Film. Comics. Sci-Fi. Superheroes. Pulp. Noir. History. Superman. 20th Century Archaeology.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Whatever Happened to The Girl in the Stop Sign Shorts?
On Wednesday night I posted a comment to facebook about how we don't spend enough time celebrating the dancer in the trademark "Stop Sign" shorts from the Young MC video for "Bust a Move". I was about 14 when this song was big, and I knew enough then to know that the bassist in the video was Flea from the California-based Red Hot Chili Peppers (who might be a thing one day).
The video is below. You can find the dancer in question around the 1:05 mark.
Well, in 1989-ish, you couldn't not hear this song, and from 1989 until the end of time, you couldn't not like the song. It's a staple of Gen X music consumption that was sort of universally beloved, kind of like the work of Tone Loc (also written by Young MC) and "The Humpty Dance" by Digital Underground.
It was a different time.
Lets just say that the performer left an impression, enough so that in 2013, if you say "Stop Sign Shorts", I know exactly what you're talking about.
But who was the woman behind the shorts? (so to speak)
Turns out her name is Cindyana Santangelo. This is some minor league Google search wizardry, and you can thank me later.
What I didn't know is that she's also the voice from the beginning of the 1990 Jane's Addiction album, Ritual de lo Habitual. And if you were a sulky kid in 1990, chances are, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Just watch the first part of the video and it'll come back to you here 23 years on.
Well, I assure you that video seemed relevant at the time.
LA must have been a bit smaller of a town than I realized back then, what with all the Jane's Addiction/ Chili Peppers/ Young MC cross-pollination going on. Oddly, I feel less awkward watching a Young MC video today than I do remembering being really, really into Jane's Addiction from about 1989-1993.
I'm shocked to learn that the two were so close together as, in my mind, they seem incredibly separated, but I'd moved and made the passage to being a bit older and more sullen by the time I was anticipating new Jane's Addiction albums, I guess. But, dang, we all still loved Young MC! Everyone find a way to send Young MC a dollar on paypal.
Anyway, point is: After imprinting herself heavily upon my malleable 14 year old psyche, I now know who this person is (Cindyana Santangelo!) and a wee bit about her. Because she's got a website. She's an actress!
Look here.
She's apparently been on CSI and appeared on a reality show as a client on Million Dollar Listing and was on a show that didn't get picked up about Housewives of Malibu.
She also appears to run something called "Mermaid Cove Sober Living" in Malibu.
So, wherever you are Cindyana, we salute you.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Your Questions Answered: A Peppering of Questions
My wife asks:
Gorilla vs. Robot. Who wins? (your choice as to how literally you'd like to interpret this question)
bonus question: Lucy vs. Scout. Who wins?
Question # 1: We do.
Question # 2: Nobody.
JimD asks:
1. Supes v. Alistair? Who wins?
2. Ten years ago, The League began this blogging thing. If we could transport 2003 League to 2013, what would he say about the world he surveys here?
3. Compare the child reader of comic books in 1986 (who could go to 711 and purchase a new issue) with his 2013 counterpart. What changed, and why?
4. Can we trust those youths who have no meaningful memories of the 1990's?
5. What does it all mean?
Gorilla vs. Robot. Who wins? (your choice as to how literally you'd like to interpret this question)
bonus question: Lucy vs. Scout. Who wins?
Question # 1: We do.
Question # 2: Nobody.
JimD asks:
1. Supes v. Alistair? Who wins?
2. Ten years ago, The League began this blogging thing. If we could transport 2003 League to 2013, what would he say about the world he surveys here?
3. Compare the child reader of comic books in 1986 (who could go to 711 and purchase a new issue) with his 2013 counterpart. What changed, and why?
4. Can we trust those youths who have no meaningful memories of the 1990's?
5. What does it all mean?
Your Questions Answered: What if I Had Creative Control of Superman?
Jake asks:
Since this is Superman heavy blog, if you were the publisher or editor in chief over at DC, or even just a writer on a Superman title, what would you do, creatively, with Superman? Assuming you could flush the whole reboot, what would you do (or not do) with the character? Just focus on good, solid storytelling? Make Superman more socially/politically conscious? Introduce him to a wider audience, i.e. kids, women, etc.?
Believe it or not, this isn't something I think about all that much, and maybe that's wrong-headed, but I'm never comfortable with reviews of something that start with "what they should have done was..." or "what they should really do". It seems like an endgame with little satisfaction.
Usually the question I find myself asking is: why didn't that work?
But rather than dodge the question, let me give it a whirl.
1. Re-Establish a Supporting Cast of Humans
If you've been picking up Superman comics for a while, or, in fact, most superhero comics of the last decade, one of the primary problems I detect is that there is no status quo. There's no "home base" for the characters to point to and have in mind as they go about their adventures. Spider-Man lost his with the dissolution of the Mary Jane marriage, Batman is almost never seen as billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne with his youthful ward, and the only writer who seemed to want to put Clark Kent in the Daily Planet for more than two panels every six issues was Geoff Johns, who left the book before his creative imprint could really take hold.
Since this is Superman heavy blog, if you were the publisher or editor in chief over at DC, or even just a writer on a Superman title, what would you do, creatively, with Superman? Assuming you could flush the whole reboot, what would you do (or not do) with the character? Just focus on good, solid storytelling? Make Superman more socially/politically conscious? Introduce him to a wider audience, i.e. kids, women, etc.?
Believe it or not, this isn't something I think about all that much, and maybe that's wrong-headed, but I'm never comfortable with reviews of something that start with "what they should have done was..." or "what they should really do". It seems like an endgame with little satisfaction.
Usually the question I find myself asking is: why didn't that work?
But rather than dodge the question, let me give it a whirl.
1. Re-Establish a Supporting Cast of Humans
If you've been picking up Superman comics for a while, or, in fact, most superhero comics of the last decade, one of the primary problems I detect is that there is no status quo. There's no "home base" for the characters to point to and have in mind as they go about their adventures. Spider-Man lost his with the dissolution of the Mary Jane marriage, Batman is almost never seen as billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne with his youthful ward, and the only writer who seemed to want to put Clark Kent in the Daily Planet for more than two panels every six issues was Geoff Johns, who left the book before his creative imprint could really take hold.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I am in the awkward position of admitting I liked the 2012 film "Battleship"
So, Jamie's dad had more than once recommended me the 2012 film, Battleship, which he'd seen in the theater. I had heard some atrocious things online, but Dick was the only person I knew who had actually seen the movie.
A good, brainless movie can really pass the time on the elliptical, so I threw on Battleship, directed by the notable director and producer Peter Berg of Friday Night Lights fame, and starring Taylor Kitsch of FNL fame as well.
If you have high hopes for a groundbreaking film based on a board game, which throws up a title screen that this is a Hasbro movie, and which stunt casts Rihanna, well, you may come away disappointed.
I am not averse to, and am actually a fan of, what my brother calls "hardware porn". Movies that feature lots of military vehicles, space ships, cannons, what have you... and in this vein, I am quite excited for Pacific Rim. It's worth noting that Battleship is probably intended for middle school boys, from the chaste romantic story to the color-by-numbers scrappy-rebel-learns-honor-in-the-military plot. And, also, the complete fetishization of naval combat against alien aggressors.
A good, brainless movie can really pass the time on the elliptical, so I threw on Battleship, directed by the notable director and producer Peter Berg of Friday Night Lights fame, and starring Taylor Kitsch of FNL fame as well.
If you have high hopes for a groundbreaking film based on a board game, which throws up a title screen that this is a Hasbro movie, and which stunt casts Rihanna, well, you may come away disappointed.
I am not averse to, and am actually a fan of, what my brother calls "hardware porn". Movies that feature lots of military vehicles, space ships, cannons, what have you... and in this vein, I am quite excited for Pacific Rim. It's worth noting that Battleship is probably intended for middle school boys, from the chaste romantic story to the color-by-numbers scrappy-rebel-learns-honor-in-the-military plot. And, also, the complete fetishization of naval combat against alien aggressors.
Remembering Patsy Cline on the 50th Anniversary of her Passing
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the passing of Ms. Patsy Cline.
New Series coming: Superman Unchained! (nice title, DC...)
Sigh.
I wonder if DC even realizes that they're also publishing a comic of Django Unchained at the moment. And that comic's title has a meaning to it that's a lot less steeped in DC's insecurities about their flagship character.
This, from an article at Newsarama:
You can more or less read that as "we're really uncomfortable with Superman as a character who isn't as straightforward as Batman, and as guys who grew up thinking Batman rules and Superman drools, we're not sure what a Superman comic looks like, and we really aren't going to do any research to find out. But we have a corporate imperative to make Superman work in the comics, so we're doing what everyone else has said they're doing since Mike Carlin left the editor's post."
I'm not sure the comic will be bad, necessarily, but the one drumbeat DC has had around Superman for at least 13 years has been "we think we know Superman, but we're going to try something new for a new group of readers".
At this point, the only thing left new to try is to actually go back to whatever that model was that they think Superman has been living by until the new writer (who has never read Superman before) took the paycheck. Only, the character hasn't had an opportunity for 13 years of comics to even have a status quo. He's been rebooted five times in the past 8 years or so, and I think only writer Geoff Johns managed to get Clark Kent in a Daily Planet newsroom with Perry in more than one issue of his run.
Frankly, I'm tired of DC's shame of their own very lucrative bit of IP. Nobody buying those t-shirts or stickers for their cars (all of which bring in way, way more than this comic ever will) are looking for a new, edgy Superman. Dumping 75 years of the character doesn't automatically equate to speaking to ANYONE. In fact, I'd argue that a lot of people would like to pick up a Superman comic and see what they're expecting as per Superman's status quo, not whatever the writer of the week and Jim Lee (no master storyteller, he) have as a way of reimagining the character.
DC, you are the disappointing sibling who we all think has the tools to get his life together, but who keeps somehow making bad decisions that he can only see as strokes of bad luck. We're getting tired of bailing you out so you can keep the electricity on in the apartment you can't afford.
I wonder if DC even realizes that they're also publishing a comic of Django Unchained at the moment. And that comic's title has a meaning to it that's a lot less steeped in DC's insecurities about their flagship character.
This, from an article at Newsarama:
"We're all fans and we've all known this character for a long time," Jim Lee tells USA Today. "You have to fight your natural tendency to do what you know or what you've always thought the character to be.
"We've been pushing the creators to not be beholden to the past conceits and understandings of Superman. So we will speak to a new generation of readers."
You can more or less read that as "we're really uncomfortable with Superman as a character who isn't as straightforward as Batman, and as guys who grew up thinking Batman rules and Superman drools, we're not sure what a Superman comic looks like, and we really aren't going to do any research to find out. But we have a corporate imperative to make Superman work in the comics, so we're doing what everyone else has said they're doing since Mike Carlin left the editor's post."
I'm not sure the comic will be bad, necessarily, but the one drumbeat DC has had around Superman for at least 13 years has been "we think we know Superman, but we're going to try something new for a new group of readers".
At this point, the only thing left new to try is to actually go back to whatever that model was that they think Superman has been living by until the new writer (who has never read Superman before) took the paycheck. Only, the character hasn't had an opportunity for 13 years of comics to even have a status quo. He's been rebooted five times in the past 8 years or so, and I think only writer Geoff Johns managed to get Clark Kent in a Daily Planet newsroom with Perry in more than one issue of his run.
Frankly, I'm tired of DC's shame of their own very lucrative bit of IP. Nobody buying those t-shirts or stickers for their cars (all of which bring in way, way more than this comic ever will) are looking for a new, edgy Superman. Dumping 75 years of the character doesn't automatically equate to speaking to ANYONE. In fact, I'd argue that a lot of people would like to pick up a Superman comic and see what they're expecting as per Superman's status quo, not whatever the writer of the week and Jim Lee (no master storyteller, he) have as a way of reimagining the character.
DC, you are the disappointing sibling who we all think has the tools to get his life together, but who keeps somehow making bad decisions that he can only see as strokes of bad luck. We're getting tired of bailing you out so you can keep the electricity on in the apartment you can't afford.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Your Questions Answered: Why do you hate Rutherford B. Hayes?
Anonymous asks:
Why do you hate Rutherford B. Hayes?
I actually tried to find a reason to hate Rutherford B. Hayes, but reading his bio, it's kind of hard to find much fault with the guy. He inherited a tough spot in the wake of the panic of 1873 and managed to forge a new path for currency, worked to amicably end Reconstruction and restore full independence to the South, did good deeds in Latin America, took no BS from Mexican bandits and handled the railroad worker's strike with more humility than Reagan and the mess with the air traffic controllers.
The 1870's are a somewhat unsexy period in American history, so I had to look up quite a bit on Hayes, but in my estimation, aside from the extremely dicey way in which he took office, he seems all right.
So, the answer is: I DO NOT HATE RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
In fact, I find quite a bit to admire in his biography.
I'm not sure I'm ready to get on the Rutherford B. Hayes bandwagon, like you people, but as a man of his time, he seems pretty remarkable. Unfortunately, he falls between Lincoln and Roosevelt, in that era of American history that just doesn't get much press. I think that's all on me to better understand, and maybe that's worth doing sometime.
Why do you hate Rutherford B. Hayes?
I actually tried to find a reason to hate Rutherford B. Hayes, but reading his bio, it's kind of hard to find much fault with the guy. He inherited a tough spot in the wake of the panic of 1873 and managed to forge a new path for currency, worked to amicably end Reconstruction and restore full independence to the South, did good deeds in Latin America, took no BS from Mexican bandits and handled the railroad worker's strike with more humility than Reagan and the mess with the air traffic controllers.
The 1870's are a somewhat unsexy period in American history, so I had to look up quite a bit on Hayes, but in my estimation, aside from the extremely dicey way in which he took office, he seems all right.
So, the answer is: I DO NOT HATE RUTHERFORD B. HAYES
In fact, I find quite a bit to admire in his biography.
I'm not sure I'm ready to get on the Rutherford B. Hayes bandwagon, like you people, but as a man of his time, he seems pretty remarkable. Unfortunately, he falls between Lincoln and Roosevelt, in that era of American history that just doesn't get much press. I think that's all on me to better understand, and maybe that's worth doing sometime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)