26 posts tagged “comic book”

If I had to sum up my feelings about X-Men Origins Wolverine in one word, that word would be "meh". It more disappointing than downright bad.

The film is a brand extension for the X-Men franchise starring Hugh Jackman's Wolverine (I know, weren't the last three Wolverine movies too? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk). It focuses on his history prior to joining the X-Men.

There is an artistic quality to the work that prevents it from being entirely awful. Gavin Hood has enough skill to shoot a good movie. Yet, there is a major problem of tonal changes through out. There is the Matrix-like beginning, then it shifts to more of a 1970s Clint Eastwood kind of flick, they it apes the look and style of the rest of the X-Men franchise. This results in a choppy viewing experience.

And the plot is lacking. It features two of the most annoying qualities any script can have--not explaining things properly (why did Stryker want to bond adamantium to Logan anyway?) and characters acting like idiots just to move the plot along (Gambit attacks Wolvie for no good reason right before he was going to take care of Sabretooth once and for all, conveniently allowing Sabretooth to escape).

The most annoying quailty of this film is the change in the character. In the other X-Men movies, Wolverine had the Han Solo-esque quality of being a bad man who does good things. Here, he's a good man who occassionally does bad things. You might not think that is much of a difference, but it is and it severely handicaps the character.

There are a lot of comic book characters appearing in this movie for the first time. The filmmakers do a good job of giving them all a reason for being there and not just shoving them in. This doesn't mean that they are not underused. But at least they have a plot worthy reason for being included.

The action scenes are good, inventive and exciting. And, for the most part, the acting is top notch. There are nods to a lot of the elements of the comic book history thrown in. And the plot does a good job of lining up the arrows with the rest of the franchise. This film ends about 20 years before X-Men, and does nothing to contradict that story.  

I guess you could enjoy this film if you put aside the flaws and just don't think too much about it. But it definitely could be better.

I am going to try and make this a yearly tradition. Last year, I ranted about people or things that annoyed me. And, wouldn't you know it, I found ten things this year to rant about. What can I say, I'm a ranty guy.

These are just my opinions. I'm sure that I will rant about some things that people really love. You can love these things. That is your right. I really don't mean to offend anybody. But I just feel very strongly about the things on this list. So, no death threats or insults.

 

Without any further ado, here we go:

 

 

10. "Parody" films: There has been a recent trend of parody films sucking. It started last year with Epic Movie and continued this year with Meet the Spartans, Disaster Movie, and An American Carol.

The first two are from the same team that brought you Date Movie and Epic Movie, so they should be considered public enemy number one. These films are basically a collection of lame gags strung together with a flimsy plot  Strangely enough, up until Disaster Movie, these films always open at number one at the box office. Hopefully, this trend is going to end.

An American Carol was done by one of the Zucker Brothers, who brought us one of the best parody movies of all time, Airplane. It was his attempt to gain equal time for the conservative right by poking fun at the liberals. Unfortunately, he forgot to make it funny. This is a major disappointment.

An American Carol also tanked at the box office, which its creators probably thought was because of the unfair liberal bias in Hollywood. But really because it was a hamfisted hatchet job first, entertaining parody second.

Parodies are not easy to do. They require wit, intelligence and just the right touch. You can't just throw a bunch of scenes together and make it work. Which is what these people are finding out.

 

9. Santonio Holmes: I had the opportunity to watch at least some part of all the Steelers games this season (most from the comfort of my own home, as a lot of them were on national TV).

This was supposed to be the year Santonio Holmes was supposed to break out. The number one draft pick was entering his third season, the season when the good receivers are supposed to blossom.

Unfortunately, he did anything but blossom. The lasting impression I got of Holmes is one of dropped passes, routes run wrong, and stupid mistakes.

It got to such a point that when he actually did make a catch, my wife and I would say, "Wow, he finally caught one!" Like he won the lottery or something.

The Steelers have a history of having bad luck with high-round draft picks. Hines Ward was taken, I believe, in the 3rd round and has been nothing but clutch.  Holmes seems to be like fellow first-rounder Plaxico Burress and not living up to his potential while on the Steelers. Maybe Holmes will have better luck on his next team. And maybe the Steelers will just wait until the 3rd round to draft their WRs in the future.

 

 

8. Grant Morrison: I like a lot of what Grant Morrison does. I think he's a great writer. But he really isn't a great mainstream "event" writer.

I'll start with a caveat--All-Star Superman was a great book, filled with big moments and was one of the best interpretations of Superman ever.

But he seems to have been given carte blanche on that title, which is probably why it was so good. But when he has to work in the constraints of someone elses sandbox, he withers away.

"Batman R.I.P.," which was supposed to be the earth-shaking event which would turn the Bat-family of books on its ear, but instead was a chaotic mess. It was rumored that he was asked to rewrite the ending because DC wasn't satisfied with it. In my opinion, they should have stepped in much sooner.

Final Crisis was supposed to be the big event of the summer, the bookend to DC's "Crisis" trilogy. After bitching about not getting exclusive use of the New Gods (which, granted, he has a point) he gave us a rehash of an arc from his JLA run. For a big. blockbuster event with many other crossovers DC expects us to buy, we deserved more. And he was rumored to do rewrites on this one as well.

Morrison should stay to Vertigo where he can do what he wants and doesn't have to worry about continuity. He's a much better writer that way.

 

 

7. Kristen Wiig: I know I am in the minority here. Almost every magazine in the world has anointed her as the funniest woman since Lucille Ball. But I really don't find her funny at all.

Of course, one of her stock and trades is being an "annoyance comedienne" (I.E. the more annoying she is, the funnier she is supposed to be). But I didn't like that style when Borat did it, and she doesn't do it any better.

After that, she is essentially just a two-trick pony. She does that staccato monotone thing, like a surfer girl Rain Man. And she makes stupid faces and quirky body movements. Neither one impresses me.

Don't misunderstand me. It's not because she's a woman. I've seen Amy Poehler do improv and it was brilliant. And I find something I like in everything Tina Fey does. They are ten times the comediennes Wiig is, but get less press (well, maybe not Fey. She seems not to lack press ar all).

What it boils down to is that I don't find her funny. And the fact that it seems like everyone else does gets on my last nerve. In my eyes, she isn't the second coming of Gilda Radner, she's the new Melanie Hutsall.

 

 

 6. Thomas Beatie: Okay, let me just state that I really have nothing against transgender people in general. If you believe you should be a sex other than the one you're born with, you have the means to change it, and no one gets hurt in the process, I say more power to you.

But if you think you should be a man yet were born a woman, and you decide to change it, then you should leave every thing that makes you a woman behind and become a man. Thomas Beatie supposedly want to be a man. But she held on to her female reproductive organs. This causes doubt as per her motivation.

And, yes, I refered to Beatie exclusively as a female, because that's what she is-- a woman. Because if she truly wanted to be a man, believes she was a man, believes she should be a man, then she'd give up everything that made her a woman, a big part of which is the ability to bear children.

But know, she kept that. And when her wife found she couldn't have kids, Beatie decided to step in an help out and became the first pregnant "man.".

Naturally, this gained national attention through almost every news outlet, including ones that really shouldn't be covering it at all, because it is a curiousity. She gave birth and if that was the end of it, it wouldn't be as annoying.

But she is pregnant again. And she makes the announcement to Barbara Walters. Because, well, I guess all parties involved think its news or something.  And we face the possibility that this will become a reoccuring theme.

This makes me think Beatie is using the supposed freakish nature of her pregnancies as a means of self-promotion. I'm sure there will be other talk show appearances, maybe another book, and perhaps a TV deal. And that doesn't sit well with me. Having a child is a sacred, special thing. To exploit it the way Beatie has seems unctious at best. 

But, lets face it, Thomas Beatie is not a pregnant man. She is a woman who looks like a man who has gotten pregnant. This should have only been a mild curiousity the first time. The second time shouldn't have gotten any attention at all. But Beatie appears to be turing her situation it a gigantic circus sideshow just for want of attention. Yes, she should be blamed for it, but if we weren't so attracted by the whole car-wreck aspect of Beatie's sideshow, she'd slip into the obscurity she deserves..

 

 

5. Twilight: It seems the media and book publishers were really too desperate to fill the void left by Harry Potter. They were frantic to find a franchise that would appeal to both kids and adults. It appears that it has got what it wanted with Twilight. I heard absolutely nothing about the books while JK Rowling was still putting out novels. But now, it's the biggest thing ever.

And, granted, I am not its target audience, but Twilight seems to be the lamest thing ever as well.

First off, I believe vampires only should come out at night. Period. It was good enough for my parents. It was good enough for their parents. It's good enough for me.

However, the previews for the movie have the vampires wandering around in broad daylight. I understand the reason for this. After all, it is hard to have a teenage romance when the teens in question should be sleeping. But it kind of violates Bill's first law of vampires.

Other than that, based on what I've heard and read, it looks like it is goth-lite. It's goth for people who don't want to go full goth. There are pale people, a lot of shoegazing, a bit of romance, but all done in earth tones so as not to scare the squares.

And, logically, a romance between a vampire can only end two ways. Either she grows old while he stays the same age (unless they changed that vampire rule too) until her inevitable death does them part. That would be tragic and bittersweet and not at all happy, but would probably be the best option. Or he turns her into a vampire and they live forever and ever together in a perfect love, which, if that is the end result, the longer she is not a vampire the more annoying it will be (apparently, this the way Meyer went, and it happened in the 4th installment, which is another reason why the whole thing is annoying).

But, hey, I am not its target audience. It sold incredibly well and millions of people love it (to the point of obsession). Pehaps there is something I am missing, some subtle nuance, by not reading it. But I'll never know because I just have no desire to get into it.

 

 4. Brett Favre: I've already covered my annoyance with Brett earlier in this blog. Yes, the whole ordeal over the summer really seemed to show Brett's true colors. People think he was justified in throwing the tantrum and can't understand why the Packers would not just ignore the public support they put behind Aaron Rogers and take Brett back with open arms.

But Brett became a whiny baby, an indecisive wuss and a petulant child in my eyes. Heck, he is still one of the best QB's in NFL history, and is destined for the Hall of Fame, but he isn't as much of a hero as he once was to me.

But now, with a whole season of football behind us, what has Brett done for the Jets. You could say Brett made them in to a playoff contender (although, not one who could win it when it was all on the line). But, outside of last year's abberation, the Jets were in the playoffs several times in the past few years. And the man Brett replaced, Chad Pennington, led the 1-15 of last year Miami Dolphins to a division championship and a playoff spot--with arguably less talent than Brett has. Who's to say Pennington could do the same if he stayed with the Jets.

What Brett did bring to the Jets was the whole "will he retire" rigamarole that plagued his last few years with the Pack. It's started again, and it's sure to get a lot of media attention. But if he does decide to re-retire, keep a locker open for him just in case. Or have a trade waiting in the wings in case he wants to come back, only not with you.

 

3. Sarah Palin: You know, I lived through the era of Dan Quayle, and I thought that was about as low as Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates could go. Then along came Sarah.

I try to figure out the reason why McCain added her to the ticket. I hope it wasn't just because she had girl parts and Hilary Clinton had girl parts and they hoped all the people who supported Hilary because of her girl parts would switch to McCain because of Palin's girl parts.

Part of the reason probably because she was folksy. She was supposed to embody that "person you'd like to have a beer with" quality that got Dubya inexplicably elected twice. But instead of folksy she came across as a rube who you wouldn't a heartbeat away from the presidency.

She couldn't interview her way out of a paper bag. She didn't appear to be knowledgeable about foreign affairs or practically anything presidential. She used her office as governor to punish her ex-brother-in-law. And, worse of all, she winked at us during a nationally televised debate. Winked. At. Us. Let's face it. I was probably never going to vote for McCain/Palin. But if I was on the fence, that wink would have sent me permanently over to Obama's side.  

People say Palin is the future of the Republican party. If she is, well, get used to a long reign with the Democrats in power.

 

 

2. This "Chapter" of Heroes:  The Heroes season so far is like fast food TV. You consume it, and at the time you think it is good and satisfying. But when you think about it later, you wonder why you bothered taking it at all.

This was supposed to be the bounce back year, the one where they fixed all the problems that plagued the series before the writer's strike. But not only didn't they fix the problems, they developed a whole new batch of them.

It seemed fairly obvious that they had no long range plan for the series in general or this season in particular. Questions were raised that were never explained. Heroes turned to villains with little or no known motivations. Characters acted like idiots just so they could advance the plot. Other characters when through season long developments which were interesting and could have been explored further but instead they were abruptly returned to the status quo. Powers of the cast were only what the writers need that week, and changed as per their whim.

There was a major creative shake-up, the effects of which will be seen when the series returns in February. I hope upon hope that the series will be able to right itself because of these changes. Because if it doesn't, it might not remain on the air that long.  

 

1. The Hills: I think this show is proof that God exists, Because if Satan exists, then God has to exist. And there has to be a lot of blood oaths to the dark lord for this series to remain on the air and have the popularity it has.

If this was just a reality program about a bunch of vapid bints complaining that their almost perfect lives are not completely perfect wholly through their own asinine actions, it would be pretty unbearable. Because, you know, I always find people who could afford to sell me a thousand times over whining because the a-hole they are dating is, well, an a-hole so gosh darn interesting.

But what makes it extra annoying that this is a unreal reality show. The "real life" events that make up the show are obviously shot and shot over again until they get it just right. That heart to heart talk you see probably took hours to shoot because the lighting was off or there was too much background sound.

This makes the fake and phony lives of these people even more fake and phony. The result is a poorly acted melodrama masquerading as real life. I simply can't understand what the appeal is. I just hope they reach teh ceiling fast. These yahoos 15 minutes of fame has long expired.   

How bad was the The Spirit?

You could compare it to a bad community theater performance, but I had my share of those in the past and the people in it usually know they're in a stinker. So that really doesn't apply.

You could compare it to a high school performance, but the creators of that performance at least realize that they have a lot to learn about the craft and strive to better themselves.

The closest comparison I can come to for this movie would be kids playing in the backyard. The storylines are made up from whole cloth, and veer from one style to another based on what the kids think are cool. The players find the fantasy they create greatly entertaining, but everyone else would be bored.

Not only is The Spirit the worst comic book movie of all time (Howard the Duck, Batman and Robin, you may stop fighting for that title) but ranks as one of the worst movies of all time.

One of the major complements of Frank Miller's comic book storytelling was that it was "cinematic". I guess Miller took this to mean that he could put anything on the screen and it would be brilliant. He was wrong.

This film is more a collection of scene connected by a flimsy plot. The style goes from high camp, to Looney Tunes;like action, to Douglas Sirk-like melodrama to typical comic book fare. Each style shift is jarring and slaps the audience in the face.

There is no dramatic flow to the film. Miller gives us nothing to make us feel for the characters or care whether they live or die. He paints them in only the broadest of terms, and we never for once gain enough for us to become emotionally invested in them as people.

And, you get the feeling that Miller really wanted to make a Batman film, had no shot at doing that, and decided to shoehorn The Spirit into that. It really didn't work.

Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, and Eva Mendes gave some of the worst performances of their careers. Jackson was hamming up constantly and chewing up scenery everywhere he went. You'd think that Johansson would be able to do a femme fatale role in her sleep, but her take was just trying to talk lower. It was like a five year-old trying to talk like a big girl. And Mendes lacked the emotional depth her role called for.

No that the acting was all bad. Gabriel Macht did well in the lead role and Dan Lauria did well as Commissioner Dolan. You get the impression that since these guys were "smaller names," Miller was able to guide their performances more but was too star struck to do the same for Jackson, Johansson, and Mendes.

There are some shots of visual brilliance here and there, but most of them are inserted where they really don't belong which ruins their effectiveness.

I could complain about this movie all day. Heck, I can devote an entire blog post to Miller's using a photocopy of a woman's ass as a plot point. But it won't change the overall result. This movie is a failure on just about all levels, and should be avoided at all costs. Hopefully, this film ends Miller's career and serves as a wake up call for the creator.

The wife and I, and a whole gaggle of my friends, went to see The Incredible Hulk this past weekend. The general consensus is that it was really good.

This is more a sequel to the TV show than a sequel to the Ang Lee film, which is good because the TV show "got" the Hulk much better than that previous movie.

The origin is revamped and explained very succinctly over the opening credits. It told you exactly what you needed to know without telling you what you didn't. Many comic book movies have the perceived problem of being bogged down with an origin story. If more films presented the origin this way, there wouldn't be a problem.

The acting was first rate all around, and, for the most part, better than the Ang Lee version. Edward Norton was good as he always is. Same with Tim Roth, who was badass as the bad guy even before his transformation. I was especially impressed with Liv Tyler. I kind of always thought of her acting as being kind of "eh" but she really did a good job in this film.

The only actor who I think was a step down from the previous cast is William Hurt. He did a good job, don't get me wrong, and physically he was an almost exact match with the comic version of General Ross, but he wasn't the grizzled soldier than Sam Elliot was. 

Another actor who coluld be considered a bad addition was Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns. In this film, he is a minor character. So it is kind of jarring to see Nelson ham it up on screen. But when you consider who the character turns out to be, the acting actually makes sense.

The final scene was, like the first movie, a CGI fest. But, unlike the last one, it was clear and easy to see. And exciting and with a villain who not only posed a threat to the Hulk, but also wasn't a lake.

The film is filled with easter eggs for fans of the TV and comic book, from Bill Bixby appearing on a TV screen to Stan Lee and Lou Ferringno having their cameos bumped up to small roles to Banner's dog being named Rick.

The Incredible Hulk was a great comic book movie which got right what Ang Lee got wrong.

Another collection of random news stories from around the web.

• New Guiding Lines Column up: This week, I cover Logan #1, The Dark Tower: The Long Road Home #1, Justice League: The New Frontier Special, Dead Space #1, DC Special: Raven #1, New Dynamix #1, Cable #1, and All-New Atom #21. Check it out.
• First Watchmen publicity photos released: The internet reaction has been mockery with faint praise, mockery, quasi-mockery, and generally positive reaction. My two cents: Did they really need to change Nite-Owl's and Ozymandeus' outfits that much? I thought that they could be translated to film pretty much the way they are. (For a side by side comparison, click here.) Maybe they are saving some money by recycling some old Batman suits from the first four movies. And, really Warners, nipples? Really? Hire someone to read the Internet, would you? People are still mocking Shumacher's addition of those to the Bat uniform and it happened over a decade ago.
• Patrick Swayze diagnosed with pancreatic cancer: The odds aren't good, but I wish him the best. If it wasn't for him, Roadhouse would just be a bad movie, and not campy fun.
• Latest Buffy issue causes a stir:  Covered by the New York Times no less! Also by ABC News, who calls Buffy's female on female fling with another Slayer a "marketing ploy". I am so happy that comics have grown to such a level that they can actually have marketing ploys.

There have been two recent occurances of my writing hiting the Internet this week.

First off is my weekly Guiding Lines column, this week, I covered Fantastic Four #554, Fantastic Four: The Lost Adventure, Booster Gold #0, Ghost Rider #20, Next Issue Project #1: Fantastic Comics #24, Spider-Man Family #7, Tiny Titans #1, X-Force #1, and Spooks #1.

 Also, I reviewed The Nightmare Factory treade paperback over at PopMatters.

Please, go check these out!

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

A new Guiding Lines column has been posted today. In it, I cover The Umbrella Academy: Apocalypse Suite #1, Marvel Comics Presents #1, Green Arrow/Black Canary Wedding Special #1, Jack Kirby's Bounty Hunters #6, Criminal Macabre: My Demon Baby #1, and Countdown to Mystery #1. Check it out!

Let me just say that I am a fan of Heidi MacDonald. I think she is witty and knowledgeable and teh Beat is on my daily read list. But something she wrote doesn't set right with me.

I was going to write this after her second SDCC '07 recap post but decided against it. Then there was something in her third post that pushed me over the edge.

Her first recap was seemed okay. Basically her saying how busy the con was and the usual stuff like that.

Her second recap was what caught my eye. About half way down, around the photo of Clive Owen, she relates how she got to the Warner Bros./Watchmen panel late (and by late, in all fairness, I mean 15 minutes early. In real life, arriving somewhere 15 minutes early would mean, well, that you were early. In con-reality, you are SOL if you haven't camped out. This brings up Bill's comic convention tip #1: If there is a panel, signing or event you wish to attend, show up at least 30-45 minutes before it starts, if not an hour to an hour and a half. Because everyone else will.).

She stands in line for a while.  Then they announce that the Fire Marshall is closing the room for fear of overcrowding, and people will be allowed in only when someone leaves. This didn't sit well with Heidi so she tries to go to the side door and try to get into the show using her press credentials. That doesn't work either because, well, the Fire Marshall had closed the room, meaning no one, press or not, was getting in and the Con did not have a press list..

But, the fact that some of the press received special wristbands led Heidi to beileve that she was being lied to. I'll let her words speak for themselves:

"“There is no press list,” said the Elite guy. And I admit, this really pissed me off. I am a grown up and you don’t need to lie to me. And in fact, the nice lady from Comic-Con said that if you were on the WB press list you would already have your wrist band and your pass."

This was later straightened out in this post by a SDCC spokesperson David Glanzer. Warners had a bunch of all-purpose passes that they deemed to give some out to the press. Other passes were probably given out to friends and familty of the panel members, etc. But they weren't press exclusive.

But what stinged me most was this comment Heidi made afterwards.

"I realize that thousands and thousands of people get “press passes” to Comic-Con and some of them are little dinky bloggers, and some of them are EW and the New York Times. And not all of them deserve equal access."

I don't think Heidi meant this as a insult to "little dinky bloggers", but rather to say that the powers that be at Warners would like to exclude the smaller folks.

However, if you look at it as is, it seems that Heidi almost feels insulted to be lumped with the "dinky little bloggers" and to be kept out of the room.

Now, I am a blogger. But I am also a columnist for a smaller comic news website (Broken Frontier) and review comics for a pop culture website (PopMatters). I certainly don't consider myself dinky. But I grant that compared to Heidi, who was an editor for Vertigo and Disney and is currently an editor at Publisher's Weekly, I am Mario Mendoza to her Reggie Jackson.

But, that being said, if the whole "Warner's only letting in certain press" was true, I'd probably have more of a right to be there that Heidi. Not being arrogant, but Heidi's main job is as an editor for a trade publication for book retailers and publishers. It would be hard for Warners to see how Publishers Weekly would be helpful in spreading the word about their Watchmen MOVIE. Warners was hoping for good word of mouth from movie websites and bloggers to spread the word to people who respect their opinion. Now my blog reaches all of five people. But Ain't It Cool, IGN and others reach far more. It make sense for Warners to include them over Heidi if you think about what they are trying to get out of the publicity.

But, since Warner's excluding certain members of the press didn't happen, I think this all boils down to SDCC growing bigger and faster than Heidi would like. In my speculation, it seems like Heidi was once a big fish in a large but managable pond to being a small fish in a humongous ocean. I gather this opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion which very much could be off base, from this statement of hers:

" I began to resent the fact that I had to stand in line at all. If 23 years of covering Comic-Con doesn’t get you a pass, what does? "

 The SDCC has grown into a beast. Hollywood has recognized it as a tool to market their films in their backyard and other press markets have been forced to cover these panels. If I was covering the con before covering the con was cool, I'd too be upset at these interlopers. But, unfortunately, it doesn't look like things will ever go back to the way they were.

The something in her third post that rankled me was this:

"I kept saying that the crowding at San Diego was the best ad possible for the New York Comic-con, and indeed, I heard many publishers saying they are saving their announcements and roll outs for that show. As I suspected, Europeans are beginning to choose New York over San Diego — it’s cheaper and all Euros love New York. The people who got turned away are going to spill over to other venues, that’s undeniable."

Now, I have never been to SDCC, but plan to next year (It's the one thing I want to do before I die. For some, it's climbing Mt. Everest, others, it's skin diving in the Maldives, for me, my Mecca is the SDCC), but from what Heidi described of the SDCC, it still seems better than the NYCC.

I HAVE been to both NYCC's. The first year was so crowded that the State Troopers, in addition to the Fire Marshall, had to shut the ENTIRE con down from allowing people in, instituting a strict one out, one in policy for the entire show. The organizers fixed this the next year by instilling a German military way of doing things which meant that crowds were microcontrolled to a point where if you bought your passes ahead of time. and were promised you could "proceed directly to the con floor", you still had to wait outside in the cold in a line for a half hour (or more) to get in.

The NYCC as I experienced is more poorly managed that what I read of the SDCC.This could be chalked up to a learning curve that comes about by starting a major comic con from scratch. SDCC grew and adjusted with the changes as it got bigger over time.

I should say this, because Heidi forgot to mention it, that the NYCC is put on by Reed Exhibitions, a subsidiary of Reed-Elsevier, which also owns Publisher's Weekly who Heidi works for. I'm not saying that she is being paid to shill for the PW's sister corporation. It could just be that her loyalty to her employer causes her to turn a blind eye to the foibles and problems that were existent at  the NYCC. (Although, since she was considered a member of the press, she didn't have to deal much with the controls place on crowd entry. My friends had press passes and could come and go as they pleased.) But regardless. NYCC has the same, if not worse, problems that SDCC is experiencing, from what I read. It is not the idyllic paradise that Heidi would have us believe.  

According to this article, Jenna Jameson is set to star in a new comic book from Virgin Comics.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is comedy gold. It is funny on so many levels. Funny? Funny how? Let me count the ways:

1. Jenna Jameson, porn star, is doing a book for a comic company named Virgin. I haven't seen a creator be as an antithesis of the name of the company they worked for since Rob Liefeld started up Awesome comics.

2. It is also funny that Virgin has gone directly from B-level celebrities to create their books straight to Z-level. Sure, be the guy who used to be in the Eurythmics is pretty low, but it doesn't get much lower than a porn star who is losing her looks.

3. Read this little gem from the press release:

"The story, while provocative and sexy, contains no nudity and is intended for a mainstream audience."

Doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of having a porn star write your books? I mean, when one thinks of Jenna Jameson, they don't think "top notch writer". They think of her, in the cleanest sense, as being nude. I mean, William Shakespeare, Ernest Hemingway, Jenna Jameson: which does not belong?

If they weren't just selling out all their morals and publishing a porn comics, they should have tried to go after Jessica Alba or Scarlett Johansson. They're hotter and and probably better writers.

4. This is how they describe the book:

"Shadow Hunter is the story of a provocative superheroine who survives a brush with death only to find herself fighting the legions of hell for her very soul."

Funny, I thought she would go with a more autobiographical route: a story of a woman who slowly finds her self turning into plastic.

The latest issue of Entertainment Weekly really ticked me off. No, not because it had four variant covers. I have a subscription, so the variant cover thing didn't really affect me that much.

No, it's the coverage of the forthcoming San Diego Comic-Con that did it.

It started with the title "Geek Revival". EW has been covering Comic-Con for several years now and has alway found a way to work the word "geek" into its articles somewhere.

Geek is a word, like certain other epithets, that I could refer to myself as one and it would be fine, I could refer to my like minded friends as such and it would be okay, but if the uninitiated says it, it is insulting and offensive.

The repeated use of the word by EW when it covers Comic-Con and other comic related news items strikes me that they think covering Comic-Con is beneath them. That they would wish anything but to associated with those freaky, costume wearing weirdos who like comics, anime and sci-fi.

But then, I rethought. Maybe I was being too harsh. EW does give comics a lot of page space. As a matter of fact, the Books section in this very issue leds off with a full page review of comic writer Warren Ellis' new novel.

But then, I read the first paragraph:

"Cannes has Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the Croisette. Sundance has Robert Redford on the slopes. And Comic-Con? It's got Klingons in Renaissance costumes running around downtown San Diego."

 This is especially annoying when the list, later in the article, that Clive Owen, Jessica Alba, Edward Norton and Judd Apatow will be there. Sure, those guys aren't Bradgelina-type famous or as legendary as Redford, but they are nothing to sneeze at either. Yes, there will be Klingons and Stormtroopers. But there are some freaky people at Cannes too. Usually, they are brought over by Troma or Porn companies, but still. The point EW was trying to make is that Cannes and Sundance are classy and cool, Comic-Con is dorky and silly.

Let's talk about the title of the print article, by looking up the meaning of the word "revival" as it appears on Encarta.

re·viv·al [ ri vv'l ] (plural re·viv·als)

noun

Definition:

1. renewal of interest: a renewal of interest in something that results in its becoming popular once more

2. new production: a new production of a play or opera that has not been performed recently

3. process of reviving somebody: the process of bringing somebody back to life, consciousness, or full strength

4. recovery: the recovering of life, consciousness, or full strength

5. religion renewed religious interest: a new interest in religion, or the reawakening of such interest

6. christianity evangelical Christian meeting: a meeting or a series of meetings of evangelical Christians intended to awaken religious fervor in those who attend

7. law reestablishing of legal validity: the renewal of the validity of a contract or the effect of a judicial decision

Now, I don't know which definition EW is working under. Some might say number 6, which doesn't really apply but kinda sorta fits. But the tagline to the print article leads me to believe that it means definition number one:

"EW scopes out Comic-Con, the convention that's suddenly bringing Hollywood to its knees."

Suddenly? Suddenly? You've been covering the convention in one form or another for at least 5 years? What is the statute of limitations on the word "suddenly"? It's got to be under five years.

Pop culture has been taken over by the "geeks" for years and years. They haven't gone away and come back. And it doesn't need to awaken any sort of fervor.  They have been responsible for the movie success of Kevin Smith and Judd Apatow, the popularity of sci-fi and superhero fare in the movies and TV and made Harry Potter a worldwide phenomenon.

Don't believe me? Look at this year's spate of movie releases. You have Transformers for the toy "geeks", Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider, 300, and Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer for comic "geeks", Shrek the Third and Ratatouille for the Animation "geeks" and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix for the Harry Potter "geeks". And so on and so on. This year could be the biggest grossing year in the history of movies, thanks mainly to "geek" films.

But EW is trying to make it seem like it just happened and it is just a temporary stage. The latter might be true, but the previous isn't.

They quote Brad Meltzer, who shall now be referred to as the self-hating geek, to put a negative spin on it:

''It's the golden age of geekdom,'' says frequent Comic-Con conventioneer Brad Meltzer, a novelist and comics writer. ''Hollywood has figured out the location of the supergeek clubhouse. They've jimmied the locks, moved in, and spruced the place up. And we're sort of sadly and pathetically okay with it, because they bring lots of hot actresses and nice film clips.''

On the surface, that seems to be some strained wit and fairly innocuous. But what is Meltzer really saying? He's saying that Hollywood is the dominant form of art and comic fans are submissive and at the whim of Hollywood bigwigs. When, really, it's closer to the other way around. Hollywood is coming to Comic-Con because of the power genre fans have to make or break a movie. Therefore, Hollywood is coming to the "supergeek clubhouse" humbly and submissively, presenting offerings that they hope the genre fans will like and enjoy and tell their friends about.

While EW seems clueless to this, Hollywood producers and directors are not:

"''We premiered a special trailer we had prepared,'' says director Zack Snyder. ''The crowd demanded that we reshow it — three times. After Comic-Con, 300 changed its place in the collective consciousness and in geekdom in general.'' Says Murphy, ''You go to Comic-Con, tell a roomful of fans what your movie is going to be, and you end up not only reaching them but 500 Internet reporters as well.'' Adds a studio exec, ''I'd much rather spend money on Comic-Con than on a splashy premiere the day before my movie opens.''"

EW seems to think that San Diego Comic-Con is a small fringe of geeks and is amazed that Hollywood will kowtow to it. But Comic-Con is a small microcasm representing a real, large and valid sub-culture. One that EW will one day be forced to respect. After all, their coverage has grown from a small blurb to a one page article to two pages leading off the "News and Notes" section. In a few years, the Comic-Con will probably be a cover story in a few years. But EW will probably still call us geeks.  

To read the article online, click here.