Attrition rates for online courses are fairly high. In the years I worked in distance education and eLearning, we always knew that external incentives were a huge reason anyone signed up for a masters program online and why they would complete the program. We didn't keep in-house stats when I was working at UT or ASU, as many students blended their learning between on-campus and online, but I believe in our cohort of 15 students to begin a unique program we designed, we only lost 3 of the 15 or so who started.
Massive Open Online Courses have an estimated retention rate of about 10%.
Depending on who you talk to, this is either a problem or it is nothing to worry about. What's interesting is hearing the various excuses and pointing of fingers I've seen lobbed in my personal experience over the years - from "it doesn't matter that the students leave in droves, they came in to get what they needed and left" to "if the faculty can't hold the students' attention, that's really saying something about the faculty".
What nobody is apparently willing to say is that maybe we already have ample evidence that this isn't working as originally intended. Moving the posts in the first quarter of the game turns it into Arena Football, it doesn't improve the NFL.
Look, if you have a TV show and if by week 10, you've lost 80 - 90% of your audience, your show is getting canceled. It doesn't really matter how great of a debut you had. If your whole network loses 80-90% of every program it runs, everyone is getting fired and you're shutting down. If you had a play, and by the time you closed the final curtain your formerly sold out house was left with 10% of the attendees wanly applauding, you'd figure maybe the place was on fire and nobody had told the cast and crew.
I find the idea that students are dipping into classes, getting what they need, and then exiting a naive and groundless assumption and, frankly, the sort of useless hand-waving that folks in higher ed are good at. I suspect they know better, but it's something to say until they put together some actual data on what's happening.
Film. Comics. Sci-Fi. Superheroes. Pulp. Noir. History. Superman. 20th Century Archaeology.
Showing posts with label comics culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comics culture. Show all posts
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
Massive Open Online Course, Week 3
Well.
This week was about how making comics is a collaborative process, and that mainstream comics, especially superhero comics, are rarely the work of a single person. There's a writer, artist, editor, etc... associated with every comic that hits the stand.
The process includes many voices, from the writer sitting at their keyboard, to publishers wanting to push circulation, to editors trying to meet deadlines, to artists who seem to reference Maxim photo-spreads all too often.
The comics we were assigned to read included several incarnations of the Marvel "nobody's favorite" candidate, Carol Danvers, aka: Ms. Marvel, aka: Nova, aka: Ms. Marvel, aka: Captain Marvel. I don't dislike Carol Danvers, but I also don't think about the character any more than I think about The Rhino or Arcade or Angle Man or something.
I didn't read the comics.
I was curious about the instructor's take on the production side of comics and how it would affect the narrative, and I thought the take was interesting, but... not what I expected. I had expected discussion of how artists can put their own spin on a script, how editors act as mediators working from their own opinions and company dictates, how design of characters can be managed and scrutinized at a very high corporate level, and that intention of writers can be changed by the time a comic is actually produced. And the fact that artists continually include shots of Wonder Woman's barely-covered butt from a low angle in all-too many Justice League group scenes.
This week was about how making comics is a collaborative process, and that mainstream comics, especially superhero comics, are rarely the work of a single person. There's a writer, artist, editor, etc... associated with every comic that hits the stand.
The process includes many voices, from the writer sitting at their keyboard, to publishers wanting to push circulation, to editors trying to meet deadlines, to artists who seem to reference Maxim photo-spreads all too often.
The comics we were assigned to read included several incarnations of the Marvel "nobody's favorite" candidate, Carol Danvers, aka: Ms. Marvel, aka: Nova, aka: Ms. Marvel, aka: Captain Marvel. I don't dislike Carol Danvers, but I also don't think about the character any more than I think about The Rhino or Arcade or Angle Man or something.
I didn't read the comics.
I was curious about the instructor's take on the production side of comics and how it would affect the narrative, and I thought the take was interesting, but... not what I expected. I had expected discussion of how artists can put their own spin on a script, how editors act as mediators working from their own opinions and company dictates, how design of characters can be managed and scrutinized at a very high corporate level, and that intention of writers can be changed by the time a comic is actually produced. And the fact that artists continually include shots of Wonder Woman's barely-covered butt from a low angle in all-too many Justice League group scenes.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
On the Event of Superman's 75th Anniversary
Today is, reportedly, the 75th anniversary of the debut of Action Comics #1. 75 years ago, Superman appeared on the cover of a comic book and, within a couple of months, had already risen to pop-culture superstardom. By World War II, he had become a staple of Americana and - while Superman didn't invent the idea of the costumed hero, the science-fiction hero, or the altruistic do-gooder, he managed to put a distinct stamp on all of those ideas in one place - and has been endlessly imitated ever since.
In his first issue, all we knew was that Superman was a refugee of a doomed planet who arrived here as a baby. There was no Jonathan and Martha Kent. No Jor-El or Lara. No Daily Planet (Clark landed a job at the Daily Star working for "Editor", I believe). Just Lois, Clark, Superman and a whole lot of action. And, man, Lois is a tough dame in that first issue. No wonder Superman fell hard for her.
There are too many good books out there that talk about Superman's origins as a product of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster for me to try to recreate the story here. But they were down on their luck 20-somethings (not the teen-agers that are described to have just had Superman pop into their heads one night) when they sold the property to a struggling publisher who was soon outmaneuvered by some smooth operators. I don't want to dwell too much on the fate of Siegel and Shuster, that's been fought out in the courts for five decades. But their creation was not just one of the moment, but one of the past, the present and a limitless future, the likes of which we'd only ever seen in a few American fictional characters, from Ichabod Crane to Huckleberry Finn. And this one arrived in a splash of color, crude drawings and an insurmountable flash of power.
Superman is an amalgamation of a dozen or so pulp literature ideas, some stolen outright from big names like Doc Savage, some from lesser known sources like the novel Gladiator. Many find biblical aspects in his origins or in the perceived saintly selflessness of his actions (an interesting idea given Superman's varying presentations over the years).
I would argue that most people* don't really know anything about Superman, but everyone believes they know all you need to know. A lot of folks can dismiss what they don't know as unimportant, thanks to the character's comic book roots, while ignoring the fact that Superman has been a huge part of every major media revolution. You see people ascribe characteristics and virtues to the character based on a glance and some half-remembered bits from a movie they haven't seen in decades. Others demonize those same virtues as old fashioned or out of touch, without ever deconstructing what it means to declare a desire for a more just world, to protect those who can't protect themselves as irrelevant in the modern context.
In his first issue, all we knew was that Superman was a refugee of a doomed planet who arrived here as a baby. There was no Jonathan and Martha Kent. No Jor-El or Lara. No Daily Planet (Clark landed a job at the Daily Star working for "Editor", I believe). Just Lois, Clark, Superman and a whole lot of action. And, man, Lois is a tough dame in that first issue. No wonder Superman fell hard for her.
There are too many good books out there that talk about Superman's origins as a product of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster for me to try to recreate the story here. But they were down on their luck 20-somethings (not the teen-agers that are described to have just had Superman pop into their heads one night) when they sold the property to a struggling publisher who was soon outmaneuvered by some smooth operators. I don't want to dwell too much on the fate of Siegel and Shuster, that's been fought out in the courts for five decades. But their creation was not just one of the moment, but one of the past, the present and a limitless future, the likes of which we'd only ever seen in a few American fictional characters, from Ichabod Crane to Huckleberry Finn. And this one arrived in a splash of color, crude drawings and an insurmountable flash of power.
Superman is an amalgamation of a dozen or so pulp literature ideas, some stolen outright from big names like Doc Savage, some from lesser known sources like the novel Gladiator. Many find biblical aspects in his origins or in the perceived saintly selflessness of his actions (an interesting idea given Superman's varying presentations over the years).
I would argue that most people* don't really know anything about Superman, but everyone believes they know all you need to know. A lot of folks can dismiss what they don't know as unimportant, thanks to the character's comic book roots, while ignoring the fact that Superman has been a huge part of every major media revolution. You see people ascribe characteristics and virtues to the character based on a glance and some half-remembered bits from a movie they haven't seen in decades. Others demonize those same virtues as old fashioned or out of touch, without ever deconstructing what it means to declare a desire for a more just world, to protect those who can't protect themselves as irrelevant in the modern context.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Course Update: Week 2 of Gender Through Comics Books
Update on 09/30/2021 - It's been 8 years since this post, and I do not know why it's getting traction now. For some reason, this post is getting a lot of hits all of a sudden.
I will say the following - in re-reading my comments I made at the time, I don't necessarily agree with these points exactly the same way now as I saw the issues then. I think I'm now much more able to just let a question hang, or a problem exist without a specific answer. Sometimes the challenge is the thing. I don't think I demand a different model now the way I did then, and am able to better just handle an open question.
Maybe it's growth or my eyes being slightly more open, or I'm older and have had the past 8 years to ponder these same questions a whole lot more as the world has allowed more voices.
Academia and criticism are hard. There's a reason not everyone gets to do it. And the topics in the class were challenging in a very positive way. I believe internalizing some of this course was very good for me, indeed. The methods and whatnot are up for discussion or critique, and they should be. But just know that it was a good experience and I'm glad I was asked to review my own thinking in many ways by the course.
Original Post:
As has often been my experience with a lot of course reading in theory classes, the full articles are going to start feeling repetitive. We've been presented the premise, and everything else is going to be supporting evidence - and this is why I was not a good student as an undergrad or, especially, during my glorious short, flamed-out career of not finishing grad school.
In this course, the basic concept is that "sex" is a biological designation and "gender" is a construct of personal and cultural choices. I believe this makes sense in context, and the readings made the concept pretty clear in Week 1. In Week 2, the one article we were asked to check out gave some more evidence. That's cool. But by the time we get to Week 3...
In this course, the basic concept is that "sex" is a biological designation and "gender" is a construct of personal and cultural choices. I believe this makes sense in context, and the readings made the concept pretty clear in Week 1. In Week 2, the one article we were asked to check out gave some more evidence. That's cool. But by the time we get to Week 3...
This week was a mix of reading Superman and putting some coin in Mark Waid's pocket by selling a lot of copies of Superman: Birthright. The task was to consider the construction of gender as it's played out less by instinct and more as part of a perception of roles of male, female and otherwise and how that's demonstrated by reading Birthright as well as Action Comics #1, an issue of Superman from 1960, and consider the ways gender is portrayed across 75 years.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
So, That Online Course I'm Taking - Gender Through Comic Books
Just as an FYI - I intentionally wrote my piece on portrayals in women in comics earlier this week before getting into the reading for the course I'm taking.
The course is: Gender Through Comics Books at Canvas.net and originating at Ball State.
Anyway, I work in higher education, currently in libraries, but from 1997-2006 I worked in Distance Education at large public research universities, UT Austin and Arizona State University. From 2007-2008, I worked at a smaller eLearning company here in Austin that developed mostly corporate training materials with the occasional foray into creating materials for educators.
When I left university distance learning, it wasn't because I was tired of the field. I thought eLearning was in its toddler-hood, but we were taking a leap to return from Arizona to Austin, and there weren't/ aren't that many positions out there for this, even with my sterling credentials. Working in a media shop developing stuff for corporations was a great experience in many ways, and I learned a tremendous amount I doubt I would have gained at The Academy (as we like to say when we're wearing tweed and drinking hot tea from small cups).
Back in 1999 or so, I remember watching a clip from 60 Minutes on The Future of Education. At the time, University of Phoenix was a rising star and talking heads were proclaiming that UofP had cracked the code. In a few years we'd all be taking our courses through them, and there was no point in resisting progress. They predicted (and were clearly relishing the term way, way too much) the concept of "rock star faculty", folks who would be THE faculty voice for a generation talking about America History 101, etc... Nobody was sure how it would work, but they were certain it was just around the corner.
It didn't happen.
The course is: Gender Through Comics Books at Canvas.net and originating at Ball State.
Anyway, I work in higher education, currently in libraries, but from 1997-2006 I worked in Distance Education at large public research universities, UT Austin and Arizona State University. From 2007-2008, I worked at a smaller eLearning company here in Austin that developed mostly corporate training materials with the occasional foray into creating materials for educators.
When I left university distance learning, it wasn't because I was tired of the field. I thought eLearning was in its toddler-hood, but we were taking a leap to return from Arizona to Austin, and there weren't/ aren't that many positions out there for this, even with my sterling credentials. Working in a media shop developing stuff for corporations was a great experience in many ways, and I learned a tremendous amount I doubt I would have gained at The Academy (as we like to say when we're wearing tweed and drinking hot tea from small cups).
Back in 1999 or so, I remember watching a clip from 60 Minutes on The Future of Education. At the time, University of Phoenix was a rising star and talking heads were proclaiming that UofP had cracked the code. In a few years we'd all be taking our courses through them, and there was no point in resisting progress. They predicted (and were clearly relishing the term way, way too much) the concept of "rock star faculty", folks who would be THE faculty voice for a generation talking about America History 101, etc... Nobody was sure how it would work, but they were certain it was just around the corner.
It didn't happen.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Oh, Did You Just Figure Out That Maybe Disney Buying Star Wars Means Everything You Liked About Star Wars is Going to Getting Demolished?
Shoemaker sent me this article from i09. It's basically about how, the afterglow of Disney's purchase of Star Wars and the sudden lay-offs, etc... start to settle in, someone realized that Disney probably doesn't give two Jawa farts about the Star Wars Expanded Universe.
As I said in my email response to Shoemaker: no kidding
Even when the first Expanded Universe stuff hit the shelf when I was in high school, I didn't read it. I guess by the time those books arrived, I was pretty well aware that studio executives weren't going to care that some sci-fi authors wanted to write Star Wars books when it came time to make new movies, and those studio execs were going to include George Lucas and his associates. When movies that moved past the conclusion of Return of the Jedi did happen, they'd be so much bigger than a series of fantasy books, that the books would just sort of disappear into the ether as non-canonical, leaving a herd of nerds wondering how to reconcile the irreconcilable, narratively speaking, in their minds.
Of course, for two decades we had Uncle George backing up the books - which I doubted he ever read, but he knew that without his stamp, those books wouldn't be taken seriously nor purchased by Star Wars fans. And that meant less dough, so best to just approve them and worry on it later.
As I said in my email response to Shoemaker: no kidding
 |
| once again, your avatar for what will happen to everything you once loved |
Even when the first Expanded Universe stuff hit the shelf when I was in high school, I didn't read it. I guess by the time those books arrived, I was pretty well aware that studio executives weren't going to care that some sci-fi authors wanted to write Star Wars books when it came time to make new movies, and those studio execs were going to include George Lucas and his associates. When movies that moved past the conclusion of Return of the Jedi did happen, they'd be so much bigger than a series of fantasy books, that the books would just sort of disappear into the ether as non-canonical, leaving a herd of nerds wondering how to reconcile the irreconcilable, narratively speaking, in their minds.
Of course, for two decades we had Uncle George backing up the books - which I doubted he ever read, but he knew that without his stamp, those books wouldn't be taken seriously nor purchased by Star Wars fans. And that meant less dough, so best to just approve them and worry on it later.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Put some clothes on: The complications of female superhero costumes
One of our own posted a link to Twitter to a page showing redesigns of popular female characters in comics (in particular, DC Comics characters) in outfits that are not the white one-piece peek-a-book of Power Girl or the familiar star spangled corset and shorts of the Wonder Woman costume.
I'll take a poke at the Power Girl costume because the original is one of the most discussed costumes in comics and, short of Vampira, the one most likely to raise questions and hackles.
In comparison to Power Girl's traditional costume, he redesign certainly seems less aimed at appealing to the male gaze and creating a look that still honors the original. It appears functional and... well, I think this design is actually pretty bad, but we can talk about that later.
I'll take a poke at the Power Girl costume because the original is one of the most discussed costumes in comics and, short of Vampira, the one most likely to raise questions and hackles.
 |
| example of redesign |
 |
| and original formula |
In comparison to Power Girl's traditional costume, he redesign certainly seems less aimed at appealing to the male gaze and creating a look that still honors the original. It appears functional and... well, I think this design is actually pretty bad, but we can talk about that later.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's Superman: The Musical!
Holy cow.
I've known about It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman! for around 10-12 years, but I had never seen it in any form. Originally produced as a campy Broadway spectacular in 1966 (it debuted the same year as the Adam West TV show), the show ran for about four months before closing. I think that, these days, the show has mostly been forgotten.
In 1975, because nobody was paying attention, ABC broadcast a version of the musical. Reportedly the program aired a single time, fairly late at night and in a dead zone where networks were often trying to figure out how to fill the airwaves*. To the best of my knowledge, there is no legally obtainable copy of the broadcast available. For Superman fans, the musical is about as close to an intentionally obscure artifact as I can think of to that king of pop cultural ephemera, the Star Wars Holiday Special. Superman fans have all seen clips or stills, but we haven't seen the actual full program.
This week, I did obtain a copy. We'll keep it a little shrouded in mystery, but my source knows who he is, and knows how awesome he or she is. As the existence of this video may not be entirely on the up and up (and so offended am I that I have immediately burned the DVD so that NONE may find yourself tainted by the sheer audacity of it's illegality), I'm keeping the gifter's name out of it.
But, thanks, man. That was SUPER of you!**
The video itself is a transfer from tape. Tape from 1975. So, it's got some rough edges and the sound is occasionally wobbly because: aging analog media. It's not the drug-fueled nightmare that the Star Wars Holiday Special devolves into within minutes of the opening, and, frankly, the Star Wars Special had about 20 times the budget of this show. It's also an oddball bit of nerd media, and would fit nicely on your shelf next to the shelved low-budget, very 90's Justice League pilot, the Legends of the Superheroes, the Captain America TV movies, etc... etc... But the musical is pure hammy schmaltz, but intentionally so, and it's oddly charming, even if it's not much of a musical.
I've known about It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman! for around 10-12 years, but I had never seen it in any form. Originally produced as a campy Broadway spectacular in 1966 (it debuted the same year as the Adam West TV show), the show ran for about four months before closing. I think that, these days, the show has mostly been forgotten.
In 1975, because nobody was paying attention, ABC broadcast a version of the musical. Reportedly the program aired a single time, fairly late at night and in a dead zone where networks were often trying to figure out how to fill the airwaves*. To the best of my knowledge, there is no legally obtainable copy of the broadcast available. For Superman fans, the musical is about as close to an intentionally obscure artifact as I can think of to that king of pop cultural ephemera, the Star Wars Holiday Special. Superman fans have all seen clips or stills, but we haven't seen the actual full program.
 |
| Can you read my mind? |
This week, I did obtain a copy. We'll keep it a little shrouded in mystery, but my source knows who he is, and knows how awesome he or she is. As the existence of this video may not be entirely on the up and up (and so offended am I that I have immediately burned the DVD so that NONE may find yourself tainted by the sheer audacity of it's illegality), I'm keeping the gifter's name out of it.
But, thanks, man. That was SUPER of you!**
The video itself is a transfer from tape. Tape from 1975. So, it's got some rough edges and the sound is occasionally wobbly because: aging analog media. It's not the drug-fueled nightmare that the Star Wars Holiday Special devolves into within minutes of the opening, and, frankly, the Star Wars Special had about 20 times the budget of this show. It's also an oddball bit of nerd media, and would fit nicely on your shelf next to the shelved low-budget, very 90's Justice League pilot, the Legends of the Superheroes, the Captain America TV movies, etc... etc... But the musical is pure hammy schmaltz, but intentionally so, and it's oddly charming, even if it's not much of a musical.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Everything About Superhero Comics is Wrong - Part 1
As I've transitioned from weekly comic shop junkie who picked up way over his allotted budget in comics every month, who read every article on five comics websites every day, to: guy who stops by the comic shop once a month and is mostly picking up Superman, Daredevil and the occasional other book... I've been thinking a lot about the American Comic Industry.
The summer movie The Avengers made more money than the GDP of many nations last year*, comic conventions fill 100,000 attendee halls in single cities, and, of all things, Pepper Potts is now a popular character in the zeitgeist.
Most comics sell a few thousand copies per month. So I'm going to say a few things that are patently obvious, but need to be said.
If you've followed this blog for any amount of time, you've heard these sentiments before, but I figured one last, grand parting shot couldn't hurt.
Appealing to adults was woefully misunderstood
When Time Magazine and other arbiters of the zeitgeist were saying things like Watchmen read as, finally, a comic for adults, they weren't talking about boobs and blood. They were talking about a rich, layered story with characters that had motivations, flaws that couldn't be sorted out with a magic crystal, and who behaved in ways that felt true to experience outside of a comic-book universe.
The summer movie The Avengers made more money than the GDP of many nations last year*, comic conventions fill 100,000 attendee halls in single cities, and, of all things, Pepper Potts is now a popular character in the zeitgeist.
Most comics sell a few thousand copies per month. So I'm going to say a few things that are patently obvious, but need to be said.
If you've followed this blog for any amount of time, you've heard these sentiments before, but I figured one last, grand parting shot couldn't hurt.
Appealing to adults was woefully misunderstood
When Time Magazine and other arbiters of the zeitgeist were saying things like Watchmen read as, finally, a comic for adults, they weren't talking about boobs and blood. They were talking about a rich, layered story with characters that had motivations, flaws that couldn't be sorted out with a magic crystal, and who behaved in ways that felt true to experience outside of a comic-book universe.
 |
| somehow Dan Didio thought this should lead to his version of "Suicide Squad" |
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
DC Comics Leadership - Still Finding it's Way 18 Months into DCNu
These days I'm only reading a few DC Comics, so it's a bit harder to see what's going on in the halls at the company. Certainly looking at the release of the monthly solicits is an excellent indicator.
The Beat already did a nice breakdown of some things that really stand out. Todd Allen points out:
This news came on the same day DC announced a storyline called "Batman: Year Zero" to fill in all those gaps you had (right?) about what happened after Batman: Year One. The story shall be about The Bat-Man, who he is and how he came to be! Snyder's promise that the series will tell us all the things we've never seen before, like Batman's first run in with a super-villain, is true if you're 20 and just got into comics, abut less true if you dropped all the Batman books but Morrison's because you realized that maybe, in his current comics form, the Bat-fellow is getting pretty repetitive (for first super-villain meetings, we recommend the superlative Batman: Snow by Dan Curtis, JH WIlliams III and the late, terrific Seth Fisher).
I don't know what's more surprising: that Snyder's modus operandi with Batman has been to largely keep digging up the bones of well-loved, well-worn storylines done by some of the name-iest names in comics, or that this seems to be a real draw for the Bat-audience. I'm old, so I was good with Batman: Year One, A Death in the Family, and every story that wanted to goof on Thomas and Martha Wayne from Hush to Death and the Maidens and was thinking maybe we were ready to move on. But, short of another gang-war or serial killer story, it seems that all DC has to offer re: Batman these days is another whack at the same worn out Batman origin stuff and tilling about in the same soil of Batman's family history and early years.
The Beat already did a nice breakdown of some things that really stand out. Todd Allen points out:
- The $2.99 line seems to be getting crossed
- We may not be looking at 52 titles anymore
Batman: One More Time, With Feeling (by Scott Snyder)
This news came on the same day DC announced a storyline called "Batman: Year Zero" to fill in all those gaps you had (right?) about what happened after Batman: Year One. The story shall be about The Bat-Man, who he is and how he came to be! Snyder's promise that the series will tell us all the things we've never seen before, like Batman's first run in with a super-villain, is true if you're 20 and just got into comics, abut less true if you dropped all the Batman books but Morrison's because you realized that maybe, in his current comics form, the Bat-fellow is getting pretty repetitive (for first super-villain meetings, we recommend the superlative Batman: Snow by Dan Curtis, JH WIlliams III and the late, terrific Seth Fisher).
I don't know what's more surprising: that Snyder's modus operandi with Batman has been to largely keep digging up the bones of well-loved, well-worn storylines done by some of the name-iest names in comics, or that this seems to be a real draw for the Bat-audience. I'm old, so I was good with Batman: Year One, A Death in the Family, and every story that wanted to goof on Thomas and Martha Wayne from Hush to Death and the Maidens and was thinking maybe we were ready to move on. But, short of another gang-war or serial killer story, it seems that all DC has to offer re: Batman these days is another whack at the same worn out Batman origin stuff and tilling about in the same soil of Batman's family history and early years.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
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, February 26, 2013
Corporate Synergy Fail - CN and IDW
The point of owning a comics company, one would assume, is to publish comics. But that's not how it works.
Since the 1970's, DC Comics has been owner by Time-Warner. After buying itself back in the 90's (it was owned by New World Entertainment, I believe, in the 1980's) and going public on the stock exchange when I was in college, Marvel is now part of the expanding Disney empire.
I would assume the reason Disney wanted Marvel had far more to do with the opportunity provided by The Avengers franchise as cash-generating IP for movies, toys, t-shirts, etc... than it was actually interested in the comics themselves. And, of course, by owning Marvel, they have the opportunity to grab back lucrative properties like Spider-Man when the contract runs out with Fox.
DC's purchase by WB was almost more of a happy accident. They were part of a mass of companies purchased by Time-Warner, but, certainly the opportunity to exploit Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman had to be seen as a welcome opportunity. And, of course, their own Warner Bros. studios would have first-look deals on all movies.
But we're talking movies and not comics. Comics have always been high risk/ low reward for everyone but the company that can spin the character off into a familiar object for licensing. Frankly, until recent history, I don't know that Time-Warner or Warner Bros. studios knew or cared that they owned a whole comics company. They cared that they owned Superman and Wonder Woman.
Since the 1970's, DC Comics has been owner by Time-Warner. After buying itself back in the 90's (it was owned by New World Entertainment, I believe, in the 1980's) and going public on the stock exchange when I was in college, Marvel is now part of the expanding Disney empire.
I would assume the reason Disney wanted Marvel had far more to do with the opportunity provided by The Avengers franchise as cash-generating IP for movies, toys, t-shirts, etc... than it was actually interested in the comics themselves. And, of course, by owning Marvel, they have the opportunity to grab back lucrative properties like Spider-Man when the contract runs out with Fox.
DC's purchase by WB was almost more of a happy accident. They were part of a mass of companies purchased by Time-Warner, but, certainly the opportunity to exploit Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman had to be seen as a welcome opportunity. And, of course, their own Warner Bros. studios would have first-look deals on all movies.
But we're talking movies and not comics. Comics have always been high risk/ low reward for everyone but the company that can spin the character off into a familiar object for licensing. Frankly, until recent history, I don't know that Time-Warner or Warner Bros. studios knew or cared that they owned a whole comics company. They cared that they owned Superman and Wonder Woman.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Killing Robin. Again.
I think I'd been reading Batman comics for all of a year when DC had the famous dial-in vote where readers got to choose whether or not Jason Todd, the second Robin, would die. I was a Jason Todd fan, and I was also a kid just getting into comics, so I didn't want to see the character get it, but I was buying comics at the grocery store and book store back then, so any comics were catch-as-catch can. Finding issues of A Death in the Family, the storyline where all this took place, were incredibly scarce, and only one of my friends got a copy.
Long story short, I didn't get my hands on the comic with the phone number until months after the event when I sat on my pal's bed and read the comics of the storyline in one, long read while he and my brother listened to Van Halen albums. I never got to cast my vote. And as close as the vote was, I always wished I'd gotten my chance to save Jason Todd.*
Then, around 2004/2005, Stephanie Brown took Tim Drake's place as Robin just long enough to get fired for reasons and then get killed (only not really) by Black Mask.
And, of course, it never actually happened, but word on the street is that DC head honcho Dan Didio really wanted to kill off Nightwing at one point during Infinite Crisis.
A few years back Grant Morrison took over Batman and introduced Damian Wayne, the son of Bruce Wayne and Thalia al Ghul. Right out of the box, Damian seemed fully realized as a character, and - unlike most modern new inventions of characters - was in no way an awkward teenager riddled with self-confidence issues nor a Mary Sue. Pompous, brutal. Desperately in need of approval from a father figure. Everything you'd expect out of the grandson of Ra's al Ghul.
Morrison removed Bruce Wayne and put Dick Grayson in the cowl for over a year, during which time Damian put on the domino mask and the "R", and it was actually a great run on the Batbooks. Bruce returned, as comic characters hurled through space/time/realities are want to do, and we've been able to enjoy Damian and Bruce as Robin and Batman for a while.
Long story short, I didn't get my hands on the comic with the phone number until months after the event when I sat on my pal's bed and read the comics of the storyline in one, long read while he and my brother listened to Van Halen albums. I never got to cast my vote. And as close as the vote was, I always wished I'd gotten my chance to save Jason Todd.*
Then, around 2004/2005, Stephanie Brown took Tim Drake's place as Robin just long enough to get fired for reasons and then get killed (only not really) by Black Mask.
And, of course, it never actually happened, but word on the street is that DC head honcho Dan Didio really wanted to kill off Nightwing at one point during Infinite Crisis.
A few years back Grant Morrison took over Batman and introduced Damian Wayne, the son of Bruce Wayne and Thalia al Ghul. Right out of the box, Damian seemed fully realized as a character, and - unlike most modern new inventions of characters - was in no way an awkward teenager riddled with self-confidence issues nor a Mary Sue. Pompous, brutal. Desperately in need of approval from a father figure. Everything you'd expect out of the grandson of Ra's al Ghul.
Morrison removed Bruce Wayne and put Dick Grayson in the cowl for over a year, during which time Damian put on the domino mask and the "R", and it was actually a great run on the Batbooks. Bruce returned, as comic characters hurled through space/time/realities are want to do, and we've been able to enjoy Damian and Bruce as Robin and Batman for a while.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Monthly trip to the comic shop and Editorializing Inside the Story in Action Comics
These days I now only visit the comic shop once per month. My LCS, Austin Books and Comics, doesn't have a pull list, it has a system I actually greatly prefer to other shops at which I was a regular customer. ABC sends out a webform each Monday evening with that Wednesday's releases. You fill out the webform, and ABC holds the things you want for that week. They don't have a pull list you have to set up and try to maintain through the front desk, something I never felt worked terribly well, and they over-order on all titles so it's a very rare instance when I realize I missed something and now I can't find it on the shelf. Most shops order exactly what people pre-requested, and then maybe a couple of copies for the rack. How the industry thinks having just a few copies for someone to discover is beyond me.
And, of course, shops that were supposed to order me things routinely did not do so, or if they under ordered, somehow it seemed I was always the one who got shafted.
This evening I made my monthly run to ABC, and walked out with a fairly serious stack of books. I picked up:
- the 3rd Rucka Punisher trade
- the first volume of Ennis's Fury: My War Gone By
- Action Comics #17
- Red Team #1
- Shadow: Year One #1
- Masks #3
- Stumptown #5
- Happy #4
- Fearless Defenders #1
- Joe Kubert Present#4
- Batman, Incorporated #7
- The Answer #1
- Superman Family Adventures #9
- and the latest issue of Saga
It's a healthy stack, to be sure. It's also a greatly decreased stack from my monthly haul two years ago. You can see I wanted to try some things, you can see I have some loyalties to folks like Rucka and Kubert and Ennis in there, and my interest in some of the pulp stuff Dynamite is doing.
I'm an Alex Ross fan, and can't understand you people who don't care for his work. And I love his voers for The Shadow, up to and including this latest.
 |
| That, people, is how you draw Margo Lane |
Friday, February 22, 2013
Let's Re-Boot "Turner D. Century"
Marvel. The more realistic universe.
Back in the day Marvel was as devoid of ideas for new villains and driven to whatever place of madness that also drove DC to create "Terra-Man".
You Millenials won't remember this, but there was a time and a place before January 1, 2000 when "turn of the century" meant the change from 1899 to 1900 and was several decades in the past. Apparently on a bet or because someone had a deadline they'd forgotten about, in the pages of Captain America a new villain was born: Turner D. Century!
A ragtime dandy, Turner rode around on a flying tandem bicycle with a dummy (because... sure), and had a flame-throwing umbrella. LIKE EVERYONE HAD IN 1900.
He was absolutely driven to convince people to go back to living in an era of doilies, barber shop quartets and when Gary, Indiana was something you wrote about for the Music Man, not a depressing, burnt out mid-western hell hole. And he was out to achieve this with small scale violence and property damage. And we try very hard not to think about his relationship with that dummy on his bike. And we really try not to think too hard about his views on race relations.
But, here in the glorious future of 2013, replete with flying skateboards and Mr. Fusion on our Deloreans, the phrase "Turn of the Century" isn't used so much as it refers to 13 years ago. Now we just say "a few years back". Or: "When Britney Spears hadn't overstayed her welcome".
So, I'm curious.
Here's your weekend assignment: Turner D. Century is introduced in 2013. He is based not on the old turn of the century, but on our most recent turn of the century, from 1999-2000.
Please let us know in the comment section all about this all-new version of Turner D. Century!
 |
| GRITTY. REALISM. |
Back in the day Marvel was as devoid of ideas for new villains and driven to whatever place of madness that also drove DC to create "Terra-Man".
You Millenials won't remember this, but there was a time and a place before January 1, 2000 when "turn of the century" meant the change from 1899 to 1900 and was several decades in the past. Apparently on a bet or because someone had a deadline they'd forgotten about, in the pages of Captain America a new villain was born: Turner D. Century!
 |
| yes, that's Spider-Woman creeping up to give Turner D. the beat down |
A ragtime dandy, Turner rode around on a flying tandem bicycle with a dummy (because... sure), and had a flame-throwing umbrella. LIKE EVERYONE HAD IN 1900.
He was absolutely driven to convince people to go back to living in an era of doilies, barber shop quartets and when Gary, Indiana was something you wrote about for the Music Man, not a depressing, burnt out mid-western hell hole. And he was out to achieve this with small scale violence and property damage. And we try very hard not to think about his relationship with that dummy on his bike. And we really try not to think too hard about his views on race relations.
But, here in the glorious future of 2013, replete with flying skateboards and Mr. Fusion on our Deloreans, the phrase "Turn of the Century" isn't used so much as it refers to 13 years ago. Now we just say "a few years back". Or: "When Britney Spears hadn't overstayed her welcome".
So, I'm curious.
Here's your weekend assignment: Turner D. Century is introduced in 2013. He is based not on the old turn of the century, but on our most recent turn of the century, from 1999-2000.
- What does he wear?
- What are his accouterments?
- What is he railing against in modern life that he thinks was way better in 2000 than now?
- Who does he fight?
- Is he still relying on flame throwers?
Please let us know in the comment section all about this all-new version of Turner D. Century!
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
The Orson Scott Card Conundrum - Social Ideals and The Purchase of a Superman Comic
All right, here we go.
I don't really want to write this post, but it's about Superman, it's in the news, etc..
Famed Sci-Fi writer Orson Scott Card has some social views that are well known within the comics and sci-fi "communities". Card has written some highly successful work such as the famed Ender's Game (which I haven't read), and started working in comics a bit with Ultimate Iron Man several years ago now (also - haven't read).
Specifically, Card takes issue with homosexuality and gay marriage. He sits on the board of an organization that is more or less dedicated to opposing gay marriage in the US, the National Organization for Marriage.
Last week, when the new Adventures of Superman was announced, Card was listed among the writers, and (if you're keeping score), specifically, he was one of the creators associated with the project that made me blink a bit while reviewing the roster of talent.
Full disclosure: I am fully in support of marriage rights for the LGBT community and believe that this is the civil rights issue of our generation. Fundamentally, I believe in extending the same legal privileges to all consenting adults in a free society, and am against legal loopholes or half-measures that would place legal or social restrictions on someone based upon race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. </ lefty boilerplate>
The questions then arise:
I don't really want to write this post, but it's about Superman, it's in the news, etc..
Famed Sci-Fi writer Orson Scott Card has some social views that are well known within the comics and sci-fi "communities". Card has written some highly successful work such as the famed Ender's Game (which I haven't read), and started working in comics a bit with Ultimate Iron Man several years ago now (also - haven't read).
Specifically, Card takes issue with homosexuality and gay marriage. He sits on the board of an organization that is more or less dedicated to opposing gay marriage in the US, the National Organization for Marriage.
Last week, when the new Adventures of Superman was announced, Card was listed among the writers, and (if you're keeping score), specifically, he was one of the creators associated with the project that made me blink a bit while reviewing the roster of talent.
Full disclosure: I am fully in support of marriage rights for the LGBT community and believe that this is the civil rights issue of our generation. Fundamentally, I believe in extending the same legal privileges to all consenting adults in a free society, and am against legal loopholes or half-measures that would place legal or social restrictions on someone based upon race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. </ lefty boilerplate>
The questions then arise:
Friday, February 1, 2013
DC's "WTF? Month" pretty much sums it up
As if there were any doubt that DC Comics and I may be at an impasse, thanks to the requirements of the hype machine in the Direct Market, we already know that April is going to be "WTF? Month" at DC Comics.
Check out The Beat for more on this so-edgy-it-will-cut-you promotion.
Extensive bad language below the break. Proceed with caution.
 |
| this is, like, 10 layers of sad |
Check out The Beat for more on this so-edgy-it-will-cut-you promotion.
Extensive bad language below the break. Proceed with caution.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Super Watch: Dark Knight Returns, Part 2
There isn't much to say about the plotting of this second installment of the direct-to-video adaptation of Dark Knight Returns that a generation of comics fans grew up with via the comics page. The dialog, often the framing, the depiction of characters... It's likely the closest adaptation I think you'll ever run into that doesn't fall into whatever trap Peter Jackson fell into with his The Hobbit Part 1 that felt like a checklist of scenes with no real narrative push or (dare I say it) heart in its desire to lovingly recreate each beat and scene. Nor is it the Zack Snyder slavish recreation that misses everything about why Watchmen worked, and figures that showing the same stuff we saw on the panel is good enough, even if all the directorial decisions - like casting, emotional beats, musical selection and cinematography - were completely misunderstood.
In this second installment, as an audience we've had the opportunity to get used to Peter Weller as Batman (and he's actually pretty great), and we get Michael Emerson as a giddy, cerebral Joker (God bless you, Andrea Romano). And, somewhat like the 3rd chapter in the Dark Knight trilogy from Nolan, Batman actually takes a back seat to some of what else is happening in the story. World War III is seething to break out, Superman's relationship with the government is filled in, and against that backdrop, Batman is still running around concerned with cleaning up the streets of Gotham. You can almost understand how it got ignored for all those years until he retired.
I recently saw a quote from comics creator Faith Erin Hicks noting how dated Dark Knight Returns felt on a re-read. She's not entirely wrong, but I sort of also sort of rolled my eyes. It's a work of its time with undercurrents that remain relevant and resonant.
Comics weren't really intended to have a shelf-life when the book hit the direct market, they were commenting on the moment, and Watchmen is no less a piece of the Cold War than DKR. And we were so ready to forget about the cloud of nuclear annihilation when Gorbachev instituted Glasnost, I'm not surprised that a generation had grown up without the context, and doesn't quite get what it felt like to do duck and cover drills until everyone admits that it's kind of pointless when you're in about 3rd grade. Nor has the era of street crime that pervaded the big cities been seen in Gen Y's lifetime (although Chicago spent 2012 doing it's damndest to recreate the era that made "Bloods" and "Crips" household names).
In this second installment, as an audience we've had the opportunity to get used to Peter Weller as Batman (and he's actually pretty great), and we get Michael Emerson as a giddy, cerebral Joker (God bless you, Andrea Romano). And, somewhat like the 3rd chapter in the Dark Knight trilogy from Nolan, Batman actually takes a back seat to some of what else is happening in the story. World War III is seething to break out, Superman's relationship with the government is filled in, and against that backdrop, Batman is still running around concerned with cleaning up the streets of Gotham. You can almost understand how it got ignored for all those years until he retired.
I recently saw a quote from comics creator Faith Erin Hicks noting how dated Dark Knight Returns felt on a re-read. She's not entirely wrong, but I sort of also sort of rolled my eyes. It's a work of its time with undercurrents that remain relevant and resonant.
Comics weren't really intended to have a shelf-life when the book hit the direct market, they were commenting on the moment, and Watchmen is no less a piece of the Cold War than DKR. And we were so ready to forget about the cloud of nuclear annihilation when Gorbachev instituted Glasnost, I'm not surprised that a generation had grown up without the context, and doesn't quite get what it felt like to do duck and cover drills until everyone admits that it's kind of pointless when you're in about 3rd grade. Nor has the era of street crime that pervaded the big cities been seen in Gen Y's lifetime (although Chicago spent 2012 doing it's damndest to recreate the era that made "Bloods" and "Crips" household names).
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
DC Comics Cancels "Superman Family Adventures" and we ponder how 30 years of having books you like cancelled might affect your enthusiasm
Man.
Word came down Monday that DC is cancelling Superman Family Adventures with issue 12 in April, just short of the release of Man of Steel to movie theaters.
On a month to month basis, the series - which was aimed at a truly all-ages audience - was some of the best work at DC in the wake of The New 52 and one of the few monthly DC books (and only Superman book) I would have put in the hands of adults or kids alike to get them interested in Superman. It also was the only book that understood the basic dynamics of Superman, The Daily Planet, Lois, his extended family and the recurring villains of the Super-books.
Cartoony and goofy, yes. But so were the first fifty years of Superman comics.
I know sales weren't particularly good, but I also don't know what anyone at DC expects years after comics abandoned trying to be available where kids can find and therefore WANT a comic. The 18-25 year olds who are going to be buying fifteen iterations on Wolverine and Batman are going to want to even think about how Superman Family Adventures falls in with their hobby.
This is the second time DC Entertainment has ended a brilliant product in recent years for reasons I'm guessing boil down to the fact that the product wasn't in line with the 18-25 year old extreme market. Batman: Brave and the Bold, an absolutely terrific love letter to the DCU and a great intro to all things DC, ended just around the time The new 52 debuted. We were told we'd get a gritty Batman cartoon at some point with Alfred carrying guns and shooting at people (so, so many things wrong there).
Mostly, there's just been a complete lack of marketing for the book. DC put it out there with Free Comic Book Day material, but I'm still not sure how FCBD is translating to awareness and sales for new books for anyone.
Word came down Monday that DC is cancelling Superman Family Adventures with issue 12 in April, just short of the release of Man of Steel to movie theaters.
On a month to month basis, the series - which was aimed at a truly all-ages audience - was some of the best work at DC in the wake of The New 52 and one of the few monthly DC books (and only Superman book) I would have put in the hands of adults or kids alike to get them interested in Superman. It also was the only book that understood the basic dynamics of Superman, The Daily Planet, Lois, his extended family and the recurring villains of the Super-books.
Cartoony and goofy, yes. But so were the first fifty years of Superman comics.
I know sales weren't particularly good, but I also don't know what anyone at DC expects years after comics abandoned trying to be available where kids can find and therefore WANT a comic. The 18-25 year olds who are going to be buying fifteen iterations on Wolverine and Batman are going to want to even think about how Superman Family Adventures falls in with their hobby.
This is the second time DC Entertainment has ended a brilliant product in recent years for reasons I'm guessing boil down to the fact that the product wasn't in line with the 18-25 year old extreme market. Batman: Brave and the Bold, an absolutely terrific love letter to the DCU and a great intro to all things DC, ended just around the time The new 52 debuted. We were told we'd get a gritty Batman cartoon at some point with Alfred carrying guns and shooting at people (so, so many things wrong there).
Mostly, there's just been a complete lack of marketing for the book. DC put it out there with Free Comic Book Day material, but I'm still not sure how FCBD is translating to awareness and sales for new books for anyone.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
On a Slow News Day, "Django Unchained" Action Figures are a really big deal
I haven't seen Django Unchained, but I'd like to. It seems interesting.
Sometimes I weep that the only conversation really happening around comics and the underground subculture of collectors and the like seems to be around "Fake Nerd Girls" - an argument that really reflects any time a sort-of-underground scene starts to get co-opted as the public realizes the scene exists and ham handedly starts playing with it like a spastic two-year old who likes shiny things. I sort of see "Fake Nerd Girls" as the 2012-era equivalent of when Nirvana, etc... became more sellable than LA hair-metal-bands and "alternative" was launched as a major marketing concept in music. This, of course, meant that a segment of the population actually suddenly started paying attention to "alternative" charts and somehow this culminated in tribal tattoos on suburban dads in Phoenix in 2003.
With The Big Bang Theory netting 19 million viewers recently (that's, like, 6% of the US population or some crazy nonsense - and people generally don't watch TV that way anymore), I kind of assume that the show, as reviled as its become in nerd world, has at least demonstrated some of the behavior and habits of the comics/ toy collecting/ geek community to the populace at large. I mean, comic collecting may not be a mainstream activity, but since the early 00's, the stigma has lessened to a degree enough that folks like myself don't hide their shame anymore and will answer questions if asked instead of denying that they collect comics.* We can thank TBBT for at least semi-humanizing the mutants from the comic shop into characters with taglines.
But, apparently, a lot of people aren't watching The Big Bang Theory, and to a lot of folks the notion that grown-assed adults collect action figures (or "dolls" as the press will derisively insist) is complete news or totally unbelievable. Even more surprising, that a person would buy a movie action figure and then not role-play with the figures like Dark Helmet in Spaceballs seems mind-bogglingly impossible.
It seems that NECA has released a line of officially licensed Django Unchained action figures (or "dolls", if you want to put a certain spin on the story and, therefore, anyone who would dare buy a doll of Jamie Foxx). After years of far, far more questionable product tie-ins, I would not dare question the judgment of NECA, the Weinstein Company or purchasers of this product. I don't know why you'd want these, but I doubt many folks know why I have literally hundreds of little Superman eyes peering at me from action figures all over my office.
Sometimes I weep that the only conversation really happening around comics and the underground subculture of collectors and the like seems to be around "Fake Nerd Girls" - an argument that really reflects any time a sort-of-underground scene starts to get co-opted as the public realizes the scene exists and ham handedly starts playing with it like a spastic two-year old who likes shiny things. I sort of see "Fake Nerd Girls" as the 2012-era equivalent of when Nirvana, etc... became more sellable than LA hair-metal-bands and "alternative" was launched as a major marketing concept in music. This, of course, meant that a segment of the population actually suddenly started paying attention to "alternative" charts and somehow this culminated in tribal tattoos on suburban dads in Phoenix in 2003.
With The Big Bang Theory netting 19 million viewers recently (that's, like, 6% of the US population or some crazy nonsense - and people generally don't watch TV that way anymore), I kind of assume that the show, as reviled as its become in nerd world, has at least demonstrated some of the behavior and habits of the comics/ toy collecting/ geek community to the populace at large. I mean, comic collecting may not be a mainstream activity, but since the early 00's, the stigma has lessened to a degree enough that folks like myself don't hide their shame anymore and will answer questions if asked instead of denying that they collect comics.* We can thank TBBT for at least semi-humanizing the mutants from the comic shop into characters with taglines.
But, apparently, a lot of people aren't watching The Big Bang Theory, and to a lot of folks the notion that grown-assed adults collect action figures (or "dolls" as the press will derisively insist) is complete news or totally unbelievable. Even more surprising, that a person would buy a movie action figure and then not role-play with the figures like Dark Helmet in Spaceballs seems mind-bogglingly impossible.
It seems that NECA has released a line of officially licensed Django Unchained action figures (or "dolls", if you want to put a certain spin on the story and, therefore, anyone who would dare buy a doll of Jamie Foxx). After years of far, far more questionable product tie-ins, I would not dare question the judgment of NECA, the Weinstein Company or purchasers of this product. I don't know why you'd want these, but I doubt many folks know why I have literally hundreds of little Superman eyes peering at me from action figures all over my office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)