at least in the book a satisfying explanation is given afterwards in this film the only setup to these escapes is ‘Gandalf’s a wizard who does shit, of course he’s got a way out’ which I find a little disappointing… just a little.

The worst case of this, I find is how Bard of the Lakemen isn’t introduced into the film until literally moments before he kills Smaug. Smaug is the primary antagonist, don’t you think his defeat should be given a little more setup than… next to nothing. Oh, I guess Bilbo told a thrush to tell the guy he’d never met that he needed to shoot the dragon in its chest. I guess I’m wrong. Except I’m not.

HOWEVER, despite all of these shortcomings I really did enjoy the film, through Mirkwood and up until the defeat of Smaug the character of Bilbo becomes quite interesting and he really did hold the film together. What’s more the songs aren’t bad just a little dated and silly and I felt the whole production had quite a satisfying homespun charm and it’s just the sort of thing I could imagine my younger self enjoying on a rainy afternoon so I found it easy to forgive it most of its shortcomings. I’d recommend you take a look, Internet. Its available on YouTube for free so what have you got to lose? Well, an hour and a half of your life… Check it out if you want.

The Insufferable Quandaries of Coming up with a Blog-name

The Insufferable Quandaries of Coming up with an Un-Shit Blog-name

My Dearest internet,

I write to you today to apologize for my newest web-page of cynical words and middlingly-interesting waffle.  [Here's a little note for all you fact-fans out there, 'middlingly' is not an official Oxford-dictionary word. Stephen is using it here to humorous effect, juxtaposing the relatively advanced vocabulary he has displayed in the rest of the Blog-Update with a poorly generated word, derived from the word 'middle'. 'Middlingly' can be used in such sentences as 'Baby Bear's bed was the most middlingly comfortable' and 'Malcolm, you are the most 'middlingly aged child'.] I am sure you would far rather not be burdened with another self-important blog or poorly organised YouTube channel but I am quite afraid I have now forced upon you both of these things. I am a student who studies English and Film and I think if I am to get anywhere in this world's media then I should regularly update both however I am quite afraid my own YouTube channel sits currently neglected and sadly depressed like a main street in a good ol' Western. Visit it, dear internet and watch as a sullen and lonely tumble-weed blows in front of just over fifty snappily edited Doctor Who fan-vids... It will be such fun.

But I am off topic, sweet internet for which I must apologize  I write today to complain, as the title suggests about the difficulty I had coming up with a relevant, eye-catching and interesting name for my brand new blog which you may be aware I have just started. A good name for a blog should be 1. Humorous 2. Relevant and 3. Unique in my opinion and the title that I have chosen ticks one whole box out of these three. 

The trickiest thing was finding a title that was relevant to what this blog was going to be about. Well, it's going to be about things that interest me, things that I can complain about and things that I like. What interests me? Well feminism. For some reason it's just something that really makes me think but there's nothing humorous about feminism... Unless you're like one of those misogynist chaps and, less power to you. Perhaps I could make a witty reference to that famous play of feministic proportions, 'The Vagina Monologues' but I haven't got one of those and the idea of a talking cock is even more horrific than the implications of the original play's title. No matter how hilarious AND relevant subverting the expectations of the reader to make them think that they are about to read the wrong type of genital-based speech the title just wouldn't do at all.

Humor is a tricky thing to get right in a brief, eye-catching title unless it's a really good pun. If you haven't noticed yet, my own particular brand of humor comes from being as down as I possibly can be about everything... oh that patriarchal society, it's right shit isn't it? So I definitely wouldn't be able to achieve humor in my title.

Uniqueness fortunately is quite an easy thing to accomplish on this fine website for it handily won't allow one to post in an already existing blog so my final title is entirely unique to me. Here's how I came up with it:

The part of my brain that doesn't understand the word 'relevant' thought, "It would be relevant to place a reference to Doctor Who in the title of my wonderful Blog (for I love it very much). Lets call it 'Stephen Likes and Talks about Doctor Who!'" 
"But it's not nearly humorous enough..." The brain hemisphere I possess which doesn't understand humor cried in swift response. "Lets put the word Who somewhere that it doesn't belong that'll get 'em rolling in the aisles! Lets make the title a pun, We're funny, we can think of a good one..." My humorous brain incorrectly thought.
"Houston, We have a problem is a phrase which starts with the syllable 'Who'" My clever old relevant-less brain-side thought.
"I've heard of that so it's funny!" Unfunny brain replied.
"Is it?"
"Oh yes!"
"Then we have a title!!!" [Here's a note for all you fact fans out there; the use of three consecutive exclamation marks is not grammatically correct. Stephen merely used the extra two in order to portray the sheer excitement that his unfunny, irrelevant brain felt!!!]

So, Internet my dear. I present to you the first entry into my brand new blog "Whostone, We have a Problem" I hope it will be humorous and relevant and will make up for the terrible title in time. Sadly, I fear It may be as un-unique as it is possible to be as it joins the droves of other blogs available at the click of a button on you but lets find out together...