Link To Punisher Butterfly Preview Pages

UPDATE: You can also find previews for BUTTERFLY at:

• Comixology
• Comic Book Resources

I'm starting to get a bunch of personal emails coming in about the preview, and I'm just very encouraged. I was very very happy with the way this book was handled by Marvel. And there was really no other artist who could bring this story to life the way Laurence Campbell did.

If there is anybody who has the preview up on their site that I've missed, please let me know and I'll link to you!

Hey all,

The French website Superpouvoir has a bunch of lettered pages from PUNISHER MAX: BUTTERFLY upon their site. So if you want to read the beginning of this book, out next week (March 3), here is your chance. Glory in the awesomeness that is Laurence Campbell artwork!

Please be advised tho, that, like other MAX titles, this book is for adults and the preview itself is NSFW (language, violence, a hint of sex). With that proviso: go check it out!

PUNISHER MAX: BUTTERFLY PREVIEW (NSFW)

And let me know what ya think!

The Second Life Of Speedy Gonzales

Classic Looney Tunes mouse Speedy Gonzales will soon be headed to theater near you. Will the movie be a CGI/live-action combo in the mold of Scooby-Doo, Garfield, and Alvin and the Chipmunks? Oh yes it will. Comedian/talk show host George Lopez is slated to do the voice of Speedy, and the premise will be updated for a modern audience.

Assuring that this new version won't feature "the racist Speedy," co-producer Ann Lopez had this to say to The Hollywood Reporter:

"Speedy's going to be a misunderstood boy who comes from a family that works in a very meticulous setting, and he's a little too fast for what they do."

Speedy has faced criticism over the years for what some consider to be a stereotypical and offensive portrayal of Mexicans. In fact, in 1999 the Warner Bros.-owned Cartoon Network stopped airing Looney Tunes featuring Speedy. In a 2002 interview with Fox News, a spokesperson for Cartoon Network commented,

"It hasn't been on the air for years because of its ethnic stereotypes. We have such a huge library, I think we intend to go with popular shows that aren't going to upset people. We're not about pushing the boundary. We're not HBO."

In that same interview, the spokesperson admitted that in Cartoon Network Latin America Speedy Gonzales was "hugely popular." And in 2009 the same spokesperson said regarding Speedy's immanent return to the network: "With the sudden interest in the show, we decided to rotate it in and see how it does." Of course, this was now the network which was home to The Venture Bros., Family Guy, and Robot Chicken – so perhaps their vigilance against "pushing boundaries" had loosened.
Though the initial Speedy cartoons were entertaining enough – with the self-titled 1955 cartoon short winning the Academy Award – I've always related them not so much with racism as with the end of the golden age of the Warner Bros cartoon shorts. By the 1960s, the animation studio leaned heavily on the poorly-matched duos of Speedy/Daffy & Speedy/Sylvester, as well as Road Runner cartoons. Sometimes, to be really creative, they'd mix Speedy with Road Runner, or have Speedy/Daffy/Sylvester/Road Runner in the same cartoon. The production values on many of these cartoons had rapidly fallen since the heyday of Chuck Jones, and it really shows:


Note the awkward, stilted way Daffy Duck walks and talks, the corny special effects, and terrible background music. But this was an era in which TV cartoons – with their limited budgets – had become the dominant medium, so I guess it makes sense. These newer Warner Bros. cartoons were tailor-made for TV, not the movie theaters.

The point is, in the 1960s it was Speedy Gonzales – and not Bugs Bunny – who was the Warner Bros. star character. Speedy's dominance of the Looney Tunes slate pointed to his massive popularity. So who am I to second-guess the WB's decision in 2010 to make a major motion picture out of the character?

But in the battle over whether Speedy is racist, or the victim of overly-zealous political-correctness, I'm not sure what message this new movie is trying to send. By vocally making it clear that the movie will not feature "the racist Speedy," the film's producers are separating the character out from his classic cartoon roots. That's fine, but does that separation potentially alienate Speedy's fanbase, which apparently includes many viewers from Mexico? Is this reboot a validation of the enduring popularity of the character, or a condemnation of the character as it was originally conceived? Or is there a way to strike a balance?

Do you think Speedy Gonzales is racist, or is it all much ado about nothing? And what do you think of the character's new direction?

Emma Frost And Me

hey, look what I just found on CBR...

X-MEN ORIGINS: EMMA FROST #1
Written by VALERIE D'ORAZIO
Penciled by KARL MOLINE
Cover by BENJAMIN
Witness the birth of the White Queen! From the mousy girl from a rich New England family, to the rich and terrifying queen of a secret society to the leader of the X-Men, Emma has cut a powerful swath through the Marvel Universe. See her rise to power in this one-shot by up-and-comer Valerie D’Orazio and Karl Moline (LONERS, Buffy)!
48 PGS./One-Shot/Rated A …$3.99

The OS Journal, 2/9/10

So I finally got this used pair of sneakers in the mail that I bought on eBay, and there's old bloodstains on one of them. Golly. Other than that, they're pretty nice, and have been hardly worn at all. They make my feet itch.

***

That the author of the Yahoo Shine article on the Midwich Cuckoo/"Young Hollywood" Vanity Fair cover is getting death threats is just...wow. It's just messed up in every which way. When you get to death threats, abusive comments...it's not even about the topic anymore. It's just about wanting to get your anger out, to kick someone's teeth in for something and against someone that isn't even there anymore. It's projection.
That said, I don't believe Vanity Fair should have purposely looked for one or two people of color for that cover just to meet a diversity quota. If the editorial staff at Vanity Fair itself (yeah, and Hollywood as well) were diverse, it would have naturally carried over to their content. That's what you want. It starts in editorial, and it starts with the writers and even photographers. Diversity is something that should be organic as the result of your editorial/creative team. Of course, who hires the editorial/creative team? And who casts the movies in Young Hollywood? Does diversity need to be purposely encouraged somewhere up the ladder? Maybe.

Vanity Fair's "Young Hollywood" for 2012

The very biggest mistake Vanity Fair made with that cover, however, is that it is as boring as hell.

***

I just don't understand how persons defending a certain point of view would want to attack and make fun of the other side instead of trying to communicate with them. How is this a sane or productive tactic? I mean, do you want to seem cool to the choir and get high-fives for being snarky, or do you want to actually start changing hearts and minds? I just don't understand it. It seems so backward. There's just so few communicators that can reach both sides; there seems to be so little in it for the person who wishes to go about it this way. That's why when I see Obama attacked from both sides, I think: "He was just too damn reasonable." Reasonable doesn't "sell." Batshit insane angry sells.

And yet, I believe that the majority of persons in the United States are far more open to alternate points of view than people think. But you just can't approach them and go: "Hey, idiot: you're a fucking moron. Listen to me."

Do you want to sell a billion books and hit the top of Amazon? Write a political book called "Hey Idiot: You're A Fucking Moron." I'd be as cynical as hell about it, I'd write two versions of the exact same book, one attacking the Left & one attacking the Right:


Or I'd leave the specifics out of the book and let people think I'm supporting their cause and attacking their enemies. And I'd make a billion million dollars.

You know, that book title is way too long. Very unTwitterable. Lemmie change that:

"Hey Morans!"

There we go.

***

If Dan DiDio is pushing "Watchmen 2," then it's probably going to happen, and you should just accept it. There's just no convincing him.

***

I'm a bit of a morans, and haven't yet realized The Beat has moved over to ComicsBeat.com. Adjust your bookmarks accordingly.

***

Well, the mail is here with the used pair of jeans I bought off of eBay. Hoping for no bloodstains. I'll let you know how it goes. I really want to save money and help the environment by shopping "vintage," but honestly I'm getting a little skeeved the fuck out.

The OS Journal 2/5/10

Preparing the last book of "The End of the Vampire Craze In New York" and posting it today (hopefully). Response has been good. It's a very very weird book, so I don't really feel like emailing my friends through a Facebook fan page and saying: "hey! you should read this now!" You know, it's like if I was Lars von Trier and I created a Facebook fan page for "Antichrist" and then you got this unsolicited email in your Inbox that said: "Lars requests you be a fan of Antichrist." And because you are a Facebook friend, you felt you needed to sit through the scene where the lady smashes Willem Dafoe's nads with a rock even though it made you very uncomfortable; you know, just to show your support. Because I, as Lars van Trier, might run into you one day at Ditmas Park and quiz you on the movie just to see how attentive you are to your Facebook friends.

Sometimes I wonder why I couldn't just be the writer of like "Happy Fun Ball" or something. You know, have the facility to churn out these rollicking adventures. I've been thinking about all this a lot lately. My literary idol in college was William Burroughs. I was already writing a bit in his style before I discovered him at the library. So when I saw that this guy was writing similar to me I felt great, because I felt somebody understood. But my professors absolutely hated Burroughs. They hated Burroughs and comics. Not "real" literature.

And I tried to read "Naked Lunch" on a plane once to distract myself from a panic attack I was having, and it just about made me lose my shit. But I love the idea that a book – a simple book – can make somebody lose their shit just by its words; almost put the reader in an altered state of consciousness. Burroughs did that. Lovecraft is the master of that, and Poe is really good too. There's an author named Dennis Cooper who wrote this book called Period. The book is a total mind-fuck. I bought it and threw it away on two separate occasions. Just because it frightened me to have it in the house, as if it was some sort of grimoire. There comes a point during this short novel where the story loops in on itself, and it just fucks you up.

I'll probably buy that book again.

Watchmen Sequel

I've been hearing all this stuff recently about a possible sequel/series to the original Watchmen.

You know, as long as the contracts square up, DC is totally within their rights to make a sequel & take advantage of the prospect of a franchise for these characters.

The question is: will doing so, without the input of Moore/Gibbons, hurt the brand? I mean: hurt the brand with people who will matter, people who will spread negative word-of-mouth on this project?

That's the question.

I mean, even if someone like Grant Morrison stepped up on the plate for this. Morrison would look like a xxxxx writing a sequel to Watchmen that Moore didn't approve of. It'd be big shoes to fill for anyone. It's like me announcing I was hired to write Persepolis 2. It sucks, it feels cheap.

Here's how'd I do it:

You put out one book for each character, either a mini-series or a one-shot. Put them out one week after another, like an event:

Week One: Ozymandias
Week Two: Dr. Manhattan
Week Three: Silk Spectre
Week Four: Rorschach
Week Five(?) Nite Owl

That way, you spread the blame around to four or five writers, it doesn't seem quite as egregious as hiring one guy to do "Watchmen 2."

Then from there do an overall "event," but don't call it "Watchmen 2."

The key is not to say this is an official sequel to "Watchmen." Just put all this stuff out and gauge fan reaction. If they threaten to burn down DC: pull back. If not, sign Morrison/Quietly on "Watchmen 2."

Please understand, I'm not advocating this course of action. I'm very fine with there never being a sequel to this classic series.

But I'm just saying, for sake of argument.

/Watchmen Babies.
//Watchmensch.
///oh fuck it, here's a hat tip to Bleeding Cool's take as well.