The Signal Watch: Corrupting Young Minds

So... Sunday I rolled out of bed, looked at my Blackberry and saw that a high school student had asked if she could interview me for a paper she was writing for school on the concept of heroes vs. anti-heroes. It seemed as if she was going to be comparing and contrasting Superman and Marvel's The Punisher.

She had found me through an old article at Comic Fodder, the glibly titled Superman: Not Complex or Cool

Unfortunately, it seems that I am not the clever writer I believed myself to be, and the article had read to our young scholar as a treatise on why I didn't like Superman. The article was intended to explaining my feelings on Superman as a middle and high schooler and how Superman struck me as a younger person.

As we progressed, it seemed to me that our interviewer was being helping, asking questions about why Superman might now be irrelevant in comparison to a more modern hero, such as The Punisher. However, I was unable to answer the questions in a way which she might have found useful to support her thesis.

I realize that (a) yes, I was over-writing, but that I felt the need to discuss the position of the less edgy heroes, which have all but disappeared from existence. And that (b) this student was going to toss my responses immediately into the waste bin. Which, of course, is part of the research process. Hopefully this represents more of my time wasted and less of her own.

Before responding, I asked approval to repost my responses here, and the permission was given. So, here goes:

Everything below is from the email I sent back in response to my list of questions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think its important to note: some of the article I wrote was reconciling how I had initially come to Superman as a kid, and how my impressions of Superman changed over the years, often using exaggerated declarative statements to emulate the enthusiastic certainty of a 13-year old who feels like he's unlocked a great secret. Until I was in college, I would squirm when people knew I was into comics and would ask if I liked Superman. Today, I am an enthusiastic Superman fan and collector of all things Superman. I truly like Superman as a pop figure icon, a curious American insertion into the zeitgeist, and as a symbol of power used for doing the right thing.

I hope my answers are helpful. However, from the angle of many of your questions, I suspect that my responses will not be useful in writing your paper. I more than understand if you choose not to use any of what I wrote below.



1.The 1978 New York Times review on Donner's "Superman: The Movie" labelled him "good, clean, simple-minded fun". Do you think this kind of hero would be practical in today's society? Especially where achieving justice in concerned?

It's difficult to fully explain that in 1978, superheroes were largely considered adolescent entertainment, and that enjoyment of superheroes by an adult suggested mental incompetence, emotional immaturity, and/ or certain deviance from accepted social norms. Canby's review is not incorrect (it's an opinion, after all), but it's also emblematic of the prevailing attitudes surrounding superheroes and comic heroes by several generations, and which superheroes only recently seem to have shed, in part. Keep in mind, this review was written only 12 years after the campy Adam West Batman television series and Donner's version of Superman in 1978 and about 20 years after the US Congress put comics on trial for corrupting the youth of America. For context, I highly recommend David Hajdu's "The Ten-Cent Plague" and "Men of Tomorrow" by Gerard Jones.

Your query can raise the question of "what is justice?", which is a very malleable concept. Some believe justice is revenge. Others might believe justice is that which you're able to demonstrably prove a case, allowing for a system of laws and directives to prove (as best as fallible humans can) that a person is innocent or guilty and deserves the fate which awaits them for their acts.

Superman, as he appears in the 1978 Donner film, is interested in the second form of justice. He does not kill Luthor for killing. Instead, he delivers Luthor and Otis to the proper authorities to stand trial and let the courts decide the fate of a near-mass murderer.

Just today I watched Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight". In "The Dark Knight", Batman chooses not to kill The Joker, even after The Joker has killed many, many people, caused havoc across Gotham, placed people in impossible situations (such as choosing to blow up the other ferry), and killed the woman Batman has always loved (he will later learn that The Joker has also corrupted the one man who could have cleaned up Gotham without a mask). Batman chooses to let law and order govern his actions, letting the courts handle the situation.

We might accept The Joker as a reflection of our times more than we would a slightly daffy villain like Lex Luthor, but the end result is the same. These characters do not represent revenge, they represent "justice".

Its unclear that any superhero is "practical" in any society. Unlicensed, anonymous vigilantism is always difficult to support. However, if we look at the sorts of activities we see occurring on the screen in "Superman: The Movie", I have a hard time believing that anything Superman does is impractical (well, saving that cat from the tree... But we can assume Superman had some free time.). He uses his abilities to stop robberies, keep a neighborhood from being washed away, keep California from falling into the ocean, saves a train load of people, etc... not necessarily acts of "justice", but certainly acts of heroism. If doing good because one can is irrelevant in 2010, I'm ready to get off this rock.


2. In your article, you said that after reading "Dark Knight Returns", you saw Superman for what he was: "A chump. A patsy. Powerful but dim-witted". In what way? What was it about the "Dark Knight Returns" that made you come to this conclusion?

I was 12 or 13 when I read "Dark Knight Returns", and I no longer hold the conviction that Superman is any of those things. Frank Miller wrote DKR from the perspective of the very bright, very driven Batman. Batman did not have Superman's advantages or perspective. As DKR is narrated by Batman himself, we see that the philosophical differences between Batman and Superman have caused a rift between the two. Superman has chosen to continue to work under the supervision of the US government (which we understand to be deeply corrupt in the story) rather than give up his opportunity to help people. We understand that Batman compromises for nobody, and sees Superman as a chump and a patsy. We can only infer from cues in the art and from our prior knowledge of Superman that he may not have been quite as ridiculous as Bruce tells himself. And, of course, we are never given Superman's point of view.

What I intended to indicate was that I mistook Miller's writing from Batman's perspective as an official line on Superman. In DKR, because Superman had not used his power as Batman would, Batman sees Superman as a fool. However, we can see in the sequel, "The Dark Knight Strikes Again", exactly what would occur were Superman to flex his will as well as his muscle. And it means that Superman can, as a single entity, take over the earth. Which, of course, Superman would not normally see as a good idea or "just".


3. You also wrote: "Superman with hands on hips and his reputation for helping old ladies cross the street seemed like little more than a relic".
Does this mean contemporary heroes shouldn't/don't have to be chivalrous? Do you see chivalry and such behaviour as a weakness or simply outdated? And is this because of your own personal views or because you believe that a chivalrous hero would be ineffective in today's society?

Certainly in the 1980's, when I began reading superhero comics in earnest, "Dark Knight Returns" and "Watchmen" were busily changing attitudes about how a superhero could exist in a "real world" context. The quote reflects how I felt at the time and is not how I've felt for many years.

I would very much like to see the definition of "hero" in movies, comics, etc... mean that the "heroes" should be able to reflect a certain level of chivalry. However, it does seem true that popular storytelling has managed to create many different models for chivalry, from shining knight to Clint Eastwood in Sergio Leone films.

I often wonder if a modern audience may be unwilling to believe that a lantern-jawed hero outwardly bent on doing good is untrustworthy, partially because we read/ watch/ hear so many stories where the supposedly chivalrous behavior is a ruse and a means to an end for a secret villain, or as ineffective in comparison to a loose-cannon hero "with his own special brand of justice".

I do not see chivalry as outdated, and certainly not as a weakness. Creating and writing a character who can be chivalrous in the context of a modern crime or superhero story is a complicated thing, as audiences believe they do not expect that behavior out of their characters. However, we're also a society in which we believe no less in the heroism of chivalrous police, soldiers, firefighters, nurses, etc...

Popular culture has always had a fascination with the clever criminal, and often, in order to find middle ground that does not overly romanticize criminal behavior, characters are recast as modern-day Robin Hoods, acting as criminals but with supposed noble intentions at their core. It seems that this often means that wearing a public face of trustworthiness is dropped from the equation as the character who will compromise for nobody goes about their mission.


4. You summarized Superman's mission in: "he is here to try to rescue people, for no other reason than because heroes assist people who cry out for help." Do you believe Superman's irrelevance stems from this? From the fact that nowadays people are more capable of saving themselves? We don't need a saviour, we need a warrior?

I see no appreciable way in which people are more able to save themselves in 2010 than when Superman first appeared in 1938 or when the first film appeared in 1978. We've seen that again and again in massive natural disasters, in humanitarian disasters such as Darfur, in the constant warfare across the African continent, and countless other cases. 21st Century technology and medicine improve our chances, but a plane flying into a building is going to cause many more problems in 2010 than it would in 1938. In today's era of light speed mass communication, we're far more aware of disasters as they occur across the world than we were in 1978 and absolutely more quickly than we might have learned in 1938, if we learned of disasters at all.

Warriors we have. The US Army has been able to recruit just fine in the middle of two ground wars. We look at professional athletes as "warriors". And, I would ask, a warrior fighting for what or against whom?

Superheroes tend to be characters about wish fulfillment. In real life, we are easily able to fulfill the role of a warrior, and military recruiting ads count on the fact that teenagers fantasize about their potential as a warrior to convince otherwise rational people that a sound career move is to get paid a poor salary shoot at other people. A savior is not interested in merely imposing their will (or those of their bosses) by force, but in ensuring the welfare of those around them. An idea that in popular media has become decreasingly less visible over the past 15-20 years.

Superman's irrelevance seems much more rooted in the fact that Superman is an icon that's been passed down, with very little thought to what Superman actually does in comics and movies, and much more about Superman as a straw man for authority and seeming complicit relations with status-quo enforcing authority. Its an unfair assessment, and mostly groundless, but action movies have long romanticized the hero who stands outside the law, and seemingly paves their own way. Superman does not reflect our belief that the rules do not apply to us when we are crossed, as he continues to follow the rules as part of his pursuit of justice.

5. You also wrote the need was for "a character who can stand up for truth and justice, and do so in a context that fully embraces the possibilities of the character as an Ace of Action, too". Did you intentionally omit The American Way? If so, why? And what character do you believe fulfils this criteria? The Punisher?

I very much intentionally omit The American Way when discussing Superman. Firstly, it was added during America's rather ugly anti-communism scare of the 1950's. Its also been firmly established in the comics, movies, etc... that Superman may be based out of the US, but that he is neither subject to its government, nor does he confine his activities to the US, nor should relief or charitable or scientific organizations. Also, one of the two key contributors to the creation of Superman was actually born in Canada, and I don't think that should be forgotten. The symbol of the character should be about power used wisely, and for benefiting those who can't help themselves, rather than for promoting any particular agenda.

I do not believe the Punisher fulfills ideals of truth or justice. The Punisher, as established in the comics, kills rather indiscriminately. His only criteria seems to often be that the people he kills are somehow affiliated with "the mob". He has taken it upon himself to take life on a routine basis and on a grand scale. Of course, the taking of life is the very thing he holds against the mob. They did, after all, take the lives of his own family. Beyond the actual few people who took the lives of Frank Castle's family, Castle has multiplied the death count by an unknown factor. Even with "revenge" as our working definition of justice, every person killed beyond that exceeds the original toll.

If we want for Castle to reflect the meaning of "The American Way", we also have to recognize that "America" is a collection of laws and concepts, almost all of which Frank Castle has decided to throw away to pursue his vendetta.


6. (Assuming you're familiar with the Punisher and have watched "Punisher: Warzone"..) Do you think Frank was justified in exacting his unique brand of brutal heroics? Do you think that suffering a loss like he did is reason enough to take the law into your own hands?

I have not actually watched Punisher War Zone, but I have read Punisher comics on and off since the mid-80's, and I have seen the two prior movie incarnations of The Punisher.

In the real world, of course taking the law into one's own hands is a romantic concept, but, basically illegal and a great way to get killed. Of course, since the very first appearance of Superman, taking the law into one's own hands has been the primary task of costumed superheroes with colorful names. Superman was originally conceived during the Great Depression of the United States, and was intended to reflect the fairly populist viewpoints of the creators, especially in situations where economic disparity seemed like it could be bridged by someone with amazing strength and speed.

From the standpoint of a fictional standpoint, world, Superman and The Punisher do differ greatly. And, its instructive that Batman and the Punisher, who at least have something similar in their origins and motivations, behave very, very differently. Batman and Superman seem to have some hope that criminals may choose a better path, either before they are arrested or after they've landed in a jail cell, but they've given them that chance. Castle believes that crime is reason enough to kill.

And, of course, Frank Castle has forebears in action movies, specifically the "Death Wish" series of movies, which its widely believed the Marvel creators drew their initial inspiration (and its worth mentioning that The Punisher was originally conceived as a villain, as a demonstration of what we don't want our heroes to look like).



7. What is it (do you think) that the Punisher can do for society that Superman can't?

Keep gun manufacturers in business?

I'm not sure the Punisher has anything to teach modern society. Instead, I'd reflect on what the popularity of The Punisher says about how we believe meeting violence with overpowering violence is a sound resolution. We certainly do have a strange relationship with fictional vigilantes, just as we do with real-life vigilantes such as Bernhard Goetz from the US in the 1980's. At the end of the day, we do live by a social contract which most people recognize as the law of their own country. The Punisher's entire mission is eradication and murder, which in no way honors or values life. In many ways, Castle is far more selfish than the mobsters he casually kills. We know the mobsters likely did not want to have to kill Castle's family, and they were a limited few.

We also know that Castle in the comics and as would occur in real life, would do little but escalate how an organization of criminals would approach their problem.

The Punisher represents a complete loss of faith in the rules of society. By his model, the proper model for any action that occurs that directly affects you (The Punisher did not take up arms when others were killed, just his own family), is to retaliate on your own terms, assuming whatever occurs will be justified by your personal loss.

Superman does lose his planet, and some have read that many of his actions convey his expression of guilt as a lone survivor. However, he does not need the catalyst of the loss of Krypton to explain his actions. Instead, what he can show society is that if you have the ability to help others, you can do so.


8. Who would be more effective in achieving your idea of justice in society: The Punisher or Superman?

I do not personally subscribe to the idea that revenge equates to justice. Nor that a person should be so certain of the moral rightness of their actions that they believe their path of "justice" is absolutely correct. That, very specifically, is why we have courts of law.

In the US, we see acts of violence perpetrated upon people on a routine basis because someone firmly believed they held unquestionable moral authority, and their beliefs were a means to an end. This can mean the killing of ministers, doctors, nurses, etc... who fall on the other side in contentious issues such as abortion. In my own hometown of Austin, Texas a man flew an airplane into an office building that happened to house some government offices (and many other offices), because he believed the Internal Revenue Service was being unfair and he did not feel the US government had any moral authority. He managed to kill a decent man doing his job.

We may not find Superman "edgy" enough, or willing to see the "real" problems, but we also have to understand that he's a fictional character living in a fictional universe, where bank robberies are a pretty big concern and mad scientists occasionally pilot robots down the street, rampaging and terrorizing the populace. We understand that Superman is far more likely to capture and arrest a herd of mobsters and let them go to trial with evidence against them, and will never simply use his heat vision to fry them up like sausages. By letting the justice system run its course, Superman does reinforce the idea that we need to have faith in our system to handle injustice. And if those same criminals buy their way out of the court system, he can still be there to make operating in Metropolis a whole lot harder.




I hope that this has been helpful. I do not dismiss the value of Frank Castle as a fictional character. I continue to find him interesting upon occasion, especially in the comics written by Garth Ennis and drawn by Steve Dillon. He's an interesting mix of tragedy and a classic story of revenge, stemming from the same sort of fiction that created some of my favorite books and movies of the 1970's - 1990's. I hope you're able to find some of the Punisher comics (I've heard that Australia has some great comic shops, especially in the bigger cities). I wish you luck on your paper, and if I can help in any other way, let me know.

By the way, the person who runs The Superman Homepage is a fellow Australian. Should you want an Australian's interpretation, I highly recommend contacting Steve Younis.

best,

Ryan Steans

Weekend Wrap-Up: Double Indemnity, Marvels Project, Superman and Legion comics

Before we get started:

Here's a great article you might want to check out on Newsweek's site. Thank my brother for sending me the link.

For those of us interested in the working world of the Golden Age of comics, this is a must read about an Austrian immigrant to the US who found work as one of the few female artists in comics. Sounds like a terrific companion piece to Kavalier and Clay, only, you know, non-fiction. But she seems like a real life melding of Kavalier and Rosa Saks. Just... wild stuff. I had never actually heard of this person, I believe, so... you learn new stuff every day.

Oddly, the article doesn't include any actual art work... and I'm having trouble finding examples online. Here you go:



The article also misidentifies some details tied to subject Valerie D'Orazio. D'Orazio left DC, not Marvel. I believe the comic in question was Identity Crisis.


Movie I watched: Double Indemnity



I've been meaning to watch this one since college.

It's an interesting picture. I am no Billy Wilder aficionado, but the man's work is impressive when I see it. Double Indemnity is definitive noir, and has been endlessly copied, to the point where a modern audience might find it a bit trite. But in 1944, there weren't any movies like this one. Not yet.

The cast is small, in the way of these things. But Stanwyck puts down the template for femme fatale in this one.


boozy scheming is the best scheming

But as so often happens in the oft-imitated movie, even if imitators have made the beats of the original a bit easy to read, the performances and script of the original still feels fresh and well worth seeing.

I watched a short doc about the film that was on the DVD. Eddie Muller and others discuss the film, and they had a cut scene which would have deeply changed the finale of the movie (I think the finale in the film works a bit better). I was glad to see I wasn't crazy as while I was watching the movie, at a few key moments I felt that Wilder was borrowing from Hitchcock's playbook. Well, so Wilder was. Apparently, he was a fan.


Comics I read:

Marvels Project: Birth of the Super Heroes by Ed Brubaker and Steve Epting

Ed Brubaker is a solid, solid writer. While this book is always going to suffer by comparison to Busiek's Marvels, simply because Kurt Busiek got there first, its great to see Brubaker lay out part of an origin not just for Captain America or Namor, but for the foundations of the Marvel Universe leading up and facing the early days of Waorld War II. Solidly in current Marvel continuity, it manages to retell familiar origins and stories while winding together a new story told from the perspective of a footnote in Marvel's lengthy publishing history, The Angel.


when discussing Golden Age Marvel, you HAVE to include the Torch/ Namor fight. There's a law somewhere that says so.

Unfortunately, I do think Brubaker left a few too many questions unanswered. With as little information as we got about John Steele, and as I knew nothing about him prior to reading this comic, the character has no beginning or end, just a middle, and its a distracting bit of the comic.

In comparison to Marvels, and even to volumes such as Robinson's The Golden Age at DC, the story feels terribly incomplete unless Brubaker intends for additional volumes to follow (which I would welcome), or if he plans to just point to other materials as his ending.

Steve Epting's art is always impressive, and here it fits the tone very well. These aren't intergalactic space gods, but men in garish costumes on the streets of New York. Epting's hints at realism, and ability to draw believable, distinguishable faces, is put to great use and fits The Angel's near pragmatic narrative tone.

All in all, for fans of the Marvel U who weren't picking up comics when Marvels hit the shelves, or for fans of superheroes in general, this is a great volume. Brubaker really captures the spirit of the brave new era of superhero comics in the guise of the superheroes themselves.

Supergirl, Adventure Comics, Legion of Super-Heroes, Action Comics:

Okay, I read my superhero comics in a particular order, and I start with the Superman titles out of my stack.

Freed from the drain-circling narrative death spiral that was the New Krypton storyline, Sterling Gates and Jamal Igle are making serious hay on Supergirl. It took more than fifty issues, but I finally turned to Jamie and said "you should read this Supergirl comic. This is a fun superhero read."

This issue gave us Jimmy Olsen, Lana Lang, Supergirl herself, and Bizarro Supergirl. Which is: awesome. Plus, one of those great cliff-hanger endings that's more "how are they going to resolve this?" more than "oh no, how could she survive?". Just very clever stuff.

On Adventure Comics, classic Legion writer Paul Levitz (now back to writing after leaving his position as Publisher at DC) is showing no signs of rust and doing a great job telling "tales of a young Legion (with Superboy!)". I've been very happy with his work both here, and on the recently launched Legion of Super-Heroes title. The truth is that I wasn't reading Legion when Levitz was the writer, and my only knowledge of his work comes from a few collections I picked up, but I can definitely see the appeal. And its interesting to ponder what a different company DC would be today had Levitz kept on Legion and been able to maintain the popularity of the series.

Better late than never to return, I think.

Anyway, Levitz may be tying back to his earlier work (you know what I'm talking about, Signal Corps. Wink.). So if you're feeling nostalgic for yesteryear, there you go.

This also marked the start of Sweet Tooth and Essex County writer Jeff Lemire's work on Adventure Comics back-up series, The Atom. And this first installment was surprisingly satisfying. I've always liked Ray Palmer in concept, and this sort of stuff works for me. I started off liking Simone's take of Ryan Choi and Ivy Town, but at some point, she just lost me. While I'll miss Choi, I'm happy to see The Atom back in Justice League-style adventures.

Paul Cornell's Action Comics continues to be a fun read. Featuring a psychic dual between Luthor and Captain Marvel villain, Mr. Mind (a small, talking, telepathic caterpillar), one can only hope to have a fraction of the fun reading the series that I think Cornell must be having writing it.


our villain. srsly.

As I mostly liked what JMS was at least trying to do in Superman, I'm going to chalk up a good month to the DC teams behind the Super titles.

"Batman: Under the Red Hood" isn't very good

I'm a fan of most of the WB's animated DC Universe product. It only rarely hits the highs of Justice League Unlimited, but it does a pretty darn good job of telling very comic-centric stories.

To this point, DC and WB have stuck to either condensing stories or characters down to their essence to create an interesting movie (which is how I felt about Wonder Woman and even the expansive Doomsday storyline from Superman), or they've animated adaptations of existing stories with which I was already on board (like New Frontier).

I am not a fan of Judd Winick and find him a middling writer at best (I don't even really like Barry Ween, and its killing me DC put him on Power Girl). Aside from the use of fake-Jason Todd in Hush and Grant Morrison's interpretation of a returned Jason Todd in Batman and Robin, I've been firmly against the move by DC.

As a kid, one of the most memorable comic reading experiences I recall ever having was reading A Death in the Family, the story in which Robin II, aka: Jason Todd, dies. I had been unable to find the issues on the newsstand, and was reading borrowed copies. Despite the fact I knew Todd was killed before opening page 1 made no difference. I stand by the visceral reaction I recall having, and bemoaning my inability to call in (I would have called to save Jason Todd. I thought he was great and a far more interesting guy than Dick Grayson, Robin 1).

All that aside, Winick just isn't the strongest writer at DC. In 2005ish, when Jason re-appeared, DC seemed to have this random assortment of writers on hand that were given assignments based seemingly upon some arbitrary system that had little to do with fan excitement about the writer, and more to do with who the editor's seemed to like.

Winick came to the title and gave himself very little time before he plunged into bringing back Jason Todd, an idea which had likely seemed like a great, missed opportunity when in 2004's Batman: Hush storyline, a master of disguise had masqueraded as Jason Todd, and the fan community went nuts.

I'm a fan of the idea that there are no bad ideas, there is only bad execution. And in this case, the execution went poorly. Winick's reincarnation was uninspired, went nowhere, and left plotholes through which one could safely pilot an Airbus A380 while wearing a blindfold.

In truth, DC didn't seem to know what to do with the character, either, and now that he's alive again, Jason Todd just sort of randomly pops up, filling whatever role as a thorn in Batman's side he needs to this week. And that's the greatest crime of all.

The movie of Under the Red Hood is written by Judd Winick, and every creaky line of dialogue and every "wha---?" illogical plotpoint feels like the slap-dashed writing of the former Real World participant. Winick's tendency to write cliche'd Batman-ese that echoes more talented artists winds up feeling like fanfiction, especially when he tries to cover up holes in his stories with lots of pointless violence and action.

In the format of the movie, even an animated movie, the improbability of Batman's world becomes one of fantastic impossibility, with physics and physiology defying leaps and invulnerability of faces against things like porcelain sinks, surviving point blank bomb explosions, and the dumbest car/ airplane chase sequence I've ever seen in cartoon or comics.

The movie likely requires you have some knowledge of characters like Ra's Al Ghul, and likely Todd himself. Time was that this would have been an issue for Jamie, but its kind of funny/sad that my wife doesn't blink anymore when discussing any of this stuff. To me, the story felt like something plucked midstream out of a year or two's worth of comics, and very incomplete, even as it referenced back story.

But the biggest issue is that (a) like in the comics, nothing particularly interesting actually happens despite a formerly dead side-kick shows up, (b) and there's no mystery at all for the audience as to the identity of the Red Hood. As my brother pointed out "there have only been four characters named in the movie. There's not even any other option." So its got some of the framework of a mystery, but just can't be bothered to go through the motions. But that's okay, because we don't ever really go through the process of the world's greatest detective puzzling it out, anyway. While I think we're supposed to know Batman has deduced the mystery, there's no revelatory sequence other than watching Batman open a piece of software.

I read elsewhere that some folks really liked the action sequences. I did not, and found them just sort of silly for Batman. Maybe in a Spidey cartoon, it would have made sense, but...

Anyhow, its rare I offer up an apology mid-movie and offer to turn it off, but I did so with "Under the Red Hood".

I will say: The bonus features are actually very nice. I'd read a fairly harsh review of the Jonah Hex animated short, but aside from the art team screwing up Hex's scars, I thought it was a pretty good reflection of the character and his Spaghetti Western roots. Its unfortunate some have read the short as misogynistic. The genre operates in such a morally gray (tilted toward darkness) landscape that its much more about survival and survival of the quickest and the deadliest, no matter their weapon. And, of course, about grim consequences of mucking with those deadlier than yourself.

Also, a couple of decent docs on the character of Robin.

Oh, also in September - UT FOOTBALL

We now interrupt the ceaseless line of pop-culture and comics non-sense to divert to one of my favorite topics: College Football is coming!

While I am not disappointed that the Big 12 did not get cracked up and bought and sold (and it seems that, really, the Big 12 Illuminati pulled everyone's strings to get what they wanted all along), we don't know what's going to happen with the Big 12 over the next couple of years.

It's a new year for UT football. The team of Shipley and McCoy has graduated, and we lost some great defensive talent. On local TV here in Austin, I think coach Mack Brown looks a little stressed. He seems to be trying to remind the press that he doesn't have a magical winning machine, and that the players are not the same crew we had and they're going to grow, just like McCoy's squad did over their tenure.

Last year we saw QB Garrett Gilbert as a freshman have to fill in for McCoy in the Championship, and he actually performed pretty darn well. If he plays like that (and continues to improve), and he has some receivers who won't drop the ball...

Honestly, I've no predictions, but maybe you do? SHARE.

I realized that as I was re-reading my note about Intergalactic Nemesis , September 4th sounded like a familiar date. Well, UT kicks off at 2:30pm against the Mighty Rice Owls on September 4th. If you're a fan of football, you're more than welcome to come on over, help me cook up a hot dog and we can drink a cocktail or three.

That may mean I don't make the show, by the way.

Anyhow, Longhorns... Get your horns up!

Two Events at Start of September

1) Intergalactic Nemesis - Live at the Long Center! Honestly, I have no idea what to expect. I knew artists Tim Doyle when he ran now-defunct comic shop Funny Papers circa 2001. I'd pick up his self-published work at the time, and still have copies of Amazing Adult Fantasy and Sally Suckerpunch somewhere.

Here's the description:

THE INTERGALACTIC NEMESIS Live-Action Graphic Novel
Austin’s favorite sci-fi radio thriller comes to life in a entirely new form! Three actors once again portray a variety of characters as sludge-monsters from the Planet Zygon invade the earth. Only this time, their adventures are accompanied by more 1200 drawings by graphic wizard Tim Doyle, projected on the Long Center’s huge screen and accompanied by Graham Reynolds’ original score. Keeping Austin weirdly wonderful!

Tickets are a minimum of $14.99. I'm likely going to do this if anyone wants to come along. September 3rd and 4th.

2) Austin Books Big Annual Sale

It's nerd manna from heaven here in Austin. Each year on Labor Day, Austin Books has a massive sale. A sale that, if not contained, could break mens' minds.

-50 - 90% Off a Chock-Full Selection of Graphic Novels n' Collections (Good stuff, too... not junk!)

-50% Off Backstock Comics! (Back Issue Bins)

-Our Infamous Manga Sale... load up!

-50% Off Hundreds of Incentive & Variant Covers

-Lots more surprises to be announced!

The trade paperback selection is always terrific, and its never less than awesome to rifle through back issues at 1/2 off.

I'm sure Austin Books would love to see you! And you should come on down and see their new addition: a to-scale, shiny, Silver Surfer hanging out over the back issues.

At Halloween, ANYTHING can be SEXY

I did not make any of these up, by the way.


Brian. You know, the dog from The Family Guy? Yeah.




Cowabunga! You know what needed sexing up? TURTLE POWER!!!! Then again, I think Kevin Eastman married Julie Strain and publishes Heavy Metal these days, so this must seem like part of that continuum...




Yes, that is, in fact, Sexy Female V for Vendetta




I don't even know where to start...




You can't confuse me by changing the Olive Oyl thing this late in the game. I call foul.




Uhm.




I do not want to know what is going on with you if Sexy Big Bird works for you




You cannot unsee Sexy Spongebob Squarepants



Optimus Prime and Bumble Bee

SHARK WEEK!!!!

Hi, how are ya?

There are many ways to approach the annual event on the Discovery Channel known as Shark Week. One can ignore it. One can get angry that other people are enjoying the sharks (Randy). One can enjoy a ceaseless array of documentaries detailing nature's most perfect killing machine. One can declare sharks the new monkeys or pirates or bacon or whatever.

As a kid, I watched the heck out of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom (which led me to believe Omaha was an exotic place and Mutual of Omaha a totally cool company), and I watched a hell of a lot of Jacques Cousteau. I was born the year of the release of Jaws, and so sharks were sort of in the zeitgeist while we were growing up. Jason and I checked out the same shark books repeatedly at the library. We owned a few shark books. We had at least two action figure sets that I can remember which were about nothing but sea-exploring,* which really meant shark watching.


If this is how I go out, just know that my last thought was "THIS IS SO AWESOME"

Collecting shark facts wasn't that uncommon for us kids growing up. They could smell blood from a mile away. Their noses could sense electrical impulses. if you checked the contents of their stomach, you could find everything in there from fish, to a license plate to half a dog. Sharks had rows of teeth.

So, in short, I was pre-disposed to an interest in sharks. They were enormous, relentless things that wanted to eat me, and they were there, just beneath the waves.

Discovery Channel seemed to pioneer the best footage of sharks you were likely to see. I actually remember the first Shark Week I watched circa the summer or 1992. The KareBear had left town, and it was me, Jason and The Admiral left behind, and every night I'd watch a different shark documentary. And it was awesome.

My interest has waxed and waned over the years. I still like a good aerial stunt from a Great White taking out a seal. But, you know, a whole week is a lot of sharks.

This year, I'm watching some of Discovery Channel's Shark Week, as well as hitting both the Jaws documentary The Shark is Still Working and a screening of Jaws at the Ritz.



So, anyway, I think to over explain Shark Week is to over explain anything that comes on TV. Why do you like baseball? Law & Order? How can you watch anything on TV with roughly the same subject?

I dunno. The sharks are interesting. Always have been. Always will be. Watching humans interact with sharks, or watching sharks hunt, travel, leap out of the sea? All good stuff.

So, happy Shark Week, everybody.



*It occurs to me that a lot of the sharks we had that we used to play with these toys must have been cheap rubber sharks from the bin at the grocery.

But we totally had these sets:

Tiffany v. Debbie Gibson

From the upcoming Mega-Python vs. Gatoroid.

Tiffany and Gibson do not play the Mega-Python or Gatoroid. But it does not mean they cannot get into a smack-down.

Scott Pilgrim Wraps It Up

So. The Sixth and final Scott Pilgrim book was released in a big, midnight release event last week.

This book has many, many deeply devoted fans. I can see why. The book is fairly clever in its integration of Nintendo-style logic, art style, and inserting gameplay into the book as a sort of magical realism.

Last time we discussed Scott Pilgrim, there was a lot of discussion of NES-style gaming and the fact that this was something I basically "didn't get", and this was true.*

It's not "wrong" for the story to hinge on or pay tribute to the media, but its also, on some level, a barrier to entry. Scott Pilgrim sort of requires that you find the referencing of games amusing, sort of how Ang Lee assumed the use of comic panels in The Hulk would, in no way, become tiresome.

That said: In the upcoming movie, I think this will work great.

A part of me wonders if O'Malley, the book's creator, is a victim of his own success. Book 6, the final book, seems rushed, and as if he simply tried to cram too many beats into a book where the frenetic pace meant that no single idea (almost all of which have been developing since Book 1) receives the kind of conclusion one would find satisfying. Instead, there are a lot of quick explanations, and a lot of (really) pointless fighting. Obviously O'Malley was playing "beat the clock" with having to complete volume 6 before the release of the film, which meant the book now had an artificial but necessary completion date, so no time to rethink things. Further, he now had an ending of a movie with which he was going to have to jive. And to further complicate the issue, he had now put a page limit on himself and was unable to consider adding a seventh volume to more cleanly wrap up his various dngling plot threads.

If, in reading the previous volumes, I had an issue with what I saw as a schizm between a series ostensibly about a character coming to maturity and that character achieving maturity through fighting "evil boyfriends", an entire motif of an overly simplistic world of NES games, objectifying romantic interests to the point of abstraction, etc... This volume did nothing to make me feel that O'Malley pulled a trick out of his hat and took the book up beyond the level it set for itself around the second volume. Frankly, I guess I was hoping for the video gaming to show itself as metaphor, and the achievement of maturity to be shown as something not achieved by fighting, magical items, and perhaps, instead, I wanted a hint of, say, character growth. Or a hint of some kind of wisdom earned.

I guess there's some growth there, but the bar, honestly, is set so low for the protagonist that "growth" is a bit relative. I also wish there'd been a bit more on the Nega-Scott/ amnesia bit. I guess I "got it", but it went by so quickly and with so little impact that it felt like just one more bit O'Malley had to wrap up, ultimately leaving one more place where Scott, as a character, just sort of doesn't go anywhere.

O'Malley did address the question of what sort of person Ramona ultimately was. Sort of. But he blows past the question in a few frames, absolving her, and moving on so he can get to the lengthy, pointless fight.

I confess, to some degree, I began sort of rushing through the entire "fight" with Gideon. We're given hints that Gideon has more depth as a character, and then given mustache-twirling. And in the end, that sort of thing was a major problem for me with the series. We get these glimpses that O'Malley had other ideas or conflicting ideas about who the characters were, but in order to keep his "NES-style march to the Big Boss" plotline going, the more interesting bits get lost in favor of video game cliches.

This criticism, of course, seems ludicrous in light of a guy who thinks Jimmy Olsen is pretty keen, and that we all have a lot to learn from Superman. I understand that Scott Pilgrim was O'Malley's second work, and that a 6-volume, wildly popular series** that reflects pop and youth culture, and that I am no longer associated with the demographic (and, in fact, and disassociating with). But I tend to think allegory and crafting well-designed metaphors in storytelling is important, and I'm not sure that O'Malley's works here. But I DO think its going to make for a killer movie when someone with a 3rd person pespective can look at the story and clean it down to its bare bones while retaining the whimsy that makes it fun.



*I had an NES. But... The only three games I played were Double Dribble, Section Z and Rush N' Attack. None of which I ever played all that much. Somehow, we were the one family in North America with an NES, but no copy of either Super Mario or Legend of Zelda. I was uniformly terrible at the games I did have, and so I usually went and read comics, doodled, or played some pick-up basketball. I recall we actually sold the system to family friends within two years, and no tears were shed.

**This week, Scott Pilgrim took over the paperback graphic books section on the NYT's Best Sellers list.

Yogi Bear Trailer makes me sad

This movie was never going to be very good, I guess. Standard issue half-assed boiler plate junk served up to kids because, seriously, they're small and dumb and haven't seen anything yet and don't know this is awful. But it doesn't mean I'm not still disappointed. It also doesn't mean that I won't go see it. I kind of love Yogi.

I was going to say "oh, Yogi's voice sounds awful", and that's because its not Yogi, its Dan Aykroyd phoning it in and hoping that this is his "Garfield".

Just, you know, WB, don't do this to Quickdraw McGraw. Because then we will have words.