Cool little tidbit today over at Robot 6 about a 1946 Superman radio show that took on the Ku Klux Klan -- certainly ballsy considering the time period. Fast forward to the 2000s where creator Frank Miller wanted to have Batman take on ... al Qaeda. Then, Miller had to move his project elsewhere as DC executives were "squeamish" about the story. And after Miller altered the story (putting in out under a different label and changing some names), people are still upset. Like here:
Having read the book, I can only describe it as anti-Muslim propaganda of the worst type. The Muslim characters portrayed are uniformly bloodthirsty, deceitful and misogynistic, displaying total hatred of non-Muslims.
Also see here.
Yeah, I bet countless people in 1946 were upset that the Superman serial was "anti-white propaganda of the worst type," right? Please.
Somehow, in our modern age, it's acceptable -- even laudable -- to portray a mainstream political movement like the Tea Party as a threat to American society, but when someone rightly portrays a group like al Qaeda for what it truly is, well-o-well, then the usual "progressive" political correctness kicks in with a vengeance! I like Douglas Ernst's take:
Frank Miller’s Holy Terror: If You Hate It, Blame The Terrorists.The Comics Alliance review by David Brothers asserts that the work is bigoted, the artwork at times incoherent in indecipherable. He complains about a panel of oblivious, Transformers-watching American teens juxtaposed against the stoning of a woman in the Middle East.
Dear David,
The artwork is incoherent and sloppy at times (and at times truly touching) because it reflects the confused and complex feelings of the artist. It’s in black and white, but it’s still difficult to follow—just like the subject of 9/11 and Islamic terrorism! Detached, clueless teenagers who say “Kewl” and “Awesome” in Holy Terror are propped up against a stoning because real life Americans are clueless and detached from the very real stonings and state sponsored murders that go on today in places like Iran.
For the first time in a comic book, someone had the guts to shed light on the barbaric practices going on, in 2011, in the Middle East. Bravo. (This too, sickens David Brothers.)
In a word: Yep. Seriously -- al Qaeda is pure evil. Just like the KKK is pure evil. Why is the former so hard for some to accept?
DC plans to put out numerous prequel Watchmen comics in the months to come (titled Before Watchmen), but original creator Alan Moore ain't happy about it:
Moore, however, isn’t as generous, describing the prequels as “completely shameless.” “I tend to take this latest development as a kind of eager confirmation that they are still apparently dependent on ideas that I had 25 years ago,” he told The New York Times.The writer, who stopped working for DC in 1989 following disputes about Watchmen royalties and a proposed age-rating system, revealed in July 2010 that the publisher had at last offered to return the rights to his most famous creation, if he “would agree to some dopey prequels and sequels.”
“So I just told them that if they said that 10 years ago, when I asked them for that, then yeah it might have worked,” he said at the time. “But these days I don’t want Watchmen back. Certainly, I don’t want it back under those kinds of terms.”
Moore echoed those sentiments to The Times, insisting he likely won’t try to block Before Watchmen or face DC’s “infinite battery of lawyers” in a legal battle. “I don’t want money,” he said. “What I want is for this not to happen.”
And though I can't stand J. Michael Straczynski's politics -- he's writing the Dr. Manhattan prequel -- he's spot-on about Moore's ego:
“A lot of folks feel that these characters shouldn’t be touched by anyone other than Alan, and while that’s absolutely understandable on an emotional level, it’s deeply flawed on a logical level,” he said in an exclusive interview with Comic Book Resources. “Based on durability and recognition, one could make the argument that Superman is the greatest comics character ever created. But neither Alan nor anyone else has ever suggested that no one other than Shuster and Siegel should ever be allowed to write Superman. Alan didn’t pass on being brought on to write Swamp Thing, a seminal comics character created by Len Wein, and he did a terrific job. He didn’t say ‘No, no, I can’t, that’s Len’s character.’ Nor should he have.”
Exactly right. Scores and scores of writers and artists have created [good] stories using characters created by other people. Some argue that because Watchmen is a self-contained story -- it has a beginning, middle and end -- this makes Moore's point valid. No, not really. There's easily plenty of room for more background story on the characters; for that matter, there could easily be a Watchmen sequel, too, if DC wanted. Watchmen is quite a lucrative property for DC, so it makes perfect sense to expand upon its "universe." DC will make money, mainly because demand should be high for these prequels (such that demand is these days for comicbooks). The different creative teams and their respective characters' books are here.
I won't buy the prequels, but not because I'm uninterested. As mentioned, Straczynski's politics are a huge turn-off (as are those of many other current writers), and comic prices are just nuts when compared to what you get for your cash. Maybe when the series are collected into trade paperbacks I may consider a purchase.
In a decade-long court battle, mutants were ruled "not human" ... or more precisely, they’re not dolls:
Saving the world is ordinary fare for superheroes, especially teams like the Avengers and the X-Men. But one of the biggest battles ever fought in the Marvel universe took place in the real world, a historic fight that lasted 10 years and crossed America.The clash ended quietly in 2003, with a monumental, six-figure legal ruling by the U.S. government: The X-Men and many other superheroes simply aren’t human.
Or more precisely, they’re not dolls, which, according to the U.S. Customs Bureau, represent “only human beings.” They’re toys, which represent “animals or non-human creatures.”
What’s the difference? Gazillions of dollars.
The U.S. government waded into the “mutant or mortal” battle 19 years ago at ports in Los Angeles and Seattle after Customs officials there classified several large shipments of action figures, including the X-Men, as “dolls” instead of “toys.”
But labeling the figures as “dolls” made importing the X-Men nearly twice as expensive as they would have been as “toys,” facing a 12 percent tax rather than a 6.8 percent tax.
It wasn't that easy, though. "'Humans have eyes, and ears, and mouths, and noses, and legs, and arms,' [lawyer Sherry] Singer explained to FoxNews.com. 'It was other features these figures had that, we believe, made them non-human.'" So, while many superheroes, including mutants, look human enough, characters like the Beast (blue fur), Wolverine (claws) and Hulk (huge, green skin) are, well, "non-human."
Interestingly, in the comics themselves, mutants are human -- they're the next step in human evolution, dubbed "homo sapiens superior." And why did the article use a picture of the Avengers at the top of the article? There's only one character in the pic that could be considered a "non-human creature": The Hulk. From left to right, the Black Widow is "merely" a highly trained super-spy; Thor is a very human-looking alien "god;" Captain America is a medically enhanced regular joe; Iron Man and War Machine (is he even in "The Avengers" movie?) are regular guys in powered suits of armor; and, lastly, Nick Fury is just a regular dude.
Via Insty comes word of the site Bleeding Cool whose Darin Wagner asks this -- in my opinion -- ridiculously obvious question (no offense to Darin). The intro:
You pick up a superhero comic book featuring a childhood favorite of yours, hoping to reignite some of that magic you felt way back when and you see that the opening sequence in the comic deals with an oil rig disaster. You immediately and disappointingly know what’s going to be said, either by your childhood favorite or by some other character given credibility within the story. You turn the page, and sure enough, your childhood favorite grumbles about his/her country’s dependency on oil or how inherently dangerous oil drilling is to the environment and how it’s not worth it or simply mutters to him-or-herself briefly about the evils of corporate America. That’s when you put the comic back on the shelf and your local retailer loses a sale. (Sound familiar? Brightest Day #5 contained a similar scenario featuring Aquaman.)
Alas, I know this all too well. As a big comicbook geek from waaaaay back (I obviously have a section of Colossus dedicated to comics), and as one who continued to purchase comics up until the mid-2000s, I find this modern "progressive" trend not only disburbing, but disgusting. It's what led me to stop purchasing contemporary comics outright, and lose some, if not friendships, associations, as a result.
Much of Colossus' comics section deals with the ridiculous liberalism that has crept into comics over the last decade or so. The very first post in this category dealt mainly with a group called The Authority, whose members' actions supposedly on behalf of the "greater good" were a progressives wet dream come true. They at one point took over the United States government and proceeded to make demands that your typical environmentalist, climate Chicken Little, and socialist would begin crying in delight over. Modern hot shot writer Mark Millar (ever see the movie Kick Ass? That's his) is an avowed leftist from way back. Many of his works are imbued with progressive drivel throughout, such as in his Superman: Red Son (which reimagines the Man of Steel as a Soviet superhero), in Marvel's The Ultimates and the cross-over event "Civil War." In the former, Millar had Londonders cheering on the Soviet Superman as he battled his American counterpart as sort of an analogy to American "interference" in European affairs during the Cold War. In The Ultimates (which, by the way, the upcoming The Avengers movie is mostly based on), Millar had a superhero team composed of characters from countries like North Korea and the Muslim Middle East invade the United States so as to "restrain the Roman Empire" because they "feared what America might do next." Another rationale was because America was "interfering with cultures they could never understand." Lastly, in "Civil War," Marvel's superheroes split along ideological lines: One side favored registering superhuman powers with the government; the other side fought against such. The former was led by Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, and the latter by Captain America. Millar's scripts were heavily tilted in favor of Captain America's team; he ridiculously had Iron Man's team utilizing some of the worst Marvel villains in its history working on its behalf, and even made use of an other-dimensional prison where dissenters were locked up without trial.
Darin mentions the recent choice by Superman to renounce his American citizenship, and how [supposedly] conservative-leaning heroes are either borderline psychos or outright mental defectives as more up-to-date examples. He also brings up a good point that many individual instances of lefty "jabs" in comics aren't all that big a deal; however, the cumulative effect begins to piss people off if they do not share the politics of the writers. Like Captain America of the future informing his counterpart of the past how awful his country has become since WW II. Like Captain America infiltrating the Tea Party. Like writer/artist Erik Larsen stating outright that George W. Bush was "worse than Nixon," and stole not one, but two elections. Like Larsen having his most popular creation, the Savage Dragon, punching G.W. Bush in the face. Like popular writer Warren Ellis creating a superhero who takes it upon himself to kill the president (Bush, of course) for, among other things, his "illegal" war in Iraq. Where popular X-Men writer Chris Claremont laments the Reagan era in his story "God Loves, Man Kills" wherein religious fundamentalists go around murdering mutants.
Are you getting that cumulative effect yet? Because this is only the tip of the iceberg, my friends. And what's more, all the above and more are widely accepted without so much as a peep (the only exception being conservative blogs), whereas when the few instances of right-of-center stories are in development, they're "controversial" and contain all the progressive "-isms." The writer of the novel First Blood (think: Rambo) writing Captain America? Oh, NO!! Frank Miller planning a Batman story where he battles al Qaeda? We're squeamish.
This cumulative effect eventually took its toll on me. I kept purchasing comics probably longer than I should have. Many of the stories were top notch despite my knowing the politics of the creators -- the aforementioned Superman: Red Son, The Ultimates, and original The Authority series are examples -- but at a certain point, I had had enough. (I think it may have been after collecting a few issues of the series Supreme Power, which I wrote about at the Four Color Media Monitor here.) I just asked myself "Why do I continue to support these guys? I give them my money -- and they continually spit in my face."
Some otherwise reasonable creators don't seem to get this concept. Last year I "unfriended" popular comics writer Kurt Busiek on Facebook shortly after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. Kurt's best known for his Astro City original series, as well as his memorable run on The Avengers. But Kurt is pretty outspoken on his Facebook page -- which is certainly OK, but when you're in the field he is, it just might not be a very good idea. As I wrote in the comments at Four Color Media Monitor,
I've absolutely NO hassle with anyone pontificating on matters political, whatever your field of endeavor. However, if you're in Kurt's field, it is ridiculous to expect NO criticism in response to your outspokenness. In regards to the Giffords shooting, Kurt immediately took the Reflexive Left's penchant for invoking conservative "hate" rhetoric as a "cause" for a killer's/terrorist's actions. Yes, he did say "we need to wait and see," but then again, Kurt did not exactly wait, did he? Moreover, by exclusively focusing on Palin, the Right, and moronic a-holes like that hateful comics vendor, Busiek effectively alienates approximately half of his fan base. And then people complain when those alienated point to his comments?
Busiek apparently didn't like that I made screen caps (see at above) of some of his comments and sent them to FCMM's Avi Green, who then wrote about it. (He Tweeted about it and his minions rushed over to FCMM in his defense.) That's too bad. Years before this little incident, I had had an e-mail exchange with Kurt (I was writing and editing an Iron Man fanzine at the time) where we discussed (mainly) economic boycotts when entertainers (or writers/artists like Kurt) make controversial statements or do something controversial. Kurt was dead-set against such boycotts, stating that he felt it best to "discuss" the issue in various forums. Of course, with that, the power resides with the entertainer since they have much more access (based on their popularity) to social media and such. The only real thing that the average joe can do to "inform" entertainers that they're dissatisfied is to utilize their pocketbook -- or, more accurately, not utilize it.
It's the 'ol "Shut up and sing!" mantra. If you're in the entertainment business, you run the risk of alienating a certain portion of your fanbase if you insist upon making controversial statements or taking up controversial positions on issues. This is no way means you have to shut up; however, you need to be aware that freedom of speech does NOT mean there's freedom from criticism -- or freedom from consequences.
And, thus, all this is [partly] why I blog. I why I'll continue to not shell out $3-4 for a comicbook any time soon.
It's called, I believe, "work for hire":
Comic book publisher Marvel Entertainment owns the rights to the Ghost Rider character in the fiery form that originated in the early 1970s, a federal judge ruled Wednesday as she rejected the claims of a former Marvel writer seeking to cash in on lucrative movie rights.U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest tossed out 4-year-old claims brought by Gary Friedrich, who said he created the motorcycle-driving Ghost Rider with the skeletal head that sometimes had fire blazing from it. A Ghost Rider of the 1950s and '60s was a Western character who rode a horse.
The judge said Friedrich gave up all ownership rights when he signed checks containing language relinquishing all rights to the predecessor companies of Marvel Entertainment LLC.
"The law is clear that when an individual endorses a check subject to a condition, he accepts that condition," the judge wrote.
He (Friedrich) said he thought he had given Marvel the rights to use Ghost Rider in comic books, but that he retained the rights for movies and anything else.
"Was that understanding ever reduced to writing? Marvel attorney David Fleischer asked.
"No," Friedrich answered. (Link)
I know many a comic creator has [some] regrets about the 'ol "work for hire" stuff; this changed largely beginning in the 80s when writers/artists began staking out legal ways to get better compensation for characters they originated. For example, Delawarean David Michelinie apparently negotiated a way to get a small royalty from Marvel for anything sold related to the popular character Venom. Alas, as noted, Friedrich did his Ghost Rider work in the 1970s.
Marvel bigwig Tom Brevoort on the "average joe" in the Marvel Universe:
QUESTION: Exactly how much interacting do people have with aliens on earth in marvel U and can we as humans use alien tech? X-men use it all the time, yet Iron Man is told he is not allowed to use it. can people set up contact with aliens if they want?BREVOORT: Most folks within the Marvel Universe tend to think of any of the alien stuff that’s gone on as a hoax, or as just superhumans gone wild. There isn’t a widespread belief in the existence of aliens, no more so than in our world.
Got that? The general public in the Marvel Universe doesn't believe in aliens anymore than you or I in the real world. Even though there have been virtually uncountable alien attacks and invasions in the last 50 [Marvel] years, not to mention mere visits. Remember Galactus? How many times has he attempted to scarf down 'ol ma Earth? The Skrulls? The Kree?
Thanks for the laugh there, Tom.
Via FCMM: It'll be the X-Men against the Avengers for the fate of the Phoenix!
Cyclops, Wolverine, Magneto and the other X-Men want to protect her and prepare her if she's to be the new Phoenix. Captain America, Iron Man, Spider-Man and their fellow Avengers want her handed over to them so they can figure out what to do with her and keep the world safe from a potentially fiery fate.Suffice it to say, tensions — and fisticuffs — arise.
Boy, how original. In other words, let's drag out the basic plot of 1980's X-Men #137 through a twelve issue mini-series, with the Avengers in the place of the Shi'ar Imperial Guard. Please. At least back then, Marvel Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter realized that the Phoenix force was way too powerful for a human (even a super-powered mutant) to contain, and thus overrode creators Chris Claremont and John Byrne who had desired a plot similar to the one noted above. Shooter demanded that Phoenix be executed for her crimes (she had destroyed a star system in the Shi'ar Empire) rather than be rehabilitated.
*Sigh* Yet another reason I do not purchase comics anymore.
The "big" news is that comics legend Alan Moore has now contributed to the cause -- Moore being best known for Watchmen and V for Vendetta. Now, Moore may be a literary genius, but he's plain stupid when it comes to politics and basic reality:
The famously left-wing Moore recently responded to Frank Miller’s scathing criticism of the Occupy movement, saying, “As far as I can see, the Occupy movement is just ordinary people reclaiming rights which should always have been theirs. I can’t think of any reason why as a population we should be expected to stand by and see a gross reduction in the living standards of ourselves and our kids, possibly for generations, when the people who have got us into this have been rewarded for it; they’ve certainly not been punished in any way because they’re too big to fail. I think that the Occupy movement is, in one sense, the public saying that they should be the ones to decide who’s too big to fail. It’s a completely justified howl of moral outrage and it seems to be handled in a very intelligent, non-violent way, which is probably another reason why Frank Miller would be less than pleased with it. I’m sure if it had been a bunch of young, sociopathic vigilantes with Batman make-up on their faces, he’d be more in favour of it. We would definitely have to agree to differ on that one.”
Nice cheap shot there at Frank Miller. At least Miller's grounded in reality. But let's take Moore's points one at a time:
1) Where have Americans seen a "gross reduction" in their living standards, aside from the current economic downturn? There hasn't been one. And we certainly cannot see into the future so to say that "possibly for generations" is just that -- a possibility. But there certainly will be other factors involved in such besides what the Occupiers view as culpable.
2) Once again, we see an Occupy sympathizer completely clueless as to who's really at fault for the current economic woes. It is GOVERNMENT, idiot!! Who said everything was honkey-dorey with the housing and mortgage situation? Government. Who provided insufficient oversight into the banking industry? Government. Who deemed these various industries as too big to fail? Government. Crony Capitalism is all about government ... being in bed with various industries. Industries/Corporations exist to make money. Period. It is government's job to provide oversight and regulation with regards to them ... so that the quest for the buck doesn't screw Joe Six-Pack over. It failed.
3) The Occupy movement "seems to be handled in a very intelligent, non-violent way?" If anything proves Moore is way out in left field, this does. That, or he doesn't keep up on the news whatsoever.
4) What's more, Moore is a member of the 1%, so who gives a f*** about his elitist opinion anyway? The guy's got such hard-on for himself that he refused to attach his name to the Watchmen and V for Vendetta films -- he believes his work will be "bastardized" or something. He also detests Hollywood, among other things. (Though one has to give him credit for consistency and principle, I'll grant, since he has refused royalties from the films.)
At any rate, at least the silly Occupy Comics idiocy has someone like Moore to say "Hey look! We got a 'someone' with us!" because the rest of the list is just a bunch of nobodies and wannbes.
... ironically after The Guardian (UK) hypothesizes that his Batman would defend the Occupiers.
Here's part of Miller's diatribe:
Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.
“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached - is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.
The rest is here. PJ Gladnick at Newsbusters has more.
Would the Dark Knight battle on behalf of the OWSers? Well, if you recall, Gotham City's politicians were virtually all on the take, so if anything, Batman would be doing his thing down in Washington first and foremost -- scaring the bejeebees out of Obama, the House and Senate. Second, he would have very little sympathy for the violence, drug use, and wanton aimlessness of too many of the protesters.
That is, of course, unless some radical lefty writer gets his hands on the title and totally retcons the character ...
Jonah Goldberg and I would really hit it off if we ever got a chance to meet, mainly because we seem to enjoy precisely the same sort of entertainment. About the only TV show I am regularly following now is AMC's The Walking Dead, based on Robert Kirkman's incredible graphic novel series, and today Jonah has a thorough dissection of why that series -- much like another big fave of ours, Battlestar Galactica -- is rapidly ceasing to make a lot of sense.
You may recall Battlestar's main failing (aside, that is, from the writers' winging it during the last couple seasons) was the utter ridiculousness of the human motivations and interactions based on an extinction scenario. Tens -- hundreds? -- of billions of humans were systematically exterminated by the Cylons, and what does that "ragtag fugitive fleet" led by the Galactica do? Worry about freedom of the press. Make sure there's a democratic government that rules over the military. Refuse to act on an opportunity to exterminate their genocidal enemy. In other words, things that make no f***ing sense whatsoever.
Which brings us to The Walking Dead. Goldberg covers many items that have had me scratching my head during this second season, such as:
* There needs to be more talk about the best place to hide from zombies! Indeed. So far the survivors seem determined to plunk around in rural -- and wooded -- areas which offer seemingly little safety from the zombie horde. The last few episodes they've lost one child in the woods, and another was accidentally shot. I've always thought about appropriating a nice little island somewhere; the water acts as a natural buffer to zombie incursions, and if you get a few boats you can occassionally send a party back to the mainland for supplies.
Or -- and maybe the series will get to this -- the group can hole up in a prison like it did for many issues of the graphic novel series. It served their purposes quite well, for the most part.
* A little more concern about blood spray. It's long been established in zombie lore that the zombie infection is spread via the undead's bodily fluids -- their blood and saliva. But the crew in The Walking Dead always seems to have little worry about blood spatter when they happily smash to hell a zombie's skull. (A head shot/wound is the only way to kill a zombie, if you recall.) One character recently got a really nasty open wound on his arm -- so much so that it became gangrenous -- but there he is, wacking away at the undead with wanton abandon soon after. Not to mention in last week's episode the crew was hilariously trying to remove a zombie who had fallen into a well -- so that they could drink the water?? Like, how long had the freakin' thing been in the well in the first place? And, he didn't excrete any nasty fluids all the time he was in there?? Yeesh.
Anyone remember 28 Days Later? That flick did the infection part to a perfect tee -- so much so that it included a close-up of a drop of blood from an infection victim falling directly into a survivor's eye ... which then led to the survivor's immediate execution by a colleague ... because he had become infected! 28 Days Later routinely pointed out how survivors had to worry constantly about the infected's fluids -- a [very] intelligent plot point.
Most of Jonah's other points are also very well taken, especially the seeming lack of concern for acquiring more firepower. But I don't worry overmuch about the scientific "plausibility" of a zombie virus other than his point about the aforementioned 28 Days Later making more sense (fast zombies vs. the traditional slow ones) when it comes to the rapidity of virus dissemination, and the inability to control it.
Hopefully Walking Dead's writers will rectify these concerns and make a good show even better.
Via FCMM we read Robot 6's sympathetic portrayal of the moonbat "superheroes" of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Wired also has the story, featuring a guy with a gimmick: Gan Golan hawking his own comic, The Adventures of Unemployed Man.
As Avi wonders in his FCMM post, will comics feature the negative aspects of the OWSers like it did with the Tea Party? Especially since OWS vandalism, violence, and other outright criminal activity far surpasses that of the T.P.?
Cheeyeah, right. Don't hold your breath.
How 'bout that? A politically incorrect-panned-by-the-usual-MSM-pinheads story about a hero who takes on al Qaeda actually resonates with average people.
Yep, Frank Miller's Holy Terror leads in graphic novel sales.
One of the comics news sites I regularly visit is Newsarama. It's good for getting up-to-date information on the latest happenings in the comicverse, but unfortunately their "Top 10" lists (or whatever number) are woefully lame. Case in point today: Their "10 Comic Book Superpowers Way Worse Than Talking to Fish" includes the following characters: 3-D Man, Black Bolt, Venom, mutants (in general), and the Great Lakes Avengers. But if you know even a little about comics (and in particular, Marvel), you'd know such inclusions are ridiculous considering all the other characters that are out there. Consider, about those listed above:
If you want to read about character superpowers that are really much lamer than talking to fish, use Google -- because you'll discover sites like this which make a lot more sense in terms of "Top" lists ... which include NFL Superpro (above) which I myself panned here.
Frank Miller's long overdue Holy Terror is evoking just the reaction (among some) that I always knew it would. Case in point: Graeme McMillan at Robot 6. He says it's “visually impressive” but also “disturbingly simplistic.” To wit:
This isn’t a story as much as a revenge fantasy from someone who is clearly terrified of the world that he’s found himself living in, and closed himself off from reality as a result; not only are the terrorist villains of the book ridiculously simplistic, but so is the “war” that the Fixer carries out against them. The terrorist characters that appear fulfill almost every single stereotype imaginable about them, including an apparent ability to be wherever they need to be to destroy a helicopter just because the plot demands it, and because it makes the “enemy” more unknowable and scary, and yet they can easily be defeated with guns and bombs, because, you know, more violence is always the answer.
He goes on to say the book is "willfully stupid," "a mix of parody and propaganda," "just a crappy comic," and has "problematic propaganda and politics behind it."
Funny how, in today's contemporary comics, such a portrayal of Islamic fundamentalists is "problematic propaganda and politics," not to mention "stereotypical" and "closed off from reality," yet aside from obvious right-leaning comics opinion sites, we rarely, if ever, read criticisms about these same attributes in comicbooks which lambaste Republicans, the Tea Party, and conservatives in general. See here, here, here and here for starters.
Outrageous political correctness has not only infected modern comics, but too much of its press, too.
Interesting pick up by Jonah Goldberg on how famous comicbook heroes earned their money ... vs. famous comicbook villains:
While the ruthless corporate CEO as villain is pretty much a stock character in modern pop culture, superhero comics have always conspicuously placed successful businessmen on both sides of the hero/villain divide. Yet an interesting, and perhaps counterintuitive, pattern recently occurred to me. Just off the top of my head, here are some of the most prominent superhero characters who have, for some significant chunk of their histories, been portrayed as CEOs of large corporations:Bruce Wayne (Batman)
Oliver Queen (Green Arrow)
Tony Stark (Iron Man)
Ted Kord (Blue Beetle)Here are the first four CEO supervillains who spring to mind:
Lex Luthor
Wilson Fisk (Kingpin)
Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias)
Norman Osborn (Green Goblin)
That's right -- all the heroes inherited their wealth, while the villains built their companies essentially from scratch. Of course, however, it helps that Wayne and Stark are geniuses and were successful (and Machiavellian) businessmen ... and Tony Stark was the antithesis of his trust fund attitude cousin Morgan who wanted to just live a life of all play. In addition, many issues of Iron Man showed Stark as the quintessential compassionate capitalist -- where he made sure his employees were paid well and taken care of, often at odds with Stark Industries' corporate board.
At any rate, it is, as article author Julian Sanchez writes, an interesting "inversion" of "the meritocratic ideal that seems to rule in most modern American fiction," yet
... fits quite naturally with a pre-capitalist aristocratic ethos, which persisted at least through the early 20th century in the form of Old Money’s contempt for the nouveau riche….
Well, it appears I was right when I asked "How 'bout some truth in advertising?" regarding Image Comics' The Big Lie -- its Trutheresque comic about the 9/11 attacks. Avi Green over at the indispensable Four Color Media Monitor reports on its debut, and the initial reports about it were chock full of ... well, lies. Avi notes via Wired:
It’s enough to make you void your Comixology pullbox. Rick Veitch, a legend in the comic book industry, published The Big Lie on Wednesday, a sleazy 9/11 Truther screed in sequential-art form. Spoiler alert: pseudo-scientific hysteria married to paranoia about How Bush Knew isn’t any cuter when told by cartoon figures.[...] Veitch doesn’t stop at one conspiracy. They build in their scope and scale. First it’s about Norad unexpectedly preoccupying U.S. air defenses with frivolous training exercises. Then it’s about how the neocons in the Bush administration are looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. (“I’ve heard more than one of these nut-jobs say what the U.S. needs is a ‘New Pearl Harbor,’” says a character who informs us he voted for Reagan.) Finally, the skeptical husband, an engineer who did his thesis on the World Trade Center, dismisses his future-wife by assuring her that “the only way to bring down these structures down is with explosives.” You see where this is going.
Sigh. Yes, planes loaded with jet fuel and used as missiles can — and did — destroy the World Trade Center. Read the authoritative Popular Mechanics story about the physics of 9/11 if your mind is open to persuasion. Bush and company indeed wanted to take down Saddam Hussein from the start of his administration and they cynically tied Saddam to 9/11 absent evidence. But sorry: there is no evidence they planned an invasion before 9/11; no evidence that they knew about 9/11 and let it happen; and no evidence at all they brought the Towers down.
Actually, Bush and Co. didn't do any such thing, despite the "progressive" conventional wisdom. The only thing I can ever recall of "making" any such "connection" was one time Dick Cheney, after being asked about a relationship early on, said "we don't know at this point." But the fact is, President Bush specifically stated there was no a direct connection between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein.
But back to the comic: Remember what author Veitch said about it in its initial reporting: "[he] has aimed the book itself straight at the middle." In other words, Veitch's words about The Big Lie were themselves a big lie. There's nothing "straight at the middle" about George W. Bush somehow orquestrating 9/11. What it is is pure moonbat lunacy. Not only should Image Comics be ashamed of itself for publishing this drivel, but MSM outlets like USA Today should ashamed too for not accurately reporting on the book.
Remember what I said back in June:
Would anyone credibly state that "wondering" about our current president's place of birth is "down the middle?" Hell, no. That's the exclusive realm of the extreme right.
And you can be sure USA Today would be damn sure to point that out -- and not at all sugarcoat a a report about a comic whose premise is President Obama really being born in Kenya. Not to mention you can bet that major MSM outlets would be screaming bloody murder about the story ... how crazy Image is, what our political discourse "has descended to," and all the other [hypocritical] BS.
Oh, and if I didn't already say it, I'll paraphrase Maxine Waters: Veitch can go straight to Hell.
You might recall our post about Image Comics' upcoming The Big Lie, which supposedly [re]examines the events of 9/11/01 aimed "straight at the middle." That initial article shows how that proclamation itself is likely a big lie, and Comic Book Resources' latest article about the work does its darndest to make it appear as if this comic will merely be some sort of historical retrospect.
Uh huh. Just don't glance at these two panels from the premiere issue, then. Blowing up a tall building? Bush needing to take Saddam out? Check. Author Rick Veitch might as well write for the Democratic Underground or the Daily Kos.
(h/t to FCMM)
Picking up on a post by Ace, I've read with some interest about how Marvel plans to kill off Peter Parker as Spider-Man. Well, not really Spider-Man, but the Spider-Man of the popular (alternate) "Ultimate" universe (on which much of their movie franchise is based).
And Parker's replacement will be a half-black, half-Latino kid.
Some have an issue with this -- not because of the new Spidey's heritage, but because the usual peons in the MSM are highlighting this very facet, complete with silly statements:
It’s not simply about publicity and stirring things up to get people talking (although Marvel surely welcomes those, too). It’s about a black kid in D.C., a Dominican kid in the Bronx or a young Mexicano from California being able to read a comic and come away from it saying, “I can be Spider-Man.” Generations of minority comic-book fans before this day, couldn’t say such a thing.
Come on. Marvel's been on the cutting edge of societal change since it exploded on the scene with the Fantastic Four in 1961. And there have been plenty of minority superheroes created by Marvel who have been positive examples and have been quite popular. And how much of a ... conceit is it to claim that a minority kid can't dream of being a [white] superhero? And why would it have to be a white superhero anyway? Why can't it be just a superhero in general? Ridiculous. This is akin to the preposterous "minority kids can only learn with a minority teacher" mantra (which also has no basis in reality).
And for some, the fact that the new Spidey is of mixed racial heritage ain't enough. He might be gay. Sheesh.
Overlooked in all this is the fact that Marvel already has a mixed heritage Spider-Man: Spider-Man 2099. His real name is Miguel O'Hara, a Latino-Irish mix. Miguel's mom's name is Conchata.
Avi Green over at Four Color Media Monitor has more.
Overall, I think this move by Marvel is A-OK. I mean, why not? Their "Ultimate" universe, like their many other alternate realities, exist precisely to create new (and possibly controversial) stories. The folks making the biggest issue of this are the lefties, who are, as always, obsessed by race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation. The rest of us just want good superhero stories, and could care less that characters like War Machine, the Falcon, Luke Cage, Firebird, Living Lightning, Cyborg, and now the new Spider-Man, are minorities. And as a kid, I couldn't have cared less what their color is. I'd just fantasize about having their powers and abilities!
Interesting read today over at New American by Bruce Walker titled "When Marvel Comics was Anti-Communist." Overall, I think Bruce makes a solid case. During the "Marvel explosion" of the 1960s, Stan Lee (the main Marvel writer) had no compunctions about scribing overtly anti-Communist stories. Many of my fave character's, Iron Man's, early adventures in Tales of Suspense had him thwarting many Commie plots, whether they were Russian, Chinese or whatever. For example,
Walker's difficulty is that he concentrates on Captain America (due to the new movie). He mentions Cap's exploits against various Communist baddies in the 1950s; however, he omits how that was actually explained in Marvel continuity. After all, as we see in the new film, Cap was frozen in ice for decades, from the 1940s to his awakening in the modern era to fight alongside the super-team Avengers. This parallels exactly what we saw in the comics.
So ... if Cap was frozen, how did he fight Communists in the 1950s?
Marvel's answer came in the 1970s with writer Steve Englehart's landmark run on Captain America. As I wrote in February of 2010:
In the 1970s, aforementioned Marvel scribe Steve Englehart decided to "explain" the story behind the Captain America that was seen in the 1950s. (You may be aware that in "standard" Marvel continuity, Cap was thrown into suspended animation at WW II's end and thawed in the mid 1960s.) Essentially, a guy had stumbled upon, while doing research, the formula by which Steve Rogers became Capt. America. He approached some government highers-up and proposed that the "super soldier" program be started anew. However, the formula that had been unearthed isn't the perfected version that was used on Rogers. Tests showed that it caused the subject to slowly go insane. Nevertheless, our researcher befriended a new "Bucky" (the name of Cap's original partner) and both decided to use the [unperfected] formula on themselves. They then briefly go about "resuming" the roles of Capt. America and Bucky for a time.
Unfortunately, the whole aura of Cap fighting evil Communists in the 1950s is tarnished -- not because it wasn't the real Capt. America doing the fighting, but because in Englehart's story the substitute Cap is revealed to be a fascist bigot. Granted, it's explained that the "unperfected" version of the Super-Soldier serum that the faux Cap used slowly caused him to become mentally unstable, so that he began to see Commies everywhere ... quite Joe McCarthy-like. But you cannot escape the knowledge that we essentially had a nutcase fighting "for America" in the 50s.
Walker's lament of comics in the late 60s and 1970s switching from anti-Communist tales to those of social issues is understandable, but from the business viewpoint of Marvel (and DC), the choice was obvious. The social and political fabric of the USA had [irrevocably?] changed, and readers wanted stories to reflect the times. But even then, Marvel wasn't overt in "taking sides," if you will. Tony Stark (Iron Man) switched his company from weapons to more peaceful pursuits (like in the movie) such as pollution control and medical tech, but he still was the quintessential capitalist, and he still battled Communist badguys like the Mandarin, Titanium Man and Crimson Dynamo. Characters like Capt. America's partner, the Falcon, and the Black Panther dealt with racism and civil rights. So did the X-Men. It was, after all, the culmination of the civil rights era. But these characters still battled obvious badguys like those just noted.
Throughout the 70s and 80s, overt political posturing wasn't much of an issue. Talented writers did a good job hiding their biases. It wasn't until the 90s and first decade of the 2000s that overt [left-wing] politicking became commonplace, as we've documented quite thoroughly here at Colossus. As Walker notes, lately there has been a lack of pointing out, and then fighting, the obvious bad guys, including Communists. Remember the ridiculous controversy surrounding Frank Miller's [now greatly modified] "Holy Terror, Batman." Somehow, the Dark Knight taking on al Qaeda, of all things, was "too controversial." Unbelievable, I know. Not only does the liberal media (of which comics is currently a part) have a soft spot for Communism, as Walker states, it has a soft spot for any anti-Western entity.
I don't usually go to premiere-day showings, but I've been a Cap fan since my early days. I had heard some bad things, and some good, but ultimately one has to make their own call.
SPOILERS BELOW THE FOLD!
The background story is fairly true to the original comicbook tale (unlike the dreadful 1990 straight-to-video version that almost saw the theatre). Chris Evans does a good job in the title role of Steve Rogers, and the CGI effects used to portray him as a 98 lb. weakling pre-super soldier formula are amazing. The film is also supposed to portray, apparently, the "Ultimate" version of the hero -- the alternate reality "updated" Capt. America.
THE GOOD:
The film does what it's supposed to -- make the necessary connections to the various other Marvel movies of recent years ("Iron Man," "Iron Man 2," "Thor," "The Incredible Hulk") to lead us to next year's "The Avengers." Tony Stark's father, Howard, plays a big part in the film in the role of civilian technical adviser. He's also responsible for designing Cap's iconic shield. Hugo Weaving is superb as the Red Skull, oozing evil deviousness as well he should. His principal weapon, the Cosmic Cube, is mentioned to be one of Odin's artifacts from Asgard, a neat and obvious connection to "Thor."
Be sure, if you're a fanboy, to make careful note of the "World of Tomorrow" fair (or whatever the actual name was) that Steve and pal Bucky Barnes go to before Steve becomes Cap. You'll notice several homages to classic Marvel lore, notably Professor Phineas Horton's "synthezoid" -- who just happens to be the Original Human Torch standing in a large glass tube.
Bucky dies, true to the comic. It's falling from a train this time, though, not from a plane as in the comic.
There was no shortage of American flags and other red, white and blue!
Hayley Atwell as Agent Peggy Carter. YOWSAH!!
The ending: This is taken directly from the pages of The Ultimates, where SHIELD attempts to "ease" Cap back into the modern world by pretending he's still in the 1940s. When Steve realizes it's a ruse, he busts out of the building, tearing up SHIELD personnel along the way.
THE BAD:
Frankly, the NY Post has a point in its criticism of the film. Where the hell are the Nazis?? The Red Skull is a Nazi, and while there are several references to Hitler and his fellow goose-steppers, the Skull is actually part of HYDRA, somehow made into an SS-like rogue subdivision of the Nazi Party. I can't even remember seeing a swastika in the film, for heaven's sake. And the sad thing is, there is absolutely no reason to make this change for the film. It just adds an unnecessary layer to the plot. Debbie Schlussel, who I usually cannot take, is spot-on in her criticism of this.
Then there was the lack of action. Or, I should clarify, the lack of hand-to-hand action that makes Cap what he is. There was too much "big" action -- Cap and the Howling Commandos tearing up that advanced HYDRA base, for example -- and a disappointing lack of Cap doing what he does best. The few scenes of such that there were were done very well.
The Red Skull is light-years smarter than Howard Stark? Since when?? The scene where Stark takes a gander at the submarine captured by Cap shortly after Professor Erskine's murder is befuddling. He says, "I don't recognize ANY of this stuff" (or something similar) which means the stuff is so advanced, the greatest scientific mind in the US is totally clueless! At first I was thinking that, since this is supposed to be the "Ultimate" version of Cap, the alien Chitauri/Skrulls were responsible for the advanced technology as they were in the first series of The Ultimates. But this was not the case! The Red Skull (and righthand man Arnim Zola) were genius enough to create weapons technology so far advanced that not even America's greatest mind could comprehend it. Right. Uh huh. How would that happen, precisely?
Historical accuracy. African-American troops didn't exactly serve alongside white troops during WW2. In fact, aside from only a few instances, they served exclusively in segregated units. But if we believe what we see in "Cap," it seems President Truman's order desegregating the military occurred five years earlier. If you think about it, this is really a silly nod to political correctness. There have been ample stories about Cap's unhappiness with the racism towards, and segregation of, blacks in the WW2 military (including an emotional one in an Ultimates annual). The film could have made a [powerful] statement about prejudice and bigotry (via Cap), especially since an African-American did indeed serve in the Howling Commandos: Gabe Jones.
While the background of Rogers was done pretty well, they leave out an important aspect: How he became the incredible fighter that he is. The film concentrates on him becoming a USO performer (which, admittedly, was done well and was a cool comic touch), but it just assumes that because he received the super soldier serum, he automatically becomes the best fighter the world has ever seen. Wrong! The transformation made Rogers a lot stronger and durable than the average guy. It didn't imbue him with fighting prowess. For a good example of how this story should be told, check out John Byrne's superb 40th anniversary issue of Cap, #255 from 1981.
Why did Cap have to crash the giant B-2-like aircraft at film's end? Peggy Carter -- rightly -- tells Steve that there are several sites where he can land the craft. For some inexplicable reason he says he can't do that, and he'll have to ditch it into the water. I assumed it was because of the plane's autopilot; however, Steve quickly pushes down on the jet's stick, causing it to descend rapidly. If he can control the jet, why can't he do what Carter said?
WTF? Dept.: Why in the hell were the [atomic?] bombs destined for various American cities painted with their city names on them in affectionate "Enola Gay"-like style? This made absolutely no sense considering the design of the lettering, not to mention it was all in English!
Too long. The flick could have trimmed at least 15 minutes and you wouldn't have missed anything of value.
HUBE'S RATING: 2.5 shields out of 5.
From the NY Post: 'Captain America' goes soft on Hitler.
I'm seeing the film tomorrow (the official premiere day), so I'll chime in on whether this is an accurate assessment sometime after.
Due out about a year from now:
It will be a mere ten years since Marvel's first Spidey flick starring Tobey Maguire. Is it too soon? In my opinion, a definitive yes. The nagging question surrounding this film is ... "why??"
If you haven't already noticed (but it is easy to miss), I've added a new comics blog to the roll. It's that of none other than Jim Shooter -- former editor-in-chief at Marvel and one of the best comics writers of all-time.
If you're an older comics fan, you'll recall Shooter's reign. Many of his blog entries deal with inside stories of anecdotes we've only heard snippets of. I spent about two hours yesterday reading through some of them.
Soccer Dad sends me an interesting link via e-mail:
The immortal founders of the Green Lantern Corps are an ancient race of aliens that, no joke, bare a striking resemblance to the State of Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion. The similarity is no urban legend - when the alien race the “Guardians of the Universe” were first drawn in Volume 2 #1 (July, 1960), the illustrators didn’t want to create unusual looking aliens, but opted to make them more human, more approachable. For whatever reason, the blue-skinned aliens with large heads and white hair were all modeled off of Ben-Gurion. Over the last 50 years, Israel’s Prime Minister has been in the comic books, cartoons, and now - a feature film.
One of the true greats of comicdom has passed, Gene Colan, probably best known for his stints on Daredevil and Tomb of Dracula. He also did a fairly long run on Tales of Suspense, the precursor title to Iron Man. In fact, Gene drew the cover of 1968's Iron Man #1.
... Frank Miller's long-awaited Holy Terror hits the shelves this September.
You might recall this story began as a Batman yarn, but, among other things, DC execs were squeamish(!!) about the Dark Knight battling al Qaeda (I know, go figure).
At least this will be a good counter to the conspiratorial The Big Lie by Image, also due out in Spetember, the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
... still defies us. (Apologies to the Kree Accuser Ronan for the title paraphrase.) Armed with Green Lantern oath, Democrat takes aim at ‘right-wing loons.’ And who is this Democrat? None other than Alan Grayson:
In an email sent today to supporters, the former Congressman attempts to draw a connection between the lukewarm reviews for Warner Bros.’ Green Lantern movie, the famous exchange between Hal Jordan and an African-American man from Green Lantern #76 and … the erosion of middle-class America.Wait, there’s more: Grayson, who lost his 8th District seat last year to Republican Daniel Webster, recasts the classic scene so that he’s the African-American man, and “right-wing loons” are Hal Jordan.
Click the link above to see the classic panels in question (slam-bang awesome art by Neal Adams). Now, if Grayson isn't loony enough making such a comparison (let alone his lack of "the new civility"), he ends his e-mail by ... quoting the Green Lantern oath:
In brightest day, In blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil’s might, Beware my power: Green Lantern’s Light.
Ye gad.
If anything, his real connection to comic lore may rest with the fact that he looks a lot like a generic Batman villain:
Peter Parker (Spider-Man) dies.
Peter Parker has spun his last web.In the storyline that has garnered the attention of fans and media worldwide, Peter Parker meets his tragic end in ULTIMATE COMICS SPIDER-MAN #160, hitting stores tomorrow -- Wednesday, June 22. Concluding the critically-acclaimed, sold-out “Death of Spider-Man” story arc, the death of Peter Parker signals a major change for the Ultimate Comics Universe and sets the stage for the upcoming debut of an all-new Spider-Man.
“10 years ago, Brian Bendis and Mark Millar changed the way people saw super heroes with the birth of the Ultimate Universe. With ‘Death of Spider-Man’ the two have done it again, creating a story just as big, and something that would really resonate with fans.” said Mark Paniccia, Marvel Senior Editor. “But Peter’s death doesn’t signal the end of their larger plan—it’s the start of one of the most ambitious stories you’ve ever read in comics.”
And you can bet that Peter's death doesn't signal the end of ... Peter Parker, either. Remember, here's why.
Color me bored.
Via Four Color Media Monitor comes word of the all-splash/no substance comics company Image putting out a 9/11 Truther comicbook titled "The Big Lie":
In The Big Lie, the heroine is a woman named Sandra, who lost her husband, Carl, during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. A particle physicist working at the Large Hadron Collider, she figures out a practical way to travel back in time, so she ventures from present day to Manhattan an hour before the first plane hits the towers on Sept. 11, 2001.She rushes to his office at a risk-management consulting agency, but since she has aged 10 years, Carl can't quite accept that it's her. And even though she brings evidence on her iPad, neither her spouse nor his co-workers believe her warnings.
"The meat of the story is her trying to convince these 'experts' that the terrorist attack is about to happen," Veitch says. "So it's essentially a taut emotional drama with the facts and questions surrounding 9/11 sewed into it."
Note the "experts" in quotes, there. Now, imagine Veitch saying that and then the following about Barack Obama's birth certificate:
Going into this project, he didn't consider himself a "Truther," yet living during the eras of the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran/Contra and the invasion of Iraq, Veitch admits that he's skeptical about any "official" story provided by the government."Reading the 9/11 Commission Report, it's pretty clear that a lot of important evidence about the lead-up to the attacks and the collapse of the towers was ignored or glossed over," he explains. "And I'm pretty angry about the aftermath: how Iraq was invaded based on false intelligence and the occupation mismanaged resulting in over 100,000 civilian deaths."
Remarkably, Veitch says that "he has aimed the book itself straight at the middle." Don't be fooled. Because he then also says this:
"...to those folks who might not have thought about these things much in the last 10 years or who participate in the ideological back and forth," says Veitch, who wants to tackle other historical "big lies" with the series."
First, since when has it been "down the middle" to wonder about the "true" cause of the 9/11 attacks? Would anyone credibly state that "wondering" about our current president's place of birth is "down the middle?" Hell, no. That's the exclusive realm of the extreme right. Second, after a whole article of basically stating "Well, I'm just asking questions," the truth (no pun intended) comes out here by Veitch saying that he wants "to tackle other historical "big lies" with the series." Other??
And if that doesn't convince you, check this out:
Well, I was waiting to break the news, but I think my wait is over. USA Today has done a fantastic job reporting on "The Big Lie." I have been intimately involved in this project, and if anyone has questions I would love to answer them. A temporary website has been set up for our project:http://truthbetoldcomics.com/
Everyone can be a part of this project really. I am still in need of $$ to finish paying the artists and pay for distribution. We have raised $13,000 of an estimated $25,000 neccessity. This has been an incredible project of artists and activists thus far! We are excited to bring "The Big Lie" forward, and thanks to Brian Truitt of USA Today for excellent coverage.
That was posted by "Nor Cal Truth" who runs this Truther site.
So there you have it, folks. Yet another example of the far-left turn modern comics have taken over the last decade. It's bad enough the over-hyped creators that founded Image in the early 90s helped to ruin comics by emphasizing ridiculously glitzy artwork in lieu of an actual story, but to provide an outlet for this nonsense takes them [way] over the edge.
(Cross-posted at Newsbusters.)
I was under the impression that Marvel was supposed to build a unified film universe? Are the X-Men supposed to be part of that? Sure doesn't seem like it, and even if that was never supposed to be the case, shouldn't the five films try to be more consistent with what are actually very easy to eliminate continuity snafus? So here we go -- because absolutely nobody demanded it, here are some of the major continuity gaps/head scratchers of the five X-Men films in no particular order.
Warning! Some spoilers below the fold (due to the inclusion of "X-Men: First Class" material)!
BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE COMICS UNRELATED TO MOVIE CONTINUITY:
For the uninitiated, the X-Men films threw out a lot of comicbook foundation. This is completely understandable, of course, but you may not know just what. Here's a basic primer for you:
The original team. It wasn't what we saw in "First Class." The original X-Men were Cyclops, Angel, Beast, Iceman and Marvel Girl (Jean Grey).
Wolverine wasn't an aimless drifter. On the contrary, when Professor X wanted a new team of mutants in Giant-Size X-Men #1, he had to go through the Canadian government to get Logan. That's right, Wolverine was a Canadian government agent, and he actually made his comics debut in the pages of The Incredible Hulk, not X-Men. When the Canucks object to Wolvie leaving, well, see the pic at left!
Phoenix committed suicide; Wolverine didn't kill her. In "Last Stand," the threat from Phoenix (Jean Grey) was ended when Wolverine impaled her on his claws. But in fact, Wolvie was unable to do just this in the comics -- because of his feelings for her. In the epic X-Men #137, a depowered Phoenix and the X-Men were abducted by the alien Shi'ar, and fought a duel-like battle for Phoenix's fate. The X-Men lost, but Phoenix regained her power. In order to save Earth (and perhaps the universe itself), Jean decides to kill herself.
Rogue was actually one of the most powerful of the X-Men. In the films, Rogue played a very minor role. However, in the comics she was once a member of Mystique's (yep, not Magneto's) Brotherhood of [Evil] Mutants, and she once attacked Ms. Marvel, a highly powered superhero. Rogue held onto Marvel for too long, and as such permanently absorbed her powers. As a result, she became super-strong and could fly.
Professor X actually lost the use of his legs due to a falling rock. In 1966's X-Men #20, we see how Xavier once fought the alien Lucifer. In the course of their scuffle, the alien dislodges a huge piece of rock which falls on the prof's legs, rendering them useless. In "First Class," Moira MacTaggert fires a pistol at Magneto to distract him, but in the course of diverting the bullets, Maggy accidentally deflects one into Xavier's back, paralyzing him.
Mystique, Pyro and the Blob once worked for the US government. Believe it or not, in the 1980s Mystique, Pyro (John Allerdyce in the films), and the Blob (Fred Dukes from "Wolverine") were once members of Freedom Force, a US government mutant action-team.
Storm, Wolverine, Colossus, Banshee and Nightcrawler all joined the X-Men at the same time. This occurred in the previously mentioned Giant-Size X-Men #1 from 1975. After the original team (also previously noted) was captured by an evil mutant, Prof X goes about recruiting a new team. As noted, Wolverine was then working for the Canadian government; Storm was revered as a goddess in Africa; Banshee was a part-time criminal; Colossus was working on a collective farm in the USSR; and Nightcrawler was being pursued by a hateful, frenzied mob determined to kill "the demon."
I saw the new mutant film this past Tuesday, and I was highly impressed. First of all, don't expect a lot of consistency when it comes to X-Men film continuity; Hugh Jackman has a Wolverine cameo that will leave you asking questions, not to mention the obvious timeline of the schism between Magneto and Professor X (if they separated in the early 60s, how does that explain "The Last Stand's" scene with a much older Magneto and Xavier visiting young Jean Grey?). But don't let this detract from a superb story. And just what makes it superb?
The fact that I couldn't decide who had the better argument -- Magneto or Xavier.
Spoilers ahead! Continue at your own risk!
The film rehashes the first X-Men film's opening sequence where a young Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) is forcibly separated from his parents in a Nazi death camp. We see a distraught Erik first manifesting his powers, whereupon he is then sent to Nazi doctor "Mr. Schmidt" -- Kevin Bacon -- who is at this time unrevealed to be a mutant himself. Schmidt demands the young Erik use his powers to move a coin ... or he will shoot his mother right in front of him. When Erik fails to move the coin, Schmidt does just as he promised. A livid Erik then uses his powers to wreck the entire room, but Schmidt is not affected (we don't know if this was on purpose or due to Schmidt's as-yet unrevealed powers). He laughs the whole time, basking in the wonderment of the young mutant's powers. He then gives Erik the coin that he could not move as a token of his ... well, whatever it is.
Years later, in 1962, Lehnsherr is now a Nazi hunter, determined to track down and kill Schmidt. Michael Fassbender is simply outstanding as the young adult Lehnsherr. The way he projects the torment of his youth and the absolute hatred of the Nazis is spellbinding. And, of course, it is this very torment that shapes his attitudes towards homo sapiens in the "battle" between humans and mutants. And y'know what? It's very hard to disagree with him. Lehnsherr is maniacally devoted to offing any Nazi he comes across, leading up to Schmidt. He at one point heads to Argentina on a lead, and deliciously dispatches of a trio of former Nazis with barely contained satisfaction. The only problem is that Schmidt is not there!
It's later revealed that Schmidt is Sebastian Shaw, who, in the comics, is a wealthy industrialist and secret inner circle member of the famed Hellfire Club. Shaw's mutant power is that he's able to absorb massive quantities of energy and use it against others (or things) -- which makes him one very tough person to kill. And this Lehnsherr learns to his regret: The first time he encounters Shaw, Shaw easily disposes of him -- flicking him into the sea just as he needs to make a hasty retreat from the Coast Guard.
Eventually Charles Xavier meets up with Erik and the duo begin to track down other mutants via the fledgling Cerebro -- which was created by Hank McCoy aka the Beast. (This makes perfect sense as McCoy in the comics was a genius.) Among those who join the pair are Banshee and Havok. Xavier begins a rigid training regimen for his new team, for it's discovered that Shaw has been working with the Russians in order to start a third -- nuclear -- world war so that mutants can prosper and become the dominant race on the planet. During this training, it is Xavier who shows Lehnsherr -- now "officially" Magneto -- how to maximize his powers by "finding the place between serenity and anger." This is an example of why Magneto, despite his big philosophical differences, feels much affection for Xavier in the first three films.
This is as far as I'll go in describing much else in the film except for the moment you knew would eventually happen: Magneto finally executing Shaw. Shaw has donned a helmet which prevents any mental tampering (hence, Xavier cannot affect him), and Magneto's powers are insufficient to stop Shaw as he's just absorbed the power of a submarine's nuclear reactor. But as Shaw is crushing the life out of Lehnsherr, Erik manages to use his power to bring forth a metal cable to remove Shaw's helmet! This immediately allows Xavier to enter Shaw's mind to paralyze him. And, Magneto takes advantage: He takes out the coin that Shaw/Schmidt gave him right after the Nazi killed his mother ... and slowly, and inexorably, drives it through Shaw's skull.
Personally, I was virtually yelling "YES!" out loud in the theatre. After all, Nazis do make the ultimate bad guys, so killing them rarely invokes feelings of sympathy. Which brings us to the discussion I believe director Bryan Singer wants people to have after seeing the film: Who was right -- Magneto or Xavier? (Singer himself is a Jew and is openly gay, both of which are quite relevant backgrounds for anything to do with the X-Men.) In a post-film discussion with my fellow comics-loving pal Brent, I said that ultimately I would side with Xavier because I could not bring myself to kill innocent people on the premise that they might hate and/or kill me. Magneto's anger with humanity at the end of "First Class" is at least justified because they flat-out betray the mutants after the team had just prevented World War III. Diverting all of the flotilla's missiles was a legitimate response, in my view, although personally I would have settled on just a demonstration. Nevertheless, I'd warn humanity to leave me alone with the caveat that if you f*** with me, I'll f*** with you.
I am sure that there were many Jews like Lehnsherr, who faced similar circumstances and would go through hell and high water to seek revenge on Nazi death camp butchers. Many of these folks ended up in Israel. Yet, Israel, for the most part, has adopted my view of the film's argument. Officially, it tracked down Nazis who had fled justice, captured them, but gave them a full and fair trial for their crimes. But the country soon faced a Nazi-like menace -- way too soon after the horror of the Holocaust: Islamist fundamentalism, utilized by the Palestinian Arabs and the adjacent countries of nascent Israel, all seeking to annihilate the Jews. Then, in 1948, and again in 1967 (the Six Day War) and 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), not to mention myriad smaller "skirmishes" in between and after, the Jewish state responded with the aforementioned "You f*** with me, I'll f*** with you" attitude. The killers of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics felt the wrath of this attitude, and very rightly so.
If the Jewish state had 100% adopted Professor Xavier's philosophy, it is arguable that Israel might not exist today. If it had 100% adopted Lehnsherr's (Magneto's) philosophy, Israel's territory might be 100 times what it is now, but it would be a pariah state for its actions in so doing. I suppose my point is, Israel, having been founded largely as a result of the butchery of the Holocaust (and with it obviously still fresh in its collective mind), has shown utterly remarkable restraint since its genesis against those who would continue where the Nazis left off. For all the times they've been attacked, for how they're portrayed in the Islamic world, what exactly have they done that even today generates so much outright hatred towards them? Kept some of the land that used to belong to some of its attackers? That's it!! From where I sit, I wouldn't fault Israel if it had adopted a much more Lehnsherr-ian line against those who would see her destroyed. Yet, that is the very essence of humanity -- of compassion -- we see each and every day exhibited by Jewish state: After what they endured as a people throughout the 30s and early 40s, and continued to endure after they established their homeland, they, again, demonstrate the very definition of "humanity." They could have, many times, utterly vanquished their would-be killers. They did not. They have vigorous debates each and every day about the rightness of their actions with regards to the Palestinians and other Arabs, trying to track down that virtually impossible-to-find balance between freedom and security in such a situation. How many other nations must so endure?
Would that we all could match the humanity of Israel and the Jewish people.
UPDATE: Be sure to check out Omer Rosen's take over at the
Sounds to me like it could turn out like "Spider-Man 3," meaning way too much going on:
[Latino Review] correctly predicted back in March of this year that Loki would be a villain in the team movie, a point proven in the Joss Whedon-directed after-credits scene of Thor. At that same time, they posited that Loki would be the impetus bringing in the rumored Skrulls to the mix. Now, they have another major villain they assure readers will be in the film. See who after the jump, with the obligatory “potential spoilers ahead.”THANOS, the mad Titan and avatar of Death, says Latino Review, is the next villain to join the mix.
But how would Thanos fit into a story that is presumably already crammed? If you have Loki, the Cosmic Cube, then you bring in Skrulls, and Thanos; all of a sudden you have a 100% Alien movie (remember Asgardians are aliens in this world).
Thanos has a history of major scuffles with Earth's Mightiest Heroes; however, using him as a villain is all you'd need to make a blockbuster film. Remember that "Spidey 3" screwed up by using the Sandman, Green Goblin (2), and Venom which made the film extremely cluttered. (Personally, I would have preferred a fleshed out all-Venom story.) At the end of "Thor," it's obvious that the God of Mischief will play a role in "Avengers;" I was thinking, like Latino Review, that it'd be he who somehow summons the Skrulls to Earth. Then again, I'd read that "The Avengers" would be pretty much following the storyline from the first series of The Ultimates by Mark Millar and Brian Hitch. This would mean that the Skrulls would have to have been screwing around with Earth since Captain America's time; indeed, that is a major plotline of The Ultimates. I still could see Loki mucking around in such matters in an "Avengers" story; however, adding Thanos would be going over the top -- especially since he's pretty much on the same power level with Loki.
Maybe because the Cap movie is coming out and they've decided on yet another cheap gimmick to make cash? Except that this one, especially given Cap's creators' recent "creative" history, is totally hypocritical:
It turns out that there's a little bit of Captain America in all of us.Timed to the upcoming July 22 release of the Captain America: The First Avenger movie — starring Chris Evans as the star-spangled superhero —Marvel Comics is releasing a series of variant covers for its July superhero titles with an "I Am Captain America" theme.
The covers, done by a bunch of notable comic-book artists, all depict real-world American heroes — with a dash of Cap thrown in, such as a shield or that very recognizable "A."
Joe Quesada, Marvel's chief creative officer, came up with the "I Am Captain America" concept, according to the publisher's editor in chief, Axel Alonso. Quesada also drew a stunning version of a firefighter in the heat of the moment that adorns the variant cover for Wolverine issue 12.
Yeah, that's really touching (and one wonders how a little league baseball pitcher and a girl ice skater are exactly "heroes," but it seems they merely have to do with the story of the books whose covers they grace), but one should be mighty skeptical, especially after all the politically correct crap Marvel has injected into Cap's pages over the last few years. Y'know, like this. Or this. Or this. Or especially this.
And I'm willing to bet that those variant covers ain't gonna be found anywhere overseas -- can't "offend" anybody!
Not for actually getting the film to the box office, but for its success (h/t to Four Color Media Monitor):
If the right-wing blogs get a hold of this one, there's gonna be hell to pay, especially when somebody realizes that David Goyer, who wrote the [Superman renounces US citizenship] story, is also the screenwriter of the upcoming Superman movie directed by Zach Snyder and starring a British person as Superman. So they're neutering America's greatest superhero and turning him into a thug for the United Nations? This could make the Captain America mess look tame in comparison.
Heck, that fact slipped past me, and I usually am pretty up to date on this stuff. IOW, this doesn't bode well for the money-making aspect of the film. I certainly don't wanna shell out $10 to see some kumbaya superhero beholden to the nitwits at the U.N. And I'm crossing my fingers that this summer's "Captain America" isn't similar.
Previously: Supes gives up US citizenship.
Once again, because no one demanded it, the crack staff (to borrow a phrase from the now-defunct but still-great Hatemongers Quarterly blog) here at Colossus has compiled the DEFINITIVE (and quite subjective) list of Marvel Comics films from best to totally dreadful. Omitted from this list are made-for-TV productions, but included are flicks that ended up going straight to video (or were sorta meant to -- see #24). Also, omitted is "Elektra," which we (remarkably) haven't seen yet.
#1. X-2: X-MEN UNITED. Has it all, frankly: Superb, smart script, constant action and a fanboy orgasmic cliffhanger. Nasty government agent William Stryker mounts an assault on the mutants, and Prof Xavier's team has to team up with Magneto's squad.
#2. IRON MAN. Just a smidgen behind "X-2," Robert Downey Jr. is stupendous as Tony Stark/Iron Man in this brilliantly done origin tale by director John Favreau.
#3. SPIDER-MAN 2. Pete Parker battles his classic nemesis Doc Ock in this sequel. Alfred Molina as the villain is perfect, although he shouldn't go shirtless when on the attack in Manhattan (see left).
#4. BLADE. Marvel's first "big" feature flick, it was a chance, too, with its "R" rating. And it proved awesome: Wesley Snipes shines as the protagonist and Stephen Dorff is delightfully diabolical as the baddie. Not to mention, the opening sequence is slam-bang hard to beat.
#5. SPIDER-MAN. Superbly done origin tale with Tobey Maguire superbly cast as teen geek Peter Parker who chances into amazing powers. Willem Dafoe is villain the Green Goblin, but they should have allowed his helmet to show his naturally disturbing facial features.
#6. THE INCREDIBLE HULK. Light years better than the first Jade Giant flick (see waaaay below), you rarely can go wrong casting Edward Norton in a starring role. And Tim Roth as villain the Abomination and Liv Tyler as Norton's love interest? Hoo-yah!
#7. IRON MAN 2. A worthy sequel to be sure with more Iron action than the debut movie, but at the same time it loses some of the story-telling magic of its predecessor. Oh, and I know I'm in the minority, but Terrence Howard as Jim Rhodes is still way better than Don Cheadle.
#8. X-MEN. Marvel's skillfully done first "mainstream" blockbuster featuring the merry mutants. Hard to go wrong with folks like Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen at the helm. Hugh Jackman debuts as Wolverine making him a household name. Too bad Wolvie is actually supposed to be about five feet tall, and Jackman is 6'4".
#9. X-MEN 3: THE LAST STAND. The cinematic take on the "Dark Phoenix" saga, it succeeds pretty darn well. Jean Grey's dark side takes over, and she threatens the entire planet. Kelsey Grammer's Beast is terrific.
#10. DAREDEVIL. Ben Affleck does a neat job portraying one of his favorite comic heroes. The story gets a bit bogged down trying to do too much (Elektra, Bullseye, and the Kingpin in one film), but overall it's better than many people remember. Colin Farrell is delightfully wicked as Bullseye, too, by the way.
#11. X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE. Good origin yarn about the Canuck mutant. I still think Wolvie would have been in a lot more agony when he got his adamantium, and the whole Sabertooth thing (why's he look so different in "X-Men" and why does he not mention his kinship to Wolvie?) leaves one scratching his head.
#12. BLADE 2. The vampires come to Blade to help them track down and eradicate a mutant strain of their own dubbed the "Reapers." Why? Because the Reapers feed on vampires as well as humans. D'oh!
#13. SPIDER-MAN 3. A good example of "trying to do too much" in a second sequel, Spidey takes on no less than the Green Goblin, Sandman and Venom in this flick. Loses [major] points for the total silliness of Parker's antics after the Venom symbiote affects his personality.
#14. BLADE: TRINITY. Cool concept in having Blade tackle the ultimate vampire -- Dracula -- but hindered by the silly, snappy dialogue of Ryan Reynolds and the vampires that awaken Drac. Bonus points, however, for Jessica Biel as Whistler's daughter.
#15. FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER. The FF films are known as Marvel's "family" flicks, but the addition of the Sentinel of the Spaceways (voiced by Laurence Fishburn) adds some decent pep to this story. Lameness: Galactus as a big "space cloud," and Julian McMahon as Doc Doom (again).
#16. PUNISHER: WAR ZONE. Marvel's third attempt at a Frank Castle flick, and it's their most violent, garnering a Blade-ish "R" rating. But third time's not a charm, even though this is the best of the three tries. And WTF is up with Ray Stevenson's Bazooka Joe-esque wardrobe?
#17. FANTASTIC FOUR. Cookie cutter fare with a total miscasting of Julian McMahon as Dr. Doom, not to mention giving Doom cosmic ray-spawned powers just like the FF. Also misplaced was the subplot of Ben Grimm (The Thing) feeling sorry for himself and ditching the team. Ugh.
#18. GHOST RIDER. Since Nick Cage's best acting performance was 28 years ago ("Valley Girl"), only the smokin' Eva Mendes elevates this origin tale. But hardly. (At right: Cage's acting skills go down in flames.)
#19. HULK. Lame reworking of the origin, lame casting of Nick Nolte, and lame idea of making Nolte an Absorbing Man-type villain ... coupled with herky-jerk split-screen antics? LAME.
#20. THE PUNISHER. Straight-to-video (in the US) offering starring Dolph "Ivan Drago" Lundgren as Frank Castle. No, Lundgren doesn't say "I must break you" to the thugs he offs. (At left: Lundgren says of his latest victim: "If he dies, he dies.")
#21. THE PUNISHER. Remarkably, lamer than the Lundgren version. Thomas Jane's dye job looks ridiculous, and John Travolta as the villain is at his "Battlefield Earth" worst.
#22. HOWARD THE DUCK. Yep, this is a Marvel property, and yep, they made a rather pathetic film out of it starring 80s film fave Lea Thompson.
#23. CAPTAIN AMERICA. A unattractive protagonist with the physique of a 60 year old? Check. The Red Skull an Italian instead of Hitler's right-hand man? Check. Cap thwarting a missile attack on Washington DC ... by kicking the missile off course? Yep. Worth "Mystery Science Theatre 3000"-style viewings only.
#24. THE FANTASTIC FOUR. What do you do when you have only a $1.5 million budget and you're about to lose film rights for the property? You make this dreadful fiasco. Only available via bootleg copy (it was never released, even straight to video), the plot, effects and acting are so pathetic that it makes the above "Captain America" look like an Oscar-winning film.
This shouldn't come as surprising considering the silly leftward tilt that mainstream comics have taken in the last decade or so, but alas ...
The key scene takes place in "The Incident," a short story in Action Comics #900 written by David S. Goyer with art by Miguel Sepulveda. In it, Superman consults with the President's national security advisor, who is incensed that Superman appeared in Tehran to non-violently support the protesters demonstrating against the Iranian regime, no doubt an analogue for the recent real-life protests in the Middle East. However, since Superman is viewed as an American icon in the DC Universe as well as our own, the Iranian government has construed his actions as the will of the American President, and indeed, an act of war.
First of all, who the f*** really cares what a corrupt, insane terrorist regime like Iran thinks? And for that matter, who the f*** really cares what latest gimmick some other "progressive" writer has decided to come up with to make him and/or a big superhero "relevant" (again)?
I certainly don't, but you might ... hence this post. Avi Green at Four Color Media Monitor has more.
UPDATE: Let's pull a Whoopi Goldberg and play that card, so to speak: “I can’t believe they’re making Superman a racist! It would be one thing if he renounced his U.S. citizenship under The Evil George Bush. But he waits until a black man is in charge? Way to join the Kryptonian Klux Klan, Kal-El.”
Maybe. Cracked.com thinks that these films are worse; well, again, maybe -- but only because most of them were made-for-TV flicks with, obviously, inferior budgets.
First on their list is the TV Captain America movie. Yes, the origin is silly and the costume is as well (though careful -- the upcoming movie has him wearing a helmet, too!); however, tell me with a straight face that star Reb Brown isn't light years better as Steve Rogers than pathetic Matt Salinger.
Next on the list is the Nick Fury film starring The Hoff -- David Hasselhoff. And, as bad as this was, it's still rather debatable that it's worse than "Batman and Robin." The Hoff as Fury was a dubious choice, but he actually doesn't do that bad a job ... for TV.
Next is the first "The Punisher" film starring Dolph Lundgren. I've only seen it once, but of all the films on this list this one is definitively better than "B&R." In fact, it may be better than the two Punisher films that followed it (since they were pretty bad, also).
Next up is the -- again -- made-for-TV "Dr. Strange" flick. I saw this when it came out (when I was a teenager) and yeah, it totally sucked. But so did the "Spider-Man" made-for-TV movie (and series) and just about every such 1970s offering (like "The Hulk"). But given the huge disparity in budgets (and available F/X technology, is this really a fair comparison?
And, at last, the never-released Roger Corman-helmed "Fantastic Four" holds the #1 spot. OK, it's surely lamer than "B&R," but really? You wanna compare a budget buster to this? Give anyone the budget of 1994's FF and it ain't gonna look much better (though, hopefully, the plot would!).
As I was casually checking out some late-1970s back issues of various DC titles (courtesy of Soccer Dad), I came across a title called Star Hunters (which I had never heard of) and Superboy and The Legion of Super-Heroes (which I had heard of). In the handful of issues I happened to grab, there were two ridiculously silly instances of dialogue -- especially since both of these titles take place in the future.
Here's the first, from Star Hunters:
And the second, from Superboy and the LOSH:
So, OK tell me -- where in the 20th century do pirates talk like that anymore, let alone in the far future?? Totally cheesy, and I'm sad to admit that one of my most revered comics writers -- David Michelinie, who wrote many issues of Iron Man in the 70s and 80s -- was the scribe of Star Hunters.
Personally, I'm going with "Cap." I've never been a huge Thor fan, although I admit the film's trailer looks great. I dig Green Lantern, but its trailer looks hokey. The "X-Men" trailer looks just plain bad.
Via Screen Rant:
Bryan Singer’s attempt to both reboot the Superman franchise with Superman Returns and pay homage to its cinematic predecessors ultimately proved less profitable than Warner Bros. had hoped. Now Zack Snyder has been charged with giving the iconic costumed hero a makeover in the upcoming Superman: Man of Steel – and as far as the 300 director is concerned, he’s starting with a blank slate.Snyder says his Superman reboot (which likely will be titled Man of Steel, but that decision is not set in stone yet) will “respect the canon” of the character without being a slave to his previous film incarnations.
The best news for me is that Snyder plans on bringing back General Zod as the main baddie. Of course, it'll sure be tough to top Terence Stamp's classic portrayal.
... you can forget it. Via a fan at the Dixonverse.net site:
So, I picked up the first issue of the New Ultimate Captain, where the 40's Cap runs into the Vietnam-era Cap. The issue ends with 40's Cap taken hostage by 60's Cap who is about to show him the true face of what America has become since WW 2. The latest issue #3, which, I did not buy has 60's Cap reading the 40's Cap about the 'crimes' done by America during the Cold War, quote 'Illegal Bombings by tbe most evil man ever Richard Nixon" the overthrow of the democratilly-elected elected govt of Chile replaced by Pinochet, playing a US Backed Contras audio tape of torture and screams and ending with 60's Cap 'waterboarding' the 40's Cap as it's 'not torture?' I'll tell you what is torture the continuous rewriting of real history by far-left zealot writing in comics and media and the whitewashing of the greatest crminals since WW 2 Nazis, the Communists. I think I'll be adding the writer of this stuff to my do not buy Alex Ross list. Keep it up and the only people who'll be buying your books is Mickey Moore at a Wisconsin rally.
For cripe's sake, what's the secret ID of the Ultimate Cap -- Ward Churchill??
There's really no use in responding to Marvel's latest nonsense point-by-point; if a person cannot see the contextual idiocy (or lack thereof) in this, all's lost. Which is certainly what I hope Marvel's revenues are with this title ... and others.
(h/t: Four Color Media Monitor.)
Via Newsarama:
This certainly looks light-years better than the ridiculous Red Skull from the direct-to-video "Captain America" film from 1990:
And no wonder that flick went straight to video. It's hideous. Matt Salinger (maybe best known for his supporting role in "Revenge of the Nerds") is far from the Adonis-like person Steve Rogers should be (ugly, even), while the special effects are guffaw-inducing. And worst of all: The Red Skull is ... Italian??? I kid you not. One of comicdom's most insidiously evil Nazis is ... Il Duce Mussolini's right-hand man. And his accent couldn't be any lamer.
And the 1990 "Cap" features two of the biggest "YEAH, RIGHT!!" moments in the history of comic films. First, the Skull straps Cap onto an ICBM aimed at Washington DC ... and how does Cap stop this attack? He kicks the missile while it's descending to change its trajectory!! (Yeah, I know -- how did Cap even survive the missile's flight in the first place? But trust me -- the kick is funnier.) Second, after spending several decades frozen in icy suspended animation, once discovered by an intrepid Ned Beatty, what does Cap do? He pops right up and begins running down the road!! Yeah, no muscle atrophy whatsoever, let alone any questions as to what the hell happened to him!!
Here's the film's trailer:
Stan Lee's heyday was in the 1960s ... and he should leave that be. Ever since his masterpiece co-creations such as the Fantastic Four, the Avengers, the Hulk and X-Men, his ideas haven't exactly been ... prolific. Anyone ever see the laughable "Lightspeed?" It's a good example of the quality of Lee's ideas since his high point. Well, for some reason Mr. Excelsior thinks this is a winner:
Lee has reportedly created a character called Thom Creed, a high-school basketball player who is forced to hide his sexuality as well as his superpowers.It is not known what kind of powers Creed will display.
Lee developed the idea of a gay character from the award-winning novel Hero by Perry Moore, the Sun reports.
A television industry source told the paper: “It was only a matter of time before we had our first gay superhero. And if there is one man who can make him a success it is Stan Lee.
“There’s a real buzz among comic book fans.”
Really? Lee is the "only one?" Sorry, but hardly. Not anymore.
And "real buzz?" Yeah, fanboys may be talking about the premise currently, but unless this show is on the Logo network, I can virtually guarantee you -- it ain't gonna make it. First of all, Creed ain't the first gay superhero. At Marvel itself, the Canadian superhero team of Alpha Flight has a gay member, Northstar. Second, the whole "hide who you really are" motif has been done ad nauseum already with the mutant concept (X-Men, etc.).
Oh, and if you need further proof that Lee has lost it, just take a gander:
Lee recently told GQ magazine that the world needed an Economist Man and a Foreign Relations Man to help the world weather the global financial crisis."Being president these days is too big a job for someone with just one superpower. Though I do think Obama has a certain Mr. Fantastic quality," he said.
There 'ya go -- Lee actually believes that Barack Obama has a similar intellect as the Fantastic Four's leader. Right. And House Speaker John Boehner can bench press almost as much as the Hulk.
Where I think it’s going to be difficult is once you’ve done that thing of putting all those characters in one film...you know, it’s like having Harry Potter, James Bond and Spider-Man all in one movie. I think what’ll be difficult then is to try and top that because people want to see it get bigger.So I anticipate things starting to slow down round about 2014 and 2015. I think that’s when it will really start to flat line a bit and we’re going to see our first failures.
Hey -- every genre ebbs and flows. But having a ton of Marvel's marquee heroes all in one film? Good luck after that!
... the first film's alien was so recognisably humanoid because it had grown in a human. The same applies here: generation by generation, the creature mutates. As 'Prometheus' begins, the xenomorph is not too recognisable. Sure, it has that alien DNA that Scott and Fassbender teasingly referred to, but it's missing… well, it's missing human DNA. Or dog DNA ...
"Alien" remains the one movie to this day that consistently scares the living sh** out of me. I still cannot keep my eyes open when that "facehugger" leaps from the egg onto hapless John Hurt's spacesuit helmet!
First one to ID the object held by this character in the upcoming Captain America movie gets a prize:
Comics and cartoon writer Dwayne McDuffie has died.
McDuffie is also known for the creation of the Milestone universe and the creation of characters like Static, Xombi, and Icon. Though many of the original Milestone books were canceled in the mid-90s, DC Comics has recently integrated the characters into the DCU proper. In addition, the writer was instrumental in the success and popularity of the beloved Justice League Unlimited and Ben 10.McDuffie was beloved in the comic book community by creators and fans alike.
Dwayne apparently suffered complications from surgery he had yesterday. I'll always remember Dwayne because, back in the 90s when I ran an Iron Man issue review site, he took the time to comment on my reviews of a couple issues he had written about the Golden Avenger. I had trashed his storyline, but he was incredibly gracious and good-hearted about it, complimenting me for my work on the site.
Cracked.com: 5 Hollywood Secrets That Explain Why So Many Movies Suck.
#5 says "Writers Don't Come Up With the Ideas." Kind of explains the whole Marvel "Ultimate Universe" now, doesn't it?
Well, they're not gonna be known as "The Fantastic Four" anymore -- they'll be "The Future Foundation." Blue costumes? Gone. They'll be white now:
And what exactly will The Future Foundation do? "Their mission is simple: save the Marvel Universe from its greatest threats and prevent future dangers from arising."
Wow. Sounds significantly different from what the old Fantastic Four did, eh?
Of course it's a cheap gimmick, and of course the Human Torch -- who was recently "killed" -- will be back eventually. Nevertheless, Spidey's long history has been intertwined with the FF since his very beginnings. Amazing Spider-Man #1 (see below) had 'ol Pete Parker trying to join the team ... to make some money! Unfortunately, he learned that the quartet was a non-profit organization.
Roughly a decade and a half later, Marvel readers go to see what would have happened had the events in Spider-Man #1 gone the other way. It was the debut of one of my favorite Marvel titles of all-time, What If?
Four Color Media Monitor reports on the dreadful remake of Wonder Woman supposedly in the works. In it is this pathetic piece of plot:
The pilot episode, which Kelley notes is designed to run “without commercial interruption,” revolves around Los Angeles-based mega-billionaire Diana—who collects planes and a multitude of transforming aircraft called “Ultimates” (no invisible plane in sight here)—as she attempts to take down an evil pharmaceutical company run by morally corrupt scientist Veronica Cale, who is mass-producing a human-growth hormone that is causing its users, mostly black inner city youth, to die. Along the way, she tackles criminals, a Senate subcommittee, and a broken heart, the latter courtesy of lost love Steve Trevor.
Indeed! That's a great way to make some cash for your "evil" company -- sell your product to "mostly black inner city youth" because, after all, we all know how affluent that segment of the population is. Somehow, purchasing human-growth hormone would be of no interest to upper-class suburbanite white kids who play football, soccer, baseball and the like -- and who statistically have a lot more cash on hand to buy it. But adding this to the plot would negate a "progressive" conviction -- that America is incorrigibly oppressive and racist. And yes, even though another such "progressive" conviction is that capitalism is evil, it is more to intertwine it with racism -- even though it makes zippo sense.
Which sort of makes a bit of sense when you think about it -- because "progressivism" itself makes zippo sense.
Here's a first look at the "Captain America: The First Avenger" movie poster:
Not well known is the fact that the title of the film has been changed for predominately "progressive" areas of the country. In these, the film will be known by several alternate monikers:
In San Francisco and Berkeley, the film will be known by all five titles simultaneously.
One of my favorite comics writers of all-time is the "Modern Master of Continuity," Kurt Busiek. Possibly the single greatest comics story I've ever read is the spectacular Superman: Secret Identity (and I'm not even much of a DC fan). Not to mention, Kurt's Marvels, Avengers Forever, and various Astro City books are nothing short of sensational. Not only are Kurt's yarns first-rate, but unlike so many other of his contemporary peers he doesn't inject a whole lot of blatant politicking into his stories.
But that being said, Busiek isn't exactly mum about politics on various social media outlets. Back during the Ground Zero mosque controversy, Busiek (on Facebook) wasn't exactly ... accepting of the view of the protesters -- those who preferred the mosque/cultural center be built elsewhere -- some 70% strong nationwide at the time. He voiced the usual concerns about "intolerance" and the like, and on one occasion I attempted to engage him (and others) in a rational discussion about the dual nature of "intolerance" and "sensitivity." Although Kurt still strongly disagreed with me (and the protesters), at least he was more civil than many of his like-minded supporters on the thread.
Even further back, many years ago I had an e-mail discussion with Kurt about not patronizing creators who show an open disdain for a good portion of their audience by being outspoken regarding a particular political point-of-view. If memory serves, writer Mark Millar played a prominent role in that back-and-forth. Kurt was -- and is -- contemptuous about "boycotting" a creator (in the comics field or otherwise) simply due to political disagreement. My view was (and is) that it is pretty darn presumptuous to expect [some of] the public to continue to support you (financially and otherwise) when you continually trash their political views and opinions -- in effect, calling them stupid. I'm not referring to organized boycotts against creators who do this, just personally not purchasing anymore of said creator's work. But even so, I'm not a complete ideologue when it comes to this; I've still purchased stories from creators whose outspoken political views and statements I find rather risible -- such as the aforementioned Millar and artist/painter extraordinaire Alex Ross -- when those stories are top notch and mostly apolitical. (Millar's Superman: Red Son, though not exactly apolitical, maintains enough of a "gray" political outlook so as the overall superb story can be enjoyed to the fullest. Ditto for Ross' work on Kingdom Come and the previously mentioned Marvels.)
I mean, look -- these creators make hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions -- but Busiek and others would expect your average Joe Six-Pack to continue to shell out $3.99 per issue ... even though they're essentially being spit in the face?
What prompted this post are recent comments made by Busiek on his Facebook page following the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Avi Green at The Four Color Media Monitor opined on Busiek's remarks, while I provided the screen shots of them as well as a lengthy comment in the comments section. Shortly after the news reports of the shooting, Kurt had immediately pointed out the Sarah Palin "crosshairs" ad which "targeted" Giffords for potential electoral removal. A bit later he mocked Palin for speaking out against the unfair treatment she (and other conservatives) were getting in the press with regards to the whole incident. Now, I'm not a very big fan of Sarah Palin, but she indeed was treated ridiculously unfairly by the MSM, along with conservative pundits and Republicans in general. (Many of the reasons why have been documented right here at Colossus since the Tucson shooting.)
Does Busiek not realize that a lot of his fanbase just might be comprised of right-leaning individuals? He's certainly not a dumb man, so of course he does. So what does he expect when he makes such politically skewed comments? No reaction? People not to get pissed off when he's essentially parroting what the vacuous MSM puts out there? For example, why didn't he note that the other side did, and does, precisely what Sarah Palin did with her "crosshairs" ad?
I titled the post what I did because as a writer, Busiek can certainly touch on matters political ... and really should to a degree given his field. Again, as I noted, he's never been very overtly outspoken in his comics. And it's not a situation like I encountered about six years ago at a Jimmie Dale Gilmore concert where the singer, instead of doing what we paid him to do -- SING -- constantly rambled on and on about the supposed ills of the Bush administration. Even regular Colossus commenter, "cardinals fan," who is a huge Gilmore fan but is farther to the right than I, openly voiced his displeasure to Jimmie Dale at said concert smack dab in the middle of one of his soliloquies! In other words, with apologies to Laura Ingraham, shut up and sing! It's simply a matter of respecting your entire fanbase, whether you agree with them, but especially if you don't.
I've always said that if I was ever fortunate enough to be in a position like Busiek, Millar or even Jimmie Dale Gilmore, I'd keep my freakin' yap shut on matters political while in the public realm. Because I know that my [financial] support comes from all across the proverbial spectrum, and alienating any segment of that is simply obtuse from a basic self-interest angle. Some may say that this is all a "free speech" matter; let's just do away with that silly argument right now. Nothing is preventing Busiek, et. al. from speaking their minds, and it is unfortunately too common a misconception that criticism of someone speaking his/her mind -- including a boycott, whether individual or organized -- "suppresses" that free speech. Baloney. Indeed, what is such a boycott other than free expression itself? If I did insist on opining on matters political and/or newsworthy at various social network arenas, I'd do my damndest to cover both sides of an issue as in-depth as possible. And, perhaps most importantly, I wouldn't presume that my position/status somehow makes me smarter than the next guy, merely because I've been fortunate enough to possess that position/status.
... but nobody really cares. "Death" in comics, after all, is just a money-making GIMMICK. PERIOD.
"Fantastic Four" #588, the series' final issue hitting stores February 23, is meant to serve as a good bye to the Human Torch as well as the idea of the Fantastic Four. "In this issue, everyone is struggling with Johnny's death. They're family. That's one of the reasons [we killed Johnny]. It creates even more tension within the family dynamic," [writer Jonathan] Hickman said. "Regardless of the situations that the group has found themselves in my run so far, they've remained a happy, loving family for the most part. Regardless of the external circumstances, they've had solidarity, but this is the kind of thing that can cause a schism within that."
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Remember - No. One. Cares. Anymore.
Via Cracked.com:
In Rand's 1,200-page love letter to capitalism, Atlas Shrugged, you have a protagonist named Francisco d'Anconia, a brilliant businessman who runs his inherited family business. D'Anconia deliberately maintains an image as a worthless playboy in order to avoid the growing culture of government theft depicted in Rand's novel.The protagonist of the Iron Man series is Tony Stark, a brilliant businessman who has also inherited his father's business. Until the end of the first Iron Man film, Stark deliberately maintains an image as a worthless playboy in order to hide his superhero identity.
Then in Rand's novel we have Hank Rearden, another protagonist who got super-rich by inventing a valuable metal alloy whose formula he continues to keep secret. The government, sensing the metal's usefulness, tries to forcibly take the rights to Rearden's alloy away from him.
Stark also gains massive amounts power by inventing, among other things, a gold-titanium alloy for use in the Iron Man suit, whose design he continues to keep a secret. The government, sensing its usefulness, tries to take the rights to Stark's suit.
In Atlas Shrugged, Rearden is hauled into court for breaking government regulations relating to his steel company. He gives a wildly popular speech in court about his property rights, telling his accusers: "I am fighting for my property!" He humiliates his opponents by winning over the crowd and concludes by telling them: "I work for nothing but my own profit."
In "Iron Man 2," Stark is hauled into a Senate hearing, during which a senator demands he hand over his designs.
Stark responds by giving a wildly popular speech about his property rights, telling his accusers: "You want my property? You can't have it!" He humiliates his opponents by winning over the crowd and concludes by telling them: "I will serve this great nation at the pleasure of myself."
Unnecessarily in my view, Marvel is currently shooting a reboot of the popular "Spider-Man" movie franchise. Here's a sneak peek at the new Spidey outfit that new Peter Parker Andrew Garfield will be wearing:
And look! Mechanical webshooters:
If you're only a Spider-Man follower via the movies, the fact that he had "organic" webshooters in the films went against comicbook canon. In the comics (and movies) Peter Parker is one smart cookie. Once he realized the powers he had acquired, he put his genius to work and invented a chemical formula that acted like a spider's web. He then devised a means by which to shoot this web formula:
Stumbled across an interesting site last evening titled Boycott Thor by Marvel Studios. Their primary beef? In the upcoming "Thor" film, one of the Norse gods is played by a black guy.
Say it with me: "OH NO!!!"
Look, the obvious reason Marvel did this (as someone thankfully pointed out in the comments) is that, given the insane popularity of their other "Avengers"-based films ("Iron Man," "Iron Man 2," "The Incredible Hulk"), they're appealing to a mass, worldwide audience. The color Marvel is most concerned about is green. Besides, over the years, how often have white actors portrayed folks of other ethnicities?
Methinks somebody has too much time on his/her hands.
Also noted at the site is a bit about a "Black Panther" cartoon that never made its way to TV. I was totally unaware of this 'toon, which, as you may surmise, should be shocking! ;-) Nevertheless, one needs to take Reginald Hudlin's scripts into some context: Yes, the premise is somewhat anti-white and especially anti-West, but ... this is comics/cartoons. Some of the complaints noted are that it is ludicrous to believe that there's an incredibly scientifically advanced nation in the heart of the African continent. (One of the items noted to have been created there is a cure for cancer.) Again, this is comics! It's all about suspension of disbelief! Why is it silly to conceive of such a nation (named "Wakanda," by the way) yet no one whines that the Fantastic Four's Reed Richards creates all sorts of wildly advanced gadgets that we're not even likely to have prototypes for in less than half a millennium! Know what I mean? Other complaints included the silliness of having an overtly racist American general represented in the Joint Chiefs of Staff (a valid gripe), and the Panther decisively defeating Captain America on one of his first missions during World War II (not a valid beef as it's clearly stated in the dialogue that Cap at the time was "inexperienced" and, again, it was one of his first missions).
Hey, at least this is comics. Unfortunately, some of this like-minded fantasy has actually been disseminated in some of our schools. One noteworthy example is the Portland Baseline Essays which, among other things, teaches that the Egyptians were [exclusively] black Africans and that the Greeks, among others, stole their ideas from the Egyptians. The Science Baseline Essay claims that the Egyptians could fly, discovered the Theory of Evolution, and had psychokinetic powers. In higher ed, there were professors like Leonard Jeffries who postulated similarly nutty "facts."
But back to the point. Yes, Marvel has become ridiculously P.C. and left-leaning over the last 10-15 years. And, yes, this has affected titles like the Black Panther. But one needs to consider, especially, where characters like the Panther came from initially. Yes, Stan Lee and crew were ahead of the curve, so to speak, in intro'ing black characters into their stories in the 1960s and 70s. But the Panther (who debuted in the pages of the Fantastic Four) despite being shown to lead a highly advanced nation, became a "second fiddle" character when he decided to leave Wakanda and travel to the US to join the Avengers. He was shown to be a "protege" of, ironically, Captain America, who vouched for him to be his replacement in Earth's Mightiest. And remember this? What more perfect example of the state of black America in comicbooks some 30 years ago or so. Pretty sad, eh?
So maybe this is why Hudlin's T'Chaka, father of modern-day Black Panther T'Challa, dresses down that Western businessman in episode 3 for using his first name without permission. Someone needs to address that [unfortunately still too prevalent] unspoken assumption of presumed inferiority.
Finishing the list posted here, via Comic Book Resources:
#7: JOHN BYRNE. I dug Byrne's stuff before he became "popular," via his work on Iron Fist. When he got chores on The Avengers and especially X-Men, I was overjoyed. But be sure to take a gander at his art and writing chores on Fantastic Four beginning in the early #230s -- unbelievable stuff (see his Thing at left) with outstanding homages to those who came before him. Byrne's characters too often look the same, but his art is clean, crisp, and maintains a perfect combination of realism and cartooniness. His "tech" art rivals that of the master, Jack Kirby.
#6: JIM LEE. Feh. He's a good artist, sure, but I was never overly impressed. He got hyped thanks to the Image craze of the mid-1990s, much like the much-less talented Rob Liefeld (among others).
#5: NEAL ADAMS. Indeed. Adams is a god among men in the comicbook art realm. Insanely realistic and detailed, his work on the "Kree-Skrull War" for Marvel in the 1970s remains a highlight in Avengers history. He also had an incredible stint on the [original] X-Men series, not to mention very memorable runs on Batman and Green Lantern.
#4: GEORGE PÉREZ. I love me some George, but there's no way he's ahead of Adams. Nevertheless, I grew up on his debut in The Avengers (#141) -- so memorable was the issue that it was immortalized with a binder-style notebook (see top of the display) and that I guarded it with my life in 6th grade. I still consider Avengers #147 to be one of the best issues ever (Vinnie Colletta's inks really help George here), and the highlight of Pérez's Avengers-Squadron Supreme run. More recently, his volume 3 Avengers run with Kurt Busiek is superb (which includes an homage to the original #141 Squadron Supreme cover, which was drawn by Gil Kane by the way), not to mention the four-issue series (also with Busiek) Avengers-JLA.
#3: J.H. WILLIAMS III.
#2: FRANK QUITELY. Huh??? I am totally flabbergasted that this average artist made it so far up the list. I was disappointed when he replaced Bryan Hitch on The Authority, and his New X-Men work is merely OK. WTF??
#1: JACK KIRBY. Without question, he should be #1. He set the standard for all who came after, and he's the true creative genius behind the Marvel explosion of the 1960s. No amount of praise can do "The King" adequate justice; I'll just offer up a classic Kirby cover as tribute:
... the Kree and the Skrulls? Sounds like the making of a blockbuster!!!
Here's why.
Soccer Dad brings me word of this: 2011 is bringing a death to the 'Fantastic Four' family.
The series -- about a group of space explorers given various superpowers after being hit by cosmic rays -- began a new era for Marvel Comics, signaling the start of their wave of Silver Age characters, including Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Hulk, Iron Man and many more.Now, nearly 50 years later, the company has announced that the series' current story arc, "Three" -- the next-to-last issue of which hits stores Wednesday -- will result in the demise of one member of the iconic superhero team.
Marvel executive editor Tom Brevoort made it crystal clear: "A core character from the series, whom you've seen in the [2005 and 2007] films, will be no more," he told CNN.
*Sigh* remember -- No. One. Cares. Anymore.
Comic Book Resources has a list of the best 50 artists of all-time as voted on by readers. Here's the list thus far (they're in the Top 10, doing three per day now, apparently); the ones I'm familiar with are in bold ... and my commentary is in italics. I'll update the Top Ten, as CBR does, in new posts.
50 Jaime Hernandez – 213 points (3 first place votes)
49 Sean Phillips – 222 points (1 first place vote)
48 Francis Manapul – 230 points (8 first place votes)
47 David Finch – 242 points
46 Doug Mahnke – 249 points (5 first place votes)
45 Mike Deodato – 251 points (5 first place votes). Realistic artist, although his men are way too muscular and females way too curvaceous (see the Black Widow at right, for example). Did quite a bit of work during the wretched "The Crossing," where Iron Man became a teenager.
44 Steve Dillon – 253 points (2 first place votes)
43 Paul Pope – 255 points (3 first place votes)
42 Ryan Ottley – 261 points (7 first place votes)
41 Mike Allred – 262 points (2 first place votes)
40 Adam Hughes – 273 points (3 first place votes)
39 Alex Maleev – 276 points (2 first place votes)
38 Dave Gibbons – 278 points (1 first place vote) Perhaps best known for his work on Watchmen, in my opinion Gibbons is just a middle-of-the-road artist -- not great, but certainly not bad, either. He also teamed with [writer] Frank Miller (#8 on the list) on the superb Give Me Liberty and its sequels.
37 Tim Sale – 283 points (5 first place votes)
36 Joe Kubert – 285 points (4 first place votes)
35 Steve McNiven – 291 points (4 first place votes) Has done a lot of modern work, notably on various Avengers titles. Pretty good stuff.
34 Barry Windsor-Smith – 294 points (3 first place votes) Very gritty work with a quite realistic touch; some of his early work, however, featured way-out of proportion anatomy. But that same work was quite "cinematic" in approach. I loved his work on Machine Man 2020.
33 Jim Aparo – 298 points (4 first place votes)
32 Moebius – 305 points (10 first place votes) Didn't this guy only do posters??
31 Gene Colan – 335 points (4 first place votes) Gene set the standard for the "cinematic" approach to comics. His panels were angled in such a way as to make it feel as if you were watching a film. His work on Daredevil and Iron Man in the 1960s was sensational.
30 Ivan Reis – 385 points (5 first place votes) Very realistic contemporary artist with a John Buscema-feel to his work.
29 Arthur Adams – 388 points (6 first place votes)
28 Olivier Coipel – 408 points (6 first place votes)
27 Chris Bachalo – 429 points (11 first place votes)
26 Gil Kane – 435 points (3 first place votes) One of the masters of the Silver Age, his realistic work perhaps reached its zenith with Amazing Spider-Man #s 121-122, the death of Gwen Stacy. Check out Kane's "signature pose."
25 David Mazzucchelli – 438 points (5 first place votes) Incredibly detailed and realistic artist, he's perhaps best known for his work with the aforementioned Frank Miller on Batman: Year One and Daredevil: Born Again.
24 Walter Simonson – 449 points (7 first place votes)
23 Jim Steranko – 467 points (5 first place votes)
22 Brian Bolland – 489 points (9 first place votes)
21 Bill Sienkiewicz – 493 points (10 first place votes)
20 Bryan Hitch – 495 points (6 first place votes) Incredible contemporary artist perhaps best known for his work on Marvel's The Ultimates and Wildstrom's The Authority. Hitch masterfully extrapolates on the "cinematic" approach perfected by guys like Gene Colan and John Buscema.
19 John Romita Sr. – 505 points (7 first place votes) Although a stalwart Marvel Silver Ager, I was never overly impressed with his work. His women, in particular, all looked the same, and his action scenes were too "wooden."
18 Will Eisner – 512 points (10 first place votes)
17 Stuart Immonen – 535 points (10 first place votes)
16 John Buscema – 593 points (17 first place votes) Buscema is a god among men in the comic realm. His Silver Age work was beyond phenomenal (Avengers, Silver Surfer, Fantastic Four) and his sense of realism and cinematography were unparalleled. (At left: Buscema details how the Silver Surfer first got his powers from Galactus.)
15 Alan Davis – 678 points (14 first place votes) Another superb contemporary penciller, he perhaps is best known for his work on Excalibur and more recently his stint on The Avengers.
14 Darwyn Cooke – 686 points (21 first place votes)
13 John Cassaday – 728 points (13 first place votes)
12 Steve Ditko – 749 points (5 first place votes) Ditko is a hard guy to pigeonhole. His work on the beginnings of Amazing Spider-Man has to be his best-ever; his other stuff, in my opinion, is easily forgettable due to its ridiculous overly cartoony nature.
11 Mike Mignola – 810 points (12 first place votes) I've never read his Hellboy, but I've seen some of his other stuff. He has a very cartoony style, but it works well because of his incredible cinematographic approach.
10 Alex Ross – 822 points (21 first place votes) You really cannot get much better than Alex Ross. Why he is only #10 is a travesty. Just scan through Kingdom Come and Marvels and if you're not literally gasping at how breathtaking his paints are, well, you're a dolt.
9 John Romita Jr. – 846 points (13 first place votes) Sorry, but the fact that JR Jr. is ahead of such giants as John Buscema, Gene Colan and Alex Ross makes me want to tear my hair out. If Romita Jr. doesn't have the right inker, he's a mess. Period.
8 Frank Miller – 897 points (10 first place votes) Miller is just an OK penciller but his action sense is hard to top. Just check out his work on Daredevil to see what I mean. He's a much better writer, in my opinion.
Also coming next summer -- DC's Wielder of the Green Ring:
I never followed Green Lantern much except for a bit within the last few years (various "big event" scenarios like "Blackest Night") and that stuff has generally been pretty good. I definitely look forward to this flick.
Check out this hilarious parody of the Teen Titans supergroup. My favorite: Christine O'Donnell as "Stark Raven"!!
Coming next May:
I never was a big fan of the Asgardian God of Thunder aside from his exploits with the Avengers, mainly because (like Tony Stark/Iron Man) I detest magic. However, as you can see by the trailer, it appears they're setting Thor up to join Earth's Mightiest Heroes (The Avengers, natch!) and if that was the Destroyer I saw in there (the big silver robot -- see below), the battle scenes should kick ass. And Anthony Hopkins as Odin?
Count me in.
Back in the summer of '09 a good friend gave me her collection of The Walking Dead graphic novels by Robert Kirkman to read. I was pleasantly surprised at how well done they were. The writing was realistic and the premise eerily spooky. So, when AMC (American Movie Classics) announced it was developing a TV series based on the comic, I was eagerly anticipating it.
Well, the first "season" (only six episodes) ended last evening and the verdict is ... it's just OK.
I fear the show will devolve into ridiculousness much as "Battlestar Galactica" did beginning in its third season. The essential question is, "Are the [actor] survivors acting like real survivors would in such a situation?" So far, I believe they mostly are. Another question viewers have to keep in the back of their heads is, "Can anyone really accurately predict how people would act in such a situation?" Remember, we're talking total apocalypse here, with flesh-eating monsters walking around everywhere!
SPOILER ALERT BELOW THE FOLD!
Question #1: Would Rick (and crew) really take a chance on everyone's lives just to potentially rescue a hateful, bigoted red-neck?
No! While I appreciate the necessity of "not losing one's humanity" in the most inhumane of circumstances, why would you risk the lives of the empathetic, innocent members of your survivor group for that of a despicable hater? I'm reminded of the episode of "Battlestar Galactica" where the crew had an opportunity to wipe out most of the Cylons with a devastating disease-like weapon. They decided not to use it because it "would make humanity just like them." Uh huh -- right.
Question #2: Would the CDC really be abandoned except for one lone scientist?
Highly unlikely. The scientist's claim that this was case because everyone else wanted to be with their families seems like nonsense -- especially considering the plush facilities in the CDC underground bunker.
Question #3: The CDC no longer has any means of communicating with the outside world?
Poppycock. You're talking about the most elaborate germ-fighting/research laboratory on the planet.
Question #4: The French scientists managed to "stay on the job" while American scientists fled like mewling babies?
Cough me up a lung laughing.
I worry that, as mentioned, the writers will forgo good, common sense scripts in favor of "making points." For instance, aside from the silly "French scientists" comment from the sole remaining CDC tech, also managed to be slipped in was a comment about our reliance on fossil fuels (the reason why the CDC was losing power!). Not to mention, I fear the whole zombie infection thing will be yet another "secret government plot" gone awry, and this has led to humanity's total demise (or close enough to it). Maybe it can be something like in "I Am Legend," where the massive plague was the result of trying to do something good -- a cure for cancer? Y'know, a 180 from the usual Hollywood government-secret-cabal-hates-the-general public outline.
Why can't it be the result of Islamist terrorists setting loose a Chinese, Russian or Nork engineered virus in an attempt to destroy the West? Hell no, can't have that; the entertainment columnists will have a field day lambasting the show's writers as "appealing to the basest fears and prejudices of Americans" which "rightist pundits and politicians love to exploit," yada yada yada. And Hollywood is nothing if not one, big like-minded club.
'Nuff said.
(BTW, if you're admiring those pretty hands, they belong to my girlfriend, not yours truly.) ;-)
I was perusing the Colossus comics archives and I really noticed I never posted on such. That's weird. (Well, I sorta did here.) At any rate, I've had it with politics this Thanksgiving weekend and I was pontificating on why so much modern comics writing blows so badly. I've been managing to get my comics fix by reading and rereading old classics. And here's a list of the best stories I have ever read:
1) SUPERMAN: SECRET IDENTITY. Kurt Busiek is at his pinnacle here with a largely action-less story that focuses on ... well, story. I doubt I've had a bigger smile on my face than when I finished the last page of S.I. It helps if you have kids, too, to really appreciate this book.
2) AVENGERS FOREVER. If you've never read (or barely read) the Avengers over the years, forget this story. If you are an Earth's Mightiest fan, this is indispensable. Also written by Busiek and drawn by the phenomenal Carlos Pacheco, several Avengers from different time periods are whisked to the present to stop the evil machinations of time-lord Immortus. Busiek is the undisputed master of continuity, and no other book displays this better. Except for maybe ...
3) MARVELS. Yep, it's Busiek again. Told from the perspective of Daily Bugle photographer Phil Sheldon, Marvels covers some of the most compelling moments in Marvel history, including Galactus' first visit to Earth and Gwen Stacy's death. But it was the chapter on the X-Men and anti-mutant hysteria that is best. Again, if you have children, you'll find it hard to hold back the tears regarding the tale of the little mutant girl Maggie. Slam-bang paints by Alex Ross.
4) THE KREE-SKRULL WAR. This early 70s multi-part epic featuring art by the great Neal Adams is tough to beat.
5) IRON MAN #78. Back in the day, when deadlines actually mattered in comics, "fill-in" issues were the norm when said deadline couldn't be met. One such "fill-in" edition turned into a masterpiece, and such is Bill Mantlo and George Tuska's "Long Time Gone."
6) SUPERMAN: RED SON. The politically risible-yet-talented Mark Millar's best work, this yarn imagines the Man of Steel as a Soviet superhero. Millar expertly weaves virtually all of DC's marquee characters into the story, and the ending is spot-on perfect!
7) ALIENS BOOK ONE. Writer Mark Verheiden's work in this first "what if?" look at post-"Aliens" happenings is simply sensational. The original is in black and white, and Dark Horse has since renamed the book (title escapes me at the moment), but just try not to be freaked out after reading this, especially the interlude "Theory of Alien Propagation."
8) DAREDEVIL "BORN AGAIN." Frank Miller and David Mazzuccelli's magnum opus on the title, it details what the Kingpin does to Matt Murdock upon learning he is really DD. In a word, "wow."
9) KINGDOM COME. This Mark Waid/Alex Ross masterpiece takes place in a DC future-world where its marquee superheroes have pretty much given up their "duties" as younger, less scrupulous meta-humans prowl the globe. Ross' paints are awe-inspiring.
10) IRON MAN #281-283. This introduction of War Machine by Len Kaminski and Kev Hopgood is the highlight of this iron duo's run on the book. The action is non-stop, Hopgood's pencils (with inks by Bob Wiacek) outstanding, and Kaminski's "take no prisoners" approach by Tony Stark/Iron Man/War Machine is stupendously kick-ass.
The AP via Four Color Media Monitor:
Has Spider-Man spun his final web?Marvel Comics said Tuesday it will unveil a story line in Ultimate Spider-Man - a separate imprint from its other comics - with a title that may prove unsettling to the webslinger's fans: "Death of Spider-Man."
The publisher is playing coy about what fate may befall Peter Parker, but the story is likely to be groundbreaking given that the Ultimate Comics line has been less than kind to several characters in the past, killing off Magneto, Wasp, Wolverine and others for good.
"For good?" Has time stopped? You really think that (especially) Magneto and Wolverine were killed off "for good," Ultimate line or not?
Cheeyeah, right. NO character stays dead "for good," and especially not marquee heroes/villains. So, does anyone really believe that, if Spidey is killed in the Ultimate line, he won't be brought back at some point? Remember, he is the symbol of Marvel Comics.
Honestly, I can't think of any Marvel character that stayed dead "forever." Even fairly minor characters. Take a gander, just off the top of my head:
Sales of comics are nowhere near what they were a decade ago. It's certainly just my opinion, but I think fans (like myself) have just grown weary of the endless gimmicks -- including "deaths" -- which they know ultimately mean nothing in the whole scheme of things. This is why I ceased purchasing new comics over two years ago. It just got plain ridiculous.
Just give me a good writer and a good story and I'll be happy as a clam. (Try "Superman: Secret Identity" by Kurt Busiek and "The Walking Dead" by Robert Kirkman, now an AMC original TV series.) No need for grandiose nonsense.
Morgan has a bit about yet another reboot of Superman. Yawn.
Morgan seems to have liked the last one which I watched with disinterest. It was different in that this time we didn't have to sit through the origin story we've all seen before. Rather, he skipped town because he was sad or something. He came back and did some things like being shot at by a machine gun while slowly advancing toward the bad guy. He also lifted some huge thing or another and saved Lois.
I remember the effects being quite good but that's about it. The guy who played Superman (I can't even be bothered to look him up) was dull but frankly didn't have much to work with. Maggie Gyllenehalallenlellallall was annoying and odd looking as per normal.
Rebooting the franchise again won't work. No matter how many times you try, it won't work. Simply put the story sucks.
Fleeing dying planet and last surviving Kryptonian works. Fish out of water works OK too. I'll even buy the yellow sun makes me super somehow bit. Fine.
Right about there, the story fails. Superman is effectively invincible. He is bulletproof, fireproof and cannot be felled by any physical force. Oh, except bits of his planet from across the universe. Yes, the rocks from his home planet make him vulnerable. How this is so is never explained. It just is. In one of the Christoper Reeves movies Kryptonite even renders him unable to swim. Odd substance that.
For argument's sake let's go along for the ride. Let's assume that we agree that these rocks make him moral. Fine. We know that his dad put him in the Superbaby Space Capsule and shot him light years across the universe when Krypton exploded. Where are all these Earthbound villians finding this stuff? Where exactly did Lex Luthor come up with a store of rocks more rare than Protactinium? (Yeah, that one I had to look up)
Sorry, I call bullshit. Wikipedia has an entry that explains it thusly:
"Kryptonite" was introduced in 1943 on the Superman radio series, as both a plot device and to allow Superman's actor, Bud Collyer, to take occasional time off. The substance played a part in at least one major plot-line during the course of the program. It was not until 1949 that comic book writers incorporated kryptonite into their stories, as both a convenient danger and weakness for Superman and to add an interesting element to his stories. Kryptonite is most commonly depicted as green in coloring, with a few exceptions; it was red in its first appearance in Superman #61 (November 1949).[2] When Superman followed the time trail of a piece of red rock that weakened him, he was able to trace his origin back to Krypton for the first time. Other colors of kryptonite, having different effects, began to show up frequently beginning in late 1950s comics, reaching a peak in appearances in 1960s Superman series. Kryptonite, in its first comic appearance (Superman (volume 1) #61 in 1949), was quite rare. It came to earth inside a single meteorite from the exploded planet Krypton. Superman captured the two small pieces of kryptonite, one from a fake swami (pretending to 'hex' Superman with it) and another he purchased from a jewelry store, and threw them into Metropolis' river. Over time, kryptonite was depicted as being so abundant that many ordinary criminals kept a supply as a precaution against Superman's interference. In several accounts, it was explained that the explosion of the planet Krypton had opened a "dimensional warp" (similar to a wormhole in modern theoretical physics) which allowed the vehicle carrying the young Kal-El to reach Earth in a relatively brief time, and a large amount of planetary debris had also passed through this "warp" and emerged near Earth at virtually the same time, accounting for the seemingly improbable abundance of kryptonite material and its availability to Superman's enemies.
See? They created Kryptonite to give the radio guy a vacation. They didn't even figure out that an invincible hero was boring until years after they invented the stuff.
Bottom line; Superman is boring and no amount of stupid color permutations to permit plot points changes that.
Via Comic Book Resources:
The star, Ryan Reynolds, already has played a few comics-inspired characters -- Hannibal King in "Blade: Trinity," and Deadpool in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."
From Fox Philly:
After a lifetime spent wearing the cowl — and a scowl that's made him the scourge of Gotham's madmen — the fictional billionaire is taking full responsibility for keeping the caped crusader financed to fight crime.The admission is unveiled Wednesday in the final pages of "Batman and Robin" No. 16 that marks the last issue in a run by Scottish writer Grant Morrison.
The acknowledgment in the final pages comes as Wayne holds a news conference where he asks those gathered: "Some of you may have wondered ... how does a man like Batman afford to constantly update his crime-fighting technology? Where does his money come from?
"Well, the answer is me."
The confession, Morrison said, is part of a detailed effort that puts into motion a plan for Batman Incorporated, a global network of Batmen from China to Argentina to fight crime worldwide.
Morrison told The Associated Press that the decision was made to protect Wayne's secret identity by deflecting attention away from speculation it was he who wore the cape.
Call me crazy, but wouldn't Wayne's "admission" of financing the Dark Knight lead to even more suspicion of his actually being Batman? Like, "Hey, nice attempt at cover there, Bruce, but we ain't buyin' it"?
Kinda appropriate for Election Day in a way ...
Screen Rant has some definitive details (and pictures!) about what we'll see in "Captain America: The First Avenger" next year:
Here’s what we know so far:* "The First Avenger" will take place mostly during WWII.
* It will be an origin story.
* The Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) will be the villain with Arnim Zola (Toby Jones) as a secondary villain.
* Cap’s sidekick Bucky (Sebastian Stan) and love interest Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) are secondary characters.
* “The Howling Commandos” will be an international team of soldiers Cap works with.
* The Red Skull will be using a cosmic cube as part of his nefarious plot.
* The terrorist organization Hydra will be involved.
The Red Skull ogles the Cosmic Cube!
Comicbook versions of Bucky Barnes and Peggy Carter.
(Nick Fury) and his Howling Commandos. I doubt Fury
will be involved in the film as it's been established
in the films that he is a black man (Samuel L. Jackson
-- Marvel is using the "Ultimate" version of Fury).
This probably wouldn't fit well with the WW II time frame.
The terror organization HYDRA.
Still more tidbits:
* "The First Avenger" will open and close with Cap being frozen in ice; the WW II origin story will fit in between.
* As rumored, Cap’s classic comic book costume will appear in the movie (wings and all) as part of a humorous scene where Steve Rogers (Evans) is used as a propaganda tool at a USO show.
* Rogers hates the USO gig and goes to see Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper playing Tony Stark’s dad) to have a more official battlesuit created.
* The Red Skull will be Hitler’s head of advanced weaponry and will seek a cosmic cube t0 harness its mystical powers for evil. The cube will be known as “The Tesseract.”
* To help the movie play better across the pond, it MAY simply go by the title of "The First Avenger."
Fortunately, the film seems to be a lot more positive than the (unfortunately) same old leftist drivel seen in Cap's comics over the last few years. Four Color Media Monitor's Avi Green has the latest details.
No, I don't have my calendar marked yet, but I like how they keep the debuts all around the beginning of May:
Tony Stark will rocket into his third solo feature film adventure with "Iron Man 3" on May 3, 2013!"Iron Man 3" will follow Shellhead's appearance in "Marvel Studios' The Avengers" on May 4, 2012.
Additionally, The Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios announced they have reached an agreement under which Paramount will transfer its worldwide marketing and distribution rights to Disney for "Marvel Studios' The Avengers" and "Iron Man 3."
Just in case, "Shellhead" is a very common nickname for Iron Man. And "The Avengers" is the Marvel super-team Iron Man helped found (basically Marvel's version of the Justice League), composed of him, Thor, the Hulk, Ant Man and the Wasp.
I'm now a superhero:
Actually, it was a Marvel Comics costume winner -- "Steam Punk Iron Man."
October 31st:
I read the comic series (borrowed from a friend) and it's one of the best yarns I've read in a looooooong time. That's saying something in today's comicbook era.
(With apologies to Jonah Goldberg): Seth Rogen is a Marvel true believer.
Seth Rogen grew up loving Marvel Comics -- especially the high body-count exploits of Punisher and Deadpool -- and the years haven't softened his disdain for that other company. "I like Marvel," the actor and writer says. "I've kind of given up on DC at this point."Rogen wears a mask in his next film, "The Green Hornet," due in theaters in January, and on a recent afternoon he said that, unlike many actors in today's busy superhero sector, he is no disinterested tourist. He's an avid fan of comics although he was quick to point out that he's not a bags-and-boards kind of collector. (Link.)
A comic guy after my own heart. I detested DC back in the day (although admittedly it has gotten a lot better in the last decade or two) -- it just couldn't compare to the awesome Marvel yarns of the 60s, 70s, and most of the 80s (need I say more?). And I've never been a hardcore collector -- that is, one who immediately bagged and boxed all my comics, and catalogued them meticulously. I actually bought the comics to read them -- and read them many times. I'd leave 'em in piles, laying around on the floor, until the desire to put 'em back in the long box grabbed me. The most valuable issues I still possess are here.
Rogen's flicks, by the way, are pretty hilarious (and heartfelt!) -- notably "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" and "Knocked Up."
That would be Marvel's Vision, and he'll be back in November:
As a result of Chaos War, The Vision, Captain Mar-Vell, Yellowjacket, Swordsman, Deathcry and Dr. Druid find themselves not only back to life, but also the best line of defense against one of the Chaos King’s allies — who happens to be a rather formidable Avengers villain.
Bravo. Vizh has always been one of Marvel's coolest characters -- essentially Marvel's version of Data from "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (although Vizh came first by 20 years) -- an android in search of his humanity. His best years were from his debut (1968) through the late 70s, and then again when boffo writer Kurt Busiek took the reins of The Avengers in 1998.
Hey, even if you don't dig robotic superheroes, 'ya gotta hand it to him for having bagged one of the hottest chicks in the Marvel Universe -- the Scarlet Witch.
From ABC News:
A struggling family facing foreclosure has stumbled upon what is considered to be the Holy Grail of comic books in their basement – a fortuitous find that could fetch upwards of a quarter million dollars at auction.A copy of Action Comics No. 1, the first in which Superman ever appeared, was discovered as they went about the painful task of packing up a home that had been in the family since at least the 1950s. The couple, who live in the South with their children, asked to remain anonymous.
"The bank was about ready to foreclose," said Vincent Zurzolo, co-owner of ComicConnect.com and Metropolis Comics and Collectibles in New York. "Literally, this family was in tears. The family home was going to be lost and they're devastated. They can't figure out a way out of this. They start packing things up. They go into the basement and start sifting through boxes – trying to find packing boxes – and they stumble on eight or nine comic books."
The book got an official rating of 5.0 by the CGC (Comics Guaranty Company), which is "very good" to comics laymen (like me). This means it should fetch upwards of $250,000 at auction.
In contrast, currently my most valuable book is worth around $200-$250. Heh.
Comics are certainly notorious for piggybacking on [short-lived] fads. Too often, they fail miserably. Case in point: Marvel's US 1.
Yep, that's the #1 comics publisher attempting to cash in on the CB radio craze of over three decades ago. (Although, Marvel issues didn't begin to cost 60 cents until at least 1983, the year US 1 debuted. Maybe the title bombed because Marvel was about five years too late?) US 1 is a trucker, natch ... "with a steel plate in his brain that lets him receive CB signals" -- his "CB Skull."
But what kind of trucker stands like that? And since when does a trucker look like Mike Reno of Loverboy?
Believe it or not, US 1 eventually was recruited by space aliens. Why? Because "what the Universe really needs are truckers! Why sure! Men of courage and intelligence who are strong-willed and independent! Men who could stand up to the rigors, and most especially the solitude, of space!"
Gotcha.
(h/t: Heavy.com's "The 20 Worst Superheroes.")
Legendary writer Frank Miller ("300") once had an idea: Have Batman go after al Qaeda in a story called "Holy Terror, Batman." But Batman's company, DC, was "squeamish" about having one of their marquee characters fighting terrorists. Terrorists! (Of course, it was no big deal to have one of their radical-lefty super groups, the Authority, take over the United States government!)
Over four years later (four!) the project has been nixed. Well, sort of. As Avi Green notes,
Earlier this week, sitting over coffee at the U.S. Grant Hotel in San Diego, Miller said the elusive project is finally close to completion but that the name and central character have changed and that DC Comics won't be the publisher. Miller frames all of this as a decision that was driven by the work itself and not dictated by a DC leadership that, according to insiders, has long been leery of the politically charged concept."It's almost done; I should be finished within a month," Miller said. "It's no longer a DC book. I decided partway through it that it was not a Batman story. The hero is much closer to 'Dirty Harry' than Batman. It's a new hero that I've made up that fights Al Qaeda."
Like Avi, I really don't buy that this was Miller's decision. Why replace one of entertainment's most popular characters -- Batman -- with a no-name vigilante, not to mention not publish it via one entertainment's largest outlets -- DC? It doesn't make any sense.
But that's the world we live in today, folks. Although Miller rightly had pointed out that "Superman punched out Hitler. So did Captain America. That's one of the things they're there for," and "It just seems silly to chase around the Riddler when you've got Al Qaeda out there," politically correct sensibilities among our cultural Ruling Class take the opposite view. Batman going after al Qaeda may upset ... someone, perhaps some Muslims who'll view it as yet another Western imperialist adventure. Or, other Ruling Class "progressives" who "know" that al Qaeda's anger is justified because of past actions by the United States. (And this is why publications like The Authority are perfectly acceptable, too.)
For "Captain America" director Joe Johnston "The imperative is an artistic one, not a commercial one."
Uh huh. Right. In other words, "We want to make a ton of dough overseas with the film ("Iron Man" and "Iron Man 2" made $571 million outside the US and Canada), so Cap can't be seen as too pro-United States."
"We're sort of putting a slightly different spin on Steve Rogers," said Johnston, whose past directing credits include "Jurassic Park III" and "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids." "He's a guy that wants to serve his country, but he's not a flag-waver. We're reinterpreting, sort of, what the comic book version of Steve Rogers was."
Well, yeah. Because Rogers was a flag-waver during World War II, the era in which the film is set. But I think it's a little stupid to have a guy who 1) agrees to put his life on the line to become a superhero, and 2) actually wears the flag to not be a "flag waver." Not to mention, Americans in general during that era weren't as "shy" about showing American patriotism. What Johnston seems to be doing is superimposing the current incarnation of Cap onto the original template. I understand that for film purposes some changes do have to be made. But this one, to me, excises something essential from the character.
The LA Times in response says "Some pundits will pounce on all of this as another desecration of an American touchstone, but how many of them have ever read the books?" Well, I have! Again, it doesn't matter what happened later to Cap (for instance, during the "Secret Empire" Watergate-analogy story) because, again, the movie takes place during WW II. The "battle lines," so to speak, were clear cut then -- it was the Allies vs. the Axis with very little "gray" in between.
Of course, I haven't seen the film (it doesn't come out until next year, after all) so I certainly may be overreacting. As Johnston notes at article's end, "Yeah, and it's also the idea that this is not about America so much as it is about the spirit of doing the right thing ..." Sure. Cap has forever been about that very premise, true. (See this post from four years ago, as a perfect example.) But he's clear that he represents what America should be about -- not the whole planet. Johnston shouldn't have any qualms about making this point, partly, again, because the character's fighting in the 1940s for goodness sake. It should be easy enough for the writers to get such a message across without coming off like sniveling, politically correct dweebs. After all, some of Captain America's [comics] best writers (Mark Gruenwald, Steve Englehart) did it extremely well.
Asians protest "The Last Airbender" as racist.
That's does it -- when "The Avengers" debuts in 2012, who wants to join me in a protest against changing the race of SHIELD's Nick Fury? (That is, as long as they don't make it Hasselhoff again.) ;-)
... what about a third installment?
First, of course, there will be "Thor" (next spring -- see the scene after the credits in "IM2?"), "Captain America" (next summer) and then "The Avengers" (summer of 2012), but the Golden Avenger has proved to be such a hit that it'd be silly not to consider a second sequel. The question is, what would be the plot? Who would be the enemy?
1) The Mandarin. This is the most obvious choice since Mandy is IM's arch-nemesis, not to mention, he was sort of subtlely alluded to in the first film (the terrorist group "The Ten Rings," remember?). The 60s-style stereotyping shouldn't be a problem ('the evil Oriental!"); Mandarin won't even be [east] Asian as the apparent leader of The Ten Rings is of central Asian descent (Afghan, Pakistani, etc.). Still, it'd be easy enough to avoid an all-Muslims-are-terrorists motif since the character has already been used in the film. And just imagine the boffo F/X that we'd see with Mandy blasting away with his rings!
2) Ultimo. How do you get beyond battling "fellow" Iron types like the Iron Monger and Whiplash? Really take it to the Nth degree, that's how. Ultimo is the huge robotic doomsday machine from another planet that even Rhodey and his "Iron Legion" couldn't stop (Iron Man #300). This would be another F/X bonanza.
3) Armor Wars. What better way to immortalize this classic Shellhead story and showcase myriad Marvel armored characters at the same time? You could even extend the Marvel film continuity by having Iron Man go after Dr. Doom from the Fantastic Four flicks! Baddies who definitely should be featured are the Titanium Man, Crimson Dynamo, and Firepower.
4) Raga, Son of Fire. Iron Man battles the hippie Raga, complete with his freaky "lava powers" and tag-along granola gang (see Iron Man volume 1, #52 and #53). This'd probably be what we'd get if Marvel stupidly let Stan Lee have creative control over the second sequel ... after all, this is the same Stan Lee who put forth what is most likely the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. Guaranteed to go straight to DVD -- if it was lucky!
MSNBC.com has an article from May 4 titled "Dear Iron Man: Please don’t blow it in sequel."
Well, did he? (WARNING!! SOME SPOILERS BELOW!!)
1) Don’t forget: Action, action, action.
In this, "IM2" delivers -- much more than the original if you're especially thinking of the film's climax. Though there is a mid-flick lull, it's more than made up for with Stark and Rhodes (in their respective armors) blowing the living sh** out of Justin Hammer's armored drone army.
2) The obligatory dark side.
MSNBC.com argues that these failed abysmally in "Superman 3" and "Spider-Man 3." They're right. However, Tony doesn't succumb to his well-known alcoholism; he only gets lit during one party when he believes he's dying -- and he quickly is set straight (with notable "help" via Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury). So, in "IM2," this also succeeds.
3) Don’t explain everything.
Quickly, "IM2" doesn't. It certainly could have, but Favreau is superb with his weaving of myriad storylines into a coherent narrative. Again -- success.
4) Know thy fan base.
This is Jon Favreau's strength, much like that of Bryan Singer with his "X-Men" films and Sam Raimi with "Spidey." Favreau knows his Iron Man lore and knows his hardcore fans do too. And he doesn't us. Success.
5) Don’t be afraid to make changes.
Again -- success! Though I personally didn't like how Justin Hammer was turned into a swarmy, bumbling fop, Favreau turning War Machine into essentially a Hammer creation, and neatly transforming Ivan Vanko into an amalgam of the Crimson Dynamo and Whiplash among other things worked out very, very well. Although, I would have enjoyed hearing Scarlett Johansson's character being called "Black Widow" just once!
6) Consistency.
If Favreau leaves the franchise, I'll be worried. But he hasn't. Success again.
7) The revolving cast.
The only change in "IM2" was Don Cheadle assuming the role of Rhodey. Although I'd have preferred seeing Terrance Howard back in the role (I'm in the minority on that one, apparently), Cheadle did a good job. Another success.
8) Overcasting.
This was my biggest worry when I saw all the different characters involved in "IM2." But unlike "Spidey 3" and "Batman and Robin," "IM2" works well because Favreau knows how to best make use of 'em all. Mickey Rourke's Whiplash is supposed to be the main bad-guy, but we see him only sporadically -- and when it counts. Johansson's Black Widow is inserted expertly as a SHIELD covert agent. And the intro of Cheadle in the War Machine armor doesn't detract from Downey's Iron Man in the least. Still, some might get overwhelmed. Success again -- but just barely.
Final verdict? "IRON MAN 2" IS A SUCCESS!!!
Yes, of course I saw it on opening day, and yes, it was damn good. But, as always, any review from me about anything "Iron Man" usually includes spoilers, so only continue below the fold if you don't care about inside scoop!
First of all, I'll be like all the reviewers I've read thus far and say that "IM2" is not as good as the original. But only just. The movie starts with Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko tending to his sick father, Anton Vanko. In the comicbook, Anton was the original Crimson Dynamo, the first Russian analogue to Iron Man. Vanko eventually defected to the West and was hired by Stark Industries. Here, the senior Vanko passes away, and Ivan then presses on with some of his work, creating an arc reactor similar to that which Tony Stark created (and which powers his Iron Man armor).
Half a year later, we see Tony Stark at the height of his popularity (due to his being Iron Man, natch). He's eventually called before Congress which demands possession of his Iron Man armor and technology. Stark refuses, and here is where we get introduced to rival business bad-guy Justin Hammer. In the comics, Hammer is much older than Sam Rockwell's portrayal, and he's not nearly as bumbling and incompetent. This is probably the one downside of any of the characters' facets; whereas every other character lives up to his/her persona, Hammer clearly does not. Hammer has always been one of Stark's greatest nemeses, and he is certainly no slouch. But not in this film. During the congressional hearing, Stark shows what a bumbler Hammer is (by hacking into a video feed showing how Hammer's attempts to duplicate Iron Man tech have been disastrous failures), and Rockwell's geeky (on-screen) attempts at humor and toughness make the character quite less than the malevolent scum that he really is.
In another neat homage to IM lore, Tony jets off to Monaco and decides to race his team's own car. Ivan Vanko shows up as the villain Whiplash (actually, again, he's a good combination of the Crimson Dynamo -- who had electricity-based powers -- and Whiplash) and begins trashing the race course en route to nailing Stark. But Happy Hogan (played by director Jon Favreau) takes Stark's Rolls Royce out onto the race course to rescue his boss! (In the comics, this is how the two actually met -- Stark suffered an accident while car racing, and Hogan ran out onto the track to save his life.) Hogan has Stark's new "suitcase" armor (another neat hat tip to the comics) and Tony promptly suits up! A terrific early battle scene ensues, and Iron Man gets the better of the Russian. After being sent to prison, Hammer's devious self gets Vanko out of jail, and Ivan begins working for the evil industrialist making Iron Man-like suits for the military. But ... Vanko has other plans!!
We also see that Tony Stark is dying due to palladium poisoning (palladium powers his chest device). Nothing he tries works as a substitute for palladium, so eventually Tony resigns himself to the fact that his days are numbered. This is where director Jon Favreau and co. neatly weave two of IM's best storylines into one here: "Demon in a Bottle" by the classic David Michelinie/Bob Layton team, and "War Machine" by Len Kaminski and Kev Hopgood. Dying, Stark becomes a party animal, even "entertaining" party guests in his Iron Man suit ... drunk! Best buddy Jim "Rhodey" Rhodes -- who, even as a member of the US Air Force has been defending his friend against government attempts to procure the IM armor -- now changes his mind upon seeing what his friend has turned into. He goes down to Tony's lab, dons one of his other suits of armor, and then confronts his friend (another neat homage to comics; Tony and Rhodey have squared off a few times, notably when Stark was drunk once). After a brief battle Rhodes jets off his his suit, with the intention of turning it over to the US military!
Rhodes begins to have misgivings when, after turning over his IM suit to the military, it's Justin Hammer who is assigned to "upgrade" it! In effect, it is Hammer who turns what was a "standard" Iron Man suit into the "War Machine" armor! And the cool thing is, at a military expo, Hammer refers to the War Mach suit by its original [Len Kaminski-given] name: the Variable Threat Response Battle Suit! (In the comic, ironically the War Machine outfit was designed by Tony Stark to take on several high-tech baddies who attempted to assassinate Stark via the machinations of Justin Hammer.)
As Stark's demise grows near, Samuel L. Jackson makes an appearance as SHIELD's Nick Fury. He gives Stark clues on how to reverse his medical condition, and also supplies him with a temporary antidote to his palladium poisoning. It's also here that we finally see the true intentions of Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow character -- she is in SHIELD's employ as a secret agent. (My buddy and I thought she was a Russian spy working for Vanko.) Tony unearths (literally -- hidden within the bowls of his home) an old "footlocker" of his father's, and therein is the clue to curing his blood poisoning! Stark actually creates a new element on the periodic table to replace the palladium which is killing him. (This is neat, too, in that it forms a triangular shape -- which just happens to be the shape that Iron Man's chestpiece has had for about the last decade or so in the comics!)
Meanwhile, back at the big expo where Hammer is unveiling his new battle suits, Vanko has hacked into Hammer's computer systems and has gained control over his battle armor control network! He begins trashing the expo with his control of the remote suits ... and he's even taken control of Rhodey's War Machine armor!! But ... Iron Man comes to save the day, natch -- and a battle royal begins!!
Eventually Stark breaks Vanko's control over Rhodey's armor, and the two friends begin tearing apart Hammer's/Vanko's armored remotes. Of course they're successful, and this finale certainly surpasses what we saw in the first "Iron Man" film! Just make sure you stay past the credits for a very cool scene which directly ties in to 2012's "Avengers" movie!! You won't be sorry!
Tales of Suspense #46: The first appearance of Anton Vanko, the Crimson Dynamo.
Tales of Suspense #52: The first appearance of Johansson's Black Widow.
Tales of Suspense #97: The first appearance of Whiplash.
Takes of Suspense #45: The first appearances of Pepper Potts (Paltrow)
and Happy Hogan (Favreau).
Iron Man #118: The first appearance of James "Rhodey" Rhodes.
Iron Man #120: The first appearance of Justin Hammer.
Iron Man #170: Rhodey assumes the role of Iron Man for the first time.
Iron Man #192: Rhodey and Tony battle it out in armor for the first time!
Iron Man #281: The debut of the War Machine armor!
Here's the kickin' splash page at issue's end:
Iron Man #291: Iron Man and War Machine fight side-by-side against a bunch
of robotic drones (just like in "IM2's" finale!).
UPDATE: My buddy Brent (with whom I saw "IM2") sends me a terrific link to an interview with Iron Man greats David Michelinie and Len Kaminski discussing the evolution of Rhodey/War Machine!
... and it's about what I expected: Not as good as the original, but still pretty darn good.
Linked at the review: Iron Man's best-ever comic stories, and three tales you should avoid at all costs (#1 is indeed the worst ever).
Our local moral fraud pandora over at the LGOMB equates the entire Republican Party because of some of those in Arizona's state legislature:
The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state’s ballot when he runs for reelection. The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.Arizona has gone birther. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the new Republican Party. And I’m really not sure how you combat crazy at this level.
"This is the new Republican Party" ... because a few state legislators enact some nutty legislation?
Let's see, using this rationale, I suppose we could say "Ladies and gentlemen, this is the new Democrat Party" because
This, notwithstanding pandora's very own colleague, Delaware Dem, who once lumped all Republicans together in one pot -- and actually wished them all to be shot. (This is the reason why pandora is a moral fraud.) Is his craziness representative of a "new" Democrat Party?
It's certainly no surprise that the LGOMB utilizes these sorts of tactics to smear their political enemies; after all, just look at their panoply of Tea Party coverage over the last month or so, not to mention virtually their entire archive. But it sure makes for easy pickings when folks like me want to make them look like complete fools!
Chris ... who? Evans played the Human Torch in the Fastastic Four movies. And now, he's been cast to play the Star Spangled Avenger, Capt. America. My fave entertainment site Screen Rant has a list of five Cap stories that Evans must read in preparing for the role:
1) Captain America Comics #1, 1941. The first-ever story, and one that S.R. says is a must for Evans to capture the essence of Steve Rogers (Cap's real ID) -- and to understand the mood and ambience of the country as it entered into World War II.
2) Tales of Suspense #63-71, 1965. In-depth flashback coverage of Cap's exploits against the Nazis during WW II.
3) Captain America #298-300, 1984. These issues detail the origin of the Red Skull, Cap's arch-nemesis.
4) Captain America #332-350, 1987. One of my favorite series of issues of any character, these editions have Steve Rogers ousted as Capt. America and replaced by John Walker, formerly the Super Patriot. Worthy because it explores the role the US government should have in controlling Cap who was, after all, a government creation.
5) The Ultimates Vol. 1, 2002. This updated version of the classic Avengers #4 is the perfect modern telling of Cap's joining Earth's Mightiest Heroes. I personally highly recommend the first volume of The Ultimates if you're an Avengers fan.
I might've picked a different set of issues, but I think these five offer a well-reasoned rationale.
... so that means periodically yours truly will be providing you with some background and assorted trivia about the various characters in the flick.
As you may have heard, the main villain will be Whiplash, played by Mickey Rourke. But Rourke's character will actually incorporate aspects of two classic Iron Man bad guys -- Whiplash and the Crimson Dynamo. Indeed, Rourke's name in the film is Anton Vanko, who was the very first Dynamo (introduced in 1963 in Tales of Suspense #46). The Dynamo was originally a Cold War Soviet analogue to the United States' Iron Man.
Whiplash first appeared years later, in 1968 (Tales of Suspense #97, below). The original 'lash (Mark Scarlotti) was a former employee of Stark's company. He appeared many times in the Marvel Universe over the course of 30 years, until being killed by Iron Man in 2000 (Iron Man volume 3, #28). (It wasn't Tony Stark in the armor then, for what it's worth; the Iron Man armor was actually operating on its own at the time.)
Check out this pic of Rourke as Whiplash. He neatly makes use of the coolest aspects of both Iron Man baddies!
Avi Green over Four Color Media Monitor (the best site around for the mixture of comics and politics news) has more on the Marvel Comics/Captain America controversy regarding the Tea Partiers. Avi notes the comments of longtime Cap writer Mark Waid about the whole deal:
[Mark] is humiliated and mortified on behalf of my entire industry that Fox News is able to bully us into apologizing to lunatics. (Source.)
And there you have it. That is the mindset that led to the controversy in the first place, and Waid sure ain't doing Marvel any favors with his comments after the company apologized. Hey, Waid has every right to speak his mind (as do Brubaker and anyone at Marvel, DC or wherever), but as I've noted many times (usually in regards to singers/actors) don't be freakin' surprised when people get miffed at your [political] comments. If you work in a field -- usually entertainment -- that caters to EVERYBODY, it just makes common sense that you don't wanna piss off a segment of that audience, does it not? If you wanna "take a chance" and be "outspoken," freedom of speech does NOT then mean "freedom from consequences." And the most American of such consequences are retaliatory speech and, perhaps, boycotts.
Waid's comments, unfortunately, are nothing more than those so frequently uttered by way too many in the MSM ... specifically Fox News and the Tea Partiers are just "lunatics," in this case.
Would that we all could be graced with Waid's "superior" wisdom, eh?
Via Soccer Dad comes word of a couple of liberals who think that ... Iron Man was right during Marvel Comics' "Civil War" story -- a thinly veiled look at George W. Bush's "War on Terror." In it, Iron Man (Tony Stark) was pitted against Captain America (Steve Rogers) -- the former favoring government registration of superheroes, and the latter against. Personally, I was already getting turned off to Marvel at that time, but still followed much of "CW." And, frankly, it turned my stomach what Marvel did to Stark -- not only because he had been my favorite character since I was a boy, but because so much of it was completely out of character for him (the agreement of these two liberals notwithstanding).
First up is Ezra Klein:
I agree with Spencer [Ackerman] entirely: Iron Man was unequivocally right in the argument over superhero registration. I'm not even sure what the case for the other side is, and the libertarians I've asked haven't been able to come up with one. If the state has any legitimate function at all, it's to train and regulate people who could accidentally kill everyone in a hundred-mile radius.
Which makes perfect sense, even for liberals after all. Aren't libs the staunchest proponents of gun registration -- even restrictions and outright bans on them? Of course. Why, all of a sudden, in the name of "civil liberties," these folks would want to "protect" people (as Klein notes) who can "kill everyone in a hundred-mile radius" boggles the mind.
The aforementioned Spencer Ackerman adds to the scenario:
In the ‘Civil War’ storyline, Iron Man responded to a superhero-wrought tragedy by coming out for a Superhuman Registration Act, which would allow the government to register and regulate heroes and give them training. Cap and a band of likeminded heroes fought this — literally — and Cap died. But what Iron Man was really saying was no different than the uncontroversial principle that the state needs a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. When Cap launched his “the government will pick the supervillains” monologue, I was surprised that someone — like She-Hulk, who’s a lawyer — didn’t reply, “Wait, no. We have laws criminalizing certain behavior. We’ll have to follow those laws. That’s why the cops and the firefighters and the military and the intelligence communities don’t just go around legally killing members of the out-of-power party. Why would we be any different?”
Which just adds to what Klein stated above. But Ackerman's best point follows, and ties in to the current Captain America controversy regarding the Tea Partiers:
And the problem was that the guy making this dubious case wasn’t Yellowjacket or Goliath (RIP) or Daredevil (a really bad lawyer, evidently). It was Captain F***ing America. A walking American flag and war hero who still manages to find Nazis to beat up. If that’s not an editorial thumb on the scale, I don’t know what is. Cap’s right because he’s Cap. It’s downright un-American when you think about it, but there it is.So I get you here, teabaggers. It’s dirty argumentative pool to throw Captain America at you. If Marvel’s really going to go after you, it should come out explicitly on-panel and make the case that the teabaggers are acting against the best interests of the country.
Indeed! That line -- "Cap’s right because he’s Cap" -- should be reserved for only the most concrete examples of moral clarity, and nothing more, if you insist on utilizing the character for [more overt] political purposes/messages. Remember, Cap once turned down the chance to become president ... because he could not become associated with any message other than "the dream" that is America.
In the past when the government has acted against what Cap has thought wrong, he merely gave up the role of Captain America and acted solo (as the Nomad and later as the Captain). He even went to jail. When Iron Man went after government installations and personnel during the classic "Armor Wars" storyline, Cap felt it his duty to stop him -- even though he was then operating as the Captain, not Captain America! Iron Man felt it his duty to stop his technology from falling into the wrong hands; Cap felt that no one was above the law. "Civil War" changed all that, eh?
Years ago when Marvel and DC had their marquee heroes square off against one another, Cap was matched up against Batman. (They also met again later in the Avengers/Justice League four issue miniseries earlier this decade.) In various forums across the 'net, I lost track of how many folks said Cap would win the fight -- simply because he always finds a way. That's all. And I agreed. Cap, in a way, is the ultimate hero ... because he embodies the ultimate vision for civilization. The results of that vision haven't always been right or just, but as Cap said when he considered the presidency, "But it is the Dream ... the Hope ... that makes the reality worth living." Cap isn't perfect, sure, because he's human. But he should be above the "dirty argumentative pool" that Ackerman notes above that some of the modern crop of writers utilize (like Ed Brubaker, currently).
By the way, Marvel toyed with something similar to the "Superhero Registration Act" back in the late 70s when comics man-extraordinaire Jim Shooter introduced Henry Peter Gyrich in The Avengers. In the classic Avengers #181 (cover above left) Gyrich dictates who the team members will be, and if the group doesn't cooperate, they'll be essentially powerless (pardon the pun) as no government agency will cooperate with them in their missions against bad guys! Ironically, it was Cap who took the government's side (albeit grudgingly) while Iron Man was much more vociferous against the government intrusion! (Look at the cover -- Iron Man has his fist raised in anger at Gyrich, while Cap is restraining him.) And in an interesting twist, we see a debate about racial preferences as Cap's partner the Falcon is made a team member (even though he'd never been an Avenger before) -- just because he's black. (My fave comics author Kurt Busiek neatly revisited this issue in early volume 3 Avengers issues with the character Triathlon.)
(In another neat aside, Avengers #181 was written by long-time Delaware resident David Michelinie, best known for his stints on writing Iron Man in the late 70s and again in the late 80s.)
Captain America scribe Ed Brubaker, [in]famous for having Cap go after a bunch of Tea Partiers, had this to say recently in an interview:
One of the things that I think is nice about the Heroic Age is that we have this idea of hero and villain. Because over the years we've taken a lot of the cooler villains and, because people like them so much, they sort of make them into good guys.
No way! An "idea" of a hero ... and a villain! In superHERO comicbooks!! Who'da thunk it??
They are called "superheroes," Ed. Unless (and it wouldn't suprise me in the least) you and your pals are thinking of changing the term to "super-characters" ... y'know, to fit in better with your moral relativism.
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.
