An interesting, but if you're a little aware of the field, somewhat obvious article regarding collectable comic books: http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/02/15/colletibles-of-tomorrow-whats-likely-to-go-up-in-value/?icid=main|main|dl3|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2010%2F02%2F15%2Fcolletibles-of-tomorrow-whats-likely-to-go-up-in-value%2FI think its obvious that "Golden" and early "Silver" age comic books (ie, printed before, say, 1968 or thereabouts) tend to maintain or grow in value, particularly the early comic books from the late 1930's to 1950's. Alas, more recent books tend to be printed and stored away by readers and, therefore, there are many of them around. The more inventory, the less value. Conversely, the older comic books were considered by many "throwaways". Read and re-read until they were shredded and then trashed. Low inventory equals more value to collectors. The moral of the story is that if you or a relative happen to have a couple of boxes of comic books in the attic or basement or closet, don't be that quick to rid yourself of them...especially if their cover price is 10 cents.
Interesting (if superficial and somewhat late) article regarding how the movies are looking in on graphic novels (and comic books) for inspiration... http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/02/08/graphic.novels.mainstream/index.html?hpt=SbinI say somewhat late with regard to the article because it seems graphic novels/comic books have been a big source of movie inspiration for several years now. Maybe its harder to ignore that reality, but the fact is that at least for the past ten years or so there seems to be plenty of examples, both good, bad, and very ugly, of movies based on comic books. Ah well, maybe one day my graphic novel will make that leap...
If you're a comic book fan(atic) then the above headline must cause you to pause dead in your tracks. A few of you out there are probably outraged. Yes, there is a rumor that DC Comics, the publishing company that owns the characters in the series, is interested in presenting further adventures in the "Watchmen" universe. Those familiar with the graphic novel/12 part series, which was the basis for the movie of the same name, know that the original author/creator of the works, one Alan Moore, is currently very much on the outs with DC Comics and would, one assumes, not be happy at all with new adventures set in this universe he co-created with artist David Gibbons. However, before getting a little too outraged, consider this blog entry from Peter David, another noted comic book (and book) author: http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2010/02/05/watchmen-2/I tend to agree with Mr. David about several issues. But let me backtrack and say that, during the mid to late 1980's, there was no comic book author out there like Alan Moore. I first experienced his work in Saga of the Swamp Thing as it was released (I was one of the only people at my local comic shop actually buying the book when Mr. Moore took over. Even the store owner, who presumably profited from my buying the book, ridiculed the fact that I spent money on it!). I was so impressed with Mr. Moore's writing that I searched for any and all other works, eventually buying every issue I could find of Warrior Magazine. And it was there I read his incredible Marvel (soon to be renamed Miracle) Man and V for Vendetta stories. At the time, I could truly be called an Alan Moore fanatic. But the best was yet to come, and it proved to be Watchmen. And then came the strange times... Mr. Moore, it seemed, was, if nothing else, something of an eccentric. Early on he lambasted Marvel Comics and swore never to work for them. But after Watchmen was done, he vented plenty of ire toward DC Comics. The crux of his negativity toward DC, it appeared, was that they held the copyrights to the story and characters of Watchmen and it upset him that he did not. The interviews wherein he stated this view I found odd. Did the man not read the contracts he signed with DC before doing the series? And weren't the Watchmen characters, after all, based on the Charlton characters, characters that DC had at that point bought, anyway? And, further, shouldn't Mr. Moore be somewhat appreciative about DC Comics and the faith they had in hiring him in the first place? Would he have this fantastic career had if not been for them? (This later point I'm sure can be argued, but note that Warrior Magazine folded and his other British works weren't huge sellers. In the end, DC Comics finished up V for Vendetta while Eclipse and others "finished" Moore's run on Miracle/MarvelMan. It is certainly possible Mr. Moore could have enjoyed great success without DC, but even he, I suspect, would deny they helped his career tremendously). But the thing that was most peculiar, at least to me, was seeing this man who rallied against the "big bad company" that owned his best known works...went on to write "pastiches" and "homages" and, in the case of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, stories that used well established characters...created by other authors. Particularly nasty, it seemed to me, was to write Supreme, a book that was so clearly an "homage" (the nicest way of saying rip-off) of Superman. What was he doing? Was he "sticking it" to DC Comics, the publisher of Superman? It was possible, but subsequent works revealed that Mr. Moore seemed to relish writing these "homages", although of course there were exceptions ( From Hell, the already mentioned V for Vendetta). Still, I have to agree with Mr. David's concise points. I doubt I'll buy any "new" Watchmen material, but also doubt its existence, should it ever come to be, will lesson my feelings regarding the quality of the original work.
While it isn't quite the old "Crisis" (those Justice League comics usually featured the Earth 1 heroes (ie, the regular continuity heroes) teaming up with the Earth 2 heroes (ie, the heroes from the "Golden Age" of comics) against some big bad), this upcoming movie nonetheless has me...curious. This is the first review I've found. Alas, its from Harry Knowles, the founder of Aintitcoolnews, and there are times when his reviews border on...well, let's just be kind and say they aren't always for everyone. In this case, he obviously enjoys the animated film quite a bit, ranking it just behind three other DC animation films (I've got to find time to see New Frontier one of these days...the DVD has been sitting on my shelf for waaay too long and I absolutely loved the original comic book)... Anyway, his review: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/43675And, if you're too lazy (or not that interested) in reading the review, I've embedded the trailer for the DVD, which can also be found at the review site:
Things are slowly normalizing themselves after spending an inordinate number of hours setting up the new computer. In fact, there were a couple of hours available to catch up on some TV... Fringe: "Unearthed" aired this past Monday (January 11th) and another episode will air this Thursday so the question is: Why? It would appear Unearthed is an unaired episode from the show's first season (it even has appearances by the now deceased Agent Charlie Francis). However, many, including myself, wondered if this was an "alternate universe" episode, ie one that featured the characters on another of those multiple worlds the show has already acknowledged exist. Nope. I suspect this episode, which they say was filmed during the show's first season but wasn't aired until now, was kept away from the airwaves (and the first season DVD boxed sets) because it featured the very touchy subject of religion. It was revealed in this episode that Anna Torv's Agent Dunham is a(n)....atheist. Or at least an agnostic. Further, it was hinted that Peter Bishop also doesn't think much about the whole thing (although he doesn't come out and say it like Agent Dunham). While I think its interesting to reveal this about Agent Dunham's character, the show's producers and writers eventually had to reveal the "whys" of her non-religiosity, and in this they chickened out, methinks. I suspect most people who are agnostics/atheists didn't develop these ideals because their mothers/fathers were very religious and their religion proved not to help them stop abuse/disease/any-other-very-bad-thing. In the case of Agent Dunham, she states her mother was very religious but her prayers were ineffective against an abuse father and, therefore, she turned away from religion. While I suspect the whole religion angle was what made Fox store away this episode and finally dump it on a Monday (not the show's regular time slot) and without much fanfare, the episode itself, alas, wasn't all that good, either. There were interesting elements in it, for sure, but overall the episode didn't gel quite as well as I had hoped. Then again, of the J. J. Abrams TV shows I've seen ( Alias, Lost, and Fringe) this one, while it remains entertaining enough, also remains the least of this group of three. Still, I'd be lying if I said it wasn't good enough to keep watching. Even non-knockout J. J. Abrams is better than most TV shows currently airing! Dollhouse: "Getting Closer" aired on the 8th, and it is the third from the last episode of the show that will ever air. I've made mention many times before how this show kept letting me down, and there were too many times I was ready to walk away from it (and one time I actually did). However, I'm glad that I'm here for the show's finale. Say what you will (and I have) about the too-many very horrible episodes aired before, the show's lack of focus and direction (at least before), and the general confusion of what its all about, but the fact is that to me the show is going out with a bang. The only real complaint that can be leveled against Getting Closer is that there was almost TOO much plot in it. However, given the fact that Joss Whedon and company are trying to give the show a proper finale and tie up everything, they can and should be forgiven for presenting us such a rich, full meal. The reveals about characters (not to mention the shocking death of one of the characters) had me breathless. In some ways, and without getting too out there, this show reminds me a little of comic book legend Jack Kirby's New Gods book (and I am referring here solely to the original 11 issues of the New Gods while ignoring the other series tied into this book and the various reboots and graphic novels). While the New Gods feature some of the comic book legends all time best stories (IMHO, and this coming from someone who loved his Marvel comics work as well!), I felt that the first few issues were hit and miss, almost like Jack Kirby jumped into this project with plenty of ideas but it took him a few issues to find his "footing" and deliver the best at the end, when the book was, unfortunately, headed for cancellation. And so it is, it seems to me anyway, with Dollhouse. Joss Whedon is most assuredly capable of great TV shows, but the fact is that Dollhouse began very badly, with only a few episodes here and there worthy of watching. When the second season rolled around, it felt like Mr. Whedon and company were still trying to get their footing. Now, at the very end, and like Jack Kirby with the New Gods, you almost wish they were given a chance to continue, to see where they go, but that is not to be. Unlike Mr. Kirby back in the 1970's, Mr. Whedon was given enough lead time to wrap the whole production up. I hope the end is as good as the episodes thus far leading up to it. (Just a little random note here: My all time favorite Jack Kirby comic book has to be New Gods #6, "The Glory Boat". Seldom has a single issue of a comic book given me chills. This one has. For those curious, the issue can be found reprinted in the second volume of Jack Kirby's Fourth World Omnibus. For those really curious, I recommend all four volumes).
Now that Avatar has finally shown up (and, is it me, or did expectations simply get to high, a la Watchmen, and now that the film is here and it's "good" or, in some people's minds not so terribly good and certainly not earth-shattering, there is a sense of disappointment seeping into the internet?), there have appeared plenty of retrospectives concerning director James Cameron. One of the more fascinating bits to pop up concerns the fact that, after Terminator 2, Mr. Cameron was interested in making a Spider-Man film. This project was eventually aborted, as described here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/24/what-happened-to-james-camerons-spider-man-movie/But what I find most curious is the fact that the whole "organic" web slingers on Peter Parker was a concept that, apparently, originated with Mr. Cameron. Of the concepts that might have come from his original Spider-Man story ideas, this is the one I wish hadn't. Granted, plenty of time (and three Sam Raimi directed movies) has passed, so what's the big deal? Well, I always felt that by making Spider-Man's web slinging abilities something "organic", versus the comic book version where scientific nerd/brain Peter Parker devised artificial ones, "dumbed down" the character of Peter Parker. What made him so unique was the fact that he was so clever, that people didn't realize that behind his nerdy exterior he was capable of much. By making the webs he slung organic, suddenly anyone could have been Spider-Man, had they the fortune of being bitten by that radioactive spider. Ah well, as bothersome as it is on screen, at least we still have the comic books... ...or do we?
I have never seen a full episode of Smallville. This is not a knock on the show...I've a) never had the time to sit down and watch a full episode and b) when I have caught a few minutes of it here and there, what I saw was OK but not good enough to get me watching much more than I have. That being said, I'm curious about the Justice Society-centric upcoming movie/episode. These photos, provided by Entertainment Weekly, give us a good glimpse of Hawkman, Dr. Fate, and Stargirl ( Green Arrow has appeared previously). For a TV show, it doesn't look bad at all! http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/11/27/smallville-doctor-fate-stargirl-hawkman/
Enjoyable one and all, although if there is one minor point worth making its that the show seems to be comfortable in...uh... appropriating comic book concepts. Episode 6, Earthling, featured a "shadow" monster that was pretty much a rip off of the Negative Man from the comic book series The Doom Patrol. In the comic book, the character was good, in the Fringe, he was quite bad. Episode 8, August, featured a more in depth look at the so-called Observers, a group of bald men who seem to be...observing...what's happening around the world and at key historical events. Kinda like...no, almost exactly like Marvel comic's Watcher character originally introduced in the Fantastic Four, with a little of DC Comic's Metron (another Jack Kirby creation) thrown into the mix. But, lest I sound too down on the people behind the show, it remains enjoyable.
Movie producer Joel Silver has had the Sgt. Rock property for like...forever. I recall many years ago there was talk that Arnold Schwarzenegger was being pursued to play the role (I could imagine as the movie progressed all the nervous men in his charge would constantly ask him who pitches for the Yankees or what's the capital of New York or what part of Kansas did he really come from). Anyway, it appears that Mr. Silver is still at it, and according to this article, they may move Sgt. Rock from the front lines of WWII into the...FUTURE!!! http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43018I don't know about that...
One of those stories that pops up now and again...a $65,000 home had, stored within, a million dollars worth of comic books:
For those who recall the first story (can be found here), there is an update on Fountainbleu heir Ben Novack (who was murdered) and his missing Batman collection: http://www.miamiherald.com/459/story/1278906.htmlIt appears that Mr. Novack's widow, a woman who, according to the article, is a suspect in his murder, took the bulk of the material to her home. Also according to the article, this is the 2nd largest collection of Batman memorabilia. One wonders just what he had!
...to be published by IDW. This story probably applies more to people familiar with the original Bloom County comic strip that ran in the 1980's. It was eventually cancelled but author/artist Berke Breathed returned to the strip twice more, in Outland and Opus, two strips which, sadly, proved to me that sometimes you can't go home again. It's not that they were bad, its just that these two later strips never hit the same level of humor and political/social commentary quite as well as that first strip. From USA Today, a small interview with Bloom County creator Berke Breathed: http://www.usatoday.com/life/comics/2009-10-02-bloom-county_N.htmAnd, yes, I was quite a fan of the strip in the day. I still have a Bill the Cat stuffed doll and a Billy and the Boingers t-shirt (and it still fits!  )
Outside of comic books, the name Jack Kirby might not mean that much. However, those familiar with comic books know the name very well. During his lifetime, however, Mr. Kirby was perhaps the one man most associated with comic books. During the "Golden Age" of comics, he and Joe Simon created Captain America. In the very early 1960's, Mr. Kirby, along with Stan Lee, essentially created what is now Marvel Comics. Of almost all the major Marvel heroes to come out during that decade, he was intimately involved with just about all of them, with the exception of Spider Man and Dr. Strange, characters more closely associated with Steve Ditko and Stan Lee. Te relationship between Marvel Comics and Jack Kirby became strained by the late 1960's and Jack Kirby moved on to DC Comics before, eventually, returning for a few more years of work at Marvel. Afterwards, there was considerable friction between Kirby and Marvel over the return of artwork and now, some fifteen years after Mr. Kirby's death, his heirs are fighting to gain some measure of control over his creations, not unlike what the heirs to Joe Shuster are doing regarding Superman and Joe Simon is doing regarding Captain America: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/business/21marvel.html?_r=3&ref=moviesWhile many may scoff at comic books and comic book superheroes, the fact is that many of them (though certainly not all) are ingrained in our culture. Almost everyone knows of Batman and Superman and Spider Man, while precious few know who were the people behind their creation. While some may view the lawsuit as a way for heirs to gain some money, I hope the intentions aren't so cynical. I hope that, at the very least, some of these creators, many of whom are dead now, will gain recognition for their creations.
Back in the 1980's, one of my favorite writer/artists was Mike Grell, specifically for his adventure series Jon Sable: Freelance. Even back then, in those pre-internet days, it was known that the series that put Mr. Grell on the map was The Warlord, which he wrote and illustrated for a number of years for DC Comics. I never got to read that series, but for a number of years its been one of those things I was hoping to eventually take in. Now, thanks to DC Comics, a big chunk (28 issues worth) is available the reasonably priced "Showcase" format (see below). For material that originally was released in the late 1970's, The Warlord reads quite well. The book is a pleasant mix of E. R. Burroughs, Jules Verne, and Robert E. Howard and, while I suspect Mr. Grell might have enjoyed a little more...freedom...to tell the story in more graphic ways here and there, the end result is still worth looking into. As a bonus, if you're a fan of his art, this is a beautiful showcase (sorry, pun not intended!) for his maturation as an artist. There are some stunning images to be found within this book. My only hope is that DC continue giving us more (Where is the second Jonah Hex Showcase, by the way?!) 
One of the biggest laments I have regarding the comic book industry is that many have pigeon holed it as a place for adolescent power fantasies, specifically "literature" that features super heroes in tights only. But the reality is that comic books, like movies or novels or short stories, could conceivably feature just about any genre. There have been romance comics, detective comics, historical comics, horror comics, comedy comics, etc. etc. etc. However, the sad fact is that, at least in the US, superhero comics are considered by many the sole domain of the comic book market. Things change, however, and lately there have been a series of movies released (the very poorly reviewed Whiteout is but the latest) whose origins are comic books but that do not feature superheroes: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32804664/ns/entertainment-movies/I'd note too that my own graphic novel, The Dark Fringe, was optioned by a Hollywood company to be made into a film a few years back, and I'm honestly not sure of the status of that particular project. However, should a movie version of my graphic novel appear, and said movie features a superhero in tights, know oh reader that the original graphic novel was crime fiction (albeit set in a retro-futuristic world) and most certainly did not feature any superheroes!
The headline of the review ( Whiteout is a wipeout) offers little hope: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2009/09/11/whiteout_beckinsale/I enjoyed the graphic novel, although writer Greg Rucka's best work is probably Queen and Country. I also wondered if the graphic novel's plot would be enough for a full length feature film. Still, I'm curious to see this. Hope its better than the critic thought.
Great, timely article regarding comic book movie success versus comic book sales: http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/08/12/batmans-comic-tragedy?page=0,0Author Lisa Schmeiser hits a topic that has perplexed and, to a greater degree, angered me. The fact of the matter is that there is no reason for comic book companies to not be doing much, much better than they currently are, especially since in recent times movies based on comic book products have done so well (and, yes, I know some of them haven't fared as well). The comic book industry, alas, has problems. At one time, comic books could be found almost everywhere, including drug and food stores. Now, decent comic book selections are mostly found in specialized comic book shops. Unfortunately, there aren't that many of them around and a very casual reader isn't likely to spend all that much time and energy hunting one down. For a while, it was good to see comic books in both Borders and Barnes and Nobles, but it appears both stores may be pulling back. Even worse, the selection of books is at times bewildering (normally I'd welcome a large selection, but lately I worry we're reaching a point of oversaturation). And, finally: Too much backstory and labyrinthian continuity.
The above question gets trickier with each new court ruling: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/13/warner-bros-has-lost-krypton-will-lose-superman-in-2013/I'm of two minds here: I most certainly side with the creators of Superman (and their families). The fact of the matter is that Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and sold for what amounted to a token fee to what eventually would become DC Comics (Warner Brothers would eventually buy up that company, and thus own the various characters under the imprint). Siegel and Shuster made plenty of money off Superman after it became successful, but the reality is that the company made much, much more. And when the two left the comic book field, they made nothing from the character they had created, not until DC Comics relented and gave them pensions in the mid-1970's (although I could be wrong, I believe this was done in part to avoid any negative publicity concerning the upcoming Superman film). But issues regarding the work for hire contracts and copyrights have embroiled DC Comics and the Siegel family in issues regarding the ownership of the famous character, and thus far it appears that piece by piece the family is gaining control over parts of the character. It's a fascinating article, and I suspect that in the end what will happen is DC Comics/Warner Brothers will reach some kind of settlement with the family. Superman is simply too big a character to lose.
A curious list of five favorite films by Dave Gibbons, comic book artist extraordinaire (He was the artist for The Watchmen, the 12 part comic book series that was the basis for the movie): http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/news/1834415/five_favorite_films_with_dave_gibbonsI'm always intrigued by what other folks consider their favorite films, and his list is pretty decent, even if it seems he didn't have a great deal of time to think up his list (he appeared to be groping for the last item on the list). Of the ones he did list, however, I can't fault him for the first three ( Grosse Point Blank may not be one of my all time favorites, but it is a quirky, fun film, given the main character's field of work!). Terminator 2, however, is the only one I'm not as up on. The original Terminator was a terrific film, but despite the considerable budget, I wasn't as blown away by the sequel as I had hoped to be. Still, not a "terrible" film by any means.
The sad reality of being an individual who creates (be it music, books, stories, films, etc.) is that if you're not careful, there are literally millions of ways you can lose the rights, and more importantly, the royalties for whatever it is you've done. Recall the sad fate of Bill Finger, the co-creator and writer of Batman (and the man who came up with much of this famous character's lore), who died poor while Bob Kane, the artist of the strip (and most certainly the character's co-creator), received all the credit and fame for Batman's creation. Robert Heinlein, certainly a famous enough author in his own rights, created many wonderful science fictional concepts, many of which were "borrowed" and showed up in other works and movies, without Henlein being recognized for his contributions (ever read Heinlein's The Puppet Masters? Curious about its similarities to Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Heinlein's book was first published in 1951. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the book by Jack Finney) was first serialized in 1954 and the first film version was released in 1956. By the time The Puppet Masters was made into a feature film in 1994, I recall at least one critic mistakingly feeling this film was a pale "imitation" of Invasion of the Body Snatchers!) Similar things happen in music, but in this case, organist Matthew Fisher is getting his due (credit and cash): http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/30/procol.harum.royalties/index.html
I've generally enjoyed Greg Rucka's comic book work (his novels aren't too bad either). Perhaps his best work is Queen and Country, but Whiteout was pretty good, too. I suspect that the film, based on that comic book and whose trailer is presented below, has its story broadened or expanded from the comic book. Don't get me wrong: The comic book story was good, but rather slight, IMHO, for a full length film. On the plus side, it appears they've kept the rather gruesome "finger" sequence:
It's always been a source of curiosity to me, perhaps since Jaws premiered but certainly by the time the original Star Wars appeared in theaters, what makes people "herd" around something. I recall the long lines of cars waiting to enter a drive-in theater (in Venezuela no less), and people actually standing on roofs of their cars, to catch a glimpse of the earlier showing of Jaws on theater screens. Fast forward to the arrival of Star Wars, and the incredible hoopla that suddenly turned almost everyone into a fan. I admit to being fascinated by this sudden need to be part of some thing...be it music (the Beatles, when they first appeared, sent fans screaming), books ( Harry Potter and, now, Twilight), TV (most recently American Idol), and, of course, movies. As customers, we lurch from one product to another, without any visible rhyme nor reason. Sometimes, we herd around one particular product, to the point where its a...frenzy. I still recall hearing vague whispers, after Harry Potter's final book appeared in the stores, that the "next" hot series might be this one written by a Mormon mother, a series that involved a young girl and vampires and first love. I didn't think much about it, but it seemed like the very next day everyone heard of Twilight. Anyway, the Twilight frenzy is taking up the San Diego Comic Con... http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/22/twilight.fans/index.html
Love him or hate him, John Byrne, veteran comic book artist and writer, has been around the field long enough to draw some interesting observations regarding where comic books were and are. Now, I don't always agree with him. Sometimes, I find his ego does get in the way of his opinions and at other times he seems to go out of his way to slam fellow creators. Then there are the many other times he hits a subject and offers some commendable criticism and/or observation. Like he does here: http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32296&PN=1&totPosts=20A little backstory: The Onion offered a list of artists that "changed" comic books. Mr. Byrne goes at this topic in a slightly different way, offering his opinion of the events/circumstances that have brought on the current comic book market conditions. It's been a while since I've worked in the field (and I don't know if I'll ever venture back), but comic books still interest me. If you're into the subject, you might find the above link fascinating.
I've been a fan of Nick Cardy's artwork for many, many years now, even if he hasn't done much comic book work since around the time I first discovered him. I had also heard plenty of good things about Bat Lash, a character first featured in an issue of DC comic's original Showcase and who subsequently graduated to his own series. The series, alas, lasted only 7 issues before it was canceled. All eight of those issues (the single Showcase plus the seven Bat Lash) featured Nick Cardy's gorgeous art and all but one of the issues was plotted by Mad Magazine veteran Sergio Aragones, with scripts by the ever reliable Dennis O'Neil. Their very short run began in 1968 and ended in 1969. But what a run! The issues feature plenty of action and humor and the stories within are so ahead of their time it's no wonder the series didn't last. Included within the edition are two other Bat Lash stories, one from 1978 written by Dennis O'Neil and drawn by George Moliterni (his artwork is quite wonderful, too) and, finally, a 1981 three part Bat Lash tale written by Len Wein (creator of, among others, Swamp Thing and Wolverine) and also very well drawn by the underrated Dan Spiegle. Showcase volumes usually clock in at over 500 pages, and Bat Lash's appearances unfortunately number less than half those pages. Still, its unusual to find every one of the stories featuring the character worthy. If you're interested in this book, check out your local comic book dealer or head on over to Amazon.com. The book can be found there: http://www.amazon.com/Showcase-Presents-Lash-Sergio-Aragones/dp/1401222951/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247574471&sr=1-1
Just a brief note (there must be more than a few glazed eyes out there, looking at any column devoted to a nearly forty year old comic book): Not only did DC use the "redone" colors in my beloved issue #10 of Swamp Thing, but also they had the edited version of the last panel. For those who have the book, the last panel features our hero wandering off, back to the reader, into the swamp. Before us is a rather bizarre looking worm. Well, in the issue's original printing, the following caption appeared: "Next: The Conqueror Worms". Berni Wrightson was promoting the next issue of the book, not simply adding a bizarre worm for the hell of it (as presented now, without the caption). The more I think about this (and I admit I'm probably devoting far more energy to this than it may deserve), the more upset I am with DC. I thought the "DC Comics Classics Library" would present the books in as good a manner as possible. But it seems, instead, that they just trotted out the same reprint of before and (maybe) did a little recoloring for the there following issues. This has happened before. I enjoyed the original release of Alan Parson's "Tales of Mystery and Imagination" album, but then they re-edited it (or, perhaps, made it more in line with their "original" version) and did not allow consumers access to the original master release. Same with the Walter Hill's The Warriors. I LOVE the original version of the film. But the director's cut, which, admittedly, is more in line with how Mr. Hill originally wanted to make the film, is far worse than the original version. Yet try to find the original version on Blu Ray. DC, in this case, seems to have gone the easy route. However, you can buy the trade paperback of the original Wein/Wrightson run of Swamp Thing for far less than this hardcover version. Why simply release the same reprint? A real shame.
Bought the book at my local comic store, tore it out of its plastic cover... ...and found that DC is STILL using that horrendous recoloring scheme for issue #10 (and 2) of the series. For those who don't know it by now, Swamp Thing #10 remains my all time favorite comic book. This also happened to be the last issue that Len Wein and Berni Wrightson collaborated on. It featured the return of Anton Arcane, Swamp Thing's nemesis, and his collection of Un-men. In the original publication, way back in 1974, the Un-Men were all flesh colored (check out the coloring of the issue's cover within the book...it retains the original colors). To my eyes, seeing a bunch of grotesque freaks with flesh colored skin is infinitely more creepy than seeing them colored orange. Or purple. Or puke yellow. On the plus side, and as I mentioned before, this is the first collection that features Len Wein's complete run on the series. Previous collections focused on the Wein/Wrightson issues and ignored the last three issues Wein wrote and Nestor Redondo illustrated. It was a shame they did, as Mr. Wein provided an excellent conclusion to his run in issue #13 of the series.
To be released to comic shops tomorrow: DC Comics Classic Library: Roots of the Swamp Thing - http://www.amazon.com/DC-Comics-Classic-Library-Roots/dp/1401222366/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243459751&sr=1-9For the first time, DC comics is presenting the complete Len Wein written issues (previous reprints focused, not without good reason, to the 10 Berni Wrightson illustrated issues as well as Swampy's first appearance in the House of Secrets). What's new here are the last three issues of Swamp Thing Len Wein wrote (Swamp Thing #s 11 to 13) and were illustrated (quite well) by Nestor Redondo. If you're a comic book fan, well worth taking a look. My only hope is that issue #10 of the run, Berni Wrightson's last illustrated issue, is colored more in line with the way it originally was colored. Can't stand seeing purple and orange and blue Un-Men. Much more chilling seeing them flesh colored.
Usually by this time in the morning, I'm sorting through all kinds of stuff to figure out what to post here. Not today. Seems like a slow kinda morning. At Ain't It Cool News they're starting to flood the site with reviews of the new Star Trek movie. Seems rather redundant by this point as the early word on the film is good and I think everyone interested in seeing it will go see it. The other major movie news, of course, is the successful launch of Wolverine, despite some very negative reviews. Over on the news sites, there seems to be a post-pandemic lull. The swine flu is still a concern, although there seems to be some thought that the whole thing might have been overhyped. For the victims of the virus, I doubt that's the case. In politics, the GOP is searching for itself. Seems like only yesterday they had an iron grip on all of politics. So I'm at the 100th posting today, and there's truly not all that much to talk about. Instead, I'll offer the following: The first 10 people who email me at atrocket@aol.com with their address will receive a free copy of The Dark Fringe graphic novel. Consider it my way of thanking you for sticking around for the first 100 posts.
Hilarious stuff, though I must admit I lifted it from http://popculturesafari.blogspot.com/ (thanks, by the way, for the link to my site!). They, of course, found it on Funny or Die....
I'm a huge fan of Lee Marvin and feel that Point Blank (1967) is hands down his all time best film. The movie, based on Donald Westlake's (writing as Richard Stark) book The Hunter, would be the first movie version of this fine novel featuring criminal Parker (Westlake wrote several "Parker" books afterwards, and a couple were also filmed). The second version of The Hunter, Payback (with Mel Gibson taking the protagonist's role), was a terrible theatrical film but was subsequently released in a far, far better "Director's Cut", which I talked about here. Look's like Darwyn Cooke, one of the best and brightest comic book writer/artists out there today, is making a graphic novel based on that book and will be making graphic novels based on subsequent books. Looks damn good.... http://popculturesafari.blogspot.com/2009/04/preview-darwyn-cookes-parker-hunter.html
I've found it rather disconcerting going to the comic store these past few months. I'm buying less and less "new" stuff and more and more reprints of "old" stuff, usually a decade or more since its initial printing. For example, I never read any Denny O'Neil penned Justice League of America stories, and the latest "Showcase" edition of the JLA, volume 4, featured what I'm assuming are his first issues. I bought it and have found it a little dated but quite fun (his best work, still, is his Batman and Green Lantern/Green Arrow, IMHO). So far, each reprinted issue of his run features a great deal of going-ons and it takes me several minutes to make my way through each issue's 24 or so pages. On the other hand, I picked up a trade paperback collecting five issues of a recent storyline featuring a semi-popular Marvel character, written by a man I consider one of the better writers out there today, and found myself disappointed by how little "beef" there was. The actual writing/dialogue was good (the man can write), but the plot was so light...after five issues, there was so very little accomplished (I read the whole thing in a matter of maybe ten minutes, tops, and it seemed there was less going on in the five issues here than in a single Denny O'Neil JLA issue!). Worse, when all was said and done, nothing was really resolved. The story was, essentially, to be continued! Back in the day, I can't imagine what I read in this TPB would have merited more than a single issue to tell. And I think that's the crux of the problem I'm having with books nowadays. Comics used to present pretty meaty stories in each individual issue. I'm old enough to remember a "To be continued" pronouncement at the end of a comic being rather unique and startling. Now, however, writers seem to focus on writing not so much for the individual issue of a comic, but for the eventual TPB collected edition. But after a few years of doing this, it seems even the five issue TPB collections don't even have enough story to justify that format!
If there was any doubt that the people behind the movie The Watchmen were worried about underperformance, then you had to look no further than the ain't it cool news website to find the letter from one of the screenwriters essentially pleading for the public to come out in the second week of the film's release and please, please, please come see the film. I haven't, yet, and I truly didn't think I'd be able to do so while the film was in theaters. The fact of the matter is that I simply don't have that much free time, between work and other work and family, I rarely venture to the movies lately. Worse, I pick up the DVDs and, often, it takes even more months before I have free time to see them. But I'll get Watchmen when its released to video, no doubt in some "director's cut" featuring the fifteen or so minutes trimmed before the theatrical debut. Still, from the comments of others I'm getting the impression that its a good adaptation of the dense source material that plays like either a Reader's Digest or Cliff's Notes version (with big changes at the end) of the original work. Some have even likened the movie to a long advertisement for the book...see the film, now see what all the fuss is really about. Which brings me to the source material. Here and there I'm finding people either lavishing wild praise regarding the book or scorn (it's not that good...it's overrated, a slow read, etc. etc.). I think The Watchmen, the comic, is a decent read. There was clearly a great deal of thought and effort, both from the writer and the artist, into making this work. But what has always irked me about The Watchmen is what I found, many years ago, irks me in general about Alan Moore the writer. Don't get me wrong, I only wish I could write with the precision and intellect he commands. However, I realized quite a while back that if we were to liken Alan Moore to a songwriter, he's a man capable of writing some absolutely terrific songs, but he's not terribly good at producing a "concept album". The Swamp Thing comic book run is a good example. Stories that lasted an issue or two, tops, are among my all time favorites in Moore's run. However, when he had extended storylines, such as Swampy's trip to hell or through the universe, the stories felt like they ran out of gas before they eventually hit the finish line. So too was the case with the terrific V for Vendetta. Originally this series seemed to be composed of several short vignettes and they were incredible. However, when it came time to wrap the whole thing up, the series went south. The Watchmen was a startling work when it was originally produced in the 1980's, and there are some absolutely terrific issues in the run. But the the story and its resolution, perhaps inadvertedly (one hopes) lifted from the old Outer Limits episode "The Architects of Fear," has always left me wanting. I can only guess how Mr. Moore goes about creating a story, but to me The Watchmen felt like a concept (let's look at what a world with superheroes looks like) rather than a specific story (who killed the Comedian and why?).
|