Wednesday, December 31, 2008

New Savage She-Hulk?

You know, I have no idea who this new Savage She-Hulk is, or why she looks like that -- but it *is* interesting. It's like she got a dye job, or something. Or is it one of those Planet Hulk chicks?

The regular series is canceled, so I assume this is something completely new?

I liked the "modern" She-Hulk, but there was something about the original "savage" one that had more of an edge for me.

Edit: I have been informed by several readers as well as my BF that this new She-Hulk is apparently Thundra. Then the BF told me to go and read through all the Marvel Handbooks.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Just Came Back From The Ninth Annual Rumour Awards

(huff! puff!)

Hi everyone.

I've just come back from the ninth annual Rumour Awards at LITG. I was (apparently) both a nominee and a presenter.

We had a lovely time. The food was great. Dan DiDio says hello.

But that Joan Rivers on the red carpet was a pain in my ass.

Cat Versus Sock Monkey

No really, my cat *loves* when I do things like this.

(BF: "If you are going to make LOL cat pictures out of him, at least clean his eye boogers out first!")

Monday, December 29, 2008

Box Office: Dog Bites Frank Miller

Top movies over the holiday weekend:


Via Rotten Tomatoes:
"Not all new releases clicked with moviegoers this holiday weekend. The one casualty was Lionsgate's stylish actioner The Spirit which bowed to an estimated $6.5M over three days and $10.3M across four days. Playing in 2,509 locations, the PG-13 pic averaged a weak $2,593. Graphic novel king Frank Miller made his solo directing debut after co-helming the 2005 hit Sin City with Robert Rodriguez which opened much stronger with $29.1M over three days."

What insights can we glean from this startling turn of events, especially as it relates to how the Frank Miller film got its butt kicked by the heartwarming doggie flick Marley and Me?

1. Please do not overestimate the jadedness of the typical American film-goer. I'm speaking to you, oh great purveyors of dark superhero flicks. America is already depressed and angry enough without your help telling them what a shitty, amoral, and corrupt world it is.

2. Judging by the weak box-office results for The Spirit against that of the surprise success of The Valkyrie, maybe people prefer to see swastikas in a strictly historical context, and not as a heavy-handed campy fashion statement (even if it they are worn on a curvy Scarlett Johansson).

3. Speaking of camp, the ghost of William Dozier called, and is wondering why this Eisner chap keeps getting referenced as the main inspiration for The Spirit instead of himself, Lorenzo Semple Jr., and Stanley Ralph Ross.

4. Frank Miller as director of this film was, as Walter Sobchak might say, "out of his element."

Finally, one OS reader emailed me and asked, simply,

"When did Frank Miller become the Caligula of comics?"

A Spirit movie that would have at least broke even:

That Certain Something

Doing a quick survey of my blog content over the past two years, I've discovered that every 2-3 months, like clockwork, I will post something and it will start a massive flame war. Not a regular flame war, but the nuclear type of thing where I have person after person email me and comment in horror and apology at how vicious the reaction has been from certain circles.

Looking at these posts, I noted that some contained very little of what would be considered "controversy." Yet those posts produced as much of a rage as the ones with highly controversial content. For example, I'm sure it is obvious that child porn is a controversial topic. But nearly the same amount of controversy and rage erupted when I dared make an interpretation about a movie, or made a post on a topic that someone else had touched upon months previous. It's unpredictable. In fact, the only way to avoid it is to stop posting entirely.

Indeed, had I made a post defending Simpsons child porn, I have no doubt in my mind that the handful of haters would have made posts expressing their outrage. They would say: "She can't be the head of a woman's organization. She supports child porn!" I know this like I know the sun comes up in the morning.

Which is why I'm convinced that it really isn't the topic or my exact opinions that is really at issue.

I seem to have developed, over the past two years, a strange sort of charisma.* Through my written word, but also in person. This is baffling to me, especially the in-person part, because I take little-to-no-care in making myself sexy or appealing at all. I stopped wearing contact lenses and now wear glasses. I let my hair grow out. I wear comfortable pants, comfortable shoes. I have a little roll of fat around my middle. But I have more charisma now than I did when I was a size 2, blond, with my boobies hanging out.

I don't understand the charisma of this blog or myself -- but there is one thing I do now understand. As much as there is a positive charisma, there is also its opposite. As much as people seem to like what I write and want to speak to me in person, there are also people who have a deep and abiding hatred for me. And the more people like me, and the more high-profile I get, the more there will be these online hate-fests at my expense.

This charisma energy works both ways -- bad and good. And rather than try to come up with some pop-psychology explanation for it all, I'll come up with a pop-New Age one: it's just the natural flow of energy. Positive polarity, negative polarity. And it certainly won't get any better when my comic book is published, so I ought to just get used to it.

Now I know how Will Ferrell feels.

*This is all written by a person that had -150 charisma points for most of her life, and knows the difference. The last time I went to a speaking engagement, I missed the entire buffet because I had a continual line of about 25 people come up to me after my speech. All that was left was the cold snow peas. And I have gotten stopped in washrooms, in comic shops, in the middle of Manhattan, by people who recognize me on sight for this blog. Personally, I think I have the charisma of a leek. But this is the situation. Life is patently bizarre, and God apparently has a ginormous sense of humor.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Happy Holidays & Merry Christmas

Hi all,

Again, thanks for all the emails of support that are coming in.

I'm closing shop until Dec. 29.

It's just my crazy work schedule before Christmas, and the fact that the holidays are sacred to me. I realize for some people, nothing is sacred. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. What else more can be said?

If you comment, I will still moderate, though I will put a cap on any extremely long threads. I just don't have the time to sort through 100+ comments.

If you email, I will still respond, but when schedule permits.

Have a very happy and healthy holiday, and I will see you before the New Year! :-)

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Update: Newsarama

Hi all,

I did close this blog for the holidays, but I want to say that I've received communications from a couple of people at Newsarama, and I'm satisfied with their concern for me and dedication to fairness on this issue. To the people who have contacted me from there: it is very much appreciated! God bless, and have a happy holiday!

(I will back-date this post tomorrow to have the holiday greeting first, but I wanted it up now just to clear the air.)

Newsarama Removing Comments In My Defense

You would think that in a thread where I'm being slaughtered, a couple of positive comments for my side would be allowed through.

But not at Newsarama.

I've just got my second report of a comments in my defense being blocked to this post by Newsarama moderators. Not only are the comments blocked, but the IP address as well so new comments can't get through from those users.

I've allowed literally almost a hundred nasty, negative comments to be posted on my blog on this issue. I've paid my dues on this. These comments were incendiary, aggravating, repetative, and very time-consuming to answer. Why can't a big website like Newsarama be as "brave"?

What are you afraid of, Newsarama? Why are you using a website that is theoretically supposed to be for "general audiences" to promote a political agenda? Is that what your site or Imaginova is all about?

Newsarama: do you print your "news" just for a certain segment of people in the comics community? Or for everybody?

Again: free speech...only for some.

Postscript: If Newsarama wants to only present one point of view and censor others, that's fine. If they want to block my supporters and present a grossly skewed version of the debate, that's also fine, because it's their site. It's just that they should wear their bias on their sleeve and admit it, instead of pretending that they are a general audience site.

To The People Writing In With Support

Thank you!

If I didn't know you people existed, I'm really at an age (34) where I'd be ready to just finish off my responsibilities to the industry, close up the blog, settle down, raise children, get a degree in social work, and be done with it.


Still would like the "raising children" part regardless. Have 12 eggs left.

Free Speech...But Only For Some

"So I shed no tears for the absence of porn based on underage cartoon characters on the Internet. Nor will I miss feeling like a party to an illegal act every time I do an image search for cartoon and comic book characters.

However, there must be a rather sizable number of people actually visiting these XXX cartoon parody sites -- not just those who get off on such images, but just regular people looking for some gross-out humor. Will the latter category find themselves roped in with these crackdowns, even arrested? Would having an illustration of a "Peanuts Orgy" on your hard drive be enough to convict you as a sex offender?

It would be helpful, I think, for these boundaries and determinations of what is or is not legal to view and download to be clearly delineated and widely broadcast, as to prevent misunderstandings."

This is what I wrote in my first post on the Simpsons child-porn case. Please note the last two paragraphs.

Of course, this post has been misquoted and misrepresented ad nauseum. Why?

I believe it's because within that post I dare to merely suggest that there might limits to moral conduct. That, I think, is the real problem.

In this industry, you are allowed to lie, cheat, commit adultery, have references to sperm-dumpsters and anal rape in comics that are marketed to general audiences. You can have an extended segment in your comic book depicting a teenage girl masturbating. And apparently you can have a hard drive full of illustrated child porn.

But you can't take a moral stand.

An exaggeration? I just took a moral stand against child porn. I was crucified. I had people email me and insinuate that I would be destroyed in this industry unless I backed down and recanted.


This is the free-thinking comic book industry? A place where I have to recant?

No, self-appointed Internet "mouthpieces" of the comic book industry and fandom. I have no respect for you. You have become the same self-righteous dogmatic hardasses you've spent so much time railing against. Congratulations. You have used the same tactics -- misrepresentation, coordinated attack, calls for boycott and firing -- that your "enemies" do. You are official card-carrying assholes.

You wonder why kids don't read comics anymore? Why the readership numbers couldn't be higher in general? Wake up -- a portion of the United States thinks your industry and your fandom aren't fit for children. Or fit for any healthy individual. You think that's all fundamentalist Christians? I run into adults in New York all the time from all walks of life who think that comics are for "weird," "socially backward" people. For people with sexual hangups, who live in basements. They don't want to let their children go to comic shops. And they ask me: what's a "normal" comic that they or their child can read?

The biggest question I received in this debate has NOT been, "do you think people who possess Simpsons child porn should be arrested."

It's been:

"Why do you think illustrated child pornography is harmful when it's just drawings?"

And that's such a naive, blissfully clueless question.

Again: why aren't children reading more comics?

Who is looking out for children in this equation?

Friends of Lulu?

But J. Caleb Mozzocco has already stated that because of my stance against illustrated child porn, I am not fit to be the president of Friends of Lulu.

Or it could be that Mozzocco is a card-carrying dogmatic idiot using the same tactics that I'm sure he'd condemn if they were being used by Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

Free speech...but only for some.

Free speech...but only for some.

Free speech...but only for some.

A Danish cartoonist who makes fun of Mohammed is allowed to have free speech -- but the offended Muslim who marches through the streets to protest it is held up as a symbol of a repressive mindset.

I've been seeing offensive and stereotypical portrayals of Christians in comics for at least the past fifteen years straight -- but I see no complaints from the same pundits who decry other stereotypes in comics. Why is that? Why is it ok to use the symbol of the evil preacher over and over and over again, but if that brand of stereotyping was done regarding any other religion it would be thrown off the stands?

Why is the person who possesses illustrated child porn supported and befriended by comics celebrities, fandom, and pundits -- but the same respect for "free speech" is not extended to me? Why?

Tell me why.

It's free speech -- but only for some. Those who do not fit in with the "program" do not get the benefit of free speech or respect. Those people must be thrown out of their jobs, ostracized, and attacked.

Was there a little asterisk at the end of "V for Vendetta" that led to the following caption:

"Of course, if we were talking about a Right Wing viewpoint, it'd be ok to do all this to them."

Because that's where we're headed.

And if I'm a "Conservative," I am the most Liberal of all Conservatives.

What about real Conservatives? Or hardline Christians? Or hardline Muslims? Where does your idealistic belief in "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for the death for your right to say it" extend to?

Why not at least admit that you DO have biases? That you DO hate certain people? And that if you had your druthers, certain people would not be allowed to voice their points of view? Why pretend that you are something you are not?

Why pretend you are tolerant? Stop the charade, already, and embrace your fascism. J. Caleb Mozzocco, embrace your fascism, embrace your intolerance. Stop pretending you are some beacon for free speech when you are just a Karl Rove hangover and a mediocre blogger to boot.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Response To Blog@Newsarama

J. Caleb Mozzocco's attack on me in his Newsarama column for my stance against illustrated child pornography has inspired me to officially take action to fight child porn and child exploitation. I am taking the following steps:

* Creation of resource page with links to websites against child porn, exploitation, and abuse. Conducting my own search on such resources, I think there is a need for an updated list.

* Research into taking my first-person testimony regarding sexual exploitation and pornography into the realms of written work and speaking engagements. It is one thing to say I am against child pornography and exploitation, and ultra-violent porn involving women. It is another to give my personal testimony. I've been afraid to do so up to now, because it broached incredibly personal topics regarding my life. But now I realize that though those parts of my life were painful, it also provides a wealth of information and unique insight.

The more I get publicly attacked, the more I will channel my energy to fight child porn and educate the public. That is the only reaction I will have to it from now on.

I am also tremendously proud to stand up for something I believe in. My thanks for Mr. Mozzocco for inspiring me to take action. When I write my resource list, I will be sure to reference his post at Newsarama as the crucial thing that finally convinced me to take action in my own small way.

And if anyone feels I am not fit to lead a national women's organization because I am against child porn (in any form) and ultra-violent porn featuring women, by all means start the impeachment process.

I do not have personal ethics and a code of morality in order that I might win popularity contests. I have them so I can sleep at night with a clear conscience, help protect others, and have peace with my God.

And I got into comics because I wanted to read stories about heroes.

Observations From Down The Rabbit Hole

I just re-read the first issue of the original Cloak & Dagger series, from 1985. The comic opens up with Cloak & Dagger busting a child pornography ring.

The narrator begins:

"Fifty cents for sixty seconds of fantasy. His pleasures are both inexpensive...and hidden from his wife and family. Just half a buck...and a cheap dream becomes a nightmare!"

Cloak & Dagger confront a customer of child porn, and have a debate as to how "guilty" this man really is. Is he just a poor slob with perverted desires that just got caught up in something that he had no control over? Or was he just as responsible as the people making money off the porn? And what should be his punishment?

Cloak says:

"Do you see how the pornographers and their clients seek to silence those who reveal their crimes, Dagger?"

Dagger to the customer at the peep show:

"You knew every time you dropped your fifty cents that you were peeking at some other family's child! You may not have known exactly where they came from, but you knew they could hardly want to, of their own free will, be where a sleazeball like you could stand and stare at them!

Cloak & Dagger (and their friend Detective O'Reilly), spend the majority of this issue talking about the crime of child porn in a very straightforward, condemning way. They see themselves as in a "war" against both child porn and the people that produce it. Further, even though Cloak & Dagger might have debates about the proper way to deal with the perpetrators, they are on the same page about the severity of the crime itself.

And it is inferred that part of the reason Cloak & Dagger care so much about the exploitation of children was that they themselves were exploited.

Though I read the original Cloak & Dagger comics in preparation for my own mini-series, I had no plan to take the book in the same direction as did its writer Bill Mantlo. Indeed, when I first read Cloak & Dagger #1, I thought it could never fly in today's marketplace. Too "moralistic." Almost religious in spirit.

Here's a sample caption:

"Dagger's faith is in the light illuminating every living being, in the soft glow of human souls. That light may burn dim in sinners, bright in others like Dagger herself, but she believes in the inherent beauty of the light...whereas Cloak exists to destroy it!"

Souls, faith, sin, light, darkness. This was the vocabulary Mantlo used to flesh out Cloak & Dagger's universe. And these were elements that he applied not only to drug dealers and child abusers but even characters like obsessed priest Father Francis Delgado -- and in the oft-tormented souls of Tandy & Tyrone themselves.

Reading those first stories was initially for me mostly an exercise to familiarize and re-familiarize myself with the continuity & history of Cloak & Dagger. I sought very little in the way of direct inspiration by what me and many others categorized (albeit affectionately) as an "very Eighties" comic book series.

But it is only upon further re-readings and reflection that I realize the power and beauty and honesty of Bill Mantlo's work on this book -- how unique it was, how raw and heartfelt. And I realize how -- though I didn't think it would -- it ended touching me very much anyway.

"The darkness wails wildly around the group enfolded in Dagger's gentle glow. Its terrible cyclonic howl cries out for the light denied it."

Growing up in the 1980s, child kidnappings, child abuse, and child porn were a constant topic in the news and in our classrooms. Even at six, seven, eight years old we were put on notice about sexual predators, and given information on things that -- though I didn't quite understand them -- I knew were pretty much worse than death itself.

One of my best school friends was repeatedly molested by a family member. Then it was rumored that this child began molesting an even younger family member. I remember sitting next to a girl in third grade on the school bus who would tell me how much she enjoyed sex, going into detail about explicit sexual acts. And from the ages of 12-16, there was no deficit in the number of predators put in my path. One of them lived in our own home for a year. I feel it is only by the grace of God that I managed to avoid being raped or molested, and that the 27-year-old man I slept with at age 16 was unable to have much of a hold on me. That is more than I can say for the 32-year-old man I moved in with the same year.

My dislike for child porn, for the "barely legal" aesthetic, and for erotica with extreme combinations of sex & violence, is not based on some pie-in-the-sky notions of morality grounded in fundamentalist Christian beliefs. It is based on observation and experience. I knew somebody very well who drew images of extreme sex-and-violence for a side business. I cared about this person very much as a friend. I watched him draw art on-demand by customers depicting women being put in the most humiliating of positions, things I can't even describe here because it's so disturbing. I watched him try to separate out responsibility for this from his daily life.

He said:

"It's only drawings, and at least I'm getting paid. I'm getting paid to draw, finally."

I watched his soul get eaten up by this business and his own addiction to pornography. I mourned for him. You may think "soul getting eaten up" is meaningless phrase, steeped in assumptions of morality and dogma. I assure you, when it is somebody you care about very much, and you see it all played out so intimately -- it is not meaningless.

"Dagger aids Cloak, feeding him the light that illuminates her soul, appeasing the all-consuming darkness that hungers within him...and thus diverting its hunger from the quivering victims Cloak has delivered to the darkness."

And finally, I have had my own battles to fight. I have come from an extremely physically abusive relationship with my father. When such a powerful male role-model impacts your early development like that -- it screws up everything. Including sex. It took me four counselors, 25 years, a revival of my faith in God, and the love of a good man to get over the darkness I found myself in, the willingness I had to replay the same tragedies from my past. And I'm still scarred, and I'm not perfect, and I am still making mistakes. I am the poster child for nothing. But I will tell you one thing -- pornography only made things worse. Far, far, worse. It was not a stop-gap. It did not satisfy. The "everything goes" ethic? Didn't work for me. Made me a banquet for the haters of women and innocence. Almost killed me on more than one occasion. Again, your mileage may vary. Just an observation. But I know how far down the rabbit-hole goes -- believe me.

"Something ravenous, human-hungry...yet something which would forgo all other sustenance if it could but feast on Dagger's light."

Reading the the words of Bill Mantlo now, I feel such appreciation for a comic book that dared to address these issues head-on. Back then, I'm sure it must have been difficult to do because of the "adult" subject matter. Today, it would be considered moralistic and "hokey" in some circles -- perhaps even "puritanical." Far hipper to bemoan sexual exploitation and at the same time "wink" at your own exploitation of the characters through their overly-sexualized renderings (slot in your own examples, they're plentiful and apparently very profitable).

And I realize that me getting a shot to write Cloak & Dagger was very much a case of the writer meeting the material. And that even though I was only nine years old when the first issue of the original series came out, its words reach through time and touch me with a startling immediacy.

"Cloak and I have a mission, Father -- to see that what happened to us never happens to other kids!"

Above all, I thank Bill Mantlo from the bottom of my heart for creating these characters, and giving a damn about the exploited, the morally conflicted, and those caught between the darkness and the light.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Philosophy Class

At the moment, I am cleaning out a bunch of old files from my college days (a.k.a. Ancient History 101). Most of my term papers are getting the heave-ho, as I really cannot see anybody actually wanting to read them, much less me typing them out for the dubious benefit of the Internet.

Looking at some of these philosophy term papers, I remember the following incident:

During philosophy class one day, a security guard burst into our classroom and said that there might be a bomb in the building -- but to stay in our seats and wait for further instructions.

And so we sat in our seats. No instruction came. A faint alarm could be heard in the distance.

After fifteen minutes, I gathered my belongings and quietly walked out of the room. I walked past the security guards, past the police, out the building, crossed the street, walked out of the campus, then walked another block.

Later on, a fellow student told me that my professor said the following after I left:

"And that, class, is an example of the practical application of philosophy."

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Kirk and Leia Sing: Who Was More Baked?



Carrie Fisher reportedly said that she was high on drugs while singing this. I don't know what Shatner's excuse was.

Bonus: Play both clips at the same time!

What Is The Iconic "Bush Era" Movie or TV Show?

Newsweek asked some cultural critics to pinpoint "the singular emblems of this moment in history" -- specifically, representing life during the "Bush Years."

The overwhelming choice:

Battlestar Galactica.

"An orchestrated terrorist attack. An inexorable march to war. An enemy capable of disappearing among its targets, armed with an indifference to its own mortality. It sounds like a PBS special on Al Qaeda. In fact, it's a synopsis of the Sci Fi Channel series "Battlestar Galactica," which—for anyone who manages to get past the goofy name—captures better than any other TV drama of the past eight years the fear, uncertainty and moral ambiguity of the post-9/11 world."

My personal choice?

The Office.

I know it doesn't sound as serious as BSG. But think about it: Our country = poorly run paper company.

And Dwight is totally Cheney.

Wow! It's Official! Eddie Murphy Is The Riddler!

Hey everybody, Eddie Murphy is going to play The Riddler in Batman 3! Yeppers!

Look at this awesome costume test:

And oh look, Shia LaBoeuf is going to play Robin! Swell!

What, no Photoshop of Shia yet?

Oh, there we go!

Via The Sun

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Mary Marvel Cooch Cover Benefit Dinner For Free Speech

Comic by Comic points out this cover by the usually awesome Alex Ross, showing an upskirt panty shot of Mary Marvel. There is some criticism about this cover, as it sexualizes a teen character.

But if we are working from the premise that even hard core illustrated depictions of teens and children are okay -- because they don't "hurt" anybody -- why should anybody get upset at this cover?

It's well-known that there is a big market for "barely legal" depictions of teenage girls. In the interest of free speech, shouldn't DC (or any other company) be allowed to have covers like this? Especially if it could bring in more money?

In fact, the sexualized teen Supergirl should have been defended by free speech advocates in the same manner as other high-profile cases, right? The fact that DC felt they were "forced" to change Supergirl (and I don't care what their official story is on the matter, I know better) was a blow for free expression, right? The equal of if Alan Moore was asked to cut scenes out of "Lost Girls," right?

But it all boils down to the following...

This is "low-brow" comics:
And this is "high-brow" comix:

No one is ever going to do a free-speech dinner for DC's right to publish images of sexualized teens in their superhero comic books. Even DC themselves would be too damn embarrassed to attend that dinner.

But if we are talking about freedom of expression, then isn't DC in the right if they want to publish covers like the above Mary Marvel image? And if that is the case, aren't "feminist bloggers" who complain about this and other "sexist" imagery in comics really against freedom of expression? In fact, isn't a lot of what feminists complain about as being "sexist" in the media just -- AGAINST FREE SPEECH? And if *that's* the case -- shouldn't they be publicly called out on it by self-appointed crusaders of Assorted Freedoms?

Lastly, if we are saying that any drawn image is "okay" because it's only imaginary and not hurting anyone, should there be any complaints about racist imagery? For example, those who are against Memin Pinguin. Or how about Jack Chick? To rail about Jack Chick's portrayal of a number of groups of people -- homosexuals, Catholics, Pagans, etc. -- would be really railing against free expression, right? Even to be critical of the images undermines one's stated belief of "images are harmless." If the images are truly harmless -- why criticize them? Why not just live-and-let-live, like one big happy family of creative ideas in a free society?

And yet, comic book bloggers are going to still complain about this image and that. It's inevitable. And implicit in those complaints is the idea that though these images and stories are "imaginary" -- they have a potential to negatively impact others. And if those images have a potential to negatively impact others -- that means they are not essentially "harmless."

As for me, I don't care for the Mary Marvel image. But I know the audience it's catering to. A flash of cooch, a knowing smile. What do all those budding Hollywood child-actresses say in interviews? "I'm not yet a woman, but no longer a little girl! Tee-hee!" Hollywood does it too, all the time. Don't make it right, tho. But it's a mentality as tenacious as head lice.

I can see the blog headlines now:

"Comic Industry Goes All Out To Defend Mary Marvel Cooch Cover; Benefit Dinner Starring Moby."

When your editor tells you your script is good

and, finally,


...honestly, I can't pick on them anymore because, in spite of everything, I'm sure the new bloggers themselves are excited and happy to be doing this. It's like they are starting a fun new project, and me and everybody else are just saying, right at the beginning: "No! Fuck you! You can't even try! I poop on you!"

I started my blogging career at Silver Bullet Comics -- the site that was based off of a comic store, not the other one.

I had a good time writing those columns, even though the first ones were a little awkward and rough around the edges. It was very exciting for me. I was just very flattered that I was being posted on a website. And if things were reversed, and I had started out on the new Blog@Newsarama, and people started saying "it is to poop on!" right from the beginning...

Rachel Weisz To Play Catwoman?

I sure hope so.

If I was forced to look at Angelina Jolie's pouty mug for the next two years because she was playing that character in Batman III, I'd freaking...gak!

Jolie playing Catwoman is *such* a Joel Schumacher move.

And God, please don't double-up on villains either. When you double-up and triple-up on villains in a movie, you get this:

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Hell, I love exploding sharks.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Is It Because She's A Chick?

Seriously, why is Buffy The Vampire Slayer the only female-starring/driven mainstream comic that ever consistently gets very high/top ten ranking in sales?

You know, I could almost buy the argument that comics starring women don't sell well, but Buffy is consistently in the top ten on the Diamond Sales charts. Further, thrillers by book authors like Patricia Cornwell and Janet Evanovitch star tough female crime-fighters/detectives like Kay Scarpetta and Stephanie Plum -- and are consistent mega-bestsellers. (my God -- if comics sold the numbers that these mass-market paperbacks do...) And these long-running fiction series, to me, are very similar to comics, in that both are sort of serialized and feature the same character developing over many "issues."

So to me, I patently do not believe that action/thriller comics starring female characters are fated to only do so-so in sales. It just seems that we have to take a look at what other media has done with female-driven action stories.

Separate question -- is it a "superhero thing?" Is it the capes and tights that are throwing this all off? Does the fact that Buffy Summers does not wear a superhero costume make her more accepted as a hero by the mass (read: both male and female) audience?

Hitler's Ghost Said To Have Cursed "Valkyrie" Movie

In other news, producers of movie "Valkyrie" desperate to promote film.

Robocop Remake: Why?

Why why why remake things that are barely of drinking age?

A "Robocop" remake by Darren Aronofsky? Really?

That's great.. I guess.

A remake of "The Crow?"


How about something -- new?

"Fuck new -- I can't get the investors to back new!"And with this sort of economic climate, you can kind of see the point of view here. Even if the Robocop remake is teh sucky, there will be a certain amount of money made -- based solely on the fact that it's Robocop™.

Hey, I heard they're going to remake "Titanic" with Miley Cyrus and that guy from "Twilight."

But seriously, you know what movie truly deserves a remake?

"Superman III" -- Skis + Richard Pryor + skyscraper = magic.

Wow, Superman III. Even at eight years old and not knowing who Richard Pryor was, I felt sorry for the man, realized something "wasn't right."

"Why are they making that man look stupid, mommy? Was he bad?"

My Conflict-Of-Interest Best Of 2008

Why settle for regular "Best Ofs" when you can have my refreshingly honest "Conflict-Of-Interest Best Of 2008?"

Best Webcomic: Anything with High Moon in it.

Second-Favorite Webcomic:
Night Owls

Best DC Imprint:

Favorite Comics Non-Profit: Friends of Lulu

Favorite Characters: Cloak & Dagger

Favorite Comic Book Company:
The one without Dan DiDio running it.

Favorite Comics Blog: Occasional Superheroine

Favorite Female Character: Occasional Superheroine

Best Comics-Related Journalism: Occasional Superheroine

Best Comics-Related Interview:
Tom Spurgeon interviews Valerie D'Orazio

Favorite Writer: Valerie D'Orazio & David Gallaher (tie, in alphabetical order of last names)

Favorite Artist: Steve Ellis

Favorite Zodiac Sign: Pisces

Favorite Cat: Thomas

Funniest People:
Curmudgeons who have slammed me several times for supporting the work of my own friends on my own damn blog. Honestly, I've promoted my own comic and the comics of those closest to me a *fraction* of the amount another person would have. I've actually held back. Well, my new motto for 2009 is "fuck that modesty shit, I'm doing what I want."

On the list:
* Well, I WAS going to put that Zuda box on my sidebar, but somebody's gotta give me code, because I'm not creating some cheap-ass one myself.

* Wrapping my blog in like a Cloak and Dagger wallpaper. Yeah, that won't be obnoxious.

* Changing my name to "Tandy Bowen."

* Having baby and giving it "Marvel" as his or her middle name. Might run into possible copyright issues and will have to rename it "Shazam!"

Monday, December 15, 2008

Early Buzz On "Spirit" -- Worse Than Battlefield Earth?

Aint It Cool News correspondent Jondough has viewed Frank Miller's "The Spirit" movie and writes:

" I’ve seen something that has taken the top prize from “Battlefield Earth.” I mean, I honestly thought that would never happen."

and, to Frank Miller:

"You clearly don’t have any idea what you’re doing. Someone, ANYONE, over at Lionsgate should have known this. Fuck, it’s their JOB to know this. But they didn’t. They somehow bought the idea that you “co-directed” (hah) Sin City, which even if it WERE true, doesn’t mean you directed the movie... Seriously, how on Earth could they know that your idea of direction is to place the camera on a tripod and have your two actors walk back and forth for five minutes in front of a dimwit committing seppuku?"

Read reader comments at Aint It Cool and Rotten Tomatoes...

As for me, I would have to see the film. But from the trailers, "The Spirit" seems far more an homage to Miller's style of film-making than to Will Eisner.