There's a lot to look forward to in 2011, so to take a page from Amber Unmasked, I've compiled my ideal 12-month Comics Men Calendar. Nothing fancy here, just a collection of pictures of 12 fine men, (sorry ladies, but I'd be a bad choice for picking out comics women). Most months are vaguely connected to the work coming out from these creators and actors, but some are just thrown in for... let's call it 'beauty appreciation' purposes. 2011 is coming with promises of 'Fear Itself' and movie adaptations in varying forms, so let's make it a good one.
Now that we've all got a look at Green Lantern's costume for the upcoming movie (and a wealth of opinions to match), there are a few assumptions we can make about DC's proposed "image"- namely, I feel that all these recent character modifications indicate that the publisher is more aware of its popular presence. We're all still finding our footing with the recent redesign of Wonder Woman, a switch to a more human, 90's aesthetic. I wouldn't be the only one to point out that Diana's new duds seem to be built with a more approachable real-life duplicate in mind. DC certainly wouldn't want their most iconic female character strutting around in boots and a bustier that can be found on most New Jersey boardwalks, not when the character faces so much exposition from the silver screen. In Ryan Reynolds' case, it seems the designers are going for a more "bad-ass" look; Gone are the dainty white gloves, the domino mask is more angular and edgy and the sinewy treatment for the chest aims to make Green Lantern look something like your standard RPG villain. As with any change though, DC is unraveling the iconic status of its established heroes. This poses a fundamental question; Does DC really need to so radically depart from its status quo to make its character set more approachable? Superheroes appear outside their home medium more and more everyday- if their owners feel the need to compromise their appearance, doesn't that propagate a feeling of alienation from the comics genre, where their original designs were accepted?
Apple got some slack for messing with its book content available through its App Store a while back and outraged a few pundits, among them Prism Comics. It turns out they've rescinded on their decision to sell a censored version of Tom Bouden's reimagining of The Importance of Being Earnest. Apple didn't censor the graphic novel itself, but refused to sell the original version without first sending it back to its publisher to bar out its character's male-on-male fantasies.
Their official statement asking the developers to submit their original content for replacement was simple:
We made a mistake. When the art panel edits of the Ulysses Seen app and the graphic novel adaptation of Oscar Wilde's Importance of Being Earnest app were brought to our attention, we offered the developers the opportunity to resubmit their original drawings and update their apps.
I sincerely hope that this will serve as a guarantee that no more prudish censoring comes out of Apple, but the iPad is ultimately their product, and thus, theirs to regulate. It's a tough reality for a company that once threw a hammer in the face of Big Brother, but a platform capable of censoring books isn't a platform qualified for selling books. If Apple doesn't want kids getting a hand on content that it deems lewd by its own arbitrary standards, it should actually implement its parental lock capabilities, which presently stand more as laughable waning messages than any kind of useful feature.
Seanbaby, mohawked videogames opinionist and contributor to Cracked, wrote up a listing the other day that leaves me... I wouldn't say offended, but confused. Yeah, pretty confused. The 5 Worst Comic Book Sidekicks of All Time lists a few superhero sidekicks of antiquity who had their shortcomings, and calls them out on being either useless, fat, gay, or racist. While it's obviously a comedic listing, and Seanbaby never implies that a character's orientation is a detrimental asset to crime-fighting, I still think the writing is a cheap grab at a few laughs. As all of the characters listed are from the Silver Age or older, none of the figures are actually gay- the grander picture I take from the list seems to be that given today's cultural filters, the boys he lists as 'gay' were written so flamboyantly, we render them as ridiculous. But when you can have a post that denounces the racism behind the infamous "Whitewash Jones", it seems to me like you're condemning one form of bigotry while advocating another. So what's your say? Is it insensitive, or am I just being a big gay butthurt?
Excited for the Doctor Who premiere this Saturday? Though most American fans have cheated themselves out of the 3 week wait for the stateside debut, the new series is only one of the ways in which fans can get to know the Doctor. Having seen two excellent brand new episodes, I turned to the 2008 comics series published by IDW to see if the first two issues share common elements with the new series. There's a comics rendition of the Eleventh Doctor coming soon, so I was eager to see what goes on with a Doctor's debut across the mediums.
The buzz coming from DC's next crossover project has, naturally, perked a lot of ears on the comics blogosphere. As we approach the tail end of Blackest Night, the internet's filled with fan forums crying "event fatigue" and writers concerned with the apparent related optimism of Brightest Day with Marvel's Heroic Age. But if the relatively vapid teasers have offered any sort of glimpse into what Brightest Day is going to be, I think we're looking at a heavily modified and fairly refined system of crossover comics.
Apparently two library employees - it seems to be unclear whether they were assistants or professional librarians - in Nicholasville, Kentucky have been fired for denying a child access to material the pair considered pornographic.
That material? Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
Personally, I don't remember any porn in that book, which suggests three possibilities: my aged mind can no longer remember what I've read, there was a distinct lack of explicit sexual content or it wasn't very good. I'd guess that would do for ranking them in descending order by likelihood, too, come to think of it.
I do enjoy that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - Century: 1910 featured the shamelessly gender-twisting Orlando as a supporting character, and I expect that would probably be upsetting to the sort of person who thinks The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is more smut than art, but I just can't think of anything that qualifies as porn in the original comic.
Does that mean there's zero content which acknowledges sex or romance, though? Actually, there is one romantic relationship that develops over the course of the book but I recall it all happening more or less off-camera. No, I suspect the problem here is that comics non-readers have one concept of comics - say, Archie, which is not to say there is anything wrong with Archie - and then they look at a modern graphic novel and that concept either goes out the window or they decide that what they're holding is not a comic book.
The big news in comics today is the unexpected purchase of Marvel Comics by Disney! The cost? A whopping FOUR BILLION DOLLARS. My stars and garters that's a big number. Marvel's movie licenses will revert to Disney as they expire, so this won't affect any upcoming films, but the comics are now Disney's.
By bringing in macho types such as Iron Man, Thor and Captain America, the Marvel deal would expand Disney's audience, adding properties that appeal to boys from their preteen years into young adulthood. That demographic group hasn't been swept up by Disney's recent hot properties, such as "High School Musical" and the Jonas Brothers.
I'm hearing a lot of people complain they're worried what this will do to Marvel, but honestly, I don't see a big problem with it. DC has Warner Brothers above them, this sort of evens out the playing field. Disney isn't going to just 'Disney-fy' Marvel characters, they're doing this to make a profit, not mutilate franchises.
The test here will be if the creators stay. As long as we don't see writers and artists jumping ship, Marvel will be in good hands. If I still have to convince you, imagine Marvel properties being made into films by Pixar.
Sometimes, a second go-round the block is just not necessary. In fact, there are times when it just shouldn't be done at all.
This week saw the release of Avengers: The Initiative #22. It's the second part of a storyline dealing with the aftermath of Secret Invasion and cleaning up a bunch of loose threads. Both of these I'm all for and I usually quite enjoy writer Christos Gage's work.
However, my problem and the point of this article is the villain of the piece - Clor. Some of you will remember our blond friend as the clone of the Norse thunder God himself, the one who took out Goliath during Civil War. Well, despite a rather heavy-handed slap to the face by Hercules, Clor is reborn and ripping up Stamford's Initiative headquarters.
Clor was a good idea during Civil War. I was apprehensive at first, but i feel they made him work. It fit into Reed's 42 Ideas and made even more sense with the whole Skrull invasion retcon/aforethought. He served his purpose, killed Goliath and was taken out by the superior deity. End of story. Done.
Why the frak is he back again? His entire presence has been nothing but a catalyst for a fight at Camp Hammond. I'm all for action, but could you tone down the deus ex machina a tad? We finally have the real Thor back (and in a seriously kickass series, no less!), can we please put this one-time good idea to rest and just let him have had his moment in the sun?
Of course, this gets me thinking ...
What are some other examples of ideas that were great when they appeared once, but were nothing but spoiled by subsequent rehashes and watering downs?
Okay, I may be committing nerd suicide here and I hope I'm not going to be expelled from the community a la the Amish, but am I the only one not hyped to see Watchmen come March 6th?
With FOX winning their lawsuit against Warner Bros. over the distribution rights for the film version of Alan Moore's graphic novel, the original march release date is still on track and fandom is in a furor. Well, most of fandom. I can't bring myself to care very much. I enjoy the book, but I see it as essentially unfilmable. It is very much a novel and uses many of the ideas and schemes that are unique to novels. Translating the work to film will fundamentally change the core of the project and at that rate - what's the point?
So tell me, PK readers - Am I alone in not being excited for this film? I'll probably end up seeing it, but right now I could go or not go just as easily.
As a comic book fan who is still upset over the end of a Joss Whedon Wonder Woman film I am probably not the most unbiased person to be bringing you this information from the LA Times by way of Newsrama.
Then again if Fox news can get away with their coverage - so can I.
I am the first person to scream the word DIVERSITY, as many a friend can attest, and completely agree with bold choices but I really hope for a strong actor to take on the role of Wonder Woman if a film is ever made.
There is a big reason Iron Man worked - Robert Downey Jr.
So peanut gallery - your thoughts on bold choices for Wonder Woman or any other comic to film adaption. Who would you love to see bend the traditional comics casting and who should be kept far away from any future comic to film adaptions?
Okay, sorry for the tired 90s pseudo-slang. Being just about the whitest person in America, the vernacular of the Fresh Prince of Bel Air is just hitting my tiny little world here in the wilds of the New Jersey suburbs. Forgive me if I'm a tad behind the times.
Anyway, this week is the industry behmouth that is ComiCon International, most often referred to as the San Diego ComiCon.There are all sorts of blogs and e-mailers going out asking who's going and what they're doing. I'll try to spin it a little differently and ask just this:
Is San Diego about comics anymore?
Every year more and more film and television is represented and this has usually been looked at as a good thing; it drove people to the seats. But are comics getting pushed out? Are they even a reason to go aside from people who would go anyway because they go to the New York and Chicago conventions?
Review: Wonder Woman #1 - #5
OK, so a couple of unkind reviews from me of late. Does that mean I hate the whole New 52? No, not at all. Does it mean that I only enjoy the new characters? Definitely not. Case in point: Wonder Woman is one of my favorite books of the relaunch. I think it's very good, with strong writing, an excellent ambience and fantastic art. Read on for why this reboot is the first time I've ever subscribed to Wonder Woman!...
