Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Spider-fans want to see Peter Parker in his own body, not as a ghost

Belated comment on the scene from last pages of "Superior" Spider-Man's 1st issue. So we see here that Peter turns up as a ghost, and is using his influence to keep Dr. Octopus from going overboard killing criminals and such. I'm not impressed, as this story gimmick was unwelcome to begin with, and does not make for plausible character drama. Nor do Spider-fans want to read series like this to see an imposter dominating the body of the hero in something so deliberately protracted. When we read Spidey's adventures, we want to read about Peter Parker up front in his very own body.

And it's pretty obvious where this could be going: Peter is going to do everything possible to trip up Doc Ock in retaliation for stealing his form, yet in the end, he'll only end up becoming an outcast again. I saw the promo, that Spidey is going to get fired from the Avengers, and noticed some predictions on forums that another wedge is bound to be driven between Peter and Mary Jane Watson. I know what the disgraceful staff at Marvel will claim - better than Doc Ock taking advantage of Mary Jane. But it's still the oldest trick in the book, irritating fans with the possibility that something they would rightfully take offense at could take place and then arguing - even indirectly - that the alternative is better, as a cover for a direction they're taking that nobody likes either. No true Spider-fan would want Doc Ock exploiting Mary Jane, that is true. But even if it doesn't happen, that still doesn't make this storyline something we're interested in, nor does it mean we want Peter to become a pariah. Yet that appears to be the direction they're going in, which is even worse than forcibly depicting Peter as down on his luck and having a hard time paying the rent, as seen in the 1998 relaunch at the time Mary Jane was temporarily sent MIA in a plane flight.

This current story is also another prime example of how far Spider-Man's deviated from the down-to-earth focus that once made it such a great comic.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Mark Millar thinks righties are the real problem in Europe

This week, Mark Millar was having discussions on Twitter about the EU referendum Britain's government agreed to run about whether they should leave the EU. He said:

I'd wish I could say I appreciate his understanding that the union was one of the worst ideas to plague Europe, what with its otherwise undemocratic and decidedly socialist-leaning positions. However, he then went on to say in reply to another tweeter:

What? He thinks that right-wingers would be the real problem? Sigh. Considering how socialism goes hand in glove with leftism, and if the EU intends to go the socialist route, why does he think that only a rightie would be the problem? And here when it's a right-wing politician (David Cameron) who's giving him the chance to say no to the EU!

If he really wanted to say something bold and positive, he could say that Britain needs a constitution just like what the USA's got. I'd sure like to see someone of his standing tell just what the UK could really use, but alas, that doesn't seem very high on his wish list. Too bad. Millar has only demonstrated why he's still the kind of comics writer stuck in a mode where he can only see rightists as the scapegoats.

Labels: ,

A graphic novelist raises money for attacking capitalism

A writer named Stephanie McMillan is trying to brew up an graphic novel assault on capitalism by using the very concept she's allegedly against:
Capitalism Must Die! How to Kill Capitalism before it Kills Us will be a short (approximately 124 pages), simple book (with text, comics and illustrations) explaining capitalism: how it works, why it’s evil, and how to crush it. It’s very basic and accessible theory for the beginning revolutionary.
And how does she justify what she's setting out to do? She says at the end:
For anyone who has the impulse to say: "Isn't it hypocritical to be raising money when you're against capitalism?!?", I would like to point out that as long as we do live under capitalism, there is still rent to pay, food to buy, printers to pay, etc. I'm seeking subsistence and production costs only, and there's little danger of me using the money to open a book sweatshop where I put desperate writers and cartoonists to work on my assembly line, while I lie around sipping mojitos... Hm... wait a minute....can I do that?
Nope. If she thinks it's that easy, she should think again; it's not. I don't know if she's trying to market her project as a freebie, but if she thinks anybody who works hard to produce many of the everyday things we need in life is going to do it all for free, she's missing the boat. Even hard working leftists aren't going to totally do everything for free. And nobody with sense should have to contribute their hard earned money to someone with such delusional goals.

Labels: ,

Monday, January 28, 2013

How DC's executives treated Joanne Siegel

Comics Beat wrote about the lawsuit the Siegel estate waged - and failed - to win against Time Warner for the majority rights to Superman, and if there's anything in here that's alarming, it's this:
By all rights, Joanne Siegel should have spent the last years of her life as the grande dame of American popular culture. Instead, she had to endure years of brutal litigation with precious little hope of seeing a final resolution, let alone one that would work in the family’s favor. She and her daughter Laura Siegel Larson had to suffer through hearing DC characterize the 1975 agreement as an undeserved gift, and now the historic 2008 ruling for co-ownership is set to disappear.
Really? If that's correct, it's one of the worst cases of contempt for the creators' families I've ever seen. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster did all that hard work conceiving one of the most famous superheroes of all time, and whomever they're talking about returned the favor by claiming the duo didn't deserve original agreement. But who are these company reps they're talking about? If they include Dan DiDio, for example, he should be perfectly ashamed of himself.

If there's any good news to be found in all this mess though, it's that in another decade, just about all of the DC properties Time Warner owns are going to become public domain, the Man of Steel included, and then they certainly won't be able to spite the creators' heirs anymore. For now, DC's staff could apologize, but it's sadly unlikely to happen.

Labels: ,

Sunday, January 27, 2013

New movies based on Ant-Man and Dr. Strange are in the works

Yahoo's Movietalk section is reporting that Marvel studios is planning 2 more movies based on Ant-Man and Doctor Strange, as part of a "phase three" of their adaptations.

Labels:

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Only 5 Justice League members finalized for casting in a movie

If this news from Latino Review is correct, then if WB decides to greenlight a movie based on the Justice League of America, it'll have at least 5 members: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Lantern. And it might have cameos from 2-3 other heroes associated with the League like Martian Manhunter, Aquaman and Hawkman. But they still haven't found a director yet, and knowing what kind of people are running this studio, I don't expect this to turn out well.

Labels: ,

If Guardians of the Galaxy film gets made, it'll be a comedy?

According to Latino Review, if Disney/Marvel go ahead with a possible Guardians of the Galaxy film, it'll be a comedy. But if the following is accurate, I am not impressed by 2 of the actors they're seeking:
Marvel is asking for the availability of both Jim Carrey AND Adam Sandler!
Now Carrey I could probably be fine with, and he did once star in a comedy based on a comic (The Mask), but Sandler's one of the most repellant performers I know of, and made some of the most vulgar films to come down the pike in the past 2 decades. He should most definitely not be allowed anywhere near a movie adaptation like this.

Come to think of it, a movie based on Guardians shouldn't even be a comedy per se. Of course it should have comedic moments, but the genre itself is something they should decidedly refrain from.

Labels:

Thursday, January 24, 2013

It sounds like the new Vibe will be a coward

Speaking of the Justice League, MTV's Geek section spoke with writer Andrew Kreisberg about his and Geoff Johns' plans for reintroducing the short-lived hero named Vibe who appeared towards the end of Justice League of America's 1960-87 run, and was killed off at the end. The personality he's given now is described like this:
Although he looks up to the other Leaguers, Kreisberg says Vibe is definitely a realist, often questioning the wisdom of running headlong into battle. Kreisberg says that unlike Superman or Batman, the first question that comes to mind when he's standing toe-to-toe with a Parademon will be "Is this thing going to kill me?"
Gee, isn't it obvious that an alien like that, if its mindset is demented enough, is willing to do just that? Sure it pays to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of a villain, but that doesn't mean the heroes should be afraid to confront and battle the enemy. But that's what this new rendition sounds like. And I don't think making Vibe out to act like a coward is the most inspiring way to recreate him. A realist takes into account that if nothing is done to fight off a menacing villain, even from outer space, there could come disaster, as will sooner or later for this series' sales.

Labels: , , ,

Geoff Johns' not very impressive Justice League spinoff series

CBR spoke with Johns about the spinoff he's writing for the title that's only called Justice League, and it's the spinoff, of all things, that'll have "of America" affixed to it. All so they can include several characters whom the leading 7 in the sans-America won't take because they're now an exclusive club in contrived fashion for the sake of it (and all so Johns can feature his politically correct concoction of Simon Baz as a co-star). On the Martian Manhunter, they say:
We had a tease recently that, even though he wasn't with the Justice League in their first adventure, Manhunter does had a history with the League. And it's not a happy one. What are the odds we'll be getting more on that in the immediate future?

That'll be answered. For a time, he was on the Justice League. He battled Starro and all these other guys, and then there was a huge falling out. They've been on the outs ever since. We'll discover what that was, what happened and why. They'll meet again in the upcoming year -- that was set up a long time ago.
I already know a few of the details about the forced exclusion of J'onn J'onzz, and I'm sure we don't need to know the fuller story of what Johns wants everybody to accept happened, because it can only be perfectly galling.
Steve Trevor is a character you got to do a lot with in a short time in "Justice League" -- this idea that he met Wonder Woman, fell in love with her and then was left by the wayside. I would think taking him into this series should mean an extension of that arc. Are you playing the two off each other directly?

Steve Trevor is definitely the through line from "Justice League" to "Justice League of America." I actually think -- and I know he's a supporting cast member normally, but I think he's grown into a really great character in his own right. His viewpoint is that when he crashed on that island and met Diana, they shared something special, and when they came back to this world, he felt very protective but she can look out for herself. Now, he's got a complexity. He's not used to this kind of relationship or this tension. It causes a lot of stress, and eventually it just broke. Imagine if you had a shot with Wonder Woman and it didn't work out. It would be devastating. I think someone says, "You're only going to go down from there." He really believes that. Why bother with anyone else?
So this is the new rendition of Steve Trevor under his helming? Bleah. But it's obvious that Steve was dumped by Diana for the sake of her becoming Superman's "sidekick". What's really ridiculous is how he implies that no other beauty in the DCU could possibly compete with WW, which I think is insulting to the intellect. Although some of these women were thrown out post-Flashpoint by the editors, what about Jade, Jesse Quick, Black Canary, Donna Troy, and Starfire, for example? Why, what about the new rendition of Katana? Or even Etta Candy, whom Steve married in George Perez's takes on WW? They're not good enough to replace WW as Steve's paramour?

Clearly, Johns doesn't think so.
When you talk about him like that, it reminds me of when you worked with Scott Kolins on "Flash." People had known his work before that, but his style and your collaboration recontextualized what he could do. Do you hope for a similar reappraisal of David?

I'm hoping that David and I working in conjunction lets him bring something people aren't expecting. You look at that team lineup, and it's very unexpected. I like that. I want people not to know what to expect from the book. Now, we've got a lot of the story broken, and when it's out there, I want these cliffhangers to be the craziest cliffhangers in comic books. I really want this to feel like something special.

I've said this before, but I love the big characters like Batman and Superman. I also absolutely love taking characters that people won't give a second thought to, like Aquaman, Sinestro or the Rogues -- characters who people have written off already -- and elevating them. I want to say, "There's actually a lot here to get involved with and get excited about or intrigued by. That's why this team is so exciting to work with, especially when I'm working with David Finch, whose drawings legitimize them almost immediately. It's all about unlocking potential, and for me as a creative endeavor -- why I'm excited by this book and want to work on this book -- and also within the team and the story itself.

We'll see who this team really is, and not everyone is going to make it. That's part of the story of the book, too. Just because you're on the Justice League of America doesn't mean you'll forever be on the Justice League.
And just because he's launching this new volume doesn't mean it'll last forever either. Certainly not after he leaves and hands it over to another writer. It sounds like when he thinks the time is right, he'll throw some of the characters out when it becomes apparent that nobody likes or cares about his renditions. It wouldn't be the first time he's done it either.

And he never elevated the cast he dealt with so much as corrupted, denigrated and made them less appealing, like the Rogues in the Flash, who were turned into an extremely unpleasant bunch. Most writers before him didn't commonly use the Rogues simply because it was felt they were too tongue-in-cheek and it really was time to retire them and think of new villains who could replace them for modern times. But he just couldn't let go, nor could he respect that the Rogues were supervillains with certain senses of honor, unlike real life villains and even "plainclothes" villains in fiction, who can be very vicious by contrast.

Speaking of which, at the end, he says:
Lastly, is there anything to be said about the villains in the series?

Just like there's potential in all these characters that you've seen but never really delved into, it's the same with the villains. I love working with villains from Black Adam and Sinestro to Captain Cold and Black Manta, villains are a sweet spot for me. So they'll be a massive part of this story, and that's all I can really say right now.
Oh, does he ever enjoy working on villains, far more so than the heroes, whose own character drama potential he never showed the courage to focus on, and if he did, he only botched it royally. This is another something that irritates me about Johns: his obsession with the villains, which has only amounted to doing all he can to make them "relevant", which means he tries to make them as nasty as possible, as he did with Black Manta. That's also the gravest mistake DC's made in all their attempts to "Marvelize" their universe, and it's only resulted in vulgar, contrived stories and premises that impress nobody. Whoever the villains are that Johns intends to feature, I have no desire to read about any of them under his helming.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

10 secret reasons that make the Avengers movie the best in the superhero genre

A writer for Pajamas Media gives 10 secret reasons for what makes the Avengers movie of last year one of the best superhero movies.

Labels: ,

Monday, January 21, 2013

Atheism turning up in mainstream comics, even if it doesn't make sense

Nearly 15 years ago, when the second Mr. Terrific, Michael Holt, was introduced in the Spectre, he was established as an athiest. It may have been decently handled at the time, but in the New 52 has surely gotten worse. Also around that time, the second incarnation of the Huntress quit the Catholic faith for a time in the Cry for Blood miniseries, although she did come back.

More recently, I've noticed at least 2 hints of atheism turning up in the Marvel universe too. For example, in Incredible Hulks 622 (Greg Pak wrote it):
And then, more recently in Brian Bendis' All New X-Men, Hank McCoy gets the following dialect and narrative:
This is more subtle, but does have all the earmarks of a potentially atheist rendition.

I don't see how it makes sense in worlds where even pagan deities dwell to make the characters atheists, and while it almost makes sense for the Hulk to be one, if Beast is being depicted as an atheist, it looks more forced.

For all we know, this could be a clue to the dwindling respect for Judeo-Christian beliefs the entertainment industry has, something that began in the movie biz and now must've leaked over to the comics biz as well. If that be the case, it's a dismay.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Does Stjepan Sejic take Ron Marz's side on gun control?

Comics artist Sejic, who collaborated with Marz on some of his Top Cow assignments, gave the following reply to the latter on his standings about gun control:

He almost manages to make the right point here, that it's people who kill other people, and not just guns, but I think he slipped on the issue of insanity, and falls back on the same position that Marz does. Who says you can't control the crazies? The American Interest (via Front Page Magazine) wrote about how a lot of the maniacs who went on shooting sprees since 1982 were mentally insane, and raises some legitimate arguments about why crackpots do need to be dealt with. And I believe they can be prevented from getting hold of legal firearms if authorities were really committed to passing laws that would make it easier to bar the insane from obtaining guns and getting them institutionalized, keeping them far away from innocents.

Sejic, like Marz, needs to ponder how sloppy laws dealing with the mentally insane are what lead to gun violence and allow them to get a hold of weapons, not just the weapons themselves.

Labels:

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Jonathan Hickman supports Brad Meltzer

The writer who's worked on Fantastic Four in recent years has some pretty lousy taste in other writers:

If he's going to support the author whose most notorious work in comics was the Identity Crisis screed, then that's all the more reason to be very careful about trying out anything he himself has written.

Update: and Hickman's not the only one who's fawning and promoting Meltzer's books. Here's 2 others:


No surprise that Johns is paying lip service to that awful writer who's never apologized for what he did. As for Williams, this only tells a bit more about what could be wrong with how he manages his business too.

Labels: , , , ,

Kieron Gillen's sugary presentation of "Young Avengers"

The UK Guardian spoke with the British comics writer Kieron Gillen, who said at least 2 things, one silly and other politically correct gushing. First, what he says about Batman as compared to Iron Man:
"I think Tony Stark is one of the great comic characters because he is incredibly problematic. Bruce Wayne pretends to be a playboy, but he doesn't actually sleep with all those supermodel girlfriends. Tony does. That's a fundamental difference. [...]"
I'm sure Bruce slept with Catwoman back in the late 1970s, so I'm not sure that claim holds water. Just because sex in mainstream comics of yore was usually only indirectly implied doesn't mean Bruce didn't have his moments, and I think it's silly of Gillen to make it sound as though Bruce has always been a cypher and no writer has or could possibly pull it off well.

Next, what he says about Young Avengers:
Its heroes aren't government agents, they're just kids with powers who live in the same world as Captain America, trying to live up to the ideal of being an Avenger.
Is that supposed to be a subtle message that working for the government in itself is wrong? Point: many of the other members of the Avengers, save for Cap, aren't government agents either, so I don't see what the issue is here. Then, he says about 2 members of the Young team:
"The main characters are Wiccan and Hulkling, a young gay couple who have inspired a lot of love and a lot of NSFW Tumblr art. [...]"
This is where he's pushing - and sensationalizing - the long cliched politically correct belief that there must be gay/lesbian cast members in almost every team (and solo) book at all costs no matter what, always in only the most positive of lights, and that this is what everybody really needs to hear about. I suppose if one or both were Bulgarian chefs specializing in Bulgarian cheese products and citing famous proverbs in the native languages of eastern Europe that wouldn't be news, right?

This is all par for the course balderdash at the Guardian, so it only confirms why they're such an obsolete paper, and they certainly would be if they worked in the USA.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 18, 2013

Superman's Doomsday is still intact

In the 16th issue of the rebooted Action Comics, it's been established that the 1993 "Death of Superman" story at the hands of an alien titan called Doomsday is still in continuity. It may have first been confirmed as part of the New 52 almost a year ago and now, this confirms it more that they're still using the plot as part of the new continuity. Why a story that limp, written only as a desperate ploy for temporary sales boosts, still has to be canon is beyond me. Especially now that Lois Lane no longer knows the Man of Steel's identity as Clark Kent, nor is she married to him any more. All that does is make things even more pointless.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Why can't the X-Women have a title with that exact name?

Among the series being relaunched as part of Marvel's NOW nonsense, all for the sake of short-term sales ploys, the sans-adjective X-Men is one of them, and the weirdest thing is how, even as the female members of the team take the spotlight in this rendition, it's still being titled "X-Men", and the article says:
The writer [Brian Wood] also hopes that the new X-Men will address — and perhaps shatter — the perception in superhero comics that female characters typically lack the iconic power or broad appeal to anchor a major hit.
But if they can't give the series and its stars a title that clearly defines them as the women they are like "X-Women", then they are enforcing the perception that they don't have faith in the cast to carry the book on their own, and come to think of it, they're not even convincingly selling the book based on the quality of writing, which, knowing how Marvel's editorial operates, isn't bound to be granted the creative freedom for the writer to pen much that's stand-alone. How much time will it be before this series too gets hijacked by their next crossover? And, as this article tells:
The drama is starting right away in X-Men, beginning with Jubilee bringing home an orphaned baby who might be key to mankind's survival. Meanwhile, someone else shows up — namely Sublime, a villainous bacteria from Grant Morrison's New X-Men run that can take over human beings but is currently faced with a threat of his own coming from outer space.
Ugh, we could really do without Morrison's incoherent ideas. And, how do we know that the outer space menace won't be tied in with whatever crossovers they have in store?

Wood also says he's going to bring in focus on sexual relationships in this series volume. He claims he'll do it tastefully, but with all the dishonest marketing already delivered by Quesada and bound to continue under Alonso, I wouldn't count on this being any better. And again, if they think the X-Women have the potential to win over an audience, then they should have the courage to market them that way, and not rely only on an existing-though-relaunched series that uses "Men" as its moniker.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The comics industry won't talk about itself

In a recent interview the Comics Reporter ran with Sean Howe, author of Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, the following was said:
SPURGEON: You didn't have the reluctance problem, did you? Did you think anyone chose not to talk to you, or changed the way they talked to you, out of careerist or similar concerns?

HOWE: Oh, sure. Tons of people. Tons of people. It's no secret that this book really accelerates in the last ten years, and it has a very sudden ending. There are multiple reasons for that, but one of them is that no one in the comics industry now is really interested in talking about the comics industry.
It could be that the low sales are a factor in any company's reluctance to speak more directly about the industry. But the insular path they're taking could be another. And with only so much bad storytelling littering mainstream offerings, that's one more reason why it may be hard for anyone to feel bold enough to say anything.

The biggest problem of all though, is the lack of people in comics willing to take responsibility for the damage done to the industry they work in.

Labels:

Nick Spencer pans DC's treatment of freelancers

The comics writer Nick Spencer says something worthy of note:

And that includes people who used to work for them years before who are getting shafted and shunned, and Time Warner does nothing about it. Very little of Chuck Dixon's Robin and Birds of Prey runs were ever published in trades and may now be out of print, and more recently, a planned paperback for the first several issues of Impulse was cancelled too. I think there was supposed to be a second paperback collecting more of Infinity Inc, and that was cancelled too. All because, I suspect, they don't want to pay any royalties to Mark Waid and Roy Thomas. And they're clearly so begrudging, they don't recognize how it only serves to hurt them when they could have a chance of making money off of that stuff.

I just hope Spencer is aware that if DC can be unfair to their contributors, so too can Marvel.

Labels:

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Ron Marz sounds more concerned about legal gun sales than successful self-defense

Marz's political side continues to get the better of him:

I think it's a shame Marz is more interested in this than in the honest people who've successfully defended themselves against criminals. For example, a mother in Georgia who defended her 2 children and herself from an interloper who broke into their house. And, an Oklahoma woman menaced by robbers who managed to scare them off (Hat tip: Big Government). What if they didn't have their firearms and the criminals got the upper hand as a result? And has Marz considered that the whole issue of gun control is only proving to be a loser for liberals?

It's incredible that the same writer who penned the Silver Surfer, Green Lantern and Witchblade, all featuring heroes with their own forms of firepower, and all for at least 6 years each, is taking an entirely different stance here. Does he regret writing those books now?

He'd do well to just let go of the whole issue and just focus on writing comics.

Labels: ,

Sunday, January 13, 2013

What the shafting of Betty Banner led to

Peter David, who's been recovering recently from a stroke he suffered in Florida, wrote an essay now published on Entertainment Weekly for the 50th anniversary of the Hulk, where he tells the history of how he got to take over the series, boosting it back from the risk of cancellation and writing it for at least 11 years. He tells how because of his divorce at the time, that was why he killed off Betty Banner, but what happened afterwards?
[...] With the death of Betty, this prompted Marvel to have a Brilliant Idea. Mourning the loss of his wife, the Hulk would now go dead silent, stop talking to anyone, and run around the Marvel universe smashing everything in sight.

When I was told the new plan, I objected. I told them it was out of character with the psychologically complex giant I’d created over the years. I said I wouldn’t write that. And the editorial higher-ups (none of whom still work for the company) said that I shouldn’t hesitate to avoid having the door hit me on the way out.

And that was that. After twelve years, I was gone. Marvel then brought on a series of writers to produce the exact stories that Marvel wanted for the Hulk and, as I predicted, sales tanked. It wasn’t until Marvel brought on British writer Paul Jenkins (who basically started writing the same types of stories that I’d been doing) that sales turned around.

[...] If I’d known that I’d be leaving the book the issue afterward, I’d never have killed off Betty (although since then she was brought back to life and is now the red She-Hulk, so that made a lot of difference.)
Well I think it's a shame he had to do that in the first place, and base her survival solely on his own personal issues. Just because Thunderbolt Ross and Marlo Chandler went to the next world and back doesn't mean he had to send Betty there too (Ross's temporary offing may have been John Byrne's idea, while Marlo's was David's). The editors' big bright idea to undo almost everything he'd done with Bruce Banner's mind shouldn't be too surprising. That's pretty much become the norm today, as many writer who'd penned successful runs with plausible characterization on mainstream comics had the work completely undone, and sometimes not even sold in trade archives. Yes, David's run on the Hulk was, but Chuck Dixon's runs on the Punisher and Robin have been largely left to gather dust and to date have never been archived beyond a trickle for anyone who finds paperbacks more accommodating to have a look at. And the publishers don't even want to make money on them!

And I don't think sales ever recovered, as modern sales suggest, when it often sells well below 100,000. It's mostly Joe Quesada's fault, of course, and Axel Alonso's by extension.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, January 11, 2013

Ocean Master floods out Gotham

In Aquaman #15, Arthur Curry's nemesis Ocean Master carries out the latest of DC's shock tactics:
This issue picks up right where Justice League leaves off. Ocean Master has declared war on the surface world for what he views as an unprovoked act of aggression. As a result, Boston and Gotham City have both been bombarded by tidal waves, killing countless innocents in the process. It's clear from the moment the reduced Justice League lineup begin reacting to the devastation that this isn't some quick and painless little clash between opposing forces. This is a storyline with significant consequences in terms of human lives, and by extension, the League's relationship to the world and to each other.
Which means that the Sea King's going to end up being blamed and ostracized by the surface world, and it affects the League to boot? Yet another regurgitation of the alienation themes DC's been resorting to for years now, and to make matters worse, it's another story where shiploads of civilians are slain for no good reason. We have definitely come a long way since the 70s and even the 80s, where plots like those were rarely ever used, and nowhere near as cynically as DC and Marvel's current staff have been doing.

These plot and story lines involving the deaths of thousands of people are another something that have to be avoided.

Labels: , , , ,

DC working on a "dark universe" movie

With the director Guillermo del Toro, Time Warner might be developing a DC comics movie that's been titled "dark universe" for now. It's uncertain if it's a go, but definitely a shame that this is the only direction they're seriously interested in promoting. Come to think of it, dark is probably the direction a Justice League movie would unfortunately go in if they do make that. I've always thought it a shame how darkness has ended up becoming the emphasis of too many of their projects, and they're not helping by promoting their projects that way.

Labels:

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

Comics Buyer's Guide goes the way of Wizard

Krause Publications and F+W Media have announced they're shutting down Comics Buyer's Guide after nearly 42 years in publication. Oh well, no big loss. They may have once been a magazine to admire, but as the 90s came in, they became far less objective, ranking second to Wizard as an otherwise dishonest news source on comicdom. Now Wizard was a lot worse because they resorted to crudeness, insulting comments about women, and even helped fuel the speculator buying of the early 90s that caused the market to collapse. But CBG was still very fluff-coated to boot (they would be cheap and lenient on DC's mistreatment of Hal Jordan, sugarcoated in their focus on Johnny Storm, for example) and their inability to put pressing issues in serious focus is exactly why they were no more worthy a periodical than Wizard was. A magazine focused on pop culture that doesn't take an objective, convincing approach to its subject cannot be considered a true, dedicated representative of comics as a medium.

Labels:

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

David Goyer says it's more challenging to write Superman's movie than Batman's

The Global Dispatch says David Goyer, the screenwriter/comics writer who's worked on the Man of Steel movie set to debut this June 14, found it harder to develop this than the Batman movies Christopher Nolan worked on, but thinks it'll work:
“I’m really proud of it,” begins Goyer. “I never thought I would be doing a Superman film, but I think the only possible way to top myself or ourselves on Batman is to tackle Superman, who’s kind of the Granddaddy of all the superheroes.

“He’s trickier, it’s kind of easier doing a dark character who doesn’t have any super powers, but I’m really proud of what we’ve done and I can’t wait for people to see it.”
Well I sure hope the end result is worthy of our time without being forcibly dark and adherent to political correctness like the Superman Returns movie from 2006 was with its omissions of The American Way from its storyboards, for example.

And I can't and won't agree that it's easier writing a dark character than a bright one. Plenty of adventure movies of years gone by featured optimism, and if they did have their dark moments, it didn't overshadow the bright ones at all costs. For all we know, it could surely be possible to write a film starring a hero without superpowers that's bright and optimistic too. Similarly, a film starring a dark hero who does have super powers could also be possible. The filmmakers have to have some faith in themselves to do it right.

Labels: ,

Sunday, January 06, 2013

An unpublished Green Lantern Nintendo game from 1994

This gaming website posted screenshots of a video game planned for the Super Nintendo 2 decades ago based on Green Lantern, but was scrapped because DC wanted some very difficult changes made and it would've cost too much. And, in a clear signal that more of an editorial mandate than meets the eye could've been playing out behind the scenes, Kyle Rayner was to be the star of the game. If I were in charge of the game's development, I'd want to use Hal Jordan (or even Alan Scott, which could be just as clever), and it's interesting to think of whether the DC license sellers would agree to allow that. I get the vibe that not only would they refuse, they wouldn't have had the courage to admit they did wrong by Hal with the Emerald Twilight disaster, and would just say that Kyle is whom they're allowing to be used, is all.

If my guesses turned out to bear validity, that would only show just how insane their mandates have become.

Labels: , ,

Billy Tucci's Child is Born graphic novel will also be available in hardcover

Big Hollywood reports that Billy Tucci's graphic novel A Child is Born will also be published in hardcover format.

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 04, 2013

The Peanuts effect

Discover magazine has an article by an artist/neurosurgeon who says that the imagery in the Peanuts comic strip work through the same processes as grammar.

Labels:

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Hank McCoy gets a new look as Beast

In this interview on Newsarama with Marvel editor Nick Lowe, they've revealed the Beast's new design, which abandons the feline shape in favor of...gee, I dunno, a design that looks like a cross between a furry alien and Sasquatch?

Well, at least it looks better than the tedious cat-design. But no way will I be wasting time and money on a Bendis book. It's been clear for a long time that Bendis has no respect for the cast of characters he's been given the reins to write, nor any respect for the audience, and that's why spending money on his books would only be a foolish step.

In the end, the only character design for Beast that I find appealing is what he was given in the early 70s. A real shame it's been thrown away for more than a decade now.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

The many mistakes made with Spidey

The Wilkes-Barre Weekender's written an op-ed about Marvel's latest abuse of Spider-Man in the 700th issue, and how it's all just a publicity stunt meant to appeal to the MSM that simply loves this kind of nonsense more than they do crowd-pleasers, and says:
If Marvel was just starting a new Spider-Man comic, it would only be on the radars of fans like myself. Off a flagship character, however, and you gain national attention through news outlets like CNN that generally don’t cover comics. Everyone gets passionate and riled up, calling for boycotts or defending the “bold” new direction, and sales go up no matter how ill-conceived the story is.

And that is where my anger lies. It’s not that this storyline couldn’t ever be done – it’s just that it’s not that great, and it’s being published for the wrong reasons. I don’t understand why this weird experiment had to be the finale of, arguably, the greatest comic series of all time instead of just a quirky, but likely forgettable footnote in its history. Its creators talk about this like it’s the beginning of some great new era – it’s not. It’s another mistake in a long series of mistakes they’ve made with the Webhead.

The most notable of these mistakes is “One More Day” in 2007 – Parker’s Aunt May is dying, so Mephisto, Marvel’s version of the Devil, offers to save her life in exchange for Peter and Mary Jane’s marriage. Of what use, exactly, would a marriage be to the Devil? Doesn’t he collect souls or something? Instead of letting go of his elderly and often sickly aunt after all these years, he erases the love of his life from ever existing – how is shaking hands with the master of evil himself a heroic thing to do? I thought I was supposed to be rooting for this guy!

They did this because then-Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada felt that Spidey was more relatable when he was single, but there are literally thousands of single superheroes in Marvel’s repertoire – shouldn’t there be a few heroes for the married readers to relate to? Instead of tackling divorce, separation, or the death of a loved one, all very relatable situations, they sacrificed the character’s courageous integrity. Talk about missing the point.
You said it. But after 5 years, I've concluded that Quesada never really intended to make Spidey more relatable, and he his successor Axel Alonso have already failed miserably anyway, which could partly explain why they stooped even lower to this ghastly stunt. And why indeed did Spidey and Mary Jane have to be forcibly split up when Captain American and Iceman, for example, could surely make great single ladies' men? Or any of the New Warriors like Nova? Oh wait, I just remembered discovering that they killed off Richard Rider last year, and replaced him with another character in the same role; why they did that I have no idea. But with overrated writers like Jeph Loeb in charge, there's no chance even the new character will be depicted well.

We can only hope that this will finally convince more Spider-fans than before that the time has come to jump ship and turn more to reading older, better stories of Spidey. I may have said it before and I'll say it again, with people like Quesada and Alonso in charge, a Marvel fan's money is better spent on the older output in archives.

Labels: , , , ,

France's Charlie Hebdo will publish comics based on Muhammed

The satirical French weekly that published cartoons of the "prophet" of Islam to the chagrin of Islamists around the world is going to publish a comic about the life of Mohammed as well, in another test of free speech. There is something here though that bugs me:
Charlie Hebdo's publisher said it would be educational and was an attempt to defend free speech.

"It is a biography authorised by Islam since it was edited by Muslims," said the publisher, Stephane Charbonnier, who is known as Charb.
I hope that's only a joke he's making, because if it really was edited by Muslims as he says, there's no telling if it'll be honest enough about what the Koran says about Mohammed.

The really sad thing however, is that the Washington Times, a conservative paper, has published a piece by an apologist for Islam who's speaking against the weekly's free speech rights:
Publishing cartoons of Mohammed is less a matter of not being PC as it is an act of stupidity and disrespect.

Says Charb, “I don’t think higher Muslim minds could find anything inappropriate.”

A biography of Mohammed, maybe. Cartoon depictions, no. There is no amount of rationalization by Hebdo that can make his efforts anything but inappropriate. The question is whether he even has a clue about what he undertaking?

[...] No amount of rationalization by Charb can justify his actions. He is provoking a known reaction of violence in a region where provocation has an extremely low bar already.

If Hebdo’s actions were truly about free speech that would be one thing. This is about agitation and inciting emotions.
Wow, what a disappointment that a right-wing paper has to carry apologia and attacks on free speech values like this. Violence in the name of religion is unjustified, and rather than argue against it, the writer tries to defend it? Shameful.

I hope this comic project of theirs will turn out to be a bold test of free speech, if anything. But if was really edited by who the EIC says it was, I'm not sure this'll turn out to be such a great thing.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, January 01, 2013

Comics store manager in California acknowledges how heroes have been cast into dark

The Woodland Daily Democrat of California spoke with a local comics store owner who confirms the darkness comics have fallen into, though there's some disappointments to be found in how it's discussed too. First, he said about the ostensible death of Peter Parker:
"I think it's just a gimmick," said Dan Urazandi, owner of the Bizarro World comic book store in downtown Davis. "Every single superhero character that's been killed has come back."
Not all, though some of the ones who did come back have often been the ones whose deaths were done in good taste, like Barry Allen's, and for all I know, even Mar-Vell of the Kree may have shown up in recent years too, for no discerning reason. And his passing in the Death of Captain Marvel graphic novel from 1982 by Jim Starlin was surely the best of its kind, because Mar-Vell died from cancer rather than in battle. That makes his passing a lot more unique because it shows how, if the writers and editors wanted to, they could draft a story where a hero/supporting character just dies of natural causes or even a car accident (as was the case with Donna Troy's ex-husband Terry Long in 1997), which can be much more widely accepted by the audience than the shock value deaths that have taken up the bulk of today's storytelling. The problem is not deaths and resurrections in themselves, it's nasty shock tactic deaths laced with hate for the characters who've fallen victim to the stunt, and resurrections of characters whose deaths were done in good taste making it much easier for the audience to accept them.
Urazandi, who has been in the comic book business for two decades, said there's nothing unusual about Peter Parker's recent misfortunes. And behind these marketing gimmicks, Urazandi believes comics still have the ability to take society's pulse, to tell us what we're really thinking and feeling.

"All art reflects the society that it's coming from," he observed. In the case of comics, he said, the society being reflected isn't that of the upper crust, but of everyday people.

For all their flights of fancy, comics show us "what people are really living through," he said.

So what is it that today's comic books are showing us about ourselves and possibly about the near future?

Though it's not an easy question, one thing is for certain: "The comics are getting darker," Urazandi said.

He pointed to a rack of Marvel Comics - which include such heroes as Spider-Man, Captain America and the X-Men - and noted that even aesthetically, the bright hues and heroic poses of 50 years ago have largely been replaced by shadowy images of intimidation, pain or bloodshed.

But it isn't just a visual difference: "The characters and the situations are much more cynical," with depictions of sex and violence more commonplace, Urazandi said.

In part, this is because the intended audience for comic books is older today than it was a half-century ago. But it also points to a certain loss of innocence, as readers no longer believe their heroes are incorruptible.
He does admit they've become increasingly dark, but there are drawbacks: does he think that this is truly what an audience that's become very sparse wants? Not me. Or, is it what the millions of potential readers across America who aren't taking to comics just now want? If they haven't checked out anything like what he speaks of, that can tell something. The point missed here is that escapism was once the name of the game, and that's what was thrown away.

But if they really do have to be dark, what makes that whole angle abortive is that there's no meaty purpose behind it, and the resulting stories provoke no thought at all. If there's no convincing moral lessons to be learned, then what's the whole point of writing a dark story?

The part about readers not believing the heroes are incorruptible is peculiar. These are fictional characters, so I don't see how this applies. Sure, there have been plenty of anti-heroes, and Spidey is just one who's had his share of moral flaws, but nevertheless, they're not real people, and it's not a question of whether they're corruptible. Rather, it's the fault of the writers and editors - are they corruptible? Can they lose their faith in the positive messages they once tried to convey? That's the challenging query.
But just as no hero is incorruptible, no villain is irredeemable. In the case of the latest Spider-Man development, for example, longtime menace Doc Ock, now inhabiting Spidey's body, appears bent on using his new powers for good.

Often times, it's difficult to tell who's right and who's wrong. Marvel's "Civil War" series, in which the good guys took up arms against each other over political disagreements, came out in 2006, as Americans continued to clash over the Iraq War, using Guantanamo as a site for political prisoners and other issues.

"That was a very successful attempt to represent what was going on in the real world," Urazandi said.
Was it? No, it was just an insult to the intellect. What is going on in the world is there's jihadism eating it up, Iran cooking nukes, European governments failing to protect their residents against encroaching Islamofascism, and maybe the biggest problem of all, that some of the left won't acknowledge that Saddam was a monster and that there were some people in Iraq glad to be free of his tyranny, and are no doubt feeling awful that politicians no better than him are being allowed to take over.
Meanwhile, "'Archie' is putting out a gay character," he said. And the politics of the current Great Recession have not escaped comic books' pages either.

"Probably the Occupy movement was the biggest recent topical event that showed up in comics," Urazandi said, noting that many protesters wear the Guy Fawkes masks popularized by "V for Vendetta," a comic book series first published in the United Kingdom in the mid-1980s.

Davis became Ground Zero for the Occupy movement when a UC Davis police officer pepper-sprayed students staging a peaceful sit-in. The photographic images captured the nation and world.
I'm afraid that's not telling the whole story: one of the Occupy protestors admitted on TV that they deliberately provoked the police by getting in their way as the cops were trying to leave the campus. If he's siding with propaganda the Occupy movement was surely hoping to cook for their own exploitive purposes, what a disappointment. And again, I'm at a loss to comprehend why homosexuality is still infinitely more important than an Armenian or a Danish background.

They also bring up Superman: Red Son, and their description is awfully clumsy:
About eight years ago, Marvel even released a Soviet version of Superman - a "what if" edition where his space pod, launched from Krypton, landed in the former Soviet Union instead of a farm in Kansas.

"We've got a post-nationalist comic about one of the great American icons," Urazandi said, pointing to the cover of "Superman: Red Son."

The "Red Son" series demonstrates how an America less nervous about the Soviets is more inclined to put itself in their shoes. Similarly, a politically polarized America can expect more comic books depicting that polarization, as the "Civil War" series did.
Oops, they goofed; that's DC who published that story by Mark Millar and Dave Johnson, and under the erstwhile Elseworlds imprint, something they haven't used in a long time. (As for Marvel's What If? anthology, they haven't tried it out since the second volume ended in 1998.) But a post-nationalist tale? Gee, isn't that just what the world needs.

And we could honestly do without more books like Civil War, but sadly, we can be quite sure there's still bound to be more in the works, and each one possibly worse than the last. In the end, this article does describe a few problems with today's output, but still comes up short because of the unfortunate angle of the politics involved.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Flag Counter


track people
webpage logs
Flag Counter