The Signal Watch

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Nov. 2: Get out the Vote!

Monday, November 1, 2010

Signal Watch Reads "Superman: Earth One"

DC recently released "Superman: Earth One". The book is a hard re-boot of Superman aimed at all-ages and intended for the book store market. The title itself holds clues as to this story's place in the DC Universe*, and as a sign to its own readership that this book indicates a major effort in how DC Comics hopes to reach the public going forward.

I recommend visiting Comics Alliance for a preview.

Why this book exists

Basically, Superman: Earth One exists as a "my very first Superman book" for today's audience. This strategy seems to have angered/ confused virtually every comic reader with an internet connection, who have pointed out (correctly) that DC literally just finished running a series called Superman: Secret Origin that also tells the story of the early years of Superman. However, they missed the part where the series was only available in comic shops and intensely tied to monthly Superman comics, which meant you kind of needed to be familiar with stuff that ran 15-40 years before I was born. That doesn't mean Superman: Secret Origin wasn't doing its job (it did just fine), but its a comic for longtime Superman readers.

I applaud DC's decision to put together a Superman comic I would feel I could hand to pretty much anyone interested in the character, especially folks only familiar with Superman from bumper stickers and t-shirt emblems.

Most importantly, DC wrote this comic as a graphic novel. The 120 page book is not a reprint of a multi-issue series, but one, continuous novel. There are a lot of reasons for moving to the 120 page format. The current crop of younger readers have come up on comics in the manga format, which arrives in book-sized volumes, with some series running dozens of volumes. Its far more book-store friendly and book reviewer friendly.

I don't think DC's decision to make their first release arrive in a hard cover with a $20 cover price was a great call. A $13 soft cover was probably more in line with what people might like, and I'll get to my issues with the page count as we progress.

The Creative Team

I've been a fan of artist Shane Davis since reading his run on Mystery in Space with Jim Starlin, and figured at the time I read that series that DC would eventually move him to Superman (if you'd seen his version of Captain Comet, you'd know why). While DC doesn't really have a "house style", they do tilt toward a more illustrative approach when it comes to The Man of Steel. Davis' characters are pretty great, but he also handles the details of the background with such detail its a bit mindboggling. His page layout is fairly strong if a bit unspectacular, but maybe they don't need "experimental" when it comes to introducing DC Comics to a new readership.

Writer J. Michael Straczynski is best known for either his TV series Babylon 5 or for the script for the recent Clint Eastwood movie Changeling. He's written original comics series such as Rising Stars, and I was a fan of his work on The Amazing Spider-Man. He's responsible for the much-debated "Grounded" storyline in the regular Superman comics and the alternate history Wonder Woman that led to Wonder Woman's recent adoption of pants and a jacket as part of her costume.

Clark's Much-discussed Look

Had the non-comics press not had such a bizarre reaction to seeing a 20 or 21-year old Superman in casual-wear, it never would have occurred to me to spend much time discussing "the look" of Clark Kent when he arrives in Metropolis. Yes, he's wearing a jacket. Its not even, technically, a "hoodie" (which I think is a fleece sort of thing, right?). It actually looks like a standard-issue motorcycle jacket that has a hood. As per the "hipster" look? He doesn't wear ironic facial hair, nor is his hair particularly either elaborate or Bieber-ish, but it is age appropriate for guys that age from what I see on campus these days (but makes me wonder about the shelf-life of this book). And he wears jeans, which are also drawn in the current style, but not "skinny jeans". If anything, and I think this is what non-comics press is feeling but doesn't quite know it, is that this is not the same Clark Kent-in-a-suit Superman we've seen since Action Comics #1, striding into the offices of a crusading Major Metropolitan Newspaper and confidently claiming a job. This is a 20-year-old Kent coming to the big city to figure out what he's going to do with the rest of his life. For that, jeans, an oxford shirt and a jacket is exactly appropriate.

Curiously, this Superman is intentionally portrayed of average height and lean build. Likely all the better to hide an identity with, but I think that will cause some confusion amongst folks whose vision of Superman is 6'4" and 230 lbs.

And lest there be any confusion, as I discussed in a post dated October 26th, when it comes time for action, Clark puts on "the suit". While I've seen preview images for months and knew that Davis had not made any significant changes (really, only stylistic stuff that a Superman fan would take note of), its interesting to see that DC has decided that supporting the franchise does mean a constant look and feel to their staple characters.

The Story

Straczynski sets up our Superman in a way that will pre-empt the sorts of questions that you'd guess Clark Kent would ponder before putting on the cape, and that's the goal of the story's narrative, really. The passing of his adoptive father has led to him leaving Smallville and arriving in Metropolis to figure out what he's going to do with the rest of his life. Its clear Clark felt both life and opportunity were passing him, and his arrival in Metropolis is as a grieving, lost young man rather than as a jaunty, snappily dressed reporter.

Its clear from a very early age that Clark is unique, and despite the best efforts of his parents, he's had to live on the edge of his peers so as not to reveal his true abilities his entire existence. In this story, there is no Superboy, but its also not the slow appearance of powers. This child is capable of extraordinary things from his earliest days. He knows he is likely from space, but knows nothing of the familiar Kryptonian origin.

What he will do with his innate ability in a world that has never known superheroes isn't any more obvious to Clark, just as finding oneself with powers in today's world would be almost a non-starter. The comic follows Clark as he explores professions that match his abilities from pro-athlete to scientist, seeking to provide a comfortable life for the widowed Martha Kent. Clark's interest in The Daily Planet is an interesting character reveal as reporting is a genuine challenge for his abilities. Curiously, in this version, it seems to have been the vision of Martha and Jonathan Kent to see their son use his abilities to become something the world has never before seen.

The threat that hurdles Clark into action is not the downed plane that's been a staple of the story since Byrne and Wolfman's 1980's relaunch. Instead, its the arrival of an interplanetary threat.

JMS's Daily Planet seems a bit like a ghost ship, a newspaper trying to exist in 2010, rather than the multi-media news outlet that's been envisioned of late in Earth-0. While Lois and Jim Olsen are killing themselves trying to live out a noble vision of themselves as legitimate journalists, the paper struggles to survive.

I quite like this Perry, Lois and Jim, even if I can't quite sort out why Jim needs to be age-equivalent or older than Clark in this version. Lois is what she should be: bull-headed, confident to the point of recklessness and seemingly a good few years older than Clark (I've always thought Lois needed more general life experience than Clark for her to feel genuine amazement at seeing Superman), but we only see the first seeds of that relationship in this book.

If I have a story related gripe its that the book could have expanded out another 100 pages. I know that's a lot to ask for, but in an era of decompression (which this comic gladly indulges in), it seems that choosing a page count driven by publishing needs over the needs of the story has meant that we don't get as much development of characters other than Clark as would have befitted a true "novel", and that's a lot of potential for a satisfactory story lost. Hoping a Volume 2 is enabled by sales and that's where we'll expand upon the premise isn't a great sell.

So how does it work?

Straczynski manages to achieve the goal of starting Superman from square one, an effort that hasn't really been achieved in the comics since 1938. There are no echoes or winking nods to prior incarnations, no guest appearances by other DC properties, and the story is lean and clean in its presentation. Perhaps its because Straczynski is a Superman fan, he's heard the questions that pop up around the concept of a Superman (that aren't new to Superman, I might mention, and were part of the criticism of comics in general during the Senate hearings of 50-odd years ago). In many ways, answering those questions is the secondary part of the narrative, and as a fan, I can appreciate that JMS decided to take that head on, right out of the gate.** He doesn't provide easy answers, and I suspect that additional volumes of Superman: Earth One will continue to deal with these questions.

I have some reservations about Superman revealing himself as a planetary protector rather than as how Kal-El appeared as a populist protector in 1938 or a surprising guardian angel with the rescue of a space plane in Byrne's Man of Steel. Or... even as Lois Lane's rescuer in Superman: The Movie. There's something oddly circular about JMS's plotline (which is exactly the kind of self-contained stuff Hollywood loves, btw), and its something JMS addresses in the final pages of the book, which actually gives me hope for his plans for future installments, but... I've always found it important to the character that Superman's first appearance was something very earth-bound and tied to things that the reader could immediately understand as a threat. If Superman appears mid-alien invasion... it somehow dilutes the wonder of the character and what it means for the world.

I'm just not sure that JMS and Davis ever really sell that "gee whiz" moment you need for the debut of Superman, and if that doesn't happen in this volume, the moment is passed. Frankly, it's hard to top what Waid and Yu did in Birthright, which I still remember putting a genuine smile across my face (plus, you could totally see what a Superman would see in Waid's Lois).

I'm not sure its quite fair that news outlets couldn't allow this first volume to feature a broody, moody Clark Kent. This isn't a mopey vampire Clark Kent, this is a kid with serious issues on his mind. One of the stock criticisms of Superman is that pop-culture bloggers, et al assume that Superman never went through any decision making process, that he just knew he was a good guy and what he should do, and that makes the character unbelievable. Of course we know he's going to put on the cape (this is Superman), but the how's and why's are important, but there's no feeling of pre-destination, no Jor-EL floating head to insist on the super-lifestyle, only the haunting notion that Jonathan Kent wanted his adopted son to be all he could, and that's got some narrative weight.

So is it going to take the world by storm?

At the end of the day, its far more apparent to a comics and Superman enthusiast what DC is trying to do with Superman than it is to the people DC has tried to enlist to help promote the Earth One book publishing effort. I am uncertain if a single non-comics reader will be interested in picking up the book, and I strongly suspect a lot of any success will depend on word of mouth among the teenage demographic. Another Superman book tucked in amongst the dozen others on the shelf at Barnes & Noble isn't going to be a particular stand-out, so something else will have to give.

DC has played it very close to the vest regarding how often these books will hit the rack, and, frankly, I think anything less than every 4-5 months is going to be ruled a mistake. For a kid, a year is a very long time between volumes. Frankly, I would have really liked this book at age 13 (and I like it very well at age 35). But I cannot imagine having to wait an entire year for another installment. Not when you can walk into Borders and see 30-odd volumes of Naruto or Ranma 1/2 sitting in the shelf.

Content-wise, there is plenty to like, especially if you aren't coming to the books with preconceived notions. I do think DC has a very interesting book on their hands, and who knows what the kids will find interesting? Certainly the "conflicted" Clark Kent is more in line with the sorts of characters kids get starting in their cartoons these days, and that should definitely play better than the he-man, awesome-at-everything Superman in street and super clothes that Byrne and Wolfman launched in the 1980's.***

I sincerely hope this works out and DC can continue with this line. Its an intriguing publishing strategy, and its great to see DC taking steps to meet the marketplace where it lives. Moreover, I genuinely did enjoy the comic, faults and all. Its got some issues, but many are just things I see as a longtime Superman nut. When this thing comes to paperback, I hope you get a chance to check it out.

*DC has used the concept of parallel dimensions (ie: numbered Earths) since the late 50's. "Earth One" indicates that this book takes place on a different "Earth" than the one seen in the monthly floppy comics, which is currently designated "Earth Zero".

**similarly, I think JMS's "Grounded" storyline is well intentioned in addressing questions around Superman in standard-issue Superman comics.

***I prefer a sort of wacky take on Clark Kent, myself, especially the "me? Superman?" take of George Reeves.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Happy Halloween 2010!!!

Hey Hey!!! Happy Halloween, Signal Corps!

The KareBear ordered us a lovely Halloween Bouquet before she departed for Kenya (yes, she was in Kenya fitting folks with glasses once again!). As you can see, these lovely flowers are terrifying.

Its a boooooo-quet!

We'll be handing out candy and hanging with any Corpsmen who decide to make an appearnce at The Fortress. And, yes, I'll be in my Superman duds.

I hope you find the most sincere pumpkin patch to sit in, and your bag does not fill with rocks.

And, of course, I hope that Solomon Grundy does not make an appearance at your house looking for candy.

Yes, that's Superman saving "The Dude" from Solomon Grundy

Happy Halloween!

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Signal Watch Halloween 2010 Round-Up

Hey, Signal Corps!

Hope your Hallo-weekend is going well!

don't forget to carve your pumpkins this evening!

I know there's been just a ton of stuff coming through the past week in honor of Halloween. Here's a quick round-up of links for your clicking pleasure!

In general:

I am afraid this review was overlooked as it posted at the same time as several other items. Since the initial posting, writer and editor Ryan Colucci has shown up in the comment section to describe the production process. Its a great addendum to the post.

rrrrrrrggghhhhhrrr!!!!

Jason wanted to know if he "won" the "contest" with his Halloween submission. While this wasn't a contest, I think he's going to feel a lot better if we all just smile and nod and tell him he won, so play along, won't you?

If you have some time to kill, here's an index of all entries (and, man, we got a great turn out!) for the Halloween Monster Mash.

Posts by the Signal Corps:

I can't tell you guys how much I appreciate the participation. Its made coming back to writing a whole lot of fun. After all, the best part for me is always seeing what other people have to say. When it comes to something like "monsters", seeing your thoughts on the topic is infinitely more fun than just cranking out another post about why Superman is awesome.

Have a great Halloween!

treat yourself to some spooky stuff this Halloween!

The Admiral's Favorite Monster

The Admiral was visiting and mentioned the Halloween interactivity. He doesn't usually participate in our shenanigans, but he did bring up his favorite monster. In his words: You know, when you're twelve, that seems like just about the best monster possible.

At any rate, I'd say the apple doesn't fall that far from the tree.

How does the traffic guy on the news explain this situation?

The League's Favorite/ Least Favorite Monsters Part 2

I thought I'd participate at the beginning with Part 1, and then come back here at the end for Part 2.

This has been remarkably difficult. 1) Some things I considered I had to get a gut-check from Jamie as to whether it actually qualified as a monster. 2) Naming your favorite monster can be like naming your favorite child. 3) I didn't really want to just name the same monsters that everyone else had named (when it comes to monsters, it is still true that variety is the spice of life).

Here's on to Part Deux:

3) The Mummy - Least Favorite

I admit this with some disappointment. I'd like to say that Karloff's performance in 1932's The Mummy was even the issue. Or that it was the "re-imagining" of The Mummy from 1999 was at fault.

this is not a Peter Murphy album cover

Nah. Mostly, its that the iconic 1932 movie is about 90 minutes. In the first 9 minutes its archaeologists yapping at each other, then about 1.5 minutes of really great, really scary stuff, and then about 78 minutes of people yapping again and not much happening (and Karloff in a fez). There are a lot of things I'll forgive in a genre movie, but... man, when you reanimate a mummy, you kind of raise the stakes for your movie. You cannot drop the ball once you've put the undead in motion.

Here's The Mummy springing to life and one of my favorite scenes in classic horror. You can probably skip to the 2:00 mark.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie doesn't even begin to try for this level of creepiness.

I suspect I'm the only one who has seen this movie, so: basically, after reanimating, The Mummy, Imhotep, scares the bejeezus out of a dude, then disappears for a decade only to resurface as a normal Egyptian guy that looks remarkably like Boris Karloff. Imhotep doesn't tear up Cairo. Instead, he's just sort of being pervy around a perfectly sweet girl.

"Baby, this is totally a monster movie. I think."

But the Mummy part? With the bandages, et al.? Pretty short time frame in the movie. There's just not much in the way of straight-up monstering in this flick. Sure, Karloff gets to act a bit and deliver lines, and, frankly, the story itself is fairly creative in its abuse of Egyptian culture, lore and history, and set all kinds of precedents for genre media, right up to and including 2000's-era DC Comics, but... the original movie and its monster are just sort of odd in the cold light of day.

There's just never much happening.

I'm Imhotep. I'll be your monster tonight...

That said, I still love the iconography of the movie, and I want to like horror movie mummies, but there's a reason I think they just don't pop up all that often in modern horror movies. "Slow moving guy in bandages" just doesn't read well as a good villain. Nor does "middle aged guy in a fez" read as terribly menacing. The 1999 remake featured some enhancements, making The Mummy a sort of evil wizard with all sorts of kooky magical powers and a limitless army of beetles at his command. Also: Rachel Weisz. But it also led to two bad sequels and somebody greenlighting Van Helsing.

Truly, it seems the Mummy does carry a curse.

Of the Universal Monsters, I have to rate The Mummy as sub-par. But I love that scene, and I can always hope for a new, interesting Mummy flick.

4) Ghosts/ Haunted Houses (like in 1963's The Haunting or The Shining) - favorite

I was never terrified of monsters under my bed. I did go through a brief period in second grade where I was convinced there was a headless guy with a bloody axe standing at the foot of my bed, but if I didn't come out from under the covers, he didn't know I was there.

To the point, I was mostly scared of sounds and bumps in the night that I didn't think should be there. This included this one time in 3rd grade when I was quietly playing with Star Wars figures in my room and suddenly a Batmobile rolled off the shelf and onto the floor. I still remember sprinting down the stairs.

It's not just that ghosts are things around you that you think are sharing space and you have no control over them, but that ghosts are supposedly perpetually unhappy dead people. And they are in the room with you.

I want to be clear: I'm what TAPS would call a "skeptic". Or what I would call "noises in the dark are just noises". Call me a concrete thinker, whatever.

But there's also a fight or flight mechanism built in, and its hard to ignore a billion years of evolution that tells you that when air pressure, smells or sounds suddenly change, something may be up. Folks may have once blamed things they couldn't sort out of goblins, leprechauns, and whatnot... and while a huge portion of the world no longer believes that, say, goblins run around your house when you aren't looking, we're still watching Ghost Hunters in 2010.

I get it. When Jamie and I got married we stayed at Austin's Driskill Hotel, a building rumored to have a few ghosts, I went wandering the hallway in the wee hours to go get ice. Its not too hard to see how sound traveled in that place in some deeply eerie ways (I could hear a party somewhere, as if on the floor, but I could never figure out where it was), and how people get some funky ideas, especially when they are alone.

The TV shows and movies (and almost every ghost story you stumble onto) rely on the idea of "place" as the issue at hand far more than any specific ghost/ person or personality (even The Haunting, which gets kind of specific). At the end of the day, its our knowledge that we aren't supposed to be somewhere, and the sensation that the place is pushing back. I get it. I lived in Jester Dorm for a year, and in 1994 I would have gladly told you that building was alive and breathing and trying to kill me.

While there are a dozen ghost shows on TV of people trying to prove there are ghosts (and not doing a very good job of it), I guess the question movies like The Haunting, The Shining and Poltergeist try to answer are "so what are we exactly afraid the ghosts might do if we didn't leave the room? What do we think is going to happen?"

To this day, the scariest movie I've seen was the original The Haunting.

You can't see it, but you can hear it...

In that movie, the ghosts are most definitely the very angry spirits of a miserable, gothic-style family, and they are loud and they are really, really mad.

At least in The Shining, the ghosts are willing to give Jack a drink...

Hair of the dog that bit me, Lloyd

but then the ghosts get too into it and go and pull this sort of stuff...

Hey, we were having fun here, and you ruined it.

And its exactly that. I don't know what the heck ghosts are going to do.

By the way, yeah, The Shining was the creepiest movie I'd ever seen until The Haunting. Go figure.

I suspect the "oh, I thought maybe someone touched me in the dark" thing is pretty creepy, but its our imaginations that make this stuff really work. And when you have guys like Robert Wise and Kubrick trying to freak you out? Well, it kind of ups the ante on movies like The Mummy.

that kid just loves being dead

Friday, October 29, 2010

Steven G. Harms chimes in with his monster of choice!

Hey! Steven G. Harms has popped up from the wilds of San Francisco with his own take on monsters. As always, Steven has given the topic some thought, and I think you'll enjoy.

My Least Favorite Monster

Growing up, I was not the kind of kid who easily scared from "monsters." As I reached late adolescence and began to seek out scary movies for thrills, I remember being a bit unnerved by Freddie, Jason, Chuckie, et al., but they never really kept me up at night.

"Monsters" in this "boogey man" sense weren't the thing that scared me.

What did scare me were ALIENS. Not the kind with nesting jaws that Sigourney could bitch-slap with an exoskeleton, but these seemingly peaceful faces and unclear motivations:

not Michael Jackson

The book that most directly delivered this adrenal shock was "Communion." The book's author, Whitley Strieber, tells a harrowing tale of being in his remote upstate cabin (creepy) in bed on a dark night (scarier) when he heard strange noises ("that's not a bobcat") until he saw the face of a non-human (i.e. alien) in his window!

AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHH

Aside: In a bit of quirk, Mr. Strieber refuses to call these entities "aliens" but rather prefers to denote that they are non-human and visitors. I suppose going to Streiber-con and calling the almond-eyed fellows aliens is like coming to my city of residence and calling it "'Frisco" or pronouncing that street in Austin something that is not like "Gwadaloop."

In case you don't know, "visitors" don't like hiking all the way out to our neck of the woods just to play peeping Tom to writers in cabins. Invariably they wanted to, as I recall it, communicate with Mr. Strieber and tell him about the vast world of the super-terran expanse: speak of its inhabitants, its threats (reptilian aliens), its opportunities (like Star Trek). As I recall (it's fuzzy after 22 years) there's some experimentation, some suspended animation, and some sexual manipulation (very frightening when you read this just past your decade birthday).

After reading this book I had several intense nights eyeing my window in suburban Houston. Despite the fact that it overlooked a sheer wall and was on the second story, I did not feel that spatial height or suburban sprawl were defenses against these visitors (although Win Butler of the Arcade Fire might disagree on that second point) and I had a few nervous nights pondering what I would do if I were trans-spatially peeped by these big-eyed voyeurs.

But in thinking of the Signal Watch's monster challenge, I'm intrigued by the fact that I didn't have a worst monster of the boogeyman variety. I think that's because my "monster" was nebulous in that he wasn't a proxy to a human ideal, system, or fear. Most monsters say something about the world in that they map to a world-view as a proxy. Dracula says "Beware the Hunnic bloodsman, he comes to seduce your proper (Victorian) ladies." As Lauren has reminded me often, the vampire is the polyglot, continental homme du charm, surely something to be feared. Frankenstein certainly stands in to our unnerved relationship to technology and "progress." In some way we recognize conventional "monsters" by the fact that they map to reasonable motivations that we ourselves recognize.

Communion is much more like a Lovecraft scenario: We're small, insignificant, and lucky something much larger doesn't come down an eat us. Heck, change "eat" to "drown" or "rip us apart by means of bear" and it's downright Biblical. I think this is what makes my "monster" so scary: it's a proxy to pure un-knowing, and that's very scary indeed. It doesn't map to a motivation we can readily grasp and if it were true there's nothing we could do about it.

If a vampire were on the loose, you could stake him; Frankenstein's monsters have a negative reaction to scalding oil, and even Justin Bieber will one day face the Damocles' sword of puberty. But what would we do about vastly more intelligent beings out there who can pop in as easily as a Ronco knife salesman? And what if they weren't, you know, groovy cats who wanted us to take up a vegan diet and join the commune of intelligent life?

This bifurcation was perfectly realized in the early seasons of "The X-Files." While the first season featured Boogeymen (The Jersey Devil, et al.) the addictive mythology arcs of the series focused on "others" with lack of intelligible animal motivation (e.g. black oil, the clones). Ultimately it was the questions of the realm of "pure unknowing" that carried the show through its 3rd and 4th years (and, uh, beyond, but I've blocked that out).

So, for these reasons, for being a portal to pure fear like Yog Sothoth himself, the Strieberian Grays are my least liked monster.

My Favorite Monster

As I said above, I'm not prone to being afraid of monsters. Consequently, it makes it hard to have a favorite monster. There's no evil scamp who can scare me like no other and I love (him/her) for that.

But I think I'm going to have to say it's Wolfman from "Monster Squad:" a movie I loved that I've heard tell is being re-made (more strip-mining of my childhood, hat tip Jamie Zawinski) and will, I'm sure, star Bieber and some Wil Smith-spawn. I like Wolfman not because he scared with impunity, but because of the impeccable comedic stylings that Carl Thibault expressed through him. Thibault made an "Ow my Balls!" moment work and make me laugh until I couldn't see straight.

Some members of the Corps will remember that I attended a screening of Monster Squad with JackBart this year. And, indeed, everything Steven says holds up.

NTT Gets Monstrous

Hey, ya'll! NTT has pitched in! He's got a lot to say, so let's get right to it.

Warning: This article contains massive spoilers in the descriptions for the works involved. If you see a title that you absolutely know you wish to watch or finish in the numbered headings, avert your eyes.

My Favorite Monsters (In descending order):

Putting together a list of my favorite monsters was a much harder task than I had originally presumed. It doesn’t help that I have through my life consumed a gigantic worth science fiction and fantasy, all of which are dripping with monstrosities from which to choose. I therefore culled my list down to those examples that expound or subvert my definitions of a monster. These are not the obvious choices but the ones that expanded my horizon of inhumanity to humanity. Or they’re just freaking cool. You decide after the list.

4). THE ANGELS from Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV Series, DVD and Movies)

Anyone who has watched Japanese anime knows that there is one series that has generated some of the most controversial arguments in Otaku culture and anime. This is that series.

Neon Genesis Evangelion is a work of supreme art and will be forever defined as the series that expanded anime’s reach to beyond entertainment and became an example of what can be achieved in the bounds of creative expression. It is a deconstruction of the “super-robot genre” or “mecha” of Japanese anime that subtly subverts the watcher over the course of the series from believing he is watching a rote action science fiction series to an intense examination of one’s place in humanity and the fragility of the human spirit. It’s complicated, obtuse, frustrating, subversive and then ultimately rewarding while shattering your expectations of genre fiction. Yes it is that good.

The ANGELS are gigantic, supremely powerful beings of cosmic origin that attack the Earth and humanity, notably Neo-Tokyo. Neon Genesis starts off like almost every other “super-robot” anime series where the Earth must be defended by a brooding adolescents that must pilot unique high technology robots of destructive power, the EVANGELIONS, against these beings and threats to the Earth.

Nobody move, I dropped a contact lens

The watcher is dripped subtle clues as to their existence and origin. Why are they called “Angels” and given code words like Sachiel and Ramiel, actual Biblical names? Why do the Angels manifest powers just like the EVANGELIONS piloted by the human defenders?

Eventually, it is revealed that the Angels are not working towards the Earth’s destruction but are trying to reunite and rescue Adam and Lilith, the cosmic beings held captive by NERVE, the organization that manufactured the EVANGELION robotic machinery. The conspiracy is that NERVE and other associated factions revealed in the series are using the biological contents of Adam and Lilith in a highly illegal and unethical attempt to change the course of human evolution and to subjugate humanity in their vision. And this is just at the end of the second arc of the series. AND then it just gets crazy.

Neon Genesis takes its inspiration from Judeo-Christian sources and frequently uses iconography and themes from Judaism, Christianity, Gnosticism and Kabbalism, in the series's examination of religious ideas and themes. The mysterious Angels force humanity to confront its origins and in turn reveal that it is humans that are maybe the monsters, not the Angels.

3) GLaDOS (Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System) from the videogame Portal

GLaDOS is a mysterious character in the 2007 video game Portal. She is an artificially intelligent computer system in charge of operating the Aperture Science research facility, which is the setting of Portal. She intially appears as a guide to the player in your attempt to escape the facility. Yet, as you progress through the game, GLaDOS increasingly becomes erratic, her voice modulates into something more malicious and she subtly attempts to force the player into actions that either place you in great danger or forces you to make choices that will unnerve your morality.

Equal parts HAL 2000 and the girl from the Bad Seed, GLaDOS is an imperfect creature, prone to temper tantrums, fits of jealousy, wanton destruction and manifests codependency to the player. She also is given to lying and cajoling the player into performing actions for her and then has a vindictive streak when you rebel.

I once had an angry Speak 'n Spell

Your final confrontation with GLaDOS in the game is a reflection of the entire rich game experience itself. She threatens you, tempts you like Satan, tries to bribe you and manifests clear insanity as she admits to ruthlessly killing all others in the facility before you. Oh and her morality module is missing so she’s a sociopath, awkward! GLaDOS then finally attempts to kill you all the while making jokes and justifying her actions in the name of “Science!” Playing the game and your interaction with GLaDOS is akin to playing the movie the Cube or is like being a mouse in a human maze. You are manipulated and taunted by a robotic, cunning entity that talks like mild mannered nurse with the soul of Hannibal Lecter. Your final confrontation with her is a meeting of powerful anger and vengeance. One of the best characters ever, GLaDOS is truly monstrous.

Youtube LINK

2) PRISCILLA OF THE YOMA

Priscilla is the main antagonist in the great anime series Claymore, whose main character Clare attempts to confront. The setting of the anime is that demons, termed as Yoma, exist with human beings and use humanity as their prey. Yoma have greater strength, speed, and durability compared to humans. The Claymores are created by the “Organization” to fight the Yoma and protect humanity. By implanting Yoma essence into humans, they are able to create a hybrid that is faster than the source Yoma with their original human combat training and intelligence. Clare, now a fully-trained Claymore and the protagonist, has a tragic and tortured history with Priscilla since her childhood that drives the narrative of the story to its mournful conclusion.

Priscilla is one of the most powerful of the Yoma; she behaves as almost a demi-god in the series utterly devoid of empathy and a whirlwind of violence. She is so self-absorbed in her alien mind that she simply doesn’t even know what her actions are doing personally to Clare and her world. Humanity is a speck in her eye as she wreaks tragedy wherever she steps.

Yes, I do have an enormous David Bowie collection. Why?

The end confrontation between Clare and Priscilla is steeped in nuance and suspense as each character takes her own haunted steps down their spiraling intertwined destiny.

1) GODZILLA, KING OF MONSTERS

RRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAARRRGGGGHHH!!!!!!!

What can be said that has not been said? Godzilla is the best and ultimate monster. Q.E.D.

As a latch-key kid, I remember walking home every day from school and WFAA-TV in Dallas Fort Worth would show “monster week” specials in the afternoon matinee. Here, I was exposed the greatness that is Godzilla, Mecha-Godzilla and King Ghidorah. I was hooked. Godzilla was the god of destruction, equal parts a monster to humanity’s nuclear science hubris and the defender of the Earth. I always thought it was incredibly humorous that Godzilla gets to wreck Tokyo but if aliens tried to invade the Earth, by golly Godzilla wasn’t going to let that happen!!

Although he has been misinterpreted many times, the essence of Godzilla is as intriguing and cool as ever; he is a force of wrath, a metaphor for humanity’s global ambitions and sin, and the vengeance of nature. Most of all, he is the KING OF MONSTERS.

My Least Favorite Monster:

1) EDWARD CULLEN, from the series Twilight Saga

So simmeringly sexy...

Let me see…Bella is seventeen at the beginning of Twilight. Edward is at least one hundred years old, yet he stalks and seduces Bella, isolates her from her family and threatens her with violence. In the name of love. Nevermind the fact that his character is a borrowed amalgamation of Angel from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and White Wolf’s Vampire the Masquerade role-playing game. His creation and Twilight is a monstrosity.

Witches, man: JAL talks monsters

I've known JAL a long, long time. I don't know exactly when we started hanging about, but I do remember he had a lot of pictures clipped from Fangoria in his locker in middle school. I can also say our first collaboration was a 9th grade video for English class wherein we discussed different kinds of horror movie characters. I have no idea what the assignment was supposed to be about, but I do know we called it "Psychobabble".

Anyway, dude knows his scary movies. He was the first one to show me Halloween (I could not believe Jamie Lee Curtis had played a high schooler. For some reason, that was mindboggling.). In college, we saw movies together like Dead Alive and Lynch flicks. So I am, of course, thrilled that he participated. The boy knows scary flicks.

Witches - I don't think it gets any scarier. I don't like them one bit, with their incantations and eyes of newt. I think what gets me the most is that the result of their ill deeds always seems to be very much linked to the visceral. Witches seem to revel in pain, be it vomiting cherry pits or finding cameraman's teeth in a bag. No one ever when quickly under the spell of a witch and what they're doing to you is seems to come from the darker corners of imagination.

Speaking of corners, they make you to things like this, which for my buck, is one of the most unnerving images committed to film.