The Too-Much-Drama-At-DC-Comics Brouhaha

Between more creative team shuffles, an ill-thought out creative challenge (which resulted in a stern Twitter lecture on context), and various shenanigans, DC Comics finds itself under public scrutiny.

And I, for one, am tired of the negativity....but I think I have a possible insight into why DC Comics is misbehaving, and one of the possible fixes.

I only realized this when reading this fine timeline via Gutters and Panels, I saw that the person who runs DC Entertainment - Diane Nelson - comes from the field of "brand management". Basically, this means that her speciality is figuring out how to position a particular brand in the marketplace, determining how the audience interacts with that brand, and making sure that the product matches up to the brand.

Throughout DC Entertainment, however, this seems to be playing itself out in a very destructive way - freelancers may be let go because their efforts aren't "meeting the brand". (Editors may be more in clue to the DC Entertainment "brand" - whatever that is - and making last minute changes because storylines don't fit the "DC brand"). Instead of focusing on the key element of DC Comics - most notably, the actual comics themselves - the powers that be (and that includes Dan Didio, Jim Lee, and the rest of the wacky gang) are focusing on fulfilling DC Entertainment's "brand promise"....at the expense of actually having products which promote that brand. (Or, as fellow blogger Siskoid might say, it's the John Nathan-Turner school of management).

Ironically, this also means that people who practice this - who are more focused on the image and on being the "top dog" - often lose out on opportunities. In my own life, after a fellow colleague in the field (whom I'll refer to as "Connector-In-Chief", mostly for purposes of satire) requested ideas for a presentation, I suggested my "Doctor Who Guide to Social Media". As the Connector publicly stated reluctance, needing to go to "the community", several members of this person's group shook their heads in affirmation - they wanted this, the Connector did not. (Eventually, the Connector-in-Chief stated that they were canceling the meeting in which I would have presented....but I had gone ahead and scheduled it anyway. Besides, the Connector-in-Chief's behavior towards me seems to indicate that they feel that I am a "threat" to them, and that having me around takes the focus off of them. It's understandable - after all, I am much younger, smarter, and better looking...but that goes without saying.)

But enough about me - this is a post about DC Entertainment.

With the amount of online copy generated about DC Entertainment's shenanigans, it's probably not suprising that the leadership team sees this as a victory - that they're dominating online conversation. Sadly, I believe we are seeing the sharp decline and sad fall of a major comics company. Somewhere in this story is a great book - a Barbarians At the Gate or The Smartest Guys In the Room - about DC Entertainment.

I just refuse to be one of the people who help write it.

The Ben Affleck As Batman Brouhaha

Somewhere, Adam West is laughing
at fandom's expense

This past weekend, the collective internet lost its sanity as possibly the greatest crime against superhero cinema ever perceived was committed....and Ben Affleck was cast as Batman for the upcoming Batman vs. Superman film.

As always (and as I summarized on Chicago Now), many on the Internet took to social media to advocate against this, to provide mobilization around such a noble cause, and to prevent this crime against humanity. As you can tell by the slightly sarcastic tone of this post, I am....well, to quote a great philosopher when it comes to this,I can't see the point, but I see the attraction. (That one's for the Comic Treadmill guys.)

To serve as a point of rationality and calmness (much to the chagrin of the collective interwebs), let me point out a few things:

• Hollywood executives make their decisions solely around funding and income, not necessarily creativity - you might want to pick up Michael Jay Epstein's The Hollywood Economist (or check out Audible for the audio version and help support the Zone 4 podcast) for more details, but to summarize: getting movies funded - no matter what size - is a Herculean effort. Although Batman Vs. Superman seems a no-brainer, executives probably thought, Who can we get who is currently "hot"...but affordable?...I know, Ben Affleck!. It has nothing to do with insulting the movie goer's intelligence, or a creative misstep. Whic leads to...
• Did you really expect wisdom from Hollywood executives? - After all, this is the same industry that thought that a comedy version of a long-standing character, featuring Johnny Depp with a crow on his head, was a good idea, and would make money. (Personally, I'm not an Affleck fan, but I'm also not going to judge the guy prematurely, because...
• We have a director, and two actors, but no script - We know two actors and a director, but there's no script - not even loose leaf pages scribbled in red crayon. Just a reminder: you need some kind of story planning - what people in the film biz call a 'script' - in order to determine what the actors do. Now, if Affleck writes the script, you have a basis for comparison. Otherwise, posting petitions and calls for him to be removed are pointless because...
• Filmmakers don't really make films based on social media - the whole Ben Affleck brouhaha smacks of "slacktivism" (believing that minor interactions online have major impact - for more details, please check out my recent Chicago Now post), and quite frankly, the ultimate vote any one of us has is the purchase of a ticket. We are free to judge a movie based on any preliminary footage, as well as paying to see the completed product. Download it illegally, and you're claiming moral superiority without taking a legitimate risk. When you pay your money, and you're dissatisfied, that's the point to register your. Or in other words, make sure the parrot's dead before heading to the pet shop

So in short, my opinion is....I'll wait and see. Affleck may be the best Batman ever....or he may be the most mediocre Batman. Or all of this could end up like online conversation about Heath Ledger as the Joker.

So please, fandom...take a long, deep breath. Maybe take a short nap. Things will get better. I promise.

The Sexism In Fandom Brouhaha

Sometimes - just sometimes - I often find myself looking at fandom in a critical way, and often wondering, "Does anyone else really get it?"

Recently, I came across two pieces - one through another site and another via a local pal's blog - focusing on female roles in fandom, whether it's about "fake fans" (or as my pals the Nerd Girls would say, "booth babes") or misogyny in other fields such as music.

Of course, it would be easy for me to proclaim, as a "feminist-friendly" blogger, that there is rampant misogyny....because it's true.

I'm also more concerned with what's even more concerting - somehow, that having nerdy or geeky interests makes you "special", and that "nerd hierarchy" is becoming less of a snarky term....and more of a way of being. It's the feeling that somehow, unless you are so immersed into something that it becomes your own, or you are into the "right" shows, you somehow lose "nerd cred."

It's dumb. It's stupid, and we should know better.

I'm not sure there's more of a point, but I'll open it up, especially since I'm not sure how to express myself without ranting.

So please, your thoughts? Comments? And please keep them polite and civil.

The Laura Siegel Brouhaha

Recently, there's been a lot of commentary made about the open letter Laura Siegel Larson wrote to fans about the continuing litigation against DC around the family's rights to Superman -  much of it from current, presumably younger fans about how "greedy" her family has been.

(And admittedly, I cannot honestly say that I haven't stirred the pot somewhat with my own comments).

Rather than repeat the usual argument - that Siegel and Shuster had no way of "knowing better" - let's look at this through a modern context.

First, with all of the excessive lawyers' fees that DC is paying, it would have been much easier (as Ms. Larson suggests) to simply pay the families of both creators. After all, it is not as if Siegel and Shuster's efforts did not pave the way for DC's success, nor is it wrong to suggest that any person who works hard and creates something profitable should benefit from those efforts.

Looking at DC's representation - and their efforts to discredit Larson's attorney - are more than slightly offensive; it borders on unethical. It is one thing to try the case in the "court of public opinion"; it is another to make claims that have very little basis in reality. I can understand DC's need to protect its copyright, but it smacks of stories about how lawyers walk through conventions and prevent artists from doing licensed characters as commissions. At some point, doing the right thing can be more advantageous than efforts to avoid doing the right thing.

And yes, more rabid fans drive the controversy home by pointing out the "greed" of both families - whatever their intentions (and despite my earlier comments, let's assume the best of those intentions), they have a legal right to make claim over the benefits of their forebears' efforts. After all, we have a presidential candidate who has benefited from being part of a powerful political family, a real estate mogul in New York who built his own empire on his father's financial successes....wouldn't it be fair and right for other families to benefit in a similar way?

My position is clear - Siegel and Shuster were the victims of slightly devious business practices, and although they received some compensation, DC had to essentially be shamed into doing the right thing. So my advice - both sides sit down, work out a reasonable agreement, let the court case go, and move on.

If that isn't truth, justice, and the American way, I have no idea what is.....

Messing Up the Messiah: A Look at HOLY FLYING CIRCUS

I have to admit, I often love the occasional "docu-drama". You know, the kind of TV movie that takes elements of the truth, whips them up into a nice, frothy fictional fondue, and entertains and educates?

Recently, I caught the soon-to-be-released-in-September version of Holy Flying Circus, a 2011 BBC television movie that dramatizes the controversy around their 1979 movie Life of Brian....and I have to say, this is a must-watch, on every level.

One of the best things about this movie is the acting - all of the actors (aside from Phil Nichols as Terry Gilliam) are dead-on in their portrayals. Thankfully, the movie uses Michael Palin (Charles Edwards) as the "audience identification" character, providing the movie a solid emotional core.

In fact, one of the nice things about the movie is that it takes a very Pythonesque approach to the material - it knows it's a dramatization, and plays with it. Please allow me to post two clips to demonstrate much better than I can describe:



In short, a masterpiece. It's supposed to come to Blu-Ray in September; hopefully, a DVD release will also be immanent. But quite easily, this is one of the best pieces of television ever made.

Track this down. You'll thank me later.

About the Aurora Shootings....

There's really not much I can say.....I debated whether or not I should blog about this; however, the only commentary I can provide I had written early this morning on Facebook. Consider this my only statement, since I'm still reeling from the news:

Unfortunately, the Aurora shootings bring back sad, powerful memories for me - I lived in Eugene with my then-fiance and her kids when school shootings occurred in 1998. The community lived through a time of confusion, of grief, sorrow, and disconnectedness. Thankfully, they (and we) were able to move through by simply acknowledging our hurts....and being good to one another. May I humbly ask that we refrain from name calling, finger pointing, and quite honestly, divisiveness and snark during this time? Because what the people of Aurora really need....is our support and kindness. Not our anger and sarcasm.

Your Weeky Menu of Online Shenanigans

This has been a pretty busy week, including scheduling two job interviews, a successful Doctor Who Meetup (and planning for the regeneration of Bar Tab of Rassilon) completing a rush freelance job, and an outing to Second City (which I'll write about tomorrow).

For now, though, please feel free to check out this book review in the Job Stalker blog for Chicago Now. I've been doing a weekly guest post for awhile, and you have plenty of opportunities to enjoy some good writing. (It's always great to break away from the whole comics-pop culture thing for awhile - after all, while I don't always court controversy, I sometimes have to clarify what I send (simply scroll to the bottom). After all, I have something of a reputation to maintain).

And don't forget - a brand spanking new Zone 4 episode. If you like what you hear, please like our Facebook page, especially since sometimes, I need backup, if you catch my drift....

The "Waffles For Stephanie" Brouhaha

Via Handmade Stuffs on Flickr -
because I think it's cute

As many of you have probably read over the internet, there is a movement about - a group of fans is encouraging the mailing of waffles by like-minded fans to DC Comics in order to convince them bring back Stephanie Brown in light of her impending appearance in the Smallville comic.

Now on one level, I completely understand - as a character, Stephanie's been done pretty wrong by DC as the result of some wrong-headed decisions. (Many of which do not include the smart one of having her be the first female Robin....but that's besides the point). I loved Bryan Q. Miller's recent take, and quite honestly - I love the character. A relatively young, fun character who made Batgirl the one Bat-book you should have read....and didn't.

However, this waffle thing? The most misguided, irresponsible move on the part of fans everywhere.

Now, you'll probably scold me for being negative, but quite honestly....sending frozen waffles to a comic company is simply taking a bad stunt (which worked for a series in escaping total cancellation) and just repeating it. It's all show and no tell - given the amount of investment that DC has taken with its reboot, having it insert a character for no other reason other than "we love her"....seems silly.

Via Flickr - No waffles for you,
Dan Didio!

(In order words, she's not "iconic" enough for DC. But I still love her to death).

So, to help those who want to do something positive in Stephanie's name, let me suggest the following actions:

• Get together with some like-minded friends, purchase a case of waffles, and donate them to a food pantry or a homeless shelter.
• Pool your money and donate it to a domestic violence shelter, or an organization that deals with reproductive justice like the Illinois Caucus on Adolescent Health.
• Pool your money, donate to the Hero Initiative in Stephanie's name, and send a taunting note to DC comics.
• Go to Indy Planet (or preferably, your local indie comic shop)  and order a cool indie book written by a woman. You'll be helping foster a cool creative scene.
• Donate to your favorite female-created web comic. They would definitely appreciate it.

This isn't a typical male-written "gee-look-at-the-goofy-ladies" post. Yes, Stephanie Brown is a cool character. But sending waffles to DC as a way of encouraging positive action....is a waste of perfectly good waffles. 

Taking Time for BEFORE WATCHMEN: MINUTEMEN

Normally, when I blog about a book, I have a very simple reaction - either I like it, or I don't like it. (And "don't like it' can include parts that I like). Most things I read I have an overall emotional reaction to, whether it's positive, negative, or neutral.

But Before Watchmen: Minutemen is a book that I am having completely ambiguous feelings about.

On the one hand, simply as a comic - it's stunning. Darwyn Cooke crafts a story that easily could fit as a precursor to the graphic novel. Granted, this is an "introducing the band" issue (meaning that next issue will kick-start us into the story), but there's strong characterization, building upon what Moore and Gibbons suggested and stated. And as other reviewers have stated, it is a bit wordy, but given that we're being told this through the eyes of the writer...I can forgive it.

Yet, on the other hand, and perhaps I'm reading too much into this...there isn't a sense of investment in the narrative. With Cooke's other work, like New Frontier, or his adaptation of Richard Stark's The Hunter and The Outfit, there's a really strong sense that Cooke is telling a story he wants to, in a way he wants to, and that it's satisfying. Perhaps the controversy about this book has me tainted (or even, given what happens, that it's a deliberate storytelling device), but it doesn't seem as if Cooke feels that sense of investment in these characters, and reading the book....is a good experience, but has me feeling a little unsure of how to proceed.

(The two-page Crimson Corsair backup? Did nothing for me. But Minutemen did affect me enough to want to purchase issue #2).

This is a mixed review - it's not a bad book (and as the first of six parts, it's not going to necessarily be the most intensive), and as a great example of superheroic storytelling, Before Watchmen: Minutemen serves the bill, echoing Moore and Gibbons' work without aping it. But there's not much of an emotional core to the book so far, and although it is the first issue....Cooke has done better.

So I'll keep reading Minutemen...but I'll probably skip on the other prequel titles.

Because if this book - which is the "highlight" - doesn't seem engaged in its characters, the other titles may seem like bad fan fiction in comparison.

The Alan Scott/EARTH-2 Brouhaha

As much as DC's reboot has left me with a general feeling of "so what", I have to admit that creatively, they've taken a huge gambit. It may be that they're driving sales with events and controversy, but at least they're willing to make some major changes.

As you may have read from many an outlet (including the New York Times), Alan Scott, the Golden Age Green Lantern, is going to be "outed"...or at least, rebooted as gay.

As a straight, white, heterosexual male...I have to admit, I commend DC - oh, sure, they created/revamped Batwoman as a lesbian, but that was a bit different....the character was, at best, a long forgotten relic from a different time. In all regards, she may as well be a newly-created character.

Many a fanboy will be making the obvious homophobic jokes (at least, along with the characterization of their female counterparts as "feminazis" and urging them to "go back to the kitchen"), but the fact that DC is willing to revamp a character like this - and to not dwell on his sexuality (like, say, Marvel's infamous "outing" of Northstar in Alpha Flight)...but it's time the medium grew up a little bit.

I'm also heartened by the fact that James Robinson - who I admit I've had issues with in terms of his more recent work - is handling the character. Robinson has a way of handling characters in a way that doesn't seem forced, and that has a very poetic, nuanced quality to the work. This may be a "stunt" on DC's part, but the fact that they're handling this stunt with care speaks volumes.

Oh, sure, we'll have the obvious protests and cries from more conservative organizations (as well as less-educated fans), but in all honesty....I think this is a good thing. It shows that DC's recent reboot may have been a creative gamble...but it's not the only creative gamble they're willing to take.

And if it means a superhero universe that looks more like our own (except without Rob Liefeld's involvement), so much the better.

Another Joe Quesada Brouhaha

I would like to publicly thank Joe Quesada.

Unfortunately, I have been feeling a little creatively spent with the blog - no ideas about potential posts were forthcoming, not even a simple place-a-photo-and-make-up-something wacky.

But then, Joe Quesada of Marvel Comics - who once proclaimed that "magic doesn't need explanations", and who inexplicably keeps hiring Mark Millar to write....spoke out about female Marvel characters and the movies.

And he confirmed my faith that, just when you think the two major comic companies can't do worse, they actually set the bar lower. Far lower.

Now, I'm not going to reiterate my comments about Ms. Johannsen's performance in The Avengers, but I think Quesada totally misses the point.

It's not about "iconic" characters....it's about taking the very material you have, taking one of the possibly underutilized characters, and possibly building a movie around that.

It's about finding an actress who can play the role, a director who can make a pretty darn good film, and investing the time and effort in crafting a good script, putting a great crew together, and making a solid movie.

It's not that hard, Joe. You've done it before - heck, some would argue that Marvel's past few movies have shown that you can do it. Because saying you don't have any "iconic" female characters - and denying that there are any good female actresses to play them - have a slightly patronizing tone to them.

I'm not judging, I'm not accusing, I'm just saying....Joe, you can try harder. Seriously. We have the faith you can surprise us like you did with The Avengers.

Or at the very least, with your recent comments.

Open Letter to Chris Roberson

Dear Chris,

I'm posting this publicly one in fannish admiration (I loved your Star Trek/Legion of Superheroes Crossover, and liked what you did on Superman), but also to offer my support.

You've come under fire for quitting DC Comics due to its impending Before Watchmen series, as well as its overall treatment of creators. You have cited this article as an impetus, and you've also made your thoughts more apparent in this Comics Journal interview. As a humble blogger, I just want to say....

...thanks for taking a stand. And having the courage of your convictions.

Many of my colleagues have either taken the obvious Roberson's-being-egotistical, or more likely, "It's a shame, but at least we'll have Before Watchmen." Online, we're more likely to hide behind keyboards and screens and declare what should be done, but we rarely - if ever - take a hard line ethical stance. It's easy to forget that behind one of our favorite art forms there are business and ethical matters that we may not take an active interest in.

It's easy to be a cog in the machine - I'm proud that you are actually not just quitting an unethical company (a company that's going to play the "creator's-family's-lawyer-is-an-opportunist" card in order to protect their interests), but making it clear that this is ultimately about rights, not about money, or credit, or anything.

It's also a shame that many of my comics-loving brethren have been vocal about looking forward to Before Watchmen - from a business standpoint, it makes sense (DC has characters, and they're reusing them); from a creative and ethical standpoint, it's bankrupt, showing that corporate interests are being moved forward at the expense of - and not in service of - creative ones. I think it's particularly damning when you said, about one of the supporters of the project (and whom you replaced on a book given his other writing commitments):

As I said on Twitter then, anyone who uses past injustices against creators to justify new injustices against creators is beneath contempt. I think that that is despicable and abhorrent. The mindset— I don’t agree with that, I guess you could say.

Such honesty and directness is frowned upon not just in the comics industry, but in our day-to-day lives. When given the chance to take such a high-minded stance, some of us avoid it, because we don't want to rock the boat. We allow ourselves, to misquote one of my favorite shows, to be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, briefed, debriefed, and numbered. I'm very heartened and inspired that someone, at the very least, is saying, "No, I won't. This is wrong."

So in that spirit, I'm going to start seeking out your other, non-DC, creator-owned work, and look forward to reading your future efforts. After all, it's the least that I can do. I appreciate anyone willing to put their reputation on their line in such a positive way, and that shouldn't be flamed....it should be encouraged.

Thanks again,
Gordon

You're No One in This Town: The Ballad of Alan and Declan

With the recent announcement of the Before Watchmen prequel series, Alan Moore has had plenty to say about the project....including that if people purchase the prequel series from DC, they should quit reading his other works immediately.

Of course, this is a gross simplification - after all, Moore is attempting to make a serious stand for creator's rights, and in all honesty, he did make a bad deal. (Yes, it is tempting to scold him for being "naive" back then, but who's to blame - Moore, for his naivete, or DC/Warner for exploiting that?). But there's something a little bit more pernicious at work, and quite honestly, it reminded me of a similar situation which, if the memory isn't cheating, happened about the same time....

(Actually, the memory was cheating - according to Google, the following happened in November/December 2011).

When Universal Music was about to release a mega-volume live/DVD set of his Sensational Spinning Songbook, Elvis Costello took the radical view that people shouldn't buy it, but purchase a Louis Armstrong boxed set instead.

Via wilbyington on Flickr

Why am I mentioning these two gentlemen, you may ask? I do so because behind their seemingly fight-the-power stance, there's an incredible amount of hypocrisy and - dare I say it - ego behind it.

Costello has been committing the more egregious errors of the two - after all, his back catalogue has been rereleased on CD multiple times for multiple companies (starting with the vanilla Columbia releases, followed by Rykodisc, then Rhino Records, and now Universal). Although his stunt seems cute, it does beg the question - does a man who continually rehashes his past catalogue, often adding "bonus tracks" (sometimes different across releases), really want people to acquire his work "by any other means"? Or is it more of a case of shrewdly creating a negotiating point for a later transaction.

With Moore, his heart seems in the right place, but his manner suggests that although he may believe he is fighting for overall creator rights, he is acting out of a sense of personal hurt. Given his frosty relationship with many of his co-collaborators, his more erratic recent work (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Century - 1968 seemed less like a story and more a game of spot-the-reference), and his assumption that adaptation into other medium somehow changes the very nature of his books make his arguments less valid.

(And my position, for the record - Before Watchmen may be a good business decision for DC, it is an incredibly poor creative move. No one cares about these characters before Moore's novel - there's no need to discuss a sane Rorschach, or a slim Nite-Owl. Exploring the world of the Minutemen may be interesting, but this is more of a desperation move on DC's part than anything else).

Ultimately, in either case, the person who truly lacks the benefit is the fan - the person stuck in the middle, often having to choose between enjoying an artist's work despite the artist's wishes or avoiding something that may prove to be an exemplary experience.

Costello once wrote that "You're nobody 'til everybody in this town/Thinks you're a bastard". And both Costello and Moore seem to be moving in that direction.

Your Friday Brouhaha Moment of Zen

Here's the video that has everyone talking:



And here is the democratic response, from one of my favorite bloggers:

The irony - found my dad's old Merkur Solangen safety razor a few months ago, and spent $25 on a double edge blade sampler. Come April, planning to try to switch to shaving with a double edged blade. (Been doing the shaving soap for awhile now).

The COMIC BOOK MEN Brouhaha

Simply from a scheduling perspective, Comic Book Men seems like an obvious winner. Scheduled immediately after AMC's Walking Dead (a show which I'm positively neutral about - the premise is intriguing, but the execution just doesn't grab me), having an "unscripted" focus on a comic book shop might be a nice, pleasant way to finish a Sunday night. Or, at the very least, be like Clerks in a comic shop.

Unfortunately (and you'll hear more details in the Zone 4 episode to be uploaded on Friday), except for 10 to 15 minutes (focusing on determining the worth of collectibles), I found the show to be....well, bland. However, there's been a lot of controversy about the show and, well, the televised behavior of its participants. From Comic Related to other related sites, there's been innumerable talk - and argument - about the show.

In an effort to help encourage thoughtful debate, here are the main arguments for the show, and my witty, considerate rebuttals to those arguments.

• You're not being fair - you need to hear their podcast in order to "get" them - If this were a multi-arc show like, say, Lost, I would agree. This is a six week limited series; you need to hit it out of the ballpark with the first episode, especially since none of the cast except the guy who looks like the Unabomber has anything remarkable about them. (And the Unabomber guy might want to learn a little something about showing respect online)
• It's not bad - it's just slow in places; it will improve as it goes on, so why not give it a chance? - I will admit, I did like the moments when they were determining the worth of various collectibles (and as someone who has never seen Pawn Wars...but none of the regular cast, even with Smith present, seemed to have any distinctive personality. (It didn't help that they were rather snarky in tone when discussing people as they left. Yes, it happens, but it doesn't bode well as a public presentation of comics fans in general)
• You're just jealous because they have a show and you don't - Right, because I've spent my entire life developing advanced skills so my life could be videotaped, broadcast, and criticized by producers, directors, television critics, and discussed in the same breath as someone named "Snooki". Yes, I am being sarcastic, but quite honestly - I am a podcaster. I work with two guys who have a lot more personality than the Comic Book Men. We deserve better.

• You're living the cliche - the nerd who openly criticizes his fellow nerds: Actually, no, my life is not a cliche - most of the "nerds" I know are intelligent, well-spoken, and respectful, working in a variety of fields. Shows like Comic Book Men reveal a large segment - the nerd who isn't a "high tech" nerd, but the kind of guy who criticizes the families of comic creators for being "greedy" when suing companies. They never met a Marvel or DC press release they didn't like. They'll deride other fandoms or fan activities in an obvious effort to seem "cool". I would argue that not only is criticizing them not a cliche, but is the mandate of every commentor who has a stake in "nerd culture".

I have hung out at comic shops - I know the insanity that sometimes happens, the weird conversations. I've seen a guy in a Star Trek uniform approach the counter and ask - with a straight face - if he could work there, and announce that he was willing to be paid under the table. I've had conversations with women about cool action comics. I've hung out with a variety of cool people....but Comic Book Men doesn't capture that. It's more of a network or marketing executive's idea of what appeals to "nerd culture" than an honest appreciation.

And to answer your question - no, I didn't watch last night. I'm actually quite glad, because unlike many of my comic fans, I find it easier to drop something I dislike than rant about it online. And something tells me we won't be seeing a season two of this show any time soon.

Zone 4 Extravaganza!

Yes, I've been away from the blog - big plans. Hopefully, may mean that I have a steady income for awhile.

And after you hear this week's episode, you'll understand why I've been away.

Here's a trailer:

Various Comic Creator Brouhaha

S

Spent a good chunk of last night recording the latest episode of Zone 4 (and if you haven't heard our current episode, please do so - Ron, Brant and I had a great conversation about Before Watchmen with the mighty Mike Luoma). But last night, I have to admit....I got to rant a little.

Because some of the creator-based news of the past week....well, has my blood boiling. I don't know what surprises me more - the negative unprofessional behavior of some of the parties involved, or the fact that some comic fans - much like people who enjoy The Big Bang Theory - are simply taking the wrong side of the issue.

(And I've already taken flack for not liking BBT on Facebook, but to summarize - yes, it's a popular show. But it's more of a network executive's idea of nerd/geek culture than it is an honest representation of nerd/geek culture. And people who claim that "if I don't like it I don't get it"....might I suggest The IT Crowd? But I digress...)

Let's look at the items of interest....shall we?

First, is the he said/he said that both John Rozum and Scott McDaniel provided when it came to Rozum's departure from Static Shock. Reading both men's accounts (where they seem to lay the blame onto the other person somewhat), one theme does occur - that book's editor had a very vague and unclear way of communicating his expectations. Hiring a writer solely because of his involvement in a particular line, and asking him to not write to his strengths seems...misguided. Having an artist co-plot a book without encouraging any kind of collaboration seems....misguided. Quite honestly, I didn't read Static Shock (With a diminished income, I'm relying heavily on word-of-mouth for comics), but this just seems like corporate mismanagement than creative disintegration.

It's also a little shocking to hear that Walking Dead's former artist is now suing writer Robert Kirkman for back royalties. Since I'm not a Walking Dead fan, my comments should be taken as "full of hot air". I really can't take sides in this issue....but something tells me this may be less about agreements that both men may have had and....again, company mismanagement. Studios have been notorious for creative accounting, and with rumors around Frank Darabount's dismissal from the show....it's not looking good. Not at all.

Gary Friedrich via Flickr

But the issue that gets me the most riled....involves the gentleman pictured on the right. His name is Gary Friedrich, and he was a writer for Marvel Comics in the 1970s. He also lives in Missouri.

Recently, he lost a court case involving some work he did for the company - work for which he felt he was not compensated adequately. Thanks to this case, he cannot claim the title of "creator" for a character....and in addition, the company decided to remind him that he owes them a hefty sum...and for some comics fans, it's all his fault because he "should have had a lawyer", he 'should have negotiated a better contract"....to which I say....

Learn a little history, pal.

Comics companies of today are not run - and are completely different entitles - than comics companies back then. (And as always, read Men of Tomorrow by Gerard Jones for insight into how comics companies have functioned - or not functioned - in the past) They weren't owned by huge conglomerates (and had Marvel not been owned by Disney - notorious for aggressively punishing potential copyright threats, this might not be an issue), and freelancers were often working by the skin of their teeth. Yes, Marvel has a vested interest in protecting its copyrights and trademarks....

....but to sink to the level of punishing a guy financially - a guy who's struggling to get by - is simply low and unconscionable. 


This isn't about a guy trying to cash in - he's barely making a living. He wanted to get fairly compensated for his past work. And here's where I'm going to appeal to you, the reader of this blog, to make a difference.

If this story ticks you off enough to boycott any Marvel movies and/or comics, take that money and donate it to Gary - Steve Niles has set up a page where you can do so. Please feel free to join the "Support Gary Friedrich" Facebook page for news and updates. In fact, why not organize a fundraiser for Mr. Friedrich, or an organization like the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund?

Because as a great poet once remarked, "Let fury have the hour/anger can be power/do you know that you can use it?"

And for my Chicago comics pals - let's put on an event. Let's demonstrate that we have the coolest comic loving community on the planet, if for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.

The WATCHMEN Prequel Brouhaha

After all the discussions, the rumors, and the consumption of many Hostess Chocodiles, DC Comics has officially announced its plans to publish several prequel series to 1985's Watchmen.

And already, the internet is abuzz with conversation, complaints, mindless frothing, and general apathy.

Although Brant, Ron and I will probably be discussing this at this week's Zone 4 recording (episode to go live next week - be sure to head to either our web site or Facebook page to get updates), I thought I would make some general remarks both humorous, blatantly irreverent and hopefully....somewhat insightful.

• I get it - DC is in the business of publishing books. In addition, it's also (much like Marvel) now more of a franchise & licensing company; much of its reboot had to do with making various characters more palatable to use in other media. Given the relatively poor performance of the Watchmen movie, DC had to decide how to extend this franchise....so it shouldn't be all too surprising that they are moving in this direction.
• Personally, a Minutemen series makes the most sense - after all, a similar take on Golden Age material might be interesting. But in all honesty....does anyone care about a sane Rorschach? A non-pudgy Nite Owl? The book was pretty self-contained, and given that DC owns the Charlton characters that the novel was spun off from, well....they could have easily turned this into a separate Earth. Speaking of which.....
• Alan Moore has complained about how his characters are being used....and how his graphic novels are being reshaped into movies. It's kind of hard to take the comments of a man who has "revived" older, more obscure characters seriously. I'm reminded of a story involving a writer who, when asked if Hollywood had "ruined" his novels, stated, "No, they didn't - they're still on the shelf for people to read"
• Dave Gibbon's comment about "may this series achieve the success (DC) desires" - is it just me, or is there a hint of snark and sarcasm in that line?
• Many of DC's recent decisions - from changing their logo to "renaming" Captain Marvel into Shazam - seem less motivated by creative needs and more by business needs. (Most of the creative teams seem more like their in-house team than, say, recruiting the best fit for the character). It's one thing to build upon a universe; this seems like an event comic of the worst kind - more to drive awareness and say, "Look! This is still here!" than any real creative endeavor. (I have no problem with spin-offs, but I wonder if the story really lies in the characters before the events of the novel. That may be just me).

In short - I'll buy Minutemen, but everything else....either wait for the trades or ask at the library.

Thoughts? Comments? 

My Feelings About DC's New Logo In A Nutshell

(OK, actually I've spoken about them at length for the Zone 4 podcast, but thought this was cute nonetheless):




(Thanks to pal Brant of Zone 4 - you will be joining us on Friday, won't you, dear reader?)

Deep & Philosophical About Comics & Torrenting

Sometimes, having a Twitter account can be useful....other than nerd rage about canceling a behind-the-scenes show.

This morning, I was digging the Twitter when I came across a Tweet from pal Michael Moreci (yes, friends, I actually do have friends in the offline world). Michael, author of the graphic novel Quarantined, used the popular microblogging service to ask the following philosophical question:

Just found out Quarantined is up on torrent sites...should I be flattered?

Normally, I might just go back to bed at this point, but pondering this - and similar comments by fellow Zone 4 contributor/comics writer Mike Luoma, I wonder....why are people torrenting indie comics? And isn't that missing the point?

This isn't about copyright or creativity issues - I've read The Pirate's Dilemma too many times to not take some of it to heart....I understand that making things easily accessible to others is a good thing. But by their nature, indie comics are done not out of a need for profit (necessarily), but out of creativity and/or love of the medium. Some stories need to be told, and more importantly....need to be read. Although several companies have a stranglehold on the medium, they don't necessarily suffer through illegal downloads.

(And let's avoid the whole torrenting-should-be-illegal argument; for our purposes, we're agreeing that it's wrong in any form, but that it happens)

Indie companies, at best, are operating at a bare minimum, with small distribution, a minute amount of orders, and relying on word-of-mouth (and thankfully, social media) to drive sales. Marvel, DC, and the larger indies could probably take a sizeable hit due to illegal downloads....but to take away a smaller company's financial profits simply due to wanting a story read? Creators and artists deserve better.

Example - Mike was kind enough to send me PDF review copies of books for blog review. It would be easy for me to e-mail pals and say, "Here's two PDFs of books you should read." Yet, if I did so, I'm taking money out of Mike's pocket. (Plus, I told him I wouldn't do that anyway). Things are tough economically, and we have decisions to make...but when we start punishing those with a unique vision by impacting their livelihood, that's fundamentally wrong.

But I could be wrong - what do you think, dear reader? Am I being hypocritical? Is there a difference? Please feel free to leave an answer in the comments, or bug me via social media. I think there's a great discussion to be had. Honest.