<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/">
<title>Tablet UML News</title>
<link>http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/</link>
<description>News and commentary from Martin L. Shoemaker, author of Tablet UML</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:date>2008-02-09T15:02+00:00</dc:date>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1172115554.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1167185413.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1151553603.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1151553603.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1154538448.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1154392422.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1150593705.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1146427579.shtml" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1172115554.shtml">
<title>Generosity above and beyond the call!</title>
<link>http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1172115554.shtml</link>
<description>I am so, so very touched....</description>
<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-02-22T03:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I am so, so very touched.<br />
<br />
My good friend <a href="http://www.dotnetrockstar.com/">John Hopkins</a>, current president of <a href="http://www.migang.org/">GANG</a>, is as big a fan of the Apollo program as I am. We can trade Apollo stories all night. And John has been making me envious the last few meetings with tales of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Virtual-LM-Pictorial-Engineering-Construction/dp/1894959140/sr=8-1/qid=1172114866/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-9823227-4664404?ie=UTF8&s=books">Virtual LM: A Pictorial Essay of the Engineering and Construction of the Apollo Lunar Module</a>. I'm too pragmatic: I can never really picture myself as one of the Apollo astronauts. But the engineers of the program, those folks I can empathize with. My favorite episode of From the Earth to the Moon tells the story of the team who built the LMs. Well, this book is full of incredibly detailed design sketches and notes for the LM, as well as stories from the design and construction. And the bonus CD includes lots of photographs of LM test units, as well as operations manuals and checklists for the LM. It's a true delight.<br />
<br />
Tonight, after <a href="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1172065571.shtml">my presentation at GANG</a>, John gave me a copy of <i>Virtual LM</i>. So I wanted to take this opportunity to thank him publicly. This is truly a book I'll treasure.<br />
<br />
I'll let you know when the slides and sample code for my presentation are up at the GANG site. I would post them on my site tonight; but I've got something else to occupy my time right now, thank you very much. (And thank John <i>very</i> much!)]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1167185413.shtml">
<title>The Tick vs. the Legal System</title>
<link>http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1167185413.shtml</link>
<description>So for Christmas, besides a super-cool Superman Returns lunch box with the two-disc Superman Returns DVD inside (and dang, I can't find a link for that lunch box online anywhere!),...</description>
<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-12-27T02:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[So for Christmas, besides a super-cool Superman Returns lunch box with the two-disc <a href="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1151553603.shtml">Superman Returns</a> DVD inside (and dang, I can't find a link for that lunch box online anywhere!), Sandy got me <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tick-Vs-Season-One/dp/B000FS9MVK/sr=1-1/qid=1167183075/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9061043-3965540?ie=UTF8&s=dvd">The Tick vs. Season One</a>, available on DVD at long last (and for sale by Disney, not Fox, where the shows originally aired &mdash; no idea how that happened). And I was reading the back, and saw a little asterisked notice: "Does not include episode 11".<br />
<br />
Well, that made me curious, so I went to <a href="http://www.tv.com/the-tick-1994/show/5235/episode_listings.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabssh&tag=tabs;episodes">TV.com</a> and found that episode 11 is <a href="http://www.tv.com/the-tick-1994/the-tick-vs.-the-mole-men/episode/100803/summary.html">The Tick vs. the Mole Men</a>. I remembered that episode: it involved a beautiful supermodel named Mindy who was pursued by a bunch of subterranean Molemen, who were themselves pursued by the evil Lava King. It turns out that the lead Mole Man is in love with Mindy, who actually is a visitor from the mole lands herself. Once the Lava King is defeated, Mindy returns to be the Mole Queen.<br />
<br />
So that left me wondering: why leave that episode out? And that led me to <a href="http://www.tv.com/the-tick-1994/show/5235/tick-dvd-will-not-be-a-full-season./topic/3579-250276/msgs.html?tag=board_topics;title;8">this discussion</a> and a bit of unofficial speculation:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
""The Tick vs. The Mole Men" features an unauthorized use of Cindy Crawford's likeness, that's why it will not be included <br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Officially, the episode is missing for "creative considerations", and "may appear in a later collection". But ya know, I've seen this episode maybe half a dozen times; and I just realized that Mindy <i>Moleford</i> does indeed have a prominent mole, just like <a href="http://www.cindy.com/">some other supermodel</a>.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, <a href="http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=21462">Comics2Film</a> insists that's not the reason, and that there's another reason that they <i>do</i> know but won't discuss because that would complicate legal negotiations between the parties. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_and_the_Mole_Men">I can't imagine who else might have an opinion on this episode...</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1151553603.shtml">
<title>Homage</title>
<link>http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1151553603.shtml</link>
<description>Note: I bumped this to the top, because I got the film from Sandy for Christmas. Merry Christmas, to all! And to all, a good night!...</description>
<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-12-25T15:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Note: I bumped this to the top, because I got the film from Sandy for Christmas. Merry Christmas, to all! And to all, a good night!</i><br />
<br />
Whoa...<br />
<br />
Wow...<br />
<br />
Hahahaha...<br />
<br />
Yes!!!<br />
<br />
Yeehaaa!<br />
<br />
Whoa...<br />
<br />
Those are a few of the spur-of-the-moment thoughts I recall from the time I just spent watching <a href="http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/&&DI=293&IG=0771449b10e446518c3768fa853f6fb8&POS=3&CM=WPU&CE=1&CS=AWP&SR=1">Superman Returns</a> in <a href="http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/filmDetail.do?type=comingSoon&movieID=code__.__27">IMAX 3D</a>.<br />
<br />
And just in case I forgot: Whoa...<br />
<br />
OK, this review is going to wander a bit. And there may be spoilers. Just so you can't say you weren't warned.<br />
<br />
[<i>Oh, no, Mommy. When Martin <b>tells</b> us he's gonna wander, that means it's gonna be <b>real long.</b></i> I know, dear. But if he wants to stay at Kinko's until after midnight writing a silly movie review, getting eaten up by mosquitos, how are we going to stop him? <i>I'll bet if Superman were here, <b>he</b> could stop 'im.</i> I don't know if even Superman's that powerful, dear. Once Martin starts making up conversations with imaginary characters, he's pretty much past the point of no return.]<br />
<br />
Just so you know where I'm coming from here: Superman is my fav'rit. (And if you don't get the reference there, then you just haven't been reading enough Superman.) Oh, I've been teased away by lots of other, newer superheroes over the years; and I enjoy them all: Batman, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel (the original, please), Metamorpho, Green Lantern (every one of them, even Kyle), Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, the Legion of Super-Heroes, Infinity Inc., Blue Devil, 'Mazing Man (for the truly discerning comics fan), the Flash, the Fantastic Four, the New Gods, the Phantom Stranger, the Outsiders, Black Lightning, Luke Cage... Plain and simple, I love mainstream superhero comics. I know, it's corny and old fashioned. I know, anime or indies are what all the cool kids read. (Actually, I like a lot of indies, too. Anime? Eh.) I know, grown ups aren't supposed to read comic books. And I just. Don't. Care. Make fun of me all you want. I'm sure I would find your hobbies to be just hilarious, too, but I'm too polite to point that out.<br />
<br />
But of them all, Superman is the one I've read most consistently. While I can't say for certain, I'm guessing I read my first Superman comic roughly 40 years ago. Well, OK, 39 years ago: with the help of indulgent parents and big brothers, I taught myself to read at age 4; and I gotta believe one of the first things I read was a Superman comic. See, one of those brothers bought lots of comics, and so they were always there at hand. And for not being a big comic fan today, he bought some <i>amazing</i> classics: the first issues of Kirby's <i>New Gods</i> and <i>Forever People</i>, half of the Kirby <i>Jimmy Olsen</i> issues, the last three issues of O'Neill/Adams's <i>Green Lantern/Green Arrow</i> (the phrase "Send me a bill" still sends a chill up my spine), "Spider-Man: No More", and a good chunk of the "Kryptonite: No More"/Sandman Superman saga. Brother Joe, if you had kept those in mint condition, they would be worth some <b>money</b> today. But instead, you let little brother and later little sister read them. Thank you. And again: thank you.<br />
<br />
[<i>Mommy, is Martin <b>ever</b> going to write about the movie?</i> Shh. Be patient, dear. He thinks he <i>is</i> writing about the movie.]<br />
<br />
And so I've been reading Superman all my life; but in a sense, I've been reading him nearly twice that long. Over the years, I've gotten to read a lot of the historical Superman tales. I'm keeping up with the modern Superman tales. And I've also watched the Superman cartoons, from the Fleischer classics to the 70s not-so-classics to the Super-Friends to the modern cartoons. I've also watched Lois & Clark. Thanks to Sandy, I'm getting to see the old George Reeves episodes that they never seemed to rerun in our area when I was growing up.<br />
<br />
But for me, <i>the</i> Superman will always be the Superman of the 70s. Part Kirby, part O'Neill, to be sure; but in larger part, the Superman of the 70s was the work of two gentlemen. Carey Bates was one. But the other, and my fav'rit, was <a href="http://www.maggin.com/">Elliot S! Maggin</a>. (The "S!" is because comics scripters of the day tended to go overboard with exclamation points, so Mr. Maggin felt it was an obligation.) But what made me recognize his name was not his comics. At the time, I was fairly ignorant of who was creating the comics. No, I became his fan after reading his first Superman novel, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446823198/sr=8-2/qid=1151552866/ref=sr_1_2/002-5846903-3135217?ie=UTF8">Superman: Last Son of Krypton</a>. And I became a permanent fan with his next book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446911968/sr=8-3/qid=1151552924/ref=sr_1_3/002-5846903-3135217?ie=UTF8">Superman: Miracle Monday</a>. No, they're not in print any more. (If you ask nicely, Mr. Maggin may explain why. Wear a spittle shield.) Yes, as a matter of fact, I <i>do</i> own two copies of each. No, you may not <i>have</i> my spare copies. Those are for loaning out to close friends and cherished family members, so that if perchance the borrower loses them, I'll still have my originals.<br />
<br />
Those two books, published as tie-ins to the first two Chistopher Reeve movies, are in my opinion the two best Superman stories ever. Period. (The third best happens to be <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446606693/sr=8-1/qid=1151553191/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5846903-3135217?ie=UTF8">Kingdom Come</a>, the novelization of Mark Waid's ground-breaking story of Earth after Superman gave up The Never-Ending Struggle. When Mr. Waid knew a novelization was planned, he knew just who he wanted to write it; and when his chosen author balked, he decided to sway the author by hook or by crook. And so, the very last page of the comic series has this note: "Dedicated to Elliott S! Maggin." So mayhaps I'm not the only one who thinks Mr. Maggin is his fav'rit.)<br />
<br />
[<i>Mommy, I was really <b>bad</b> today. Could you send me to my room?</i> Not yet, dear. I think there's a point coming soon.]<br />
<br />
And what made these books so much the definition of the character was a bit of Kryptonian philosophy Mr. Maggin dreamed up: <i>There is a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction is not very hard to make.</i> And that right there defines Superman at his best. It defines his biggest weakness: no, not kryptonite, but rather a moral blindspot that makes him simply unable to <i>imagine</i> that anyone would do anything but the right thing, and just as much as they are able. He cannot see the world from a criminal's perspective, because it just isn't in him to do so, so criminals can often surprise him. And this philosophy also defines his greatest strength: by always doing what's right no matter what the cost to himself, he inspires the rest of us to try just a little harder. It's not the Super that counts, it's the Man. (We can argue later about whether that Kryptonian philosophy is just a little too simplistic. In the real world, sometimes the best you can do is to choose the least wrong.)<br />
<br />
And the fourth and fifth-best Superman stories ever, in my opinion, were the first two Christopher Reeve films. I have never heard a theater crowd explode like they did at "General. Would you care to step outside?" I'm still getting the chills here, just typing that line. Yes, I would have much preferred if they had filmed Mr. Maggin's books instead; but honestly, those were just a little too steeped in DC Universe lore to make good movies for the general public, I think. Even with the too-gimmicky ending in <i>Superman II</i> (come on, where did those powers come from?), those two films were simply the best Superman stories put to film. (Note: <i>were</i>.)<br />
<br />
And before you go see <i>Superman Returns</i>, I stongly recommend that you go rent <i>Superman I</i> and <i>II</i>. Let's just ignore <i>III</i> and <i>IV</i> for this discussion, OK? And especially <i>Supergirl</i>. For the purposes of this film, those don't exist. But this film is very much a sequel to <i>Superman II</i>. Not juat "inspired by": it follows directly on the events of the second film.<br />
<br />
But beyond sequel, it's an homage to the Christopher Reeve Superman films. And somewhere along the way, I started to see it as an homage to Elliot S! Maggin as well. And without giving too much away, it's an homage to fathers as well.<br />
<br />
And one more thing: while it's truly respectful of the Christopher Reeve films, it's <i>better</i>. I expected a lot of things from this film; but I didn't expect to be drying my eyes as I left the theater.<br />
<br />
[<i>Yay! He's finally writing about <b>the movie!</b></i> Hush, dear. You might distract him, just when he's found the point.]<br />
<br />
This film starts before it starts: an opening text frame tells how Superman learned that astronomers had found remnants of Krypton, and he left Earth to investigate. This all took place shortly after <i>Superman II</i>. Five years have elapsed. We never really learn much about what he found out there, other than that Krypton really is gone.<br />
<br />
But what he finds when he comes back, now there's the story! His mother is still alive, and welcomes him back. (His father died near the start of <i>Superman I</i>.) The Daily Planet is mostly unchanged, except for one vital difference: Lois Lane. She has changed dramatically. She's engaged to Perry White's nephew (Richard), she's a single mother of a rather weak and asthmatic son (Jason), and she has won a Pulitzer &mdash; for an editorial entitled, "Why Earth Doesn't Need a Superman". She seems to have moved on; and with that one change, everything in Superman's life is changed, even though nothing else has.<br />
<br />
Yes, folks, this is a relationship movie. Oh, it's a superhero movie &mdash; and a very cool one at that, especially with the IMAX 3D (selected scenes are in 3D, and they flash glasses on the screen to let you know when to put yours on) &mdash; but it's really about Superman's two most important relationships: with Lois, and with his birth father, Jor-El. Even though Jor-El barely puts in an appearance, Superman spends most of the movie trying to live up to his father's legacy. And in the end, he finds that legacy has some mighty big shoes to fill, shoes he never expected. (I won't spoil the ending, even though the "surprise" actually happens about two-thirds of the way through the film. And it wasn't much of a surprise to me, since I guessed it six months before I saw the film.) When he's not trying to live up to the legacy, he's trying to understand how Lois was so hurt by his leaving, and to get her to understand why he had no choice: if he had tried to tell her goodbye, he could never have left. But she's too bitter, for some reason, she can't seem to forgive him.<br />
<br />
But while Superman struggles to live up to Jor-El's legacy, Lex Luthor corrupts it. Yes, ol' Lex is back, and meaner than ever; and he uses what he learned about Kryptonian technology in <i>Superman II</i> for his latest scheme: to create a new, Kryptonian continent, so that he can get rich as its owner &mdash; while he just happens to drown most of the Americas in the process.<br />
<br />
And that's just one example where this film is an homage to the first two. In those two films, Lex's grand schemes always revolved around mega land grabs. In this one, he finally succeeds. Well, for a while. We all know Superman will stop him in the end. (And kudos to the filmmakers: I just now realized just how ironic Lex's final scene is.) Here are some other ways in which this film pays homage to the earlier films:<br />
<br />
[<i>Mommy, what's an "omaj"?</b></i> It means "tribute", dear. Remembering someone in a very nice way. Martin's just being pretentious again, because some of his favorite comics are from a company called "Homage Comics".]<br />
<br />
<ul><br />
   <li>The opening credits are just about exactly the same design. It was eerie, like I just fell back in time 25 years.</li><br />
   <li>While newcomer Brandon Routh doesn't exactly look like Christopher Reeve, he certainly <i>sounds</i> like him. In fact, he sounds like him twice. Mr. Reeve affected two different voices for Superman and for Clark Kent. Mr. Routh nails both of them close enough to make you comfortable that you're watching the same characters. (Noboy else consciously imitates their predecessors; but Superman.Clark was the one who counted.)</li><br />
   <li>Physically, Mr. Routh does very well what Mr. Reeve did so perfectly: play Clark Kent in such a way thatyou really believe no one would notice he's Superman.</li><br />
   <li>The whole production and art direction is <i>completely</i> modeled on the first two films &mdash; especially the Kryptonian technology. The Fortress, the ship, and the all-important crystal are all old friends here.</li><br />
   <li>The music is a very nice update of the classic John Williams score.</li><br />
   <li>A running sight gag in the first two films was Luthor's baldness and his various wigs. Well, the gag continues in this film. One very tense but funny scene was when Lois and Jason stumble into an unknown bedroom, and Jason laughs at all the wigs. Lois looks at them, and instantly all the other pieces of the puzzle fall into place (but too late).</li><br />
   <li>In the first film, Luthor tracks down his first Kryptonite metorite in Addis Abbaba, a city in Ethiopia. In this film, when a meteorite is mysteriously stolen from the museum, the smashed display case includes a sign saying that it came from, yes, Addis Abbaba.</li><br />
   <li>And the lines. Ah, classic little lines from the first two films show up here. Only now, they're loaded with additional emotional meaning. "I'm always around, Lois."</li><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
And there's a lot more. And then, just in case you missed the homage, there's a line in the end credits: "Dedicated with love to Christopher Reeve and Dana Reeve." For those who didn't hear, after seeing her husband through the years of his paralysis and doing what she could for his legacy after his death, Dana Reeve died this year from cancer. And the filmmakers paid their homage to both of them.<br />
<br />
But that's not the only homage in this film. We also got two guest stars from the old Adventures of Superman series: Noel Neill (who played Lois Lane) and Jack Larson (who played Jimmy Olsen). Their parts here were small, but it was still a nice nod to them and their fans.<br />
<br />
OK, OK, so it's an homage; but how is it <i>better</i>? Oh, in oh so many ways:<br />
<br />
<ul><br />
   <li>The special effects are 30 years better. <i>Superman I</i> was truly ground-breaking for its day. Today, most personal computers can do better effects. Even though everything looks the same in some ways &mdash; the Fortress, especially &mdash; it all looks <i>better</i>. One tiny example: the explosion of Krypton in <i>Superman I</i> was actually a microscope recording of a histamine cell exploding. In this film, it's a wonderfully detailed CGI rendering. (In 3D, at IMAX theaters!)</li><br />
   <li>And wow! What special effects. Now I've said more times than I can recall that special effects in movies aren't that important to me. And as a general rule, they aren't. But come on! This is a superhero film! It has to have larger-than-life action! And this film delivers. The airplane rescue is stupendous. The New Krypton scenes are really creepy. And the crushing of Metropolis &mdash; well, I have to save that discussion for just a little bit.</li><br />
   <li>The whole thing just looks better. Street scenes in the first two films had the feel of soundstages, even when they weren't. Here, you just know you can actually walk around Metropolis.</li><br />
   <li>No offense to Margot Kidder, but Kate Bosworth just looks more like Lois Lane. Also, she got much more mature dialog to work with.</li><br />
   <li>And that maturity. That's probably the biggest difference. The first two films had just a touch of camp about them. This film plays it straight.</li><br />
   <li>And where this film <i>particularly</i> plays it straight is with Lex Luthor. I love Gene Hackman; but his Lex Luthor had a lot of the buffoon about him. (Rather surprising for Mr. Hackman, really.) Even though Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor surrounds himself with buffoons, he's really, really scary. And when he tries to be funny, he's even scarier. Think the Joker, and you won't be far off: if he's trying to be funny, it's to distract you from his trying to kill you, or to gloat over having already killed you.</li><br />
   <li>And yet there <i>is</i> humor in the film; but it's more subtle, more gentle than in the first two films. Some of it's in-jokes, like the Addis Abbaba meteorite. Some of it's very subtle, like the name of Luthor's ship (you've got to look fast for that one). And some of it's pretty clever, like when a kid with a cell phone gets better shots of Superman than Jimmy can get with his expensive camera. (Don't worry, Jimmy fans, he makes up for it eventually.) None of it's laugh-out-loud funny (although I laughed at the Addis Abbaba sign, as did the similar-in-age guy next to me); but none of it's camp, either. It fits the story more naturally.</li><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
OK, OK, OK. You liked it. But how is it an homage to Mr. Maggin?<br />
<br />
Well, it may not be. That may just be me reading into it. But I really felt like there was, if not a Maggin homage, then a definite Maggin influence, in at least five ways:<br />
<br />
<ul><br />
   <li>First, there's that whole crushing of Metropolis scene. I won't tell you the details, because that would spoil it. But one of Mr. Maggin's specialties in his novels is what I think of as the "Superman is everywhere" chapter. Some criminal plot or some menace comes up, and it has lots of ramifications in lots of places all at once. This is a job for Superman! See, among his many powers, Superman is just a wee bit faster than a speeding bullet. Faster than that, even. So Mr. Maggin tells the story at Superman's rate of perception as he zips from crisis to crisis and handles each in the most appropriate way: disarming a villain here, crashing two villain-laden hang gliders together there, all while using super ventrilloquism to convince another villain that the plan has been called off. Pages and pages of detailed action, all at a leisurely pace for Superman, and all in under 12 seconds for the villains. Prior to this film, I would've called such a scene unfilmable. In fact, I would've predicted <i>exactly</i> what bugged me about some of the fight scenes in <i>Batman Begins</i>: to make the action believably fast, they would have to make it too fast for the viewer to follow. Well, somehow, director Brian Singer defied my expectations. While the crushing of Metropolis isn't quite as involved as one of Mr. Maggin's "Superman is everywhere" chapters, it's pretty involved. There are a lot of menaces in a lot of places, and Superman manages to be everywhere at once, dealing with them. The scene where Superman flies through the city streets but then rolls leisurely over onto his back, so he can look back and vaporize a whole street full of falling debris &mdash; priceless! I just looked at that whole section and said, "Wow! That's worthy of Maggin!"</li><br />
   <li>In <i>Superman: Miracle Monday</i>, Mr. Maggin has a very poignant scene in which Superman turns up his superhearing and listens &mdash; really listens &mdash; to the whole Earth at once. And eventually, he hears a kind of symphony; and he hears that he has a part in it. In this film, Superman tells Lois that despite her article on why no one needs a Superman, he can hear all over, and he just keeps hearing people calling for help. It wasn't exactly an echo of Mr. Maggin's scene, but it made me think of that scene.</li><br />
   <li>There's a definite element of "There is a right and a wrong..." here. This is a Superman who just has to do what's right, no matter what. To be blunt, Superman gets the stuffing kicked out of him in this film, far more than in <i>Superman II</i>; and yet he just keeps trying, no matter what. It's simply what he has to do.</li><br />
   <li>Mr. Maggin had another recurring theme. In fact, he originally wrote it for a writing class; and when he got a lousy grade, he sent it to DC instead, and they bought the script, and they hired him from there. (And now he's <i>teaching</i> writing. Kids, don't give up just because someone tells you you can't succeed, even if it's a teacher. Sometimes teachers are wrong, too. Did you ever see Superman give up? Huh? Huh?) That story, "Must There Be A Superman?" dealt with the possibility that by solving all of our problems, Superman was stunting our growth and making us dependent on him. He learned to let us solve our own problems, stumbling along the way and picking ourselves up and learning in the process; and he just gave a helping hand when the problems were too big for us. Well, that theme came up in this film, in a briefly remembered bit of advice from Jor-El; and in fact, it's Lois and Richard who end up saving Superman at one point. And Superman also steps back at one point to let people solve their own problems. This is straight from Mr. Maggin.</li><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
And the last bit of Maggin influence &mdash; Well, I want to close with that. So let me just say that this film, while very good, isn't perfect. It's a bit long. The end, especially, drags a bit, and could've been trimmed at least five minutes. And the director relied a little too heavily on slow motion in a couple of places (although one slow-mo scene that I thought dragged on a bit too long was justified in the end with a wince-inducing special effect that was actually kinda cool, if you're not squeamish about eyes). But those are minor quibbles. In most films, I can come up with a dozen quibbles more than that. None of that stopped me from saying toward the end, "OK, when's <i>World's Finest</i> coming?" (For the non-comic fans: <i>World's Finest</i> was a long-running Superman/Batman team-up book. After <i>Batman Begins</i> and this film, it's time for a <i>World's Finest</i> film.)<br />
<br />
Back to that last bit of Maggin influence &mdash; and again, I'll concede this may be me reading into it. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the theme is so strong in Mr. Maggin's books and in this film, since it is kinda central to the whole Superman mythos. It has to do with fathers. A big element of Mr. Maggin's books was just how much Jor-El loved his son, and how hard he worked to protect him and guide him even though he would be long dead before his son grew up. He left lessons, and he chose protectors, and he chose the best, safest environment he could find for his son. He saw his responsibility to his son as his last, most important duty. And that's pretty much how this film opens; and in subtle ways, that comes up in places throughout the film. And it's how the film ends, as Superman finally fully appreciates just how important those sacrifices were to his father. (And I tried to be oblique, but I probably just ruined the ending for you. Serves you right for being so smart.)<br />
<br />
And when I left the theater, I felt &mdash; Whoa... I felt &mdash; Wow... I felt Hahahaha, and Yes!!! And Yeehaaa! I felt like I was 18 again, seeing this film just after <i>Superman II</i>. I felt awed. I felt invigorated. And a reaction I never expected from a silly superhero film: I miss my fav'rit. I miss my Dad.<br />
<br />
[<i>Mommy, Martin sounds sad. Didn't he like the movie?</i> Yes, dear. I think he liked it very, very much. Now goodnight. Sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite.]<br />
<br />
<div class="trigger" id="shep0rjguv.11"><a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('hep0rjguv.11').style.display = 'block'; document.getElementById('shep0rjguv.11').style.display = 'none'; return false;">...</a></div><br />
<div class="hidden" style="display: none;" id="hep0rjguv.11"><br />
Yes, this review wanders a lot, and takes forever to get anywhere. I get that from my Dad. Call it an homage. You got a problem with that?<br />
<div class="trigger"><a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('shep0rjguv.11').style.display = 'block';document.getElementById('hep0rjguv.11').style.display = 'none'; return false;">...</a></div></div><br />
<br />
<b>Update:</b> <a href="http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2006/06/superman_return.html">Bryce Zabel makes many of the same points.</a> But he uses, like, one-tenth as many words. Bet you wish I'd told you that at the start of the review, huh?<br />
<br />
<b>Update 2:</b> <a href="http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2006/06/superman-returns-review.html">Ken Lammers has a very different reaction.</a> (Warning! Major spoilers!) That's OK. I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. (But, um, dude, if you're going to say that that first action is out of character, then you're going to have to say that the action that led to that action back in <i>Superman II</i> was out of character. It's the same action, really, just cause and effect. And it would never happen in the comics. Movie audiences these days kinda expect it. We can debate the goodness of that expectation, but there it is.)<br />
<br />
<b>Update 3:</b> <a href="http://jameshudnall.com/blog.php?/weblog/review_superman_returns/">James Hudnall liked it, too,</a> though he thinks there was more room to cut at the end. For those who don't know James, he's a comics writer who has actually <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000AS9MMY/qid=1151668247/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-5846903-3135217?v=glance&s=books">written in the Superman series</a>, so I kinda think his opinion has <i>some</i> merit. James also wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FXSLCQ/qid=1151668247/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/002-5846903-3135217?s=books&v=glance&n=283155">Harsh Realm</a>, which was adapted into <a href="http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0182587/">a TV series by Chris Carter of X-Files fame</a>. And his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582406332/jameshudnall-20/002-5846903-3135217?creative=327641&camp=14573&adid=1P1ZJ4RWNGWADCG7BV4W&link_code=as1">The Psyhco</a> is working its way toward <a href="http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0490474/">a film version</a>. I first learned of James through his incredible <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871356937/qid=1151668247/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-5846903-3135217?s=books&v=glance&n=283155">Espers</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1887279938/qid=1151668247/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-5846903-3135217?s=books&v=glance&n=283155">series</a>. <i>And</i> he's a software geek who knows UML. So he's kinda like me, but, umm, cool and all that.<br />
]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1151553603.shtml">
<title>Homage</title>
<link>http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1151553603.shtml</link>
<description>Note: I bumped this to the top, because I got the film from Sandy for Christmas. Merry Christmas, to all! And to all, a good night!...</description>
<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-12-25T15:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Note: I bumped this to the top, because I got the film from Sandy for Christmas. Merry Christmas, to all! And to all, a good night!</i><br />
<br />
Whoa...<br />
<br />
Wow...<br />
<br />
Hahahaha...<br />
<br />
Yes!!!<br />
<br />
Yeehaaa!<br />
<br />
Whoa...<br />
<br />
Those are a few of the spur-of-the-moment thoughts I recall from the time I just spent watching <a href="http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/&&DI=293&IG=0771449b10e446518c3768fa853f6fb8&POS=3&CM=WPU&CE=1&CS=AWP&SR=1">Superman Returns</a> in <a href="http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/filmDetail.do?type=comingSoon&movieID=code__.__27">IMAX 3D</a>.<br />
<br />
And just in case I forgot: Whoa...<br />
<br />
OK, this review is going to wander a bit. And there may be spoilers. Just so you can't say you weren't warned.<br />
<br />
[<i>Oh, no, Mommy. When Martin <b>tells</b> us he's gonna wander, that means it's gonna be <b>real long.</b></i> I know, dear. But if he wants to stay at Kinko's until after midnight writing a silly movie review, getting eaten up by mosquitos, how are we going to stop him? <i>I'll bet if Superman were here, <b>he</b> could stop 'im.</i> I don't know if even Superman's that powerful, dear. Once Martin starts making up conversations with imaginary characters, he's pretty much past the point of no return.]<br />
<br />
Just so you know where I'm coming from here: Superman is my fav'rit. (And if you don't get the reference there, then you just haven't been reading enough Superman.) Oh, I've been teased away by lots of other, newer superheroes over the years; and I enjoy them all: Batman, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel (the original, please), Metamorpho, Green Lantern (every one of them, even Kyle), Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, the Legion of Super-Heroes, Infinity Inc., Blue Devil, 'Mazing Man (for the truly discerning comics fan), the Flash, the Fantastic Four, the New Gods, the Phantom Stranger, the Outsiders, Black Lightning, Luke Cage... Plain and simple, I love mainstream superhero comics. I know, it's corny and old fashioned. I know, anime or indies are what all the cool kids read. (Actually, I like a lot of indies, too. Anime? Eh.) I know, grown ups aren't supposed to read comic books. And I just. Don't. Care. Make fun of me all you want. I'm sure I would find your hobbies to be just hilarious, too, but I'm too polite to point that out.<br />
<br />
But of them all, Superman is the one I've read most consistently. While I can't say for certain, I'm guessing I read my first Superman comic roughly 40 years ago. Well, OK, 39 years ago: with the help of indulgent parents and big brothers, I taught myself to read at age 4; and I gotta believe one of the first things I read was a Superman comic. See, one of those brothers bought lots of comics, and so they were always there at hand. And for not being a big comic fan today, he bought some <i>amazing</i> classics: the first issues of Kirby's <i>New Gods</i> and <i>Forever People</i>, half of the Kirby <i>Jimmy Olsen</i> issues, the last three issues of O'Neill/Adams's <i>Green Lantern/Green Arrow</i> (the phrase "Send me a bill" still sends a chill up my spine), "Spider-Man: No More", and a good chunk of the "Kryptonite: No More"/Sandman Superman saga. Brother Joe, if you had kept those in mint condition, they would be worth some <b>money</b> today. But instead, you let little brother and later little sister read them. Thank you. And again: thank you.<br />
<br />
[<i>Mommy, is Martin <b>ever</b> going to write about the movie?</i> Shh. Be patient, dear. He thinks he <i>is</i> writing about the movie.]<br />
<br />
And so I've been reading Superman all my life; but in a sense, I've been reading him nearly twice that long. Over the years, I've gotten to read a lot of the historical Superman tales. I'm keeping up with the modern Superman tales. And I've also watched the Superman cartoons, from the Fleischer classics to the 70s not-so-classics to the Super-Friends to the modern cartoons. I've also watched Lois & Clark. Thanks to Sandy, I'm getting to see the old George Reeves episodes that they never seemed to rerun in our area when I was growing up.<br />
<br />
But for me, <i>the</i> Superman will always be the Superman of the 70s. Part Kirby, part O'Neill, to be sure; but in larger part, the Superman of the 70s was the work of two gentlemen. Carey Bates was one. But the other, and my fav'rit, was <a href="http://www.maggin.com/">Elliot S! Maggin</a>. (The "S!" is because comics scripters of the day tended to go overboard with exclamation points, so Mr. Maggin felt it was an obligation.) But what made me recognize his name was not his comics. At the time, I was fairly ignorant of who was creating the comics. No, I became his fan after reading his first Superman novel, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446823198/sr=8-2/qid=1151552866/ref=sr_1_2/002-5846903-3135217?ie=UTF8">Superman: Last Son of Krypton</a>. And I became a permanent fan with his next book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446911968/sr=8-3/qid=1151552924/ref=sr_1_3/002-5846903-3135217?ie=UTF8">Superman: Miracle Monday</a>. No, they're not in print any more. (If you ask nicely, Mr. Maggin may explain why. Wear a spittle shield.) Yes, as a matter of fact, I <i>do</i> own two copies of each. No, you may not <i>have</i> my spare copies. Those are for loaning out to close friends and cherished family members, so that if perchance the borrower loses them, I'll still have my originals.<br />
<br />
Those two books, published as tie-ins to the first two Chistopher Reeve movies, are in my opinion the two best Superman stories ever. Period. (The third best happens to be <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446606693/sr=8-1/qid=1151553191/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5846903-3135217?ie=UTF8">Kingdom Come</a>, the novelization of Mark Waid's ground-breaking story of Earth after Superman gave up The Never-Ending Struggle. When Mr. Waid knew a novelization was planned, he knew just who he wanted to write it; and when his chosen author balked, he decided to sway the author by hook or by crook. And so, the very last page of the comic series has this note: "Dedicated to Elliott S! Maggin." So mayhaps I'm not the only one who thinks Mr. Maggin is his fav'rit.)<br />
<br />
[<i>Mommy, I was really <b>bad</b> today. Could you send me to my room?</i> Not yet, dear. I think there's a point coming soon.]<br />
<br />
And what made these books so much the definition of the character was a bit of Kryptonian philosophy Mr. Maggin dreamed up: <i>There is a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction is not very hard to make.</i> And that right there defines Superman at his best. It defines his biggest weakness: no, not kryptonite, but rather a moral blindspot that makes him simply unable to <i>imagine</i> that anyone would do anything but the right thing, and just as much as they are able. He cannot see the world from a criminal's perspective, because it just isn't in him to do so, so criminals can often surprise him. And this philosophy also defines his greatest strength: by always doing what's right no matter what the cost to himself, he inspires the rest of us to try just a little harder. It's not the Super that counts, it's the Man. (We can argue later about whether that Kryptonian philosophy is just a little too simplistic. In the real world, sometimes the best you can do is to choose the least wrong.)<br />
<br />
And the fourth and fifth-best Superman stories ever, in my opinion, were the first two Christopher Reeve films. I have never heard a theater crowd explode like they did at "General. Would you care to step outside?" I'm still getting the chills here, just typing that line. Yes, I would have much preferred if they had filmed Mr. Maggin's books instead; but honestly, those were just a little too steeped in DC Universe lore to make good movies for the general public, I think. Even with the too-gimmicky ending in <i>Superman II</i> (come on, where did those powers come from?), those two films were simply the best Superman stories put to film. (Note: <i>were</i>.)<br />
<br />
And before you go see <i>Superman Returns</i>, I stongly recommend that you go rent <i>Superman I</i> and <i>II</i>. Let's just ignore <i>III</i> and <i>IV</i> for this discussion, OK? And especially <i>Supergirl</i>. For the purposes of this film, those don't exist. But this film is very much a sequel to <i>Superman II</i>. Not juat "inspired by": it follows directly on the events of the second film.<br />
<br />
But beyond sequel, it's an homage to the Christopher Reeve Superman films. And somewhere along the way, I started to see it as an homage to Elliot S! Maggin as well. And without giving too much away, it's an homage to fathers as well.<br />
<br />
And one more thing: while it's truly respectful of the Christopher Reeve films, it's <i>better</i>. I expected a lot of things from this film; but I didn't expect to be drying my eyes as I left the theater.<br />
<br />
[<i>Yay! He's finally writing about <b>the movie!</b></i> Hush, dear. You might distract him, just when he's found the point.]<br />
<br />
This film starts before it starts: an opening text frame tells how Superman learned that astronomers had found remnants of Krypton, and he left Earth to investigate. This all took place shortly after <i>Superman II</i>. Five years have elapsed. We never really learn much about what he found out there, other than that Krypton really is gone.<br />
<br />
But what he finds when he comes back, now there's the story! His mother is still alive, and welcomes him back. (His father died near the start of <i>Superman I</i>.) The Daily Planet is mostly unchanged, except for one vital difference: Lois Lane. She has changed dramatically. She's engaged to Perry White's nephew (Richard), she's a single mother of a rather weak and asthmatic son (Jason), and she has won a Pulitzer &mdash; for an editorial entitled, "Why Earth Doesn't Need a Superman". She seems to have moved on; and with that one change, everything in Superman's life is changed, even though nothing else has.<br />
<br />
Yes, folks, this is a relationship movie. Oh, it's a superhero movie &mdash; and a very cool one at that, especially with the IMAX 3D (selected scenes are in 3D, and they flash glasses on the screen to let you know when to put yours on) &mdash; but it's really about Superman's two most important relationships: with Lois, and with his birth father, Jor-El. Even though Jor-El barely puts in an appearance, Superman spends most of the movie trying to live up to his father's legacy. And in the end, he finds that legacy has some mighty big shoes to fill, shoes he never expected. (I won't spoil the ending, even though the "surprise" actually happens about two-thirds of the way through the film. And it wasn't much of a surprise to me, since I guessed it six months before I saw the film.) When he's not trying to live up to the legacy, he's trying to understand how Lois was so hurt by his leaving, and to get her to understand why he had no choice: if he had tried to tell her goodbye, he could never have left. But she's too bitter, for some reason, she can't seem to forgive him.<br />
<br />
But while Superman struggles to live up to Jor-El's legacy, Lex Luthor corrupts it. Yes, ol' Lex is back, and meaner than ever; and he uses what he learned about Kryptonian technology in <i>Superman II</i> for his latest scheme: to create a new, Kryptonian continent, so that he can get rich as its owner &mdash; while he just happens to drown most of the Americas in the process.<br />
<br />
And that's just one example where this film is an homage to the first two. In those two films, Lex's grand schemes always revolved around mega land grabs. In this one, he finally succeeds. Well, for a while. We all know Superman will stop him in the end. (And kudos to the filmmakers: I just now realized just how ironic Lex's final scene is.) Here are some other ways in which this film pays homage to the earlier films:<br />
<br />
[<i>Mommy, what's an "omaj"?</b></i> It means "tribute", dear. Remembering someone in a very nice way. Martin's just being pretentious again, because some of his favorite comics are from a company called "Homage Comics".]<br />
<br />
<ul><br />
   <li>The opening credits are just about exactly the same design. It was eerie, like I just fell back in time 25 years.</li><br />
   <li>While newcomer Brandon Routh doesn't exactly look like Christopher Reeve, he certainly <i>sounds</i> like him. In fact, he sounds like him twice. Mr. Reeve affected two different voices for Superman and for Clark Kent. Mr. Routh nails both of them close enough to make you comfortable that you're watching the same characters. (Noboy else consciously imitates their predecessors; but Superman.Clark was the one who counted.)</li><br />
   <li>Physically, Mr. Routh does very well what Mr. Reeve did so perfectly: play Clark Kent in such a way thatyou really believe no one would notice he's Superman.</li><br />
   <li>The whole production and art direction is <i>completely</i> modeled on the first two films &mdash; especially the Kryptonian technology. The Fortress, the ship, and the all-important crystal are all old friends here.</li><br />
   <li>The music is a very nice update of the classic John Williams score.</li><br />
   <li>A running sight gag in the first two films was Luthor's baldness and his various wigs. Well, the gag continues in this film. One very tense but funny scene was when Lois and Jason stumble into an unknown bedroom, and Jason laughs at all the wigs. Lois looks at them, and instantly all the other pieces of the puzzle fall into place (but too late).</li><br />
   <li>In the first film, Luthor tracks down his first Kryptonite metorite in Addis Abbaba, a city in Ethiopia. In this film, when a meteorite is mysteriously stolen from the museum, the smashed display case includes a sign saying that it came from, yes, Addis Abbaba.</li><br />
   <li>And the lines. Ah, classic little lines from the first two films show up here. Only now, they're loaded with additional emotional meaning. "I'm always around, Lois."</li><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
And there's a lot more. And then, just in case you missed the homage, there's a line in the end credits: "Dedicated with love to Christopher Reeve and Dana Reeve." For those who didn't hear, after seeing her husband through the years of his paralysis and doing what she could for his legacy after his death, Dana Reeve died this year from cancer. And the filmmakers paid their homage to both of them.<br />
<br />
But that's not the only homage in this film. We also got two guest stars from the old Adventures of Superman series: Noel Neill (who played Lois Lane) and Jack Larson (who played Jimmy Olsen). Their parts here were small, but it was still a nice nod to them and their fans.<br />
<br />
OK, OK, so it's an homage; but how is it <i>better</i>? Oh, in oh so many ways:<br />
<br />
<ul><br />
   <li>The special effects are 30 years better. <i>Superman I</i> was truly ground-breaking for its day. Today, most personal computers can do better effects. Even though everything looks the same in some ways &mdash; the Fortress, especially &mdash; it all looks <i>better</i>. One tiny example: the explosion of Krypton in <i>Superman I</i> was actually a microscope recording of a histamine cell exploding. In this film, it's a wonderfully detailed CGI rendering. (In 3D, at IMAX theaters!)</li><br />
   <li>And wow! What special effects. Now I've said more times than I can recall that special effects in movies aren't that important to me. And as a general rule, they aren't. But come on! This is a superhero film! It has to have larger-than-life action! And this film delivers. The airplane rescue is stupendous. The New Krypton scenes are really creepy. And the crushing of Metropolis &mdash; well, I have to save that discussion for just a little bit.</li><br />
   <li>The whole thing just looks better. Street scenes in the first two films had the feel of soundstages, even when they weren't. Here, you just know you can actually walk around Metropolis.</li><br />
   <li>No offense to Margot Kidder, but Kate Bosworth just looks more like Lois Lane. Also, she got much more mature dialog to work with.</li><br />
   <li>And that maturity. That's probably the biggest difference. The first two films had just a touch of camp about them. This film plays it straight.</li><br />
   <li>And where this film <i>particularly</i> plays it straight is with Lex Luthor. I love Gene Hackman; but his Lex Luthor had a lot of the buffoon about him. (Rather surprising for Mr. Hackman, really.) Even though Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor surrounds himself with buffoons, he's really, really scary. And when he tries to be funny, he's even scarier. Think the Joker, and you won't be far off: if he's trying to be funny, it's to distract you from his trying to kill you, or to gloat over having already killed you.</li><br />
   <li>And yet there <i>is</i> humor in the film; but it's more subtle, more gentle than in the first two films. Some of it's in-jokes, like the Addis Abbaba meteorite. Some of it's very subtle, like the name of Luthor's ship (you've got to look fast for that one). And some of it's pretty clever, like when a kid with a cell phone gets better shots of Superman than Jimmy can get with his expensive camera. (Don't worry, Jimmy fans, he makes up for it eventually.) None of it's laugh-out-loud funny (although I laughed at the Addis Abbaba sign, as did the similar-in-age guy next to me); but none of it's camp, either. It fits the story more naturally.</li><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
OK, OK, OK. You liked it. But how is it an homage to Mr. Maggin?<br />
<br />
Well, it may not be. That may just be me reading into it. But I really felt like there was, if not a Maggin homage, then a definite Maggin influence, in at least five ways:<br />
<br />
<ul><br />
   <li>First, there's that whole crushing of Metropolis scene. I won't tell you the details, because that would spoil it. But one of Mr. Maggin's specialties in his novels is what I think of as the "Superman is everywhere" chapter. Some criminal plot or some menace comes up, and it has lots of ramifications in lots of places all at once. This is a job for Superman! See, among his many powers, Superman is just a wee bit faster than a speeding bullet. Faster than that, even. So Mr. Maggin tells the story at Superman's rate of perception as he zips from crisis to crisis and handles each in the most appropriate way: disarming a villain here, crashing two villain-laden hang gliders together there, all while using super ventrilloquism to convince another villain that the plan has been called off. Pages and pages of detailed action, all at a leisurely pace for Superman, and all in under 12 seconds for the villains. Prior to this film, I would've called such a scene unfilmable. In fact, I would've predicted <i>exactly</i> what bugged me about some of the fight scenes in <i>Batman Begins</i>: to make the action believably fast, they would have to make it too fast for the viewer to follow. Well, somehow, director Brian Singer defied my expectations. While the crushing of Metropolis isn't quite as involved as one of Mr. Maggin's "Superman is everywhere" chapters, it's pretty involved. There are a lot of menaces in a lot of places, and Superman manages to be everywhere at once, dealing with them. The scene where Superman flies through the city streets but then rolls leisurely over onto his back, so he can look back and vaporize a whole street full of falling debris &mdash; priceless! I just looked at that whole section and said, "Wow! That's worthy of Maggin!"</li><br />
   <li>In <i>Superman: Miracle Monday</i>, Mr. Maggin has a very poignant scene in which Superman turns up his superhearing and listens &mdash; really listens &mdash; to the whole Earth at once. And eventually, he hears a kind of symphony; and he hears that he has a part in it. In this film, Superman tells Lois that despite her article on why no one needs a Superman, he can hear all over, and he just keeps hearing people calling for help. It wasn't exactly an echo of Mr. Maggin's scene, but it made me think of that scene.</li><br />
   <li>There's a definite element of "There is a right and a wrong..." here. This is a Superman who just has to do what's right, no matter what. To be blunt, Superman gets the stuffing kicked out of him in this film, far more than in <i>Superman II</i>; and yet he just keeps trying, no matter what. It's simply what he has to do.</li><br />
   <li>Mr. Maggin had another recurring theme. In fact, he originally wrote it for a writing class; and when he got a lousy grade, he sent it to DC instead, and they bought the script, and they hired him from there. (And now he's <i>teaching</i> writing. Kids, don't give up just because someone tells you you can't succeed, even if it's a teacher. Sometimes teachers are wrong, too. Did you ever see Superman give up? Huh? Huh?) That story, "Must There Be A Superman?" dealt with the possibility that by solving all of our problems, Superman was stunting our growth and making us dependent on him. He learned to let us solve our own problems, stumbling along the way and picking ourselves up and learning in the process; and he just gave a helping hand when the problems were too big for us. Well, that theme came up in this film, in a briefly remembered bit of advice from Jor-El; and in fact, it's Lois and Richard who end up saving Superman at one point. And Superman also steps back at one point to let people solve their own problems. This is straight from Mr. Maggin.</li><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
And the last bit of Maggin influence &mdash; Well, I want to close with that. So let me just say that this film, while very good, isn't perfect. It's a bit long. The end, especially, drags a bit, and could've been trimmed at least five minutes. And the director relied a little too heavily on slow motion in a couple of places (although one slow-mo scene that I thought dragged on a bit too long was justified in the end with a wince-inducing special effect that was actually kinda cool, if you're not squeamish about eyes). But those are minor quibbles. In most films, I can come up with a dozen quibbles more than that. None of that stopped me from saying toward the end, "OK, when's <i>World's Finest</i> coming?" (For the non-comic fans: <i>World's Finest</i> was a long-running Superman/Batman team-up book. After <i>Batman Begins</i> and this film, it's time for a <i>World's Finest</i> film.)<br />
<br />
Back to that last bit of Maggin influence &mdash; and again, I'll concede this may be me reading into it. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the theme is so strong in Mr. Maggin's books and in this film, since it is kinda central to the whole Superman mythos. It has to do with fathers. A big element of Mr. Maggin's books was just how much Jor-El loved his son, and how hard he worked to protect him and guide him even though he would be long dead before his son grew up. He left lessons, and he chose protectors, and he chose the best, safest environment he could find for his son. He saw his responsibility to his son as his last, most important duty. And that's pretty much how this film opens; and in subtle ways, that comes up in places throughout the film. And it's how the film ends, as Superman finally fully appreciates just how important those sacrifices were to his father. (And I tried to be oblique, but I probably just ruined the ending for you. Serves you right for being so smart.)<br />
<br />
And when I left the theater, I felt &mdash; Whoa... I felt &mdash; Wow... I felt Hahahaha, and Yes!!! And Yeehaaa! I felt like I was 18 again, seeing this film just after <i>Superman II</i>. I felt awed. I felt invigorated. And a reaction I never expected from a silly superhero film: I miss my fav'rit. I miss my Dad.<br />
<br />
[<i>Mommy, Martin sounds sad. Didn't he like the movie?</i> Yes, dear. I think he liked it very, very much. Now goodnight. Sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite.]<br />
<br />
<div class="trigger" id="shep0rjguv.11"><a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('hep0rjguv.11').style.display = 'block'; document.getElementById('shep0rjguv.11').style.display = 'none'; return false;">...</a></div><br />
<div class="hidden" style="display: none;" id="hep0rjguv.11"><br />
Yes, this review wanders a lot, and takes forever to get anywhere. I get that from my Dad. Call it an homage. You got a problem with that?<br />
<div class="trigger"><a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('shep0rjguv.11').style.display = 'block';document.getElementById('hep0rjguv.11').style.display = 'none'; return false;">...</a></div></div><br />
<br />
<b>Update:</b> <a href="http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2006/06/superman_return.html">Bryce Zabel makes many of the same points.</a> But he uses, like, one-tenth as many words. Bet you wish I'd told you that at the start of the review, huh?<br />
<br />
<b>Update 2:</b> <a href="http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2006/06/superman-returns-review.html">Ken Lammers has a very different reaction.</a> (Warning! Major spoilers!) That's OK. I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. (But, um, dude, if you're going to say that that first action is out of character, then you're going to have to say that the action that led to that action back in <i>Superman II</i> was out of character. It's the same action, really, just cause and effect. And it would never happen in the comics. Movie audiences these days kinda expect it. We can debate the goodness of that expectation, but there it is.)<br />
<br />
<b>Update 3:</b> <a href="http://jameshudnall.com/blog.php?/weblog/review_superman_returns/">James Hudnall liked it, too,</a> though he thinks there was more room to cut at the end. For those who don't know James, he's a comics writer who has actually <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000AS9MMY/qid=1151668247/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-5846903-3135217?v=glance&s=books">written in the Superman series</a>, so I kinda think his opinion has <i>some</i> merit. James also wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FXSLCQ/qid=1151668247/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/002-5846903-3135217?s=books&v=glance&n=283155">Harsh Realm</a>, which was adapted into <a href="http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0182587/">a TV series by Chris Carter of X-Files fame</a>. And his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582406332/jameshudnall-20/002-5846903-3135217?creative=327641&camp=14573&adid=1P1ZJ4RWNGWADCG7BV4W&link_code=as1">The Psyhco</a> is working its way toward <a href="http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0490474/">a film version</a>. I first learned of James through his incredible <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871356937/qid=1151668247/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-5846903-3135217?s=books&v=glance&n=283155">Espers</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1887279938/qid=1151668247/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-5846903-3135217?s=books&v=glance&n=283155">series</a>. <i>And</i> he's a software geek who knows UML. So he's kinda like me, but, umm, cool and all that.<br />
]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1154538448.shtml">
<title>A book to look for</title>
<link>http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1154538448.shtml</link>
<description>Nick Schulz reviews David Warsh's Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations. It sounds like important reading:...</description>
<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-08-02T17:08+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nick Schulz <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110008738">reviews</a> David Warsh's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393059960/sr=8-1/qid=1154538320/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9581775-8012921?ie=UTF8">Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations</a>. It sounds like important reading:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Thus instead of land, labor and capital--the traditional inputs of economic theory--it was "people, ideas and things" that mattered, driving technological change and entrepreneurial creativity. "No longer were the advantages of technical superiority to be understood as a case of 'market failure,'" Mr. Warsh writes. "They were part of the rules of the game." Such superiority was by its nature temporary--i.e., nonmonopolistic. New knowledge constantly trumped old, and the law (rightly) gave ideas only limited property-protection.<br />
<br />
More and more, economists came to see that it was knowledge that made the difference in modern societies--e.g., in software, drugs, industrial processes, biotechnology and other parts of the economy where the upfront costs were large, the payoffs enormous and the benefits widespread. Economists inevitably turned their attention to the institutions or invisible structures--constitutions, customs, property rights, cultural sentiments (like trust)--that help to generate knowledge and sustain its effects.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
I'll be looking for it.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1154392422.shtml">
<title>No good deed ever goes unpunished</title>
<link>http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1154392422.shtml</link>
<description>The second in a series of vaguely related posts....</description>
<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-08-01T00:08+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>The second in a series of vaguely related posts.</i><br />
<br />
Did you ever read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345348036/sr=8-3/qid=1154388170/ref=pd_bbs_3/102-8579877-7424909?ie=UTF8">The Princess Bride</a>?<br />
<br />
No, no, no... Not <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F9RBBC/sr=8-1/qid=1154388170/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8579877-7424909?ie=UTF8"><i>this</i> Princess Bride</a>. That's the movie. And like most fencers I know, I've watched it way too many times, and can quote from it extensively. It is, in my opinion, one of Rob Reiner's finest moments. <a href="http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0088258/">And</a> <a href="http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0090103/">that's</a> <a href="http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0092005/">saying</a> <a href="http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0098635/">an</a> <a href="http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/">awful</a> <a href="http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/">lot</a>.<br />
<br />
But as much of a cliche as I know this is: the book is better. Mr. Goldman (who also wrote the screenplay) had time to tell how his characters got to the story in the film. They each had stories only hinted at on screen. And the important story for today's purposes was thet of Inigo Montoya. ("Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." See, I told you I could quote from it excessively &mdash; I mean, extensively.) In the film, Inigo hunted the six-fingered man who had commissioned his sword-maker father to make a custom sword, but who then refused to pay for it and killed his father.<br />
<br />
But in the book, we learn the story that came <i>before</i> the six-fingered sword. It tells of how the elder Montoya was one of if not the finest swordsmen in the land, and his swords came to be prized beyond any others. He had so much work that he couldn't keep up. So he raised his prices to try to drive business away. But buyers decided that such expensive swords must be even more valuable, so the demand increased. Soon he couldn't keep up with his own standards, and he openly said that the quality would suffer; but people didn't care, because only a genuine Montoya would do. And besides, despite his protests, he was too professional to ever let the quality <i>really</i> suffer.<br />
<br />
If he hadn't been such a hard worker, he wouldn't have had to work so hard.<br />
<br />
Same lesson, different story: Star Trek. The Enterprise crew is exhausted. They haven't had a rest in months. And on their way to some much-needed shore leave, Starfleet throws them another certain death challenge. And McCoy demands, "Why do they keep giving us all the hard jobs?" And Spock answers, "Because we keep succeeding."<br />
<br />
No good deed ever goes unpunished. I really believe this is a law of human nature: the more you succeed, the more people expect from you.<br />
<br />
Eight years ago, we of <a href="http://www.AADuelist.org/Club">the Ann Arbor Dueling Society</a> decided the time had come to finally do what we had been wanting to do for years: host our own tournament. We were complete newbies; but with a lot of help from <a href="http://www.michfencing.org/">the Division</a> and a lot of patience and support from <a href="http://www.annarborymca.org/">the Y</a>, we pulled it off. We were tired and dirty, but we pulled it off. And we learned. And we vowed to do even better the next year.<br />
<br />
And we did. In fact, much better. And better still the year after that.<br />
<br />
But at the same time, the Y became a little more strict about the clock. There were various, justifiable reasons &mdash; cost of maintenance staff, building security needs, etc. &mdash; but probably the biggest was that they were saving and budgeting for a new facility. So while we were getting better at running the tournament, we <i>needed</i> to get better just to keep up.<br />
<br />
But here's the thing about fencing tournaments (and I would assume other sports as well, but I can't say): people appreciate a well run event. They like it when things go well, and they get more time to fence and spend less time waiting for things to happen. And when they like a tournament, they're more likely to come back the next year &mdash; <i>and to tell their friends about it, so they show up, too.</i> So when you get better at running a tournament, more people show up.<br />
<br />
And here's the thing about the Duelist: for various reasons, we chose to hold it in late August. That makes it the first tournament of the season; so people who haven't fenced in a tournament all summer are just a little more eager to show up. And also, it's one of the few tournaments during the pre-Labor Day summer season, when people tend to travel a bit more. So that's another pair of reasons why the Duelist has tended to grow.<br />
<br />
And then here's another thing about fencing tournaments: when more people show up, more people <i>want</i> to show up. See, fencers (present company excepted) are all obsessed about improving their ratings. It's like horse racers wanting to run at pole position: a better rating helps you in small ways, and also just indicates that you're a better fencer. And the rules for awarding ratings state the you have to place at-and-such a place with so-and-so-many fencers <b>including a minimum number of fencers of a given rating</b> in order for you to advance in rating. So as more people start showing up at a tournament, the chances for a rating go up, enticing more people to show up at the tournament. It's a vicious positive feedback loop. Yes, we're proud of the size of our tournament; but at the same time, it's vicious.<br />
<br />
And yet another thing about fencing tournaments: while the sport is still way less popular in the USA than seems right to us (good grief, one evening I caught two hours of <b>competitive hot dog eating</b> on ESPN, but they still won't air fencing tournaments), the popularity is growing. There are just more fencers out there looking for tournaments. (In our own miniscule way, we like to think we're helping that growth.)<br />
<br />
Now here's one more thing yet about fencing tournaments: unless you can add fencing strips and directors, adding more people tends to make the tournament take longer according to the square of the number of people. See, initial fencing is divided up into roughly equal pools, where the number of pools is pretty much limited to the number of directors you have. (Michigan has some fine directors, but doesn't have many directors over all.) So if you add more people without adding more directors, you have to make the pools larger. And since the rules for pools are that each person in a pool fences each other person in that pool, well, that's an n-squared growth problem. Actually, its (n-squared + n) / 2 (<a href="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1154387317.shtml">George</a> could explain why; but because I studied under him, the answer's intuitive to me.) Six people in a pool means 15 pool bouts. Seven people in a pool means 21 pool bouts, so a 16% increase in fencers means a 40% increase in bouts. And eight people in a pool means 28 pool bouts, or nearly double the 15 we started with. Adding people slows you down. A lot.<br />
<br />
So while we have been doing everything in our power to get better and better at running a tournament, the very success we achieve makes it harder to run the next one. Every year we have had to learn from our experience last year and do just a little bit better; but since that sort of improvement can only go so far, we have had to invent new techniques for getting lots better at things we thought were pretty darn good already.<br />
<br />
And that's the sort of game that can give certain sorts of control freaks (hey, I resemble that remark &mdash; and thankfully for the tournament, I'm not alone) a certain thrill as you try to find ways to beat your past performance. But in all modesty, last year's tournament (The Duelist VIII) was run as close to picture perfect as any of us could imagine. In our <i>post mortem</i> review (that's fancy talk for "hanging out in the bar afterwards"), we shared stories from the day; and we learned from each other of a half dozen to a dozen different catastrophes that <i>didn't</i> happen because someone on our very capable and conscientious staff happened to be in the right place at the right time <i>and</i> noticed the problem <i>and</i> had the presence of mind and the experience and the ingenuity to deal with it in the most efficient possible fashion. If we had simply had normal human failings just once, the whole schedule would've collapsed. And we <i>are</i> only human, after all, so we had to count luck as a significant factor in our success last year.<br />
<br />
But with all that on our side &mdash; ingenuity, experience, willingness, determination, and lots of luck &mdash; we barely snuck out the door 30 seconds before the Y's closing time. Literally: they locked the doors behind us. Luck alone is <b>not</b> going to cut it this year.<br />
<br />
On the plus side, the Y has lengthened their schedule by one hour this year. That will buy us some breathing room; but if the tournament grows <i>at all</i>, or if one catastrophe goes unaverted, we're at risk of the whole house of cards falling apart.<br />
<br />
And yes, to the control freaks among us, that's a sick kind of game: how do we do measurably better than the best we could do last year? It's sad, I know, but we find it fun. We have to do <b>better</b>.<br />
<br />
All of which is preamble to my next post...]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1150593705.shtml">
<title>Serendipity</title>
<link>http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1150593705.shtml</link>
<description>So I was on the way home from my Tablet PC class in Louisville. I got a late start (as I'll explain shortly), and I wanted to stop in Dayton...</description>
<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-06-18T01:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[So I was on the way home from <a href="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1122474050.shtml">my Tablet PC class in Louisville</a>. I got a late start (as I'll explain shortly), and I wanted to stop in Dayton to see <a href="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1134024442.shtml">Apollo 15</a> at the Air Force Museum. So I checked into a hotel for the night. And I turned on the TV, flipping through channels for something to watch on a Saturday night.<br />
<br />
And I came across the world premier of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F0V0LS/002-5846903-3135217?v=glance&n=130">Superman - Brainiac Attacks</a> on <a href="http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/">Cartoon Network</a>. This premier was, naturally, intended to promote the DVD release on Tuesday (as well as to hype interest in <a href="http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html">the film</a> that opens on the 28th, of course). And as usual for the recent Warner animated superhero shows, it was quite well done.<br />
<br />
Tim Daly, one of my favorite underrated actors, returns as the voice of Clark/Superman, and Dana Delaney returns as Lois. The story has two primary threads: Clark's desire to share his secret with Lois and his fear that he might put her in danger, and Luthor's plan to rebuild Braniac and work with him to conquer the Earth. The two threads come together when the new, improved Braniac tracks Clark down in his secret identity, and Lois gets injured and infected in the ensuing battle. Will he have to choose between Lois and his responsibilities as Superman? Well, that would spoil the ending, so I'm not going to say.<br />
<br />
I missed the first half hour, so I hope I can see it again soon.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1146427579.shtml">
<title>And the award for most confusing eBay listing goes to...</title>
<link>http://tabletumlnews.powerblogs.com/posts/1146427579.shtml</link>
<description>...this listing for 40 Years Of The Amazing Spider-Man - *NEW for $20.54....</description>
<dc:creator>Martin L. Shoemaker</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-04-30T20:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[...<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/40-Years-Of-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-NEW_W0QQitemZ4629884746QQcategoryZ378QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem">this listing for <i>40 Years Of The Amazing Spider-Man</i> - *NEW</a> for $20.54.<br />
<br />
Why did it win the award for most confusing (nominated, selected, and awarded by me, and I'm not interested in doing any actual research to find anything even worse)? Was it because 11 CDs of Spider-Man comics are listed under <b>Books > Nonfiction Books</b>? No, lots of eBay listings are filed under the wrong category.<br />
<br />
No, the problem is that the category is <b>right</b>. It's the title that's wrong. Here's the revised description of this book:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
 Description  (revised)   <br />
 <br />
 The Spirit of Islamic Law <br />
 Item Specifics - Nonfiction Books  <br />
 Author:  Bernard G. Weiss    Category:  Law & Government   <br />
 Publisher:  Univ of Georgia Pr       <br />
 ISBN:  0820328278       <br />
 Format:  Softcover    Condition:  New   <br />
 Publication Year:  2006       <br />
 Special Attributes:  &mdash;  <br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
And then there follows a great-big splash page that describes the book in detail; and trust me, Spider-Man is not mentioned anywhere on that splash page.<br />
<br />
Look, I know it probably costs, like, a dollar to cancel an eBay listing and create another one. But there's just no reason I can see to leave this listing up under such a misleading title. No one who wants <i>The Spirit of Islamic Law</i> will find the book under that title; and anyone looking for <i>40 Years Of The Amazing Spider-Man</i> is <i>not</i> going to be happy when they open this listing. Amused, perhaps, but not happy: you see, the asking price for this book is half the original price of <i>40 Years Of The Amazing Spider-Man</i>; and since the CD set is now out of print (drat!), secondary sellers on Amazon are charging $90 and up. $20.54 is a really exciting bargain... and then you find that you're looking at the wrong book.<br />
<br />
<B>P.S.</B> And yes, Epee Bill, they have issued <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000E28UT2/sr=1-1/qid=1146428052/ref=sr_1_1/104-7028169-2282300?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=software&v=glance">this title</a> as well. And since it's in PDF format, it should work on that niche computer platform you prefer (though there are some user comments that indicate problems on Macs, including possible incompatibilities with Mac's built-in PDF reader).]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>