Ah, Warner Bros. I can't say you were wrong to want to monkey with the comic, Red, in order to turn it into a major motion picture.
Red is written by the always hit-or-miss, but cultivator of a cult of personality, Warren Ellis, and drawn by Cully Hamner, an artist whose work I enjoy and may even border upon really liking. Simply put, Red is really short. It was released sometime while I was living in Arizona, and I actually do believe I read the first issue, but never finished the 3-issue series as it arrived during the era of epic decompression, when American-style comics were undergoing this experiment where it seemed like a test amongst editors to see who could get the fewest words into a panel and then cut it down to three panels per page.
In other words, I remember reading the entirety of the first issue in about 3 minutes and then kind of deciding that hadn't been worth the price of admission. It wasn't even a content-specific problem so much as me feeling like I'd just paid to read about three pages worth of comic spread out over 22.
Ellis, as a writer, is a smart fellow, and almost as fond of the old ultra-violence as Garth Ennis. Red is a very "Mature Audiences" sort of title, and not just because of the stylized violence, but because the book does, in fact, have a point. And its a point I am curious whether it will survive the translation to big-budget action comedy with at least four new characters added by my count.
The comic features, really, only about five characters and is mostly handled with a grave and serious tone. But with so little but the skeleton of the story that exists in the comic, I can see why the studio chose the direction (any direction) once they decided to put real money behind the thing.
If anyone wants to borrow the comic or even sit on my front porch and read it in about 12 minutes, you're welcome to come by and do so.
Film. Comics. Sci-Fi. Superheroes. Pulp. Noir. History. Superman. 20th Century Archaeology.
Monday, October 11, 2010
SW Watches: The Social Network
Firstly, let me say: This is a pretty darn good movie. I don't have any rating system, and perhaps I need to develop one. But, I guess I'm saying: You don't have to see this in the theater (its not going to be less impressive on your TV), but you're likely going to want to see the movie so you can follow the references made to the movie for the next three months. Particularly, its a movie of the moment, perhaps more so than any other movie I've seen. And, frankly, its a bit lucky that this thing made it to the big screen before we'd all moved on to using YouFace or whatever is the next shiny object to blitz the zeitgeist.
EVERYTHING BELOW CONTAINS SPOILERS (Sorry, but I'd like to actually discuss the movie a bit. )
I'll go out on a limb and say: There's not much in the way of originality in the tale of Zuckerberg and Facebook, particularly if you read the occasional tech website or know much about Facebook's often public legal woes. Or if you follow much in the way of tech news for companies that tend to get bigger than a bread-box. But the movie also occasionally has a feeling of "been there, done that" from a narrative standpoint (and we'll get to that in a bit).
I tend to follow Facebook's Privacy issues*, so I've criss-crossed paths with a few stories, and for a company that's got a short lifespan, holy hell, have these guys managed to find themselves in Lawsuit Land an amazing amount. Of late, however, the stories have mostly focused on "what's real and what is fiction in The Social Network". The veracity of the story told in The Social Network can and does matter, unless you really want to view it as some sort of modern parable, but somehow that feels a bit lazy. But it is a movie, so no matter how talented the writer, director and cast, the movie will always exist as a fictional construct. If that's a disservice to current and ongoing issues... I can't be sure.
Business is messy. The amazing fortunes made by young people starting, HP-style, in garages and dorm rooms aren't mapped out from Day 1, and that leads to some pretty wacky tales. You don't become a multi-billion-dollar company without leaving a few bodies in shallow graves, metaphorically or otherwise.
The movie doesn't pull the same weak stunt as the very pretty Immortal Beloved and have someone following up on clues in the wake of Zuckerberg's death**, but in many ways, the film has echoes of Citizen Kane, including a final scene I thought was probably necessary for a portion of the audience, but... What seems to be missing from The Social Network, however, is Zuckerberg's ambition. Was he the socially maladroit nigh-innocent portrayed in the movie? Was he really trying to make something cool to find a way to impress the ladies as the movie would have it? Its hard to imagine the off-screen maneuvering occured without his input, consent or knowledge.
But what the movie kind of hints at that the press seems to only remember in "oh, gosh, can you believe it!" tones is that Zuckerberg was a college Junior as Facebook was getting cranking, but the decisions made and avenues pursued are looked at as if Zuckerberg (I don't think anyone would question his intellectual capability) had the emotional maturity of a few years' worth or work or someone just generally older. *** No @#$% this went a little off the rails.
Zuckerberg's ongoing issues seem to mostly stem from an unstable cocktail of a lack of maturity and (and I know this is going to get me in trouble, but...) the same sort of "I will tell the people what's good for them!" attitude I've seen in many really bad IT and programming shop situations. And watching Zuckerberg both in the film and real life, I can't help but think "Oh, he's that guy... Only with 4 billion dollars."
The movie does manage to make some astute reflections upon the entrenched modes of obtaining/ retaining success versus the path of insta-wealth mogul, and I don't know if I can add much that you aren't likely to find in a better review from a smarter writer. But (a) I appreciated the fact that they managed to show rather than tell via endless exposition, and (b) if I can get judgy for a minute here, it doesn't feel entirely inaccurate.
In building the case (real or imagined) for how and why Zuckerberg decided to pursue something like Facebook, and in the conflicts that arise, writer Sorkin and director Fincher are quietly damning of the origins of final product, and, by extension, the jaded and sordid forms of communication supported in microbursts and what we gain from online profiles and existence (Country, Cities, Online). Why do we communicate? What do we gain from communicating on rails set by other people? Particularly when those rails were originally designed for 18-23 year olds? And when the rules are managed by a man-boy for whom communication itself is portrayed as fraught with peril to begin with?
Is this the face of success?
I'd take this opportunity to point you to Steven's recent conversation upon similar topics after reading The Shallows. He starts here and continues for several fascinating posts.
The movie leaves some threads open that I wish had been better explained. When did Facebook go public and ditch its .edu exclusivity? When and how did the conversation about ads change? How does Facebook make its 100's of billions other than on the wishes of unicorns and irrational exuberance?
For the faults of the movie (its iffy relationship with reality, its echoing of well known stories - both real and fictional), the movie has some powerful stuff and can and should at least give you a moment of pause to wonder what the hell you're doing hunting and clicking on that damned website all day.
If I may: technically, I loved this movie. The young cast (including Mr. Timberlake) was uniformly pretty amazing. The script was the kind of smart stuff that seems to pop up only once every 6-18 months or so as per dialog and structure. Fincher's direction, of what i can see of that stuff, anyway, seemed pretty damned well spot on.
Anyhow, I open the floor to discussion:
*A pal of mine is an EFF lawyer who I tend to follow as he comments upon Facebook's latest brainstorms, and I thought danah boyd made a great argument last year at SXSW, which seemed to lead to nigh-immediate action on the part of Facebook.
**as of this writing, and at the time of the film's release, Zuckerberg is reported to be in the pink of health
***In a previous incarnation, I couldn't trust student workers with tasks that required a part C as well as a Part A & B, and those were engineering grad students. No chumps. But... I sort of wonder about the wisdom assumed by the populace when we look to the shockingly successful.
EVERYTHING BELOW CONTAINS SPOILERS (Sorry, but I'd like to actually discuss the movie a bit. )
I'll go out on a limb and say: There's not much in the way of originality in the tale of Zuckerberg and Facebook, particularly if you read the occasional tech website or know much about Facebook's often public legal woes. Or if you follow much in the way of tech news for companies that tend to get bigger than a bread-box. But the movie also occasionally has a feeling of "been there, done that" from a narrative standpoint (and we'll get to that in a bit).
I tend to follow Facebook's Privacy issues*, so I've criss-crossed paths with a few stories, and for a company that's got a short lifespan, holy hell, have these guys managed to find themselves in Lawsuit Land an amazing amount. Of late, however, the stories have mostly focused on "what's real and what is fiction in The Social Network". The veracity of the story told in The Social Network can and does matter, unless you really want to view it as some sort of modern parable, but somehow that feels a bit lazy. But it is a movie, so no matter how talented the writer, director and cast, the movie will always exist as a fictional construct. If that's a disservice to current and ongoing issues... I can't be sure.
Business is messy. The amazing fortunes made by young people starting, HP-style, in garages and dorm rooms aren't mapped out from Day 1, and that leads to some pretty wacky tales. You don't become a multi-billion-dollar company without leaving a few bodies in shallow graves, metaphorically or otherwise.
The movie doesn't pull the same weak stunt as the very pretty Immortal Beloved and have someone following up on clues in the wake of Zuckerberg's death**, but in many ways, the film has echoes of Citizen Kane, including a final scene I thought was probably necessary for a portion of the audience, but... What seems to be missing from The Social Network, however, is Zuckerberg's ambition. Was he the socially maladroit nigh-innocent portrayed in the movie? Was he really trying to make something cool to find a way to impress the ladies as the movie would have it? Its hard to imagine the off-screen maneuvering occured without his input, consent or knowledge.
But what the movie kind of hints at that the press seems to only remember in "oh, gosh, can you believe it!" tones is that Zuckerberg was a college Junior as Facebook was getting cranking, but the decisions made and avenues pursued are looked at as if Zuckerberg (I don't think anyone would question his intellectual capability) had the emotional maturity of a few years' worth or work or someone just generally older. *** No @#$% this went a little off the rails.
Zuckerberg's ongoing issues seem to mostly stem from an unstable cocktail of a lack of maturity and (and I know this is going to get me in trouble, but...) the same sort of "I will tell the people what's good for them!" attitude I've seen in many really bad IT and programming shop situations. And watching Zuckerberg both in the film and real life, I can't help but think "Oh, he's that guy... Only with 4 billion dollars."
The movie does manage to make some astute reflections upon the entrenched modes of obtaining/ retaining success versus the path of insta-wealth mogul, and I don't know if I can add much that you aren't likely to find in a better review from a smarter writer. But (a) I appreciated the fact that they managed to show rather than tell via endless exposition, and (b) if I can get judgy for a minute here, it doesn't feel entirely inaccurate.
In building the case (real or imagined) for how and why Zuckerberg decided to pursue something like Facebook, and in the conflicts that arise, writer Sorkin and director Fincher are quietly damning of the origins of final product, and, by extension, the jaded and sordid forms of communication supported in microbursts and what we gain from online profiles and existence (Country, Cities, Online). Why do we communicate? What do we gain from communicating on rails set by other people? Particularly when those rails were originally designed for 18-23 year olds? And when the rules are managed by a man-boy for whom communication itself is portrayed as fraught with peril to begin with?
Is this the face of success?
I'd take this opportunity to point you to Steven's recent conversation upon similar topics after reading The Shallows. He starts here and continues for several fascinating posts.
The movie leaves some threads open that I wish had been better explained. When did Facebook go public and ditch its .edu exclusivity? When and how did the conversation about ads change? How does Facebook make its 100's of billions other than on the wishes of unicorns and irrational exuberance?
For the faults of the movie (its iffy relationship with reality, its echoing of well known stories - both real and fictional), the movie has some powerful stuff and can and should at least give you a moment of pause to wonder what the hell you're doing hunting and clicking on that damned website all day.
If I may: technically, I loved this movie. The young cast (including Mr. Timberlake) was uniformly pretty amazing. The script was the kind of smart stuff that seems to pop up only once every 6-18 months or so as per dialog and structure. Fincher's direction, of what i can see of that stuff, anyway, seemed pretty damned well spot on.
Anyhow, I open the floor to discussion:
*A pal of mine is an EFF lawyer who I tend to follow as he comments upon Facebook's latest brainstorms, and I thought danah boyd made a great argument last year at SXSW, which seemed to lead to nigh-immediate action on the part of Facebook.
**as of this writing, and at the time of the film's release, Zuckerberg is reported to be in the pink of health
***In a previous incarnation, I couldn't trust student workers with tasks that required a part C as well as a Part A & B, and those were engineering grad students. No chumps. But... I sort of wonder about the wisdom assumed by the populace when we look to the shockingly successful.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
I Am Not @ ACL Fest
I guess the days of me attending ACL Fest are now in the rear-view mirror.
I don't attend many concerts these days, and while I get the basic concept of the festival, as interests wax and wane, I'm just not much of one for doing that sort of thing for three days anymore. I certainly used to be up for doing one day of festival-ness. Heck, I attended the first few Lollapalooza's, back when it was a traveling musical festival. But... I was also 16 - 20ish.
This isn't to badmouth ACL Fest. They do a fairly good job, I guess, of bringing acts the kids want to see and stuff for an older and more general audience. This year has headliners like Phish and The Eagles, if you're into that sort of thing (I am into neither).
I sort of miss being that into music, but these days it seems I just really don't care too much about the rock'n'roll. When expressed, this attitude is treated as a malady, as if its something that's passing and from which I'll recover if I just try harder, which is sort of a weird way to think of it. One could compare it to the disappointment and well-reasoned arguments one could put out there when you hear someone just isn't interested in using Facebook. I do agree that music is an important art and cultural touchstone, but I don't see keeping up with the latest featured subjects of Spin as part of appreciating what your civilization produces. Plus, I got other stuff going on.
I'm always up for giving something new a listen, by the way, and I do trust the recommendations of my colleagues (I've picked up Freelance Whales, Mumford and Sons and other stuff based on your recommendations in the past year). And I do pick up new albums by people I tended to already like (I got the new LCD Soundsystem and Arcade Fire. I paid good money to see The Pixies last month.). But in comparison to when the rock'n'roll was something I actively pursued...
Hopefully Jason and Amy are having a good time of it. Last night when I was en route to see a pretty darn good production of "Midsummer Night's Dream"*, my Blackberry rang with Jason's tell-tale ring (Chewbacca!), and when I answered, I could hear LCD Soundsystem cranked up and blaring. And, yeah, man, I kind of regretted my decision not to go for a minute there. And, yeah, I kind of resent that ACL Fest has meant that bands now check Austin off their tour schedule because they showed up for this festival. But, whatever. Its also meant bands that might not book a show here have come to town. You win some, you lose some.
*Austinites have one more weekend to catch Midsummer Night's Dream performed by The Baron's Men at the Curtain Theater on Lake Austin. It was pretty great. Next up, Twelfth Night, which I've never read or seen.
I don't attend many concerts these days, and while I get the basic concept of the festival, as interests wax and wane, I'm just not much of one for doing that sort of thing for three days anymore. I certainly used to be up for doing one day of festival-ness. Heck, I attended the first few Lollapalooza's, back when it was a traveling musical festival. But... I was also 16 - 20ish.
This isn't to badmouth ACL Fest. They do a fairly good job, I guess, of bringing acts the kids want to see and stuff for an older and more general audience. This year has headliners like Phish and The Eagles, if you're into that sort of thing (I am into neither).
I sort of miss being that into music, but these days it seems I just really don't care too much about the rock'n'roll. When expressed, this attitude is treated as a malady, as if its something that's passing and from which I'll recover if I just try harder, which is sort of a weird way to think of it. One could compare it to the disappointment and well-reasoned arguments one could put out there when you hear someone just isn't interested in using Facebook. I do agree that music is an important art and cultural touchstone, but I don't see keeping up with the latest featured subjects of Spin as part of appreciating what your civilization produces. Plus, I got other stuff going on.
I'm always up for giving something new a listen, by the way, and I do trust the recommendations of my colleagues (I've picked up Freelance Whales, Mumford and Sons and other stuff based on your recommendations in the past year). And I do pick up new albums by people I tended to already like (I got the new LCD Soundsystem and Arcade Fire. I paid good money to see The Pixies last month.). But in comparison to when the rock'n'roll was something I actively pursued...
Hopefully Jason and Amy are having a good time of it. Last night when I was en route to see a pretty darn good production of "Midsummer Night's Dream"*, my Blackberry rang with Jason's tell-tale ring (Chewbacca!), and when I answered, I could hear LCD Soundsystem cranked up and blaring. And, yeah, man, I kind of regretted my decision not to go for a minute there. And, yeah, I kind of resent that ACL Fest has meant that bands now check Austin off their tour schedule because they showed up for this festival. But, whatever. Its also meant bands that might not book a show here have come to town. You win some, you lose some.
*Austinites have one more weekend to catch Midsummer Night's Dream performed by The Baron's Men at the Curtain Theater on Lake Austin. It was pretty great. Next up, Twelfth Night, which I've never read or seen.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Pepe Le Pew Movie? The Bad Reviews Just Write Themselves
Corpsman RHPT sent me a link that WB is attempting to reinvigorate their cast of cartoon characters with a slate of new projects including a possible live action/ CGI movie featuring Pepe Le Pew.
Here.
The article states that comedian Mike "The Love Guru" Myers is associated with the project and will, one way or another, play the WB's amorous french skunk (despite his turn as another black and white furry scamp in The Cat in the Hat, the movie that terrified kids and turned a generation off of Dr. Seuss.).
If I may: why on Earth, given the track record of live action movies featuring formerly popular franchises, would you pick the one character that will give every film critic on a global scale the opportunity to use the word "stink" in their review?
And the movie will stink. As will box office.
I foresee weeks upon weeks of entertainment headlines pounding and pounding away on the idea that this movie stinks, and just by virtue of going to my iGoogle or Yahoo! account, my eyes will be bombarded by this clever play on words from a million different sources, over and over.
Also, Mssr. Le Pew's romantic tactics would get the rape whistle blown at him in this day and age. I'm not sure who in a modern audience is going to find it hilarious that this stalker of a skunk manhandles a helpless cat against her will for the duration of the film, even if in the third reel he learns a little lesson from WB's HR about appropriate workplace behavior and not being "handsy". And, of course, the kitty decides she misses the attention (got that, girls...? you're gonna miss Mr. Handsy Stalker when he's gone!).
In this modern age, I am not sure Mr. Le Pew will work quite as well as he once did, in days gone by when interspecies sexual assault was good for a laugh.
I don't have any advice for the WB. How about trying to be actually funny? You know, the way Chuck Jones, Bob Clampett and others were able to do without resorting to ridiculous CGI for the sake of CGI nonsense?
Also, the appropriate amount of time from when an anvil enters the image to when it makes contact? 13 frames. 13 frames is funniest. Everybody knows that.
Here.
The article states that comedian Mike "The Love Guru" Myers is associated with the project and will, one way or another, play the WB's amorous french skunk (despite his turn as another black and white furry scamp in The Cat in the Hat, the movie that terrified kids and turned a generation off of Dr. Seuss.).
If I may: why on Earth, given the track record of live action movies featuring formerly popular franchises, would you pick the one character that will give every film critic on a global scale the opportunity to use the word "stink" in their review?
And the movie will stink. As will box office.
I foresee weeks upon weeks of entertainment headlines pounding and pounding away on the idea that this movie stinks, and just by virtue of going to my iGoogle or Yahoo! account, my eyes will be bombarded by this clever play on words from a million different sources, over and over.
Also, Mssr. Le Pew's romantic tactics would get the rape whistle blown at him in this day and age. I'm not sure who in a modern audience is going to find it hilarious that this stalker of a skunk manhandles a helpless cat against her will for the duration of the film, even if in the third reel he learns a little lesson from WB's HR about appropriate workplace behavior and not being "handsy". And, of course, the kitty decides she misses the attention (got that, girls...? you're gonna miss Mr. Handsy Stalker when he's gone!).
In this modern age, I am not sure Mr. Le Pew will work quite as well as he once did, in days gone by when interspecies sexual assault was good for a laugh.
 |
| Yeah, I think I've even creeped myself out at this point |
Also, the appropriate amount of time from when an anvil enters the image to when it makes contact? 13 frames. 13 frames is funniest. Everybody knows that.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
A change in the pattern - I've moved mostly to trades
Earlier today Corpsman PaulT asked me if I liked that DC Comics had decided to drop their prices on all titles to $2.99. There's been a bit of a migration to a higher pricepoint in comics, most recently with Marvel displaying some serious brass ones by charging $3.99 for a standard sized comic. The same kind of comic that I paid $0.75 for when I was first really getting into comics, only in the current mode of "let's put 3 panels per page in a super-decompressed format with four words per page").
In truth, the promise of a $3.99 pricepoint sort of broke me of lots and lots of bad habits. So, while I am thrilled that DC has actually and officially decided to draw the $2.99 pricepoint line in the sand for their standard, floppy, 32-page comic (supplemented with ads, I might note) with 20 pages of content versus 22... I'm mostly just glad they're holding their prices steady instead of feeling like Marvel's move opened the door for massive and unsustainable price increases.
Here's a story on it all at Newsarama.
Not long ago DC had tried to justify the $3.99 by adding extra pages and back-up stories, with some of those supplementary items better than the feature material (cough... Detective Comics). And, of course, some of the back-matter was pretty terrible and complicated the purchase (cough... Metal Men back up feature). But they'd also recently launched a few standard sized titles at $3.99. All I know is that I'm more or less DC's main audience, and this summer, at least partially in reaction to the price increases, I gave up regularly reading floppies of everything but Superman titles and Morrison's Batman stuff.
So, yeah, your Erstwhile Comic Opinion-Spewing Scribe will now be about seven months behind what's going on with the DCU while he waits for the collected editions to hit his local comic shop. But (a) it cost about the same to pick up a hardcover edition of the same material if I waited, and that I could put on a shelf or loan out, and (b) in trade paperback, the cost savings seemed just so much more worth, plus... (c) I wasn't reading three issues of a series and spending $9.00 - $12.00 to realize "I really hate this series" and then have three comics just sort of cluttering the place up.
The truth is, the jump from $2.50 or $2.75 to $3.00 was when I abandoned Marvel. I just couldn't afford to keep up with two universes, and Marvel's insistence I read the entire Civil War shenanigans and then roll right into Secret Alien Hostile Takeover or whatever just meant that what should have been a fairly inexpensive hobby became crazily expensive (if you actually wanted to keep up).
Once Marvel jumped prices to $4, I knew the system was just broken, and DC would think they were somehow devaluing their product if they didn't keep up. Curiously, that's not really been the case, and the experiments they floated this year must have set off some serious alarms.
I'm now watching my comics budget a lot more than I have since high school or maybe my first year or so of college when it was comics or food (sometimes comics won that fight). I'm not able to afford a weekly comic shop run, and I go looking for back issues upon fairly rare occasions. I should also add that I'm looking for quality of condition in back-issues these days, too, so that makes the back-issue collecting a bit more expensive, but also more rewarding and fun.*
There was also always the issue that I do bag, board and box comics, and sometimes I'd wind up buying collections so I could get back to those stories without sifting through the dozens of boxes. I'd been particularly bad about that with Green Lantern, and after Blackest Night saw no reason to own floppies of Green Lantern ever again.** DC has done a great job with its collected editions (thanks, Bob Harras!), and that means I'll be just fine reading trades of GL, Flash, etc... from now on. Even Wonder Woman.
I have reduced my Batman floppies intake to Morrison-penned books, and I have a very hard time seeing myself ever giving up on floppies of Superman. Quitting Batman has been hardest, as my collection reaches back now about 25 years, with major gaps, but... nonetheless. There's a lot of filler out there with Batman titles, and I prefer to just pick up the stuff that's actually driving the character forward, not just moving Bat-product.
I have also obtained a library card and visited the Austin Public Library, which has an okay collection of comics. I'm actually headed back tomorrow to return some comics and look to see what's at my local branch rather than the central library. And there's your civics lesson of the week, Signal Corps. But, seriously, libraries have been doing pretty well of late in the arena of obtaining graphic novels and collections, as well as books about comics. I know I saw several books I'll be picking up over the next few months.
But all in all, I've given up the weekly habit. I do miss Wednesdays at the shop, and trying to read the comics before I read the reviews. My new habit does mean I'm mostly avoiding reviews of newer comics, except to help me decide if I do want to try a collection (but mostly I just ask CanadianSimon what he thinks, anyway).
So that's the comics news.
(quick edit: Here's an article at Newsarama on retailer reaction to the price drop.)
*someday someone is going to wind up with my Superman collection and have no idea what they have on their hands, likely taking it to the garbage dump. And they'll hear my ghost cursing their name.
**Jamie, by the way, has now read just a massive amount of Green Lantern in a very condensed amount of time by reading my collections. Next I plan to put her on Morrison's Batman run to see what happens.
In truth, the promise of a $3.99 pricepoint sort of broke me of lots and lots of bad habits. So, while I am thrilled that DC has actually and officially decided to draw the $2.99 pricepoint line in the sand for their standard, floppy, 32-page comic (supplemented with ads, I might note) with 20 pages of content versus 22... I'm mostly just glad they're holding their prices steady instead of feeling like Marvel's move opened the door for massive and unsustainable price increases.
Here's a story on it all at Newsarama.
Not long ago DC had tried to justify the $3.99 by adding extra pages and back-up stories, with some of those supplementary items better than the feature material (cough... Detective Comics). And, of course, some of the back-matter was pretty terrible and complicated the purchase (cough... Metal Men back up feature). But they'd also recently launched a few standard sized titles at $3.99. All I know is that I'm more or less DC's main audience, and this summer, at least partially in reaction to the price increases, I gave up regularly reading floppies of everything but Superman titles and Morrison's Batman stuff.
So, yeah, your Erstwhile Comic Opinion-Spewing Scribe will now be about seven months behind what's going on with the DCU while he waits for the collected editions to hit his local comic shop. But (a) it cost about the same to pick up a hardcover edition of the same material if I waited, and that I could put on a shelf or loan out, and (b) in trade paperback, the cost savings seemed just so much more worth, plus... (c) I wasn't reading three issues of a series and spending $9.00 - $12.00 to realize "I really hate this series" and then have three comics just sort of cluttering the place up.
The truth is, the jump from $2.50 or $2.75 to $3.00 was when I abandoned Marvel. I just couldn't afford to keep up with two universes, and Marvel's insistence I read the entire Civil War shenanigans and then roll right into Secret Alien Hostile Takeover or whatever just meant that what should have been a fairly inexpensive hobby became crazily expensive (if you actually wanted to keep up).
Once Marvel jumped prices to $4, I knew the system was just broken, and DC would think they were somehow devaluing their product if they didn't keep up. Curiously, that's not really been the case, and the experiments they floated this year must have set off some serious alarms.
I'm now watching my comics budget a lot more than I have since high school or maybe my first year or so of college when it was comics or food (sometimes comics won that fight). I'm not able to afford a weekly comic shop run, and I go looking for back issues upon fairly rare occasions. I should also add that I'm looking for quality of condition in back-issues these days, too, so that makes the back-issue collecting a bit more expensive, but also more rewarding and fun.*
There was also always the issue that I do bag, board and box comics, and sometimes I'd wind up buying collections so I could get back to those stories without sifting through the dozens of boxes. I'd been particularly bad about that with Green Lantern, and after Blackest Night saw no reason to own floppies of Green Lantern ever again.** DC has done a great job with its collected editions (thanks, Bob Harras!), and that means I'll be just fine reading trades of GL, Flash, etc... from now on. Even Wonder Woman.
I have reduced my Batman floppies intake to Morrison-penned books, and I have a very hard time seeing myself ever giving up on floppies of Superman. Quitting Batman has been hardest, as my collection reaches back now about 25 years, with major gaps, but... nonetheless. There's a lot of filler out there with Batman titles, and I prefer to just pick up the stuff that's actually driving the character forward, not just moving Bat-product.
I have also obtained a library card and visited the Austin Public Library, which has an okay collection of comics. I'm actually headed back tomorrow to return some comics and look to see what's at my local branch rather than the central library. And there's your civics lesson of the week, Signal Corps. But, seriously, libraries have been doing pretty well of late in the arena of obtaining graphic novels and collections, as well as books about comics. I know I saw several books I'll be picking up over the next few months.
But all in all, I've given up the weekly habit. I do miss Wednesdays at the shop, and trying to read the comics before I read the reviews. My new habit does mean I'm mostly avoiding reviews of newer comics, except to help me decide if I do want to try a collection (but mostly I just ask CanadianSimon what he thinks, anyway).
So that's the comics news.
(quick edit: Here's an article at Newsarama on retailer reaction to the price drop.)
*someday someone is going to wind up with my Superman collection and have no idea what they have on their hands, likely taking it to the garbage dump. And they'll hear my ghost cursing their name.
**Jamie, by the way, has now read just a massive amount of Green Lantern in a very condensed amount of time by reading my collections. Next I plan to put her on Morrison's Batman run to see what happens.
"Midsummer Night's Dream" at the Curtain Theater in Austin on Saturday
A work colleague is part of a production of Bill Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream in Austin this Saturday. Curiously, the theater holding the show is owned by spaceman/ software entrepreneur Richard Garriot, who decided to build a replica of England's Globe Theater on the shores of Lake Austin.
So, if you're interested, Jamie and I are headed down there on Saturday and we'd love to have you join us for a play in the great Fall evening weather Austin is currently enjoying. And: to see Eva in a lion mask.
here.
For a little more on The Curtain Theater.
So, if you're interested, Jamie and I are headed down there on Saturday and we'd love to have you join us for a play in the great Fall evening weather Austin is currently enjoying. And: to see Eva in a lion mask.
here.
For a little more on The Curtain Theater.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
More on the Zack Snyder Superman Movie Thing
It was odd to see the news about Zack Snyder getting the Superman gig when I popped open my laptop in Brownsville at the hotel. I think i09 had a pretty solid set of recommendations for the movie. And, of course, the rumors are now bouncing around about General Zod of Superman 2 fame named the villain for the movie.
I am as much a fan of Superman 2 as you're likely to find, but its an odd choice from a comic fan's perspective. Zod has traditionally been a minor villain in the comics (and the movie Zod is more like villain Jax-Ur in many ways than the oddly-hatted Zod). From a movie-making perspective, it makes more sense. Zod can demonstrate and play out all those bad impulses that fans can say they think Superman would be unable to stop himself from demonstrating as some sort of totalitarian alien/ diety on Earth. And, of course, Superman standing up against Zod doesn't just logically make sense, but it should define what Superman does and why.
It's that whole "equal opposites" thing you wind up getting in a lot of action movies.
Signal Corps regular Horus Kemwer sent me a link to the start of a web discussion about the philosophical issues surrounding Superman, and while I am no student of philosophy, I'd suggest that if Zack Snyder would like for his movie to carry the weight of The Dark Knight, starting with the problems inherent in a superbeing (not necessarily Superman himself. After all, we've got a cadre of superbeings to choose from out of the comics for a "compare and contrast" session for the movie) and what the morality and responsibility of that superbeing might be... and, of course, explosions.
But, to that point, Nolan's second Batman film was quite literally about the boundaries and limits of retaining one's morals in a city seemingly gone mad, from Batman to doomed Harvey Dent to the boatloads of people with the ultimate "would you rather" scenario put in front of them. And I think you can use Superman to explore issues of power (something Americans don't think about wielding, but which we do flaunt across the planet like titans every day) in order to tell a compelling story and imbue the myth of the alien-christ-immigrant with relevancy and impact beyond a popcorn flick.
Can Zack Snyder do this? It depends how closely he chooses to work with Chris Nolan and Nolan's team, I think.
And I know I've said this before, but...
I am still not sure we'll seee Snyder take this through to completion. Prior to Superman Returns, flashy directors like McG and Brett Ratner known for their ability to put together neat action sequences and exciting car chases both wound up dropping off Superman after signing up to do the movie. Tim Burton tried to do another "outsider" movie and walked away.
It would be great to get another Superman movie in front of the lens, but at some point directors as successful and well-intentioned as Snyder have been on Superman before, and they couldn't quite find the hook. It doesn't matter what anyone says: do not believe its happening until you see the first publicity stills.
I am as much a fan of Superman 2 as you're likely to find, but its an odd choice from a comic fan's perspective. Zod has traditionally been a minor villain in the comics (and the movie Zod is more like villain Jax-Ur in many ways than the oddly-hatted Zod). From a movie-making perspective, it makes more sense. Zod can demonstrate and play out all those bad impulses that fans can say they think Superman would be unable to stop himself from demonstrating as some sort of totalitarian alien/ diety on Earth. And, of course, Superman standing up against Zod doesn't just logically make sense, but it should define what Superman does and why.
It's that whole "equal opposites" thing you wind up getting in a lot of action movies.
Signal Corps regular Horus Kemwer sent me a link to the start of a web discussion about the philosophical issues surrounding Superman, and while I am no student of philosophy, I'd suggest that if Zack Snyder would like for his movie to carry the weight of The Dark Knight, starting with the problems inherent in a superbeing (not necessarily Superman himself. After all, we've got a cadre of superbeings to choose from out of the comics for a "compare and contrast" session for the movie) and what the morality and responsibility of that superbeing might be... and, of course, explosions.
But, to that point, Nolan's second Batman film was quite literally about the boundaries and limits of retaining one's morals in a city seemingly gone mad, from Batman to doomed Harvey Dent to the boatloads of people with the ultimate "would you rather" scenario put in front of them. And I think you can use Superman to explore issues of power (something Americans don't think about wielding, but which we do flaunt across the planet like titans every day) in order to tell a compelling story and imbue the myth of the alien-christ-immigrant with relevancy and impact beyond a popcorn flick.
Can Zack Snyder do this? It depends how closely he chooses to work with Chris Nolan and Nolan's team, I think.
And I know I've said this before, but...
I am still not sure we'll seee Snyder take this through to completion. Prior to Superman Returns, flashy directors like McG and Brett Ratner known for their ability to put together neat action sequences and exciting car chases both wound up dropping off Superman after signing up to do the movie. Tim Burton tried to do another "outsider" movie and walked away.
It would be great to get another Superman movie in front of the lens, but at some point directors as successful and well-intentioned as Snyder have been on Superman before, and they couldn't quite find the hook. It doesn't matter what anyone says: do not believe its happening until you see the first publicity stills.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The guy who botched "300" and "Watchmen" to take on "Superman"
Ho boy.
Look, I only half believe this story, but folks are reporting that Zack Snyder is going to direct Superman.
If you wonder why I'm skeptical, its because similar reports were issued prior to Superman Returns with Brett Ratner, McG and Michael Bay attached. And, Justice League was slated to go into production about five years ago before someone at WB noticed that the idea and casting for the movie were absolutely terrible.
A quick list of pros and cons
Pros:
Cons:
I'm going to just be zen about all this until... well, later.
Look, I only half believe this story, but folks are reporting that Zack Snyder is going to direct Superman.
If you wonder why I'm skeptical, its because similar reports were issued prior to Superman Returns with Brett Ratner, McG and Michael Bay attached. And, Justice League was slated to go into production about five years ago before someone at WB noticed that the idea and casting for the movie were absolutely terrible.
A quick list of pros and cons
Pros:
- Zack Snyder has a great eye for production design
- Snyder loves original source material
- This will actually get a movie going rather than simply circling the drain
- The dude loves a good action sequence, and he may have some keen ideas for how to take what makes Superman super cool in the comics and translate that to movies in a way audiences have not previously seen
- I am not too worried about anyone thinking a Zack Snyder directed Superman movie is about a weepy, wimpy superhero as folks felt about Superman Returns
- If that whole "look at this in slow-mo now in fast motion" thing could apply to any two superheroes, its The Flash and Superman
Cons:
- Snyder has a terrific eye for design, but I have yet to see him tell an original story
- His choices on Watchmen, when given latitude beyond the page, almost always seemed... wrong
- In short, he seems technically competent, but he hasn't shown deftness or understanding of how to do much more than present a story in a sequential manner. He hasn't show an ability to creatively infuse life into a movie.
- Watchmen was a critical dud, didn't exactly set the box office on fire and is still routinely cited as "what's wrong with comic movies" for a variety of reasons
I'm going to just be zen about all this until... well, later.
Headed to South Texas/ Simple Machines
So, I'm at the tail end of our Sunday night ritual of late. We join up with Matt and Nicole for dinner and then Mad Men and a cocktail (or two). Lately, we've also added Boardwalk Empire to that formula, and it makes for a pretty good evening, I think.
Tomorrow I drive down to Brownsville in the afternoon, and then I'm talking to folks at UT Brownsville - Texas Southmost College on Wednesday. On Wednesday I'm in Corpus Christi, and then I'll be home that evening. Its some driving, but I've got two audio books from my book bucket list that I'm going to try to get through.
At any rate, between the game on Saturday, errands and the employment of a pulley AND going ahead and decorating for Halloween today (because, man, was the weather nice...), I don't have much in the way of an update.
Kudos to Jason and Jamie (and neighbor Chris) for helping us get the chairs onto the upstairs balcony.
Last weekend, after thinking we might do this for about two years, we purchased some adirondack chairs on end-of-season closeout. We have a second story balcony on the front of the house.
For me, the upstairs balcony was a big selling point for the house. Fall and Spring in Austin can be very, very nice (and parts of winter), and we've never had any good seating up there since we moved in (which was just about four years ago, when this picture was taken).
Anyhow, we got the chairs home, but when I carried them through the house, it turned out the chairs wouldn't actually fit through a standard-sized interior door. So, back through the house they came. We considered some different options, and in the end I called my father-in-law, who usually has some pretty good ideas about how to do this sort of thing.
I'm not saying DocDik endorsed my plan to install an eyehook and hang a pulley from the hook, but he did add the crucial factor of "have someone stand downstairs and pull the chair away from the house with another rope" that kept me from just slamming the chair into the house.
Sure, the whole operation seemed a bit iffy, but there's a reason people employ pulleys in this day and age, and I can report "Operation Chair Lift" was a success. Plus, now we got a pulley.
I'll be back soon enough. No idea if I'll find time to check in with you guys.
Hope the weather is as beautiful there as its turning here.
Tomorrow I drive down to Brownsville in the afternoon, and then I'm talking to folks at UT Brownsville - Texas Southmost College on Wednesday. On Wednesday I'm in Corpus Christi, and then I'll be home that evening. Its some driving, but I've got two audio books from my book bucket list that I'm going to try to get through.
At any rate, between the game on Saturday, errands and the employment of a pulley AND going ahead and decorating for Halloween today (because, man, was the weather nice...), I don't have much in the way of an update.
Kudos to Jason and Jamie (and neighbor Chris) for helping us get the chairs onto the upstairs balcony.
Last weekend, after thinking we might do this for about two years, we purchased some adirondack chairs on end-of-season closeout. We have a second story balcony on the front of the house.
 |
| This is actually an old picture, but that's the front of our house. |
Anyhow, we got the chairs home, but when I carried them through the house, it turned out the chairs wouldn't actually fit through a standard-sized interior door. So, back through the house they came. We considered some different options, and in the end I called my father-in-law, who usually has some pretty good ideas about how to do this sort of thing.
I'm not saying DocDik endorsed my plan to install an eyehook and hang a pulley from the hook, but he did add the crucial factor of "have someone stand downstairs and pull the chair away from the house with another rope" that kept me from just slamming the chair into the house.
Sure, the whole operation seemed a bit iffy, but there's a reason people employ pulleys in this day and age, and I can report "Operation Chair Lift" was a success. Plus, now we got a pulley.
I'll be back soon enough. No idea if I'll find time to check in with you guys.
Hope the weather is as beautiful there as its turning here.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Wonder Woman to TV?
Rumors are now popping up that Wonder Woman may be headed to the small screen.
Here.
The CW Network (formerly the WB Network) has had Superman going for 10 years (ten years, people! That's crazy!), but the season which began last week is the final season of the program. Word on the street is that Warner Bros. quite likes the money Smallville has generated and has been looking for a replacement once Clark puts on the cape and flies off into the stratosphere (the Big Bad for this season, btw, is Darkseid. This should be... interesting.).
Will Wonder Woman work on the small screen?
Well...
I own the complete run of the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman series on DVD, so I am pretty sure I'm not the right guy to ask.
But...
The interesting thing about Wonder Woman is that there's such a flexible mythology to the character that the writers could muck about quite a bit and even the fanboys would barely bat an eye. I know what version I prefer, but... you know, if you start with a young enough Wonder Woman, and basically have her oppose her mother in order to leave the island, you're most of the way there as far as cannon goes.
Wonder Woman doesn't even always have a secret identity, and I sort of prefer the version that doesn't have a secret ID, but I don't see that playing terribly well on TV. Unless it does, and then, there you go...
But as I was previously pondering, Wonder Woman has a pretty bizarre bunch of arch-nemeses. But I think if you had the weekly format to build on, especially with her ties to Greek mythology, you could possibly build up a unique world for Wonder Woman to deal with.
Anyway, we'll see. But I'm betting they adjust the costume.
Here.
The CW Network (formerly the WB Network) has had Superman going for 10 years (ten years, people! That's crazy!), but the season which began last week is the final season of the program. Word on the street is that Warner Bros. quite likes the money Smallville has generated and has been looking for a replacement once Clark puts on the cape and flies off into the stratosphere (the Big Bad for this season, btw, is Darkseid. This should be... interesting.).
Will Wonder Woman work on the small screen?
Well...
 |
| Ladies and gentlemen, my argument FOR a televised Wonder Woman |
I own the complete run of the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman series on DVD, so I am pretty sure I'm not the right guy to ask.
But...
The interesting thing about Wonder Woman is that there's such a flexible mythology to the character that the writers could muck about quite a bit and even the fanboys would barely bat an eye. I know what version I prefer, but... you know, if you start with a young enough Wonder Woman, and basically have her oppose her mother in order to leave the island, you're most of the way there as far as cannon goes.
Wonder Woman doesn't even always have a secret identity, and I sort of prefer the version that doesn't have a secret ID, but I don't see that playing terribly well on TV. Unless it does, and then, there you go...
But as I was previously pondering, Wonder Woman has a pretty bizarre bunch of arch-nemeses. But I think if you had the weekly format to build on, especially with her ties to Greek mythology, you could possibly build up a unique world for Wonder Woman to deal with.
Anyway, we'll see. But I'm betting they adjust the costume.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)