The Mayans Couldn't Figure Out College Football Playoffs, Sadly

The Mayans Couldn't Figure Out College Football Playoffs, Sadly

It's my favorite time of year. It's not so much a matter of stocking up on my "special" supply of eggnog, hot chocolate and cider. It's not so much a matter of enduring bad Lifetime holiday-themed movies. It's not even about commiserating over family dysfunction during a time that's supposed to be filled with positive personal reflection and cheer.

When it comes to the NCAA Division I football national championship, it's again time to debate the fairness of the Bull Crap Series, errr, umm, Bowl Championship Series. I won't say Notre Dame or Alabama isn’t deserving to play for the national title. While many SEC fans voice their confidence in romping the Knute Rocknes, or even claiming the Irish don't belong in the final match, Notre Dame did its job. It went undefeated, even grinding out wins when the outcome wasn't so sure.

And oh, Crimson Tide. They did lose a game at home. It's not like last year where they failed to win the SEC championship yet got to the BCS title game and secured a victory. But no matter. They found a way into the final championship contest this year. However, we're two years away from a semblance of an overdue Division I college football "playoff system." It's fun to ponder "what ifs" -- what if a computer didn't help to arbitrarily determine the two teams that'll play for a national championship?

Again, Alabama and Notre Dame may have proven they've been among the best two schools to play this season, wire to wire. The title game looks to be better than many of you think. (I'm looking at you, SEC fan.) But aside from a couple of other bowl games this season, the undercard looks rather underwhelming. Consider No. 4 Florida taking on Big East champion Louisville, which was unranked prior to their conference title match. Look at unranked Wisconsin run roughshod over a ranked Nebraska squad in the Big 10 championship game and secure a Rose Bowl berth. Then, there are the college football elitists complaining about Northern Illinois crashing the party and snagging an Orange Bowl berth. The Huskies did their job. They won and won well. Don't hate the program, hate the current system.

Consider the Sun Bowl featuring a losing team in Georgia Tech against a bunch of underachievers, USC. Two teams with 6-6 marks -- Rice and Air Force -- will be mired in the Armed Forces Bowl while Pittsburgh meets Ole Miss in the BBVA Compass Bowl. We're talking ratings gold barnburners here. And through the bedlam of Selection Sunday, Louisiana, Tech, the nation's highest-scoring team that won nine games and had a sniff of Top 25 fame, didn't get chosen for any of the 35 or 102 bowl games, whatever the number is nowadays. (It didn't help when the Bulldogs got too big for their britches and, reportedly, said "nyet" to going to the nearby Independence Bowl for the possibility of what could've been a decent all-Louisiana affair in UL-Monroe).

The “powers that be” that help to determine BCS and non-BCS bowl contestants are primarily television executives and power conference presidents who only want to see and sell sex when it comes to bowl games. They'd rather arbitrarily pair two traditional powerhouses via a computer rather than let rising star schools settle such questions where it truly counts: on the playing field. Just like virtually every other level of sport. Wow. What a startling concept. Even the Kazahkistani kick-goathead league has a playoff. I’ve won some money there. I've lost a lot more there. Without the NCAA basketball tournament, schools like George Mason and Butler likely would have never made it to the Final Four. You see Gonzagas and Marquettes make their mark on the national scene. Without the College World Series, schools like Cal State-Fullerton and Long Beach State -- not so much a Texas or USC -- get to shine and quite often.

In most existing playoff systems/postseason tournaments, the most "deserving" teams make the playoffs, not necessarily the ones picked "the best." There's a difference. We can debate all we want about good losses, bad losses, strength of schedule, etc., during the regular season, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty to determine an absolute champion, why not go the way of a tournament?

Well, we won’t waste further time going into the minds of those myopically opposed to a NCAA Division I tournament of some kind. Even the “bowl games are a tradition” and “schools will lose money” and “you can’t make the student-athletes play that long or late into January” philosophies. None of those arguments really work. Never did, never will. Some say the BCS isn’t perfect, but that it’s a start.

So, what if a playoff system did exist for college football? My goodness, what fun that’d be. OK, let’s use dying BCS as a springboard. This is what I'd do to create a 16-team tournament. You start with automatic champions from 11 FBS (Football Championship Series) conferences (regular-season champs and/or championship game victors). There is the thought that if an annual playoff system is allowed to mature, conference championship games might become relevant. That's fine. Until then let's play with what we have.

If there are co-champions, it’s up to the affected conference to determine who gets what we’ll call an FBS bid. You could combine the final regular season total average poll ranking with regular-season head-to-head outcomes for a tie-breaker. (Sound unfair? Good. You get to retain some semblance of unfairness in the process of arriving at a final national champion)

You could average the rankings of the AP, ESPN, USA Today, Harris, Legends and Coaches' polls, emphasizing which schools get the most place votes and arrive at a final aggregate Top 25 poll (a de facto BCS ranking system, if you will, without the computer interference). Those are arguably the strongest, long-standing, most popular and credible of Division I polls. And you get to a beautiful bracket like the one above (courtesy of NCAA). Isn't it gorgeous and awe-inspiring?

Here’s what a final 2012 FBS aggregate poll would look like:

1. Notre Dame (12-0)

2. Alabama (12-1) (SEC champion)

3. Oregon (11-1)

4. Florida (11-1)

5. Georgia (11-2)

6. Kansas State (11-1) (Big 12 champion)

7.  Stanford (11-2) (Pac-12 champion)

8. LSU (10-2)

9. Texas A&M (10-2)

10. South Carolina (10-2)

11. Oklahoma (10-2)

12. Florida State (11-2) (ACC champion)

13. Oregon State (9-3)

14. Clemson CL(10-2)

15. Boise State (10-2) (Mountain West co-champion)

16. Northern Illinois            (12-1) (MAC champion)

17. Nebraska (10-3)

18. UCLA (9-4)

19. Michigan            (8-4)

20. Louisville (10-2) (Big East champion)

21. Northwestern (9-3)

22. Utah State (10-2) (WAC champion)

23. Texas (8-4)

24. San Jose State (10-2)

25. Kent State (11-2)

Wisconsin (Big 10 champion)

Arkansas State (Sun Belt champion)

Tulsa (Conference USA champion)

Ultimately, FBS automatic bids would go to Alabama, Kansas State, Stanford, Florida State, Boise State (highest ranked co-champion of MWC), Northern Illinois, Louisville, Utah State, Wisconsin, Arkansas State and Tulsa.

You add the top independent team ranked high enough overall in polls for an FBS bid and/or four (or five) other highest-ranked schools, overall in polls. So this year these schools get an at-large bid: Notre Dame, Oregon, Florida, Georgia and LSU.

The ultimate FBS tournament seedings in a 16 vs. 1, 15 vs. 2, 14, vs. 3, etc. format would be:

1. Notre Dame

2. Alabama

3. Oregon

4. Florida

5. Georgia

6. Kansas State

7. Stanford

8. LSU

9. Florida State

10. Boise State

11. Northern Illinois

12. Louisville

13. Utah State

14. Wisconsin

15. Tulsa

16. Arkansas State

Take into account the oldest, popular, most lucrative, traditional bowls and mix in some regional flair and considerate schedules. You can keep some of the best bowls. (I mean, really. The glut of bowls is ludicrous. More and more are added each year, some from inauspicious sponsors. Does anyone care to see the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl? Oooh, must-see. No offense, Michigan State and TCU, but really? The Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, formerly Insight Bowl-turned-Valley of the Sun Bowl? I like dining at BWW, not watching its sponsored bowl games. Beef O'Brady's Bowl, that standard-bearer of non-BCS bowl games, this year has...meh, who gives a crap. If we ignore the Meineke Care Care Bowl of Texas, featuring - inexplicably - Texas Tech and Minnesota (how did they get a bid), does that game cease to exist? And Heart of Dallas Bowl? Seriously? Oh, we could so perpetuate a Roady's Truck Stops FreeCreditReport.com Pomegranate Cherry Salad Bowl presented by Franklin American Mortgage Company joke.

All joking aside, use 15 of those prestigious, richest, most famous (i.e. powerful, established) bowls as the FBS bowl matches. All other bowls… yes, even your precious Idaho Potato, Bell Helicopter Armed Forces, GoDaddy.com… may remain independent and ongoing aside from the FBS contests. No changes needed there.

Rotate the FBS bowls as quarterfinal, semifinal and final games, all of which could retain and maybe even increase the number of ticket-buyers, TV viewers and payouts. One reason? There’s even greater incentive to play in such a bowl. Not just one bowl. But a series of true head-to-head games where all the conference champions (not just the typical, known powerhouses) and other top-ranked squads have a genuine (and fair) shot at an undisputed national title. Throw in serious regional consideration and voila. Imagine that!

The younger, Decemberish bowls host quarterfinals on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, given this year’s calendar:

December 12

Tulsa vs. Alabama -- Advocare V100 Independence Bowl; Shreveport

Arkansas State vs. Notre Dame -- Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl (Insight, Copper, whatever else it used to be); Tempe

Dec. 13

Florida State vs. LSU -- Chick-Fil-A (Peach) Bowl, Atlanta

Boise State vs. Stanford -- Hyundai Sun Bowl, El Paso

Dec. 14

Louisville vs. Georgia -- Taxslayer.com (Taxslayer.com?) Gator Bowl, Jacksonville

Northern Illinois vs. Kansas State -- Valero Alamo Bowl, San Antonio

Dec. 15

Utah State vs. Florida -- AutoZone Liberty Bowl, Memphis

Wisconsin vs. Oregon -- Bridgepoint Education Holiday Bowl, San Diego

Probable winners?

Alabama, Notre Dame, Stanford, Florida State, Georgia, Kansas State, Florida, Oregon

More bowls in Thursday and Friday semifinals involve 1-16 vs. 8-9; 5-12 vs. 4-13; 6-11 vs. 3-14; 7-10 vs. 2-15.

Dec. 20

Florida State vs. Notre Dame -- Capital One (Citrus) Bowl, Orlando

Stanford vs. Alabama -- AT&T Cotton Bowl, Dallas

Dec. 21

Kansas State vs. Oregon -- Fiesta Bowl, Tempe

Georgia vs. Florida -- Outback Bowl, Tampa

Probable winners?

Notre Dame, Stanford, Kansas State, Georgia

Final Four of sorts/Tuesday, Jan. 1

Stanford vs. Kansas State -- Sugar Bowl, New Orleans

Georgia vs. Notre Dame -- Orange Bowl, Miami

Championship game, Monday, Jan. 7

Rose Bowl, Pasadena

Kansas State vs. Georgia

Who wins? Well, let this unfold in reality. I recall how a House subcommittee approved legislation in late 2009 aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters on its plate. To those naysayers, I say: screw war and the national debt, let’s have some MACtion.

Darkness and Light

I don't know what to make of "The Dark Knight Rises." A part of me wants to love, love, love it, just like the initial time I watched "The Dark Knight." But second thoughts turn into quibbling. Which turns into nitpicking. Which then becomes self-destructive.

Let's first be clear: Christopher and Jonathan Nolan have created a riveting comic book/superhero trilogy for the ages. Immensely brooding, hypnotic, engrossing. The Nolans' take on Batman is, as a whole, celluloid masterpiece. All three films are a perfect reflection of our present era of faint hope amid cynicism, discontent and bleakness. Each movie explored crucial philosophical themes.

But where we geeks and non-geeks alike reveled in the near-movie perfection that lies between "Batman Begins and "The Dark Knight," it's human nature for expectations to be raised way too high.

What have we really expected from "The Dark Knight Rises"? Something somehow more than "The Dark Knight?" Something that matches our love for all or specific arcs in the Batman comics past and present? Something that exceeds Heath Ledger's mesmerizing portrayal of The Joker?

It's not all that dissimilar from the range of emotions that many of us geeks held prior to the release of "The Phantom Menace." We had built up two whole decades worth of hopes, expectations and fanboy dreams in seeing what new technology-driven "Star Wars" world George Lucas could deliver in the digital era. Ultimately, aside from a few scenes of sheer joy in "Revenge of the Sith," the second "Star Wars" trilogy was a downer.

Here with "The Dark Knight Rises," we've had four years to digest what TDK gave us. Each teaser, rumor and interview brought us fans an equal amount of anxiety and excitement. A few days since my initial viewing, "The Dark Knight Rises" is a rousing, super-epic, unnerving, relentless finale to the Nolans' Batman trilogy. It caps one of the great film trilogies. It's grim, well-acted, bold, ambitious, awe-inspiring. It provides a decent send-off, if that is really the case, for our friends.

It also - not surprisingly - leaves things open to a fourth installment and/or possibly a link to a Justice League flick, which – given the way things are going with DC Comics movies lately – may not come for at least a decade.

Alas, enter the second thoughts, quibbling and nitpicking. For all the amazing set action pieces the Nolans have provided throughout the trilogy, there are a few moments of bewilderment -- yes, even for a comic book adaptation (beware spoilers):

* Wow, an armed three-month occupation of a major city by a small hodgepodge of armed criminals and hybrid Occupiers/self-proclaimed freedom fighters?

* None of Bane’s guys caught that camouflaged Batcopter atop the roof?

* The same siege that's essentially supposed to leave Gotham City to wither doesn't seem horrible, not when cops in hiding are still able to meet each other in daylight to lay out plans for insurrection. They seem fed and clothed. So does most of the remaining population. And hey, if the U.S. government can send in a relief convoy (occupied by Special Forces members) with relative ease, things can't be that bad.

*Did Bruce Wayne really have a terrible background check for his employers?

* Bruce Wayne is an injured recluse, is able to walk with a robotic leg brace, then gets his back, umm, bent (not broken) by Bane, and then is able to escape what is pretty much the Lazarus Pit, a brutal prison that only Bane is said to have escaped as a child?

I do assume Bruce Wayne, once he's financially wiped out, still has plenty of contacts and favors to cash in around the world. Otherwise, I'm not sure how he covertly returns to a Gotham City under siege, from India, in a matter of days after being literally broken and imprisoned for weeks. (A-ha! Superman or Green Lantern could've given him a lift to the states. There you go, DC and Warner Brothers. I just gave you a connection to big-screen Justice League.)

*John Blake instantly recognizes Bruce Wayne as Batman, when almost nobody else in Gotham City does for years? Dude is gonna make an excellent detective. Hell, he might make a better sidekick/successor to Batman. He should just go by his middle name, Robin.

Oh wait.

Sure we can, yes, quibble whether this would be Robin from the comics or a new creation by the Nolans – and perhaps a collective, subtle “screw you” to Warner Brothers. You decide.

Speaking of the ending, that too inspires great debate. Which film entry has the strongest final scene? Batman Begins finished with a flourish, with Jim Gordon and Batman discussing escalation in crime and alluding to The Joker arriving on the scene. The last scene in TDK was astonishing, the ultimate cliffhanger as Gordon talked of Batman being a dark knight, of being Batman being hunted down by the police. Geek giddiness. The end of TDKR almost spoils everything leading up to it.

And shall we mention a lot of the film's first half seems rather tedious - too tedious - in its build-up. I almost feel George Lucas could've inserted the banality of dialogue and plot contrivances from his newer "Star Wars" trilogy rather easily here.

I admit Tom Hardy breathes life - no pun intended - into a solid villain, Bane. It makes us almost forget the atrocity that was Bane of "Batman and Robin." By no means does he surpass Ledger's Joker. Anne Hathaway does a great job as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, but she still remains below a slinkier performance by Michelle Pfeiffer in "Batman Returns."

However, Bane and Catwoman's true motivations and machinations are muddy at best. Their decisions and revelations seem, at times, rushed and oddly out of place. Perhaps the bigger challenge/problem for the Nolans was to include so many great, strong individual performances in a grand-scale finale. But that's a dilemma common to most trilogy finales. (See "Spider-man 3," "Return of the King" and "Return of the Jedi".)

There are a few moments of levity in TDKR. Very few. Fewer than I expected. Of course, I knew this film would be just that, a film with a scattershot of worthy peers, larger than life. TDKR is the perfect foil to the lighter, more amusing superhero/comic book blockbusters this summer, "The Avengers" and "The Amazing Spider-man." But like with Alfred the butler reaching his limit to which he's willing to see a self-sacrificing Bruce Wayne, the last of the family he's served and loved nearly all of his life, there's a limit of drab that TDKR breaches.

"The Dark Knight Rises" is a spectacular piece of movie-making and the Nolans and David Goyer are to be commended for bringing this iconic version of Batman to the big screen over the past seven years. But at the end of this "film," I still feel disconnected from the psychologically nightmarish world that Ra's al Ghul and The Joker attempted to bring to Gotham City in the previous two films. Near-near-perfection is what I'll have to settle for.

Additionally, I don't know what to make of the Superman teaser, "Man of Steel." Half of geeks want Zack Snyder to succeed; the other half wants him to flop on his face. There is a risk in having other DC Comics heroes "Nolan-rised," as seems to be the case with this reboot of the Clark Kent origin story. "Superman Returns" under Bryan Singer wasn't horrible. Not at all. But be patient: Maybe in a sense, "Man of Steel" will be this generation's "Superman the Movie.” It might be our "Batman Begins." We can only hope.

And now I've come to the hardest part of my blog. Talking about "The Dark Knight Rises" here makes me recall monitoring Twitter early on the night of July 20. Looking for remarks from anyone who had seen midnight showings of TDKR. But sleepiness fast took hold and off to bed I went. I woke up late in the morning, about 9 a.m. That's when I saw my best friend's text messages about what happened in Aurora, Colorado just a few hours prior.

I didn't know Jessica Ghawi well. I wish I had. I had only talked with her briefly a couple of times in person, more so on Twitter. I loved her unbridled love for hockey and her humor. I enjoyed listening to Jessica's adventures/misadventures as she interned on Ticket 760 radio. Her microphone mishap at a Rampage game entertained me to no end.

That's one of the many things that family and friends remember best about Jessica: Her lust for life. Even in a moment of self-proclaimed silliness or embarrassment, Jessica shook it all off, carried on and learned from her mistakes. She smiled and laughed. She was serious about her professional and personal dreams, about wanting to help others. Her enthusiasm for life, friends, family and fun was infectious. A force of nature, if you will.

On a family trip, I missed the memorial service for Jessica last weekend here in San Antonio, but I caught bits and pieces thanks to online live streaming and later news recaps. Through those summaries and the interviews with her brave brother Jordan and pals who knew her best, in the hours and days following the tragedy, it's unfortunate I didn't have enough time to get to know Jessica better. I wish I had.

But Jessica's friends and family are correct: We don't dwell on the poor excuse for a human being who's taken away 13 innocent lives and destroyed so many families. We can't let win through fear. We instead celebrate the lives of those lost. I'm choosing to focus, like Jessica, on a pursuit of happiness in life. I aim to do my best to efficiently spend every waking moment trying to achieve my dreams, to help others in need and enjoy all that I can in this life. Hope you will, too.

"Prometheus": What is and what could never be

"Prometheus" is a masterpiece -- in a parallel universe where Ridley Scott's grand ideas actually go somewhere, are fully realized and converge in a beautiful dark way similar to the climax scenes of "Alien," "Blade Runner and "Gladiator."

But we live in this universe, where Bruce Jenner's daughters inexplicably are celebrities, jhorts are a fashion statement and "Prometheus" is a good popcorn film. But it could've been so much better. Then you realize the plot holes that lie expose as large as gashes across the Grand Canyon.

I should've figured it was too much to expect that the long-rumored "Alien" prequel would finally be revealed in all of its gooey glory. Sure, there are lengthy, indirect connections between "Prometheus" and "Alien," as you'll see in the final scene. But don't call it a prequel. In fact, it'd be unfair to even try to compare the two. It seems that, to some extent, Ridley attempts to gives us a 21st century version of "Alien," Except that silence and shadows and compelling, strong, believeable characters were key in "Alien." You could view it today and little of its fright, its shock value, has worn off since 1979. The movie was organic, free-flowing and competent.

But with "Prometheus," Ridley had to tease us with questions about mankind's origins. I'm not surprised screenwriters Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof fills our heads with philosophical thoughts about who/what created human beings. Was it God? Was it some other intellectually, technologically superior creature eons ago elsewhere in the universe? And if it were the latter, what happened to them?

Not that I totally expected to receive a definitive answer, Ridley's version of "Chariots of the Gods," about advanced beings from long ago traveling across the universe, eventually planting humanity's seed on Earth, to what ends we wouldn't know. The problem, however, is "Prometheus" tries to be everything to everyone: A surprising, dark sci-fi/horror film with the highest production values; a metaphysical tale exploring the ultimate questions of existence; a commercialism vs. science vs. religion morality tale. Audacious, yes, but the movie falls flat at all levels in the second hour.

There's an absence of originality and consistent pacing. Plot holes and implausibilities increase in number. So much time is spent exploring a dark, temple-like "cavern" that turns out to be something else (OK, fine, I'll spare you a spoiler), but this dark, oily stuff that appears to be alive, teeming with mysterious organisms -- is this the impetus for the giant, slithery, murderous, acid blood-filled xenomorphs that Ridley and James Cameron introduced us to in "Alien" and "Aliens"? Who knows? I don't think the writers knew. The temple-like cavern? I'll say this much: Leave it to the ornery captain of the ship Prometheus to pretty much explain the fate of the so-called "engineers" of the human race. And suddenly, in one fail swoop, one scientists tasks him to stop the engineers and save Earth.

Aside from inconsistencies in the story and screenwriting, and random actions with unclear motives, I'm disappointed in the lack of tension. The scientists neither sound nor act like scientists. That's particularly unnerving because they, along with a blue-collar piloting crew and a few hangers-on for security, are on a trillion-dollar corporation-led venture that is suppose to find the meaning of life on some planet light years away from Earth.

The supposedly scary scenes? Some are gory but hardly shocking. And while it has an air of disbelief, perhaps the hardcore scene to receive some admiration is Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, the de facto heroine, who panics upon receiving news that she's pregnant -- with an alien fetus. And she's about to give birth right...about...oh wait! There's the newfangled plot device Dr. Shaw gushed over earlier in the movie, an otherwise cool do-it-yourself medical portal where she undergoes a very VERY fast C-section to extract her little bundle of squid.

Don't get me wrong. The special effects are wonderful, as they should be. Ridley Scott films are often visually arresting. The acting isn't bad. Noomi Rapace has come a long way in a short time, from antisocial cyberpunk Lisbeth Salander in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" trilogy to Dr. Shaw, who ultimately undergoes a semi-terrifying battle of wills and chills in the climax of "Prometheus." But by no means does Rapace's performance rival those of Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in the first two classic "Alien" films.

I expected more from the cold, detached corporate leader played by Charlize Theron. Her presence commands attention, and she does well, but is nearly wasted and is Idris Elba as the aforementioned ship captain. Perhaps the best performance comes from Michael Fassbender as David, the android. He's self-assured and emotes well with a mere flinch. He joins a small, exclusive family of solid android portrayals in previous "Alien" movies such as Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen. And Guy Peace as the really old multi-billionaire -- that's a mystery unto itself.

But that's all there is. Methinks Spaihts, who gave us the craptastic "The Darkest Hour," provided the mostly uninspired action scenes. Of course, Lindelof of "Lost" fame probably provided the big philosophical ideas that eventually fall apart. "Prometheus" may be added to my private movie collection one day, but as filler, to kill two hours. It's, sadly, not the flick many of us thought we'd admire as the next great piece of intelligent sci-fi/horror cinema.

The Avengers, or How Joss Whedon May Have Saved Superhero Cinema

A day before the domestic nationwide release of "The Avengers," Jason Stewart of The Jim Rome Show asked his Twitter followers why he, a 39-year-old guy, should go see it. The answer for me, a nearly 38-year-old, is simple. A good few non-geeks out there stereotype nerds as socially-inept, virgin, mouth-breathing, supposed geniuses who dwell in their parents' basements.

Fantasy and science fiction is just that -- escapism. A chance to dream of the incredible, to imagine the possibilities. It's fun. It's entertaining. Do I obsess over "Star Wars" or "A Game of Thrones" or whether DC or Marvel is the stronger of the comic book manufacturer, around the clock? Not at all. But what a joy it is to escape my daily concerns -- a new house purchase in the works, family health matters, bills, job, cats' plans for world conquest -- by indulging in amazing tales of adventure, villainy and heroism.

This past weekend paid tribute to such an optimistic, fun-loving spirit that keeps alive the kid in each of us. This was the weekend, in early May, 35 years ago when the original "Star Wars" debuted. It was a game-changer in not only cinema but in popular culture. And it has been the weekend of Free Comic Book Day, a day for veteran comic book fans to celebrate this type of storytelling. It's a way to introduce the next generation to what we've enjoyed for years and decades.

Nothing wrong with staying young at heart. "The Avengers" shook my inner nerd/geek/child to the core. The entire experience of seeing the movie with my wife and friends at an advance midnight screening was the most fun I've had in a movie theater in quite awhile. It was cathartic. Dozens of fellow fans and I squealed, yelled, cheered, cringed, suffered and laughed together. There was good reason for this kind of sustained reaction. "The Avengers" is that awesome. It doesn't matter that most of the people going to see "The Avengers," like my wife, have had until this point no real idea of the character backstories. Some of these moviegoers have never read a comic book, much less The Avengers or any of the individual members. Moviegoers realize something special has come before us.

It's amazing to see on screen what director/writer Joss Whedon has accomplished. It's astonishing to see what Marvel Comics and Paramount have pulled off in building up fans' hopes and dreams with the "Iron Man," "Captain America" and "Thor" movies, leading up to this moment. One silently screams in awe, "Oh my God, there's an 'Avengers' movie on the big screen. It's big budget, larger than life and it exists in my lifetime." Whedon did well to exploit the flaws of each character early on in the "assembly" phase of things. The ego-driven bickering and arguments among Banner, Stark, Fury, Thor, Rogers and Romanova aboard the hellicarrier (which I want for Christmas, by the way) was a slow slimmer, a terrific build-up to Hawkeye's attack on the ship, which unleashes all sorts of beautiful mayhem.

We fans could nitpick all we want in story development and casting, but I found it pitch perfect. At this point in time, I can't imagine anyone else but Robert Downey Jr. bringing Tony Stark to life with such a devil-may-care attitude and scientific brilliance, where lines flow out of his mouth effortlessly. Chris Evans puts his firm mark as Steve Rogers. When Iron Man defers to Captain America in the insane final battle, you'd feel warm and fuzzy, too. Rogers was destined to be a leader on the battlefield: Brave, loyal, sturdy, straightforward. Chris Hemsworth may have come from out of nowhere these last few years in American cinema, but HE IS Thor through and through. And Tom Hiddleston perhaps has the most fun of anyone as Thor's mischief-making brother, Loki. He hams it up with a devious smile and a gleam in his eye.

When Thor and Loki argue about the latter's desire to rule a race of people, Whedon deftly applies a human and philosophical touch to the proceedings. Since the comic Thor and Loki are based on mythical figures in our "real" ancient history, it's fitting these two demigods would argue in an forest at night, about their troubled kinship on Asgard and mankind's apparent hidden need to be subjugated.

It's a shame the previous two standalone Hulk movies have not lived up to the hype. I can't explain exactly why. We all have our theories. But I know this much: Mark Ruffalo dominates as Banner this time around. He channels Bill Bixby's tormented, fidgety Banner from the TV show better than Eric Bana or Edward Norton could ever hope to do. Even the CGI'd Hulk, this time around, is the best adaptation yet. Banner and Hulk are slowly, surely, learning to co-exist. When Banner quips toward the end, "I'm always angry," you can't help but smile and Hulk/Banner's universe makes more sense. And when Hulk beats the tarnation out of Loki, you can't help but cheer and laugh. Everybody in the theater did.

Whedon is known for highlighting kick-ass heroines. He did Scarlett Johansson and her Black Widow justice compared with her bit role in "Iron Man 2." She has her moments of glory in battle, to be sure, but her psychological battles are more impressive. Romanova sharing the pain of her bloody past with Jeremy Renner's Clint Barton/Hawkeye, also, was key. It balanced the otherwise sheer fun, colorful excitement. Whedon was great in how much attention he paid to each hero, but it wasn't at the expense of the total package.

Alas, this was a true Avengers movie, not a SHIELD flick. Samuel L. Jackson is his usual self as Nick Fury, but maybe played down a tad from the previous lead-in movies. Clark Gregg had his moment to shine as Agent Phil Coulson as did Cobie Smulders as Agent Maria Hill. (OK, she got the short end of the stick here, but methinks she'll be higher profile in the sequel.) Even Stellan Skarsgard had nifty moments as Dr. Selvig.

If there's any real letdown, for lack of a better term, it's Loki's rented alien army, the Chitari (which to some extent, are Skrulls). Sure, they're a plot device. When it's time for them to attack Earth via New York, the battle could've been more epicer. Epicier? The army seems overwhelming, but nothing Earth's mightiest heroes - after they've finally put aside their differences - couldn't handle within a relatively compact piece of Manhattan real estate.

Ultimately, Whedon achieves what many thought was impossible -- assembling prime time comic book, heavyweight superheroes in a sprawling epic. But not one is larger than the moment. The heroes complement each other with help from Whedon's strong, smart script. The movie is fast-paced, humorous, adventurous, brilliant. There's technobabble, but it's so quick that the viewer isn't hit over the head and made to feel stupid. There's a hint of tragedy, but so maddeningly sad. Even the post-credit scenes...well, I won't give anything away, but one makes comic book fans sit in awe to think of the fun yet to come. The other scene, simply, is a hilarious throwaway gag, but it's worth the stay.

Another shortcoming is the music. Yes, lately theme music in most superhero movies have lacked the gravitas of the original "Superman" movies or even Tim Burton's "Batman" flicks. Nothing terribly memorable here. Not even the new song from the reformed Soundgarden. Gotta do better than that, Chris Cornell and company. All the geek exuberance contained in Whedon's past works - "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Firefly," "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog," "The Cabin in the Woods" (I'll be honest: meh on "Dollhouse") - is present in "The Avengers." This is how a superhero/comic book hero movie should be done. If possible, the right characters can be brought to life in a big, splashy way, in the right hands.

Is it right to compare "The Avengers" with "The Dark Knight"? No, it's apples to oranges. Can't and mustn't be done. Christopher Nolan's vision via Frank Miller has been a perfect way to tell Bruce Wayne's Batman story. Is it right to call "The Avengers" a game-changer, perhaps "Star Wars" for our generation? Too soon to tell.
Is it greedy for me to wonder what this "Avengers" film could've been with Spider-man, Wolverine, Ant-Man and Wasp, possibly any of the Fantastic Four, dropping in to take their shots at Loki and his army? A nerd can dream. "The Avengers," big budget as it is, stands out as my top geek film of 2012, albeit with close competition from the Whedon-produced "Cabin in the Woods" and "Chronicle."

But three things are for sure: One, I don't know how DC Comics and Warner Brothers could ever hope to get their stuff straight and mount an equally triumphant Justice League of America, big-screen movie, in our lifetime. Two: "The Avengers" -- as in secret agents Emma Peel and John Steed from the lovely '60s TV series turned failed '90s movie -- could we try and do better on that? Three: I can't wait to see "The Avengers" at the theater again. Me and repeat viewings at the cinema don't happen very often except for special occasions. Thanks, Joss Whedon, this is indeed special. My inner child is smiling.