Happy Lisping Jedi Day

Today is May fourth.

May the Forth be with you.

Where is Superman's Metropolis?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am not satisfied with Batman and Superman operating in fictional cities. They have to live in the real world or the stakes just aren't there for me. I already went to great lengths to try to convince you that Batman lives in Boston. In this post, I'll tell you where Superman lives.

When Superman was first created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1933, they were high school students living in Cleveland, Ohio, and that's where they intended Superman to live. One early comic strip even said so, which was the earliest reference to Superman's location, but this was soon changed to "Metropolis," and it has been so ever since. Metropolis was modeled on Shuster's hometown of Toronto, but was never intended to be Toronto. Instead, it has more or less been an obvious stand-in for New York City. (In one of the 1940s cartoons made by Fleischer Studios, it was even referred to specifically as New York.)

The location of Metropolis has varied over the years. It has usually been located on the East Coast. New York State has been a popular choice, although DC Comics have tried to make it clear that it was definitely separate from New York City. Delaware has also been frequently rumored.

On television, the location of Metropolis has been even more slippery. The original 1950s television show used Los Angeles as a stand-in. In the 1990s, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman appeared to place it in northern Indiana and/or Chicago, Illinois. And the recent Smallville series clearly stated that Metropolis was within 100 miles of Smallville, Kansas.

Here's the deal with Metropolis, though: it's not as important to Superman as Gotham City is to Batman. In Batman's mythos, Gotham is a character unto itself. For Superman, though, Metropolis is just a destination; it's just his home. It could be anywhere as long as it serves his story. What you have to keep in mind is this: what is his story? What city best serves that story?

New York would work, sure, but only to a point. At this point, it's a little too obvious, and New York has a little too much personality for Superman, in my opinion. It's too big for just one hero, even if it's the biggest hero of them all. After all, that's where Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four and all the Marvel Comics characters live, and there has to be some reason why Superman isn't always bumping into them, so he can't live there. Instead, this is where he lives:

San Francisco, California

Don't believe me? Then I'll convince you.

First of all, Clark Kent was raised just outside of Hutchinson, Kansas during the Great Depression. (I'm not even going to waste time explaining that one - it's pretty obvious that Smallville is Hutchinson.) That means that as he came of age he got to see the Dust Bowl storms come through and wreck havoc on his community. His area of Kansas was right on the edge of the Dust Bowl, but it was still grim. Further west and south, all was ruin.

And what did people do in the face of such despair? They went to California, the only place there was any hope of making a living at that time. Not that there was much hope, but there was some. Remember the iconic picture of the "Migrant Mother" below? She took her family from farm to farm in California picking crops, living from hand to mouth, because her farm failed in Oklahoma. When Clark's surrogate father Jonathan Kent died, he left the farm in Kansas and went to California too. It was his best opportunity to make enough money to support his mother, since their farm wasn't able to support them any longer.

San Francisco was a land of opportunity, a great shining, sophisticated metropolis in 1938, and it beckoned to Clark. Even at that time, it was already one of the nation's largest cities and largest metropolitan areas. Just as New York had just finished constructing the Empire State Building, San Francisco had just finished its own impressive, iconic construction projects: the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 1936 and the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937, linking the peninsula with the surrounding counties. (Metropolis is usually depicted as a central island surrounded by several other boroughs - close enough.)

No offense to Los Angeles, but San Francisco is the closest rival to New York that the West Coast has. It has an impressive skyline, with a variety of architectural styles. Like New York and Los Angeles, it has an impressive number of Art Deco style buildings, but it also has some funky, modernistic stuff that the "City of Tomorrow" (as Metropolis is known) would have. It has a rich cultural tapestry, distinct neighborhoods, arts, technology, history, and plenty of "old money" to go around. And unlike L.A., it has a temperate climate, similar to the East or Midwest, except that - just like Metropolis in every comic book I've ever seen - it never snows there.

San Francisco was the main staging area for the United States war effort in the Pacific in WWII, which according to the Fleischer Studios cartoons of the 1940s, Superman took an active role in. San Francisco also has a history of crime and natural disasters that dovetail nicely with Metropolis' own history. (The presence of Alcatraz prison is just a bonus: where else would the world's most powerful superhero want to be than babysitting the world's most dangerous, maximum security criminals?)

San Francisco's strong technology sector also lends itself well to Lex Luthor, Superman's mad genius arch nemesis, who, lest we forget, is also based in the area, along with Lexcorp, his legitimate business empire.

Finally, an obscure little slice of history helps cement the City by the Bay. There was a little newspaper in 1908 called the San Francisco Evening Globe. The paper folded the following year, but what if, instead of folding, the paper had been bought by Charles Foster Kane, who as we all know from Citizen Kane, was starting his newspaper empire around that time. Let's say Kane renamed the paper the San Francisco Inquirer, like all his papers. Of course, Kane would have lost the paper in the Great Depression, when he was forced to sell most of his holdings to Walter Thatcher. Because the San Francisco paper was struggling, Thatcher decided to rename it to disassociate it from Kane's legacy and try to revive sales. The new name he chose was the San Francisco Daily Planet, a variation of its original name before Kane bought it, and the rest is history.

Most anticipated splody movies of 2013

At the beginning of each year, I check to see what movies are coming out and try to informally rank which ones I think will be worth seeing. My formula for success is equal parts good character development and explosions. Here is what I think about the movies scheduled for 2013:

1. Pacific Rim
When: July 12. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because this is my ultimate ten-year-old wish fulfillment movie, a film about giant monsters fighting giant robots. At the end of the day, you can keep your Jedi superheroes and ninja wizards and time-traveling zombies: this is my first love. From Godzilla to Gamera, from Ultraman to Voltron, and from Mazinger Z to Johnny Sokko’s Flying Robot – supersize it, give it an attitude and make it destroy Tokyo, and you’ve won my heart. Also, director Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy, Pan’s Labyrinth) is a fanboy himself, and he is a mad genius a bringing creative visuals into a movie without over-relying on CGI. I’m also excited to see man-crush Idris Elba as one of the leads. After being squandered in last year’s Prometheus, he’s already delivered one of this year’s best lines in Pacific Rim’s first trailer: “Today, we are cancelling the Apocalypse!”

2. Star Trek Into Darkness
When: May 17. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because the first installment of the new rebooted Star Trek was thrilling in ways that Trek has never been before. Some die-hard fans were turned off by J.J. Abrams’ re-imagining of the Trek universe, but it’s exactly what was needed to breathe new life into the franchise. As I said in my review: “We’re all Trekkies now.” The trailers for this second installment have looked equally dynamic, and the addition of the utterly amazing Bernard Cumberbatch as the villain is an inspired choice.

3. Iron Man 3
When: May 3. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because the first two were dynamite. (Yes, the second wasn’t as good as the first, but it still had a lot going for it.) Following the huge success of The Avengers, the next Iron Man solo movie will take the hero in a new direction with a new director, Shane Black – who worked with Robert Downey, Jr. on the excellent, career-rejuvenating Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. I love Iron Man and I love RDJ, so this is a no brainer.

4. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
When: December 13. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because director Peter Jackson has proven that any chance to escape to his vision of Middle Earth is worth the price of admission. Yes, his Hobbit trilogy should have probably been two movies: they covered half of the book in the first film and I have no idea how they’ll stretch the rest into two more films, even with J.R.R. Tolkien’s later additions and side notes. But I’m thoroughly looking forward to finding out. Oh, also: Smaug is an incredibly badass dragon and he is being voiced by the incredibly badass Bernard Cumberbatch. (See Star Trek Into Darkness, above: this will be the Year of Cumberbatch.)

5. Man of Steel
When: June 14. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because Superman is the first superhero and deserves to have a kick-ass movie, and I hope this is it. The original Superman theatrical shorts in the 1940s were among the best cartoons ever made (and they’re in the public domain, so you can find them for free), but his live-action appearances have yet to do him justice. Christopher Reeves was a great Superman, but he was shackled with weak scripts and special effects that couldn’t live up to the spectacle. (The 1978 film started off well, but the ending ruined my appreciation of that incarnation: reversing the rotation of the Earth wouldn’t turn back time, it would kill us all!) This movie promises a lot more action than we’ve ever seen from the Man of Steel before, and Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception) had a hand in crafting the story, so I remain hopeful. However, director Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) is hit-or-miss, so I’ll need to see it to believe it.

6. Thor: The Dark World
When: November 8. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because against all odds there is a Thor 2. When I heard they were making the first one, I at first thought it wouldn’t do well based on my vague recollection of the character. But Chris Hemsworth nailed the role, creating a character who was larger-than-life, but still relatable. Out of all of the main characters in The Avengers, Thor had the least character development, but his fight with the Hulk was one of the best action sequences. Look for more badassery in the sequel as the explore new “realms” and fight new fantastic foes – including Ninth Doctor Christopher Eccleston as the “dark elf” Malekith the Accursed and LOST's Mr. Eko, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, as Kurse. New director Alan Taylor cut his teeth on the acclaimed HBO fantasy epic series Game of Thrones, so he should bring a lot to the table for this kind of tale.

7. The World’s End
When: October 25. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because this is the final film in the so-called “Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy” that also included Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007). The three films are actually unconnected except for sharing the most tenuous thematic elements, but If you’ve seen the other two, you’ll know why I’m excited. (And if not, go see them!) Director Edgar Wright and stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are just brilliant, and the films are both exciting and hilarious. The plot of this one: “Five friends who reunite in an attempt to top their epic pub crawl from 20 years earlier unwittingly become humankind's only hope for survival.”

8. The Wolverine
When: July 26. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because Wolverine is a badass character who deserves better than he got in his last two films – the empty but tolerable X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) and the gawdawful X-Men: The Last Stand (2006). I am not a big fan of Hugh Jackman in the role, but I know he’s very popular, so I doubt they’ll replace him anytime soon. (For the record, though, Wolverine is much shorter, less charismatic and more savage. In short, he isn’t one to work on musicals between X-Men films.) What I am excited for, though, is the story that this movie is based on. I read the four-issue comic book miniseries in my younger days, and it was incredible – full of ninjas and samurai sword fights and unexpected surprises at every turn. My gut tells me they’ll mess it up, but I’m holding out at least a little hope that they’ll finally get it right.

9. Elysium
When: August 9. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because director Neill Blomkamp’s last film, District 9, was brilliant – a fresh twist on the alien invasion story that was really an examination of our own views of prejudice hat just happened to have an exciting action film thread through it. This is his much anticipated “hard sci-fi” big-budget follow-up, starring Matt Damon and Jodi Foster, and it’s getting good buzz.

10. Ender’s Game
When: November 1. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because it’s based on a popular sci-fi book and is getting a lot of buzz. While I don’t know much about it, what I have heard has my interest – especially the promise of epic zero-gravity space battles.

11. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
When: November 22. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because I was wrong about The Hunger Games last year, and I’m not too proud to admit it. I thought it was going to be a teenie-bopper Twilight-style chick flick, but it got such good reviews and friends I trust recommended it, so I checked it out – and found it deserving of the praise. Jennifer Lawrence was incredible as Katniss Everdeen, a young woman forced to compete in a to-the-death battle royale before a televised audience in a strange, retro-futuristic dystopia. But instead of focusing on the action or the science fiction trappings, the movie wisely kept those elements in the background and stayed focused on Katniss’ experience in the midst of the insanity, and that made it all that much more powerful. Now I can’t wait to see what happens next.

12. I, Frankenstein
When: September 13. Why I’m looking forward to it: Because the premise is both ridiculous and intriguing. Frankenstein’s monster (played by Aaron Eckhart) gets caught between two warring clans of immortals in an ancient city. I don’t have high hopes for this one, but if it works – even as a cult classic – I’ll be thrilled. I’m a huge fan of this monster.

Finally, some other splody-looking movies that just might prove worthwhile in 2013 include...

• Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (January 25)
• A Good Day to Die Hard (February 14)
• Jack the Giant Slayer (March 1)
• Oz: The Great and Powerful (March 8)
• G.I. Joe: Retaliation (March 29)
• Evil Dead (April 12)
• Oblivion (April 19)
• Fast and Furious 6 (May 24)
• After Earth (June 7)
• World War Z (June 21)
• Kick-Ass 2: Balls to the Wall (June 28)
• Despicable Me 2 (July 3)
• The Lone Ranger (July 3)
• R.I.P.D. (July 19)
• RED 2 (August 2)
• 300: Rise of an Empire (August 2)
• Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (August 16)
• Riddick (September 6)
• Gravity (October 4)
• Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (October 4)
• 47 Ronin (December 25)
• Jack Ryan (December 25)

Most anticipated splody movies of 2012: recap

At the beginning of 2012, I made a list of what I thought would be the best movies of the year. (My formula for success: equal parts good character development and explosions.) Now that the year is over, as is my custom, here is my analysis of how those predictions went:

1. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Result: FULL OF WIN (Tomatometer 65%). This was my most anticipated movie of the year, and it doesn't disappoint. There seem to be some reviewers who expected it to be the same tone as The Lord of the Rings trilogy, but longtime readers know that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit almost twenty years before its sequel, and that it was of a much different style. The Hobbit was written a single book instead of a trilogy (although the movies have been stretched out into a trilogy by supplementing them with other materials), and it is much more narrow in focus. rather than being an epic tale with the fate of the entire world hanging in the balance, The Hobbit is really the story of one individual, Bilbo Baggins, and the adventure he finds himself on. Furthermore, parts of it are much more lighthearted than anything in The Lord of the Rings. Yes, there are hints of the epic struggle to come, especially in some of the new background material that was added to stretch the story into a trilogy, but there is a different feel to the film. It also takes a while to get started, with much of the first hour taking place in Bilbo's home, rather than on the journey itself. To a less patient audience, one that needs immediate adrenaline gratification, it may be annoying, but to me, this is delightful - it is a storytelling treat, one of my favorite books come to life. Indeed, it was a delight just to be back in Middle Earth again, something I thought would never happen after the first trilogy wrapped. If it wasn't quite as good as the first Lord of the Rings movie, it wasn't far behind, and it set up the rest of the series nicely. I saw it with my brother-in-law on opening weekend and I want to see it again in the worst way. In fact, it's the only 2012 movie other than The Avengers that I would say is worth seeing multiple times in the theater.

2. The Avengers
Result: FULL OF WIN (Tomatometer 92%). Absolutely awesome - best movie of the year! I rarely see movies more than once in the theater, but this one I saw four times. And I wish I would have seen it more: it's still good on the small screen, but having watched it twice now at home I miss the audience reaction to certain scenes! Was it perfect? No, far from it. But it was entertaining through and through. Joss Whedon's dialogue was crisp, painted with broad enough strokes to keep the audience engaged and understanding what was going on in a very complex storyline, yet pointed enough to add hints of real character and motivation. If you had seen the other Marvel movies, it added something, but you didn't have to have seen them. If you had read Marvel comics for 20 years, it added even more, but you didn't have to have done that either. And Whedon's brilliance was that he made it work on all those levels without alienating any of them. A case in point to how brilliant I thought the whole thing was: one of my favorite subtle things in the movie was one scene in which Captain America is helping Iron Man out with a repair on the Hellicarrier. Whedon absolutely nails the character's personality as established in his first solo movie, expands on it and strengthens it. Whedon wisely has Cap without his trademark shield in this scene, and it allows us to focus on Cap being Cap. Among other things, he fearlessly leaps from platform to platform 10,000 feet above the ground, grabs a machine gun from the enemy and returns fires like the soldier he is, and even without his shield charges head first into enemy fire without a second thought to pull the lever to save Iron Man. And the entire movie is filled with multidimensional details like that: stuff that works as pure action and as character development, and usually as humor and plot development as well. Are we all on the Whedon bandwagon yet? Good!

3. The Dark Knight Rises
Result: FULL OF WIN (Tomatometer 87%). I'll just say it: this film wasn't as good as I thought it would be. I didn't expect it to be as good as The Dark Knight, but I did expect it to be as good as Batman Begins, and it just wasn't. It was the weakest of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. I know it's being talked about as an Oscar contender and all that, but let's face it, that's all Hollywood politics. The simple fact is that Nolan had the chance to make a better film, and he botched it with plot holes and missed opportunities. You'll notice, though, that I still have this listed as "FULL OF WIN." And it is. As frustrated as I am by some elements of the film, others are just hands-down incredible. Bane is a terrifying villain in the scenes where he is used well, the cinematography is probably Nolan's best to date on a Batman film, and many of the performances are dazzling, including Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle ("Catwoman"). Taken as a whole, the trilogy is a rousing success, but this is definitely the Return of the Jedi of the franchise. A cool ending, but you can't but feel like there were a few too many conveniently placed Ewoks along the way.

4. Prometheus
Result: MIDDLING (Tomatometer 73%). This was pretty high on my list, and right after I saw it I was determined to give it an "EPIC FAIL" because the plot was such a muddled mess. But you know, the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to see it again. And when I saw it on sale for $9, I asked my family to get it for me for Christmas. So yes, I now own a movie that i once swore was awful. What is wrong with me?! Well, what is wrong with this film? It is very slow paced, for one thing. And it makes no sense. It sets up one hundred plot points and pays off exactly zero. And all of the characters do the exact opposite of what you would think a sane character would do in the same situation. And the robot can't seem to do simple computation. I mean, some of these errors had to be put in on purpose right? It's crazy. And the more I thought about it, though, the more I started to dig just how crazy it all was, this movie that made absolutely no sense. Also, it is incredibly beautiful: the cinematography and special effects are amazing, even if the pace is languid and the story is like a dozen bad sci-fi scripts got shuffled. Finally, there are major hints that it is a prequel to the first Alien film, but there are actually inconsistencies with that film, so that's still more crazy unanswered questions. I absolutely can't recommend this train wreck. But I absolutely can't look away either.

5. John Carter
Result: FULL OF WIN (Tomatometer 51%). This is a great movie that had a horrible marketing campaign. it is as simple as that. Yes, maybe the director could have tightened things up a bit, cut some of scenes that were there just to set up a sequel and reduced the running time slightly, but that's just nitpicking. This was a great film, based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' 1917 classic A Princess of Mars. If you didn't place that name, Burroughs was the creator of Tarzan, and his science fiction series about Mars was nearly as popular at the time and has influenced everything from Buck Rogers to Star Wars to Avatar. Why none of that was mentioned in the marketing is beyond me. It also baffles me that the marketing never mentioned that director Andrew Stanton was responsible for two mega-blockbusters: Finding Nemo in 2003 and WALL-E in 2008. Instead, the film was given a very non-descriptive title (who is John Carter?) and commercials that didn't really show what the film was about either. It's no wonder no one went to see it, and that those who did were confused about what they were seeing. Don't believe the (lack of hype). This is a charming movie. It's a period piece, retaining the original novel's 19th century setting and steampunk charm, and there is a lot of drama as well as action. You have to pay attention and let the story develop, but this movie pays off: an entire new world springs to life, and it is both magical and very organic, very believable. It is a shame a sequel may never get made, because this is a world I would very much like to visit again. (The perfect title for this film, by the way, would have been John Carter and the Princess of Mars. I mean, seriously, how hard is it for Disney to think of using the word "princess" in the title of a movie based on a book with "princess" in the title? Anyway, then they could have used John Carter and... for all of the remaining films in the series.)

6. The Amazing Spider-Man
Result: MIDDLING (Tomatometer 73%). As far as superheroes go, Spider-Man has always been close to my heart. I was disappointed with the Tobey Maguire version, and really wanted to like this movie more than the last ones. And there were a lot of things that I did like better. Andrew Garfield, for one, was a much better lead. They made Peter Parker a teenager, and a go-getter genius, and gave him a sense of humor, all of which were great. They started with his real first love, Gwen Stacy, instead of Mary Jane Watson, and they appropriately cast the delightful Emma Stone in the role. (Kirsten Dunst was horribly cast for Mary Jane.) I feel like if they would have started with this cast to begin with, they would have made the first Spider-Man movie as the best superhero movie of all time ever. Instead, though, they were in the awkward position of having to tell the origin story again in short order, and so they played around with it, and it cost them. Many parts of the story felt stale or hackneyed or just plain wrong most of the time. And the main villain, the Lizard, was kind of a letdown. So overall I don't think this movie holds up. It's OK, but hard to justify on its own merits. I do really like Garfield and I have hopes that now that they are through with the origin story, they'll be able to tell a dynamite second act in the sequel. But mostly I wish that Sony would have just called it quits and let the rights to Spider-Man go back to Marvel Studios so that we could have gotten him in The Avengers.

7. Men in Black III
Result: EPIC FAIL (Tomatometer 70%). OK, so the word on the street is that this one "wasn't as bad as Men in Black II." I'm sorry, but that doesn't inspire me with confidence. I haven't seen it, but from the people that I trust, my sense is that there are a couple of worthwhile scenes, a really good performance from Josh Brolin, and some fantastic retro alien costumes. I'll eventually see it for that stuff and maybe I'll even raise it to "MIDDLING" when I do, but somehow I feel that Will Smith exists only to torment me now. What should have been on my list: Looper (Tomatometer 94%). Now this is the time travel movie that should have been on my radar all along! I really didn't have a clue what this was about when i went to see it, except that it had time travel in it. Surprisingly, I found that it was more of a gangster movie than a science fiction one, and it asked some tough questions about morality that really lingered with me. I liked it.

8. The Bourne Legacy
Result: EPIC FAIL (Tomatometer 56%). The most concise review I read about this was that it spent too much time trying to link itself to the past movies in the franchise with Matt Damon and not enough trying to establish itself as a new franchise, with a new lead actor. What should have been on my list: The Hunger Games (Tomatometer 90%). I thought this was going to be another Twilight type movie for tween girls, then a friend of mine saw it and said it was actually good and I followed his advice and saw it, and I'm glad I did. It does probably skew a bit toward the younger crowd, but only because the protagonist is younger. And it's a brilliantly told story; at the end of the day, that wins me over.

9. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
Result: INCOMPLETE (Tomatometer M.I.A.). Wow, the studio had a release date set for this movie and dropped a bunch of dough advertising it and then suddenly pulled it and decided to delay it until 2013, ostensibly so they could post-convert it to 3D, but rumor has it they were doing extensive re-editing. I've seen a few new commercials recently, but they have been decidedly mixed. I'm going to call this one "EPIC FAIL" right now and leave it off my 2013 list. What should have been on my list: The Expendables 2 (Tomatometer 66%). After a dismal first outing, the "Action Stars of the '80s" reunion movie tour tweaked the formula, brought in Jean-Claude Van Damme as the main bad guy, and hit the sequel out of the park. Who would have thunk?

10. Skyfall
Result: FULL OF WIN (Tomatometer 92%). I loved Daniel Craig's first outing as James Bond, Casino Royale, but his second one was awful. (Even the name was boring: Quantum of Solace.) So when he guaranteed the third one would return to form, I was ever-skeptical but hopeful. It did. The funny thing about Skyfall is that it is both a modernization of 007 and a return to his roots. It drops numerous references to Bond's past, especially to the Sean Connery glory years. And yet it updates the mythology, turning Bond into an almost Batman-like character in a way. In fact, in many ways Skyfall feels like Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy condensed into one movie and played in reverse: James Bond Rises / James Bond vs. the Joker / James Bond Begins. (After you've seen the movie and look back at the narrative structure, that will make sense.) In any case, while it is a little long, it's a great film. There are great performances all around, but special mention must go to Judi Dench as M.

11. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Result: EPIC FAIL (Tomatometer 17%). I've said it before, but I'll say it again: how do you take a character that cool and blow it? Oh, right, hire Nicolas Cage to play him. What should have been on my list: Chronicle (Tomatometer 85%). This "found-footage" superhero film was surprisingly good. The found-footage format itself is past its fresh date, I think, but director Josh Trank used it well to tell the story of three Seattle high school kids who inadvertently gain superpowers and then deal with the aftermath. It was thought-provoking and explored consequences that you don't normally hear about in superhero films. Executives at FOX were so impressed, they hired Trank to helm the big-budget remake of The Fantastic Four, due out in 2015.

12. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
Result: EPIC FAIL (Tomatometer 35%). What can I say - it was a long shot. What should have been on my list: The Cabin in the Woods (Tomatometer 92%). This was a great, twisted take on horror films. It was a blood bath, but not scary in the traditional way - instead, it was a really clever concept that turns the whole idea of the horror movie upside down. I recommend it if you like horror films, but only if you're not afraid of leaving horror behind when those mind-blowing twists come.

-----------------

Bonus Wins: There are a few splody movies that I haven't yet seen that I'm going to go ahead and put in the "FULL OF WIN" column anyway. First is Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (Tomatometer 89%). From everything I've heard, it captures that trademark Tarantino blend of stimulating dialogue, mind-melting twists and shocking violence. If you like Tarantino, you should like this one. Also, Dredd (Tomatometer 77%) starring Karl Urban was all but ignored in the theaters, but actually got great reviews. It's a futuristic dystopian cop movie based on an obscure comic book. (If you remember the awful Sylvester Stallone version from 1995, don't worry - this is nothing like it.) Finally, Argo (Tomatometer 96%), directed by Ben Afleck, is supposed to be quite a thriller and is getting a lot of Oscar buzz. (If it lives up to the hype, this may finally let me forgive him for Daredevil.)

-----------------

So there you have it: five winners, four losers, two in-between and one that never saw the light of day. Batting average: 55%.

Which just goes to show you never can tell what's going to be good until you actually see it. Still, that won't stop me from speculating about the movies of 2013 in my next post...

The bowl is half empty - part 4

Congratulations to the Alabama Crimson Tide, winner - for the second year in a row - of Monday night's so-called "National Championship Bowl" and holder of this year's mythical NCAA football crown. I say "mythical" because, while I believe they have a good claim to the title, for some reason we still don't have a true playoff system to definitively settle the matter. So, as I have done for the past three years, I'd like to imagine a world in which we had been treated to a month of playoff-level excitement. A world where we had gotten to see 16 of the season's top-ranked college football teams battle for the ultimate, indisputable title.

Here is what it might have looked like. I have bracketed and seeded the teams according to their final regular-season BCS rankings, with some consideration given to tradition (e.g., SEC champion in the Sugar Bowl bracket) and geography. I also used the rule of no more than one team per conference in any given bracket.

Rose Bowl Bracket

1st seed Oregon (11-1, Pac-12) vs. 4th seed Wisconsin (8-5, Big Ten) -- winner: Oregon

2nd seed Kansas State (11-1, Big 12) vs. 3rd seed LSU (10-2, SEC) -- winner: Kansas State

Rose Bowl: Oregon over Kansas State. This was what actually happened in this year's Fiesta Bowl.

Fiesta Bowl Bracket

1st seed Notre Dame (12-0, independent) vs. 4th seed Louisville (10-2, Big East) -- winner: Louisville

2nd seed Georgia (11-2, SEC) vs. 3rd seed Oregon State (9-3, Pac-12) -- winner: Georgia

Fiesta Bowl: Georgia over Louisville. Yeah, that's right, I said it. I think Louisville would have beaten Notre Dame. The Irish were a fraud this year. I have no idea how they were unbeaten. The Cardinals beat a very solid Florida team in the Sugar Bowl this year, and I think Florida could have beaten Notre Dame. In any case, Georgia could have beaten any of them.

Sugar Bowl Bracket

1st seed Alabama (12-1, SEC) vs. 4th seed Northern Illinois (12-1, MAC) -- winner: Alabama

2nd seed Oklahoma (10-2, Big 12) vs. 3rd seed Florida State (12-1, ACC) -- winner: Florida State

Sugar Bowl: Alabama over Florida State. Florida State mopped up he floor this year with Northern Illinois. Alabama would have done the same and then given Florida State the same treatment.

Orange Bowl Bracket

1st seed Florida (11-1, SEC) vs. 4th seed Nebraska (10-3, Big Ten) -- winner: Nebraska

2nd seed Stanford (11-2, Pac-12) vs. 3rd seed Clemson (10-2, ACC) -- winner: Clemson

Orange Bowl: Clemson over Nebraska. Nebraska looked better than Florida in its loss. Clemson looked better than Stanford in its win.

Final Four

Eastern Semifinal: Alabama over Clemson

Western Semifinal: Oregon over Georgia

National Championship Bowl: There was no doubt 'Bama was going to win the National Championship this year. But just think: if Ohio State wouldn't have been on probation, they would have been undefeated and Alabama wouldn't have even been in the championship game. Once again, the BCS manages to just squeak one out by the skin of its teeth! Then again, if we had actually gotten to see this play out, I wouldn't have been surprised in the least to see Oregon or Georgia win the big game. Ohio State might have even been in the mix if they had been allowed to play. And you never know what Cinderella would have started dancing if only there had been a ball. The only team we know for certain wasn't up to the challenge was Notre Dame. Sadly, for this season at least, we'll never know how the rest would have fared.

------------

BONUS: The "N.I.T." of College Football

As I did last year, I also showed what a second-tier 16-team tournament might have looked like. I've included all of the conferences champions without a spot in the main tournament (C-USA, MWC, Sun Belt and WAC), as well as the next-best available teams according to the BCS rankings and AP poll.

EAST BRACKET

1st seed South Carolina (10-2, SEC) vs. 4th seed Arkansas State (9-3, Sun Belt) -- winner: South Carolina

2nd seed Northwestern (9-3, Big Ten) vs. 3rd seed Kent State (11-2, MAC) -- winner: Northwestern

Chick-fil-A Bowl: South Carolina over Northwestern

SOUTHEAST BRACKET

1st seed Michigan (8-4, Big Ten) vs. 4th seed Fresno State (9-3, MWC) -- winner: Michigan

2nd seed Texas (8-4, Big 12) vs. 3rd seed Vanderbilt (9-3, SEC) -- winner: Texas

Gator Bowl: Michigan over Texas

MIDWEST BRACKET

1st seed Texas A&M (10-2, SEC) vs. 4th seed Baylor (7-5, Big 12) -- winner: Texas A&M

2nd seed Utah State (10-2, WAC) vs. 3rd seed San Diego State (9-3, MWC) -- winner: Utah State

Alamo Bowl: Texas A&M over Utah State

WEST BRACKET

1st seed UCLA (9-4, Pac-12) vs. 4th seed Tulsa (10-3, C-USA) -- winner: UCLA

2nd seed Boise State (11-1, MWC) vs. 3rd seed San Jose State (10-2, WAC) -- winner: Boise State

Insight Bowl: Boise State over UCLA

FINAL FOUR

Outback Bowl: South Carolina over Michigan

Cotton Bowl: Texas A&M over Boise State

Capital One National Invitational Championship Bowl: Texas A&M over South Carolina

Twisdom 2012

Every once in a while, I tweet something that stands on its own. Sometimes it's poetic, sometimes silly and sometimes just a little observation that has a kernel of wisdom in it. Here are some of those tweets.

When it's good, it's called a finish. When it's bad, it's called an after taste.


I'm not going to sink to your level; I'm going to bring you down to mine.


"That's a good life lesson, dad: never give a rabbit a hammer."


 If you ever stop calling slug bugs, you are dead on the inside.


A website just prompted me to "Please prove you're not a robot" by entering anti-fraud words. See? The anti-AI bias has already started.


If you have kids, you are entitled to complementary whine with every meal.


If you want to know me, you must first watch "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai" ten times. You probably do not want to know me.


"Nobody's perfect"? No, I reject that. We're all perfect, because God made us that way. We just need to remember it.


Anti-profanity software changed "cocktail" to "c**ktail" in a headline - thus INSERTING profanity where there wasn't any!


You'll have to speak up - I'm not listening.


People like to crane their necks to see an accident; if they could, they would sit in their living rooms and push a button to make it happen.


I just want to scream into the void. I don't want anything to scream back.


I'm kinda nervous. According to Gloria Estefan, the rhythm is coming to get me, and this is apparently happening tonight.


Pull: the other push.


Why does everyone keep calling each other XO?


We abandoned... With email: etiquette. Chat: decency. Blogging: hope. Texting: grammar. My_: common sense. FB: reality. Twitter: detail. G+: fun.


If you're wearing baggy pants and the thin strand of elastic holding up your old ratty underwear breaks, you're no longer wearing underwear.


I would like to transfer my consciousness into a robot body now, please.


Height and depth are the same thing, just seen from different points of view.


"No offense" means "I'm about to say something offensive" not "I can say what I want without consequences."


If life gives you lemons, make lemonade, but if life gives you apples, make apple pie.


If it takes you more than one tweet to communicate something, you're using the wrong medium.


A person lives a different life every 5 years. Look back at your own circumstances 5, 10, 15 years, etc. and tell me it isn't so.


We would all benefit from a 3rd eye on top of our heads, so we would always look up and see how big the universe is and how small we are.


Earlier today, my phone dropped a call. The error happened at 4:04. Coincidence?


R.I.P. Neil Armstrong. Your small step may be over, but your giant leap lives on.


I'm having a hard time teaching my monkey to be altruistic.


Kevin Costner has less acting range than Keanu Reeves.


Only one letter separates "bogus" from "bonus."


I'm as invested in Iron Man saving the world as you are in your team winning the pennant; no real world benefit to either; whose fandom is more valid?


Autocorrect automatically capitalized "David" and "Bowie" but not "god."


Elephants don't wear no pants.


I am happy to announce an exciting new announcement! This is that announcement! Now that I've announced it, be sure to announce it yourself!


I support gay marriage because I support marriage. I support gay rights because I support human rights. People are people end of discussion.


This just in: Disney rumored in talks to take over Roger Corman Studios, The BBC, Martha Stewart Living, and Honey Baked Ham Company...


The Circle of Hell for bleeping swear words out of songs on the radio is lower than the one for swearing in songs in the first place.


The tallest mountains in the Solar System? They're on Jupiter of course. Some are over 4,000 miles high—more than 10x the size of the Moon!


Why has no one started a vodka label called Yakov yet?


I'm giving up pumpkin pie for Lent.


Whenever a word appears in something's name or slogan that should have gone without saying, they're overcompensating for its absence.


Every once in a while, the dreary December sky looks starkly beautiful despite itself.


Every time I hear "chicken thighs" it cracks me up. Don't know why. You'd think "chicken breasts" would be the funny one, but no.


I think women would better understand how men felt about shopping if there were no such thing as returns.

Testing... 1-2...1-2...

Today is 12/12/12 and this is being posted at exactly 12:12:12 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. You have exactly twelve hours to prepare for the final celebration at 12:12:12 p.m. (A few more if you're in a later time zone.)

After that, the party's over.

Even if the apocalypse weren't scheduled for nine days from now, this would be the last date for nearly a millennium that we would see a day/month/year repeating date. (The next one on the calendar is either January 1, 3001 or October 10, 3010, depending on how strict you are about zeroes.)

So, really, let loose today, and at twelve past noon (give or take a few seconds) party like you've got nothing to lose. You only live on 12/12/12 once, baby!

Random Top Ten: Best Geek Franchises

Across all media (film, television, books, comic books, video games, you-name-it), these are the franchises that keep geeks coming back for more. Am I right or wrong? Leave you comments below...

1. Star Wars
Created by George Lucas; debuted in 1977. The ultimate sci-fi fantasy space opera, Star Wars changed the cinematic landscape, became the defining moment of an entire generation or two, and is practically a religion among geeks - even those who profess to hate it can quote the entire first trilogy verbatim.

2. Batman
Created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger; debuted in 1939. The world's foremost superhero, despite the fact he has no actual superpowers. Instead, he's just a brilliant detective and martial artist, loaded with cool gadgets, and scary as hell: they don't call him the Dark Knight for nothing!

3. Star Trek
Created by Gene Roddenberry; debuted in 1966. No vision of the future has proven as compelling - nor as uncannily prescient - as Roddenberry's. But what really made it develop such a cult following was its humanity: compelling characters and timeless questions of morality.

4. Doctor Who
Created by Sydney Newman, Donald Wilson and C. E. Webber; debuted 1963. This British television series may not be the most widely known in America, but it has a huge cult following worldwide, and deservedly so. Following the exploits of The Doctor, a Time Lord who travels through time and space with his human companions, it is full of delightfully unexpected twists and turns, and every episode unravels like a exciting puzzle.

5. Middle Earth
Created by J.R.R. Tolkien; debuted in 1937. The granddaddy of all fantasy worlds, Middle Earth has recently experienced a revitalization thanks to Peter Jackson's two film trilogies: The Lord of the Rings and now The Hobbit. But even before that, shades of Tolkien could be found in nearly every subsequent fantasy author's work, as his blend of mythology and epic adventure has always been hard to resist.

6. Spider-Man
Created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko; debuted in 1962. I wanted to be Spider-Man when I was a little kid. So did every little kid. He was a kid like all of us, a pipsqueak who was powerless and misunderstood, and just happened to get bit by a radioactive spider. Could happen.

7. Superman
Created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster; debuted in 1938. The very first superhero and still one of the best. I'm praying that we finally get a movie worthy of his legacy when Man of Steel comes out next year.

8. Godzilla
Created by Tomoyuki Tanaka; debuted in 1954. It may not have been the first, but Godzilla defined the giant monster movie genre, and the franchise and its many spin-offs are still going strong today.

9. The Universal Monsters
Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein was first published in 1818, and Bram Stoker's Dracula in 1897. Universal Studios would make films of both novels in 1931, sparking a long and successful run of monster movies that would also include favorites like the Mummy, the Wolf Man, the Invisible Man and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Many of these monsters existed in a "shared universe," crossing over into each other's films throughout the years. These classic monsters remain popular to this day, and their movies are still occasionally revived by the studio.

10.  James Bond
Created by Ian Fleming; debuted in 1953. The ultimate superspy, at his best 007 will leave you feeling shaken and stirred. And as his latest film Skyfall shows, he's still got a lot of mileage left in him, looking as timeless today with Daniel Craig in the role as he did when Sean Connery first uttered the famous line: "Bond. James Bond."

Honorable mention: Harry Potter
Created by J.K. Rowling; debuted in 1997. This is a relatively new entry, but it already has a rabid fan base. If the franchise is kept alive, it may some day rival the others on this list. The main hero's story always felt a bit underwhelming to me in the series, but the world itself it wonderfully detailed and rich for further exploration.

Honorable mention: Indiana Jones
Created by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg; debuted in 1981. Indiana is one of the most loved characters in all of geekdom, but his body of work is pretty thin. Raiders, of course, is incomparable, and Last Crusade is awesome. If everything beyond that was half as good, we'd have a contender.

Ding-dong, the Emperor is dead!

As it turns out, that six-film series George Lucas made called Star Wars was semi-autobiographical. It wasn't immediately obvious, because the beginning of George's real-life arc syncs up with prequels that began decades later, but here at the end it all makes sense.

In George's tale, he shows how a young, hot-shot director (young hot-shot Jedi Knight) does things no one else has ever done before and promises to create the greatest movie franchise in the history of Hollywood (bring balance to the Force) only to suddenly sell out (turn to the Dark Side) and mass-murder the childhood memories of fanboys everywhere (mass-murder youngling Jedi everywhere). In the service of his dark master (money), he creates his own company (Death Star) and exerts iron-fisted control over his financial (Galactic) empire, crushing all hope with his ass-clown excuses for storylines (evil Sith powers) and ridiculously CGI-happy animation team (ridiculously incompetent stormtrooper army).

This week, after he was too old and tired to have any fun with it anymore, he finally looked at us with his own, human eyes, saw the error of his ways and repented, saving his own soul in the process, overthrowing the evil empire he helped bring to power and restoring hope to fanboys (Galactic citizens) everywhere.
 

Yes, like all of you, I naturally harbor a lot of resentment towards the guy, even if, to extend the analogy (uncomfortably at this point), he is the father of all my hopes and dream. But I have been studying the Star Wars franchise ever since my dad (some “crazy old wizard”) first handed me a movie ticket and a bucket of popcorn (a lightsaber and a blindfold) in 1977. And I always believed there was still some good in him. After all, this is the man who invented (befriended) Wookiees. The man who put Princess Leia in a metal bikini when I was 12 (wooed Princess Amidala when he was 12). So he couldn’t be all bad, he just couldn’t.

And this week he proved it. So where does Star Wars go from here? Well, the spirit of Lucas (Vader) will continue to loom large over the franchise (Galaxy) going forward, but there will be new people charting its path now, and hopefully the fans' voices will be heard. They may make some mistakes along the way, but this is definitely what we’ve waited for all these years. Right now fanboys everywhere (the Rebellion) are in disarray, divided over what direction to continue and how to clean up the mess. But at last the fight is over. He has given us the chance to begin again. Let’s not let his sacrifice be in vain.

Long live the Republic!

Fandom: reality vs. douchebaggery

A few days ago, I witnessed an ugly incident at the ice arena where my son plays hockey. Now youth sports centers are no stranger to such incidents: while most people practice common sense, there are enough lunatics out there that "bad sports parent" behavior has become an accepted part of the cultural landscape. I see parents bullying and berating their children all the time, not to mention referees, coaches and other parents. And I see children exposed to this assholishness developing bullying behavior of their own in the locker room. As a guy who never really participated in organized sports, I look at this and see how such a system left unchecked could easily degenerate into madness, and I am not surprised that all too often we see just that in the sports headlines.

Fortunately, I do see more sanity than douchebaggery - like my son's coaches who really do work on fundamentals and teamwork and exhibit a far greater degree of patience than seems humanly possible when dealing with the chaotic mass of ten year olds they call a team. But the nut cases are out there, and they never fail to amaze me. I can't understand how a grown man can scream at a seven year old boy for not being coordinated enough to stop on a dime on ice skates while precisely directing a puck to the exact corner of the net that "he should have known" the goalie would leave open. At that age, you should just be happy he's getting exercise and having fun. Have some perspective!

But what made the incident a few days ago extra baffling to me was that it didn't even involve a sport the kid was playing. In the lobby of the ice arena, a college football game was playing on television, and the son and his father were watching. After one play, the son joyously called out what he thought was a first down. His father, annoyed that his team had just turned the ball over, proceeded to yell at the boy for not knowing what had actually just happened. I don't remember the exact wording, but the gist of it was: "Are you blind? How can you be so stupid as to not know that?"

OK, some people are just assholes. That means some people are going to have assholes for parents. (And let's be honest, it's probably a pretty hefty percentage.) So that's nothing new, and it's just something we as a society have to deal with. But I want to talk a little more about this obsession with sports, because I think we sometimes give sports fan assholes a little bit more of a free pass than everyone else, and that annoys me.

First of all, I want to say that I am a sports fan. Not the world's biggest sports fan, mind you; I'm not obsessed, but I enjoy watching now and again. (Yes, douchebaggy sports dude who looked at me with disdain for wearing my Green Lantern t-shirt on the day of the big Michigan vs. Michigan State football game: it is possible to be a sports fan and not feel the need to broadcast it every single second of every single day.) And I really enjoy playing sports (especially basketball), even if I don't do it as much these days as I used to. So I am in no way anti-sports. But...

Spectator sports are just entertainment. That's all they are. They're not world politics, they're not religion, they're not family, they're not even a way for most of us to make a living. They're on the same level as playing video games, reading comic books or romance novels, crocheting, playing banjo, listening to rap music, watching American Idol, or geeking out over Star Wars. It's possible to be exactly as invested in all of those things as it is to be in spectator sports. And those things have exactly as much potential to do good in the real-world as spectator sports do (i.e., not much directly in and of themselves).

So the next time you see a sports parent out of control, imagine them yelling, "No, no, no! Luke Skywalker's lightsaber was blue until Return of the Jedi, you scruffy nerf herder!" Or, "How many times do I have to show you how to do a bullion stitch before you get it right, you fat-fingered fool?!" That should put it in even sharper perspective. And if this asshole is someone you love, please intervene. They don't have a "really competitive streak." They're just a dick.

I'm all for entertainment, but let's keep it in perspective and call it what it is, OK? Spectator sports are a way for us to pass the time. They are make believe. If you think of them as anything more than that, you have lost your grip on reality. There are more important things in life to worry about, so let's enjoy the time we have together, and spend our play time wisely.

P.S. - While we're on the subject, I do not find politics entertaining. Please find another audience to pester with your stupid birth certificate conspiracies. (Ditto religion as entertainment.)

Where is Gotham City?

The location of Gotham city in the Batman mythology has moved around quite a bit over the years. These days, it is common to place it in southern New Jersey, just south of Atlantic City. As far as I'm concerned, though, it needs to be tied to a real-life, major U.S. city. Just as all Marvel superheroes live in New York, so too should all DC superheroes have a place in the real world to call home. I'm not happy letting them live in Neverland—in my mind, all adventure stories need to be integrated into one, real-world-based narrative.

I'll deal with Superman's Metropolis in a future post. Today, it is time to unveil the true location of Gotham:

Boston, Massachusetts

Don't believe me? Let me explain.

First of all, Boston fits the profile. It's one of the most prominent U.S. cities and most populous metropolitan areas. It has a densely packed downtown, loaded with skyscrapers and other interesting buildings. It also has a rich and storied history, including organized crime, city corruption, convoluted politics, and plenty of old money living beside impoverished neighborhoods. Best of all, this big city has no other major superheroes claiming it.

Boston has the second-most amount of Gothic architecture in the U.S. New York is first, but we know Batman doesn't live there, because that's where Spider-Man and all the other Marvel heroes live. (This also explains why Batman doesn't cross paths with Marvel heroes much—he's a Red Sox fan!)

The Boston area is no stranger to bats: it is home to an estimated one million of them, mostly small brown bats and large brown bats. They originally lived in caves and rock formations, but with very little natural habitat left for them, most bats in Boston now live in the attics of Boston's old, Victorian era homes. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to believe one of those homes is a large manor built atop a still-active cavern.

No city matches up completely with the map of Gotham developed over the years (especially since that map keeps changing), but Boston comes pretty close. Take a look at maps of both cities below: the basic layout of their downtown areas is very similar, with the main difference being that Gotham is surrounded by water on all sides, where Boston is a peninsula, connected at the southwest. It wouldn't take much to rearrange Gotham into Boston. (Note: the maps below are not to scale.)

Another factor in Boston's favor is convenience. When the Justice League of America was founded in 1960, it was based in Happy Harbor, Rhode Island. (An obvious stand-in for Newport.) This is important, because the closest major city to Rhode Island is Boston. As the only founding member without super speed or flight powers, it would make sense that the team's headquarters would be located close to Batman's hometown.

Finally, one of the most important landmarks in DC Comics is Arkham Asylum, which lies on the outskirts of Gotham. This home for the criminally insane is inspired by and named after the sanatorium in the fictional city of Arkham, Massachusetts found in "The Colour Out of Space" and many other horror and science fiction stories by H.P. Lovecraft. In Lovecraft's writings, Arkham is modelled after Salem, Massachusetts, which lies on the outskirts of Boston, and the sanatorium is modelled after the real-life Danvers State Hospital in nearby Danvers, Massachusetts. Between Lovecraft's stories, the infamous Salem Witch Trials, and the ghosts of the Revolutionary War, the area certainly has a history of the supernatural—all of which lends itself to dark tone of the Batman mythos.

 

So that's my take on the real Gotham City. What about you? If you had to pick a major U.S. city—other than New York—as a stand-in for Gotham, what would it be? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Mr. Romney, you can have my vote if...

I am a radical moderate, no bones about it. A pragmatist. I'm not beholden to any ideology, and I don't wear rose-colored glasses. I know that all politicians are dishonest and reprehensible, because those are the only people who would take those jobs, but I understand that they are also necessary, so I'm willing to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. My only hope is that whoever gets into office can get the job done.

In the past, I've split my votes pretty evenly between the two major parties. I still think Ronald Reagan was the best President we've had in my lifetime, and Bill Clinton was a close second. What I liked most about them was that they got the job done. They worked with the opposition and took care of business, and the country benefited from it.

Over time, and especially since Karl Rove orchestrated George W. Bush's failed Presidency, I have gravitated to the Democrats. This is out of no love for the Democrats, who are a bunch of self-righteous, snivelling boneheads. But the Republican party has degenerated into something much worse: a party willing to tear the country apart in order to be in power. They would rather sit on a throne of ashes than share a table of gold.

Where have all the moderates gone? The GOP used to be full of them. Mitt Romney used to be one. And if he still were, he might have my vote.

Mr. Romney, it is not too late. Here is what you must do if you want to sway me. And by me, I mean all of us. Don't worry about flip-flopping your position on any of these issues; we all know you're a weaselly used car salesman politician. Just do the right thing, believe it and be convincing, and we will follow.

1. Mittcare

The new "Obamacare" system that's in place isn't Obama's health care solution at all, it's yours. It's "Mittcare." It's exactly what you put in place when you were governor of Massachusetts. Take credit for it. Tell us that it worked for Massachusetts and that you know how to make it work for the country as a whole. Republicans have been championing it ever since you created it, and they only turned on it when Obama latched on. Don't run from it now: turn them back. Give us confidence that you know what you're doing.

2. Deficit

Stop the "no taxes" rhetoric and focus on your business experience. Tell us you'll do whatever it takes to get this country economically healthy again, just like a good businessman does whatever it takes to get his company healthy again. Your ruthless business record can actually work to your benefit here: tell us you're a realist and not afraid to make unpopular decisions that need to be made. If that means extending Social Security payroll taxes to the wealthy, so be it. If it means tightening spending, so be it. Talk about how the retiring Baby Boomers are an economic time bomb waiting to happen, and it's time for a real businessman to step in and put the house in order. You tell us you can save Washington like you saved the Salt Lake Olympics. But those are just words until you tell us you mean it. Tell me right now that you'll raise taxes on the wealthy, and I'll believe you're serious.

3. Freedom

This is the biggie, and why I'm probably voting for the other guy, Mitt. When you were governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the country, you were open minded to civil rights. They may not have synced with your personal convictions, but you defended them. That was the right thing to do. Now that you're dead-set on becoming President, you're catering to the extremists. Yes, I know they vote in droves, but they are the minority in this country. We moderates are the majority, Mitt, and we moderates like our basic freedoms. Tell me you'll defend a woman's right to choose. Tell me you support the right of gay people to get married like the rest of us. Tell me that you don't believe the government has any business treating its citizens differently because of superficial differences, and that you still believe in "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all citizens. Tell me it is un-American to think otherwise.

Tell me those things, and you have my vote. Otherwise, my vote goes to the other guy, because he's already told me what I want to hear.