Maintenance: So, my job had assigned me a very nice laptop computer. When stepping out of my car about a week and a half ago, I dropped the computer, completely ruining the display. I basically have no laptop, which means I'm currently having to retreat to my office to blog, which is not SOP here at The Signal Watch.
I am unsure if the work computer will be replaced, but I do know its making it a bit of an effort to actually write anything at the moment as I've been forced into having to sit at my desktop computer like its 1995 or something.
Television: My cable package is as ever-changing as the T-1000, and so I was surprised to see a new channel added to my HD line-up this evening, "CI". I believe its "Crime and Investigation", which seems to translate to cop shows in re-runs, such as "Crossing Jordan". But it also includes "Twin Peaks". So, I spent a part of the evening watching episodes of "Twin Peaks".
In the week when "Lost" and all of its mysteries went off the air, free of its own will, and with its own producer-determined conclusion, it was interesting to see "Twin Peaks" at its height, with Leland Palmer/ BOB revealed as the murderer, and to ponder that had Season 2 not gone so horrendously off the rails, at some point "Twin Peaks" would have had to come to some conclusion, and let's be honest... wrapping things up was never David Lynch's style. Would the audience have been dissatisfied had the writers not explained The Black Lodge other than in the magical abstract? Or given a life history of BOB? Explained who, exactly, Cooper's Diane might be, and was she actually receiving the tapes?
But, ah... Sherilyn Fenn...
I've been a bit surprised at the flack "Lost" took on Facebook as the switch has flipped and the audience seems to feel gypped by the entire sixth season. Perhaps my aforementioned "casual observer" status had me preset to just accept whatever "Lost" put on the table, but I have to also wonder: seriously, what did the audience who felt the finale let them down expect? I have no idea.
Books: I'm currently reading "The Man with the Getaway Face". It's aces. And I am going to go off and finish it now, if you don't mind.
Film. Comics. Sci-Fi. Superheroes. Pulp. Noir. History. Superman. 20th Century Archaeology.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Day or Two Off
Still not entirely back from vacation, mentally, anyway.
Here's Jamie from our hotel balcony shortly after we woke up on Saturday and had some hotel room coffee. We immediately headed down and did some swimming in the ocean.
Here's Jamie from our hotel balcony shortly after we woke up on Saturday and had some hotel room coffee. We immediately headed down and did some swimming in the ocean.
Monday, May 24, 2010
So, that was "Lost"
Editor's note: It's late. I came back from a weekend excursion to Galveston and have literally done nothing but watch "Lost" and think about "Lost" since our arrival. I am very tired. This thing is riddled with spoilers.
I started writing this before ever seeing the finale. If I have to come down on a "yay" or "nay" vote, I'll vote "yay". Read at your own peril.
Well.
So. That was a whole lot of time to wind up sitting on the sofa. (spoiler: you can probably skip the Jimmy Kimmel thing if its sitting on your DVR. It was confusing filler.)
I recently said to Steanso "I'm watching the last season of Lost with the same interest I watch a baseball game when the Cubs or Astros aren't playing. Its kind of interesting, and I want to see what happens, but I don't feel invested, and its kind of dragging." The endless sea of commercials aside, at least the finale kept moving.
At some point in any story, I suppose I want for them to cut to the chase. Once we knew the show would finish, I suppose I became a bit impatient. At least the time-bomb of "here's my theory" I planted with Steanso a few months ago was way off, so the show kept me guessing right up until the conclusion (at best, I was ten minutes ahead of revealed plot points).
There's a certain charm to knowing that the metaphysical beings in your story aren't going to ever really explain things down to the midichlorian level, but in the final episodes of the final season of "Lost", we came darn close. But it almost seemed like because the "answers" weren't a jack-in-the-box single, unifying answer that rewarded some a priori knowledge one might have coming to the show (ie: oh, this was always just an allegory for "Paradise Lost", etc...), the answers at the end of the show were going to feel a bit off to some part of the audience.
I read a LOT of fiction with made-from-whole-cloth mythologies that reflect real mythologies or allude to real events or Bibilical stories, but are their own thing. I haven't really known what people meant by "they won't answer everything" since the episode when they did Richard Alpert's back story and pretty much explained exactly what was going on.
Of one thing I am certain: we can look forward to a day or two on Facebook of our friends loudly decrying the ending of "Lost". They will have painted an emotional beat in their head that the show should hit, and as the ending will not have been that ending, prepare for griping. But short of the ending of "Newhart", has anyone been happy with how any series ended? This is why networks would rather run a series into the ground than give it a conclusion. As an audience, I wonder if we're trained to accept the ending of serial narratives.
The closest I've seen is in comics, of course. Series like Neil Gaiman's Sandman also ended on an interpretive note, with some storylines and characters left to dangle, and with an oddly off key tone. Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon's Preacher ends tidily, but its tough to paint it as a happy ending for all involved. Or Alan Moore and JH Williams III's Promethea, like Sandman, hits a somewhat abstract note as the series wraps, knowing that we're not just ending a character arc or a particular event in a hero's life, but a world is having to be shut down, a world in which not just the audience has a stake, but most certainly where the creators have a stake, and need to mourn the death of the world they'd created.
DC Comics has said good-bye to its two flagship characters in Superman and Batman, while managing to still not say good bye in odd, requiem-like stories in "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" and "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?". Both stories are almost painful to read as the reader is asked to say good-bye to characters who most of us cannot recall a time when we didn't know the names of the characters. Just as the original "Crisis on Infinite Earths" shut the doors on the DCU that many knew and loved... it takes about ten issues before you hit the emotional beats, but its there as well as Marv Wolfman and Perez set the stage and are given the heavy task of writing the death scene for a world. You can skip most of "COIE", but those last couple of chapters are a bit heartbreaking.
Perhaps in these larger serial works, there's simply too many characters, each who found their own voice. There are too many plots, some explored and with the arcs known and done, but not all. There's too many characters who have moved in and out, too many locations seen, too much of a world that's been made to possibly put a bow on things the same way you'd do at the end of a novel that arrived in one piece rather than in exploratory episodic storytelling bits. And doesn't a movie have the advantage when its 2 hours in and out, and if you didn't like it, what did you really invest?
But the world ending... it just seems much harder. And if it were difficult for the cast, crew and audience of "Lost", imagine these soaps that have run for 70 years that are just now closing the curtain.
So if the ending of Lost sought to put the characters in a better place, then I can't help but forgive the producers. And if the audience couldn't make that last leap of faith with the writers and producers and see how this whole ball of wax tied together? Well, the show was imperfect, but so are expectations. I think its safe to say the show stayed on course and remained true to what it was from the first season (even if I wanted for the show to remain a show about ghostly radio signals and science gone awry). If the producers always knew what they wanted to do for a finale, and wrote towards it (and all indications are that they did know), then what can you say?
In my opinion, the producers made some serious mistakes.
1) They should have revealed all this Jacob back story in Season 4. This also would have meant that the audience would have quit building up how terrific the "answers" were going to be, and worry more about what the characters, because that's certainly what the producers were worried about at this point.
2) I kind of think the scale of the whole thing seemed to actually get smaller and smaller as the show went along instead of bigger and bigger as the show focused on a few key characters, dismissed key problems like life and death, where to get food, etc... that made the show kind of interesting to begin with. But the show seems to have sort of turned into a domestic drama in its final season, which could be perceived as an odd way to end a show which used to have haunting numeric frequencies, exploding hatches, donkey wheels moving islands in time and space, etc... At some point, the characters became so well loved that the scale of things got... lost.
During the 2-hour build up, they kept insisting the show was "character driven", which I wasn't sure I agreed with. I've always felt it was fairly plot driven. Aside from Jack, it seemed all of the characters were fungible bits to the A Plot. That isn't to say that good actinga nd clever writing didn't provide great moments and neat ideas, but...
3) They gave up Elizabeth Mitchell to "V". While I am pleased to know that Elizabeth Mitchell is lighting cigars with $100 bills on her TV star salary, I have to say the promise of Juliet in an episode got me through some pretty hacky storylines.
4) They should have kept the show about an island that had been a sort of haunted house where a science experiment went seriously wrong. Once the show went magical... well, its hard to complain about magical glowing golden lights when your answer can always be "unicorns" or "Doug Henning".
It does seem that my detachment from most any drama series keeps me from having any particular emotional reaction to failed expectations. "X-Files" sort of ruined me for series television (although Season 4 of "Friday Night Lights" is on track, and "Treme" is bringing me back around).
In the end, I suspected a tear-jerker ending for the series. For being a fantasy/ sci-fi show, they did find the right beats from Charlie's death to the birth of Claire's baby, and they knew they could pull it off. I just wasn't sure how, or what they'd choose to do.
I suspect that those expecting an ending with the main cast landing in LA and finding love and life will be sadly disappointed. For those expecting something else (I'm not sure what? A lightsaber duel between Smokey and Jacob?), the pseudo-spiritual ending to the thing, and the explanation of the side-ways shifts will be less than what they wanted. But given the closing delta of the show's scope and its propensity for softly lit, romantically scored scenes, and the absolute need for an all-hands closing shot (come on... think of all those lingering shots of the cast at the end of those early episodes), this was about what I was expecting.
But, as I said here at the beginning, I've been watching with detached interest since walking away from the show around Season 2 and coming back around mid-way through Season 3.
The question now must be: what next for television? And what next for audiences?
Since Lost's premier drew in viewers in the 10's of millions, TV has tried to inject mythologies into shows from the first episode. Almost all of those shows have failed that didn't rely on camp or soap opera. And if fan reaction is overwhelmingly negative, killing reruns and DVD sales, will execs decide it just isn't worth it and add on another hour of dating or dancing reality shows?
I started writing this before ever seeing the finale. If I have to come down on a "yay" or "nay" vote, I'll vote "yay". Read at your own peril.
Well.
So. That was a whole lot of time to wind up sitting on the sofa. (spoiler: you can probably skip the Jimmy Kimmel thing if its sitting on your DVR. It was confusing filler.)
I recently said to Steanso "I'm watching the last season of Lost with the same interest I watch a baseball game when the Cubs or Astros aren't playing. Its kind of interesting, and I want to see what happens, but I don't feel invested, and its kind of dragging." The endless sea of commercials aside, at least the finale kept moving.
At some point in any story, I suppose I want for them to cut to the chase. Once we knew the show would finish, I suppose I became a bit impatient. At least the time-bomb of "here's my theory" I planted with Steanso a few months ago was way off, so the show kept me guessing right up until the conclusion (at best, I was ten minutes ahead of revealed plot points).
There's a certain charm to knowing that the metaphysical beings in your story aren't going to ever really explain things down to the midichlorian level, but in the final episodes of the final season of "Lost", we came darn close. But it almost seemed like because the "answers" weren't a jack-in-the-box single, unifying answer that rewarded some a priori knowledge one might have coming to the show (ie: oh, this was always just an allegory for "Paradise Lost", etc...), the answers at the end of the show were going to feel a bit off to some part of the audience.
I read a LOT of fiction with made-from-whole-cloth mythologies that reflect real mythologies or allude to real events or Bibilical stories, but are their own thing. I haven't really known what people meant by "they won't answer everything" since the episode when they did Richard Alpert's back story and pretty much explained exactly what was going on.
Of one thing I am certain: we can look forward to a day or two on Facebook of our friends loudly decrying the ending of "Lost". They will have painted an emotional beat in their head that the show should hit, and as the ending will not have been that ending, prepare for griping. But short of the ending of "Newhart", has anyone been happy with how any series ended? This is why networks would rather run a series into the ground than give it a conclusion. As an audience, I wonder if we're trained to accept the ending of serial narratives.
The closest I've seen is in comics, of course. Series like Neil Gaiman's Sandman also ended on an interpretive note, with some storylines and characters left to dangle, and with an oddly off key tone. Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon's Preacher ends tidily, but its tough to paint it as a happy ending for all involved. Or Alan Moore and JH Williams III's Promethea, like Sandman, hits a somewhat abstract note as the series wraps, knowing that we're not just ending a character arc or a particular event in a hero's life, but a world is having to be shut down, a world in which not just the audience has a stake, but most certainly where the creators have a stake, and need to mourn the death of the world they'd created.
DC Comics has said good-bye to its two flagship characters in Superman and Batman, while managing to still not say good bye in odd, requiem-like stories in "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" and "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?". Both stories are almost painful to read as the reader is asked to say good-bye to characters who most of us cannot recall a time when we didn't know the names of the characters. Just as the original "Crisis on Infinite Earths" shut the doors on the DCU that many knew and loved... it takes about ten issues before you hit the emotional beats, but its there as well as Marv Wolfman and Perez set the stage and are given the heavy task of writing the death scene for a world. You can skip most of "COIE", but those last couple of chapters are a bit heartbreaking.
Perhaps in these larger serial works, there's simply too many characters, each who found their own voice. There are too many plots, some explored and with the arcs known and done, but not all. There's too many characters who have moved in and out, too many locations seen, too much of a world that's been made to possibly put a bow on things the same way you'd do at the end of a novel that arrived in one piece rather than in exploratory episodic storytelling bits. And doesn't a movie have the advantage when its 2 hours in and out, and if you didn't like it, what did you really invest?
But the world ending... it just seems much harder. And if it were difficult for the cast, crew and audience of "Lost", imagine these soaps that have run for 70 years that are just now closing the curtain.
So if the ending of Lost sought to put the characters in a better place, then I can't help but forgive the producers. And if the audience couldn't make that last leap of faith with the writers and producers and see how this whole ball of wax tied together? Well, the show was imperfect, but so are expectations. I think its safe to say the show stayed on course and remained true to what it was from the first season (even if I wanted for the show to remain a show about ghostly radio signals and science gone awry). If the producers always knew what they wanted to do for a finale, and wrote towards it (and all indications are that they did know), then what can you say?
In my opinion, the producers made some serious mistakes.
1) They should have revealed all this Jacob back story in Season 4. This also would have meant that the audience would have quit building up how terrific the "answers" were going to be, and worry more about what the characters, because that's certainly what the producers were worried about at this point.
2) I kind of think the scale of the whole thing seemed to actually get smaller and smaller as the show went along instead of bigger and bigger as the show focused on a few key characters, dismissed key problems like life and death, where to get food, etc... that made the show kind of interesting to begin with. But the show seems to have sort of turned into a domestic drama in its final season, which could be perceived as an odd way to end a show which used to have haunting numeric frequencies, exploding hatches, donkey wheels moving islands in time and space, etc... At some point, the characters became so well loved that the scale of things got... lost.
During the 2-hour build up, they kept insisting the show was "character driven", which I wasn't sure I agreed with. I've always felt it was fairly plot driven. Aside from Jack, it seemed all of the characters were fungible bits to the A Plot. That isn't to say that good actinga nd clever writing didn't provide great moments and neat ideas, but...
3) They gave up Elizabeth Mitchell to "V". While I am pleased to know that Elizabeth Mitchell is lighting cigars with $100 bills on her TV star salary, I have to say the promise of Juliet in an episode got me through some pretty hacky storylines.
4) They should have kept the show about an island that had been a sort of haunted house where a science experiment went seriously wrong. Once the show went magical... well, its hard to complain about magical glowing golden lights when your answer can always be "unicorns" or "Doug Henning".
It does seem that my detachment from most any drama series keeps me from having any particular emotional reaction to failed expectations. "X-Files" sort of ruined me for series television (although Season 4 of "Friday Night Lights" is on track, and "Treme" is bringing me back around).
In the end, I suspected a tear-jerker ending for the series. For being a fantasy/ sci-fi show, they did find the right beats from Charlie's death to the birth of Claire's baby, and they knew they could pull it off. I just wasn't sure how, or what they'd choose to do.
I suspect that those expecting an ending with the main cast landing in LA and finding love and life will be sadly disappointed. For those expecting something else (I'm not sure what? A lightsaber duel between Smokey and Jacob?), the pseudo-spiritual ending to the thing, and the explanation of the side-ways shifts will be less than what they wanted. But given the closing delta of the show's scope and its propensity for softly lit, romantically scored scenes, and the absolute need for an all-hands closing shot (come on... think of all those lingering shots of the cast at the end of those early episodes), this was about what I was expecting.
But, as I said here at the beginning, I've been watching with detached interest since walking away from the show around Season 2 and coming back around mid-way through Season 3.
The question now must be: what next for television? And what next for audiences?
Since Lost's premier drew in viewers in the 10's of millions, TV has tried to inject mythologies into shows from the first episode. Almost all of those shows have failed that didn't rely on camp or soap opera. And if fan reaction is overwhelmingly negative, killing reruns and DVD sales, will execs decide it just isn't worth it and add on another hour of dating or dancing reality shows?
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Lost Finale Night
Lost's most complex character?
We at the Signal Watch have been continuous, if not always enthusiastic viewers of ABC's "Lost". In our hearts, we sort said good-bye to the show when Elizabeth Mitchell was announced as the star of ABC's (now known to be embarrassing) re-tread of "V", the 80's pop culture phenomenon, and we knew we'd lost Juliet forever.
So tonight, we're joining Troubles herself on the sofa and watching the whole finale.
Good night, Island.
Good night, Dharma Shark.
Good night, Hurley.
Good night, John Locke.
Good night, Smokey and Jacob.
Good night, Juliet. We will miss you most of all.
Oh, Juliet. We'll miss you and your clingy island apparel.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Empire Strikes Back - 30 Year Anniversary
ChronSnob reminds me its been 30 years since the release of Empire Strikes Back.
Arguably the best of the 6 Star Wars movies and the best 2 hours or so of the infinite amount of Star Wars expanded universe stuff out there, the movie was released, apparently, shortly after I turned 5.
I do remember seeing this movie in the theater. I'd seen Star Wars at least twice prior, had the figures, the wall paper, the bed spread, the storybooks, etc... Star Wars was very much a part of my daily life. It was also the first movie I'd seen that was set up for a sequel, and on an oddly positive note for a movie where a hero had just been frozen and sold, another dismembered and where Billy Dee Williams had just lost his job.
It also featured Princess Leia at her most fetching in her snow bunny suit, trading barbs with Han Solo in the guts of a worm. If my expectations of how I might meet the right girl were a bit off, there's one more thing you can blame on Lucas.
Oh, to be trapped in the belly of a terrifying giant space worm with Princess Leia...
I am not as hard on Lucas for Return of the Jedi as my colleagues. As a 2nd grader, I really liked the Ewoks, but even then I knew that Empire was somehow the better movie, and certainly the one most concerned with character. Not to mention the set pieces were just cooler, from Hoth to Dagobah to Bespin. And somehow, at age 5, the lightsaber battle on the weather vane, Luke's rescue and the escape of our heroes seemed positively transcendent when I first saw the movie. It was one hell of a ride.
At this point, I have no idea how many dozen times I've seen Empire (as we cool kids called it), but like all of my generation, I raise a toast to the mightiest of all the Star Wars films, and to all the awesome toys it brought to my toybox when I was 5.
I totally had the probe droid playset with ion cannon, the wampa and my own tauntaun. The action figure of Leia never did her justice.
Weekly Watch Wind 05/21/2010
Superman: The Importance of Superman's Cape.
I had capes growing up. I confess I have a couple of capes now. I don't wear them, but I own them. Well... maybe I wear them sometimes.
Comics/ Comics Culture: There's a weekly installment at Robot 6 called "Send Us Your Shelf Porn" which fetishizes expansive comics collections. Some of these posts are lame, most are truly awesome. Including this week's installment. I often ponder sending in photos of The Fortress, but I think I would post them at this site, instead.
Television/ Dames: Nerve.com gives a twenty-five count rundown of the women of Lost. It's no secret I'm a Juliet man, so I found the list the most comprehensive and well-considered of its kind. Thanks to Nathan for the link.
Technology/ Comics: I like IDW as a publisher. They get interesting licenses. They produce good original content. They seem like a fair company. They are now making comics available for the Blackberry.
Look, even I think my Blackberry kind of sucks. I can barely tolerate playing "Brickbreaker" on the thing when I'm waiting in line. Nice thinking, but, no...
Funny: Your favorite movies in the style of Little Golden Books.
Music/ Videos: For Jamie. The top Blur music videos.
Television/ Why?: Someone has decided to remake Hawaii 5-0. I was never a big fan of the original, except for the theme song, so... yeah. I don't know. Look at it yourself. And on that Grace Park? Clean thoughts, chum.
Comics/ Manga: DC Comics, who gamely tried to bring European comics to America with their Humanoids project in the mid 00's, and who tried to publish Manga in the US under the CMX line has closed up shop on CMX.
A lot of manga fans are going to be outraged by this move, but one thing with DC: you know it was a hard dollars calculation. Obviously the numbers weren't there to support the imprint.
This will likely get me flamed by Manga fans but... when reading the material from illegal scans is part of the culture, there's no profitable business model. This shouldn't bother you if fans keep translating and posting, but its still illegal. We here at The Signal Watch are law abiding citizens.
I am sad the line didn't work out, but am I shocked? If DC didn't find itself a "Naruto" by this point, and Manga wasn't making inroads to better licensing opportunities the way their mainstream stable seems to be, I am not too surprised that they shuttered the thing.
I had capes growing up. I confess I have a couple of capes now. I don't wear them, but I own them. Well... maybe I wear them sometimes.
Comics/ Comics Culture: There's a weekly installment at Robot 6 called "Send Us Your Shelf Porn" which fetishizes expansive comics collections. Some of these posts are lame, most are truly awesome. Including this week's installment. I often ponder sending in photos of The Fortress, but I think I would post them at this site, instead.
Television/ Dames: Nerve.com gives a twenty-five count rundown of the women of Lost. It's no secret I'm a Juliet man, so I found the list the most comprehensive and well-considered of its kind. Thanks to Nathan for the link.
Technology/ Comics: I like IDW as a publisher. They get interesting licenses. They produce good original content. They seem like a fair company. They are now making comics available for the Blackberry.
Look, even I think my Blackberry kind of sucks. I can barely tolerate playing "Brickbreaker" on the thing when I'm waiting in line. Nice thinking, but, no...
Funny: Your favorite movies in the style of Little Golden Books.
Music/ Videos: For Jamie. The top Blur music videos.
Television/ Why?: Someone has decided to remake Hawaii 5-0. I was never a big fan of the original, except for the theme song, so... yeah. I don't know. Look at it yourself. And on that Grace Park? Clean thoughts, chum.
Comics/ Manga: DC Comics, who gamely tried to bring European comics to America with their Humanoids project in the mid 00's, and who tried to publish Manga in the US under the CMX line has closed up shop on CMX.
A lot of manga fans are going to be outraged by this move, but one thing with DC: you know it was a hard dollars calculation. Obviously the numbers weren't there to support the imprint.
This will likely get me flamed by Manga fans but... when reading the material from illegal scans is part of the culture, there's no profitable business model. This shouldn't bother you if fans keep translating and posting, but its still illegal. We here at The Signal Watch are law abiding citizens.
I am sad the line didn't work out, but am I shocked? If DC didn't find itself a "Naruto" by this point, and Manga wasn't making inroads to better licensing opportunities the way their mainstream stable seems to be, I am not too surprised that they shuttered the thing.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Superman: Earth One
From time to time, folks will ask me what comics they should read in order to get to know Superman. That's a tough question as Superman has such a lengthy, undeniably contiguous history since the first issue of Action Comics, that despite the fact we all know about Superman, the origin stories are now mostly either outdated, out of continuity, tied to a continuity (see the recent "Secret Origins") or possibly a bit tough to crack.
In Summer 2010, DC will release an original graphic novel entitled "Superman: Earth One", written by J. Michael Straczynski and drawn by Shane Davis. The story supposes that Superman is appearing for the first time in the modern age, with much of his standard cast, the Daily Planet, etc... but everything else is new and fresh.
If you're curious about the early days of Superman (not Smallville, but SUPERMAN), this book may be your magic bullet. As a contained graphic novel, I sincerely hope that the book gets some traction in the book market. If nothing else, Superman's origin story is now a slice of Americana, but continually renewable.
This week Newsarama posted some pencils by artist Shane Davis, along with an interview. I like it. Lois, Jimmy, and Shane Davis's stellar linework on a very Routh-ish Superman.
In Summer 2010, DC will release an original graphic novel entitled "Superman: Earth One", written by J. Michael Straczynski and drawn by Shane Davis. The story supposes that Superman is appearing for the first time in the modern age, with much of his standard cast, the Daily Planet, etc... but everything else is new and fresh.
If you're curious about the early days of Superman (not Smallville, but SUPERMAN), this book may be your magic bullet. As a contained graphic novel, I sincerely hope that the book gets some traction in the book market. If nothing else, Superman's origin story is now a slice of Americana, but continually renewable.
This week Newsarama posted some pencils by artist Shane Davis, along with an interview. I like it. Lois, Jimmy, and Shane Davis's stellar linework on a very Routh-ish Superman.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Superman, Jimmy Olsen and Lady Gaga = Signal Watch
This cartoon was not inspired by this blog, but it was inspired by Jimmy Olsen, his signal watch, Superman and the Great Lady Gaga.
In the end, aren't we all a little inspired by Superman, Jimmy Olsen and Lady Gaga?
Click here.
Special thanks to Alan N. (who I believe is a Houston kid), for sending me this link!
In the end, aren't we all a little inspired by Superman, Jimmy Olsen and Lady Gaga?
Click here.
Special thanks to Alan N. (who I believe is a Houston kid), for sending me this link!
Why I Think Superman is Cool - A Guest Post by CanadianSimon
Hey, Signal Corps! As I mentioned, I'm out of pocket for a few days. In the meantime, CanadianSimon has sent along a post. And its not just Superman related (always a plus), its also a very personal piece.
I haven't done too many Guest Posts, but if this works out (and I think Simon's post worked out very well), we could make this a recurring feature. Please comment, be nice, and I'll be back next week.
Without further ado, here's Simon's post:
It has been said that comics are one of the two forms of art created in America, the second being Jazz, but where did the idea for these costumed super heroes come from? Surely the idea for space aliens, magic wish fulfillment rings and scientists who transform into monsters must be original in nature. As we all know, there are no new ideas. Rather today's comic book super heroes have their roots firmly planted in the mythos of the past. In the case of Ryan's favourite hero, Superman, we will see that the inspiration for this character goes back well over 3000 years.
Anecdotally I think a lot of people associate Superman with Jesus Christ. Even the Wachoski brothers make allusions to this in the Matrix trilogy where Neo, played by Keaneau Reeves,the series Christ like figure is purposefully given a costume the ripples like Superman's cape in the second and third movies. While Neo, Superman and Christ are all messiah figures, Superman was not based on Christ.
You see messiah is a very old term which means anointed. Typically it is used to describe a leader anointed by God. I doubt that two young men of Jewish decent, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, intended for Superman to be a metaphor for Jesus. Instead they were thinking just a bit farther back in the old testament, or Torah, of Moses. Both Moses and Superman follow the Talmudic injunction where you shall do good for goods sake. Can you imagine a being of Superman's immense power? Why would he bother to help out us puny humans unless he was truly anointed by God.
If you remember the story of Moses the only way that his family thought he could be saved was by letting him be adopted. At the time the Pharaoh had instructed that male Hebrew children would be killed by drowning in the Nile. His family put him a basket a sailed him down the river Nile where he was found and adopted by the daughter of the Pharaoh. Moses went on to be a great leader of men.
This is very much like Superman's origin where Jor-el and Lara put him into a rocket ship and sent him to earth where he was adopted by the Kent's. Of course the destruction of Krypton basically wiped out the entire population of Krypton which is different than what was happening to Hebrew children during Moses time but it does mirror the sentiment that American Jews were feeling as the holocaust was happening in Europe. One might also point out the similarities of Superman's flight to Earth with that of Jewish children being sent away from Germany, Austria, Poland in the Kindertransport in the months leading up to World War II.
Additionally the name "Superman" or Übermensch was originally coined by Friedrich Nietzsche in his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The Nazi party of Germany co-opted the term of Ubermensch during World War II. In turned this caused Jerry Siegel to create a villainous character modelled after the Nietzsche ideal man. Later Joe Shuster suggested creating a hero with the name of Superman partly to tweak the nose of the Nazis.
Adoption also plays a major part in Superman's story. He yearns to discover his true identity and to become connected to this world. No matter what he does he never truly fits in because he is an alien. In comics Superman is an alien from another planet but that is more of an allegory for the alienation that adopted children feel. As an adopted child I can sympathize with him on this point. I have the most wonderful adopted parents who rival Ma and Pa Kent for the amazing upbringing and opportunities they have given me. However, sometimes I wonder about the who, the what and the why of my birth parents so I identify strongly with Superman's search for identity. Note: I've never tried to find out or ask about my birth parents and I probably never will. I just don't need that information to be happy but the wondering is still there lurking waiting to jump out at me when I'm feeling scared or alone.
So while some people may think that Superman can be a lame character the core ideas put into this fictional creation are extremely strong. He was based on Moses. He was intended to be something for Jewish children to look up to. He was always supposed to be fighting the Nazi's even though the comic company would not let him do so until after America entered World War II. Finally he is a role model for adopted children everywhere.
That is why Superman is cool to me.
Thanks so much, Simon!
I sincerely appreciate Simon stepping in to help out, and I hope we can have other, similar fill-in columns in the future.
Simon doesn't just leave comments on strange Texan comic geeks' blogs. He's a writer, developer and consumer of coffee. You can read CanadianSimon's blog at http://SimonMacDonald.blogspot.com
I haven't done too many Guest Posts, but if this works out (and I think Simon's post worked out very well), we could make this a recurring feature. Please comment, be nice, and I'll be back next week.
Without further ado, here's Simon's post:
It has been said that comics are one of the two forms of art created in America, the second being Jazz, but where did the idea for these costumed super heroes come from? Surely the idea for space aliens, magic wish fulfillment rings and scientists who transform into monsters must be original in nature. As we all know, there are no new ideas. Rather today's comic book super heroes have their roots firmly planted in the mythos of the past. In the case of Ryan's favourite hero, Superman, we will see that the inspiration for this character goes back well over 3000 years.
Anecdotally I think a lot of people associate Superman with Jesus Christ. Even the Wachoski brothers make allusions to this in the Matrix trilogy where Neo, played by Keaneau Reeves,the series Christ like figure is purposefully given a costume the ripples like Superman's cape in the second and third movies. While Neo, Superman and Christ are all messiah figures, Superman was not based on Christ.
You see messiah is a very old term which means anointed. Typically it is used to describe a leader anointed by God. I doubt that two young men of Jewish decent, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, intended for Superman to be a metaphor for Jesus. Instead they were thinking just a bit farther back in the old testament, or Torah, of Moses. Both Moses and Superman follow the Talmudic injunction where you shall do good for goods sake. Can you imagine a being of Superman's immense power? Why would he bother to help out us puny humans unless he was truly anointed by God.
If you remember the story of Moses the only way that his family thought he could be saved was by letting him be adopted. At the time the Pharaoh had instructed that male Hebrew children would be killed by drowning in the Nile. His family put him a basket a sailed him down the river Nile where he was found and adopted by the daughter of the Pharaoh. Moses went on to be a great leader of men.
This is very much like Superman's origin where Jor-el and Lara put him into a rocket ship and sent him to earth where he was adopted by the Kent's. Of course the destruction of Krypton basically wiped out the entire population of Krypton which is different than what was happening to Hebrew children during Moses time but it does mirror the sentiment that American Jews were feeling as the holocaust was happening in Europe. One might also point out the similarities of Superman's flight to Earth with that of Jewish children being sent away from Germany, Austria, Poland in the Kindertransport in the months leading up to World War II.
Additionally the name "Superman" or Übermensch was originally coined by Friedrich Nietzsche in his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The Nazi party of Germany co-opted the term of Ubermensch during World War II. In turned this caused Jerry Siegel to create a villainous character modelled after the Nietzsche ideal man. Later Joe Shuster suggested creating a hero with the name of Superman partly to tweak the nose of the Nazis.
Adoption also plays a major part in Superman's story. He yearns to discover his true identity and to become connected to this world. No matter what he does he never truly fits in because he is an alien. In comics Superman is an alien from another planet but that is more of an allegory for the alienation that adopted children feel. As an adopted child I can sympathize with him on this point. I have the most wonderful adopted parents who rival Ma and Pa Kent for the amazing upbringing and opportunities they have given me. However, sometimes I wonder about the who, the what and the why of my birth parents so I identify strongly with Superman's search for identity. Note: I've never tried to find out or ask about my birth parents and I probably never will. I just don't need that information to be happy but the wondering is still there lurking waiting to jump out at me when I'm feeling scared or alone.
So while some people may think that Superman can be a lame character the core ideas put into this fictional creation are extremely strong. He was based on Moses. He was intended to be something for Jewish children to look up to. He was always supposed to be fighting the Nazi's even though the comic company would not let him do so until after America entered World War II. Finally he is a role model for adopted children everywhere.
That is why Superman is cool to me.
Thanks so much, Simon!
I sincerely appreciate Simon stepping in to help out, and I hope we can have other, similar fill-in columns in the future.
Simon doesn't just leave comments on strange Texan comic geeks' blogs. He's a writer, developer and consumer of coffee. You can read CanadianSimon's blog at http://SimonMacDonald.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)