Hmmm ... take a look:
"The costume is a flag, but the way we're getting around that is we have Steve Rogers forced into the USO circuit. After he's made into this super-soldier, they decide they can't send him into combat and risk him getting killed. He's the only one and they can't make more. So they say, 'You're going to be in this USO show' and they give him a flag suit. He can't wait to get out of it.""So he's up on stage doing songs and dances with chorus girls and he can't wait to get out and really fight. When he does go AWOL, he covers up the suit but then, after a few things happen, he realizes that this uniform allows him to lead. By then, he's become a star in the public mind and a symbol. The guys get behind him because he embodies something special."
I think it'll work. Remember, comics fans -- the story has to appeal to the general public, especially those not familiar with Cap other than his name. He couldn't just put on a flag suit after his physical transformation and say "I'm a hero and I'm going to represent America."
I also like how the article plans on making use of the "traditional" Cap suit designed by Jack Kirby, and the more recent uniform:
In the first USO sequences, the frustrated patriot will be wearing a version that is closer to the classic Jack Kirby-designed costume, but then later as the super-soldier hits the war zone he will be wearing a sturdier, more muted version that he makes himself that is more like battle togs. The stripes across his mid-section, for instance, will be straps, not colored fabric.
Sounds promising! But what will be really interesting is how Marvel/Hollywood deal with a character that is supposed to embody the promise of the United States' values. Will Cap be that "traditional American values" type of hero (truth, justice, freedom, hope, etc.), or the modern Left's version utilized by guys like Ed Brubaker and Mark Millar?
In related news, the heirs of comics creator genius Jack Kirby are busy trying to get a portion of the entertainment biz's fortunes -- because they've been made [partially] on the back of their dad's creative wizardry:
Four children of Kirby, who co-created a number of Marvel's best-known superheroes in the 1960s including the X-Men, Fantastic Four, Thor and the Hulk, have served 45 "notices of termination" to Marvel, Disney, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and Universal Pictures. The notices seek to regain copyright control of certain characters.The children of Kirby, who died in 1994, are being represented by Los Angeles law firm Toberoff & Associates, which has represented the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel in a similar claim against Warner Bros.
Kirby served as artist and co-plotter with writer Stan Lee on most of the characters in question. Whereas Lee has been a public face of the company for decades, Kirby is less known.
While I'm usually fairly skeptical of those trying to get an "easy buck" via lawyers, the Kirby case is an exception. I've read enough about "The King" to know that his contribution to Marvel's universe -- and subsequent massive popularity -- is vastly understated. In the 60s, Kirby would virtually map out story plots himself -- via copious notes in the margins of his penciled pages -- leaving [Stan] Lee to just type up some dialogue. But it was Lee who always got top billing in the comics' credits, and Lee was also the "big" public face of the company.
Just keep in mind when you read those back-issues (or the great Marvel Essentials, which collect them) that it was Kirby who was primarily responsible for the outstanding stories you savor.
Despite this vulgarity (LOL), Sheldon Mayer's yarn may be the best I've yet read in this DC sci-fi title. It's sort of a "Timecop" tale, where an unscrupulous 25th century dude plans to make himself rich back in the 19th century. It utilizes a "closed loop" time geometry; the protagonist gets rich by betting with Martian industrial diamonds. However, these diamonds contain a strain of the "Martian Flu" which proceeds to wipe out all of humanity in a few years! Our protagonist discovers this sordid fact after he jaunts sixty years up the timestream (still in the 19th century) to take advantage of his accumulated riches. Oops. He can't even jaunt back to his home 25th century because humanity is dead -- time travel will never have been invented, so his traveling device is useless! But ... if dead humanity prevents time travel from being invented, why is our protagonist still alive?? He'd never have been born!
(Also at The Comics of Rhodey.)
I've noticed a gaffe in my favorite TV show of all-time for many years now -- something only a true Marvel Comics fan could catch. Check out these two images of "Radar" O'Reilly asleep in his cot:
See what that red arrow is pointing at? Look closely. Yep, that's an issue of Avengers #60 from 1969. Here's the full cover:
So tell me: How can Radar be reading a comic from at least sixteen years in the future?? (The Korean War lasted from 1950-1953.)
Check it out -- a variant cover of Fantastic Four #21 in glorious black & white discovered in a dusty long box (click on image for larger version):
It's bad enough that comics themselves are profuse with Obama-love; now the noted comics news journal Wizard is getting into the act. Details at The Comics of Rhodey.
Courtesy of the ever-awesome Mark Engblom:
OK, I couldn't stop laughing for about five minutes after first seeing this (courtesy Instapundit):
Funniest part? The don't even change the name of "The Comedian" for Joe Biden.
... his review of "Watchmen" is here. Suffice it to say he didn't like it much. However, my pal Dan (who donated to me a lot of my current Iron Man collection) texted me Friday night that he'd give it four out of five stars.
I haven't seen it yet; it'll be sometime this week, 'tho.
UPDATE: Mark Engblom at the 'net's best comics blog (Comic Coverage) is of like mind to my pal Dan. He gives "Watchmen" 4.75 stars out of five!
... at the new Comics of Rhodey.
And the awesome Steve Newton of Delaware Libertarian will be posting about his own comics minutiae there!
... to keep separate from Colossus any comics-related blogging. To that effect I've started "The Comics of Rhodey" site where, henceforth, any and all comics and popular entertainment postings will take place.
There aren't any posts there as of yet (look for one later today, though); I've just been playing with the template and layout. Hopefully, a comics buddy will hook me up with a very cool title banner shortly!
OK, I agree that you should check out an R-rated flick first before considering taking your [teenaged] kid; however, maybe Schlussel oughta read the graphic novel before checking out the movie.
Nah. Wouldn't have made a diff. She'd have still sounded clueless.
News Journal story today:
A motel resident here killed a man who fell against him while the two were drinking, authorities said Monday.Willie Lincoln, 47, a legally blind resident of the Pine Motel, is charged with the murder of Thomas Albertson, 55, who also lived at the N.J. 130 motel, according to the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office.
Apparently, lawyer Matt Murdock and his alter-ego Daredevil saving Willie's life and helping him adjust to his impaired sight wasn't good enough.
Big development: Samuel L. Jackson has signed a NINE picture deal with Marvel Studios:
The actor, who just weeks ago was seemingly on the outs with the studio over reprising his role as Nick Fury, agent of spy outfit S.H.I.E.L.D., in the "Iron Man" sequel, has signed an unprecedented nine-picture deal to play the character in a series of Marvel movies.In addition to "Iron Man 2," scheduled for release next year, the movies include "Thor," "Captain America," "The Avengers" and its sequels. Also on the table is the possibility of starring in a "S.H.I.E.L.D." movie, which is in development.
Jackson made a surprise appearance as Fury at the end of the first "Iron Man," throwing geeks into a tizzy and showing the first glimpse of Marvel's plan to link all their slate of movies into one filmic universe.
Jackson and Fury were expected to be part of the sequel, but as Marvel negotiated with its cast, deals proved hard to come by. Terrence Howard was replaced by Don Cheadle. Mickey Rourke still doesn't have a deal for the part of a villain despite almost two months of negotiations.
This is huge. I was worried that Jackson was going to bow out. I think Rourke was holding out to see if he got the Oscar for Best Actor; now that he lost it to Sean Penn, maybe he'll be willing to deal.
I just got the acclaimed John Birmingham novel Without Warning in the mail the other day, which details what would happen to the world without the United States. An inexplicable "energy wave," acting much like a neutron bomb would (wiping out life but leaving structures intact) has swept across most of North America, and planet-wide chaos ensues soon after.
Of course, I'm not far enough into the book (which is tough to put down after only a few pages!) to have learned the origin of this "energy wave," but as it stands now it requires quite a suspension of disbelief.
Which brings me to a totally different matter, that requires a similar suspension: Terrorist Bill Ayers' memoir will be turned into a graphic novel! Whaaaa ... ?
Teachers College Press, a scholarly, professional and trade publisher focused on the theory and practice of teacher education, has reached agreement on a two-book deal with William Ayers, the University of Illinois at Chicago professor, lauded educational theorist and former leader of the radical 1960s Weather Underground. And, yes, Ayers is indeed the same figure dragooned into the 2008 presidential race in a controversial attempt to use his background in radical politics and a minor acquaintance with Barack Obama to undermine Obama’s presidential run.
Since, as currently constructed in way too many colleges across the land, the "theory and practice of teacher education" is a laughable joke to those who actually "in the trenches," one could surmise that reading a graphic novel about a dude who's immersed in such will be an ... excruciating experience -- only slightly less excruciating than reading a standard book.
(h/t to SWT.)
Via Breitbart.com:
Stan Lee, Arthur Lieberman and Marvel enterprises are being sued for looting the Estate of Stan Lee Media, Inc. in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection from 2001-2006. Martin Garbus, Esq., on behalf of shareholders of SLMI filed a Shareholder Derivative action on January 26, 2009 in Manhattan federal court claiming 50% percent ownership in such mega-popular Super Hero entertainment franchises as Spider Man, Iron Man and the X-Men.This order places at issue all of the highly publicized ventures that QED, and its publicly traded parent POW Entertainment, announced in jointly exploiting Stan Lee Media Estate assets including The Drifter and The Accuser with Liberty Media, IDT, Sprint Mobile, Vidiator and the Disney Company, among others. Announcements regarding these relationships based on the assets looted from Stan Lee Media, Inc. were used to promote the publicly traded stock of POW Entertainment (POWN).
This is an extraordinarily victory for the shareholders of Stan Lee Media. If the Court further agrees with the shareholders of SLMI, they will be entitled not only to recover $1 billion dollars plus but also a 50% interest in the future profits that Marvel makes from the Marvel characters created by Stan Lee.
Ouch! I always tended to think the best of Lee; however, his star dwindled quite a bit after reading how former early Marvel partner Jack Kirby, not Lee, was really the creative force behind characters like the Fantastic Four, the Avengers, the Hulk, etc. And now? As Lee might put in a word balloon, "Sheesh ...!"
Will Obama's election mean more black comic book heroes? I wonder, though, why the article glanced over Marvel's first real money-making (and critically acclaimed) film, "Blade," which stars Wesley Snipes as a human-vampire hybrid who battles the nocturnal bloodsuckers. It's an awesome flick which features one of the best action film opening scenes ever. (A linked related article deals with Blade a bit more.)
I wondered too, if the overall premise of the article is to get more black superheroes into the "mainstream" comics audience, why would it mention a group like the "O+Men," a group of HIV-positive characters? That's not exactly "mainstream." That's about as "niche" as you can get. (It's creator does pontificate on the dearth of mainstream black heroes, but his creations seemingly will do little to affect it.)
Related: I wrote a rather lengthy post about minority superheroes almost two years ago.
First Terrance Howard was ditched as Iron Man pal Rhodey; now Soccer Dad sends me word that Samuel L. Jackson -- who had a cameo appearance in "Iron Man" as Nick Fury -- might be out.
Bad news if 'ya ask me.
Screen Rant has the scoop. At first, the word was Rourke would be Iron Man armored nemesis Crimson Dynamo; however, it seems he'll actually portray Whiplash:
In addition, Sam Rockwell is apparently playing Tony Stark business rival Justin Hammer.
Avi Green over at Four Color Media Monitor dissects the "special issue" of Spider-Man due out next week, which is the first-ever issue of a comic to feature a president-elect on its cover:
I wasn't sure at first just what side Marvel's leftists would take, but now, it looks like any questions about their support for the president-elect have been answered.Honestly, I think all those claims about Obama being a comic book devotee are greatly exaggerated; from what I read in past news item, it sounded as though he just collects them for their percieved monetary value. As for that fist-bump, don't get me started on how ludicrous it really is.
In addition, Avi points out Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada's nonsense:
"We do our best to be completely non-partisan and treat presidents with respect," Quesada says. "This is not so much a pro-Obama statement but a tip of the hat to having a Spider-Man fan in the White House."Would McCain have gotten a special issue had he won?
Says Quesada: "If McCain was a Spider-Man fan, I'm sure he would."
To which Avi says, "I'm afraid I've got my doubts about that." Add me to those doubters, Mr. Green -- especially given the lengthy recent history of political bias in Marvel comics, and comics in general. My guess is that if John McCain won the election, we'd see him on this Spidey cover ordering the US military or the CIA to capture the Wall Crawler, and then have him sent to Gitmo. The only "fist bump" we'd see would be between McCain and some CIA interrogator.
Be sure to check out Avi's blog -- he does a terrific job slicing through the modern political B.S. found in comics these days.
Here's CNN's segment on this, including a brief interview with Quesada:
You may be aware how Marvel is generating their "universe" on the silver screen; that is, their characters will exist in the same continuity. You saw how Samuel L. Jackson appeared at the end of "Iron Man" as well as "The Incredible Hulk;" well, there you have it.
Early buzz for "Iron Man 2" has it that the Spider-Man characters will make their way into Iron Man continuity, in particular Peter Parker's Aunt May. As she suffers from the infirmity of old age, Tony Stark designs a special suit of armor for her to help resist its plight -- and in addition allows her to defend New York alongside her arachnid-powered nephew! She'll be ...
(This Iron Man parody originally appeared in an all-humor edition of What If? -- #34 -- and was drawn by IM creator supreme Bob Layton.)
Who says Marvel Comics don't help?
Six-foot-tall fitness fanatic Torvald Alexander, 38, was wearing a full God of Thunder outfit - complete with flying red cape and tinfoil silver-winged helmet - when he spotted the raider in his front room rifling through a desk.Mr Alexander, who runs building firm Alexander & Summers in Edinburgh, Scotland, said the burglar threw himself out of a first-floor window of his $350,000 home in the Inverleith area of the city when he opened the door and confronted him.
The man landed on a roof outside the window, which broke his fall, enabling him to escape.
Mr Alexander said: 'As soon as he saw me, his eyes went wide with terror.
'He looked like he had had a few drinks and decided to do a late night break-in, but he hadn't counted on the God of Thunder living here.
'We were both startled but then the instant reaction was that I ran at him and he just jumped straight out of the window.
'I think I would be quite scared if someone looking almost like a gladiator ran at them. (Source.)
Why stop there? Why not up the ante and disguise yourself as a cosmic-powered planet-eater?
(h/t to RwR.)
To add to this post, here are what I consider to be the worst of Iron Man's various armors over the years:
Yesterday I saw a couple posts at a [couple] comics blogs opining on their favorite and least favorite Iron Man armors of all-time. Some of the facts and monikers in these posts were erroneous, but then what would one expect from Iron Man fan "novices," right? So, what we need here is a truly informed opinion ... from one who has been an Iron Man fan since the very early years ... who made a second-tier Marvel character his favorite over "marquee" characters like Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four! In other words, MINE!!
Who cares? This armor was magnitudes more powerful than anything ever seen before (hence it was a bit bulkier) and the color change did have a reason: Tony Stark had just recovered from a long bout with alcoholism. He was still wary of even becoming Iron Man again. He still wanted to "forget" about much of his past.
Interestingly, Iron Man creator extraordinaire Bob Layton helped design this armor, but he didn't really like it. So, when he and writer-pal David Michelinie reassumed the mantle of Iron Man in the mid-80s, they quickly ditched the red and silver suit in favor of a new red and gold outfit. (See my past post about this armor.)
Also notable is the fact that several other people wore this outfit other than Tony Stark, most importantly of which was right-hand man Jim "Rhodey" Rhodes. This began in issue #169 -- when Stark succumbed to alcoholism.
This was the armor that Stark bequeathed to Jim Rhodes to use on his own; you may remember Terrance Howard in the movie looking at one of Stark's suits in the movie and uttering "Next time" -- a clear homage to this moment and possibly a look at things to come in "Iron Man 2."
This suit was, due to its futuristic design, packed with exotic weaponry, and was much "meaner" looking with a grimacing face-mask and serrated shoulder cuffs. In an issue of Iron Man (#250), David Michelinie and Bob Layton showed that this outfit survived to the year 2093 and was used by Arno's grandson Andros Stark. But Andros was a total baddie, in league with the 20th century-surviving Dr. Doom who plotted to wipe out most of the planet's population.
COMING SOON: Hube's Worst Iron Man Armors Ever.
To add to this post, Comic Book Resources has the Top 100 Comic Book Battles of All-Time as voted on by fans. The one's I've seen/read are in bold; needed commentary is added where absolutely necessary!! Here we go ... !!
100. Superboy Prime vs. the Teen Titans
99. Skurge vs. the Forces of Hel
98. Squadron Supreme vs. the Redeemers (at left) (The Squadron Supreme is Marvel's version of DC's Justice League; however, I've never seen a super-team have to deal with such adversity as that suffered by the SS. Pick up Mark Gruenwald's phenomenal SS trade paperback for some high-quality entertainment! The SS's battle against the Redeemers is at story's end.)
97. Superman vs. Batman (New Frontier)
96. Thanos vs. Warlock, Captain Marvel, Avengers, Thing and Spider-Man
95. Ogami Ittō vs. Yagyū Retsudō (Final Battle)
94. The DC Heroes vs. the Center
93. Spider-Man vs. the Hobgoblin (Amazing Spider-Man #249-251)
92. Silver Surfer vs. Thor (Silver Surfer #4)
91. Wolverine vs. the Hulk (First Battle)
90. Spider-Man vs. Sinister Six (First Battle)
89. Superman Prime vs. Ion
88. Avengers vs. Nefaria (First Battle) (A classic three-part saga by the awesome Jim Shooter and the equally awesome John Byrne. There has rarely been a better scripted and drawn all-out donneybrook!)
87. Captain America vs. Red Skull (Cosmic Cube)
86. Spider-Man vs. Firelord
85. Authority vs. Kaizen Gamorra (The Authority is a leftist's super-team wet dream-come true. Lefties will love what the team does because it is "right;" however, if George Bush had done even one tenth of one percent of what the Authority does, the calls for his war crimes trial would be overwhelming.)
84. Punisher vs. Barracuda
83. The Ultimates vs. Thor
82. Flash vs. Zoom (First Battle)
81. Deathstroke and Terra vs. the Teen Titans (The Judas Contract)
80. Spider-Man vs. Venom (First Battle) (Be sure to tune in to my Delaware Talk Radio gig December 29 for more on this one!)
79. X-Men vs. Cassandra Nova
78. Thing vs. Champion
77. Mr. Fantastic vs. Dr. Doom (Timeslip)
76. Captain Britain (and friends) vs. The Fury
75. Wonder Woman vs. Mind-Controlled Superman (Sacrifice)
74. Batman vs. Cops in Year One
73. Superboy Prime vs. Superboy
72. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vs. Martians
71. Avengers and Justice League vs. Krona
70. Wolverine vs. Sabretooth (Right before the Age of Apocalypse)
69. Spider-Man vs. Morlun (First Battle)
68. Doom vs. Beyonder
67. Magneto vs. Apocalypse
66. Swamp Thing and Friends vs. The Soul off Darkness (American Gothic)
65. Thor vs. Iron Man
64. Batman vs. Superman (Hush)
63. Batman vs. Ra’s Al Ghul (First Duel) (Never read these issues; however, they come highly recommend by any comics fan who've read 'em. Art is by the great Neal Adams at his pinnacle.)
62. Supergirl vs. Anti-Monitor
61. Batman vs. Joker (Dark Knight Returns)
60. Wolverine vs. Sabretooth (Mutant Massacre)
59. Superboy Prime vs. Supermen
58. The remains of the JLA vs. Darkseid
57. Punisher vs. the Russian
56. Superman vs. the Elite
55. Nova vs. Annihilus
54. Colossus vs. Juggernaut
53. Fantastic Four plus Friends vs. Galactus
52. Superman vs. Muhammad Ali
51. X-Men vs. Magneto (Fatal Attractions)
50. Jesse Custer vs. Cassidy
49. Thor vs. Beta Ray Bill
48. Hulk vs. The Superheroes of New York City
47. Flash vs. Professor Zoom (Return of Barry Allen)
46. Spider-Man vs. Kraven (Kraven’s Last Hunt)
45. Heroes vs. Villains (Secret Wars)
44. JLA (with a spotlight on Batman) vs. Hyperclan
43. We3 vs. The Government
42. Batman vs. Bane (Knightfall)
41. Batman vs. Joker (Killing Joke) (One of the better Batman stories of all-time.)
40. The Battle of Fabletown
39. JLA vs. Avengers
38. Superman vs. Mongul
37. Daredevil vs. Nuke
36. Ultimates (and friends) vs. The Liberators (For a good Colossus synopsis, see here.)
35. Jesse Custer vs. Jody
34. Daredevil vs. Bullseye (Daredevil #181; at left) (One of the best all-out slugfests ever! Many of the lines in the "Daredevil" movie were lifted verbatim from this issue.)
33. Superman vs. Lex Luthor (All Star Superman #12)
32. The X-Men vs. Magneto (in the Volcano Base)
31. JSA vs. Dynaman
30. Thor vs. The Midgard Serpent
29. X-Men vs. Dark Phoenix (Not as good as the X-Men vs. the [Shi'Ar] Imperial Guard vs. Dark Phoenix, though!)
28. Legion of Superheroes vs. The Forces of Darkseid
27. The Final Battle of Civil War
26. Morpheus vs Choronzon
Of course, no one was even close with their, um ... "guesses" as to who I'll have on with me December 29 from 9-11am when I take over "The Maria Evans Show" (on Delaware Talk Radio). So, here's a "teaser" of sorts ... if you can manage to ID the gent below:
You may already know my favorite comics blog is Mark Engblom's Comic Coverage. And this post is a perfect reason why. It's even better than last year's, and that post made me cry laughing at it was!
It looks like the trailer for "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" will debut before the upcoming film "The Day the Earth Stood Still" on December 12th.
Hugh Jackman (at left) returns as the Canuck mutant. My wife thinks he's "beyond hot." Gee, I can't see why. He's only devastatingly handsome with a perfect physique. Bastard. The ironic thing is that in the actual X-Men comic, Wolvie is quite short, and frequently gets ribbed about it by teammates and enemies alike (who're all pretty stupid, really, to risk Wolvie's short temper!).
Superhero Hype has the following film description:
Leading up to the events of X-Men, Wolverine tells the story of Wolverine's especially violent and romantic past, his complex relationship with Victor Creed, and the ominous Weapon X program. Along the way, Wolverine encounters many mutants, both familiar and new, including surprise appearances by several legends of the X-Men universe.
Victor Creed is Sabertooth, who we last saw in the first "X-Men" film. 'Tooth and Wolverine have many of the same abilities; indeed, both were part of that mentioned "Weapon X" program. (If you're wondering why Wolvie impaling 'Tooth numerous times in their pitched battle on top of the Statue of Liberty didn't outright kill the latter in "X-Men," it's 'cuz 'Tooth has the same fast healing ability as Wolvie.) The flashbacks Wolverine had in "X-Men" and "X-Men 2" were indeed those relating to the "Weapon X" program. His battle with Lady Deathstrike in "X2" took place in the bowels of a Weapon X lab, possibly where Wolverine was given his adamantium skeleton and claws.
As noted in "X-Men," it is virtually impossible to determine Wolverine's true age as his healing abilities retard aging. Thus, it'll be interesting to see how far back in time the movie will take Jackman in his origin. The comics (with which I gave up trying to keep pace long ago) have Wolvie's origins all over the place, but it's now generally accepted canon that he was born in 19th century Canada.
"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" is due in theaters May 1, 2009.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Comic Book Resources has a list of the "Top 25 Comic Battles" of all-time. The one's I've read are in bold. I've added some needed comments where necessary, natch.
#25: Fantastic Four vs. Galactus. The "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" movie was loosely based on this battle.
#24. Batman vs. the Leader of the Mutant Gang. From the classic "Return of the Dark Knight" by Frank Miller.
#23. Invincible vs. Omni-Man.
#22. X-Men vs. the Marauders.
#21. The Ultimates vs. the Chitauri. This Avengers revamp is high-powered action all the way. Also, two straight-to-DVD animated flicks are based on this saga.
#20. The Avengers (and friends) vs. Korvac. There may be no greater "everything is at stake" comics yarn ever. Comics master Jim Shooter at his finest writing.
#19. The X-Men vs. the Hellfire Club. Part of artist extraordinaire John Byrne's run on the X-Men.
#18. The Avengers vs. Ultron. Kurt Busiek's magnum opus of volume 3 Avengers.
#17. Deathstroke vs. the Justice League of America.
#16. Batman vs. Guy Gardner.
#15. The Superheroes of the DC Multiverse vs. the Anti-Monitor.
#14. Wolverine vs. the Hulk.
#13. Hulk vs. the Thing. The Thing never wins against the Hulk. Never.
#12. X-Men vs. the Shi'Ar Imperial Guard. "X-Men 3" was loosely based on this tragic tale of the "death" of Jean Grey. Original cover at left.
#11. Spider-Man vs. the Green Goblin. Goblin kills Spidey's girl, and Webhead is out for revenge. The original "Spider-Man" film is based on this classic two-part comic set.
#10. Elektra vs. Bullseye. Like #11 above, much of the "Daredevil" movie is based on this battle. In fact, many of the lines spoken by Colin Farrell (Bullseye) were verbatim from this double-sized comic.
#9. Avengers vs. the Masters of Evil.
#8. Spider-Man vs. Juggernaut.
#7. The Ultimates vs. the Hulk.
#6. The Sinestro Corps War. I'm not a big DC Comics fan, but my buddy Brent loaned me this series, and all I could say afterward was "Wow."
#5. Practically all of Marvel's Superheroes vs. Thanos.
#4. Miracleman vs. Kid Miracleman.
#3. The Final Battle in “Kingdom Come." An alternate version of the DC Universe, and painted (yes, painted) by artist supreme Alex Ross. Not to be missed.
#2. Superman vs. Doomsday.
#1. Batman vs. Superman. The last segment of Frank Miller's "Return of the Dark Knight," Bruce Wayne has high-powered armored to take on the Man of Steel. Great stuff.
The writers of "Captain America" have been named -- they're Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely of "Chronicles of Narnia" fame. Since I didn't see any "Narnia" flicks, I cannot comment. I can comment on what appears to be the basis for the film: It'll take place during World War II, which makes sense since this is where Cap was "born." For those not in the know, Cap became a superhero via one Steve Rogers volunteering for an experiment to create a "super soldier." After the program's success, a Nazi agent killed the genius who created the formula, making Rogers the only beneficiary of his efforts. (The scientist never committed all of his notes to paper, thus his formula could not be duplicated.)
Cap came to our present era due to a freak accident: in the waning days of WW II, he and partner "Bucky" Barnes jumped onto a Nazi missile aimed at the US in an effort to disarm it. Rogers was thrown clear into the freezing waters below, but Barnes was (supposedly) killed. Rogers was thrown into suspended animation by the incredible cold, and some twenty years later he was discovered by the super-group The Avengers.
In the late 70s there was a "Captain America" TV show. It's beyond cheesy, but Reb Brown sure was, at first glance, a great fit to play the hero. He's a huge blond, blue-eyed dude who, if he could actually act, would be the perfect hero! Then, in 1990, an awful straight-to-video flick featured the equally awful Matt Salinger as Cap. Salinger's physique ain't in any way muscular, and he's not all that tall; in other words, he was laughable as a superhero. And his arch nemesis the Red Skull was turned into -- wait for it -- an Italian!! Sorry, but the Skull is a German Nazi -- only.
Given the political climate of today, it'll sure be interesting to see the "tone" of the Cap flick. After all, will it be politically correct to have a guy running around in a suit covered in Old Glory, even if it was during WW II? Will we see Cap engage in a 20/20 hindsight moralizing (like he did in some of his comics) about incidents like the Dresden firebombing and the dropping of the A-bombs?
The film is supposedly going to set up the goods for "The Avengers" film, in which Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man) and Edward Norton (The Hulk) have supposedly agreed to star. The complete Avengers team (where Cap first appeared) actually did not include the Hulk (he quit the team after only one issue), but was comprised of Iron Man, Thor, Giant Man and the Wasp.
The Master of Comics, Marvel's Stan Lee, has won the National Medal of Arts.
Excelsior!
Word has it that a big (major?) part of "IM2" will be how Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) succumbs to alcoholism. This would be consistent with two major storylines from Iron Man comics, the first in the late 70s and the second in the mid-80s. The latter took place over some 30 issues and Stark was literally living on the streets.
If Stark does fall prey to the bottle, this would open the door for new-Jim Rhodes Don Cheadle to assume the role of Iron Man as War Machine. But 'ya gotta have a villain. Who should it be?
Educated choices:
1) The Mandarin. Already alluded to in the first film (the terrorist organization known as "The Ten Rings"), Mandy would be the natural choice. But the Mandarin is Chinese (hence the name, duh) and the head baddie in "Iron Man" wasn't. Calling him "Mandarin" wouldn't make sense, but without the "Mandarin" name, what will fans think? What other moniker would suffice? "Ring Guy?" An all-out battle with Mandy would be kickin' though -- Stark and his armor (and brain) trying to fend off the multiple threat of Mandy's fingerwear.
2) The Crimson Dynamo. Originally a Soviet counterpart to the American Iron Man, it should be easy enough to rework the Red baddie/hero as a Russian (not Soviet) character. The question would be, though, how would the two armored heroes tussle -- since the US and Russia are largely allies now? And battling another armored character wouldn't be that much different from the first flick, when IM took on the Iron Monger.
3) Fin Fang Foom. Some websites have this big green dragon making an appearance in the sequel as the Mandarin's lackey. For me, this would be a mistake as in my view, the best Iron Man villains are technology-based. As Tony Stark/Iron Man frequently exclaims in his comics, "I hate magic." And FFF is too close to "fantasy" rather than hard science fiction.
4) Ultimo. Also once a minion of the Mandarin, this huge gleaming android is a doomsday device that was created by an alien race. Iron Man vs. Ultimo in the comics has been all-out donneybrooks and some of the best continued-story issues in Iron Man's 45 year history. Using Ultimo as a pawn of Mandarin could be killer (literally)!!
5) Justin Hammer & Spymaster. Combined together because dastardly businessman Hammer has frequently employed Spymaster to do his [evil] bidding. Hammer is one of Stark's ominous business rivals who'll stop at nothing to defeat and crush Stark. He used Spymaster to steal some of Iron Man's secret technology which Hammer then sold to the highest bidder(s). Thus began the classic "Armor Wars" (Iron Man #225-231). The problem with this is that we already saw a fair share of "corporate intrigue" via Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane in "Iron Man," so a full sequel about it might not be very satisfying.
Answer: Go to the Iron Fan, a.k.a. Hube of The Colossus of Rhodey!
I was combing through Wizard #206 that a friend had lent me, and in the back where they have their price index I saw the following blurb:
Obviously I've recently written about changes in the "Iron Man" movie cast, as well as the speculation of seeing War Machine in "Iron Man 2." That's Wizard's premise here, but their facts are WRONG.
Got it, Wizard? ;-)
... besides the news that Don Cheadle will be replacing Terrance Howard as Jim Rhodes/War Machine in "Iron Man 2," did anyone out there know that War Machine actually was once a suit of alien armor? Yep, that's right. (At left is the first full issue of this alien suit, War Machine #19.)
In the mid-90s, apparently Marvel wasn't doing too well with "two" Iron Men -- Tony Stark as Iron Man and Jim Rhodes as War Machine. War Machine was, after all, just a "specialized" set of Iron Man armor anyway, first seen in Iron Man #281. So what Marvel did was blatantly copy a kickin' idea from Japan: They turned Jim Rhodes into an American version of The Guyver. "Guyver" is an excellent anime offering where a young lad mistakenly comes across a suit of "bio booster" armor -- a suit which integrates directly with its user's body and augments his abilities to the Nth degree. The original series is available for purchase here, and you can also watch a couple episodes for free at that link.
So -- did Marvel's gambit work? Not at all. The "transition" was hastily done, the art for the most part was pretty sloppy, and the War Machine title ended just six issues later at #25. Eventually, Rhodes "lost" the suit when he used it to purge Stark's computers of all information concerning the Iron Man armor when Stark's company was taken over by a rival. Rhodes subsequently got his "regular" War Machine suit back several years later, as well as seeing action in the "parallel universe" stories of US War Machine.
... and that's that I've had just about enough of the election at this point. Just get it on, already! I've actually got two posts ready to go for late tomorrow/early Weds. -- one if Obama wins and one if McCain pulls it out. (And don't worry Obamaites -- I'm quite cordial to The Messiah in his post.)
So, since I've had it until after tomorrow (at least), let's check out some IRON MAN news!!
Terrance Howard, who played James Rhodes in "Iron Man" (Tony Stark's -- Robert Downey -- right-hand man), is OUT of "Iron Man 2!"
According to Entertainment Weekly, while some insiders guessed it had to do with Howard being difficult on the set, the story has much more to it:“Howard was the first actor signed to the film and, on top of that, was the highest-paid. That’s right: more than Gwyneth Paltrow. More than Jeff Bridges. More than Robert Downey Jr. And once the project fully came together, it was too late to renegotiate his deal.”
Wow. How’s that for an interesting twist? To further complicate matters, the word is that Jon Favreau was not very happy with Howard’s portrayal of Tony Stark’s long time friend Jim Rhodes. Again, there is no confirmation on this as Favreau did not comment on any of this.
Who's gonna replace Howard? Check it: Don Cheadle. It's a no-lose situation for Iron Fans, although I dig Howard and thought he did just fine as Rhodes. But Cheadle is a phenomenal actor so I'm sure he'll pick up the role without skipping a beat.
Who would have thought this, huh? Check out this advertisement from Avengers #165 from 1977:
Yep, that's an ad for the "All-New" X-Men. "All-new" because in order to boost sales (yes, you read that right) in the mid-70s, writer Len Wein and artist Dave Cockrum revised the original line-up of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's merry mutants that launched in 1963. Included in that line-up was a dude named ... Wolverine. Heard of him? ;-)
But that's only part of the story. Check out what is circled in red from above:
Indeed -- X-Men magazine used to come out once every two months!! Looking back from today this is an astonishing bit of trivia. X-Men was actually almost canceled completely because of poor sales in the early 70s. The book was only comprised of reprints of earlier issues for most of that time period. Then, in 1975, Wein and Cockrum came out with Giant-Size X-Men #1 ...
... and about 20 years later the mutant characters were by far Marvel Comics' greatest creative asset. They pretty much remain so today, too. Wolverine may even be more popular than Marvel's "flagship" character of Spider-Man. There have been three "X-Men" movies, and Wolverine is getting his own solo movie due out sometime next year (starring Hugh Jackman who played the role in the "X-Men" flicks).
By the way, if you're looking for a nice copy of Giant-Size X-Men #1, good luck. That, and make sure your bank account is well padded.
Anyone who has seen "The Dark Knight" probably caught the trailer for the "Watchmen." And if anyone has read the 12-part series (or the trade paperback which collects all twelve issues) knows "Watchmen" is one intricate plot. (Hell, the official site even says so: "A complex, multi-layered mystery adventure...") Given that, the question is -- how will "Watchmen" translate to the big screen?
Unfortunately, my opinion is "not too well." "Watchmen" is one of those stories that is tailor-made for comics ... and comics only. (It is, like Marvel's awesome "Kree-Skrull War", "an epic so grand, only the comics could bring it to you!") To do the story any justice, I think the film would have to be about three hours long -- that's about an hour too long for a casual movie-goer.
I won't go into the plot here (that would require a LOOONG post); I'll simply recommend reading the trade paperback (probably about $25 at a bookstore/comics shop), and at the very least the Wikipedia synopsis. When you're through, ponder if the yarn will translate to the silver screen. For me, I'm seeing another "Dune" debacle. But I hope I'm wrong.
Blatantly copying Ryan's idea from a few days ago, and after the adrenaline rush of seeing "The Dark Knight," here are some comic characters I'd like to see have their own flick(s):
The Avengers. The good thing is, it appears we will actually see this film go to fruition if the teasers at the end of "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk" are any indication. The original team consisted of the Hulk, Iron Man, the Wasp, Ant-Man and Thor; I'm betting that Thor will be axed and in his place will be Capt. America. Why? Thor being a "god" doesn't translate well to the big screen, and Cap's "super soldier" serum was utilized in "Hulk." The Wasp and Ant-Man will be easy enough to do up.
The Silver Surfer. He was awesome in "Fantastic Four 2" and now we should see what he's all about. Marvel handled the planet-eating Galactus ridiculously in the film; now's the chance to redeem themselves by showing how he once threatened the Surfer's home planet, but in return for sparing it, Norrin Radd of Zenn-La offered to become Galactus' herald.
Green Lantern. Any sci-fi aficionado should be craving to see a flick where test pilot Hal Jordan is bequeathed an alien ring that can transform his thoughts into pretty much whatever he wishes. Or, given that Lantern was created in the days when African-American comic characters were unheard of, long-time Lantern John Stewart could fill the bill.
The Vision. My second fave character after Iron Man, the Vision debuted in 1968 in Avengers #57 (probably the most valuable remaining old comic in my collection, seen at right) as an enemy of Earth's Mightiest. He rebelled against his creator, Ultron-5, and joined the team. He is a "synthezoid," or artificial human, who can control his body density, becoming wraith-like or hard as a diamond (and unbelievably heavy) with a thought. He was created from the same robotic body as the Original Human Torch, one of Marvel's first-ever characters, so a writer could easily manipulate this back-story into what occurred Avengers #57 and violá -- you make him the bad-guy (who reforms) in the Avengers movie, and a couple years later you give him his own film!
Superman: Red Son. I'm not a big follower of DC characters (I grew up a Marvel guy) but this excellent alternate-reality yarn by Mark Millar is silver screen worthy in a big way. It re-imagines the Man of Steel mythos whereby Supes' spacecraft lands in the Soviet Union instead of a Kansas corn field. Stalwart villain Lex Luthor ends up being America's salvation. Go figure!
Which movie superheroes have the best costumes/uniforms/appearance? MSN gives the grades, and we grade the grades:
The Hulk. MSN says "A-" and we say "OK," mainly because the newest film had an excellent homage to his classic comicbook purple pants. Green is a great color (is gamma radiation really green?), but how many of you out there knew that the Hulk's original color was gray?
Superman. MSN says "C" and we say "HUH??" No way. Supes is the original hero and his costume is timeless. "A" grade all the way. The rationale for MSN's grade is lame: "What up with the burgundy boots and cape? Red states yield red capes; burgundy is for wine drinkers."
Spider-Man. MSN gives and "A" and we agree, natch. They give Spidey's black suit a "B," but who cares.
Daredevil. MSN says "A" but we say "B." It's close enough to the original costume to satisfy us, but it's less sleek and has that goofy "collar." Matt Murdock in his Gene Colan-drawn outfit looked like a daredevil acrobat. Ben Affleck seems to be trying to impress Tommy Hilfiger.
Iron Man. MSN says "A" and we say "A+." MSN nails it: "The Iron Man costume may, in fact, be the best movie adaptation we've seen."
Elektra. MSN gives a "B" and we concur -- not only with the grade, but with their rationale: "The only problem is that it's missing some of the nastiness Elektra's comic-book fans are used to. It's more 'lite' than 'spite.'"
Batman. MSN gives the George Clooney "nipple suit" a "B-" and the Christian Bale outfit an "A-." We agree, 'though we'd give Bale's suit a full "A." And we also agree that Bale is [by far] the only Batman who is closest Bruce Wayne's actual physique.
Blade. MSN says "C," and we say "WTF are you smoking?" Their complaint is that you don't even notice the vampire hunter's costume in the comics. Um, hello?? This is the friggin' MOVIES here, you dolts! It's all ABOUT image. And WTF is this: "Black trench coat, black gloves and black shoes? This taxes our patience. Honestly, Blade's lucky that he doesn't get hit by a car"?? We give Blade's duds an "A-" because what the hell would you expect a vampire hunter to wear -- yellow spandex (to quote a certain adamantium-enhanced X-Man from the first "X-Men" flick)?
The Fantastic Four. MSN says "C," but we say "B." Yes, Jessica Alba should've been made to look hotter, but this is Marvel's "family" franchise. MSN also says the Thing looked great; we beg to differ. He looked OK, but when you look only a little better than the Thing from the never-released Corman 1994 FF flick, that says a lot.
Wolverine. MSN gives a "D" because they complain that Wolvie should be in yellow spandex (see Blade commentary above). That may have worked in the comics, but it'd look pretty silly on the silver screen. Besides, that comment ignores "Ultimate" Wolverine's look. We give the Canuck X-Man a "B" for his black on-screen duds.
Catwoman. MSN gives a disparaging "F;" we say anything that allows the devastatingly gorgeous Halle Berry to show off her spectacular bod deserves no less than a B-." But that friggin' headwear has GOT to go.
Silver Surfer. We're surprised he was even included, but we'll agree with MSN's grade of "A." His effects were first-rate.
Ghost Rider. MSN says "C;" we say "no friggin' way." GR was remarkably true to the comic's look, so if this is the factor by which we should judge, MSN (see Wolverine above), then what's the friggin' deal? He deserves at least a "B," and the effects (and movie story) were better than expected.
So, I got together with my teaching/comics/movies buddy Brent yesterday to go see the latest Marvel offering, "The Incredible Hulk." Joining us was my old college pal Dan, the man who donated me most of my Iron Man collection back in the last 80s.
Let me just start off my saying that this flick is quite a step above the 2003 Ang Lee version. The action is better, the villain is vastly superior, and the hat-tips to past Hulk lore (comics and the TV show) were outstanding.
SPOILERS AHEAD! DON'T PROCEED IF YOU WANT NO REVELATIONS!
Edward Norton plays Bruce Banner this timeout, the Hulk's meek scientist alter-ego. Norton is a superb actor; if you've never seen "American History X," rent it ASAP and discover why. Norton doesn't really get a chance to show off his awesome talents in the film, unfortunately, but he's still better than Eric Bana from the 2003 film. (This guy doesn't think so; he says Norton comes off as "whiny." No way.)
The film is set five years after the 2003 film (exact time! Whoa!) and Banner is hiding from General "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt this time out) and his minions in Brazil. While working a menial job in a bottling factory, Banner spends his free time communicating clandestinely with a scientist back in the states in hopes of finding a cure for his affliction. One day in the factory, Banner cuts his hand, and a drop of blood accidentally falls into a bottle of the final juice product. The hapless American who ends up drinking the juice (played by Stan Lee, natch) dies of gamma radiation poisoning, and this tips off Ross as to where Banner is hiding out.
Banner manages to elude the special forces team sent to nab him, mainly by unwillingly transforming into the Jade Giant (the Hulk, that is). Special forces team leader Emil Blonsky (played by the awesome Tim Roth) demands to know from Ross just how Banner can turn into the green behemoth. Ross lets Blonsky in on what the government is attempting to do with Banner's gamma research, which is mainly the development of a "super soldier" serum. This here is a HUGE hat-tip to Captain America lore, emphasized by the fact that the vial Ross gathers to use in Blonsky is marked by a label with the name "Reinstein" on it. Professor Reinstein is the name of the scientist that developed the original super soldier formula in the 1940s that created Capt. America.
Meanwhile, Banner, after the battle against Blonsky and co. in Brazil, has lost his laptop full of needed data. Therefore, he's gotta make his way back to the U.S. He does, but stupidly goes to see his love Betty Ross (played by uber-hot Liv Tyler. And yes, Betty is General Ross's daughter.) This, of course, leads to another confrontation between the Hulk and Blonsky's team. But this time, Blonsky has been injected with the super soldier serum. He moves like a super-athlete, but it's still not enough to best the Hulk (not much is, yo!). Of course, it doesn't help that Blonsky is one cocky MFer; he stands directly in front of the Hulk and goads him with "Is that the best you got?" whereupon Hulk kicks him into a tree and breaks every bone in his body!
Banner and Betty escape, and eventually find their way to the scientist Banner was corresponding with from Brazil. Banner discovers, to his chagrin, that the dude has replicated the blood samples he sent him over the years into a mass storehouse for further experimentation. (This was my big "WTF?" moment -- how does one "replicate" human blood from a specific individual??) The scientist is not malicious in his intent, however, and agrees to try to cure Banner. He appears to succeed, but at a most inopportune time: Blonsky (whose super soldier serum healed his busted skeleton perfectly) and co. have found him, and without the Hulk now, Banner is easy prey. After Banner has been secured, Blonsky demands that the scientist turn him into a Hulk-like creature! He doesn't care that the scientist can make no guarantees; he's beyond all reason now. The scientist injects Blonsky with one of his myriad gamma-irradiated samples, and Emil turns into the monstrous Abomination as a result!
As Blonsky thrashes about, however, following his transformation, he knocks over the scientist and smashes numerous gamma-enhanced blood samples. 
Some of those samples splash onto the scientist, and into an open wound on his head. The last we see of the scientist is of his head seemingly growing larger! This, for Brent, Dan and myself, was the creation of longtime Hulk nemesis The Leader (at left).
The climatic battle between the Hulk and the Abomination is first-rate. As the Abomination goes on a rage-induced rampage through Harlem (yes, Harlem -- get ready for Al Sharpton to protest: "Why did they have to destroy Harlem? Why couldn't it be a predominately white area of New York??", although critic Alonso Duralde says "kudos" for using Harlem instead of, say, Times Square), Banner is in a helicopter being whisked away by General Ross. But he convinces Ross that the only chance they have to beat the Abomination is for Ross to let Banner go and battle him as the Hulk. There's just one problem: Banner is supposed to be cured now. No matter, Banner says. There was "no guarantee" the cure would work. But in another of the film's "WTF?" moments, Banner is seen falling from the helicopter (in hopes of changing to the Hulk before he hits), but when he opens his eyes shortly before landfall, there's no green color to them and he mutters "Oh, shit." Yet, he makes a huge cratering hole upon impact, leaving viewers to assume he had at least partially transformed before splattering the street.
The donneybrook between the two gamma-spawned monoliths is awesome. The Abomination looks little like his comics version, and indeed is much more powerful than said version. He actually resembles Doomsday, the villain that "killed" Superman in the 1990s. The Hulk uses many of the classic battle techniques he did in the comics, including clapping his hands together to smother flames, and pounding his fists on the ground to create a massive shockwave. He even screams out the venerable "HULK SMASH!" toward battle's end.
One big negative about the confrontation is that one huge aspect about the Hulk was totally ignored: The madder he gets, the stronger he gets. This has been a LONG mainstay in the Hulk mythos, yet it's never mentioned or touched upon. For instance, even though the Abomination is stronger at the onset, as the Hulk gets more and more pissed off, he should have eventually totally pummelled Blonsky. The Hulk's "victory," as it is, is more of a luck factor than anything else.
Another "negative," such that it is, is that we didn't see any of the Hulk's prodigious leaps. In the 2003 film, the Hulk jumped miles over the barren desert. In 2008, the Hulk resembled Spider-Man, jumping from building to building before finally jumping just a little bit longer over the East River.
The acting could have been a lot better considering the superior casting over the first flick. Norton, Hurt and Roth are all first-rate actors, yet unlike "Iron Man," with a similarly talented cast, they weren't allowed to shine. Norton did the best job in my opinion; there's just something about his "naturalness" in front of the camera that impresses me. Liv Tyler, who didn't do a bad job, really didn't have to act. Just looking at her is pleasant enough, natch!
The homages to Hulk references were excellent. In Brazil, Norton is shown watching an old rerun of "The Courtship of Eddie's Father," which starred Bill Bixby. Bixby, of course, played Banner in the "Hulk" TV show in the late 70s. Speaking of the TV show, its tell-tale melancholy piano interlude was featured in a brief segment where Norton was strolling up the street of his favela. And, of course, Lou Ferrigno, who played the Hulk in the TV series, gets his cameo as a college campus security guard whom Norton bribes (to gain entrance to a lab) with a free pizza!
And, it's obvious that Marvel is opening up their movie universe just like they did with their comics universe. In a final scene, General Ross is met in a bar by none other than Tony Stark (yep, played by Robert Downey Jr.) to discuss the "Avengers Initiative." If you stuck around 'til after the credits in "Iron Man," you'll know what I'm talking about. And speaking of Iron Man, there were several brief references to Stark Industries and S.H.I.E.L.D. in "The Incredible Hulk."
As for the CGI? Only mildly better than the 2003 film. The effects for the Abomination are better than those for the Hulk -- probably because he looked much less human.
Hube's rating for "The Incredible Hulk": 3 out of 5 stars.
A couple of interesting comicbook related tidbits come my way today. The first, courtesy of the ever-vigilant Soccer Dad, details how a comics creator is looking "to the Koran For 99 New Superheroes":
God has 99 attributes, or names, including tolerance."And then the idea formed in my mind," [creator Naif al-]Mutawa said. "Heroes with the 99 attributes."
He mixed his deep religious faith, business acumen and firsthand experience with other cultures -- his childhood summers were spent at a predominantly Jewish camp in New Hampshire -- to create The 99, a comic-book series about superheroes imbued with the 99 attributes of God. Those traits represent one of Islam's most recognizable concepts.
Mutawa's superheroes are modern, secular and spiritual, moving seamlessly between East and West. They come from 99 countries and are split between males and females.
Mutawa has raised a cool $7 million for his project, and even has a new Iron Man writer assisting him. He also is wary of Islamic fundies, always a good thing:
"We should not allow a very limited number of people to tell us how to practice our religion. An Islam where I can be an active participant is the only Islam I can belong to. I believe in Islam and I also believe in evolution," he said.
However, one thing you might want to stay away from, Mutawa, is the growing -- ridiculous -- influence of the modern American university:
This semester, the American University of Kuwait offered a class, "The Superhero in the Arab World," that focused on The 99. As a final project, students created their own comic-book heroes.
How's that for academic rigor, eh? I could have gotten a zillion college credits back in grade school with all the original heroes I dreamed up! Sheesh!
In other news, Mike Matthews sends word that all is not well with the "Iron Man" sequel:
About a week ago, the IESB was tipped off by a junior source at Marvel Studios that there had been some delays with Jon's negotiations regarding the sequel. When asked why I was told that Marvel and [Director Jon] Favreau hadn't been able to come to terms regarding money.At first I thought my source was full of shit and I dismissed it as a rumor. This last Friday I was contacted by another source at Marvel and this one, let's just say, is much higher up on the food chain, and told me that the chairman of Marvel Studios David Maisel who has been in charge of negotiating new terms with Favreau is being cheap and not willing to pay a fair directors' fee.
Favreau was a bargain to begin with, he is after all a fairly new director even though he has had several commercially successful films under his belt when he was brought aboard Iron Man for a steal.
So according to our source at Marvel, Jon was expecting a moderate bump in his fee for the sequel but apparently Marvel has other plans.
Our source continues that Maisel believes Iron Man 2 will be a success regardless of Favreau's involvement and feels the studio does not need to pay Jon a higher fee for his services.
So bottom line, Jon Favreau has not been locked in to direct Iron Man 2 for the simple reason that Marvel is being cheap - this is 100% accurate folks, no bullshit.
Isn't that special? You get a guy for a bargain-basement rate, he turns out a blockbuster, and this is how you repay him. This makes me doubly glad I stopped buying modern Marvel books months ago. (That was because I grew weary of the cheap money-grabbing gimmicks, the lousy writing and characterization, and the need to purchase dozens of books to know what the hell is even going on.)
Maybe Robert Downey Jr. and the other stars can take a stand and vouch for Favreau. I would.
My pal Vic Holtreman reports over at Screen Rant that it looks like a "Cap" movie is a go:
Among the news bits are the fact that the Captain America movie will remain titled "The First Avenger: Captain America" instead of the preferred (by most) "Captain America: The First Avenger." They're scheduling the Cap movie to be released only a month and a half before the "Avengers" movie, so the emphasis on the group in the title of his stand alone movie seems to be quite calculated.As to when the film will take place: World War II timeframe, so it will be a full-on origin story taking place entirely in the past.
I've seen on some message boards some consternation over the title, in particular the "First Avenger" bit. Comics enthusiasts know that Cap didn't appear in modern Marvel continuity until Avengers #4 -- in other words, he wasn't the "First Avenger." He wasn't even a member of the original team! But I think the point is that Cap existed well before the Avengers even came into existence -- he's a product of World War II, hence the film's setting. Towards the war's end, Cap and partner "Bucky" Barnes attempted to stop a Nazi missile launch. Barnes was killed (although he supposedly is back in action today -- again, nobody stays dead in comics) and Cap was thrown into the icy ocean waters. He became encased in ice and suspended animation. Some twenty years later, Earth's Mightiest Heroes (the Avengers, natch) discovered him.
Casual Iron Man fans may not know that Tony Stark has died in the Marvel Universe -- at least twice. The more well-known instance took place in the 1990s, when Marvel had the "brilliant" idea to make Iron Man a teenager. Over a series of many issues (and many different titles, like The Avengers and War Machine), Tony Stark was shown to become the "puppet" of longtime Marvel bad-guy Kang the Conqueror. (Sticklers for detail know by now that it was actually Kang's "other-self" Immortus that was responsible for mentally controlling Stark, but let's not dicker here.) The Avengers (and if you don't know who they are, just stay in the theatre after the "Iron Man" credits finish to get an idea!) ended up traveling back in time to nab Stark when he was a teenager to assist them in defeating [adult] Stark.
The Avengers #395 (above) is where Stark meets his demise. He temporarily overcame Kang's influence to save the Avengers by sacrificing himself.
As mentioned too, in this post, it was only temporary. Death is never permanent in comics. Just ask Superman, right? When Marvel hired then-hotshots Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld to "re-imagine" some Marvel characters in various "volume 2" issues, adult Tony Stark was given new life. However, all of the volume 2 Marvel characters were inhabitants of a "pocket universe;" it was not the Marvel Universe proper. After thirteen volume 2 issues, Marvel decided to "bring back" their characters to their universe. Adult Tony Stark was included among those heroes. "How?" you may ask? It's complicated and would be esoteric to anyone not very familiar with many Marvel characters, but The Avengers Annual 2001 is where the actual "explanation" took place, in case you care.
Two and a half decades before, Iron Man/Tony Stark had died too. Ironically, it was also thanks to Kang the Conqueror. In The Avengers #132 (above), Kang had abducted various Avengers, including Iron Man, to Limbo -- a place where normal time doesn't exist. The time-traveling baddie had resurrected numerous villains from Marvel's past to battle the Avengers. One of these undead characters was the Original Human Torch, one of Marvel's first-ever characters. On Kang's order, the Torch grabbed Iron Man from behind, and held onto him -- until the incredible heat melted Iron Man's chestplate. Without that device to keep his heart beating, Stark soon perished. But not for long. In Giant-Size Avengers #3, Kang's other-self Immortus (again, ironically) gave Stark new life. In effect, Stark had been dead for only one measly issue!
A few days ago in this Iron Man Tidbit post, I wrote about what a friggin' total hack 1990s comics "hotshot" Rob Liefeld was (is). Here's a reprint of a segment of a fanzine article I wrote back in late 2004:
In what I could dub “It Came From the Rip-Off Bin,” I actually got for free what is essentially an advertisement for totally lame comic “creator” Rob Liefeld’s AGENT: AMERICA (see below).
Cripes, the utter gall it took to “create” such a rip-off of CAPTAIN AMERICA must’ve known no bounds. After Liefeld was axed by Marvel for his pathetic job on volume 2 CAPT. AMERICA, he founded a co. called “Awesome Entertainment.” There, he acquired the rights to a Jack Kirby character called “Fighting American” who Jack created with Joe Simon in the 50s as an American “Cold Warrior.” Liefeld used his never-realized “ideas” from vol. 2 CAP in AGENT: AMERICA … wait, check that – he ultimately decided to use the old Kirby moniker of FIGHTING AMERICAN. Because …
… considering how pathetically close an imitation AGENT: AMERICA was to CAPTAIN AMERICA, Marvel sued Liefeld. The court’s decision was that Liefeld and Awesome Entertainment could keep FIGHTING AMERICAN (not AGENT, seen at left), but he could never be seen throwing his shield, and Rob had to alter FA’s costume to make it less “Cap-like.”
Yeesh. Doing online research about this story got me pretty confused. I think the above nails down pretty well what transpired. However, I did discover that DC had once revived FIGHTING AMERICAN in 1994 as a pretty straightforward revamp of Kirby and Simon’s character. Thanks to the UK International Hero website and Christopher Vanette for their valuable insight.
***************
Again, if you haven't yet checked out this site dedicated to Liefeld's lameness, be sure to stop by.
You may have heard it before: Tony Stark has a drinking problem.
Or, at least he had a drinking problem. In the comics, that is. The first creators to elaborate on this ultimate Iron Man "enemy" were the awesome David Michelinie (a Delaware resident, by the way) and Bob Layton. In Iron Man #128 (below) -- "Demon in a Bottle" -- Stark had to battle through his addiction with the help (mainly) of then-girlfriend Bethany Cabe.
It didn't last very long, however. By issue #169 (below) Stark was drinking again -- this, due to rival businessman Obadiah Stane taking over his company.
Guess who he's talking to on that cover? Yep, Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard in the movie) who thus begins his stint as the Golden Avenger for about thirty issues. #169 begins one of the most talked about Iron Man storylines ever. Tony Stark actually ends up living on the streets. His fortune is gone. His company is gone. It's rare that a comic can actually ... "touch" me emotionally; however, Iron Man #182 (below) says it all: Stark will either be sober ... or dead in this issue.
Of course, it's the former answer, yet Stark has to go through hell to make it. He fights not only his inner demons, but a killer blizzard to save the life of a fellow drunk's newborn.
Stark teams up with pal Jim Rhodes and two young scientists to start up a fledgling electronics company, and eventually comes back into conflict with Obadiah Stane. The climax occurs in issue #200 with Stark completely recovered -- as an alcoholic and from his fear of becoming Iron Man again.
OK, if 'ya don't know by now, 'ol Hube is one big Iron Man fan. He has been since his youngest days as a lad. In the 1990s, I made use of my immense Iron Man knowledge by contributing to an Iron Man fan magazine, or "fanzine" as they're known. When volume 3 Iron Man began (1998, known as "Heroes Return"), I and other fanzine contributors got to know many of the title's creators pretty well. The inaugural artist of volume 3 IM was one Sean Chen. Sean was just then making his big foray into big-time comics, and was quite thankful for the exposure and encouragement our fanzine gave him.
In December of 2001 when my family and another were vacationing in New York City, Sean was gracious enough to invite me to his Manhattan apartment/studio for a visit. Wow -- what a life! And I mean that most enviously. Sean had a terrific view of the Empire State Building, and his domicile was also his studio where he churned out all his work. He was -- is -- one awesome guy.
And unbeknownst to me when I first bought Iron Man volume 3 #17, Sean included a tiny "hat-tip" to yours truly:
Yep, that's the name "Hube" on top of that taxi! The [main] panel is 'ol Tony Stark introducing one his many squeezes to secretary Virginia "Pepper" Potts (who was played by Gwyneth Paltrow in the movie). I said "unbeknownst to me" because I never noticed it when I first read the issue. It wasn't until I received an e-mail from Sean asking me "what I thought of that taxi" that I realized what Chen had did!
In a word or two, how cool is that?
Iron Man was once a teenager.
No joke. No, Tony Stark did not create his Iron Man armor as a teen. He was already an adult when he was taken captive and had to create the Iron Man armor to escape his tormentors. In the mid-90s, Marvel got this "brilliant" idea to attract younger readers -- "Let's turn Iron Man into a teenager!"
It backfired spectacularly.
The ... "experiment" lasted a whole eight issues. Eight. In 1996, Marvel brought in then-heavyweights Jim Lee (well, he's still a heavyweight) and Rob Liefeld (who's an unbelievable total hack) to "reimagine" some of their marquee characters, including the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, Captain America and Iron Man. Liefeld, however, was such a disaster on Captain America that they asked him to leave after only half his contracted issues. I mean, just look at the grotesque anatomy he ... "drew" below:
Ugh. And this guy was supposed to be one of the 1990's "hot" talents. Go figure. (Check out this hilarious site which chronicles Liefeld's "40 Worst Drawings.") Eventually, come 1998, Marvel "revamped" their marquee characters again in what was dubbed "Heroes Return." Iron Man was an adult again (thank God!), and all of Marvel was back in their "own" universe.
Now, you may -- just may -- be wondering what the hell happened to Teen Tony Stark. No one really knows. And further, no one really cares. As long as he's just ... gone.
One of Iron Man's biggest faux pas's occurred back in Iron Man #68 from June, 1974: Tony Stark had the "great" idea of adding a NOSE to the Iron Man helmet:
Needless to say it was pretty ridiculous, and the editors decided to trash it pretty quickly -- it existed for less than twenty issues. By issue #85, Iron Man had a new method of "armoring up," and as such, the nose "had to go" from the faceplate.
Hey, did'ja know that the old Soviet Union (and later Russia) had (have) their very own Iron Man counterpart? Hell, yes! His name is the Crimson Dynamo:
-2.gif)
At least six men have worn the Dynamo armor over the years as operatives of the Soviet (Russian) government. Of course, none of them was ever able to best Tony Stark (Iron Man) mainly because 1) Stark is one of the most brilliant minds on the planet, and 2) Iron Man's technology was always one step ahead of whatever the Russians had.
How about a cool $100+ million weekend opening here in the U.S. and over $200 million worldwide? How about the 2nd-best non-sequel opening weekend in box office history? How about the 10th best opening (monetarily) for a film ever?
Not bad for a "second tier" comic character, eh?
And that would be the Iron Man cartoon from 1966:
This theme was used as a phone ringtone in the new movie, by the way.
And that would be the Iron Man (season 2) cartoon from 1996:
Goof Alert: Notice at the very end when IM punches the steel wall? He swings with his right arm, but the impression on the wall is of his left fist! DOH!
Twenty years ago: Tony Stark was shot through the chest by an insane jealous girlfriend!
After going toe-to-toe with his deadly foe the Mandarin, Stark returns home to discover Kathy Dare (at left) -- a clingy spoiled-rich brat whom Stark had dated briefly -- standing there with a gun! Not able to handle being jilted, she puts a bullet right through Stark's mid-section, crippling him!
It was one of the greatest cliffhangers in Iron Man history. For the next few issues, Stark was wheelchair bound (and, of course, it wasn't your typical wheelchair; Stark constructs an anti-gravity chair to get him around!).
Eventually Stark undergoes a radical procedure which essentially gives him an entirely new nervous system. Unfortunately, he never adequately checked the technology behind it. The company that came up with it was a front for some of Stark's rivals; the "nervous system" was actually a clandestine means by which to physically control Stark's body from afar! (See a summary of this whole affair here.) The climax of this storyline led directly to the creation of the War Machine armor and to Jim Rhodes assuming the role of Iron Man for a time.
Being the super-genius that he is, Stark eventually manages to devise a means by which to "overwrite" the programming of the insidious nervous system, essentially creating a new one. After a bit of P.T., he's back in the armor again (Iron Man #300).
He decides that "Iron Man" is an anti-American film. Take it from me: He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Good thing he's getting thrashed in the comments section, including a little nugget from yours truly.
(By the way, some have opined on various forums that I wouldn't trash the flick no matter what 'cause I'm such a fan of the character. To which I say "ARE YOU NUTS??" Seriously, I'd be the very FIRST to shred it if it was warranted. Look no further than "Starship Troopers." It's my favorite sci-fi novel ever, but the film was an utter travesty.)
OK, so maybe you've seen the "Iron Man" movie or at least read about it. You've seen the suit of armor. But did you know that that suit is just one of many? Indeed. Tony Stark has actually devised myriad suits of armor for specific needed purposes. Check some of the better-known outfits:
THE SPACE ARMOR.
There have been several "Space Armors" to date. The first debuted in 1981 courtesy of Iron Man dream team David Michelinie and Bob Layton. The armor is just that -- specifically designed to operate in zero gee, in addition to actually launching itself into orbit in the first place!
THE STEALTH AND UNDERSEA ARMORS.
THE WAR MACHINE ARMOR. Actually titled the "Variable Threat Response Suit," the War Machine armor was structurally tougher and used more "standard" weapons (guns, missiles) than high-tech. Stark only wore the War Machine once, then later built another version of it for pal Jim Rhodes.
HIGH-STRENGTH ARMORS. Waddya do when your opponent is the Hulk? Or Thor? Simple: You build a set of armor to defeat 'em! Cases in point: The Hulkbuster and Thorbuster Armors, respectively.
If there ever was a movie I was going to see on the very first day, this was it. The film opens in the deserts of Afghanistan where billionaire playboy industrialist (and super-genius, mind you) Tony Stark is traveling with some US soldiers in a convoy, coming back from a field test of some of Stark's new anti-terror weaponry. Suddenly, an IED explodes, and the convoy comes under attack!
WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!
The soldiers are all massacred, and Stark is severely wounded by shrapnel. He's captured by al Qaeda-like terrorists and taken to a cave. There is much shrapnel near his heart. A doctor removes much of it, but a makeshift magnet is installed into Stark's chest to repel the remaining shards from his ticker.
The head terror dude demands that Stark make a weapon for him, or he'll be killed.
FLASHBACK: Director John Favreau blends Tony Stark's backstory brilliantly here as Stark is about to be given an "Apogee" award for his cunning genius. We see old "pictures" of Stark growing up -- as a boy mastermind, along with how his father built up the company, Stark Industries. In addition, Favreau mixes in the deviousness of Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) masterfully; instead of being a Stark business rival, Stane has been at Stark Industries since day one as second in command, and you can right from the start "feel" Stane's resentment at the young Stark having assumed control of the company after the elder Stark died.
BACK TO AFGHANISTAN: Stark and fellow captive Yinsen (named after Professor Ho Yinsen from Iron Man's first issue, Tales of Suspense #39) plot their escape. There's no way they're going to build the weapon the terrorists want as they know they'll be killed regardless (a most logical assumption!). Right under the terrorists' noses they begin constructing the prototype Iron Man armor (they are geniuses, after all!). Stark devises a miniature "arc reactor" (which is what powers his main plant back in the States) for his heart, and this will also serve as the Iron Man's power source.
At the key moment -- when Stark and Yinsen are powering up the armor to finally escape -- the radical Islamists bust into their lab! But ... the Iron Man suit isn't ready yet! In an excellent homage to Tales of Suspense #39, Yinsen sacrifices his life to buy Stark the needed time for the armor to start up. Stark -- Iron Man, now -- busts out of his cave prison and jets away to safety. But he "lands" rather clumsily (a crash landing, to be sure), wrecking the armor. He gets out of the suit (leaving it behind! Oh no!) and begins scrambling for safety. Eventually, a duo of American helicopters find him.
After seeing what his weapons can do in the "field" (and also wondering how in the world so many of his weapons got into the hands of terrorists), upon arriving back home Stark decides to get out of the munitions business and devote Stark Industries to more humanitarian purposes. This pretty much infuriates Obadiah Stane (again, Bridges), who tries to talk some "sense" into Tony. Stane grows more angered as Tony continually refuses to "come to his senses" and continue making weapons.
In his secret basement lab, Stark begins to create the "modern" Iron Man suit we all know and love. Another terrific touch Favreau uses here is the [completely] automated lab Stark has been using pretty much in the comics for about 15 years now. The computer is even named "Jarvis" after his long-time comics butler (who also worked for the Avengers). After numerous tests, Stark decides it's time to put the suit into action!
.jpg)
Iron Man jets back Afghanistan to "pay back" numerous members of that terrorist squad that had captured him, and are now terrorizing a nearby village. And how did they get so many Stark munitions?? This is where we first see the armor in all-out action, and it mesmerizes the senses!! A must for this movie was showing what the armor looked like from Stark's POV, and Favreau doesn't disappoint. The interior helmet displays and graphics are sensational! Probably most cool was when Iron Man picks out all the terrorists among numerous civilians, and uses his targeting computer to shoot all of them. For me, this was a hat-tip to long-time 90s Iron Man writer Len Kaminski. Len made constant use of computerized helmet displays in his stories, and Iron Fans loved him dearly for it!
The "cat is let out of the bag," so to speak, when we see Obadiah Stane arriving at an Afghan terror camp. It has been him who has been clandestinely sending weapons to the terrorists, against company orders. His terrorist "partners" show him what they discovered in the nearby desert: The remains of Stark's first Iron Man suit, pretty much reassembled. They give Stane the plans, and Stane promptly flies back to the US to put these plans to use!
Eventually, Stane gets some technos to assemble his own "Iron Man" outfit (which was called the "Iron Monger" in the comic, but was never specifically dubbed that in the film -- unless I missed it), but they cannot duplicate the power source Stark created, that miniature "arc reactor." In a great scene which is meant to highlight Stark's genius, Stane grabs a techno and screams at him, "YOU IDIOT! TONY STARK MADE ONE OF THESE IN THE DESERT FROM A BUNCH OF SCRAPS!"
To "finish" the Iron Monger, Stane has only recourse: Steal Tony Stark's power source. But ... it's inside his chest, keeping him alive! No matter. Stane hides in Stark's house, incapacitates him, and yanks the mini arc reactor from his chest. Dying, Stark attempts to reach his original device to save his life. He barely makes it. His pal Jim Rhodes arrives in time to witness Stark suit up to go after Stane. In a prescient scene, Rhodes exclaims "Cool! I gotta fly one of these!" Then, after Stark has jetted off, Rhodes glances at Stark's unpainted [modern armor] prototype and says, "Next time!" Indeed, Rhodes replaced Stark as Iron Man for a time in the comic, and eventually was given his own set of armor, dubbed "War Machine."
The climactic battle between Stark and Stane is awesome. The special effects are what you'd expect -- and more. If you thought "Transformers'" F/X were boffo, this is right up your alley. The battle doesn't go well for Stark (he is using a much weaker back-up power source, after all!), and eventually the Iron Monger is on the verge of victory. However, Stark gal Friday Pepper Potts has followed Stark's orders to head down and overload the giant arc reactor which powers Stark Industries' main plant! She succeeds, and the resultant energy discharge fries Stane -- and his armor.
In one of the coolest endings in comics (or any) movies, covert operatives have given Stark a cover story which to read to the press which will "explain" the incident at the plant. The press asks Stark about Iron Man point blank. The cover story says that Iron Man is Stark's bodyguard, which was indeed the case in the comics for much of Iron Man's history! However, only recently (in the comics) has Stark made it known to the public that he is the Golden Avenger. So, when the press asks, Stark replies, "Come on, me? A superhero? No. The truth ... the truth is ... yes -- I am Iron Man!" and then the credits roll alongside some very cool Iron Man schematics animation!
THE GREAT. Robert Downey Jr. is absolutely sensational as Stark/Iron Man. I was among those who had many doubts when word came out that he had the title role; however, he was perfection. Downey had the perfect combo of playboy playfulness, humor, and scientific techno-babble genius that anyone playing Tony Stark needed.
Jeff Bridges as Stane was right there with Downey in the acting dept. Bridges freaked me out as the maniacal serial killer in "The Vanishing;" he brings a lot of that atmosphere with him in "IM," even including some of that spooky-ass voice he assumed in "Vanishing."
The special effects were also kick-ass, needless to say. You might think this is a given in a modern comics flick; now way, man. Just check out the lame effort in the first "Fantastic Four" film.
Other great stuff:
THE GOOD. The supporting cast. How could you lose with Gwyneth Paltrow (Potts) and Terrence Howard (Rhodes)? You couldn't. I especially dug Howard -- he came across as such a natural, as he always does in his films. The only reason these two were just "good" is because they weren't given enough camera time, especially Terrence.
THE BAD. Absolutely nuthin'!
BIGGEST "AW, C'MON!" MOMENT. There was only one in the whole film, which is good for a comics-based movie. "Iron Man's" was this: We witness Tony Stark spending a good deal of time getting used to the Iron Man armor, especially the flying aspect. But somehow, Obadiah Stane jumped right into his Iron Monger armor and was an instant expert at using that suit! He had little difficulty fighting Stark (Iron Man) who somehow needed a lot of practice with his suit, natch!
HUBE'S RATING: FIVE STARS (out of five).
First, yes -- I did see "Iron Man" today. My review will be posted tomorrow morning. For now I'll just say three words: It. Kicked. Ass.
***************
For the next two weeks or so, in honor of my favorite hero's debut on the silver screen, I'll be featuring a daily "trivia tidbit" about 'ol "Shellhead." Today: The color of the armor you see in the "Iron Man" movie is red and gold for a reason: IM's armor has always been that color. Well, almost. Virtually always.
Iron Man's first "suit" was what us Iron Fans call "clunker gray." But that wasn't Tony Stark's fault. He had to use whatever was available to him to get the hell out of that prison camp. We only saw this "genesis armor" for one issue: Tales of Suspense #39, Iron Man's first-ever appearance.
In the very next issue, #40, Stark painted this gray armor gold. Even though this color scheme only lasted a mere eight issues, it was enough to give the hero a nickname that stays with him to this day: "The Golden Avenger."
Tales of Suspense #48 witnessed the armor hue that would define the character -- red and gold. And so it would be for about 20 years! Though Iron Man's armor changed a bit (in design and technology), the color scheme remained. Then, in 1985, Tony Stark made a big change -- he created a red and silver suit of armor. The reasons for this are several, the biggest being that this armor debut marked the return of Tony Stark after a long bout with alcoholism. He was reluctant to get back into armor at all, but when it became absolutely necessary, he wanted something radically different, so as to remind him as little as possible of the "old" days of Iron Man. Ironically, the red and silver armor was first used against Stark rival Obadiah Stane (in his own armor), who is the main villain in the "Iron Man" film.
This "Silver Centurion" armor lasted for thirty issues, until complaints about its bulkiness -- and non-traditional color scheme! -- led the title creators to give Stark an "excuse" for designing a new -- and red and gold -- set of armor: They destroyed it!
Iron Man has remained red and gold ever since -- another 20 years, that is!
Of course, this whole post is about Iron Man's main suit of armor. Tony Stark has a whole bevy of specialty suits for specific purposes! We'll take a gander at some of these tomorrow!
Less. Than. A. Day. Away. The initial "buzz" regarding the movie has been overwhelmingly positive; a teaching bud of mine said Howard Stern reported that the film is easily on par with "Spider-Man." That certainly bodes well.
For those not [very] familiar with the Iron Man mythos, do not fret. Do not despair. 'Ol Hube is here today with your guide to the main characters and back story!
THE HERO. Many wondered about the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, billionaire playboy industrialist and weapons manufacturer. I wondered too. If this flick had been green-lighted a decade or so earlier, I'd have gone with Tom Selleck, who really looks like the comicbook version of Stark. Alas, Selleck is now too old.
But what makes Downey a terrific pick is the inherent weakness of Stark. Y'see, Stark has an alcohol problem. Seeing the connection now? A whole fifty or so issues of Iron Man in the late 70s-early 80s dealt with Stark's bout with alcoholism, including a stretch where Stark literally lost his fortune and was living on the streets.
THE GIRL. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, Tony Stark's long-time secretary and love interest. It will be interesting to see how far the movie takes their romance; in the comic, Stark and Pepper never got beyond an occasional smooch. Early in Tales of Suspense (the title in which Iron Man appeared before he got his own magazine), Pepper and Stark right-hand man Happy Hogan became romantically involved and eventually ended up marrying. There doesn't seem to be a Happy Hogan in the flick.
THE BEST PAL. Terrence Howard is Jim "Rhodey" Rhodes, Stark's pal and confidante. Rhodes wasn't introduced until much later in Iron Man -- issue #118 to be precise. He is the co-creation of Delaware resident and comic writer extraordinaire David Michelinie. In the comic, Rhodes was a soldier in Vietnam who rescued Stark (in his very first Iron Man suit); in the movie it'll apparently be the same situation except the place will be Afghanistan.
In the comic, Rhodes eventually got his own set of armor, becoming the hero War Machine. He had his own Marvel title for a time, and also was a member of the super-team West Coast Avengers. Terrence Howard is quite aware of this history, and has stated that was one of the reasons he agreed to play Rhodes (for a possible future "War Machine" movie)!
THE VILLAIN. Jeff Bridges plays the diabolical Obadiah Stane, one of Tony Stark's main business rivals. In the comic, over about 35 issues, Stane capitalizes on Stark's falling off the wagon, and takes over his company. He happens upon some of Stark's notes on the Iron Man armor, and then has a team of tech guys create his own suit of armor based on these notes. Stane dubs his armor the "Iron Monger," and he eventually has to do battle with a now-sober Stark who's back in the Iron Man armor. The climactic battle takes place in Iron Man #200.
In the film, Stane appears to be a high-ranking employee of Stark's who falls into Tony's bad graces. He later capitalizes on the discovered designs of Stark's prototype Iron Man suit, and uses them to create the Iron Monger (that's the huge suit of armor you see battling Iron Man in some of the trailers/commercials).
THE BACK-STORY. Created in 1963, Iron Man's genesis occurred in the jungles of Vietnam. As a manufacturer of weapons for the U.S. military, Stark took a trip to Southeast Asia to see his work in action. Unfortunately for him, he steps on a boobytrap where a piece of shrapnel lodges near his heart. Captured by the Viet Cong, petty warlord Wong Chu demands Stark make weapons for him, or Stark will be executed. Stark realizes he'll die anyway (either by Chu's hand or by the shrapnel moving into his heart), so he and a fellow prisoner (who happens to be a great scientist!) devise a chestpiece that will keep Stark's heart beating after the metal shard has pierced it. They go a step further and mold a complete set of rudimentary armor.
Stark uses this prototype armor to bust out of (and destroy) the prison camp. Later in Iron Man history we learn that soldier Jim Rhodes had run into the armored man in the thick of the jungle and led him to rescue. (See above: Jim Rhodes.)
Once back in the safety of his corporate empire, Stark slowly undergoes a change of heart. He gradually moves his company away from developing weapons -- and into peaceful applications. He greatly modifies his armor with many incredible capabilities, and decides to remain a "hero" in part to "make up" for the destruction and pain his weapons development had caused over the years.
Word is the movie stays very loyal to this history with only minor changes. Aside from the updated locale change (Afghanistan), it seems the only other [slight] change is Obadiah Stane (Bridges) being an employee of Stark's instead of a rival businessman. It is Stark's decision to move his company away from munitions manufacturing that angers Stane; in retaliation, Stane uses the discovered prototype Iron Man designs (unearthed, it seems, by some terrorists in Afghanistan) to construct the aforementioned "Iron Monger."
See also here for more good info on Iron Man's history.
Newsarama has an early review of this Friday's "Iron Man" flick. It doesn't reveal much, but gives the film a resounding thumbs up! Now I'm really really looking forward to it!
In addition, Newsarama has news that a new Iron Manual will be forthcoming next month, to compliment the classic 1993 version (at left). Anything and everything you wanted to know about Iron Man's many suits of armor (and trust me -- there are many) is there, courtesy of tech-guru Eliot R. Brown. It's a good thing, however, that Brown is involved in the technology and not the overall back-story of Iron Man. The first part of his interview features a few grievous errors on his part regarding IM's history:
For the latest Iron Manual, I was asked to do something for the very first suit. The one featured in Tales of Suspense #38—old steel-gray “Toaster Head!” This was a suit design that had all of the power and flexibility of all subsequent suits—but the technological base was not there yet and certainly not in the jungles of Viet-Nam where the laboratory-workshop of Ho Linshen was.
Ouch. Any true blue Iron Man fan knows that the hero's first-ever appearance was Tales of Suspense #39, not #38. In addition, Tony Stark's assistant in building his first suit of armor was named Ho Yinsen, not Linshen. I can give Brown a break with the issue number faux pas (maybe it was a typo), but he misnames Yinsen "Linshen" again later in the interview. Doh!
Yinsen was "Asia's greatest non-communist scientist" (country unknown, presumably China) and was a captive of the same tyrant as Stark. Debuting in 1963, Iron Man was a product of the Vietnam War. The movie, on the other hand, trades Vietnam for Afghanistan, and Yinsen is played by not-so Asian-looking Shaun Toub. (Although, of course, Afghanistan is in Asia.)
Part two of Brown's interview is here.
May 2nd can't get here fast enough, natch.
My issue arrived in the mail yesterday and it made for good-before-my-Saturday-afternoon nap reading. (That doesn't mean it put me to sleep; on the contrary, I enjoy a good read before a siesta.) The comic is in black and white (which might turn some folks off; it doesn't me, especially after reading Marvel's "Essential" books and Dark Horse's remarkable Aliens volume one series) and is illustrated by John Cox, artist at the Cox & Forkum editorial cartoon site. The script is by Sleet and Darius LaMonica (pseudonyms, by the way). I first discussed Matamoros here.
Chuck Sobietti is a sergeant who has been severely injured by an IED in Iraq. He's lost his right arm, and needs a new lung and liver. But he's not the least bit bitter -- he wants to know when he can get back into the field! The military offers Sobietti a recuperative alternative: He is a candidate for an experimental procedure that'll eliminate the need for the transplants, and might also regrow his arm. The middle of the book details the procedure, complete with the requisite "techno-babble," and soon Sobietti realizes that his operation has proved even more successful than his superiors had imagined. He heals incredibly quickly, and his physical prowess is better than ever, pre-injury even.
Shortly after this discovery came my first head-scratcher: Sobietti's colonel tells him that "the top brass has decided that it's time for your discharge." Two reasons why this doesn't make sense: 1) Sobietti's term isn't up yet (he has three more years of service), and 2) why wouldn't the military want to take advantage of Sobietti's miraculous recovery, either as a PR tool (if they don't know about his new abilities), or as a "special agent" (if they do know). In addition, since the Iraq conflict has been criticized for mandating multiple tours of duty and for over-reliance on National Guardsmen, why not take advantage of a guy who wants to get back into the game? Perhaps this all is a military ruse (it is only the first issue) and they'll call Sobietti back later. Maybe they want to see what he does "on his own."
The latter half of the issue details what Sobietti does with his post-service life. At first, he works for a contractor building homes. While at lunch at a local café (run by some Arabs), Chuck inadvertently overhears a conversation (he realizes his operation has also drastically improved his hearing) between two of the café's workers -- they're plotting a terrorist attack! Chuck takes it upon himself to follow the two dudes, using the "night-vision goggles and the infrared headlight from [his] stint" to assist him. Wow -- does the military actually let servicemen keep such equipment? Hell, even Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway (at left) excoriated Corporal "Stitch" Jones for apparently selling his Kevlar helmet to a local pawn shop for some quick cash!
Nevertheless, Sleet and LaMonica next offer excellent counters to the mainstream hard-left political pontificating that has become all-too common in the "funny books" lately. We see Sobietti making a phone call to the local police to report the terrorist plot he has uncovered. The cop's reply:
Disgusted by the labyrinthine procedures by which he'd have to even report the terrorist activities, Sobietti takes it upon himself to bust in on the terrorists' safe house. He discovers that the radical Islamists were in the final stages of putting together a plot to blow up buses in the middle of rush hour. Guess it's a good thing Chuck put a bullet into each of the baddies! This leads to a rush of media pondering this new "vigilante's" actions. Lawyer "Bill Ruby" (clearly patterned after lefty attorney Ron Kuby) invokes "Islamophobia" and rips the "vigilante" claiming that he could have planted the chemicals and other bomb-making materials, etc. The public reaction to Sobietti's actions is overwhelmingly positive; however, the ACLU intends to file murder charges against Chuck (should he be ID'd and subsequently caught, that is).
It would be easy to criticize Matamoros as taking an "easy" vigilante justice approach to terrorism. Like, why did Sobietti have to kill the terrorists? Wouldn't it be easier to injure them -- or just subdue them? But then ... they'd get a "show trial" where guys like the Kuby-analogue would paint everything the terrorists did as "innocent" and a mere "misunderstanding." Of course, the American system of justice is supposed to guarantee even the most heinous individuals their day in court, but Matamoros plays on how PC American justice has become in the post-9/11 world, as shown by the policeman's response to Sobietti's terror tip. It is Chuck who becomes the criminal for tracking and acquiring proof of an imminent terror attack.
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens in subsequent issues.
As for the overall comicbook experience, Sleet and LaMonica do a very good job at the scripting helm, especially considering they've before never written a comic. Cox's art is neither too cartoony nor realistic, which gives it an unusual visual appeal. The black and white gives the story the proper atmosphere.
This is pretty funny, especially the first one.
(h/t to The Corner.)
The Authority is one of the slickest, slam-bang and ... most radical comics in the history of the genre. I first wrote about this superhero group over two years ago in a post about comics and politics. The Authority is a progressive's masturbatory fantasy -- incredibly powerful super-beings decide to impose their will and values onto a population that they deem is just too stupid to do what's right. The Authority's rationale is that they've saved the world enough times, "but it has to be a world worth saving."
Much like the recent discussion carried on in the comments here, the various writers of The Authority don't even bother trying to mask their disdain for the United States and its leadership. The president? Merely a figurehead. In the Coup d'Etat, trade paperback (at left) the US government is duped into utilizing an engine which allows for inter-dimensional travel. The results prove disastrous, so the Authority makes a decision: Take over the US government. Team leader Jack Hawksmoor informs the American public via an APB address that "These scumbags you elected to serve you have decided to serve themselves at every turn, instead." The president (named Kent) acts like the biggest buffoon you've ever seen, squealing like a baby when the Authority assumes control. The Doctor, the Authority's resident shaman, explains it further:
The women and men who defend this nation are not our enemies. The worthless bastards who lied, schemed, and cheated their way into power are the ones we're after.
Ah, yes. In other words, according to both those quotes, the American people are total idiots. They've no clue what they're doing or who they choose to lead them. What a perfect illustration of "progressive" thinking. If the public doesn't do what "enlightened" progressives desire, extreme measures are in order!
The hilarious thing about Coup d'Etat is that one of its writers is Micah Wright, "padded his résume," so to speak. He falsely claimed he was an Army Ranger, only admitting to the lie when he got caught. Cretin. But hey -- he's attempting a "comeback."
Even before the Authority decided to assume control of the United States, the title's authors showed they didn't think much of the US and its people. Co-creator Warren Ellis wasn't nearly as guilty as his successor, Mark Millar. While Ellis focused mainly on "the big picture" -- extreme worldwide threats that needed dealing with (with minimal politics) -- Millar changed direction. Oh, the extreme worldwide threats were still there, but 'ol Mark couldn't resist the politicking.
Millar's first effort was with "Under New Management" (at right). 
Millar doesn't waste any time -- in the first few pages, we see Jack Hawksmoor lecturing Bill Clinton on not lecturing him or his team. The Authority's former leader, Jenny Sparks, has been "reborn," so to speak, and naturally the dastardly US government attempts to kidnap this very powerful newborn. And how does it do this? It sends a sadistic team of its own superheroes to capture her. This team is blatantly patterned after Marvel's original Avengers line-up, too. I wonder how Marvel felt about Millar using these analogues to wantonly murder anyone who got in their way? (This site argues that these Avengers copies, as well as other heroes in the story, represent a "corruption" of comics legend Jack Kirby's vision.) You can view the cover to The Authority #14 here. There's Tank-Man (Iron Man), Commander (Capt. America), The Hornet (The Wasp), Storm God (Thor) and Titan (Giant Man). Commander kills and rapes at will and utters vile racist epithets, Tank-Man uses his weaponry on infants, and Titan tosses an airliner full of people smack into the ground. Gotta love those "American values a la Millar," eh?
It gets even "better" with Millar's "Transfer of Power" trade. The entire Western power base (the so-called G-7 nations) has had it with the Authority's meddling in international affairs, so they dispatch a super-agent chock full of weapons enhancements after the team. This ... creature, dubbed "Seth," is a perverse sociopathic hillbilly. He easily defeats the Authority, and the Western powers already have a "substitute" Authority waiting in the wings -- one that will do what the "rich countries" desire, that is. As could be expected, this new "Authority" is comprised of folks just like Seth -- sadistic, cruel and without conscience. Millar laces his word balloons with dialogue that gives the reader nothing but the impression that the West is exactly like the "heroes" with which it has replaced the Authority. Again, the underlying message: You're all idiots. Of course, Millar spews this "message" all the while collecting a rather handsome check in the process. Don't let the Authority find out, Mark. They aren't very fond of rich people.
I could write for hours about the myriad instances of anti-West, anti-capitalist and anti-US gibes found throughout the editions of The Authority. But that's too easy. I actually can withstand such if the overall story is a good one. But as science fiction writers, oft times The Authority's creators let their political bias get in the way of the actual genre in which they subsist. For instance, in the "Fractured Worlds" trade, writer Robbie Morrison has Authority leader Jack Hawksmoor proclaiming Democratic Party talking points:
[President] Kent's trillions in tax cuts that benefitted those rich enough not to need them and royally screwed everyone else will be repealed. The income generated will be used to ensure that everyone in this country has basic health coverage. Over 43 million Americans are without health insurance. As far as the Authority's concerned, medical care should be a right, not a privilege!
Now understand this: The Engineer, one of the Authority's members, had her blood replaced by nine pints of hyperintelligent "machinery." She can, literally, work miracles with the stuff. Why doesn't writer Morrison have the Engineer develop a nanotech-based immunity "program" that every American -- heck, every world citizen -- can get vaccinated with? All six billion humans wouldn't ever have to worry about things like the common cold, the flu, or sinusitis ever again. Heck, in one Authority volume, Hawksmoor indeed brags that the Engineer would have cancer cured "before Christmas." So ...?
The Authority's headquarters is known as a "shiftship" -- a sentient, city-sized entity powered by an entire universe's total energy output, and which can traverse dimensions as easily as you or I would change the channel on our TV. But what does the Authority do when they assume power over the US? Threaten the government and the oil companies to adopt "environmentally friendly forms of energy." (Hawksmoor even issues an edict in one volume about converting all vehicles to bio-diesel fuel!) Now wait -- the Authority's HQ could power the entire freakin' planet Earth and then some, but they want everyone to convert to freakin' bio diesel?? I thought these folks wanted to better everyone's lives!!
And then there's the Right to Bear Arms. You just knew that writer Morrison, like Millar (and probably just about every other UK writer before 'em) was going to "rectify" that! When a reporter asks Jack Hawksmoor "What about the constitutional Right to Bear Arms?" he replies, "What about the right of innocent children to go to school without getting gunned down? Of law-abiding citizens to walk the streets without fear?" He then notes that if voluntary measures to turn in guns aren't followed, the Authority will begin confiscation:
Believe me, if any trigger-happy asshole out there really wants the gun to be pulled out of his cold, dead hand, we'll be more than happy to oblige.
Of course, the aforementioned Engineer could probably whip up a nanotech-based personal security system for every Earth citizen (like a force field) without batting an eye, but why let common sense science fiction get in the way of blatant "progressive" pontificating?
Eventually, the Authority decides to give up their control in the two-volume trade "Revolution." The team comes to the same realization that the Squadron Supreme did in the classic Mark Gruenwald-written twelve issue series -- that progress at the "end of a gun" may not be perceived as progress at all. Written by current Captain America scribe Ed Brubaker, "Revolution" still can't resist the anti-US swipes. Here, the Authority has to tangle with a team of World War II-era heroes who have been "regenerated" by old Authority nemesis Henry Bendix. And these "Greatest Generation" icons are revealed to be anything but (of course!). One is a complete racist ("I wanna get out there and shred those gook-lovin' race-mixin' sons of bitches!") and the leader's "super charisma" leads to mass killings of people who follow the Authority's Doctor's religion.
Lastly, there's the team's threat to the new president in the trade "Human on the Inside" (at left). With civilian control of the US re-established, the prez has the temerity to send US warships towards North Korea because it just admitted to possessing "weapons of mass destruction." Hawksmoor threatens the president, telling him to turn around the carrier group. Again -- this makes no science fiction sense. Even if the Authority relinquished "official" power, they still are defacto guardians of the planet. Why wouldn't they do something about North Korea themselves? Why would they even let the situation get as far as it did, where the prez felt he had to send a battle group to the country? But an even better question is, how did union-buster John Ridley get writing chores on a title like The Authority?
Ultimately, The Authority fails because of its inherent contradictions. If the team really wanted to make a better world, it would have shared much (or all) of the magnificent technology at its disposal with the whole Earth. Remember -- it wouldn't matter to them that the general public "might not be ready for it" as is the premise of many a sci-fi yarn. This is the Authority. Basic paradigms are out the window with them. They want(ed) to make a better world now and do it their way. The fact that the team doesn't do this shows that the title's many writers just wanted a vehicle by which to vomit their left-wing politics. The Authority at its end is selfish; they keep all of their HQ's tech to themselves and indulge themselves with it (much like Millar and co. make mega bucks for using a friggin' word processor). In a way they're entitled to it, given the amount of times they've saved the world. But spare us the "better world" stuff if you're not really prepared to offer it.
I just did a detailed post about the anti-jihad comicbook Matamoros; today, the Philly Inquirer's Kevin Ferris takes a look.
As mainstream comics creators have been falling all over themselves to mock the War on Terror, the Iraq War, President Bush, Republicans, and the United States in general, Darius LaMonica and "Sleet" have done something ... "unusual" in this day and age -- they've created a comic about heroes fighting radical Islamic jihadists, titled Matamoros. But it will most likely meet with much of the same disdain that noted creator Frank Miller's Holy Terror, Batman did (and still may -- it's scheduled for release later this year). Just take a gander at what Miller faced:
Wow. I thought that even the most hardened lefties believe that al Qaeda are real terrorists. And Miller is "full of hate" because he has the temerity to create a story that vilifies real haters! Oh. And then, of course, there's the obligatory jab that Miller is somehow a "chickenhawk" for not actually joining up and fighting. (Miller, by the way, is in his 50s.)
That's easy for you to say now, Stan -- you, the very personification of the Cold War stereotypist.
And the various blogs out there are chock full of bad things to say about this Miller work.
Which brings us back to Matamoros:
"Matamoros" follows an American NCO, Charles Sobietti, who is wounded in the war, undergoes an experimental medical procedure to recover, returns home to New York to recuperate and then discovers a radical Islamic terror cell in Queens. We put Sobietti in New York because radical Islam has been there for quite a while. The blind sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman reached New York mosques in 1990 and currently a radical group called the Islamic Thinkers Society is located in Queens. This group is believed to be an offshoot of the UK's al Mahajiroun, the radical group that is now banned by the British government. And of course we all know what radical Islam did to New York in 2001.Authors LaMonica and "Sleet" had to self-publish. Apparently no comics publisher wanted the project; amazing that, considering said publishers have little hassle signing up a story which has a "superhero" team storming the White House, arresting and then executing the president for "election fraud" and "starting an 'illegal war.'"
Why would LaMonica and Sleet have to self-publish such a book? My first guess was -- you got it -- political correctness, and LaMonica pretty much confirms this:
FP: Why do you think most of popular entertainment and Western academia confronts Islamo-fascism with moral equivalence in comparison to our own side? And then why does it refuse to use moral equivalence in reverse? In other words, when the Islamists do something evil, they point to something Bush or America did that they consider just as bad if not worse. But when our side is accused of something, they never point to the enemy and start equivocating.LaMonica: Part of this is related to the whole notion of the loss of an "objective" sense of right and wrong which forms the basis of moral and cultural relativism. Let's face it -- the counterculture won big in the cultural wars and today it's un-PC even to call Islamofascists evil.
I think the "elitist left" frames the war with radical Islamism through a post-colonial Edward Said-ian lens. They view radical Islam as some type of "people's reaction" against western "imperialism" -- as if Islamism is some type of "liberation theology" which aims to empower peasants struggling against plantation owners through the crescent instead of the cross. It's as if the left views these Islamist thugs as drinking coffee and reading Gramsci while plotting to overthrow the bourgeoisie. They're stuck in a mindset and can't seem to process the information which would indicate that Islamism doesn't fit with this post-colonial worldview.
Possibly worse still for these elites is that Matamoros uses symbolism from -- gasp! -- the reconquista (reconquest) of Spain by the Christians over the Muslims. The very term "matamoros" means "kill Moors," "Moor" being the then-temporal term for "Muslim Arab." And if that's not bad enough, once people discover this fact, the title will be associated with the Crusades. But LaMonica is quick to clarify (my emphasis):
We were aware of the etymology of the word "moros" and even of its origins from Greco-Roman times ... the name was used in the context of classifying Moslem invaders during the civilizational war for the Iberian peninsula. The sole use of the word in the comic was in the context of resisting a jihadist military attack.I think it is unfortunate that people just equate [matamoros] with the Crusades. The "crusades" is now equivalent in postmodern lingo to a religiously motivated imperialist war, which nobody wants, whereas the reconquista was about punching an aggressive bully in the face. People do not want to forcibly convert Moslem countries from their religion, but neither do they want Islamists to destroy Western civilization and replace it with a sharia state. FYI - I think the west has done enough self-flagellation about the Crusades. I have yet to hear an apology for 1400 years of jihadist imperialism.
The cover of issue #1 features a "Moorish-style doorway with a crumbling painted Cross of Santiago Matamoros," which was the emblem worn by the Knights of the Order of Santiago during the reconquista period. But the cross image is crumbling, and this represents the status of Western civilization in Europe. The solider on the cover isn't European, it's American since, as LaMonica notes, "Europeans have given up fighting against the jihadist imperative to "fight until all men say 'there is no god but Allah.'"
I know people (usually on the right) have postulated how the Left would have reacted in the 1940s if said reactions were similar to their present reactions to the Iraq War and War on Terror. Here's a couple of hypothetical comic adventures that might have taken place had such a mind-set prevailed then:
Thankfully, our heads were a bit clearer back then.
Avi Green at Four Color Media Monitor has more on Matamoros.
Manomanoman. Is this movie gonna KICK BUTT!!
The latest "Iron Man" movie trailer can be seen here. 
This latest reveals a bit more of the plot (which most fans sort of figured on already, natch), namely that the main "baddie" will be industrialist rival Obadiah Stane (played by Jeff Bridges -- see at left) in his Iron Monger armor.
In the comic, Stane had taken over Tony Stark's company and had eventually discovered some of Stark's notes and drawings for a version of the Iron Man armor. Using them, Stane and his minions constructed the "Iron Monger" armor whose mass-produced copies Stane had planned on selling to whatever country that wished to purchase them. Unfortunately for Stane, Tony Stark had sufficiently recovered from a long bout with alcoholism, had constructed a radically new and different Iron Man armor, and thwarted his plans. (This culminated in the classic Iron Man #200 from 1985, which featured the clash of the Iron Titans -- see below -- on its cover.)
Faced with total defeat, Stane blew his own head off with a gauntlet "repulsor" beam rather than submit to Stark's (Iron Man's) victory. It'll be interesting to see how Jeff Bridges' Stane will fare in the movie. Unfortunately for Jeff, I'm betting he'll meet a similar fate ...!
Read more about Obadiah Stane and the Iron Monger.
Avi Green does a phenomenal job shredding the garbage that is "Black Summer." Warren Ellis sure wasn't short on the radical commentary when he did his brief Iron Man stint; this sounds like he wanted to rip off his own Authority work (which was, despite the later hardcore lefty diatribes, pretty cool stuff -- mainly 'cause the of the heavy science fiction and Bryan Hitch's awesome art).
Speaking of The Authority, in their "Coup d'Etat" graphic novel, the superhero team took over the reins of the US government for meddling in inter-dimensional travel; in "Black Summer," the "heroes" don't bother with just assuming power -- they execute the president. Why?
Because the Commander-in-Chief had committed severe criminal actions including election fraud (um, election 2000 anyone?) and starting an unnecessary, illegal war (Maybeee ... Iraq?) for the benefit of his oil conglomerate cronies. Superheroes enforce the law, Horus reasons, so he had to do this. How could any self-respecting hero stand aside and let his entire country be run by criminals?
As one commenter to Avi's Four Color Media Monitor wrote, why is it that lefties are seemingly so keen on killing those that disagree with them politically? After all, aren't lefties against capital punishment? But it does make a certain degree of sense; leftists excuse lefty dictatorships all the time (see: Cuba), since what those leaders do is all in the name of the "common good." Thus, what the "hero" did in "Black Summer" fits this mold perfectly.
*Sigh*
One of the more hilarious endings to a comics character's [own magazine's] career takes place in Marvel's Kazar the Savage #34 from 1984. After the conclusion to a multi-part epic, the "epilogue" has the protagonist lifted from time and space, and he finds himself being chased in the dark by shadowed entities. Eventually he spots a large building, and makes his way inside. He busts through a massive door to find he's reached ...
Yep, that's what it says: "The Land of Cancelled Heroes." Of course, however, many of those "cancelled" characters went on to continue their "existence" in the Marvel Universe (some proudly!), especially the Silver Surfer, Nova, Spider-Woman, Ms. Marvel, and [Black] Goliath (although he was recently killed in the so-called epic "Civil War" saga).
See if you can pick them out, but better yet -- name some other characters in that pic!
Word comes from blog-pal Soccer Dad that comics great Steve Gerber passed away a couple days ago. Steve might be best known for his creation Howard the Duck which, unfortunately, was transformed into a crummy movie.
Steve also created or co-created the following [way-cool] characters for Marvel: Korvac, Starhawk, and Angar the Screamer.
In 1985 political correctness must not yet have really taken a foot-hold in American society. Case in point: This model kit ad from Marvel's Alpha Flight #29 ...
And here's an enlarged pic of the circled portion:
Hmm. The Germans, against whom all the other skirmishes are fought in this "battle" model kit, aren't referred to as "Gerrys" or "Krauts."
I surely doubt you'd see something like this today!
One of the few sci-fi staples of the 1970s was the TV show "Six Million Dollar Man." Lee Majors (married at the time to goddess Farrah Fawcett) played Colonel Steve Austin, an astronaut who is severely injured in a flight accident, and is subsequently "rebuilt" with bionic implants which essentially make him a super-human. The show was a smash hit, and of course, numerous Six Million Dollar Man products hit the kiddie shelves as well as comicbook advertising pages (click image for larger view):
Sure, by today's standards the ad is beyond cheesy, but what makes this cheese especially high in dairy fat is Steve Austin's "Special Mission Outfit":
Denim leisure suit?? For "special" missions? Like, where -- rooting out the Communist influence from ... Studio 54?
Mark over at Comics Coverage shows you how and why.
Yet another classic by the 'net's best comics blog!
We're movin' up a few years since the last few quirks. Here we have "The Adventures of Gritboy" from Defenders #63 from 1978! Grit was a newspaper that kids could sell to earn some extra cash:
The actual final panel ought to go like this:
This time we have an intense thriller-of-an-ad from Iron Man #44 from 1971! It's the
I'm still finding some gems in those old Iron Man comics from the early 70s. Now, I'm diggin' the names of some of these "companies." Check this one out:
Here's that company moniker that's circled in red, in case your peepers aren't that great:
The Height Increase Bureau! Sounds like a subdivision of the F.B.I. or something. I can hear J. Edgar Hoover back in his heyday: "Boys, we need a lot more taller agents!" And bingo -- the H.I.B. was born.
Next we have another great "company" appellation:
The P.V.I.!! But if one wants a "he-man" voice, why not call it the "He-Man Voice Institute"? You might get too many inquiries from budding singers, otherwise.
Hey everyone! Can you believe we've all been sitting on our asses while the greatest invention of the last 500 years was discovered over forty years ago?? That's right -- I just found this ad in yet another early 1970s Iron Man issue (#49 from 1972, specifically):
Can you imagine that? For a crummy quarter and a dime, an ANTI-GRAVITY DEVICE can be yours!!
What's not generally known is that Tony Stark (Iron Man's alter-ego) created the thing! That's right -- and then he proved what a lousy capitalist he is by offering it to the public at large ... for a crummy 35 cents!
Sheesh.
As I've mentioned several times, my favorite comics site (it is the best comics blog out there!) is Mark Engblom's Comic Coverage. Mark's a wiz with graphics; indeed, some of his best work is when he delves into the comical (pun intended) minutae of comicbooks, like their faux pas' and the [sometimes unintentionally] humorous ads that inhabit the pages of older books.
Anyhoo, last night as I'm laying in bed getting ready for slumberville, I find myself reading some early 1970s Iron Man books (surprise there, eh?). My daughter was beside me asking me questions about IM's origins and history, and when I turn one of the pages, daughter stops me: "Look at that ad!" she says, and proceeds to bust out in laughter. And no wonder:
You can check out a larger version of the ad here. A man's wig -- for 
the remarkably low price of $7.95!! Got an oversized dome? No worries -- this wig "stays in place on all size heads"! But I wonder -- would it fit a guy like Incredible Hulk nemesis The Leader (at left)?? It's also "cool and lightweight," yo. That's great, but was it really necessary to put "lightweight" in there? Like, what else would it be? Fifteen friggin' pounds or something?
But probably the best thing about this eight-buck piece (excuse me, that's seven ninety-five) is that it is constructed of "modacrylic fiber"! It "looks and feels like real hair -- has luster, rich body and bounce of human hair." It can also be "washed and shampooed," and it "never loses its shape"! Perhaps this ad is just too modest -- or didn't have enough room -- to continue on about that miracle modacrylic fiber. This fiber also makes the wig "dimensionally stable," "easily dyed," and resistant to "chemicals and solvents"! Oh, and did I leave out fireproof? Yes I did, dammit! And silly me -- it's also "not attacked by moths or mildew"! Sheesh!
But just take a gander at that dude's expression in the ad. You just know he's thinking "How the f*** did I get sucked into doing this?? This has got to be the most asinine-looking rug ever." I also like how the ad states "Mention Style M-105" when you order. I can see the dudes at Franklin Fashions when they open the mail: "Hey Joe! Another M-105!" and then the whole factory erupts in raucous laughter.
UPDATE: DE blogger extraordinaire Dana Garrett (at left) sends me word that he actually tried out one of these things:
"Hube: I felt I had to take a shot and sent in the $7.95. What the hell was I thinking?? The thing SUCKS!! Modacrylic fiber my ASS!"
Courtesy Mark at Comic Coverage -- THE best comics blog out there. And be sure to check out his utterly hilarious "Dr. Doom's Scary Santa Gallery"! Mark's a whiz at making knee-slapping graphics, and here's a taste:
Thanks to Paul Smith Jr. for pointing to this site. Here you'll find Marvel's Chuck Norris and his Karate Kommandos! Yeesh, can you think of anything lamer than this?? (Yeah, maybe that pathetic "CN" logo on Chuck's chest!)
The sad thing is that this tripe was penciled by the legendary Steve Ditko, co-creator of Spider-Man. I don't believe he did that cover above, but here's some of his inside work:
How far the mighty can fall, eh? Ouch.
Marvel is putting some of its older comics online Tuesday, hoping to reintroduce young people to the X-Men and Fantastic Four by showcasing the original issues in which such characters appeared.It's a tentative move onto the Internet: Comics can only be viewed in a Web browser, not downloaded, and new issues will only go online at least six months after they first appear in print.
Still, it represents perhaps the comics industry's most aggressive Web push yet. Even as their creations -- from Iron Man to Wonder Woman (Wonder Woman isn't a Marvel character, by the way) -- become increasingly visible in pop culture through new movies and video games, old-school comics publishers rely primarily on specialized, out-of-the-way comic shops for distribution of their bread-and-butter product.
For Marvel, the general public has often already gotten its initial taste through movies like "Spider-Man" or the "Fantastic Four" franchises.
The publisher is hoping fans will be intrigued enough about the origins of those characters to shell out $9.99 a month, or $4.99 monthly with a year-long commitment. For that price, they'll be able to poke through, say, the first 100 issues of Stan Lee's 1963 creation "Amazing Spider-Man" at their leisure, along with more recent titles like "House of M" and "Young Avengers." Comics can be viewed in several different formats, including frame-by-frame navigation.
Ring expects Marvel's effort to put a slight dent in the back-issue segment of the comic shop industry, where rare, out-of-print titles sell for hundreds of dollars on eBay and at trade shows.
Though most comic fans are collectors, some simply want to catch up on the backstory of their favorite characters and would no longer have to pay top dollar to do so.
About 2,500 issues will be available at launch of Marvel Digital Comics, with 20 more being released each week.
This looks to be pretty cool. I fall into the latter category above, by the way -- a "casual collector." I just want to catch up on some back-stories and some classic reads. I'm not a fanatic about getting that much sought-after valuable issue. (I have a few valuable back-issues remaining; I sold most of 'em on eBay in the early 2000s to get funds to complete my Iron Man collection.) I think I'd be willing to put out the $$ to check out Marvel's entire inventory when (if) it goes online.
Casual collectors can already get many of the back-issues they want via Marvel's "Essential" collections -- 20+ issues in black and white from a title's early days. Popular titles like "X-Men," "Fantastic Four," "The Avengers" and "Spider-Man" have five volumes or more each. I wonder if the digital launch will result in these collections' publications being stopped.
I can dig some digital offerings of classic comics; however, there's just somethin' about holding a comic in your hands and relaxing on the couch ...
Wow. Check out this question from a 1970 DC Comics reader questionnaire:
"Black People"??? Talk about your ever lovin' snapshot in time. Thirty-seven years ago and nary a black face was seen in comics. Such a question today would seem utterly absurd, of course, but I'm wondering why DC didn't use a bit more tact and use "Civil Rights" since in 1970 that was a certainly a hot political and cultural topic.
At least Marvel was ahead of the curve back then.
Be sure to check out the best comics blog out there (from where I got this questionnaire image), Comic Coverage!
David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy takes a quote by the Fantastic Four's Mr. Fantastic (Reed Richards) to Spider-Man (Peter Parker) about government coercion:
Uncle Ted was a writer. He found everyone interesting. He'd talk to strangers, wear the wrong colored socks, ate at strange little restaurants. My uncle Ted was eccentric. He was funny and colorful, and I loved him. But he was also stubborn, and didn't care for rules, and if you pushed him, he'd push back just as hard. Unfortunately, this is when Joe McCarthy and the House un-American activities committee was in full bloom looking for communists among the military, the government, and ... the arts. If you stood out, if you didn't conform, you had a better than even chance of being called before the committee. At my uncle Ted was all those things. So he was subpoenaed to appear before he lack and explain himself. To testify. To tell them he wasn't a communist, and to name the names of those who thought might be communists. [Uncle Ted told the committee to go to hell, was jailed for six months for contempt, and his life was ruined.]
Mr. F was actually on the government's side in the "epic" (only in size, not quality) "Civil War." Seems he's trying to express that he doesn't want to become Uncle Ted ...?? Bernstein thinks that Mr. F is overstating the case:
Whatever one thinks about the McCarthy era, and some of my views (at least on the relevant First Amendment issues) can be found in this paper, you didn't get hauled before HUAC because you talked to strangers, wore the wrong colored socks, or ate at strange restaurants. And the idea that random nonconformists had a "better than even chance" of being called before HUAC is just laughable.
I wrote about using comics as too-close-to-reality allegories here. Or, better yet, Tom Spurgeon -- who I quote in the post -- wrote about it. To a tee.
(h/t to Soccer Dad.)
One of the more facetious aspects about collecting comics back in the day was the cheesy ads found at the very back of the books. In the mid-70s, many of these featured GI Joe and the various incarnations thereof. By "various incarnations" I mean the attempt by Hasbro to make Joe characters more "superhero-like." Take this ad, for instance (click on image for a larger version):
In the first panel, we see Mike Power, Atomic Man lugging around Eagle-Eye GI Joe. Notice it says that they're "on patrol." On patrol?? 'Ya think they could get Eagle-Eye Joe some sort of gandola or something to sit in, don'tcha? I mean, he's gotta just hang on to Mike Power's leg the whole time?? (Better view on the second panel below.) Face it -- after about ten minutes of grabbing a mere leg, Eagle-Eye would be bitching to his superiors "Hey guys, let's get real here. Gimme a friggin' seat or somethin', huh? I'm not super-strong, after all! All I got are sharp eyes!!"
But this ad actually introduces another GI Joe "superhero" into the mix: Bulletman, the Human Bullet. Not only does he have a costume that'd make the guys on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" wince, but he's quick with the witty quip, too!
In addition, it is a bit perplexing how Bulletman just ups and joins the GI Joe Crew with no hesitation whatsoever:
How d'ya like that? Bulletman, the Human Bullet and World's Thickest Superhero. I mean, there could be no chance that Mike Power and Eagle Eye could be ... Soviet Agents, right? (Remember -- this is the mid-70s!) "Hey Bulletman, come on back with us to our HQ so we can get you squared away with joining our little coffee clatch ... !" **WHAM!!** Instant prisoner. Now here comes the KGB to claim their prize!
Mark, over at the awesome Comic Coverage, has the scoop on a different Bulletman.
Don't be shanghaied into believing that wannabe comic "greats" like Mark Millar and/or Bryan Hitch and their Marvel works are some of the "best of all-time." Take Marvel's recent "Civil War" er, "epic." Great? Yuck. It wasn't even good. The only reason such "events" are dubbed "epics" is because they include virtually every title in the Marvel catalogue and they make a ton of dough as a result. The storytelling? Well, that's another matter. Hell, today's creative teams don't even have the term "deadline" to deal with anymore. You can wait months for an issue that used to take a mere 30 days. The only modern creator worth his salt is Kurt Busiek (more on him later), but he hasn't done anything for Marvel in a few years.
Ah, the halcyon days of the Marvel Comics Group. Take me back to ... the early 1970s ...
... and the truly epic "Kree-Skrull War." Written by longtime Marvel stalwart Roy Thomas and drawn by the phenomenal Neal Adams and John Buscema, the KSW featured the Marvel Universe's two biggest alien races "battlin' it out for the Earth" (to quote former Hulk and Capt. America sidekick Rick Jones). The issues have all been collected in what's known as a "trade paperback;" however, Marvel also put out a two-issue "special edition" back in 1983 (somewhat more streamlined than the modern trade paperback) and that's what I own. I actually prefer these two issues instead of the TPB because it features a perfect commentary by writer Alan Zelentz in the prologue. He says that the KSW "is an epic so grand, only the comics could bring it to you!" And back in 1983 (and for many years thereafter), he was right. (Today's relatively cheap CGI could probably do a nice version of it and go right to DVD. Hey ...!!!) You can read all of Zelentz's commentary here.
Smack dab in the middle of the Kree and Skrulls -- Earth's Mightiest Heroes, the Avengers! Actually, the very Earth itself is "smack dab in the middle" -- in the middle of the two intergalactic empires (um, that's the Kree Empire and the Skrull Empire, natch.) In true astronomical terms, this is highly improbable as the Kree Empire is located in the Greater Magellanic Cloud (approx. 160,000 light years distant), and the Skrulls are HQ'd in the Andromeda Galaxy (some two million light years away). But hey, why let such a piddly detail spoil all the fun? The KSW had been going on for untold millenia, and now that humans on Earth were evolving at a more advanced pace than either Kree or Skrull suspected, both races were determined to either possess our planet -- or destroy it.
Thomas' writing is utterly impeccable as he weaves through various [past] Marvel storylines with perfection. Adams' artwork is so realistic you feel as if you're actually a living witness to the events. Science fiction movie aspects abound with a hat tip to the classic "Fantastic Voyage" and a foreshadow to the then still-to-come "Star Wars." But perhaps best of all, it's one of Marvel's regular joes that saves the day. Rick Jones, teenage wannabe rock star, Incredible Hulk sidekick, and former Capt. America confidante, is abducted by a Kree soldier and taken back to their home planet. The Kree Supreme Intelligence -- a monstrous grotesque head composed of the greatest minds in Kree history -- awakens in Rick dormant mental powers which allow the Avengers -- and Earth, as a consequence -- to be victorious, and the Kree-Skrull scuffle to end (for the nonce).
The aforementioned Kurt Busiek added to this awesome epic almost three decades later in what is in my opinion the second greatest Marvel epic of all-time -- "Avengers Forever" (premiere issue at left). Busiek uses Jones' mental powers -- now dubbed the "Destiny Force" -- as a prize fought over by long-time Avengers foes Immortus and Kang the Conqueror. It helps if you're an Avengers fan to really enjoy Kurt's tale, but if not, Busiek's affection for continuity is sure to make you one. That, and artist Carlos Pacheco's pencils are truly spectacular.
"AF" plucks various Avengers from the Marvel timestream to deal with the threat of Immortus who, it turns out, has the means to erase whole timelines that he has deemed "dangerous." Again, Busiek meticulously weaves aspects of Marvel yore throughout the twelve-issue tale, including even lesser known "What If?" tales (most intriguingly for me, one that included an apocryphal 1950s Avengers team).
Both the "Kree-Skrull War" and "Avengers Forever" are available as mass market trade paperback collections and are easy to find. I highly recommend them.
One of my favorite Marvel titles from years gone by was the "What If?" series. In it, the Marvel "Bullpen" hypothesized what would happen if certain key aspects of Marvel continuity were changed. For instance, the premiere issue asked "What If Spider-Man Joined the Fantastic Four?"
Which brings me to another issue featuring the FF. In 1982, the book asked "What If the Fantastic Four Had Not Gained Their Super-Powers?" The story is mildly interesting, sustained only by great John Byrne artwork.
But the answer to the issue's question is simple: The book would've SUCKED!
Plain enough? I mean, who the hell would want to read about four average joes taking on the likes of Dr. Doom, the Silver Surfer and Galactus? Not me!
I was perusing through the few remaining long boxes in my basement, looking for some comics to reread for the umpteenth time before turning in for the night. Lo and behold, I yanked one issue out that I had never before stayed with all the way through, and no wonder -- it's 1991's inaugural issue of SuperPro!!
Oh. My. God. Does it get any more pathetic than this, not only for comics stories, but shameless product promotion (the product, in this case, being the National Football League)?? Did the NFL really need such an avenue of advertisement? I mean, come on: I'm sure once those young budding footballers read that "He went from sacking quarterbacks to tackling crime" cover blurb, they were instantly clamoring for Sunday afternoon in front of the tube! And better yet -- it's a first-issue "collector's item!" I'm sure it's a fast mover at comics conventions and on eBay. Not.
Phil Grayfield was a pigskin star until injuries forced his retirement. He went to work for a sports magazine when he encountered a sports memorabilia collector who showed him an "experimental" football suit. "Experimental"?? Nevertheless, a few "hoods" busted in on Phil and "left him for dead." The hoods must've left him near a DuPont dump or something (it doesn't say) for a "once-in-a-lifetime chemical combination" gave Phil "enhanced athletic abilities, strength and endurance." How convenient! And, naturally, Phil decided to use his amazing abilities -- not to mention that "experimental" NFL suit -- to fight crime!! (Click on the image below for a larger version):
Let's look at a couple real life issues here: One, the NFL would sue the pants off Grayfield for using their league logo without permission! He might have to give up superheroing altogether to pay his legal bills. Second, why is Phil's sidekick a black guy (named Ken Reid)? If this comic reflected REAL football, Phil would be Ken Reid's sidekick! The NFL is an overwhelmingly African-American sport, so the chances are that Ken should be SuperPro. Hey, I'm certainly not calling Marvel racist or anything, and 1991 is around the dawn of the PC Age, but since Phil used to "sack quarterbacks," he obviously played defense, most likely a lineman. These positions are overwhelmingly held by black players, and were back in 1991 too.
I wonder if Jackson and Sharpton picketed Marvel back then ... ? ;-)
The writer of a new Captain America title has the lefty comics bloc's panties in a bunch. Why? 'Cause he's the guy who wrote the novel First Blood. That doesn't ring a bell? Well, it was turned into a movie and two sequels. In other words, OH NO! The dude who penned a story about a true American hero ... is writing a book about ... a true American hero! We can't have that in modern comics, can we? Doesn't this writer, David Morrell, know that you can only show that the US is bad, bad, BAD?? Just ask these guys. And remember the "controversy" over popular comics legend Frank Miller's Batman vs. al Qaeda story? Wow -- a popular superhero takes on ruthless Islamic terrorists. Call CAIR -- quick!
At any rate, as the Philly Daily News' Jerome Maida says, "Read the book," lefties, before you moan and groan.
(h/t to Colossus R&D man Gooch!)
Here's some news: I grew up reading Marvel Comics. Even if you didn't, you most likely know the name "Stan Lee," one of the main dudes behind the company. The other half is, of course, Jack "King" Kirby. These guys did virtually every early Marvel comic (Fantastic Four, The Avengers, Captain America, Thor, The Hulk, The X-Men), "early" meaning "throughout the 60s." Stan's writing (as I note here) was top-notch -- creative, intelligent and it used a lot of get-the-dictionary type words -- and one of the truly finest examples is seen here from Fantastic Four #60 on which much of the "Fantastic Four" sequel is based (click image to view larger version):
Maybe Stan's nickname should be "Stan the Alliteration Man"! I mean, check it: "See, you mountainous, misanthropic misfit ...!" "On your knees, you sentienceless savage!" Awesome stuff. No one makes a maniacal madman rant like Stan used to.
Another thing Stan was silly like a fox at was giving heroes and villains "real" names that suited their superhero or super-villain moniker! Seen right here is a perfect example: Dr. Doom, whose "real" name is Victor Von Doom. Has anyone ever heard of someone with that last name?? Even better is Spider-Man arch-villain Dr. Octopus. His "real" name is Otto Octavius! Cheeyeah, right! This knack was picked up by many subsequent writers, much to the chagrin of fans (mainly 'cause none did it better than Stan!). One that sticks out -- painfully -- is totally lame Iron Man villain from the early 1980s "Vibro." His "real" name was Anton Vibereaux! Gee, sounds ... French!
Here's a site dedicated to comics' more inane moments.
As it turns out, there are a lot of them. (h/t Jonah Goldberg)
I mean, Jimmy Olsen, Nazi hero? I get this was probably from a time travel story, but does he have to seem so happy? And do we even want to know what he had to do to get that Field Marshal baton?
Here's a new regular feature I've been toying around with for a while. My favorite comic blog, Comic Coverage, does such an awesome job dissecting various tidbits of comicbook minutae that it inspired me (especially its "Friday Night Fights"!). So, here it is -- the inaugural installment of Colossus of Rhodey's "Comicbook Quirk of the Week"! (And keep in mind -- when I say "quirk," it's usually ... almost certainly ... unintentional!)
Many of you know that my fave comicbook hero is Marvel's Iron Man. Many consider the late 1980s' "Armor Wars" to be the best-ever story the title has seen. (I even wrote the vast majority of the event's synopsis for Marvel.com's website, by the way natch!) The third-to-last issue in this multi-issue installment features the destruction of Iron Man's famous (or INfamous, depending your POV) armor, the red and silver "Silver Centurion" suit. Creators David Michelinie (a Delaware resident, by the way) and Bob Layton responded to fan advice and brought back the usual red and gold armor (after all, one of Iron Man's nicknames is the "Golden Avenger") in unforgettable style: They have the US government prepare to do battle with a supposedly "rogue" Iron Man with their own armored operative: a guy named Firepower:
Pretty impressive, eh? I think it's pretty weird how the helmet fits perfectly, but he's obviously going to have to use some sort of "virtual movement" program to operate the suit given the armor's prodigious size! (Actual size of man inside approximated in red!) Somehow, though, this guy can run, jump and fly like an agile gymnast! And wince at the [unintentional] stereotyping:
"The projects"?? Ouch.
Now, keep in mind that this whole story is based on Iron Man trying to neutralize armored villains and heroes who've managed to acquire some of his secret technology. Tony Stark (Iron Man's alter-ego) makes up a fake story that his "employee and bodyguard" Iron Man has gone "rogue" -- even Stark needs protection from the now-nutso superhero. So, if that's supposedly the case, tell me something -- how will these guys "protect" Stark from one of the most powerful super-beings on the whole friggin' planet??
A pistol?? A machine gun?? And why is that guy at left posing as he is? Why is he looking right "at the camera" holding up his "deadly" handgun?? Seems like a "Commando" moment to me!
Lastly, at issue's end, 'ol Firepower gets the better of the Armored Avenger, severely damaging his armor. FP's last act is to launch a tactical nuke at him, which apparently blows Iron Man to bits. Then someone explain to me the issue's last panel:
OK, I can buy that the helmet survived the blast, but how is there blood splattered all over it?? It was hit by a nuke! Like, it wouldn't have been instantly vaporized?? Y'see, this blood was Tony Stark's attempt to "trick" the government into believing that Iron Man was actually killed in the attack. Funny how government forensics experts didn't wonder how blood managed to survive a nuclear explosion, yet traces of bone (like a skull) and other matter did not!!
There you have it. Y'see, I can even bust on my favorite hero, one of my favorite storylines of all-time, and even one of my favorite creative teams!
... if you're not checking out Mark Engblom's Comic Coverage. Regularly updated, full of biting wit, laced with hilarity, and chock-stocked with riotous original graphics (see below), it is by far my favorite fan-originated comics blog.
Be sure to check out Right Ringtail, a site devoted exclusively to right-leaning political 'toons, or, as they say, "blomics"!
As a big comics buff back in the 70s and 80s, I recently picked up a couple "Essential" editions (Marvel's way of cheaply reprinting classic issues en masse in one collection) of 1980s X-Men issues. Included in the #4 collection was a graphic novel from 1982 titled "God Loves, Man Kills." Graphic novels were printed to allow creators to be ... well, a little more graphic than normal comics. The opening sequence of this issue witnesses two young mutant children being murdered in cold blood merely ... because they are mutants.
As I delved into the story, it became evident that this issue was the clear inspiration for the second "X-Men" movie, "X-2: X-Men United." The main bad guy is a powerful charismatic preacher named William Stryker who leads a visceral anti-mutant crusade across America. In "X-2," Stryker is a powerful government agent who leads a clandestine force against mutantkind. Check out the other similarities:
Reverend Stryker, in the novel's climax, is eventually shot and killed by a regular cop -- because the rev had his own pistol pointed at Kitty Pryde (the girl who can walk through walls and who saw her most screen time in the third film, "X-3: The Last Stand") and was about to fire. What follows is the typical Chris Claremont (longtime X-Men writer) philosophizing about what "course" mutants should take to protect themselves, with Professor X advocating peaceful co-existence and Magneto pushing for dominance and control.
A few days after reading the story I was intrigued by the inclusion at the end of this Essential collection of Chris Claremont's remembrances while writing "God Loves ..." To me, it shows that Claremont is your typical liberal -- liberals which now (still?) clearly dominate Marvel today. He writes:
So here we are in the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan is president and a wave of creative Conservatism is sweeping the nation, pitched as a backlash from the Heartland to the unpatriotic and hedonistic attitudes and mores of the 60s and 70s. According to them, the country was returning to bedrock, traditional values and beliefs, both political and moral. Leading that charge ... were a coterie of TV evangelists, trumpeting their born-again, fundamentalist vision of the Bible across the national airwaves.For me, this story grew out of a time where voices of casual intolerance were very much abroad in the land, where espousing views that stood apart from what was considered the "mainstream" could have serious and lasting consequences.
Pardon me, but WHAAAAAAT?? I know, I know, I shouldn't be surprised, really. Claremont is all too typical of many liberals who feel the Reagan era was Hades incarnate on Earth. But still, consider that line: "... where espousing views that stood apart from what was considered the 'mainstream' could have serious and lasting consequences." For example, cretins like Jerry Falwell frequently denounced gays and the "gay" lifestyle. According to Claremont, if one "espoused views" contrary to Falwell's -- like gays should have all the same basic civil rights as every other American -- there could be "serious and lasting consequences"! Like what, for instance? That you could be in danger of receiving William Stryker-like treatment at the end of a gun barrel? Please. I don't think Claremont actually believes that, but I'd really like to know what he means. I personally recall the 1980s cultural debate being quite vigorous, and the only "serious and lasting consequences" anyone "suffered" was mere verbal criticism. Claremont was obviously just engaging in unnecessary hyperbole because, unfortunately for him and other 60s lefties, the "pendulum had swung the other way" in the 80s. As if one needs more proof, Claremont makes the eye-rolling statement that, during the 80s,
Other faiths, other branches of the same faith, sounded as if they were being dismissed, which carried disturbing echoes of the growing fundamentalist movement that was sweeping the Islamic world.
If there was ever one comparison that should cause one to guffaw, it's the above. And to be fair to Claremont, he clarifies that it "seemed" that way to him and that "to his ears" it sounded that way. But many others are fervent in this belief -- that there's no difference between fundamentalist Christians here in the US and fundamentalist Muslims in the mid-east. Personally, I abhor fundamentalism of any stripe, but to posit this "no difference" claim is just daffy. If you really need for me to spell it out for you (like these lunkheads do), you might consider asking your doctor for a prescription to reality pills.
The X-Men -- and mutants in general -- have long been Marvel's metaphor for the dispossessed, disenfranchised, and oppressed. Until recently (with the massive "Civil War" epic), one item had been frequently and conveniently brushed aside in the mutant debate: That these "oppressed" citizens often had abilities to cause incredible -- and widespread -- destruction. Clearly, guys like William Stryker go to extremes in addressing the situation. But it always seemed to me that there was lacking that "moderate" voice -- that sensical viewpoint that bridged concern for civil liberties with that of the general security of the American public. Consider the first "X-Men" film: In one of the flick's first sequences, we see [X-Man] Jean Grey arguing with Senator Robert Kelly about possible registration of mutants. Kelly makes an analogy to possessing and registering firearms, whereupon Grey retorts that we don't require registration for people to live. She's right, of course, but would we so require such if super-powered mutants actually existed? It is easy for you to sit behind your computer, act all morally superior and say "No way, man! That is a clear violation of civil rights and inherently immoral." But, of course, if a dude like Magneto (and his allies) were out there randomly causing widespread havoc because of his own hatred of homo sapiens, you'd probably have second thoughts!
It is fun -- and interesting -- to have such a debate, and I am currently working on an article dealing with just this subject (as an afterword to the aforementioned "Civil War") for a comics online fan magazine. In doing research for the article, I discovered that the words of The Comics Reporter’s Tom Spurgeon speak to this topic quite well (my emphasis):
When I was a kid I liked it when Captain America saw a high government official commit suicide. I thought that was way deep, man. But I never go there when thinking about Watergate. While ["Civil War" author] Mark Millar's Captain America and I may both worry about civil rights and the dispensation of power in the United States, the moment this leads Cap to take out a battalion of Secret Agents to buttress his point he's kind of lost to me as a potential partner-in-ideology.Now, maybe Mark Millar will be the first writer to use the specific metaphor he has at his disposal to say something insightful and constructive about those issues, but I suspect that as in the past the real world comparisons exist primarily to flatter the entertainment value of the superhero comic, not so much to say anything that isn't, well, kind of dumbassed. The same way that the X-Men or similar series can only go so far when speaking to identity and outsider issues before people begin to realize shooting raybeams from your eyes really is different enough from sexual or racial identity to kind of limit any insight to be gained, I can't imagine a point of view emerging from Civil War that isn't constrained or made foolish by these characters' very specific fantasy identities.
Indeed. If you can't see a difference between, say, having misgivings about your neighbor merely because he is black, and your neighbor because he sometimes inadvertantly projects beams of concussive force from his nostrils which, at their weakest, hit like a Mack truck moving at 60 mph, then you have problems!
Lastly, I wonder what liberal Chris Claremont thinks about [the previously mentioned] gun control. If he believes that there should be severe restrictions on firearms (or that they should be banned outright), yet feels that super-powered mutants (or humans) should have the right to roam freely with no restrictions whatsoever, then he is a hypocrite of the highest order.
Related: Comics and Politics; Just As I Write; Comics and Politics Again; Mark Millar Still Hates America; Spider-Man Vs. The Bush Administration; Erik Larsen: Yet Another Comics Guy Who's Out There.
No, I don't mean about politics (though they frequently are clueless in that realm); I'm talking about comicbook characters. Check out author Ree Hines' top five comic characters ever:
1. Superman. I have no hassles with this. Supes is the logical choice as he's the original comicbook hero. DC has done a terrific job revitalizing him over the last couple decades.
2. Wonder Woman. HUH? Dude, she's at best between a first-tier and second-tier character. She helps solidify the "weakness" that DC has had in that too many of their characters are just too all-powerful and not "real" enough. A measure of a character's popularity is how many comic titles his/her publisher puts out. WW just doesn't cut it when compared to Supes or the number three on the list ...
3. Batman. Should be #2 possibly, or at least remain here just behind the upcoming number four character. DC's grittiest -- and most real -- character, he's easy to relate to as almost anyone can imagine being him. (Of course, having his kind of money would certainly help!)
#4. Spider-Man. Should occupy the #2 spot or at least tie Bats for it. Stan Lee and Steve Ditko completely redefined the everyman hero with Webhead, the standard for Marvel Comics in general: Make them believable to the average joe.
I had originally written a bunch about how the "Spider-Man" films totally kicked all other comicbook films' butt; however, I realized too late that the IMDB top grossing film database is not adjusted for inflation. This would be an unfair indicator of a film's popularity. A bit of Googling took me to this site which has the inflation-adjusted figures for top USA film grosses. "Spider-Man" still wins the top comicbook film spot (#33 overall) while "Batman" comes in at #2 (#47 overall). "Spidey 2" is #3 (#51), "Superman" at #4 (#60) and "Men In Black" is #5 (#75). Interestingly, "Spidey 3" is at #6 (#87 overall) and it's still in its first-run theatrical release.
#5. Colossus. You gotta be friggin' kidding me. Hines is on crack. If any X-Man makes the top five, the obvious choice is Wolverine -- who is winning (tied with Batman) the online fan vote linked to by the article.
Hines may have an "out" in that I notice today (I first noticed his article yesterday) the headline on the MSNBC main page says "coolest" comicbook characters of all time. Even so, Hines is still way off-base. So, let's do both -- the top five comicbook characters of all-time, and then the much more subjective "coolest" top five.
All-Time:
1. Superman
2. Spider-Man
3. Batman
4. Wolverine
5. Captain America
"Coolest" Top 5:
1. Spider-Man
2. Wolverine
3. Iron Man
4. Batman
5. The Punisher
I just finished reading one of the ten books I ordered for summer, titled Triumph. The is an On The Beach-style story where fourteen survivors of a terrible nuclear war are holed up underground in an elaborate shelter in Connecticut. Definitely a bit dated, and with the typical Cold War "Soviets are evil incarnate" subplot, the entire northern hemisphere is rendered uninhabitable by a sudden Soviet nuke strike, including numerous cobalt bombs. Cobalt bombs gained a lot of notoriety in the 50s and 60s as the theoretical "doomsday weapon." This is not because of their enormous explosive power (which was implied in the ending of the film "Beneath the Planet of the Apes") but because of the prodigious amount of radiation such weapons would release, and this radiation would last a very long time. As planetary wind patterns continuously circle the globe, this high-intensity radiation would reach everywhere -- if enough bombs were exploded. In Triumph, enough were set off to depopulate just the northern part of the planet. In addition, in the novel, the USSR set off myriad nukes with a yield of over 100 megatons, which would have very devastating effects on the planet with which author Philip Wylie was obviously unaware. The largest nuke ever exploded (in real life) was of a yield of approximately 59 megatons (by the USSR).
Just how much cobalt -- or how many bombs of that type -- would be necessary to kill off all life on Earth? Physicist Leo Szilard estimates that it would take "400 one-ton deuterium-cobalt bombs [to] release enough radioactivity to extinguish all life on earth." This threat is brought to life in another summer reading book of mine, Red Alert. The inspiration for the movie "Dr. Strangelove," it details a rogue US Air Force officer who unilaterally orders a SAC B-52 bomber wing to drop its nuke bombs on the USSR (you have to read the book to see how this is actually possible). Since the chances of actually stopping, or recalling, the wing are almost nil, the president's top generals agree that the US should follow through with the attack, and end the Soviet threat once and for all.
There's just a "small" problem: The president informs his top general of something that only he and the Secretary of State know -- the USSR has a "last-ditch" plan to thwart any [nuke] attack on them by the United States. That plan is a quantity of cobalt bombs stashed in the Ural Mountains that, if exploded, would extinguish all life on the planet. The revelation of this plan actually led to the deteriorating health of the president's predecessor, gruesome as it was.
I'm not quite finished Red Alert yet, but I've already been tipped off as to how it ends. Still, it's awesomely suspenseful reading.
Use of cobalt devices was also utilized in the far-fetched (well, maybe not back then) Not This August. A Soviet and China-conquered USA has one last-ditch weapon to use against their occupiers: A "weapon satellite" that contains a few cobalt bombs. If the USSR and China do not withdraw from US territory, the satellite will drop these devices on the two countries where they (hypothetically) would only devastate that pair of communist nations.
An early issue of Marvel Comics' Silver Surfer in 1970 where he battles the "Doomsday Man" features a cobalt device. The Surfer must take extra care in defeating the menace else the Earth be put in peril. However, this was unlikely as it seems to use a "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" approach -- it was just one bomb and hence not sufficient to actually jeopardize the planet.
The SciFi Channel is preparing a CGI film titled "Terra" which has as its basis a familiar theme: Planet-conquering aliens. Although, this time, the aliens are humans.
The worst comes true: The object is an alien ship, planning to launch an attack and claim the pastoral world and its abundant resources for a race of extraterrestrials who have destroyed their home world with war, greed and pollution.It's a familiar tale, but there's a twist: The invaders are human, and the townsfolk are the salamander-like, peaceful victims who must rise up against the monsters.
The obvious point in this, most likely, is the US as "imperial aggressor." But as I've argued before (mainly in regards to "Battlestar Galactica"), it is highly unlikely that the human species, once it has attained the level of technological sophistication necessary for interstellar flight, would "revert" to a level of civilizational barbarity whereby it'd plunder planets that contain intelligent life. Think about it -- it doesn't make sense. Besides, it'd be a LOT cheaper to get necessary raw materials from space -- asteroids, comets, moons -- rather than [inhabited] planets. This reverse premise made the popular early-80s show "V" a laugher, not to mention the more recent "Independence Day."
The ONLY real way I can be led to accept a premise such as that in "Terra" is a situation where humans come across advanced technology before we're actually ready for it. For example, if there was indeed a Roswell incident in 1947 where the US captured an alien spacecraft, we could successfully reverse-engineer the ship's technology and eventually build our own interstellar craft. If this happened, say, today, the results for our immediate stellar neighbors could be devastating. Modern humans haven't even gotten over their own petty differences; how can they be expected to handle aliens?? (Carl Sagan's "Contact" had an excellent subplot on this topic.)
Monday's on the SciFi Channel feature four hours of the Star Trek franchise's "Enterprise." This past Monday presented the excellent two-parter "In a Mirror, Darkly." It shows the genesis of the "Mirror" Universe, first glimpsed in the classic original Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror": We see an actual clip from the ending of the eighth Trek movie, "First Contact," where the inventor of warp drive (Zephram Cochran) is greeting the first aliens on Earth (who happen to be Vulcans -- Mr. Spock's race for those not in the know). In the actual movie, this meeting sets the stage for Earth's ascendance into the community of planets; however, in the Mirror Universe, Cochran guns down his Vulcan counterpart, and orders those humans assembled to enter and ransack the Vulcan ship! Thus sets the stage for the origins of the Terran Empire, where Earth becomes a despotic, conquering planet, subjugating and enslaving its stellar neighbors. How did this happen? Because humans acquired high technology before they were ready for it.
As a Marvel comics fan, this concept was perhaps best elaborated upon in the Watcher's (at left) origin story. Eons ago, the Watcher's race decided to travel the universe offering gifts of high technology to lesser species -- in effect, acting as "gods." That is, until a race called the Prosilicans created nuclear weapons with the Watcher-offered gift of nuclear power and destroyed not only themselves, but their stellar neighbors as well. This resulted in the Watchers becoming just that -- Watchers, whereby any and all interference in alien races' development was prohibited. (Earth's Watcher didn't exactly adhere to this edict, especially when the planet-devouring Galactus showed up to consume our planet.)
Humans (or other races) gaining technology before "we're (they're) ready" is an old theme in scifi. Larry Niven's popular Kzin race is another example. These ferocious felinoids almost conquer Earth thanks to stolen high technology. Back to Marvel, the popular Kree race (from where Captain Marvel comes) stole their technology from the Skrulls.
What are some others?
With school now out, me and a teaching buddy hit a matinee yesterday to see the sequel to the averagely mediocre "Fantastic Four" flick from a couple years ago. The trailers looked promising: One of the coolest characters Marvel's ever conceived of -- the Silver Surfer -- makes his big screen debut as the herald of the planet-consuming Galactus.
Warning! Spoilers ahead! Continue at your own risk! (Which, actually, ain't that much considering the movie ... !)
The one big positive of this sequel is that the F/X are killer. The Silver Surfer is perfectly done, and add Laurence Fishburne's voice to him and it's nigh unbeatable. The film starts where we see a planet being destroyed by the [unseen] Galactus. The Surfer flits away from the destruction -- his next stop: Earth. The Surfer's appearance results in freak weather changes/accidents across the globe, and eventually the US government comes to scientific genius Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic, the guy who can stretch) for assistance in tracking down the Surfer.
The Surfer, true to form from the comics, is virtually omnipotent; the FF can do little to stop him. The arrogant, egotistical Human Torch gets schooled by the Surfer who grabs him by the throat and zooms off to the edge of space -- the Torch's flame winks out and Johnny Storm (the Torch's real ID) plummets to Earth. Even Sue Storm's (the Invisible Woman, played by the oh-so gorgeous Jessica Alba) force field cannot thwart the Surfer.
Eventually the FF learns what the Surfer's true purpose is: He precedes the destruction of any planet on which he appears. Massive craters have appeared all over the planet, but after Reed and team fail to capture the Surfer (after deducing where his next appearance would be), the "so-smart" US government then enlists the aid of ... Dr. Doom! Played by "Nip/Tuck"'s Julian McMahon, Doom was fused into his armor and presumed deceased at the end of the first movie. Now, back in his home country of "Latveria," it is never clearly explained how he extricates himself from this predicament. Doom has figured out something is up with the Surfer (he, too, is a genius after all) and sets out to confront him. Probably the biggest unintentional chuckle of the film comes when Doom flies to an arctic locale to surprise the Surfer. On the side of Doom's helicopter is a huge decal that reads "VON DOOM." WTF?? He's the monarch of a his own friggin' country!! At least have a coat of arms on the side of the chopper or something! But a generic "VON DOOM" in a green triangle? LOL!!
At least it's somewhat explained how Doom overcomes his horrific, notorious scarring -- a blast by the Surfer inadvertantly heals him. But even Doom cannot thwart the Surfer, and as mentioned, the US government bigwigs insist that Richards team up with Doom to devise a method of capturing the herald. They do, of course, but the devious Doom has his own plans: Steal the Surfer's power! This, among other items, ties neatly into Fantastic Four lore. In issue #60 (first series, see below) of the FF, Doom lured the Surfer to his Latverian castle and stripped him of his cosmic power. He then threatened to take over the planet, and toyed with the FF in the process.
After Richards and Doom successfully build a device that captures the Silver Surfer, Doom snatches the power of the Surfer's board, and just like in the comics he begins wreaking all kinds of mayhem. But the part that is, well, "ridiculous" about this is that McMahon's Doom is a wisecrack-uttering smart-ass as opposed to the regal monarch/would-be conquerer of the comics. His Doom is sadly reminiscient of the Doom featured in the never-released 1994 "Fantastic Four" film that was made on a shoe-string budget. (I was "fortunate" enough to have viewed a bootleg copy of this disaster a couple years ago.) That Doom acted more like Spider-Man, making snappy patter all the while never being a real threat to the FF (and never did come off as an all-powerful menace). My buddy and I couldn't help but laugh our asses off at the Doom of the bootleg flick, including his always-silly comments.
At any rate, Doom steals the Surfer's power, but the FF has managed to free the herald from his captivity. The quartet has convinced him to spare the life of the Earth, if indeed it is within his power. But first, he needs to get his power back from the dastardly Doc Doom! In a move that was another hat-tip to a classic FF villain, the Human Torch absorbs all the powers of his teammates (made possible by an inadvertant side-effect of fighting the Surfer) and defeats Doom. The hat-tip is to the super-powerful Super Skrull, who was genetically engineered with all the powers of he FF (see below).
All that remains now is whether the Silver Surfer, now fully re-empowered, can thwart the coming of Galactus. In probably the biggest disappointment of the film (aside from not seeing more of a semi-clad Jessica Alba, that is!), we never get to see Galactus in full. The closest we get is a silhouette of his head passing over a nearby moon. Ugh. Not good enough. I'll provide, at least, a pic of what he looks like:
The Surfer is obviously successful; he apparently sacrifices his own life to stop the threat. (Although we see him floating lifelessly in space as the credits roll!) This never happened in the comics -- the Surfer was given his power by Galactus so how in the world could he actually stop him? It wouldn't make sense. So creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby had the enigmatic, all-powerful Watcher intervene on behalf of planet Earth giving the FF a device (called the "Ultimate Nullifier") that could destroy even Galactus:
The movie also featured the subplot of Reed Richards and Sue Storm getting married (or, at least trying to amid all the chaos), not to mention the appearance of the way-cool "Fantasticar." The banter between the Human Torch and the Thing was funny, especially since the Torch's Chris Evans has the role of the wise-ass early twenty-something down cold! So let's sum up:
POSITIVES:
NEGATIVES:
OVERALL RATING: Two and a half stars (out of four).
Because you know you wanna know what I thought of it, right? ADMIT IT!
I suggest, if you haven't seen the movie and plan on doing so, not to read any further as I WILL UTILIZE SPOILERS!!
First of all, ignore all the reviews that claim the movie is horrible. Or just bad. It isn't either. However, it is worse than "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2." As I feared, having too many plot lines, characters, and villains made for a somewhat disjointed flick. The positive is that the film's effects and fight sequences are worth the price of admission alone.
Taking a page from Marvel Comics' "Secret Wars" series from the early 1980s (where several big Marvel characters got some major changes applied to them), Spidey gets a black costume. In "Secret Wars" that was because he, along with many other superheroes, were transported to a far-away alien world. The "costume" -- actually an alien lifeform which needs a symbiosis with another creature -- bonds with Peter Parker, and when the superheroes return to Earth from the planet, Pete brings his "costume" with him. In the movie, Pete and Mary Jane are watching a meteor shower, and unbeknownst to them one of the meteors lands nearby -- and out pops the alien symbiote. It latches onto Pete's moped, and eventually attaches itself to Pete. Like in the Spider-Man comic, the alien "suit" alters Pete's personality, making him much more belligerent and hot-tempered.
Elsewhere, a dude named Flint Marko is running from the police. They chase him into a physics experiment's testing chamber which conveniently activates when Marko is inside. The experiment turns Marko into longtime Spidey enemy Sandman (comic version at upper right) -- a guy who can control all his molecules which have become intertwined with the sand in which he was standing. We're shown that Marko's crime career is supposedly to save his daughter from a health affliction.
Further elsewhere, Pete's former pal Harry Osborn is still planning revenge against Pete/Spider-Man for what he thinks was his father's murder at the hands of the wall-crawler. One night, Harry augments his strength via his dad's old formulas, dons some of his dad's old weapons and duds, and goes after Pete. The sequence is amazing; one thing about "Spidey 3" that is vastly superior to any of the previous films is the choreography and F/X. Anyways, Pete gets the better of Harry, whose injuries cause him to forget anything about being the Green Goblin. To him now, he and Pete are still the best of buddies.
What possibly irritated long-time Spidey fans most was how Sandman -- back before his transformation -- was made responsible for the murder of Pete's Uncle Ben. However, I have to admit it was done quite well; the dude who Pete went after in "Spider-Man" was indeed part of the crime -- he and Marko were both in the process of robbing that wrestling promoter. Marko was the guy who actually carjacked Ben and shot him, but only after the other dude screamed at him to "hurry up and get in the car."
Once Parker learns that Marko -- Sandman -- is responsible for his uncle's death, he goes after him with a vengeance -- a vengeance only made possible by the personality-altering effects of the black suit-symbiote. Spidey apparently kills Sandman by flooding his form with water and literally washing him away. In the meantime, Harry gets his memory back, but when he decides to take on Pete again, Pete's black suit makes him a fighting madman. Pete shows little mercy as he tears into Harry, ultimately turning one of Harry's pumpkin bombs right back at the new Goblin, severely disfiguring him. The climax of Pete's sojourn with the alien suit comes at a nightclub where he ends up hitting Mary Jane who is trying to stop Pete from beating the crap out of some bouncers. He finally realizes that he has to get rid of the suit, and travels to a nearby cathedral to do so.
BUT (there's always a "but"!), photographer Eddie Brock, whose photos Pete had exposed as forgeries earlier in the film, is also at the cathedral (to "pray" for Parker's death, no less!). As Pete struggles to get rid of the symbiote, Brock glances up at the commotion. Eventually, Pete gets the symbiote off of him, but it then attaches to Brock. Brock uses the alien suit to become "Venom" (comicbook version at left) -- the perfect symbiosis since both entities now despise Peter Parker.
Eventually, Venom and Sandman team-up to destroy Spider-Man. But -- and this was a shocker to me as it never happened in comics as far as I know -- Harry decides to help Pete against the deadly duo! (After his butler fills him in on just how his dad really died, natch!) The climactic battle takes place in downtown Manhattan with Mary Jane once again the hostage bait. She's tangled in Venom's web, while it seems Spidey has just about had it (a hugely enlarged Sandman is pounding him with a giant fist while Venom holds him down). Suddenly, Harry appears and enters the fracas. Pete and Harry work together perfectly to hold off the bad guys. However, Venom gets the better of Pete at one point, but Harry sacrifices himself to save his friend! Pete realizes Venom's weakness -- sound -- and begins banging numerous metal pipes together to drive him crazy. One of Harry's pumpkin bombs disintegrates the Venom symbiote -- and Eddie Brock, who was diving towards the symbiote to reattach himself to it.
Pete and Mary Jane tend to a dying Harry, while suddenly Sandman appears. He doesn't want to fight anymore; he wants to apologize to Pete for his uncle's death, explaining why he did it (again, to help his daughter) and stating he realizes it was absolutely wrong -- and wishes Pete could forgive him. Pete does, as any hero truly would -- but then lets Sandman fly away!! For me, this was the biggest disappointment of the movie. What Spider-Man really would have done was forgive Sandman, but demand that he give himself up to the authorities while reassuring him that his daughter would be taken care of. Ugh.
The movie ends with absolutely no certainty of a sequel, but at least Pete and Mary Jane are apparently back together, after Pete's personality changes had driven them apart.
More tidbits:
... and I'm embarrassed! Here's a first look at the Iron Man armor to be used in next year's Golden Avenger movie:
It seems like a good homage to the "Classic Red & Gold" armor he wore for almost 200 issues, and the current one he's been wearing for several years now.
Thanks, Duff!
Considering the ridiculous PC atmosphere in this [modern] era's War on Terror (which several Democratic presidential candidates don't think we're actually in, and fighting), it doesn't come as a surprise that comics genius Frank Miller's upcoming Batman vs. al Qaeda (titled "Holy Terror, Batman!") is being stalled because company execs ... are squeamish about "sending a franchise character on a blood-quest after terrorists."
Say whaaaat??
As previously noted here at Colossus, at least Miller gets it. And it's absolutely amazing how such a book would make execs squeamish, while they saw no problem with a radical group of heroes taking over the United States because of its politics, or likewise, a group of "superheroes" from countries like North Korea, China and countries in the Mid-East occupying the US for similar reasons.
Miller regrets the lack of cojones:
"Our hero's key quote is, 'Those clowns don't know what terror is,' " Miller said. "Then he sets out to get the guys."With the hero as terrorism avenger, Miller is pointing to the days of comics in the 1940s, when Superman, Captain America and the Human Torch were drawn taking punches at Hitler or Hirohito.
"These terrorists are worse than any villain I can come up with, and I think it's ridiculous that people in entertainment are not showing what we are up against here…. This is pure propaganda, a throwback, there's no bones about it."
Miller also said he relishes a backlash. "I'm ready," he said, "for my fatwa."
Unfortunately, he's probably going to get one, too. But he does have balls, something that the execs lack. Pathetic that a death order may come down for writing a comicbook.
Blogging historians may remember the old "Blogolution" site. One of the first Delaware-centric blogs, it started in 2003, its authors were featured (or at least passingly mentioned) in such esteemed publications as The Washington Post and ... Delaware Today. Never a particularly leveraging seller in the marketplace of ideas, whenever you needed to be informed about the important issues of the day, Blogolution was there with a cheap joke. It closed shop back in 2005.
I recently corresponded with Blogolution's founders, Ken and Steve, and they're talking about relaunching the site. They said they're burnt out on traditional blogging, so they're thinking about focusing on their own political comic strips. Steve's drawing, Ken's scripting.
Here's a sample, used with permission, of course. The duo are aware that the actual layout still needs some image tweaking, but they request that you leave your thoughts/comments in the comments section here. Thanks!
I recently discovered that Marvel Comics' homepage allows for Wikipedia-style edits to the bios of its heroes, villains and all sorts of other stuff.
I just may be spending quite a bit of time over there ... !!
Normally moonbatty comics commentator Steven Grant asks
... why does almost every superhero from a country other than the USA have to have some motif identifying them as representative of that country? Is the perception out there that American readers can't keep straight that a hero's home nation is, say, England if he doesn't wear a British flag or have a name like Captain Britain or Union Jack? Does every hero from Japan have to wear samurai armor or a rising sun emblem? Would South Americans even dress up as conquistadors? Does everyone really think Americans are that stupid, or are we trying to draw the attention of readers of those nationalities portrayed (usually with only the most fleeting knowledge of the mores, behavior and culture of those nationalities), or is it just a running exercise in benign bigotry? (Link.)
Of course Grant would have to stick that last sentence in there; however, given the politically correct state of modern comics I believe it to be a ludicrous assumption. I would have liked to read some specific examples of what Grant was referring to. But sure, there are plenty of superheroes who explicitly or implicitly "represent" their country. As Grant noted, there are Union Jack and Capt. Britian (England), the Red Guardian (the old Soviet Union), Vindicator/Guardian (Canada), and Sunfire (Japan). But these are all creations many years after the emergence of the famous Captain America whose first appearance was in 1941. Thus, if the United States can have a superhero symbol, why not other nations?
Perhaps in the Silver and Bronze Ages of comics there was more "stereotyping" of superheroes from other nations, not to mention ethnicities within the United States. In the 1960s and 70s, for example, it seemed African-American heroes (and villains) had to have the word "black" somewhere in their superhero moniker: The Black Panther (which actually makes sense, but still...), Black Goliath (which actually was changed to mere "Goliath" years later), Black Lightning ... Even the black heroes without "black" in their name had to be made "relevant" to issues surrounding the African-American community. Luke Cage (Power Man) often fought pimp-like villains in the 'hood, as did the Falcon. He spoke with that "jive" twang. Even African (not African-American) hero Black Panther got drawn into the issue of American race relations in late-60s/early 70s issues of The Avengers.
But consider the timeframe: In the 60s and 70s, black Americans still had quite limited access to the American mainstream, including pop culture in many respects. Marvel Comics was actually quite ahead of the curve in its progressivity, offering thoughtful stories about American culture woven into their fantasy/science fiction superhero yarns. The aforementioned Black Panther, for instance, didn't seem totally aware of the difficulties black Americans faced. (The Panther is a [wealthy] African prince from the fictitious nation of Wakanda.) Black Goliath (real name: Bill Foster) was a brilliant scientist, originally an assistant of the original Goliath (not to mention Giant Man, Ant Man and Yellowjacket) Hank Pym. He used Pym's growth formula to become a hero himself. His and the Panther's characters portrayed African-American males as genius-level men of science who used their abilities for the good of all; this, in contrast to the plethora of "blackspoitation" films of the time.
More contemporary comics, in my view, do not necessarily agree with Grant's thesis. The recent The Ultimates featured a representative hero of each of the major Western nations (with titles such as "Capt. France" and "Capt. Italy," etc.) but there didn't appear to be anything blatantly French or Italian about these heroes. But even if they did, a big difference between the US and many other nations is the heterogeneity of the former. It's actually hard to "pin down" exactly what the "US culture" is. Homogenous societies do not have as much difficulty in this regard. Thus, if many Japanese heroes are frequently depicted as wearing samurai armor, it's because samurai are national symbols for the all the Japanese people. And unlike Grant, I do believe that, unfortunately, too many Americans are ignorant of geography. And since the majority of the market for comicbooks is the United States, a little -- if elementary -- lesson in [cultural] geography cannot hurt for its main audience now, can it? Only a cultivated moonbat like Grant can attribute "bigotry" to such.
Grant says "almost every superhero from a country other than the USA have to have some motif identifying them as representative of that country..." No! There are countless examples that do not fit this assumption. Northstar and Aurora from Canada. Ditto Wolverine, Box, Shaman, Puck and Sasquatch. The Crimson Dynamo and Titanium Man from Russia. Ditto the Black Widow. Latinos Living Lightning and Firebird. And these are just but a few examples from Marvel Comics.
All of these royally bagged me up. My personal favorite (though they're all hilarious):
Thanks to Soccer Dad for the tip!
Ah -- at last something for us Silver Agers to sink our teeth into! Coming in June: Avengers Classic, a new title by Marvel Comics that will feature original stories set in "Earth's Mightiest's" early years. There will also be reprint stories of some of the original stories from that era, penned mostly by Stan "The Man" Lee himself. As a matter of fact, Lee will have an original yarn included in Classic #1 as a back-up story! Original story [regular] creators Dwayne McDuffie and Mike Oeming's
first story recounts an early official meeting where they decide who will be chairman of the team.Stan tells us the secret origin of how The Avengers truly came together as only Stan can tell it.
This is a great idea, although personally I'd rather just read the original stories set in the old era. I, like I'm sure many other Silver Age fans, have already collected classic Avengers tales via the Essential series. The Essential Avengers is already up to issue #5, taking fans into the early-mid 70s to approximately issue #120.
Comics fans under 25 may not truly appreciate -- or know how to truly appreciate -- Stan Lee's stories. He really knew how to make the reader feel a part of the "Marvel community," for lack of a better term. From the old Marvel "Bullpen" (the creators) to the "Mighty Marvel Marching Society," to the letters pages to liberal use of footnotes noting past references, Lee made you a member of the "club." He never insulted your intelligence (he used more polysyllabic words than you could shake a stick at) and he was genuinely funny. From the opening credits to the interior dialogue, you'd be engrossed in the drama of the story and laughing yourself silly at the same time. I never was a big follower of Daredevil; however, as a kid I recall reading some reprints of early DD tales, and remember how Lee's banter via dialogue balloons -- not to mention the opening credits where the poor letterer was always busted on -- were absolutely hysterical! Just check out these few examples:
"Stand back, average typical crowd of passersby"?? "I even get airsick standin' on a thick rug"?? You just don't see this kind of clean comedic fun in the "funny books" anymore. Today's writers are too busy taking themselves too seriously -- they have to be "relevant."
(At least when a Republican's in the White House.)
Here we go again! This summer will witness "Black Summer," a new comic series along the lines of The Authority where a superhero unilaterally judges the US president to be a "war criminal" ... and kills him. The author is Warren Ellis, who also co-created The Authority, so this really shouldn't surprise anyone. John Horus, the "most committed" of an original team dubbed the "Seven Guns" -- "a group of young politically-aware scientist-adventurers who modified their own bodies for street-fighting in order to take back their West Coast city from a corrupt police force, criminal local government and rapacious private security forces" -- asks himself
"If, in fact, your perspective is such that you believe your President to have prosecuted an illegal war and thereby caused the deaths of thousands of people – isn't that a crime? Do you let that pass?"
Well, obviously Horus doesn't think so. But Ellis says he's "writing it from both [political] angles at once and letting people make up their own minds." And I tend to believe him. Though his work on The Authority was certainly from a left-wing perspective, he didn't have the team taking over the United States government -- that was left other authors including fake Army Ranger Micah Wright. And, as Ellis notes, the other members of the Seven Guns were hardly in agreement with Horus' actions, and gets especially pissed when the government (which is unaware that Horus acted alone) comes after them as well in retaliation for the president's murder.
More here.
Noted actor Jeff Bridges has signed on to Marvel's "Iron Man" flick due out next year. Bridges will play Tony Stark (Iron Man's secret ID) business rival Obadiah Stane:
Currently bald and sporting a silver goatee, Bridges said Stane (comicbook version at right) plays mentor to Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and would not divulge whether he was also the villain. However,Iron Man fans know that Stane (who, like Stark, is a billionaire industrialist) becomes our hero's bitter rival -- drawing Stark back to the [alcoholic] bottle -- which causes him to lose everything, including his company.
In the climactic issue #200, Tony Stark totally recovered from his bout with alcoholism, donned a totally new suit of armor (the only armor -- aside from his original suit -- that was not red and gold ... it was a striking red and silver) and went to confront Stane. Stane had assembled his own armored outfit while Stark was drinking his brains out, and the two go at it in a royal donneybrook. When it's apparent that there's no way he can win, Stane removes his helmet, puts his gauntlet blaster (repulsor) to his head, and blows his own head off:
Yesterday's post about the upcoming "death" of Marvel Comics' Captain America didn't have information on his killer. It turns out to be none other than his arch-nemesis, the Red Skull. (Actually, a sniper hired by him.)
In the latest edition of the comics, he is shot dead in a New York City courthouse by his all-time adversary, the 66-year-old Red Skull. The assassination comes after the superheroes in the series are divided over the government's decision requiring them to reveal their true identities and register with authorities. This leads to the creation of two factions, one led by Captain America, who goes underground and launches a resistance movement, and the other by Iron Man. At the end, he surrenders to the pro-registration group, but was shot dead on the steps of courthouse as he went to face charges.
Well, in a way, that's a sigh a relief. I was thinking it might just be an average shlub who offs America's icon. I mean, what kind of sense would that make? Here's Cap -- who survived World War II, was frozen in suspended animation for almost 20 years, fought in parallel dimensions, far-away galaxies ... and he's killed by Joe Six-Pack?
But having the most obvious choice of the Skull as Cap's "murderer" (I'll keep using quotes when I write "kill" and "murder" since Cap will not really be killed) also serves to make it clear that Cap will be coming back. After all, the Red Skull has survived numerous "deaths" throughout Cap's very own book, even by having cloned himself a new body from Steve Rogers' (Cap's real identity) own body (see the climactic issue #350, for instance). Geez, why don't the Avengers of somebody just barge in on the Skull's hideout and nab a few of Cap's cells? Instant new Capt. America!
Joe Quesada, Marvel Entertainment's editor-in-chief, said he would not rule out a recreation of Captain America.
No, really, y' think???
Marvel Entertainment President and Publisher Dan Buckley said he "does not rule out the possibility that Captain America is not really dead or is somehow resurrected."
The plot thins.
Check out the interview with "the killer" of Cap, current Captain America writer Ed Brubaker.
My own fairly lengthy Cap post from a year ago, deals with Rogers' renunciation of the Capt. America identity, and his aborted run for the US presidency.
The Comic Blurb's Jonas Diego agrees with me about Cap's "death."
CynaraJane wonders if the Cap killing represents a symbolic death of America in general.
Lester Spence adds his thoughts as a non-fan of the "re-examination" of the Cap mythos portrayed in "The Truth."
UPDATE: The inimitable Avi Green at the Four Color Media Monitor has a terrific commentary about this whole ordeal.
If I was younger and more naive, I'd be like "WHAAAAT?? THIS CANNOT HAPPEN!!" However, as I've read Marvel comics for over 30 years now, there's a simple fact one has to accept: No one, and I mean no one, ever stays dead in comicbooks.
Captain America has undertaken his last mission — at least for now.The venerable superhero is killed in the issue of his namesake comic that hit stands Wednesday, the New York Daily News reported. On the new edition’s pages, a sniper shoots down the shield-wielding hero as he leaves a courthouse. (Link.)
Gimmick, gimmick, gimmick. Anyone recall Superman's "death" over at Marvel rival DC Comics over a decade ago? Yeah, that lasted real long. And "gimmick" is what Marvel is all about these days. Just check out their recent myriad "Civil War" titles.
At least one noted individual thinks Cap's "death" is ill-timed:
The character’s death came as a blow to [Captain America] co-creator Joe Simon.“We really need him now,” said Simon, 93, who worked with artist Jack Kirby to devise Captain America as a foe for Adolf Hitler.
(h/t: Paul Smith Jr.)
UPDATE: Absolute proof that Marvel has lost its marbles (Cap/Civil War related).
Erik Larsen is a fairly popular comics creator who once drew Spider-Man for Marvel. I don't like his art; it's way too "cartoony" for my tastes and it looks like artist Mark Bagley's (who also drew -- and draws -- Spider-Man) if Bagley had arthritis in his drawing arm. But that's beside the point. What caught my eye recently is Larsen's latest column at Comic Book Resources where the teaser said he discusses politics.
Gee, for some reason I had a sneaking suspicion (with apologies to Fritz Schranck) that he wasn't going to be very congenial towards conservatives. And that's putting it mildly.
You might think you're in for an even-handed treatment when you read the following:
I'm a fairly well versed political beast. I read a lot and follow the issues and agree and disagree with both sides of the political aisle. My leaning is pretty liberal (Ed. -- stay tuned!) but that doesn't mean that I'm towing either political line. I wasn't a big Bill Clinton fan and I'm certainly not a George W. Bush fan. I like the government fixing my roads, but not censoring what I can say in my comics and what I can see on TV.
Don't be fooled. First, Larsen's [brief] history of how American presidents have been treated in comics completely glosses over the fact that one of the country's most popular commanders-in-chief -- Ronald Reagan -- was habitually treated as a total, complete and irrevocable cretin by Marvel throughout his administration. (I briefly discuss this here.) Second, while Larsen may technically be correct in that George W. Bush personally has not been the "butt" of direct denigration, his policies have to the Nth degree.
And back to Larsen's claiming to be "pretty liberal": Do "pretty liberal" folks believe in the following (emphasis mine):
Here's a guy whose criminal activity dwarfs Richard Nixon's by a wide margin, who cheated his way into the Oval Office -- twice -- and who has been hailed by many in both political parties as the single world [sic] president ever ...
"Pretty liberal"?? In my humble opinion, radical leftists believe that Bush is a "criminal" that dwarfs Nixon, and that he "stole" not one, but two elections. However, to Larsen's credit, he clearly recognizes that creators who politicize their stories run a risk -- and he makes no excuses for any negative fan feedback:
Editorializing on the comic book page is risky business. There's always a huge risk of offending or alienating a good chunk of your audience. Like religion, it's a touchy subject. Say or do the wrong thing and readers will drop your book like a bad habit.It's no wonder my sales figures are in freefall. But we'll get to that subject later…
Maybe that's 'cause Larsen's own creation, Savage Dragon, was featured on a cover of his mag punching President Bush in the face. But as noted, Larsen knows this wasn't ... a smart thing to do:
Now, I think old George is a guy who well-deserves a good poke in the snoot but in writing the story, it really hit home that what I was doing was, well, wrong and that it wasn't possible to do it right regardless of what I did.
I'm not entirely certain, but Larsen may have not allowed that particular issue issue into print. (He says, "Ultimately, I chickened out. I decided to play it safe rather than risk offending." But was that the story or the cover? I couldn't tell.) But this doesn't stop him from more conspiracy-mongering, however:
I tackled computer hacking and stolen elections a bit shortly thereafter, but unfortunately the GOP utilized the plot I had earmarked for my villain with their hijinx in Ohio and it pretty well took the wind out of my sails. One more reason to avoid politics altogether, I thought.
Darn! That nasty Republican Party actually used a Larsen plot idea before he could get it into print! Dammit!! Next, maybe Larsen could have his Savage Dragon uncover the conspiracy behind 9/11. Y'know, kidnap the president, tie him up, and beat the s*** out of him (sort of to also make a "point" about the administration's "favorable" view of torture) until he "reveals" how the administration, the CIA and the NSA were actually behind the attack on the World Trade Center that fateful September morning.
I mean, why not, Erik? There's probably more "evidence" to back up that theory than the GOP "stealing" the 2004 election, after all!
Check out the great news for my good buddy -- film-maker Heath McKnight:
Award-winning writer/artist, Rich Koslowski (The 3 Geeks, The King, Three Fingers), and independent filmmaker, Heath McKnight (9:04 AM , Skye Falling) are proud to announce that they've teamed up to produce a film version of Koslowski's popular comic book series The 3 Geeks."I was first contacted by Heath through a series of emails…he kept ordering copies of the comics," explained Koslowski. "It was a bit… curious . I thought he was either one very serious geek, or something else was cooking."
The 3 Geeks tells the story of three teenagers, Keith, Jim and Allen, and their adventures (or "misadventures") as obsessed comic book geeks. Koslowski has been nominated for several Eisner Awards––the comic book industry's most prestigious award––for his work on the fan-favorite comic.
More info available here, here, here, and here.
Heath and I used to write for and help produce an Iron Man fan magazine (or "fanzine") back in the mid-late 90s. Heath's beat was always films, and he's now realizing his dream! I always knew he would, and I salute 'ya, brother!
Warning: Major geekage alert!!
My buddy Brent (or "B" as we like to call him) recently purchased the Marvel Encyclopedia and lent it to me, as he frequently lends me comics I don't have (and I, vice versa, to him). I both dug the thing and was sorely disappointed at the same. The layout is fantastic -- the chosen pictures extraordinary with old-panel word balloons remastered -- with an excellent combination of old school artwork and new. The typeface is also well done.
However, when one gets into the nitty gritty, one'll be finding himself going "Huh??" quite often. And this is mostly the fault of lousy proofreading. To be sure, a comics novice would most likely in no way be able to pick up on a lot of these blunders. But being that I was heavily into Marvel Comics in the 70s and early 80s gave me a good vantage point from which to judge. In addition, be sure to read the many reviews of the Encyclopedia over at Amazon. Many others feel the same as I do.
IRON MAN
Let's start with my favorite hero, Iron Man. For the most part, the writer (Andrew Darling, one of several contributors) did a good job. Obviously the writers cannot cover every tidbit of a character's career or the volume would be over 1,000 pages, possibly more. Some things do have to be omitted. But most of Shellhead's key moments made it into print. The main proofreading blunder in the Iron Man section (a two-page spread, by the way; I'd expect no less!) was in the "Old Flames" segment at upper right. Long-time Tony Stark girlfriend Bethany Cabe is listed, but there's just one problem -- it's not Bethany pictured. It's [volume 3] Tony Stark girlfriend Rumiko Fujikawa! Doh! Rumiko didn't make the list but should have -- easily so over very briefly-noted-in-IM-lore squeeze Sunset Bain. In addition, you can see the influence that current Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada has; in the "Essential Storylines" segment, Iron Man vol. 3 #27-30 are listed. Guess why? Quesada wrote 'em. No true-blue Iron Fan would list those issues if they had to name three "essential" Iron Man stories. Unbelievably omitted is the one storyline virtually all Iron Fans would list as a must-have: The Armor Wars (Iron Man #225-232). And one of the "essential" stories contains a glaring error: Iron Man #153-156 are listed as "alcohol stuggle issues." URRNT! Not even close! Those are pretty much one-shot stand alone issues at a time when the title was in creative team transition (David Michelinie and Bob Layton, Iron Man's best-ever creative team, were exiting).
WHO TO INCLUDE?
There was also the head-scratching topic of who was included in the book, and who wasn't. Recent (and lame) Iron Man adversary Tiberius Stone made the book, but, for example, occasional Shellhead foe Midas -- who was an enemy of several Marvel heroes -- did not! Huh? This was also a common complaint among the myriad Amazon reviewers. Another that stuck out for me was the ridiculous inclusion of a character named Bloodhawk who appeared in a mere two issues of the Avengers back in the late 70s. C'mon -- aren't there much more worthy characters out there??
RETCONNED OR NOT?
A little-known Marvel character called the Rocket Racer stood out for me. First, it states his first appearance was Amazing Spider-Man #172. I used to own that issue as a boy, and read Spidey's then-battles with the skateboarding crook. Here's what got me about Racer's entry: It states he "was a scientific prodigy" who "developed a superpowered skateboard which was cybernetically controlled..." Now, there's a thing in comics called "retconning" where sometimes a hero's (or villain's) origin is "redone" to make him/her more "up-to-date" for a modern audience. It's also sometimes done to correct mistakes a writer made in the past, or simply to allow for what a current writer wants to do with a hero/villain. Now, I don't know if Marvel retconned Rocket Racer or not. If they did NOT, then his origin is completely erroneous. If anyone reads those Spider-Man issues from the late 70s, you'll see that the Racer was just a common thug (but not necessarily an evil person) who made a deal with a guy called the [Terrible] Tinkerer. The deal was that the Tinkerer (a mechanical genius) would develop the Racer's skateboard and glove rockets for 50% of whatever the Racer managed to steal in his crime sprees. Chances are RR was retconned, but then why include the original first appearance without noting that his origin had changed in the summary text? It would leave interested comic collectors who may go out and search for the relevant comics scratching their heads!
SPEAKING OF FIRST APPEARANCES...
Another thing that was inconsistent was the noting of characters' first appearances in the Marvel Universe. Notwithstanding the Rocket Racer above, I noticed that the writers tended to always include a character's first ever appearance in their bio, despite the fact that they may have changed names and/or appearances [possibly] many times. For instance, Mach-4's first appearance is noted as Strange Tales #123 from 1964. However, Mach-4 is a very recent character. Rightly noted in his bio is that he started out as a character called the Beetle, who indeed surfaced around 1964. OK. All fine and dandy. However, when you read the entry on the Speed Demon, his first appearance is listed as Amazing Spider-Man #222 (1981). Later in his entry you read that he started his career as the Squadron Sinister's "Whizzer." I have that very issue! And it was Avengers #70 from 1971! So, why do the encyclopedia's authors utilize first-ever appearances pretty much 95% of the time despite what a character eventually became ... but in Speed Demon's case (among a few others) his first appearance is listed as his first appearance as Speed Demon -- when in fact he started out a decade earlier as The Whizzer?
SPEAKING OF THE WHIZZER...
One of my favorite Marvel super groups is the DC Justice League analogue Squadron Supreme. This group exists in the Marvel Universe on a parallel Earth called "Earth-S." The leader of the group, Hyperion, has his first appearance listed as Avengers #85. Not noted is that the character Hyperion's first appearance was actually 15 issues earlier in Avengers #70, just like the Whizzer/Speed Demon above. (The Squadron Sinister was retroactively patterned -- see "retconning" above -- after the Squadron Supreme by an evil higher-order cosmic being ... Marvel writers apparently decided that a good group of these heroes wouldn't be such a bad idea!) In mainstream Marvel continuity, the Squadron Supreme at one time attempted to use their powers to take over their world in what was essentially a benevolent dictatorship. When they realized this wasn't a good idea, they dismantled their programs and became "ordinary" heroes. Eventually the team was whisked away from their world (to ours) by their arch-enemy; when they made it back years later, an oligarchic compendium had assumed world control, and in a 1998 special edition issue the situation was left as the Squadron continuing to fight this compendium for the world's freedom. So it says in Hyperion's bio. However, when you read the Squadron's own bio in the Encyclopedia, it says at entry's end that "the Squadron has now successfully liberated their own world from the grip of various monolithic corporations ..."!! So which is it, Marvel?? One entry says they're still fighting (the correct entry) and another says they've won already! It's doubtful I'd have missed a follow-up issue detailing their victory over the oligarchy as I'm always on the look-out for Squadron Supreme storylines, natch.
1941: A GOOD YEAR
In the most egregious example of lousy proofreading, the year "1941" appears an inordinate amount of times as a character's first appearance. This was the year in which the famous Captain America made his first-ever appearance, but other characters ...? On page 229 of the book, both the villain Proctor and hero Prodigy's first appearances are listed as 1941! Prodigy is even listed as having his debut in Captain America Comics #1!! Proctor's first issue is correct (Avengers #344) but that issue appeared in the 1990s, not 1941 as listed!! There were several other characters erroneously listed as having their first appearance as 1941, but I didn't write their names down and I can't recall all of them at the moment. Nevertheless, the year 1941 wasn't the only boo-boo; the dates of many characters' debuts were botched. One I recall immediately was Kitty Pryde's from X-Men fame. Her debut issue number is correct, but the year listed is 1994. The correct year is 1980!
CONCLUSION
Fairly new comics fans will take delight at this book. Older fans will still dig it, but as noted will wonder how a work of this magnitude managed to get published with all the errors -- especially when Marvel bigwigs Tom Brevoort and Tom DeFalco were contributing writers!!
The "Spider-Man 3" trailer has been bothering me for a while. While the production looks as visually slick, the trailer shows that instead of a nameless thief that Peter Parker could have stopped killing Peter’s Uncle Ben, it was really the man who would eventually become Sandman that did it.
Presumably, they want the money-shot battles between Spider-Man and Sandman to be more personal, and to have a hook to make Spidey darker in this installment. Certainly, ret-conning Sandman as the murderer is one way to do it. But really, it's a needless change since any fight between Spider-Man and a bad guy becomes personal when Peter Parker sees people being threatened or getting hurt. It doesn’t need to be Uncle Ben, Aunt May, or Mary Jane. He cares about everybody because he knows that “with great power comes great responsibility”™. He knows this because of his Uncle’s death, and as a result, he’s keenly aware that anytime he drops the ball someone could die.
Here's the thing: if Uncle Ben was killed by Sandman, someone Peter Parker did not know about and had no way of stopping the night of the murder, then Spider-Man’s whole character falls apart. The lesson isn’t that with great power comes great responsibility, but that it really does not matter how much power you have or what you do because bad stuff just happens sometimes.
This is not to say that traumatic events are necessary for someone to be a hero (think of Superman, who does the right thing because he can). But central to the Spider-Man mythos is his guilt. It's what motivates him, because it’s pretty clear Peter would have used his powers for personal gain but for the murder. Take that away, and why shouldn’t he go back to his original plan of using his spider powers to earn a buck? Momentum is not a compelling reason to continue being a hero.
Maybe this part of the movie will just be a head game -- perhaps staged by former-BFF-turned-eventual-arch-enemy Harry Osborne -- where Spider-Man is made to think Sandman did it, thus cutting Peter loose of his moral compass. I hope it’s something like that because otherwise, while this flick is sure to look cool, I don’t know if the character it portrays could truly be called Spider-Man.
Previously I noted that an upcoming comicbook version of "Battlestar Galactica" would provide a much needed backstory to the history of the Man-Cylon War(s). Newsarama has a first look at Battlestar Galactica: Zarek #1 and we're getting our first clues. Yes, the Cylons were created for manual labor. Yes, the eventually rebelled. The sneak peek doesn't offer much new regarding the Cylons (yet) but we're told that the human colony of Sagittaron was pretty much a "backwater" colony whose population were slaves. Slavery -- among the same interstellar species??
This to me seems highly improbable. The cooperation and moral growth necessary for a species to unite a single world, let alone twelve, is monumental. For them to still make use of human slavery is preposterous. And keep in mind that we're supposed to be related to these humans -- Earth is the so-called missing "13th Colony." Yet, here we are, not even close to having a single unified world government, and slavery is all but abolished! Indeed, the most modern countries did away with the practice more than 200 years ago.
This makes it so I don't even want to be "related" to the Twelve Colony humans!
J. Michael Straczynski, in the latest "Civil War" related issue of Amazing Spider-Man, continues Marvel's not-so-subtle denunciation of the Bush administration via a Peter Parker diatribe on the New York airwaves. He says:
"I've seen the very concept of justice destroyed. I've seen heroes and bad guys alike — dangerous guys, no mistake, but still born in this country for the most part, denied due process, and imprisoned, potentially for the rest of their lives. … But there's a point where the ends don't justify the means, if the means require us to give up not just our identities, but who and what we are as a country."
I opined on Straczynski's work with Marvel previously over at the Four Color Media Monitor. But J. Michael is certainly not the only one who's being less than subtle in the whole "Civil War" mess. ("CW" writer Mark Millar being one -- see here and here.) Aside from it being nothing but a mega-crossover gimmick (amazingly, Maxim magazine and to no one's surprise Wizard, dubbed "CW" "Best of 2006" and the "Event of the Year" respectively), Marvel insinuates that it is neutral in its presentation of both sides. URRRNT! Try again. The anti-registration [of superheroes] side, led by Capt. America, is clearly the one for whom the writers want fan sympathy. The pro-registration side, led by Tony Stark (Iron Man) are imbued with some logical facets to their philosophy (notably, that super-powered humans are inherently different from normal people and hence should be subject to certain controls/restrictions that are not applicable to homo sapiens ... well duh!) but what the creators have done over the course of "CW" has eradicated much of the sympathy fans may have had for this side. (Four Color Media Monitor's Avi Green has been all over "Civil War" with numerous critical posts.) For instance, the pro-registration forces are utilizing the Negative Zone as a "special" jail for those heroes refusing to comply with the registration law. The NG, as longtime Marvel readers know, is essentially a parallel dimension full of ... well, nothingness. The analogy to Gitmo hits like a ton of bricks. Subtlety (real creative writing, actually) isn't in the cards at Marvel here. Given that Marvel doesn't even have deadlines anymore, this is doubly pathetic on the part of the creators.
The most ridiculous example, however, is the recent usage by the government of deadly heinous villains from the Marvel Universe to assist in apprehending anti-registration heroes. Included in this bunch are Bullseye (from Daredevil lore), Venom (Spider-Man), Taskmaster (Avengers), Lady Deathstrike (X-Men) and Jack-o-Lantern (Spider-Man). These villains nearly killed Spider-Man after he attempted to join the anti-registration forces. Iron Man and Reed Richards -- condone this sort of action?? The analogy? The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario, apparently. Y'know, how the United States has made use of shady characters in the past (like the Taliban) to fight against a bigger enemy (like the Soviet Union). Of course, in the latter instance, the utilization of the unsavory characters was for use against other unsavory characters. In "Civil War," we have convicted multiple murderers apprehending not only (up till now) law abiding citizens, but people who have helped save not only the country but the entire friggin' planet.
Parker's airwave rant fails to address the most salient point: That the United States requires registration of not only weapons, but things such as cars. Mandating registration of a "person" that has the capability to perhaps annihilate an entire city does not endanger the "identity" of the United States. Sure, the pro-registration (government) side has gone overboard (as I'm sure the creators wanted it) with the Negative Zone and use of the super-villains as agents. It certainly would not have been unsympathetic to keep the dissenting heroes in a terrestrial prison (like the Vault) and grant them due process rights. But keep in mind that a person in possession of, say, numerous unregistered bazookas can face some serious jail time. If he refuses to abide by the terms of his parole and goes out and purchases more such weapons, his next sentence can be even longer. Why cannot this apply to superhumans? Illegal possession of such weapons has been against the law for decades; illegal possession of a super-power is only a recent crime.
"Civil War" could have -- should have -- been handled better. But to do that would have meant granting that the Bush administration may have had some good points in battling the war on terror. Admitting that, for leftists, is the pinnacle of anathema.
Thanks to Four Color Media Monitor, I learned that the Chairman Emeritus of Marvel Comics, Stan Lee, celebrates his 84th birthday today.
The trailer for the FF sequel -- "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" -- is up here. It's interesting because unlike most trailers which edit in various scenes to create a narrative summing up the whole story, this one appears to lift a full minute chase scene directly from the movie. This is probably one the coolest parts of the movie being shown in its near-entirety to lure an audience that remembers the mediocrity of the first FF flick.
But still, leaning towards seeing it despite the lame subtitle. The Silver Surfer -- like Iron Man, one of my favorites as a kid -- looks spectacularly realized. In the first movie, the least human-looking character -- The Thing played by Michael Chiklis -- was also the most interesting. Hopefully they'll do something similar with the CGI Silver Surfer. They may need it to balance off the other characters: the guy playing Mr. Fantastic still manages to come across as a tool even though he says only one word in the trailer.
With kudos to Jonah Goldberg, he points us to a blogger who hilariously highlights some of comics master Jack Kirby's classic character poses -- just in time to work off all that holiday "cheer."
Without consulting any of my collection ... going purely by memory ... watch me prove my geekness by ID'ing all but one of the characters:
1) Ikarus of the Eternals,
2) no friggin' idea,
3) Reed Richards, Mr. Fantastic,
4) The Scarlet Witch,
5) The Executioner,
6) Galactus,
7) Baron Zemo,
8) The Watcher,
9) Attuma,
10) some unknown civilian (seriously),
11) The Human Torch,
12) The Enchantress,
13) The Thing.
I mean, who else would use the name "Uatu" on a major politics blog, and how many other political bloggers (like me) would actually know who the hell he's talking about -- without even reading the whole post?
Who? Just one of the most influential comicbook artists ever, that's who. Dave helped bring back a Marvel comics title from the brink of cancellation -- you might have heard of it. It's called "The X-Men."
Back in mid-70s, The X-Men was languishing in reprints -- until writer Len Wein and artist Dave came out with Giant-Size X-Men #1, and the rest, as they say, is history. Characters such as Wolverine, Storm and Nightcrawler (all featured prominently in the "X-Men" movies) became famous under Len and Dave (and a few issues later under the writing of Chris Claremont). Wolverine was already an invented character at the time of Giant-Size X-Men #1, but it wasn't until he joined the mutant team that his popularity soared. Storm and Nightcrawler, not to mention Colossus (no relation to us!) on the other hand, were created by Wein and Cockrum.
Unfortunately, Dave got no royalties from the "X-Men" movies. That's the way it was back in those days at Marvel (and DC). It was "work for hire," meaning that anything you created while working for the comics giants became their property. They were obligated to pay you nothing other than what you were contracted for. For instance, co-creator of Spiderman, Steve Ditko, didn't get paid any royalties from the Spidey movies (as far as I know, that is). This has since changed, as creators got miffed at the millions the cos. were making off of their creations. For instance, one of the featured villains in Spiderman 3 -- Venom -- was created by David Micheline, (below, right) and in a conversation I had with him years ago he informed me that he received "a very small fraction of a percent" royalty from anything Venom-related that was sold. The key, David says, is 
that the creation usually must be in a "feature" role. Thus, he says (in response to a recent e-mail from me) he probably won't get anything from "Spidey 3" since Venom is not a "feature" character -- this time out. But if he is in "Spidey 4," then David could be seeing some cash!
David, by the way, was also a writer of my favorite character, Iron Man, along with partner Bob Layton (who drew the "Micheline Iron Man" pic you see here). They are considered the Golden Avenger's premier creative team of all time. Ask any Iron Fan.
In a post titled "Battlestar Israel: Palestinians and Cylons," Soccer Dad and Daled Amos take a slightly different tack at looking at the hit SciFi Channel show "Battlestar Galactica":
For [National Review's Jonah] Goldberg this attitude is comparable to the "Why do they hate us?" approach of many in the US, who are ready if not downright eager to blame the US for the actions of the terrorists. In the same way, many place the responsibility for the murders committed by the Palestinian terrorists squarely on the shoulders of the Israelis themselves.Palestinian-as-victim has now been adopted and expanded to the point that now the Muslim world is the victim of Western oppression:
1. Israel and the US are portrayed as oppressors of Islam and of the Muslim world at large.
As many as 10 million Muslims have been killed in the past few decades—by other Muslims. The Muslim world, however, would have us all believe that the real threat and oppressor in the region is Israel, though during all the wars starting from 1948 only 60,000 have been killed by comparison.
Similarly, the Muslim world has had to deal with the imperialist expansionism of France, Great Britain, and Russia who exercised both influence and control in the region—yet it is the US who is portrayed as the Great Satan.
2. Islamist terrorism against both Israel and the West is being justified.
The polls out there are showing that Muslims really believe the claim that Islam is under attack and support the terrorist attacks, both in Israel and in Great Britain. Islamist terrorists are murdering people by the thousands each year, yet Muslims claim that they are the ones being victimized. Israel is both condemned for being the cause of the terrorism and for over-reacting when she responds to the attaks.
3. Both Israel and the West accept the guilt trip and concede accordingly.
From England in particular we hear about legislation to protect Muslims from attack—at the same time that free speech is curtailed in the process. Piglet is banned and police must show special sensitivity when arresting Muslims—as if Muslims as a group were a specially religious group. The US is not far behind. Rep. John Conyers wants to pass legislation banning religious hate crimes, while marking Muslims in particular for such treatment. Meanwhile, CAIR provides numbers for the alleged rise in anti-Muslim attacks: numbers that have been document as sloppy and exaggerated.
Meanwhile, in [Israel] Olmert defends the Disengagement and at every opportunity talks openly of his willingness to make broad concessions to the ‘moderate’ Abbas whose men still go around killing Israeli civilians.
Daily we see the results of the manufactured claims of oppression by the Muslim world.
This week, Mme. Arbour, the former Supreme Court of Canada justice visited the bombed-out house of a family in Beit Hanoun, where she declared that local Arab civilians suffer from "catastrophic human-rights violations." Yet, after witnessing two Kassam missile attacks on Sderot, she refused to condemn the Arab attacks on Israeli civilians, and refused to meet with the families of the three kidnapped IDF soldiers.
I'm quite persuaded by this analysis (if you couldn't tell by my own "Galactica" posts). The last few episodes in particular have seemed to place the blame on humanity for the Cylon genocidal attack (which, incidentally, virtually extinguished humanity). As noted in my most recent BSG post though, it might be a good idea to wait to read the "canon" background of the Human-Cylon wars due to come out in March 2007 (in comicbook form).
Likewise (amazingly), the "conventional wisdom" is growing more and more to blame Israel for the ills in the middle east, despite the incredibly obvious history. After all, it is a country that was formed (from a former colony) by international agreement that is then quickly met with [genocidal] attacks by its surrounding neighbors. Unlike the 12 Colonies in BSG, however, Israel succeeded in repelling its potential killers -- and did it again in three major conflicts (and myriad smaller ones).
Is Israel perfect? Of course not. No one is. But it is fatuous to say Israel is the obstacle to mid-east peace for, say (among many things according to leftist extremists), maintaining settlements in the West Bank as it is to blame Adama's black ops mission across the Human-Cylon armistice line for the massive Cylon humanity-ending attack. Israel's maintenance of the West Bank (and formerly Gaza) were (are) due to incredibly obvious security concerns, just like Adama's secret mission.
J. Michael Straczynski, modern hotshot writer at Marvel Comics and author of the perplexingly left-wing Squadron Supreme and an oft-reviled run on The Amazing Spider-Man, is now taking a shot at rewriting the history of the entire Marvel Universe with "Bullet Points." The key is a single bullet -- when it's fired, who it hits, and the ensuing turn of events. The bullet in question kills the scientist who would develop Captain America's super-soldier serum, and the army guard assigned to him -- one Ben Parker, better known as a certain radioactive spider-bitten Peter Parker's uncle. This turn of events alters the entire Marvel Universe. (Original art from "Points" featured below.)
You can judge Straczynski's "Bullet Points" for yourself. (I won't be purchasing it at present; I may get the trade paperback when it inevitably comes out.) However, given the overly leftist tilt of Marvel Comics the last few years (as well as other cos., too), let's take a hypothetical gander at what Marvel's writers might really want to change in a "Bullet Points" story ...
During the beginning days of World War II, young Steve Rogers becomes enamored with the cause of Bolshevism, and ultimately stows away on a ship bound for the Soviet Union. Wanting to do anything for the Soviet cause, young Rogers signs up for a prototype "super comrade" program whereupon he is injected with a secret serum. Rogers thus becomes "The Scarlet Soviet," and fights against Hitler's Nazi hordes.
During the war, US weapons magnate Howard Stark is killed by "friendly fire" while inspecting some of his inventions in the field. His son, Anthony Edward, becomes an embittered young man at an early age, hating his country for what it did to his father. As a teen in college, Tony joins the Young Communist League, and is eventually brought before the Senate Un-American Activities Commission. He's put under house arrest for a year, and during that time he designs a battlesuit he hopes to sell to communist regimes. Once Stark is out from under his house arrest, he defects to the USSR and offers his "Crimson Dynamo" suit to Joe Stalin and co. Stark becomes a Politboro mouthpiece, actively denouncing capitalist imperialism across the globe, in particular the United States.
Aided by Stark's technological acumen, the USSR's five year plans prove to make the Leninist state the envy of the world -- the communist ideal where there is no want of anything. People "stupid" enough not to be content with what the state has provided them are directed to western Russia for mandatory "sensitivity" and "humanity" training. The New Man must not be denigrated, after all!
The United States, having barely won their war against Japan, has become a pariah among nations for using the atomic bomb against that country. Tony Stark leads this condemnation, surprisingly especially at his deceased father for daring to assist in the US's Manhattan Project. As a result, the US does not press for a UN Security Council Resolution against North Korea when they invade the South, and the US pulls out of Japan when China invades the Japanese islands.
By the early 1960s, American scientist Reed Richards is angered by the lack of support corporate America has donated to his space project. The US government simply does not have the money -- or interest -- in Richards' work. Richards becomes disillusioned, angrily criticizing the American "corporate culture of greed" where companies only care about the "bottom line," and nothing about their employees or the welfare of others. Richards becomes the darling of the American Left, and is nominated for the presidency by the Democrat Party in 1964. He wins handily, and begins the foundation of an American welfare state that will make the New Deal seem paltry in comparison. The new US space program -- NASA -- gets primed to launch Richards' new rocket with Richards and three colleagues aboard. When the rocket's radiation shielding proves insufficient, Richards blames the company that designed it, Pym Industries, and sets in motion the establishment of laws that nationalize all American private companies in order to "ensure quality and security." Richards and his three colleagues are transformed by the cosmic radiation a couple of days after their flight, gaining remarkable super powers. Richards dubs the "Fantastic Greens," and they set about using their newfound powers to enforce strict anti-global warming environmental laws in league with a federally-subsidized "green police."
Last night's episode of "Battlestar Galactica" may be the most pivotal offering to date of the reimagined series. "Hero" features the return of "Bulldog" -- a black ops agent who Adama sent on a secret mission across the Human-Cylon armistice line three years before the genocidal Cylon attack on the 12 Colonies. In a scene seemingly direct from Star Trek: The Next Generation's "The Defector," Bulldog's hijacked Cylon raider is pursued by two other raiders and is fired upon, but Starbuck learns later that the pursuing raiders let Bulldog escape. (She reviews the video of the incident much like Geordi and Data did with the escaping Romulan defector and realize that the pursuing Romulans allowed the defector to get away.) Adama cannot believe that Bulldog is alive. He greets him in the landing bay, and then we learn quite a bit of what is now BSG canon.
First, Adama has only been commander of the Galactica for a bit over three years! He was given the helm of the old ship as a way to "gracefully retire" after the botched black ops mission. He had been chief of the Battlestar Valkyrie. Second -- and this is key -- it's hinted that the Admiralty of the 12 Colonies wanted a war with the Cylons, hence Adama's secret mission. It's not entirely clear, but in a discussion with son Lee, Adama notes that the Admiralty was fearful that the Cylons were building up their war machine and that is the reason they sent Adama on that secret mission -- to test the Cylon defenses and to gather any info on what the robots may be up to. Yet again, the writers do their excellent job of "muddying the waters" by not making anything clear cut enough to establish anything! Once again, we can speculate on the motivations of the humans and the Cylons, but we still don't know just what happened to trigger the Man-Cylon war 40 years previous. But that's going to change in March 2007 -- Dynamite Entertainment is publishing two BSG comicbook series, one dedicated to the original series, and one covering the remake, and regarding the latter March will see "The Cylon Wars" which will detail just what happened between man and their creations. It notes that what will be published will be considered canonical backstory to the TV series.
Needless to say, there are many questions (without the upcoming comics backstory, that is). First, if Adama's botched black ops mission was supposed to have "set off" the Cylon attack (because the Cylons feared an upcoming human attack), how does that explain the annual absence of a Cylon representative at that armistice satellite? For forty years, only the human representative showed up -- save for the last meeting when the Cylons began their genocidal attack. Second, this fact alone would explain why the 12 Colonies' Admiralty would be deadly suspicious about Cylon intentions, hence their desire to gain information a la the Adama/Bulldog/Valkyrie mission three years before the massive Cylon attack. Third, are we to believe that the Cylons had infiltrated human society and organized their prodigious "attack to end all attacks" in a mere three years? That Adama's secret mission across the armistice line was the reason for them to wipe out humanity? C'mon. Remember, as we're reminded at the beginning of each and every episode of BSG: the Cylons "have a plan."
In addition, Bulldog's reaction to Adama having had him shot down during the secret mission is just plain stupid. Adama sent Bulldog across the armistice line in a stealth ship to gather information. When a couple of Cylon raiders appeared to investigate, and Bulldog's ship was crippled, Adama could not let the Cylons capture the ship as evidence of a treaty breach -- so he ordered the Valkyrie to destroy Bulldog's ship. However, Bulldog ejected before the missile hit, and he was captured by the Cylons. After his escape from the Cylon base ship, and upon hearing what Adama did, he proceeds to beat the living crap out of Adama. My reaction: HUH?? Thankfully, Tigh appears and screams some common sense at Bulldog (echoing my thoughts) -- that Bulldog knew what was expected, and that he was expected to sacrifice his life for the mission. That Bulldog reacted as he did either indicates that he is not nearly the soldier everyone thought he was, or a weakness among the BSG writing staff.
If what Adama stated in the episode is true -- that humans may have wanted a war to end the Cylon threat, I am reminded of the truly excellent "Animatrix" from 2003 -- the animated (duh!) backstory to the "Matrix" trilogy. It establishes a similar yarn to the Man-Cylon situation, but even here we see that humans allowed -- initially, at least -- their now self-aware robotic creations to live among them on earth. However, when it becomes clear that the robot "nation" is becoming way too economically powerful, humanity realizes they need to do something about the ever-increasing robot threat. Yep, they attempt to wipe out the robots. (They do it by "seeding the atmosphere" so that a perpetual cloud cover will negate the solar energy the robots need to power themselves; but, hey -- like, won't a perpetual cloud cover likewise destroy the human ecosystem?? Didn't make sense, but oh well...) Of course, if you've seen "The Matrix," you know what happened ultimately -- the robots were victorious, but they let their human creators "live" in a computer-generated environment all the while feeding off their neural energy.
Also, the fact that one of BSG's main writers in Mark Verheiden may have a lot to do with why there is so much back-and-forth intrigue, and base human emotions and desires play such a prominent role in not only the Cylon backstory but the entire series. Verheiden wrote the absolutely sensational "Aliens: Book One" comics graphic novel (by Dark Horse) back in 1989 as a direct sequel to the 1986 movie "Aliens." It's in black and white, but the story is completely enthralling (and long) and ultimately totally depressing. As you're probably aware, in all of entertainment there is no monster more terrifyingly scary than H.R. Geiger's creation, the Alien. In Verheiden's graphic novel, a ship appears in earth orbit with a pilot sporting a "face-hugger" -- the "crab-like" creature that bursts from an Alien egg. The pilot is taken into custody by operatives of the "Company" for research purposes and, of course, as a possible money-making enterprise for weapons development. The pilot "gives birth" to an Alien queen, which promptly begins laying thousands of eggs. The Company can't control the Alien, and its scourge gets loose onto an unsuspecting planet earth -- Alien infestations sprout up all over the globe and the insect-like creatures take over our world. Only the military and various scientists manage to escape to other planets. Y'see? Capitalist and military greed lead to the destruction of humanity!
The military-industrial complex is also the theme behind Joe Haldeman's awesome Forever War. Earth battles the Taurans -- enigmatic aliens who humans believe are responsible for the disappearance of various human vessels -- in a "relativistic" war that takes place over thousands of years (due to time dilation from spaceships traveling through small black holes). It's ultimately revealed that the military really didn't know whether the Taurans were responsible for the missing human ships or not -- but they "needed" a war, however, to spur on the mightily depressed earth economy. They got a lot more than they could handle, however, and we only learn the truth a couple of thousand years later.
Being a comics fan, this cracked me up (via James Taranto):
From a press release issued by the soon-to-be Senate majority leader:Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement on the groundbreaking of the Martin Luthor King Jr. National Memorial.
Taranto goes on to comment:
Martin "Luthor" King? Is he any relation to Lex?
OK, normally we wouldn't make a silly spelling error our top item. But remember, Harry Reid is the same guy who, a couple of years ago, went out of his way to disparage the intellect of the Supreme Court's only black justice.
What's that you say? You long for the good ol' days when terrorism was a situation best left to law enforcement, and the country had a fever for which the only prescription was -- more impeachment? If that's the case, then it sounds like you're pining for a return to the 90s. Judging by the 2006 elections, so do many of your countrymen.
Since we're turning back the clock to the days of American retreats in the face of Islamic terror and Democrats getting credit for a booming economy they had nothing to do with, now is a good time to review the canker sore that was 90s comics.
True, just as the entire political history of the 90s wasn't a complete waste (1994, anyone?) so it was that not all 90s comics were bad. Gems like "Marvels" and "Kingdom Come" as well as Mark Waid's runs on "Captain America" and "Flash" come immediately to mind. There were some unsung titles like Milestone's "Static" and DC's "Sandman Mystery Theatre" that count in my book as classics. I'm sure if pressed, there are a lot of great reads I could name. But, again like the politics of the same era, when 90s comics were bad, they achieved depths of vapidness and shoddiness hitherto unimagined.
This week, Marvel Executive Editor Tom Brevoort is dedicating his blog to focus on a handful of 90's four-color, partial-birth abortions. And Tom should know... because he's talking about comics he wrote.
Brevoort's self-deprecating posts this week are worth a read if you were a comics fan growing up and want to be reminded of why you quit reading them. An example:
Continuing on with this week's theme of BAD COMICS I WROTE, let's take a look at the SPIDER-MAN: FUNERAL FOR AN OCTOPUS limited series.FUNERAL came about as a "budget-buster", a project that was created in order to make certain that a particular financial benchmark was achieved in a given quarter. At the time, the Clone Saga had just begun in the Spidey books, and was generating some heat. There was a new character who'd come onto the scene, a villain by the name of Kaine--and as part of the ramp-up for this character, to make him seem cool, the decision was made to have him kill Doctor Octopus--permanently.
Emphasis mine. That second paragraph is such a window into everything that was wrong with comics of this that era.
Project conceived to pad financial reports for investors before company crashes and burns in bankruptcy (scroll down for story)? Check.
Poorly conceived plot where we ret-con the origin of a famous hero so that the character our company has spent decades building good will for turns out to have been -- oh, I don't know, let's go with something both cliche and stupid -- a clone? Check.
Introduce a new 90s EXTREME!!! villain to replace the classic villains that no one has the intellectual energy to make fresh? Check.
Have said 90s EXTREME!!! villain kill classic villain in order to "seem cool"? Check and mate!
Sometimes I wonder if as comics go, so goes America. Many 90s comics were big on looking cool -- typified by the fetish for gimmick covers with embossed foil and holographs -- low on substance, even by comic book standards. I think the same could be said about the Clinton years when the times seemed good, but looking back through the lens of 9/11, we see how frivolous it all was. Hube's noted the leftist, America-hating tilt in today's comics. And now we have a Democrat Congress that, in its heart-of-hearts, probably does see America as the problem.
Excelsior!
Bonus, Mildly Disturbing Factoids! Good Lord. Found while putting in the links: Michael Jackson almost bought Marvel Comics. And Fabio was once considered for the roll of The Might Thor in a movie. And yes, both of these atom-smashing ideas happened in the 90s.
Unlike Election Days past, I doubt today is going to be Christmas-like for either party. If you’re a staunch right-winger, you’re probably a bit down because the GOP looks primed to lose the House to the party of pantywaists. Which, you know, always sends a good message to Islamists looking for signs of American weakness. Adding to the sting is the fact all this is largely because your team couldn’t keep its [crap] together and accomplish anything despite a lock on the legislative and executive branches.
On the other hand, if you’re an effete leftist, the joy you feel at actually winning, or at least not losing, today is tempered by the knowledge that your momentum is largely a result of the GOP alienating its base and not some groundswell for gay marriage and surrender in Iraq. This is your team’s high-water mark, and then it’s back to shrill irrelevance you go in time for 2008.
So basically, both sides might need cheering up today. In that spirit of melancholy bipartisanship, here’s a blog that has broken down superheroes by party affiliation (language warning).
It’s all good analysis, although I'm not sure about his conclusions on Spider-Man. The blog, "Dave’s Long Box", picks Spidey as a Democrat. Personally, I would have thought being kicked around by a MSM (i.e., the Daily Bugle) intent on vilifying him for trying to protect society would have soured Spidey on a Democrat Party that tends to do the same thing on national defense.
But whatever -- it’s well worth a look, and a good way to pass some time while you wait for election results.
UPDATE Nov. 8th at 12:38a.m.: That part where I said it might not feel like Christmas for either party? I take it back. I stand by the conclusion that it's a high-water mark, but I don't think we can fault our liberal friends for thinking their gifts arrived a month and a half early.
Kim Stanley Robinson's The Wild Shore details a post-apocalyptic United States some 50+ years after a country (or countries) clandestinely brought in approximately 3000 small nuclear devices and detonated them in major cities. Afterwards, the United States is "contained" by United Nations edict (the western coast is routinely patrolled by the Japanese navy) and not permitted to develop into anything more than a barter type society.
The premise seems a tad far-fetched (at least the smuggling of 3000 nukes does), but would the other nations of the world really act to decimate -- and contain -- a United States that they perceive has gotten "too big for its britches"? Mark Millar utilizes a similar scenario in Marvel Comics' The Ultimates series where a team of international super-humans invades the United States for, among several reasons, refusing to stop its own super-human development program and using said program to enforce US foreign policy.
Question: Would the intelligensia (that survived, that is) in the United States (mostly on the left, no doubt) believe that such an attack was justified? Would they claim that the United States "brought it upon themselves"?
Comic Book Resources reports that a new comic based on the original "Battlestar Galactica" will be coming out in 2007:
Javier Grillo-Marxuach of TV's "Lost" and Dynamite Entertainment are all set to bring you "Battlestar Galactica: Cylon Apocalypse," a new mini-series based on the classic TV show and scheduled for an early 2007 release. CBR News caught up with Grillo-Marxuach recently to get all the frackin' details."It's a big, epic war story about Adama having to make a daring forward assault on the Cylons even as he has to protect his fleet and more importantly his ethics," Grillo-Marxuach explained. "It's also a story about Starbuck balancing his roguish nature with a growing understanding of his own mortality. And it's also about blowing up the frackin' bad guys. A lot of frackin' bad guys."
That's the good thing about the huge popularity of the new series. It's guaranteed to spawn all sorts of "Galactica"-related stories/spin-offs. And that's just dandy with me!
Nutty Steven Grant, who writes over at Comic Book Resources (his pic can be seen at lower right on the comics blogroll), is known for virtually never letting some tinfoil theory slip by his column. This past week he opined on the "Battlestar Galactica" season premiere. I'll give him credit for informing readers they should be watching the show. But that's about all.
But the stunner of the week was the two hour season opener of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (SciFi, Fridays 9P) which, as the surviving humans on New Caprica resort to increasingly violent and bloody terrorism while living under the self-reputed benevolent heel of their Cylon saviors, was a disorienting examination of how a people can come to believe terrorism is justifiable behavior. Not exactly what you'd expect to see on American TV these days. Most startling, perhaps, was a shot where one of the aging human commanders, just released from imprisonment and torture that cost him an eye, grizzled and head bandaged, takes on the bearing of Osama bin Laden as he notes how suicide bombing has been the one tactic that has made the Cylons take notice. And it's not hard to understand why the Cylons view themselves as the good guys either. (My emphasis.)
In a word: HUH? What exactly has been the "rationale" for bin Laden's terrorism again? Just examine that for one second and then compare that with the human survivors of "Galactica." The analogy is just plain ludicrous. Human civilization has all but been extinguished from the universe by the Cylons -- tens/hundreds of billions murdered by nuclear orbital bombardment -- while Osama bin Laden is miffed at things like ... the United States having a military presence in Saudi Arabia ... oh, and by the way, he also desires just what the Cylons want: To have everyone believe in their religion. Indeed. Sounds like very similar situations, right? Sheesh.
And what precisely does he mean by "And it's not hard to understand why the Cylons view themselves as the good guys either"? Because they're convinced that their religion is "the way" and that all must accept it as the path to "true" salvation? Again, if this is supposed to be some sort of correlation to the current USA, Grant's got it all backwards -- it's Osama and his merry band of radical Islamists who crave world domination via the dissemination of their beliefs. When Grant says the show "was a disorienting examination of how a people can come to believe terrorism is justifiable behavior," it has to be understood that "Galactica's" entire premise is almost completely beyond imagining. If you consider how many human beings were murdered in "Galactica's" opening mini-series and then made a proportionate analysis to planet Earth, it'd be like something on the order of the annihilation of 5,999,999,990 people with approximately ten survivors. Maybe less. Then, a year later, these ten were captured and lorded over by those that killed all the other people. It'd sure be quite easy to comprehend why these ten people would desire the deaths of their captors, now, wouldn't it? Now, compare that to the "grievances" of [wealthy!] people like bin Laden.
Maybe, just maybe Grant isn't invoking such a direct comparison. But knowing him (via his columns) as I do over the years, I'd tend to doubt it.
I've previously written about the Scottish Marvel Comics scribe here and here and how he injects his leftist politics into just about any comic he is asked to write. As noted in the latter link, Millar writes The Ultimates, which is the modern "re-imagining" of the old Marvel super-team The Avengers. Back in that January post, I pointed out how in that Ultimates issue a super-team dubbed The Liberators had invaded the United States. These "Liberators" included super "heroes" from China, North Korea and some un-named Muslim nation. They invaded the US basically because George Bushian foreign policy has "run amok," and all the other countries of the world (well, those not in the West, that is) got fed up. Government officials are executed, the general population is interned, national symbols (like the Statue of Liberty) are toppled and destroyed.
However, the Ultimates -- after seemingly being destroyed -- begin to fight back. Tony Stark (Iron Man) sets the "revenge" in motion using his usual high-tech solutions (in this case, "nano-bots" which have infected various agents of the Liberators). The latest issue, #12, has virtually all of the "Ultimate" universe's heroes (now freed) battling the Liberators, with the highlight being the showdown between Captain America and his Muslim country analogue (which issue #12 seems to indicate is from Azerbaijan). This Muslim country analogue (henceforth known as "MCA") is armed with a Darth Maul-type light sabre and, of course, Cap has his stalwart shield. Amazingly, Millar makes Cap the victor -- but not without injecting not only dreadful characterization, but his usual political swill. As the MCA lies beaten in a fountain pool, he asks of Cap "Do you not even appreciate why we did this thing?" (We're supposed to ponder, I suppose, the actions the US undertook to justify a genocidal invasion by nations with absolutely abysmal human rights records.) Seconds prior he asks Cap "And why should I give up? So you can humiliate and execute me before your fellow officers?" Cap retorts "Don't be ridiculous. That's not the way we do things in this country."
But Millar has Cap do that very thing to the MCA. Again, beaten and defeated in a fountain pool, the MCA is just lying there. Cap, now armed with one half of the MCA's light sabre, straddles the MCA and drives the weapon right into the MCA's chest cavity -- executing him. Captain America did this. Granted, the Ultimate universe is supposed to be "grittier" than the standard Marvel Universe, but certain characterizations are (or, should be) maintained. Like Cap's purity (or attempted purity) of purpose. Anyone who's anyone would simply not have Capt. America killing a person in cold blood. Unless, of course, he wanted to disparage a certain country!
An excellent example of Cap's aversion to killing is the "Galactic Storm" saga from the 90s where the Avengers were torn over a decision to "kill" the Kree Supreme Intelligence. Half the team wanted to obliterate the mental entity (including Iron Man), and half were against the action -- most vociferously Cap. In fact, Cap held a vote and his "side" won. He ordered that no one kill the Intelligence, but Iron Man and his "side" disobeyed. The Supreme Intelligence had used a "nega-bomb" to destroy virtually the entire Kree race in an attempt to "jump start" their evolution. The Avengers, who were drawn into the galactic conflict (it was the Kree vs. the X-Men-notorious Shi'ar) were horrified by the Intelligence's actions, hence the intra-team struggle. The continuing discord among the team following "Storm" led to the [forceful] dismantling of the West Coast Avengers team, which in turn led to the creation (led by Iron Man) of the short-lived Force Works team.
Meanwhile, over in the Marvel Universe proper, Millar is writing "Civil War." Actually, Civil War #4 doesn't seem like Millar really took to writing much at all. It is simply dreadful. However, at least here, Cap is more in his usual character. He heads the side of the "war" that supposedly is for "freedom" -- against the registration -- and use -- of superhumans by the government. He (and counterpart Iron Man) are going to extreme measures to "vindicate" their side -- their philosophy. In issue #4, Iron Man has Capt. America at his mercy. When Iron Man asks him to essentially give up, a totally out-of-character Cap (at right, below) says "You think I'm really going down -- to a pampered punk like you?"
"Pampered"? "Punk"? This is utterly ludicrous coming from [the Marvel Universe] Cap. As a fellow Avenger from virtually Day One, Cap knows Iron Man better than almost anybody. And he knows that Tony Stark -- above anyone else -- does not personify the denigration inherent in Cap's exclamation. Would a "pampered punk" surpass his father's business and technological acumen at the age of 16?? Would a "pampered punk" take his family's business to heights never conceived? Would a "pampered punk" devote his company's resources to making the planet a better place? But most of all, would a "pampered punk" put his very own life on the line time after time after time as Tony Stark (as Iron Man) has done? In many ways, Iron Man is Marvel's Batman -- heir to a family fortune who uses it to become a hero.
Interestingly, Cap's and Iron Man's roles have done a 180 from the classic Avengers #181 -- where the United States government first took a [large] degree of control over Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Just by looking at the awesome George PĂ©rez cover shows you that it's Iron Man who's angry at the prospect of government control, and it's Cap who's holding him back. Henry Gyrich (whose fictional character played a bit part in the "X-Men" film) dictates the rules by which the Avengers must now play (or have most of their taken-for-granted privileges revoked), including their very membership. Iron Man yells at Gyrich (and I'm going by memory here, though I am quite accurate) "Who the hell do you think you are?" to which the red-haired annoyance retorts "I'm the government, mister." Cap is the one calming Iron Man down, asking "Would it better to have Avengers clearance revoked?" and "vouching" for government-mandated new member Falcon, a hero who has never even been an Avenger before. (Falcon was mandated because of government affirmative action policies; the Black Panther, an oft-member of the Avengers, was not available to join at that time.)
I think it just might be time to give up on these "hot" contemporary comics writers.
So Hube beat me to this, but as a fan, I'm writing about it anyway.
On Friday, it came out that Robert Downey, Jr., would be playing Tony Stark, the billionaire industrialist who leads a double-life as his own bodyguard/corporate icon, Iron Man, in the up-coming movie. There has been the suggestion that RDJ, most recently seen in "A Scanner Darkly", may be a good fit for the roll being as it is that in the comics, Stark is a recovering alcoholic, and in real life, Downey is a recovering cocaine addict. If that were the only qualification for the roll, of course, any number of people in inner-city Wilmington would be ideal for the part.
What is needed can be summed up in how Alex Ross portrayed Stark in "Marvels". Wikipedia says Timothy Dalton was Ross's reference for Stark, but I've got a copy of "Comics Scene" #39 that says it was Errol Flynn. Whether it was Dalton or Flynn, the point is that Ross knew that the Stark character needed to convey class and confident sophistication. You're talking about a guy that in terms of technological vision and world reknown is pretty much the Howard Hughes of the Marvel Universe (with the alcoholism maybe substituting for the paranoid schizophrenia).
It seems to me that successful superhero movies use an actor that is more or less a blank canvas -- career-wise -- in the audience's mind. Think of Christopher Reeve in the original Superman movies, Christian Bale in "Batman Begins" or Tobey Maguire in "Spider-Man". A viewer of a comic book movie has to suspend a considerable amount of disbelief while watching. Any distractions ruin the effect. Having this blank canvas allows the director to envelope the audience in that belief suspension by allowing viewers to see the actor as the superhero as opposed to seeing them as a known actor just playing a superhero.
In contrast, Downey is a known quantity at this point. Moreover, what he's known for is not the class and confident sophistication of a Tony Stark. He seems to have been picked more for the fetish of having one addict play another.
As an Iron Man fan, more than anything I want to be wrong here. I want the movie to be a success and I want Downey to be great in it. But I just don't see him pulling it off at this point.
As I discovered via Mr. Fanboy, Robert Downey Jr. will play billionaire Tony Stark -- also the superhero known as Iron Man.
The news broke last night, and hit the trades this morning – Robert Downey Jr. will play Tony Stark/Iron Man in the upcoming film version of the Marvel comic series.At his MySpace Iron Man Movie Group, director Jon Favreau wrote as the news was breaking:
“It is true. Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark. I am about as excited as I can be. I saw what he can do and he is extremely enthusiastic about playing Stark. I can say with absolute certainty that there is no better choice. The humor and emotional dimension he brings truly raises the bar on this project. Get ready.� (Link.)
Yeesh, I dunno about this. I sort of concur with the commentary of Mr. Fanboy:
Really, we hate to rain on someone's parade but this doesn't make sense to us. We just don't see him as a superhero. But then again, Iron Man will be directed by Jon Favreau and will feature the oh-so-culturally-insensitive Mandarin character so who knows what we will get. Every time we think of Downey we get flashbacks to him giving blow jobs for blow in Less Than Zero. Not a great visual, let us be honest with you.
Which sort of connects with his real life dealings with drugs, huh? That image or that of the silly sidekick of Rodney Dangerfield's character's son in "Back to School" is another unappealing visual.
Tom Cruise had been mentioned on and off as a possible Tony Stark. Even with all his current personal-professional hassles, I'd rather have him than Downey Jr. Personally, I'd like to see Edward Norton.
The Pulse asks: What's the most valuable comic you own?
Monetarily, according to Comics Price Guide.com, my current most valuable comic is probably Avengers #57 -- the first-ever appearance of the Vision. My copy is in pretty decent shape -- much better than my copy of Iron Man #1, which is pretty lousy. The thing is, I sold most of my more valuable comics to complete my Iron Man collection several years ago. No regrets here, though.
Here are some of the more noteworthy comics I still hold:
Most valuable comics -- sentimental wise:
Iron Man #78. Probably the best comic I own. Was originally a fill-in one-shot, yet turned out to be one of the most touching and poignant issues of the Golden Avenger ever. In flashbacks, Tony Stark travels back to V
