I really wanted to post more in 2025, but I just didn’t have time. I started at a new job that absolutely DESTROYED my free time. I essentially had time to work on my podcast (Adult Siblings Versus …which you can listen to HERE) and that’s it. But I am still managing to get this Top Ten list on the anniversary of this blog, and I still plan on putting out my annual Black Superhero Month posts next month.
For today we’ll focus on my top ten favorite movies of 2025. As always, these are my FAVORITE films, not necessarily the objectively best films. Also, as always, there were plenty of films I was unable to get around to watching things like Marty Supreme or One Battle After Another. While I tried to watch Frankenstein, I have never seen a movie that needed to be viewed on a big screen rather a TV more and I couldn’t maintain interested solely based on that.
I did watch Elio with my son last year, however, which is the most recent Pixar film. I want to take a moment to mention how much I liked it (he liked it too) and how wrong the modern idea that Pixar movies just not being good anymore is. It JUST barely didn’t make the list. Blame Benoit Blanc for that one.
John Henry took sick and went to his bed Polly Ann drove steel like a man, Lord, Lord
Name: Natasha Irons
First Appearance: Steel #1 (1994)
History:Natasha Irons is the niece of superhero and
scientist John Henry Irons, better known as Steel. From early on into his hero
career Natasha had been his steadfast supporter and ally, to the point where
she was the only member of the Irons family to accompany him when John relocated
back to Metropolis. One day, John was trapped under the influence of the Entropy Aegis,
a powerful armor created by Darkseid. Designing her own armor using Aegis tech,
Natasha teamed up with Superman and others to rescue her uncle from the
clutches of Apokolips. While they were successful, John was too injured to
continue on as Steel. Therefore, he passed the mantle to Natasha, something he
had always planned on doing, and with his blessing and support she began her
own heroic career as the new Steel.
Sometime later Natasha ad John had a falling out and he
stripped her of the armor. Unable to recreate her own, she signed up for the Everyman
Project, a superhuman creation program sponsored by Lex Luthor. The program gave
her superhuman strength, the ability to fly, and the power to emit light blasts
from her hands and she soon took up the name Starlight. However, after
realizing that Luthor had criminal ulterior motives with the project she
betrayed him to her uncle but was stripped of the powers for her efforts. Later
still it turned out that the experiments had lingering effects and she developed
new powers, the ability to phase into a gaseous form, and she took up the name
Vapor.
Beta Says: Natasha is a bit of a difficult character to write
about as she is a spin-off character of a spin-off character; a derivative of a
derivative, if you will. Steel has never been all that successful as a
character beyond being loosely associated with Superman and a lot the time that
Natasha ends up donning the power suit herself it usually feels like current DC
Comics’ current writers aren’t interested in John Henry Irons at the moment for
whatever reason, and tag her in instead like she’s a back-up character when they
need to add a woman or a black person or both to story. Considering she spent
so many years as a supporting character to John in his solo series, I to this
day wonder why exactly DC felt the need to replace him with her, and then keep
replacing her back with her uncle anytime someone decided they had a use for
him again. It makes me tired.
I gave Man of Steel a pretty good review when it came out, though a major problem I had with it was that it was a crappy Superman story and that it wasn’t all that fun. Superman did kill a dude in that flick and while that did bug me what really bothered me was that he didn’t really seem to care all that much afterwards. I mean, Superman probably shouldn’t kill but the reason he shouldn’t is mostly due to his own repulsion at doing so. Man of Steel was a fine action film but it felt a bit like Zack Snyder didn’t really “get” the character. Superman doesn’t need a “dark and gritty” reimagining and if you think he does then you don’t “get him either (similarly the Fantastic Four doesn’t need a “grim and gritty” take either). Enter the film we’re looking at today: Batman v Board of Education. While Man of Steel was the soft launch of DC Expanded Universe, devised to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, this flick is the true start of the campaign. This film, like Man of Steel, was directed by Snyder. I’ve reviewed a few of his movie at this point, Sucker Punch being the film I associate with him the most (Note: I hated it). This movie is heavily influenced by the 1986 comic book The Dark Knight Returns which, along with Watchmen, is credited with ushering in the Dark Age of Comics. The hype machine for this movie has been running hard for over a year, mainly because despite the flick being done Warner Bros. opted to push it back from Summer 2015 to Spring 2016. Having been out for bit now the film has been met mostly negative reviews, with a few sprinklings of folk claiming it’s a fantastic film. Well, now that I’ve seen it myself I have my own opinions. And I’ve only been drinking a little bit, so I’m good to go! Full review of Regents of the University of California v Superman after the jump. [Warning: This review contains some spoilers but I do avoid majors ones.]
Name: John Henry Irons (…for real)
First Appearance: The Adventures of Superman #500 (1993) History: A brilliant engineer and weapons designer, Doctor John Henry Irons (…sigh) diligently worked for AmerTek until he discovered weapons he created were being used to kill innocent people. Faking his death in order to escape his employers without facing blow back he relocated to Metropolis, living as a construction worker. One day while on the job he saved a co-worker from falling to his death in an accident, only to himself nearly die in the attempt. Irons was rescued by Superman who told him to live a life worth living. Later during the battle between Superman and Doomsday Irons was left buried in ruble. By the time he escaped he learned that the man he looked up to so much had died saving the city. Soon after this John discovered that upgraded versions of his weapon designs from AmerTek had made it onto the streets and become the focal point of a gang war. Hoping to right his past wrongs, as well as honor Superman, Irons created a high tech piece of battle armor and took to the skies as The Man of Steel to act as the new protector of Metropolis. When Superman returned to life he endorsed Irons and encouraged him to continue his heroic career, but suggested he take a name that was less of a mouthful: Steel. Beta Says: Seriously, his name is “John Henry Irons.” Honestly I can’t tell if this is racist or not. Naming your cool new, hammer wielding black character after that specific folk hero is absolutely intentional and absolutely weird as hell. Maybe if this had been 1973 or 1966 I’d be less bugged by this but one would assume by 1993 people writing comics would have understood how problematic naming a black character that could potentially be. I feel like calling him “John Henry” is only one step above creating a comic book superhero named Br’er Rabbit with a straight face.
Bring me back a TWELVE-pound hammer, please, And I'll beat that steam drill down, Lord, Lord
I bet who ever came up with that name really patted themselves on the back for that one. “Guys, get this? What if his real name was John Henry? Maybe give him a last name that invokes metal. We can’t call him 'John Henry Steel', that’d be silly. What’s another alloy…? Iron! John Henry Irons! Holy cow, guys! We just made certified gold! This guy will be a top hero for decades to come!”
More about this modern day black folk hero after the jump.
[NOTE: I actually wrote 98% of this blog nearly two weeks ago but I've been dealing with so many personal issues this Summer that I couldn't bring myself to upload it. I apologize to anyone who's been disappointed by the lack of updates the last two months. Hopefully I'll be able to get a few blogs up before the end of the month]
Most people, from random people I know on Facebook to big named celebrities, seem to have this weird dislike of Superman usually citing him as being dull or hokey and usually following it up by saying how much they love Batman. I will agree that a Superman movie hasn’t really been something to get excited about in modern times due to the fact that, well, there haven’t been that many good Superman movies. Most people agree that the 1978 Superman film and Superman II are the best of the bunch (though I think the first one is kind of dull and the second one is overrated). Superman III and Superman IV are considered two of the worst superhero movies of all time. Years later we got Superman Returns, which seemed to be Warner Bros. trying to capitalize on the momentum of Batman Begins, ended up not doing all that great and being extremely decisive among the fans (director Bryan Singer decided to have Superman returns be a direct sequel to Superman II, complete with re-used footage). They opted not to make a follow-up. But now Man of Steel is upon us and there was a lot of good buzz about the film prior to release. It’s a reboot that has nothing to do with the previous films’ continuity (and also doesn’t have the classic Superman march). But wouldn’t you know it; the film has been the most hotly debated film of the year so far. Some people LOVED this film calling it one of the best superhero flicks made but then others have declared it to be an assassination of the character of Superman. I’ve been led to believe people who love Superman hate the movie but people who hate Superman enjoyed it. That’s a bad sign. Also they hired Zack Snyder to direct, presumably because they watched 300 and Watchmen but didn’t watch Sucker Punch and thus still had faith in his directing skills. Before we get to the review there’s an outstanding issue and that’s the Justice League movie. Ever since The Avengers came out last year amnd ade all of the money on Earth Warner Bros. and DC Entertainment have been touting that they plan on releasing a JLA film in 2015 just in time to go toe-to-toe with Avengers 2 Avengers: Age of Ultron. [EDIT: This has since changed. Skip to the bottom of this review for more details] However a few months later they backtracked on this and said that Man of Steel needed to do well in order for them to move forward on that. That’s…suspicious. In any case this means that Man of Steel isn’t just its own movie but rather the DC equivalent of the original Iron Man movie; the beginning of a cinematic universe. That’s a lot a pressure. Full review after the jump. [WARNING: This review contains major spoilers for the film so if you haven't watched it yet and manged to avoid the internet the last month you may not want to skip this one]
I deeply apologize for the lack of updates in November. I kind of let things get away from me there. Long story short I was participating in (And failing at) National Novel Writing Month and whatever writing I did last month I did for that. Then I was kind of burnt out from writing. Also I got a writing job for Kzoo Music Scene and I have been a bit busy with that as well (But I’ll properly plug that later this week). Then again I didn’t get any comments or e-mails asking about where I was so I’ll go ahead and assume you guys weren’t all that worried.
Anywho if you have in fact been eagerly anticipating the 150th blog of Beta is Dead your dreams have finally come true. Today, as with pretty much all the major and minor milestones I celebrate here, we’ll be talking about comic books; especially the topic of Superhero Marriages.
How long before DC tries to have another "Wedding of the Century" stunt?
If you read my 100th (And 99th) blog you’ll recall that I was particularly bothered by Marvel Comics' decision to retcon the marriage of Spider-Man and his long, long time love interest Mary Jane Watson. While I had several reasons for my distaste one of the bigger cons I had for it was the reasoning behind why it needed to be erased in the first place. Now at the time I didn't think too much of it, aside for my overall disapproval towards Spider-Man comics that continues to this day, but recently I've started wondering if comic book creators have something against their characters being married. Now superheroes have be through divorces in the past and certainly wives and husbands have died off before as well but in one of the more frustrating aspects of the DCnU reboot this past fall has been that DC Comics have removed several established marriages in the hero community. This was no doubt an attempt, or maybe even simply a “side effect”, on their part to re-establish their characters as being younger (And probably “hipper” since as we learned from Spider-Man no superhero can be “cool” and “married”, yuck-yuck-yuck). So the current FlashThe False, well established grandfather Barry Allen, is no longer married to Iris West (Whom he married decades ago), Superman and Lois Lane have reverted back to the Silver Age of Comics where she somehow had been too stupid to figure out that guy she knows in the glasses is also the Man in Steel, and Wally West (The One True Flash) and Linda Park…well I’m not even sure Wally still exists in this new continuity, let alone his two children who have surely been erased.
This has made me think: traditionally how have superhero comics (Particular Marvel and DC since they both seem to be tied to traditional much more than small imprints like, say, Image Comics) treated holy matrimony and do writers seem to actively prefer single heroes. I don’t have the answer to that. But I thought I would talk about superhero marriages in general.
The sanctity of marriage is challenged after the jump.
So I had an interesting take on the superhero character that I had been meaning to share with people for a number of months but it wasn’t until today that I came up with a phrase to articulate it properly. In order to talk about this idea we need to be on the same page about Superman and Batman.
World's Finest et cetera et cetera
Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster as early as 1933 (Or some early proto version anyway) but it wouldn’t be until 1938 that the character appeared in comic book form. Though he was not the first superhero character he became the defining example and was the archetype that many writers and artists based their own creations on: a hero with powers beyond those of the average person chooses to use them to serve humanity, usually in the form of fighting vicious criminals or other post-human threats that normal law officers aren’t able to deal with. So if we agree that Superman is the archetype then Batman is likely the first major, or at least most popular, deconstruction.
Created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger in 1939 Batman was in many ways Superman’s perfect superhero opposite. While Superman was an alien with many superhuman powers Batman s a normal human but the best representation of human potential (Both physically and mentally). While Superman was raised by normal farmers and picked up Midwest sensibilities growing up Batman came from wealth and lived in luxury for his whole life while a the same time having lost his parents at an early age. However I feel the two have since come to represent the two main archetype that the vast majority of superheroes fall under. Both characters are two sides of the same coin, one dark and the other light though this distinction wouldn’t be fully fleshed out for a while in the comic industry. Today both are clearly defined not only in these two but most characters in just about every company that publishes superhero comics. I call them “The Protector” and “The Defender”
Actually there’s likely a third archetype but I’m getting a head of myself.
Superman is the Protector. What defines him the most is his need not only to help as many people as he can but to also be a symbol of hope to the masses. As such the Protector must always be aware of how his actions are interpreted by those he serves. In Superman’s case, being so strong, he must be extra concerned about being seen as an all powerful menace or even a monstrous being who wishes to control the lives of the average person (Lex Luthor’s main motivation is that he misunderstands Superman in this regard). He shows constant good will to help this perception and ultimately is seen as a clear cut “good guy.” Because he doesn’t want to be feared he never (Or at least “rarely”) blurs the line between hero and villain because the moment he does he risks his ability to give his community, his country, mankind, etc. the hope he wanted to instill. There is a strong sense of optimism associated with this archetype.
Batman is the Defender. Like the Protector he too wants to help others but unlike his lighter counterpart he either doesn’t care or at least isn’t concerned that much about his own public image. He wants to defend people for the horrors that threaten them and will do so with more abandon than the Protector. It doesn’t matter to him if people hate or fear him, or ever acknowledges that he exists, so long as they’re safe. He can be seen as similarly villainous as those he fights but as he’s less concerned about giving hope and more concerned about bringing evil doers to justice he is comfortable with that perception. While he doesn’t cross the line between hero and villain he does come close enough to it to be tempted to do so. He’s the Protector’s cynical twin.
Both of these archetypes are equally valid, neither one being better or worse than the other. Although you might have a preference it doesn’t mean the other isn’t still as important. Damn near every superhero since the 1940s have followed one or the other.
Here’s a few traits of both. This is obviously not a complete list but it should give you an idea of what I’m talking about.
The Protector
For legal reasons I must refer to this person as "SHAZAM!"
It's neither his name nor do I care to call him such
-Is usually well liked and trusted by citizens. She makes public appearances, she knows the mayor, she kisses babies. The more powerful they are the more necessary this is since the general public would be utterly terrified of a being that could, if she wanted to, destroy their cities with little effort if she didn’t make efforts to appease them
-Usually works with authorities much for the same reason as above. He may be an agent of the government but usually it’s more like he wants to show good faith by working within the system. Similarly he is more likely to go by the letter of the law so he is not seen as considering himself to be above it
-Won’t use lethal force unless absolutely no other option presents itself and even then still maybe not. In fact often the Protector will likely even go to great lengths to make sure that even murderous criminals survive encounters for a fair trial, even at the cost of her own life. In Superman’s own words “The world doesn’t need a Superman who kills”
-Is usually optimistic about the world to the point that they sincerely believe in concepts like “forgiveness” and “second chances”, although this usually does not extend to beings they considered to be true evil and beyond redemption. Some Protectors are more cynical about this however and need definitive proof that the person in question truly wants to change and even then may still be suspicious
-Can be someone who views the world in Black and White/Right and Wrong but usually they understand the concept of “grey morality”. They simply choose not to live in the that area
-Often the most powerful heroes fall into this. Though the really scary characters are the really power ones who don’t (CoughcoughTheSentrycoughcough). Anyway this tends to make a lot of fans claim the Protector isn’t relatable, but that’s a whole different blog, I’m sure
-Has a defining trait of trying to protect as many people as they possibly can, and in some cases that can be a lot. For example Superman, due to his super senses and super speed, can detect pretty much every mugging in Metropolis and stop it before anyone can get hurt
-Will automatically stop being a Protector is he ever permanently loses his faith in people in general. If he continues on fighting for justice despite this he will become the Defender. He is however unlikely to ever become an Anti-Hero (More on that later)
-Usually has a sense of honor and perhaps fair play, though this could be worked against her if she’s set in her ways
Pictured: A mighty shield
Not Pictured: The Nazi about to eat it
Examples: Captain America is probably the penultimate example of this type despite having no powers. He is, of course, handicapped by the fact that his lives in a more cynical world than Supes. The Fantastic Four, who by in large represent the best the Silver Age had to offer, also fit the bill. Iron Man fits this as well due to his tendency to work as an agent for US interests (Thus proving that this type isn’t all positive), especially after the events of Civil War and The Initiative. Most members of the Avengers tend to fall under this, especially when grouped together. The Justice League of America and, indeed, the majority of heroes in the DC Universe fall into this as well due in large part to the hero community being largely inspired by Superman. Interestingly Batman’s original sidekick Dick Grayson, often known as Nightwing, has more potential to fit into this category than the Defender as he has always been a lighter, more optimistic version of his mentor. Even Batman often slides into his as well (The current Batman INC. storyline may be the most recent example).
The Defender
Grace Choi will kick your ass
-Is usually more concerned with catching criminals than good PR, but the tradeoff is that his reputation tends to suffer. At its worse the media and the authorities decry him as a criminal himself and he must constantly stay ahead of the very people he wants to protect, lest they “bring him to justice”
-Is often either a non-powered hero or a lower powered hero compared to other powerful beings. This is not universal as its not powers or lack thereof that determine the type but rather mindset
-Can be abrasive and unpleasant, though this is not universal. The problem is more in that the nature of their work can deeply affect their ability to properly interact with others. Ironically despite many non-powered characters fitting this type the Defender is usually more likely to lose his humanity during his war on crime
-Can work with authorities but usually not as a whole. They will normally have a liaison with police to help them keep track of what’s going on crime-wise but the relationship is usually unofficial and the person may be in trouble if it were ever discovered. This is usually because…
-Will often break laws to save lives. The Protector can do this as well but the Defender won’t hesitate to do this as often as he feels necessary. Usually this includes something like breaking and entering, assault and of course vigilantism but some Defenders can be guilty of stalking, kidnapping, terrorism, possession of illegal weapons and in some cases attempted murder and/or murder.
-Isn’t a believer in second chances, usually. He’ll likely be very suspicious of anyone claiming they’ve changed their ways no matter how many times they proved themselves
-Doesn’t usually use lethal force, though she can be more brutal than the Protector. While for the Protector avoiding killing is about maintaining the hope/fear ratio many Defenders use it as the line that separates them from those she fight. Sometimes the Defender does indeed use lethal force but it’s usually reserved for those who either really have it coming and she doesn’t tend to kill indiscriminately (As in they may try to shoot the Joker but they probably wouldn’t immediately gun down the goons working for him)
-Is far more likely to become an Anti-Hero (More on that later) but conversely finds it harder to become a Protector as it’s easier to lose faith than to gain it
-Has a code of honor, much like Protectors. Often they are extremely similar, but the Defender may be more talkative about it. I’m not sure why this is
Examples: As Batman is the poster child for this all of the Batman Family fall into this with maybe the exception of Dick Grayson and Stephanie Brown. Luke Cage (Shut your mouth) falls squarely into it as well. Most of Marvel’s “street level heroes” do too, including Daredevil and Moonknight (Who may be a Batman rip-off anyway). Many new characters created during the 70s and 80s fit this description as well, especially if Marvel was involved. The newest Manhunter (Kate Spencer, one of my favorite new characters from the 2000s) is probably right t the edge of the line between Defender and Anti-Hero. Every hero who followed Hal Jordon (aka Green Lantern) on his quest for vengeanceJUSTICE in the miniseries Justice League: Cry for Justice fell into this, despite where they might have been beforehand. The X-Men are certainly Defenders due to their militant nature, outsider perspective, and designation as “outlaws”. Yes, even Cyclops. Hell, especially Cyclops.
Cyclops completes his transformation into "Jack Bauer-Man"
Spider-Man is a weird case. On the one hand I think his ideology is closer to the Protector. He does, after all, greatly look up to Captain America as an example. But his reputation is not very good and he suffers from much of the same civilian backlash a Defender would get. I think it depends on who’s writing him at the time but in general Spider-Man may kind of bounce between one and the other. Maybe he wants to be a Protector but he keeps finding himself as a Defender despite his wishes. Similarly Wonder Woman could be placed in either due to the (Poor) nature her character is sometimes written. However in her case I believe the spirit of her character should mark her as a Protector.
The Third Option
This is my nightmare!
As I mentioned there’s a third option to this. As you’ve probably figured out by now it’s the Anti-Hero. He is the cyclical cousin to the Defender the same way the Defender is to the Protector. Though they may have taken different roads to get there all Anti-Heroes are characters who don’t just come close to the line but regularly cross it. At best they are vigilantes not unlike Defenders who kill opponents regularly. At worst they’re psychopathic monsters who’s goals just happen to involve “fighting crime/evil” and sometimes not even then. The deference between these characters and the villains they fight are either blurred or they just happen to battle some really terrifying creatures. Usually they do not share the same since of ethics as Protectors or Defenders; indeed Protectors will often be unable to work with them. This type of character has been involved in superhero comics since the beginning (Namor, the Submariner) but they rose in popularity during the 1970s through the 1990s. During the 90s creators took this to its logical, but frustrating, conclusion with gun toting muscle men becoming the favored type of hero. Even previously indentfied Protectors or Defenders fell into this trap even if just for a limited amount of time.
I don’t really have a problem with these types of characters in general, at least in more cynical settings, but in comics with established superhero continuity it always feels out of place to me; like they should actually be a new villain rather than a new ally (There are exceptions, of course). If you’re unsure whether yours favorite character falls into this category try answering the following questions:
-Does the character use killing as a first resort, even with enemies less powerful and/or less skilled than themselves?
-Is the character a former villain? Specifically were they a villain for a substantial amount of time of their own volition (As opposed to forced, blackmailed or otherwise controlled)?
-Has a Protector and maybe even also a Defender suggested that the character be arrested for their crimes?
-Has the publisher ever used the word “edgy” to describe the character? How about some variation of the phrase “This isn’t your daddy’s superhero”?
-Does the character use guns as their primary means of attack?
-Does the character perform heroic deeds for a paycheck?
-Does the character fight for vengeance, despite claims of fighting for justice?
-Is the character associated with Satan or an equivalent evil creature? Is he or she associated with hell in anyway?
-Does the character’s name include the word “blood”, “death”, or some sort of negative emotion or violent action?
-If a movie were made of the character would you be upset to learn that it was rated PG-13 instead of R?
-Is the character a Wolverine clone? (Be honest)
-Is the character actually Wolverine?
If you answered “yes” to two of those questions then you character may be an Anti-Hero. If you answered “yes” to three then he is nearly 100% certainly an Anti-Hero. If you answered “yes” to four or more then I’m surprised that the character hasn’t been taken down by Captain America yet.
Just smile and nod. Don't make eye contact
Examples: The Punisher is likely the most obvious example of this, but on his better days he might lightly be able to pass as a Defender. Maybe. If it was foggy outside. Spawn, Image Comics 90s poster boy, is another “iconic” example. The Authority are a particularly brutal example, but then again they’re from the WildStorm Universe and pretty much everyone there is some sort of Ant-Hero or another. Also Ghost Rider and the Spectre respectively depending on who’s writing them. Daredevil’s fall from Defender to Anti-Hero is the main plot in the recent Shadowland story Marvel just recently finished.
Anyway Anti-Heroes notwithstanding the Protector and the Defender make up the bulk of superheroes. They’re the same but the opposite. The yin to the other’s yang. This is how I think about and its easily just opinion. Agree? Disagree? Let me know.
