Category: Columns

John Ostrander on the Mighty Marvel Movie Monster

In a few days the new Avengers film, Age of Ultron, will be opening here in the States. It’s already opened in some overseas markets and, by all accounts, is doing very well. Seems like a good time to look back at the output in general of Marvel Studios.

Not all of Marvel’s characters’ appearances onscreen have come from Marvel Studios; stalwarts like the Fantastic Four, The X-Men, and Spider-Man have been made elsewhere (although Spidey’s next appearance will be coordinated with Marvel Studios and, in fact, will probably be in the next Captain America film). Those appearances have been, shall we say, a bit spotty in quality. The two FF films were anything but fantastic.

However, by and large, the output of Marvel Studios has been first-rate. There have been a few hiccups, such as the second Iron Man film and the second Thor film as well, but I’ve been dazzled by the rest. The studio has gone from strength to strength lately. They did it by staying true to the concepts and feel of the Marvel Universe.

When Marvel first emerged back in the Sixties, several things marked the upstart newcomer as different from its “Distinguished Competition” (as it referred to DC in those days). All its characters inhabited the same universe; events in one comic could influence events in another. The characters might pop up in each other’s comics at any time, even if just for a panel or two. The characters were not “squeaky clean” – they had hang-ups and foibles. The heroes and heroines often didn’t like one another and sometimes worked at cross-purposes; a hero was as likely to slug another hero as a bad guy.

While all this has become almost a cliché these days (i.e. the perennial existential question of “Who is stronger – the Hulk or the Thing?)” all this was very new and different when the whole magilla started. While the movies may have changed bits and pieces, they’ve stayed true to the overall concepts.

A good example of all this was the first Avengers movie. It brought together not only the main characters of the previous films, it also included many of the supporting characters. And they did not all like one another. Steve Rogers (Captain America) and Tony Stark (Iron Man) could barely stand each other. Thor and Iron Man come to blows early on and the Hulk and Thor had more than one dust-up in the course of the film. They all came together eventually to defeat Loki and his army and to trash much of New York. This is all very much the Marvel Universe as it was created. The film is true to its roots.

It was good enough to make me decide to see Guardians of the Galaxy which I wasn’t certain I was going to do. I think it’s now my favorite Marvel film and it too is cut from the same cloth; questionable beings who may be ethically challenged come together and, for most of the film, can barely stand one another. There is sacrifice and, by the end of the film, the team has come together to defeat the Big Bad. Classic Marvel.

There’s a common thread running through all these films and it’s not Sam Jackson as Nick Fury. It’s Kevin Feige, who has produced, co-produced or executive produced all of the Marvel films, including the ones I haven’t been so crazy about. He’s having a hell of a run right now and I’m thinking of him as the Stan Lee of the Marvel cinematic universe. (Stan Lee is also a part of the Marvel cinematic universe, but that’s not what I’m talking about.) I don’t know the guy but I get the sense that he really knows the Marvel comics universe and knows why it works. They’ve got me looking forward to Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Captain America: Civil War, and Black Widow, and Doctor Strange, and even Ant-Man.

Ant-Man. I can’t believe I’m writing that.

Enjoy it while it lasts, kiddies. Nothing lasts forever. At some point, Feige will get a better offer or move up at Disney (Marvel’s parent company) and someone else will take his place. The writers and directors and even the actors now playing the characters will move on or just get too old. Marvel Studios will put out a clunker. Things will change. Things always change.

But for right now, I’m strapping in and enjoying myself.

Excelsior, True Believers.

 

Marc Alan Fishman: When Are Characters Not Real?

This past week we were given a pivotal episode of Gotham. Amidst all the gut-wrenching angst, two minor sub-plots reached fever pitch. In one, the soon-to-be Riddler finally snapped, and joined the “Murder-Because-I-Can’t-Take-It-Anymore” club. In the second, Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot finalizes his plans to murder Sal Maroni – after the don himself decides to push the buttons of the would-be Penguin. Both these plots were fantastically acted. Both left me seething as much of the characters on screen. But the actions taken by both men as depicted struck me as off-character compared to their comics origins. Disconcerting, but simply par for the course adaptations.

Ever since the pilot, Edward Nygma’s screen time has been dedicated to his pining for one Ms. Kringle, deep in the fileroom of the GCPD. And while Edward didn’t quite take no thank you as an answer for his advances… it would take her having to date a man who proclaims “some women just need a strong hand” to eventually turn Nygma into a killer. Was his repeated stabbing of Kringle’s meathead beau deserved? Sure, if you’re playing fast and loose with morality. But up to that point, the “Riddle Man” was eccentric but not psychopathic. A cursory glance of my own definition of what makes The Riddler doesn’t often cross the boundaries of passionate physical violence. In fact, really, it never does.

When I think of Edward Nygma? It’s too hard not to immediately recall “If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich” from Batman: The Animated Series. In the episode, Nygma was a puzzle maker pushed to his limits by the greed of his boss. When pinned against the wall, Nygma wilted and took a full year to return to Gotham, reformed as the mastermind so many of us pin to the very core of the character. The Riddler is a thinker. He’s a player in a grand game. He’s a thief. He’s not blood-thirsty malcontent. In Gotham, the proclivities of the character remain in tact – he’s clever, obsessed with riddles, and seemingly more obsessed with matters of the mind than of physicality. But in the show, the creators are apt to force the psychosis onto Edward rather than really let it seep in from the corners. In the cartoon? The Riddler was a nuanced ne’er-do-well. In live action? He’s a living cartoon.

Where I found Nygma’s turn to the dark(er) side to be a bit foul, I’m of the opposite mind concerning young Penguin. While Mr. Taylor himself merely walks the walk of the would-be villain… he certainly wouldn’t be pinned in a lineup of actors one would think of when the casting turns to the oft-depicted Rubeneque rogue. But I digress.

As depicted throughout this first season, there’s been a ton to like about Oswald. His silver tongue and laughable frame allowed him to play in between heavy mafiosos like Loki must do at Asgardian cocktail parties. He talks his way into power and out of seedy situations. The Penguin is a schemer. He’s a would-be kingpin (no, not Kingpin) who fancies himself an ornate and public figurehead not unlike the dons he aspires to murder. When plunged into his enemies, Ozzie’s knife feels well-placed. From the very first time we meet him, he was always a bird of a darker feather… both on the page and the screen.

It leads me to the bigger question we comic book fans find ourselves asking when our magazine heroes become moving pictures. Where is the line drawn? In many cases, it’s been as spot-on as we could ever hope. Marv in Sin City. Hellboy. The Joker in Batman: The Animated Series. Captain America in all those Marvel movies. In each depiction there was truly no wiggle room between the source and the eventual performance. But as with so many things, the devil is in the details.

Think of the Daredevil movie, circa 2003. While the character of course was white in the comics, casting a mountain of a man like Michael Clarke Duncan in the role of The Kingpin seemed more fitting. And the way he was played in the movie (in spite of the absolute atrocious writing) was true to the source. The Kingpin was a heavy-hitting don, with his fingers in a lot of criminal pies. He was classy, and he radiated power. I’d be hard-pressed not to ask our resident Black Panel creator Michael Davis how he personally graded the depiction. In sharp contrast, there’s Bullseye. What was once one of the most dangerous and professional killers in the MCU was represented by a scene-eating Irishman with his logo carved into his forehead. He rode loud obnoxious motorcycles, wore loud boots, and seemingly smirked at everything in apropos of common sense. Maybe he was high? What he wasn’t was Bullseye.

Ultimately, our characters are merely licenses. They are templates by which studios fill in enough detail in order to eventually deliver a new end-product. We, the gatekeepers of cool, typically judge these depictions against the knowledge we’d absorbed through years of private fandom. Those stalwart traits that drive the characters must remain in tact for us to wholly celebrate them. See: The Avengers. When they stray too far – become too Hollywood, too dark, too polished, or simply too unrecognizable? Well, that’s when we mock the hell out of them and demand justice. See: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

On second thought, maybe don’t see that movie. That hardly looks like the Batman and Superman I know. Natch.

 

The Law Is A Ass

BOB INGERSOLL: The Law Is A Ass #354: BATMAN’S NO LONGER A FIDUCIARY BAG

tumblr_lf0ctliupc1qfqksuo1_r1_1280-7167229At first he wasn’t a thief. Then he was. Now he isn’t again thanks to Batman, Incorporated.

Last week I wrote that every time Batman appropriated prototypes from Wayne Enterprises  projects and adapted them into Bat-tools, he was stealing from the shareholders of Wayne Enterprises. I’m happy to report that as of Batman and Robin v 1 16 http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Batman_and_Robin_Vol_1_16, he stopped being a thief.

In that landmark issue, Bruce Wayne publicly admitted that he had been secretly bankrolling Batman’s operations for years. Then Bruce announced his new initiative; Batman, Incorporated.

Batman, Incorporated is an international organization in which Batman franchised out his brand to crime fighters all over the world. He engaged surrogates in locations as diverse and wide-spread as England, Argentina, Africa, Hong Kong, Australia, Paris, and Japan. Even that far-off and exotic land of South Dakota. Batman, Inc., also included Nightwing, Red Robin, Robin, Batgirl, Frank, Dino, and Sammy. You know, the Bat Pack. Batman, Inc. is fully funded by Wayne Enterprises. According to the DC Comics online database, it’s even part of Wayne Enterprises’s security personnel.

Once Wayne Enterprises started funding Batman’s mission publicly, Bruce stopped being a thief. He was no longer secretly taking property from Wayne Enterprises and converting it to Batman’s private use. Instead he was publicly taking property from Wayne Enterprises and converting it to Batman’s public use. And as Emily Litella was wont to say, “That’s very different.”

Okay, so Bruce isn’t stealing from Wayne Enterprises, but how does Bruce justify Batman, Inc. to the Wayne Enterprise shareholders? Even if it’s not stealing to have Wayne Enterprises give equipment to Batman, it would seem a waste of company resources. Shareholders not only have a property right not to have corporate assets stolen, they also have a right not to have corporate assets squandered. Bruce’s fiduciary duties to the shareholders includes not squandering Wayne Enterprises assets. Like Kim Kardashian, Wayne Enterprises has to keep its bottom line well-rounded.

So exactly how did Bruce Wayne sell the concept of funding Batman, Inc. to the shareholders? I’m not sure, actually. There are a few ways he could have justified funding Batman, Inc. and I don’t know exactly which one he actually used.

The first, and easiest, justification would be that Batman, Inc. was paying Wayne Enterprises for the equipment, just as a local police force purchases Chargers to be patrol cars and pays Dodge for the cars. That way the shareholders are happy because Wayne Enterprises, thus they, make money by backing Batman, Inc.

I said that’s the simplest and easiest justification. I doubt that’s the one being used. There’s no indication that Batman, Inc. has any sort of income or revenue stream which could generate the monies necessary to pay for all the stuff and services it was getting from Wayne Enterprises. I’ve certainly never read about Batman, Inc. setting up its own system of online currency, the Batcoin. So let’s cross off the possibility that Batman, Inc. is paying Wayne Enterprises and look at the next method of mollification that Bruce could use.

If Bruce set up Batman, Inc. to be a 501(c)(3) organization, that could keep the shareholders happy. Section 5019(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code is the code provision which establishes certain not-for-profit organizations as being tax-exempt. The section also provides that any gift made to a 501(c)(3) organization is deductible from one’s income taxes.

Section 501(c)(3) has a list of some of the functions that organizations can perform to qualify as charitable organizations. Among them are, preventing cruelty to children, lessening the burdens of government, and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. As a crime-fighting organization, Batman, Inc. does any of those.

If Batman, Inc. were a 501(c)(3) – or other charitable organization – Wayne Enterprises could take a tax deduction for all the goods and services it provided to Batman, Inc. and lower its tax burden. If it’s paying less taxes, then its profits are higher, which satisfies the shareholders. You don’t have to be a member of TEA Party to know that less taxes makes people happy.

But what if Batman, Inc. weren’t a charitable organization? There’s still another justification that Bruce could use for funding Batman, Inc. Bruce could point out that by funding Batman, Inc., Wayne Enterprises was helping to lower crime and making the world a safer place. That would generate enormous good will for the company and make the world think of it as a benign corporation that was doing good work. When a company is perceived in such positive ways, people are more likely to do business with it. So by doing good work through funding Batman, Inc., Wayne Enterprises could increase its business and, thus, its profits. This is why some corporations do things such as donate body armor or body cameras to police forces. For the good will it engenders.

Even if there wasn’t any good will involved, Bruce could argue that by funding Batman, Inc. he’s making Gotham City and the world a safer place. That benefits the shareholders, because it means they’re not as likely to get robbed. And it benefits Wayne Enterprises financially, because it’s not as likely to get robbed, either. As someone who has been robbed at gunpoint, I can tell you from experience; not being robbed makes you happier than being robbed does.

Those are among the emotionally satisfying ways that Bruce could justify funding Batman, Inc. to the Wayne Enterprises shareholders. The feel-good justifications. There’s one more which is every bit as practical, just not as touchy-feely. Remember, Wayne Enterprises hired Batman, Inc. as part of its security force. If a corporation is going to hire security personnel, it’s got to supply them with uniforms and equipment, doesn’t it? You can’t have your night watchmen running around naked and without flashlights. How would you make a successful movie franchises about museum guards or mall cops, if they had rampant nudity and were rated X?

So there you have it. Batman’s fixed. He’s back to the way he started out so he’s not a thief anymore. Now if we could only do something about getting him back to being the other way he used to be when he started out. You know, just being neurotic instead of psychotic.

Martha Thomases: Tim McGraw, Frank Cho, Sex and Guns

spider-gwen-5563969It’s going to take me a bit to get to comics this week, so please bear with me. We have a lot of outrage to get through first.

Recently, country singer Tim McGraw decided that, when he was in Hartford, Connecticut on his national tour, he would do a benefit concert for the charity Sandy Hook Promise. This organization was started after the shootings at the Sandy Hook elementary school and describes their mission thusly:

“1) Protect children from gun violence so no other parent experiences the loss of their child by engaging and empowering parents and communities with targeted prevention programs in the areas of mental wellness early-identification & intervention, social & emotional development and firearm safety & security.

“2) Help our community through this tragedy by providing resources and programs that foster connection, resiliency and overall wellness.”

Naturally, all hell broke lose.

By volunteering to do a benefit concert for an organization dedicated to protecting children from gun violence, Tim McGraw had, according to the haters, betrayed country music. In order to be a true country music artist, they seemed to say, McGraw had to love guns, cowboy hats, hunting, and vote Republican. McGraw, a self-confessed Democrat, had revealed himself to be an apostate.

(I wouldn’t know about these standards, because this and this and this and this are the kinds of country music I like.)

Country music fans are funny like that. A decade ago, when the Dixie Chicks criticized George W. Bush and the build-up to the Iraq War at a concert in England, they were banned – by programmers, not the government – from country radio. Some pro-war people burned their CDs in public.

As a leftie, there are creative people who have political opinions with which I disagree. Sometimes, that is enough to make me question their art (Andrew Dice Clay) and sometimes I continue to like their work anyway, but with reservations (Mel Gibson). Sometimes I never liked their work in the first place (Ted Nugent) so not liking their opinions has no effect on my life.

Never have I wanted to ban them. Never have I burned their products in the public square. If it comes up in conversation, I am not shy about expressing my opinion. I might even join a demonstration, but to protest those opinions with which I disagree, not their attempts to earn a living.

We seem to confuse those two things.

Which brings us to comics. Finally.

Artist Frank Cho recently drew his riff on the Spider-Woman cover controversy on a comic book with a blank cover. He did not do this for Marvel, nor did he make a poster and try to sell it. He did, however, post the image online.

And then the Internet happened.

I haven’t read all the commentary because, well, it upsets my stomach. There are people (often but not exclusively women) who don’t like the image and have said so. There are people (often but not exclusively men) who liked it a lot and don’t like it when other people say they don’t like it. There may or may not be people who wanted to ban the image, but, to be honest, I just can’t.

Look, if you put an image on the Internet or any public forum, you are asking for a reaction to said image. If you’re lucky, you will be met with universal acclaim. That happens so rarely that you shouldn’t expect it.

The next best thing is that some people will like it and some people won’t, and those who don’t will write something thoughtful that is useful to you and your work.

Again, that doesn’t happen much, because of said Internet.

Speaking only for myself, I don’t find Cho’s drawing interesting, nor do I think the point he seems to be trying to make is very compelling. I would say the whole thing is a sophomoric attempt to shock using boobies (BOOBIES!) except it isn’t funny and my hero, Michael O’Donahue, once said that “sophomoric is liberal code for funny.”

However …

Cho drew the picture for his own amusement. If he is amused, that’s fine. That’s all he wanted to accomplish. If he wants my opinion, it is here for him. He is welcome to be unamused by my opinion, and that is the risk I take for putting it out here.

Now, if Marvel had commissioned and published that image, that would be a different thing. Then we could discuss the editorial perspective, the marketing issues, and what Marvel was trying to say about the audience it wanted to reach. This isn’t the Spider-Woman cover, but Cho’s personal riff on the Spider-Woman cover.

You, Constant Reader, have every right to let Cho know what you thought of his effort. He put it out there. I would urge you to keep your criticism (if you have criticism) to the subject at hand, and not blow it up into an Indictment of All Society.

In any case, whatever point he was trying to make seems to have been missed by his own statements. The good news (go, read the link, it will make you feel good) is that, in an attempt to clarify his point, he sold the drawing and gave the money to a domestic violence shelter.

I would say we can all agree that’s a good thing, but, it’s the Internet. I don’t think we can all agree it’s Friday.

 

Tweeks: WonderCon 2015 Haul Part Deux!

This week we bring you the second half of our WonderCon Anaheim Haul! Most importantly we review two new Tweeks-Approved comics for kids…and yes, we guess, even adults.  Both are very different, though they both have monsters.  In William Lykke’s Death-Danger Scooter Girl, Number 1 there a bikini-wearing goddess and her monster husbands and half-monster babies and lots of driving around on a scooter.  While in  Top Shelf’s Monster on the Hill by Rob Harrell, we have depressed monster, the village who needs him to terrorize them, and an unlikely doctor and stowaway newsboy who are sent to fix the problem. 

As as a special treat, you also get to hear Maddy’s weird sneeze and find out which other Top Shelf comics we love.

Dennis O’Neil: Small Scientists In Big Packages

Glad tidings for all you superhero fans out there. A new Atom! And this one didn’t debut in the pages of a comic book, as his predecessors did. No, he sort of snuck in to the zeitgeist through whatever portal is reserved for television-spawned characters. If he eventually does appear in the comics, it’ll be a reversal of the usual procedure of going from comics to other media.

Since you’re reading this no earlier than Thursday morning (unless you’re a ComicMix staffer) you may have already seen him on Wednesday night’s episode of Arrow, where I’m sure he’ll put in an appearance. Fact is, if you’re a fan of that show, you’ve already seen him. He’s been on the set for a while now, introduced in the same way as Arrow’s people introduced The Flash last year. At first he was just a part of the storyline and only gradually did it become obvious that he had a larger destiny. (Introducing a character in a show other than the one said character will star in is an old television trick. There’s even a name for it: back door pilot.)

So, what about this new Atom? Take a look at him. Compare him to the first Atom, introduced in 1940. Anything familiar? Certainly not the costume. How about his superpowers? Hah – trick question. The first Atom didn’t have any powers. Costume: yes. Powers: no. He was a college student and later a scientist named Al Pratt and he was small and tough and… that’s it. Didn’t keep him from joining the Justice Society and share meeting with Superman, Batman, The Flash, Green Lantern – the biggies. Weep not for Al, because he did eventually gain super strength.

I wonder about the no-powers business. I mean, why? Well, the superhero game was brand new in 1940, maybe not well understood. Could the first Atom’s creators thought that the suit was the important thing?

Anyway, that was the first Atom. The second was a big improvement on ol’ Al Pratt. This was Ray Palmer, another, yes, scientist who, after exposure to a fragment of a white dwarf star, devised a gadget that allowed him to shrink way, way down, to sub atomic size if he so chose. That may not have been the most spectacular superpower in the paantheon, but it at least justified the “Atom” sobriquet. (Did anyone call him “the swatable super guy”? Probably not.)

And after Ray Palmer, the deluge. Five more Atoms, not counting the one who currently graces your video screen – another Ray Palmer who is a, you guessed it, scientist. Costume? Powers? That’s where this Atom differs from the rest. His powers are his costume, an exoskeleton that allows him to fly and be strong and maybe other nifty stuff to come. It’s not a new idea – you might know that there’s a Marvel dude with a similar rig – but, as we’ve observed before, nothing is really new. It’s always the recipe, never the ingredients.

But I wonder why they decided to call him The Atom. There was some mention of nanotechnology in the dialogue, but it didn’t, and doesn’t, seem important to the character.

Maybe Al Pratt could tell us.

Molly Jackson: Dark and Seedy Side of the Con

dark-and-seedy-side-1853260This past weekend was Star Wars Celebration. With the trailer released and more movie details announced, there was certainly enough to celebrate. However, just like at every con (unfortunately), a story emerged of a cosplayer being inappropriately touched and harassed.

You can read the full account of what happened here but, sadly, this isn’t new. Cosplayers get harassed at conventions all the time. It’s something that I have never understood, especially for a group of people who literally hero-worship. The instigators in this particular case were dressed as Jedi. That’s how guys who revere “guardians of peace and justice” decide to act? Have they learned nothing from the story they supposedly love?

Cosplay Is NOT Consent. That’s it. It’s that simple. We go to comic cons to celebrate superheroes and the fight of good vs. evil. How can we let this go on?

This is a call to action for every convention attendee. Conventions are working on the problem but they need help. We can’t leave this only to convention signs and security guards. We need to look out for each other. If you see someone being assaulted in any way, step up. Say something. Be the one who says stop. If it’s your friend, put an end to them harassing cosplayers. Make sure they understand how disrespectful it is to grope or harass a cosplayer. If they get angry at you, maybe all that proves is they might not be the kind of person you want to hang with.

To be clear, I am not advocating violence. If the situation looks to be going that way, get convention staff and security involved ASAP. However, most of the time, calling a person out makes them feel ashamed enough to stop. It’s time we started acting like the superheroes we read about.

Comics conventions are about having fun while immersing yourself in geek culture. This dark and seedy side of cons needs to end. Let’s work together to make comic cons safe for everyone.

 

Mike Gold: Forward, Into The Past!

Regular readers of this space know my first true love is the city of Chicago, and that I’ll use any excuse to cop a visit to my fatherland. That’s where I was this past week, and I did not need an excuse. The 15th annual Windy City Pulp and Paper Convention was in town, and, therefore, so was I.

It’s a great chance to meet up with old friends and make a couple new ones, all the while gawking at ancient publications printed on ever-deteriorating paper, more permanent facsimile reprints of same, and brand new efforts that replicate the mood, techniques and often the characters of those thrilling days of yesteryear. As my pal Jim Wisniewski says, the comradery echoes the days when comic book conventions were social occasions accessible to all… and were actually about comic books.

pulp-cover-5For the few of you who may be unaware – and who have yet to obtain the first volume of Jim Steranko’s History of Comics – comic books characters and comic book publishers got their start in those sense-of-wonder inspiring lurid tales of adventure. The Shadow, Doc Savage, John Carter of Mars, Nick Carter and The Spider, among many others, begat super-hero comics. Archie, DC Comics, and Marvel Comics, among many others that did not survive Fredric Wertham et al, got their start by publishing pulp magazines. It’s our roots.

And it’s slipping away. Paper was not meant to last forever, and pulpwood paper wasn’t meant to survive more than a month. That’s why I am so supportive of all the reprint projects. Yes, one man – another old pal, Anthony Tollin – has the lion’s share of the most popular characters but he is hardly alone in these endeavors. He’s already reprinted half of all The Shadow stories.

I am equally amazed and pleased to see so many small-press publishers (defining “small-press” as, say, not as large as Abrams and Simon and Shuster and their pals) doing “new pulp.” This is exactly what it sounds like: new stories written in the style of the classic pulps. Many of the new pulp authors are comic book veterans: Chuck Dixon, Martin Powell, CJ Henderson, Ron Fortier, John Ostrander, Paul Kupperberg, Will Murray, David Michelinie, Rob Davis… the list is as long as the long arm of the law. And it appears that I’ll be joining that stalwart group.

JimWiz laments the days when conventions were social occasions, and he’s most certainly not alone. Way back in those days, comics fans enjoyed more than comics, television and new movies. We enjoyed the pulps, sure, and we enjoyed newspaper comic strips, science fiction, mysteries, dramatic radio, illustration art… all kinds of stuff. We had a well-rounded education in America’s popular culture.

I’m not saying today’s comics fans avoid these important and closely related media, but you can’t ascertain their interest from going to shows such as this weekend’s C2E2 or the New York Comicon or the San Diego Comic-Con. Indeed, if you walk around these megashows and their ilk, you’d have a hard time ascertaining the level of interest in comic books. These shows have very little to do with comic books per se, and some of these convention organizers (note I said “some” and not “all”) clearly could not care less.

So when I go to shows such as the Windy City Pulp and Paper Convention – and there are many others; check out Pulp Coming Attractions for all the news in the pulp world, including these shows.

This stuff has little to do with nostalgia. It’s all about our cultural heritage.

And the folks doing the new stuff, the reprints, and the conventions are true cultural warriors.

 

 

Ed Catto: You’re Number One

bitchplanet_01-1_300_462-6972651 I always thought that more you know about something, the better you are at evaluating it. For example, movie critics who understand films, filmmaking and film-history evaluate movies more effectively than the rest of us. But this isn’t always true. Whenever experts evaluate something, they are blind to that thrill of experiencing it without baggage. So often they can’t, by their very nature, genuinely relate to the experience of someone who’s less knowledgeable about it all. In the advertising and marketing business, professionals often try to put their own experiences aside and listen to what “real” people say. And that’s exactly what I tried to do for this mad little experiment.

As you may know, I’m a comic geek with entirely too much knowledge about comics and the industry. My new neighbor is just the opposite. He’s a Millennial with a wonderful wife and two young kids. In fact, every time I see him and his family it’s kind of like looking into a window of my own past. But this guy doesn’t have that life-long fanaticism of comics. He read a few comics as a kid, and now, sparked by the Arrow TV show and the Marvel movies, has wandered back into reading comics. He’s usually a digital reader. He finds that works best for his commute into the city and for late nights with his baby daughter, when the lights are off to encourage her trips into slumberland.

Lately I’ve been passing along some of the very best comics to him. Sometimes it’s new stuff that I think is outstanding (FadeOut, WinterWorld) and other times its older comics that he’s asked about (“Who is this guy, named Deadshot / Hawkeye / Mark Waid?”). And as part of the population who is used to binge watching TV shows and bundling episodes on the DVR, he usually prefers that I collect several issues in a row so he can read them all at once, trade-paperback style.

But this time I thought I’d try something a little different. Lately I’ve been so impressed by all the great new comics debuting. I’ve also been curious as to how someone with fresh eyes would evaluate and engage with these new comics. Even before I read the new Image comic Red One, I’m the type who runs through an elaborate mental checklist of all the stories I’ve read from the talented artists of this series – what I liked, what I didn’t like and what I expect in this new series. I wondered what the reaction would be of someone encountering the creators, characters and situations for the first time? So here’s what I did: I gave my neighbor, let’s call him Fan X for this experiment, a stack of recent debut issues. My only instruction was “tell me what you like and why.” His reactions were insightful, interesting and in many cases surprising. Here’s what he said:

Red One #1 by Xavier Dorison, Terry Dodson, Rachel Dodson, Image

This was a big winner for Fan X. He explained how he loves spy thrillers, and that’s typically the genre of prose fiction he enjoys the most. He liked the bright red cover with the attractive girl, but the series wasn’t anything like he expected. He did say he wished that it wasn’t’ a period piece at first, but then found himself enjoying the backward glance at that 70’s elements like the Walkman.

Would he buy issue #2? Yes, he can’t wait.

Ah-hah Moment: He also explained how he’s really enjoying another female-protagonist spy series, Velvet, by Brubaker and Epting. In fact, that’s the series that has spurred to him on to reading the floppy issues – he just can’t wait until it’s collected as a trade paperback anymore.

Ei8ht by Raphael Albuquerque and Mike Johnson, Dark Horse

Fan X was drawn to the art and the simplified color scheme, but wasn’t a big fan of the time travel elements or the two interlocking storylines. He explained he’s not a fan of those types of stories and gets impatient waiting for parallel plotlines to converge.

Would he buy issue #2? Probably not.

Ah-hah Moment: Despite the guide in the inside front cover, he didn’t get that the color-coding denoted different times and places Divinity #1in the storyline.

Divinity #1 by Matt Kindt and Trevor Hairsine, Valiant

Like his complaints about Ei8ht, Fan X was not thrilled with the time travel aspects and two parallel storylines. He explained that he was muddling through this, mildly entertained, until page X, when it’s revealed that the straight-laced protagonist has a secret girlfriend. That’s when the story grabbed him in.

Would he buy issue #2? He most likely wouldn’t follow this one.

Ah-hah Moment: He loved the heavy cardstock cover!

Dream Thief: Escape #1 by Jai Nitz and Greg Smallwood, Dark Horse

It took FanX a moment to remember Dream Thief, but when he did he said, “This one I liked.” He liked the rough lead characters and enjoyed Smallwood’s art, although his interviewer (ahem) may have prompted that observation.

Would he buy issue #2? Yes!

Ah-hah Moment: The fact that it was a four-issue mini-series, i.e. short with an end in sight, was something he liked.

Spider-Woman #5 by Dennis Hopeless and Javier Rodriguez, Marvel

(While this isn’t technically a #1, it’s a first issue as the previous issue were part of a crossover).

Fan X likes female spies and thus was pre-disposed to like Spider-Woman. He enjoyed the fact that she used energy blasts, but most enjoyed the non-superhero moments.

Would he buy issue #2? He would.

Ah-hah Moment: Surprisingly, he didn’t enjoy the simplified art of Rodriguez. He much prefers his superheroes comics to look more “superhero-y”.

The Valiant #1 by Jeff Lemier, Matt Kindt and Paolo Rivera, Valiant

Here the switching up of timelines didn’t bother him at all. He liked Paolo’s art. He enjoyed Bloodshot, as a Punisher-type hero, and found the new character, Kay McHenry to be intriguing and relatable. He especially was drawn into the two-page spread where Kay speaks directly to the camera. (I did too!)

Would he buy issue #2? Probably, and he knows nothing of the Valiant Universe.

Ah-hah Moment: Again, he loved the heavy cover stock of the cover. And this is coming from a ‘digital guy’.

Bitch Planet #1 by Kelly Sue DeConnick and Valentine De Landro, Image

He didn’t think he’d like this one. The cover wasn’t appealing to him. In particular, Fan X was put off by the logo and the pink color scheme. But when he read it, he found that he was hooked. He thought the character layers were fascinating and thought provoking.

Would he buy issue #2? Definitely, he would.

Ah-hah Moment: He said he also likes the TV Women-in-prison drama, Orange is the New Black.

Invisible Republic 1Invisible Republic by Gabriel Hardman, Corinna Bechko and Jordan Boyd, Image

Fan X procrastinated about reading this as he assumed he wouldn’t like it. But in fact- he loved it. He enjoyed the sketchy, loose artwork of Gabriel Hardman, and in this case, he wasn’t bothered by the parallel plotlines. In fact, he was fascinated by the characters and the hints of what they would become.

Would he buy issue #2? He’s looking forward to it.

Ah-hah Moment: I found it fascinating how he expected to like this one the least, and it ended up being his #1 or #2 favorite.

So.. there you have it. His reactions were certainly different from mine. But they really got me thinking. I was especially surprised how Valliant’s cardstock covers appealed to him, especially as he’s ‘mostly’ a digital comics reader. I’m not sure what lessons we learn from this sampling of one reader other than one I’m always learning – people like the stuff they like for the reasons they like. Simple, but true. But now the question is – what do you think?

 

Mindy Newell: Of Corsets And Kilts

Jamie Frasier (Sam Heughan): This will go faster if ye just yield, woman!

Claire Randall Frasier (Caitriona Balfe): I’m going to make you suffer!

Jamie: Ye already have! 

Jamie: I am your master and you’re mine. It seems I canna possess your soul without losing my own.

Jamie: Sassenach…


Claire: Yes, master?

Jamie: What does fucking mean?

Outlander • Ronald D. Moore, Producer. Based on the novel by Diana Gabaldon

Question 1: Has there ever been a show on television, network or cable – not counting the porn channels – in which the camera stays focused on the action as the man sucks on his lover’s nipple?

Question 2: Have you been watching the second half of the first season of Outlander on the Starz network?

And you thought the sex scenes in the first half were hot? Whoa!

Well, just in case you’re thinking that this old bag is only watching this genre-mixing series (part historical, part adventure, and part romance, and based on Diana Gabaldon’s best-selling novel) only to get her rocks off, I want you to know that, im-not-so-ho, the intimate scenes between the “time-crossed” lovers Claire Randall and Jamie Frasier aren’t in the least bit gratuitous.

Claire and Jamie, two strangers divided by 200 years of societal, political and technological upheavals, were married last season not for love, but for political circumstance and to protect Claire from the British captain who believes she is a spy; there has been some very ugly words between them, as well as some 21st century “politically incorrect” physical abuse that lit up Outlander message boards across the web. And so their relationship seesaws between love and hate, need and independence, conflict and harmony, competition and accord.

None of this should be surprising; Outlander is produced – with some episodes directed and written – by Ronald D. Moore, who has never shied away from the realities of relationships and the forces that work upon them, making those relationships a basic element of all his work, most famously in his reboot of Battlestar: Galactica.

Aside: Mr. Moore has stated that he left Star Trek: The Next Generation because he became frustrated with Gene Roddenberry’s dictum that everyone on the U.S. S. Enterprise NCC 1701-C got along like stoned-out-of-their-minds hippies at Woodstock or a conclave of Scientologists slobbering at the foot of Tom Cruise. A few minor skirmishes were allowed, hints of romance every so often, but no any real character growth and development between crewmembers. “Conflict is the heart of drama,” Moore has said. “No conflict, no drama.”

But Outlander is also richly detailed in its historical facts – the Jacobite movement to restore “Bonnie Prince Charlie” Stuart to the throne of England – and 18th century Scottish creeds, customs and mores, including its costume design. Speaking of which, today’s New York Times includes a piece on Mr. Moore and his wife, Terry Dresbach, who is Outlander’s costume designer. According to the New York Times, “The couple share a similar philosophy when it comes to period costumes: Make them as authentic as possible. ‘I want them to look lived-in, beaten-up and home-repaired,’ Mr. Moore said. To that end, his wife assembled a 15-person aging and dyeing department, whose primary objective is to weather the costumes and ‘make them look real,’ he explained.

“Occasionally they clash when the needs of the story and the reality of costumes collide,” the NYT continued. “For instance, when the villainous redcoat Capt. Black Jack Randall rips Claire’s bodice, Mr. Moore said, ‘Terry tells me in excruciating detail how impossible it is to rip open these dresses unless you’re the Hulk, because there are many layers of thick fabric’…[they] settled on having Black Jack slice open Claire’s dress with a knife.”

Like most actors and actresses the cast of Outlander says that wearing appropriate to the era costumes only increases their ability to “step inside” their characters’ minds and lives. However, the wearing corsets can be, well, inhibiting. Caitrona Balfe, who plays Claire, said, “Once you’re sucked into these corsets, you realize just how repressed women were.” And her co-star, Lotte Verbeek, who also starred in HBO’s The Borgias, says, “The costumes help, but they also kind of hurt.” As for the men, well, they have fewer complaints in their kilts. “There’s something very freeing about wearing [it],” said Graham McTavish, who plays Dougal MacKenzie, the war chief of Clan MacKenzie, and Jamie’s uncle. “It represents something from the past that has style and elegance – you’re not going out dressed in sweatpants, sneakers, and a baseball cap.” Though Tobias Menzies, who plays the aforementioned British Royal Army Captain Jonathan “Black Jack” Randall, doesn’t like them. “Put some trousers on,” he says. Well, he does, for Menzies also plays Frank Randall, Claire’s 20th century husband and a descendant of Black Jack.

I don’t know if the men wear underwear under the kilts, though that is truly the way kilts are worn. I know, because my ex-husband wore a kilt to our wedding….

Um, ‘nuff said!

 

Categories

Archives

Everything you need to make great comics!

comicmix-pro-300x69-2

Nucleus X

Bookshop Zaks