"Zowie! She's Gay!"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44a9d/44a9dd802b59767486bba604aad3ef298ae55d13" alt=""
Sub-sub headline for the same article:
"OUT, OUT! AND A GAY!"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a5928/a592868336ef325b285f2affb3eec65301ae2bdc" alt=""
Wait, I have one more coming on...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5b14b/5b14bbbe3081d993630e8363c99075104f6e2c90" alt=""
"In the stills with this blog, I have traced the history of Starscream® from its origin as a children's toy through its evolution in TV animation (1984) and the 2007 movie. It has grown steadily more complex, apparently feeding on larger and larger junk yards. Starscream® is now too much to comprehend, especially in Bay's typical average shot length of not much over one second."
"He is also looking ahead to developing new projects focusing on not just Archie, Betty, Veronica, Jugehead and Reggie, but other long standing Archie Properties such as Katy Keene, Lil Jinx, the Red Circle Heroes, Sabrina, Josie & the Pussycats, Cosmo The Merry Martian, Pat The Brat, Wilbur Wilkins, Bingo Wilkins, Suzie and Ginger Snapp, just to name a few."
"Critics really are eunuchs in the harem when it comes to movies like Revenge of the Fallen. Calling it bad 1) misses the point and 2) makes not the teeniest bit of difference anyway. Provided the number of giant robots bashing each other compares favorably with those silly talking sections, it more than meets the expectations of its fanbase. You might as well spend your time decrying the nutritional deficits of Doritos or telling a room full of smokers that cigarettes are bad for them. Everyone knows. They just don't care.The bizarre honesty of director Michael Bay constitutes a sort of saving grace. He doesn't try to disguise the fact that his film is soulless corporate product; indeed, he embraces it with such obvious gusto that it becomes an auteurial style all its own."
It really boils down to that; "Revenge of the Fallen" sells soulless to those who buy soulless. It's not shitty filmmaking; it's supply and demand.
In an unusual appeal, the Kansas City Star has asked their readers to pick out which comic strips get the boot:
Not to be critical, but our daily comics pages are feeling a little stale to us in FYI. And when that happens, it’s time to ask you, our readers, for help.
Below is a list of 10 comics that are no longer authored by their creators or are revisiting old story lines, are similar to others on The Star’s comic pages, or that we think are tired. Which ones could you live without? Pick five you could let go of and let us know. We’ll use the results to help make room for promising comics we’d like you to see.
Our goal today is a mix of styles and story lines that entertain and speak to our values as well as our times. Please help us get there.
B.C.
Beetle Bailey
Bizarro
For Better or for Worse
Cathy
Mark Trail
Marmaduke
Real Life Adventures
Shoe
Wizard of Id
Ha! He's the laziest mofo in the army! 4315 war casualties in Iraq!
That's relevancy!
Now, the idea is to pick 5 you think should go.
"TRIPWIRE Annual 2009 will not be carried by Diamond US because it didn't make their benchmark. So the only ways that people in the US will be able to buy TRIPWIRE Annual 2009 is 1) buy it at their local Barnes & Noble; 2) Buy it off us at Comic Con in San Diego from our table or 3) Pester your local comic shop to order it from us directly. We are happy to supply US comic shops directly at 50% off cover with a minimum order of 5 copies."
"Absa-friggin-lutely, yes on the scrutiny part. I think they should be held accountable like athletes are... if an athlete has a bad game outting, then you see bloggers and old media journalists criticizing them. Because comic book fans can be just as passionate, as a sports fan that is passionate about their sports team and those currently wearing the logo.
For example, if a illustrator, writer, editor or tracer does a sub-par job taking care of iconic heroes, then they should get blasted by the fan-critics.
Gossip, on the other hand, should not be considered at all. Bad gossip ruins careers and lives. Nothing good ever becomes of it.
Perhaps future comic book editors, writers, etc.. should be required to take Journalism ethics courses in college or university."
"This is a very complex question. The very existence of continuing gossip in this industry proves how much the comics industry has strayed too far from its original business model and target audience : the kids. On one hand, the fact that such a major part of the readership wants to know the ugly part of thebehind-of-the-scenes of the industry is (or should be) fundamentally wrong. This is supposed to be a medium who allows its readership to escape our depressing reality. By needing to know how it's done, the bickering, the politics of the publishing side, you destroy the "magic". But, since most of the audience has become jaded and cynical adults who only want to see the feets of clay of the creators, it has become the norm. Having said that, without the gossip columns, the revelations of behind-the-scenes and all other things, I would never have realized of disturbed and rotten this industry had degenerated, nor would have I gotten the explanations of why/how some storylines never made any sense. One could make the argument that the existence of gossip about this industry, and the interest for it is a mere reflection of how low it has degenerated."
"I think that comic books have flown under the radar with the general public on a level that movies, television, and video games have not. It takes a lot more of an effort to "get into" comics. That being said, people don't think of writers or editors as celebrities. They just would not CARE about comic gossip. Drunk Errol Flynn thinking he committed a murder and trying to cover it up by dumping the guy in the river? That we think is awesome. Who is getting hired, fired, or put on this or that book - that's simply not juicy. As for public scrutiny, I doubt people would give a hoot as long as they got their books. I mean, that's basically how it is now. In fact, most people don't like it when you actually do tell them what's going on."
"If you mean paparazzi, rumors, gossip, and snark -- no, nobody should be subject to that. I remember when Devin Grayson and Mark Waid were an item there was a truly embarrassing amount of message-board gossip and speculation about it, did it help or hurt Ms. Grayson's career, did Waid do this or that in a story because he was under her influence -- it was deeply disturbing and weird, especially since so much of it was coming from fanboys who were clearly dysfunctional socially. It made me ashamed for my hobby.
On the other hand, I have often wished for actual news reporting. Meaning more serious journalism in our industry press; someone to act as watchdog, to be an advocate for those who are getting screwed by publishers or distributors or whoever. An objective observer to shame industry people into acting like adults. THE COMICS JOURNAL used to do a fair amount but they've gotten too snooty to bother with Marvel or DC much any more, and that's where we could really benefit people by shining a light on stuff. I think it's astonishing how much childishness creeps into the actual business practices in comics. I suppose you can make the case that it's
much the same in TV or movies, but.... I dunno, in comics it seems like the inmates have been running the asylum for decades."
"Sure. I mean, I don't care about most of it personally, I'm not big on gossip, but basically, if you want your name to be known publicly, you have to accept that you're going to be under that kind of scrutiny, and for your life to be under the microscope. You ask for fame? Then expect everything that goes with it.
I mean, offhand, how much do I know about, oh, Neil Gaiman, for example? As someone who doesn't really follow these things (but enjoys his work), I know he has multiple children (two? I think), at least one daughter. He lives in Minnesota, which I find odd for and Englishman. Imagine if someone cares to know more?
You're putting yourself into the public sphere. Deal with it.
Even in a literary field, if your name is big (which includes publishers in the comic industry, sorry - you help make plot decisions, it makes you noteworthy), expect people to want to know about you. Expect the scrutiny that goes with being a "name". If you want to look outside of comics? Think Steven King. Think Michael Crichton. Think Dan Brown. Think JK Rowling. Think whoeverthehell wrote "Twilight". If people care enough, they're going to know about these people's lives. Enjoy it if people care. It means that you're probably pretty big. What did PT Barnum say about publicity?"
"Absolutely for the big time corporate players or the superstar. Especially when the issue revolves around someone who cheats others in behind-the-scenes business, or someone who is a proven swiper. In this case, the corporate player or the superstar, the scrutiny is justified.
However I think it's out of place for the rank-and-file employees and freelance creators who are grinding out a living by performing the labor of creating the product and bringing it to market. They already get screwed just by being a little guy in a machine."
"I go through this every single day. I don't think it's particularly anyone's business to know who's sleeping with who, or who has the latex fetish, or who subscribes to that adult web site, except as to how it relates to the business. That said, there are people in the business who make their personal life part of the business, this being the last literary frontier where a straight white male can do an autobiography and still be looked on as avant-garde, and there are people who make business decisions on who they're friends with, or dating, or were dating, and so on.
But celebrity? Most of us have the right level of celebrity-- inside the convention hall, we're rock stars; outside, we're happily anonymous."
"From a media viewpoint, yes, if there is actual news, then business individuals should be subject to public scrutiny. More so if the business is publicly traded. How far down the organizational structure one should go depends on how the individual is involved with the story. As for gossip, that's a tricky area, as it exposes the reporter to charges of defamation, specifically slander (oral) and libel (broadcast)."
"No. In the entertainment industry, most all the individuals who are the focus of such gossip and public scrutiny are the performers who willingly put themselves out in the public eye themselves, and those who do not put themselves out for all to gawk at generally are ignored on a day to day basis by the gossip hounds and paparazzi (Harrison Ford being a prime example). In either case, those people are themselves the product to be marketed. For example, films can be heavily promoted and do well merely because of a particular actor’s involvement,In comics, the CHARACTERS are the product, entertaining though it may be. Not so the producers of said product. One might as well ask if the rank and file worker at Microsoft deserves public scrutiny and gossip because Windows 7 is due out soon. Stan Lee is the notable exception to the rule in comics as he’s put himself out there as a media whore for decades now.
But for the most part, these are private workplaces, and should remain so."