Hey Leaguers:
Do not forget, Superman: The Movie will show at the Lake Creek Alamo Drafthouse on Sunday.
We're going to the 1:00 show.
You don't need to make a big fuss about the whole thing. But we'll be there with JAL and Mrs. JAL.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
2500
Well, Leaguers... according to the counter, this is post number 2500.
I was going to link to an article about the Chicago Bulls mascot getting sued for a high-five gone bad, but then I said "oh, that's post #2500. Perhaps something a bit more dignified...".
Every time an anniversary comes up around here, I feel the need to do an Oscar aceptance speech in order to thank people. And I imagine, mentally, each of you begins playing the Oscar music in your head and is walking me off the stage by the second sentence. So I won't do that here. If you want to be thanked and feel you deserve it, you know who you are. Thanks. You're a peach.
I'm a bit stunned to have reached 2500 posts. Sweet Christmas, what have I been doing with my life?
Oh, yes... this:
Sigh.
Well, apparently when it comes to talking about myself, Superman, comics and other useless minutia, I have a surprising degree of stick-to-it-iveness. The Admiral would be both proud and ashamed, I think.
2500.
I was going to link to an article about the Chicago Bulls mascot getting sued for a high-five gone bad, but then I said "oh, that's post #2500. Perhaps something a bit more dignified...".
Every time an anniversary comes up around here, I feel the need to do an Oscar aceptance speech in order to thank people. And I imagine, mentally, each of you begins playing the Oscar music in your head and is walking me off the stage by the second sentence. So I won't do that here. If you want to be thanked and feel you deserve it, you know who you are. Thanks. You're a peach.
I'm a bit stunned to have reached 2500 posts. Sweet Christmas, what have I been doing with my life?
Oh, yes... this:
Sigh.
Well, apparently when it comes to talking about myself, Superman, comics and other useless minutia, I have a surprising degree of stick-to-it-iveness. The Admiral would be both proud and ashamed, I think.
2500.
Test Footage: Where the Wild Things Are
This is just test footage. I have no idea if that's the script. It isn't the real kid actor, or the right costume, apparently.
But, hey, wow.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sci-Fi getting dumber thanks to super-heroes?
Randy sent me this link. It's worth reading. (editor's note: the link is now fixed. Don't try to watch daytime TV and blog, Leaguers.)
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with one of the author's points, which is: super-hero movies are full of bad science. A rocket-powered dynamo like Iron Man seems unlikely without some yet-untapped energy source. And where would you keep that fusion reactor in the suit, anyway? How does the Hulk grow with no means for gaining mass? Or Isn't Halle Berry's wardrobe in Catwoman a little improbable?
However, I disagree with a few of his points, or at least his accusations.
I think what he's trying to say is that: Science Fiction was once much smarter than what we get today.
I would not disagree with the merits of Blade Runner being a bit higher than what we're likely to get from Iron Man, as per moral complexity, well-fleshed-out-narrative, etc... But the author has selective perception regarding science fiction, and is ignoring the B-Movie tradition of sci-fi. For every plausible sci-fi movie (the author points to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Terminator, both of which this reader finds to be dubious choices), there were ten "Battle Beyond the Stars" or "Laser Blast".
It seems, really, as if the author is also suggesting that Blade Runner didn't have to share the market with Krull, Beast Master, and a lot of other stuff that wasn't exactly dealing with the steps of the scientific method.
Most of the characters coming to screen are not products of recent scientific development. Iron Man, Spider-Man and the Hulk made their debuts around 1963. Catching a low-budget sci-fi epic was a cheap thrill for a Saturday afternoon, and, of course, this predates most serious cinematic sci-fi by a few years. 2001 would debut a few years after Spidey, and about 30 years after Superman, for example.
He also suggests that comic book movies will somehow keep our kids from dreaming, our science from science-ing. Somehow equating Spider-Man with a lack of American students enrolled in science curricula.
From an historical standpoint, sci-fi comics were the black sheep in the sci-fi family, but there was a direct connection between the guys who were publishing "Amazing Stories" and other science-fiction publications. In fact, DC editor Mort Weisinger had worked for similar publications before coming to National. And Julie Schwartz would be the one who would insist on at least pseudo-scientific explanations for his heroes beyond "mysterious energies", bringing in the Silver-age of science-based heroes. Read more at Men of Tomorrow.
Often the earliest super-heroes, often referred to as "The Golden Age" heroes (circa 1938-1955) reflected the wisdom of the time. Hourman could gain his amazing strength from a pill (with no thought given toa ddiction, etc... but much to the power of modern chemistry). Starman was powered by the strength of his "gravity rod".
However, one of the markers of comics' move from the Golden-Age to the Silver-Age was the post WW-II interest in science and industry which fueled the country. The first Silver-Age sci-fi hero, Barry Allen as The Flash, is a walking textbook of physics issues. I recommend checking out the Showcase Presents: The Flash, which is terribly pseudo-sciency, but does try to make leaps from the textbook to the imagination, in a "look, kids... science is fun and cool!" sort of way (even when it makes no sense, whatsoever).
Further re-imaginings of characters, such as The Atom, explored the possibilities of the textbook as applied to super-hero feats of wackiness.
By 1962ish, when the FF was strapping themselves into an experimental rocket in order to beat The Commies into space, Stan and Jack were mostly concerned with drumming up new ideas to save Timely/ Marvel comics. As mentioned above, the science of the concepts wasn't necessarily rock solid. One was less likely to gain powers from an irradiated spider than one was to, say, get pretty sick. And if genetic traits were passed, Peter Parker did pretty well by not growing extra arms or having weird bug-eyes.
But that wasn't ever really the point of Marvel comics. Marvel was far more invested in the development of the characters behind the powers than in merely showcasing super-feats and displays of the mights of science. Pretty clearly, Stan and Jack were taking a page from the absurd science of movie serials and Saturday matinees. But characters such as The Hulk took also from both Doctor Jekyll & Mister Hyde with a strong shot of Frankenstein.
The point that this guy really misses, I think, is two fold:
1) The 20th century was when science came into the home of the average person. Myth and magic had to give way to the powers of the atom. Interesting ideas for a super-hero possessing the powers of the spider could be attributed to either magic or science. In 1963, science was going to win out, no matter how nonsensical the explanation.
2) Science fiction has long pre-saged actual invention. Laser beams, which are used every day in countless applications, first appeared in a science fiction story. And just because you don't see the path for Tony Stark's incredibly small, incredibly powerful power source, or how repulsors work today, doesn't mean that you won't see it in five years.
How many scientists, engineers, etc... first dreamed of becoming the next Ray Palmer, Reed Richards, Tony Stark? How many kids will look to exoskeletons and the possibilities?
We now live, eat and breath science. To suggest that we aren't surrounded by high-tech developers of cyber-space is bizarre. To lay the blame for a lack of developing science academia at the feet of Tony Stark is crazy when there are so many other factors out there from anti-intellectualism and the now popular attacks on science from politicians and folks looking for camera-time, Spidey isn't really your issue. Especially for those who really know Spidey know that his web-shooters weren't just genetic mutation, but are his own invention.
If anything, this article is somewhat depressing in that the author is suggesting that rather than dream of HOW the feats of Tony Stark or Spider-Man can be achieved, those dreams are too big and should be considered impossible. In a world where we went from a small engine propelling the Wright Bros. through the sky to landing on the moon (and coming back!) within a few decades, how can anything we see Batman, iron Man or any other super-hero doing be considered impossible? Perhaps today's suit of armor has no stabilization control, but tomorrow's might look and behave differently. Its not about the outward package, its about the problem you need to solve to get the basic concept to work.
I'm not writing off the science of super-heroes. I may know that a yellow sun will never make me defy gravity, and bullets will never bounce off my skin, but that doesn't mean we, all of us, can't imagine how that could happen.
Anyhoo, that's my two cents.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with one of the author's points, which is: super-hero movies are full of bad science. A rocket-powered dynamo like Iron Man seems unlikely without some yet-untapped energy source. And where would you keep that fusion reactor in the suit, anyway? How does the Hulk grow with no means for gaining mass? Or Isn't Halle Berry's wardrobe in Catwoman a little improbable?
However, I disagree with a few of his points, or at least his accusations.
I think what he's trying to say is that: Science Fiction was once much smarter than what we get today.
I would not disagree with the merits of Blade Runner being a bit higher than what we're likely to get from Iron Man, as per moral complexity, well-fleshed-out-narrative, etc... But the author has selective perception regarding science fiction, and is ignoring the B-Movie tradition of sci-fi. For every plausible sci-fi movie (the author points to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Terminator, both of which this reader finds to be dubious choices), there were ten "Battle Beyond the Stars" or "Laser Blast".
It seems, really, as if the author is also suggesting that Blade Runner didn't have to share the market with Krull, Beast Master, and a lot of other stuff that wasn't exactly dealing with the steps of the scientific method.
Most of the characters coming to screen are not products of recent scientific development. Iron Man, Spider-Man and the Hulk made their debuts around 1963. Catching a low-budget sci-fi epic was a cheap thrill for a Saturday afternoon, and, of course, this predates most serious cinematic sci-fi by a few years. 2001 would debut a few years after Spidey, and about 30 years after Superman, for example.
He also suggests that comic book movies will somehow keep our kids from dreaming, our science from science-ing. Somehow equating Spider-Man with a lack of American students enrolled in science curricula.
From an historical standpoint, sci-fi comics were the black sheep in the sci-fi family, but there was a direct connection between the guys who were publishing "Amazing Stories" and other science-fiction publications. In fact, DC editor Mort Weisinger had worked for similar publications before coming to National. And Julie Schwartz would be the one who would insist on at least pseudo-scientific explanations for his heroes beyond "mysterious energies", bringing in the Silver-age of science-based heroes. Read more at Men of Tomorrow.
Often the earliest super-heroes, often referred to as "The Golden Age" heroes (circa 1938-1955) reflected the wisdom of the time. Hourman could gain his amazing strength from a pill (with no thought given toa ddiction, etc... but much to the power of modern chemistry). Starman was powered by the strength of his "gravity rod".
However, one of the markers of comics' move from the Golden-Age to the Silver-Age was the post WW-II interest in science and industry which fueled the country. The first Silver-Age sci-fi hero, Barry Allen as The Flash, is a walking textbook of physics issues. I recommend checking out the Showcase Presents: The Flash, which is terribly pseudo-sciency, but does try to make leaps from the textbook to the imagination, in a "look, kids... science is fun and cool!" sort of way (even when it makes no sense, whatsoever).
Further re-imaginings of characters, such as The Atom, explored the possibilities of the textbook as applied to super-hero feats of wackiness.
By 1962ish, when the FF was strapping themselves into an experimental rocket in order to beat The Commies into space, Stan and Jack were mostly concerned with drumming up new ideas to save Timely/ Marvel comics. As mentioned above, the science of the concepts wasn't necessarily rock solid. One was less likely to gain powers from an irradiated spider than one was to, say, get pretty sick. And if genetic traits were passed, Peter Parker did pretty well by not growing extra arms or having weird bug-eyes.
But that wasn't ever really the point of Marvel comics. Marvel was far more invested in the development of the characters behind the powers than in merely showcasing super-feats and displays of the mights of science. Pretty clearly, Stan and Jack were taking a page from the absurd science of movie serials and Saturday matinees. But characters such as The Hulk took also from both Doctor Jekyll & Mister Hyde with a strong shot of Frankenstein.
The point that this guy really misses, I think, is two fold:
1) The 20th century was when science came into the home of the average person. Myth and magic had to give way to the powers of the atom. Interesting ideas for a super-hero possessing the powers of the spider could be attributed to either magic or science. In 1963, science was going to win out, no matter how nonsensical the explanation.
2) Science fiction has long pre-saged actual invention. Laser beams, which are used every day in countless applications, first appeared in a science fiction story. And just because you don't see the path for Tony Stark's incredibly small, incredibly powerful power source, or how repulsors work today, doesn't mean that you won't see it in five years.
How many scientists, engineers, etc... first dreamed of becoming the next Ray Palmer, Reed Richards, Tony Stark? How many kids will look to exoskeletons and the possibilities?
We now live, eat and breath science. To suggest that we aren't surrounded by high-tech developers of cyber-space is bizarre. To lay the blame for a lack of developing science academia at the feet of Tony Stark is crazy when there are so many other factors out there from anti-intellectualism and the now popular attacks on science from politicians and folks looking for camera-time, Spidey isn't really your issue. Especially for those who really know Spidey know that his web-shooters weren't just genetic mutation, but are his own invention.
If anything, this article is somewhat depressing in that the author is suggesting that rather than dream of HOW the feats of Tony Stark or Spider-Man can be achieved, those dreams are too big and should be considered impossible. In a world where we went from a small engine propelling the Wright Bros. through the sky to landing on the moon (and coming back!) within a few decades, how can anything we see Batman, iron Man or any other super-hero doing be considered impossible? Perhaps today's suit of armor has no stabilization control, but tomorrow's might look and behave differently. Its not about the outward package, its about the problem you need to solve to get the basic concept to work.
I'm not writing off the science of super-heroes. I may know that a yellow sun will never make me defy gravity, and bullets will never bounce off my skin, but that doesn't mean we, all of us, can't imagine how that could happen.
Anyhoo, that's my two cents.
Mel Turns 10
The celebration of Melapalooza '08 was this weekend, but Tuesday April 22nd marks the 10th birthday of Melbotis Perkins.
He will get a trip to the vet, many treats and a walkies.
The Birthday Boy hisself.
The birthday boy with his biggest fan.
Little sisters get to come to the party, too.
And sometimes relatives come in from out of town for parties. Mel with Kristen and Doug.
Cassidy was all set to party.
And here is your League, in his "pontificatin' hat"
Happy 10th Birthday to the best darn dog any boy ever had.
You can see the photostream here.
He will get a trip to the vet, many treats and a walkies.
The Birthday Boy hisself.
The birthday boy with his biggest fan.
Little sisters get to come to the party, too.
And sometimes relatives come in from out of town for parties. Mel with Kristen and Doug.
Cassidy was all set to party.
And here is your League, in his "pontificatin' hat"
Happy 10th Birthday to the best darn dog any boy ever had.
You can see the photostream here.
Monday, April 21, 2008
End of an Era: Dave's Long Box is put in the attic
Let me get this out of the way: I love Dave's Log Box.
Sometime in 2005/2006, JimD turned me onto the site, and it's consistently been one of the best comic blogs on the planet (nay... in the UNIVERSE), since its inception. Dave may have invented the idea of theme weeks for blogs, as near as I can tell. He brought the frenetic energy of fandom to the fore, celebrating both the good and the absurd in superhero comics with equal enthusiasm.
Blogging isn't a paying gig, Leaguers. So when folks discovered Dave's talents from the world of dollars and cents, he was able to parlay his blogging gig into a paying gig, writing for the Invincible Encyclopedia, a comic or so, and now writes for ABC.com. And for that, I salute him. We'd all of us bloggers probably have a secret wish that someone would put us on a payroll and give us medical and dental just for doing what we're already doing, and every once in a while, it actually works out for the best of the bloggers.
And Dave is one of the best.
Last Wednesday, I missed Dave's final post thanks to a few factors:
1) I check it once a week, because that's about how often Dave had been updating
2) Doug's malevolent presence
But he did leave a farewell post. I invite you to read his good-bye's. And not just because League of Melbotis gets a passing mention (In the privileged position between "the creators of Laser Force", and Bahlactus. Pretty solid company, if I say so, myself).
He's moving on to ABC.com full-time. And I wish him well.
There's a promised new blog coming, so I'll keep my eyes peeled. And you should, too.
I'll also be cleaning up my blogroll to include Dave's ABC work and the new site, whatever that might be.
Vaya con dios, Dave's Long Box.
Sometime in 2005/2006, JimD turned me onto the site, and it's consistently been one of the best comic blogs on the planet (nay... in the UNIVERSE), since its inception. Dave may have invented the idea of theme weeks for blogs, as near as I can tell. He brought the frenetic energy of fandom to the fore, celebrating both the good and the absurd in superhero comics with equal enthusiasm.
Blogging isn't a paying gig, Leaguers. So when folks discovered Dave's talents from the world of dollars and cents, he was able to parlay his blogging gig into a paying gig, writing for the Invincible Encyclopedia, a comic or so, and now writes for ABC.com. And for that, I salute him. We'd all of us bloggers probably have a secret wish that someone would put us on a payroll and give us medical and dental just for doing what we're already doing, and every once in a while, it actually works out for the best of the bloggers.
And Dave is one of the best.
Last Wednesday, I missed Dave's final post thanks to a few factors:
1) I check it once a week, because that's about how often Dave had been updating
2) Doug's malevolent presence
But he did leave a farewell post. I invite you to read his good-bye's. And not just because League of Melbotis gets a passing mention (In the privileged position between "the creators of Laser Force", and Bahlactus. Pretty solid company, if I say so, myself).
He's moving on to ABC.com full-time. And I wish him well.
There's a promised new blog coming, so I'll keep my eyes peeled. And you should, too.
I'll also be cleaning up my blogroll to include Dave's ABC work and the new site, whatever that might be.
Vaya con dios, Dave's Long Box.
I admit relief...
It seems the Justice League movie has been "tabled", according to super-producer Joel Silver.
Read here.
Everything about the movie's production sounded... wrong. It reminded me very much of the press coming out regarding the attempt at a Superman movie before Singer took the reins.
-It was not going to be a Magnificent Seven-style story, bringing the JLA together.
-Rumors were floating that it involved Brother Eye, which works in DCU continuity, but would baffle fans of the Batfilm franchises and cartoon.
-In order to avoid conflict with the Superman movies, rumor was it was to have Superman "dead" through the film. Dead. Ie: We don't need Superman for this movie, a point with which I will not agree.
-They were casting young, hip and sexy with CW-style fluffy bunny actors.
-They were talking about one of the old Mad Max guys for Martian Manhunter for some reason. The last live-action J'onn we got was played by David Ogden Stiers. A fine actor, but... not exactly super-hero material.
-Not casting Bale as Batman and Routh as Superman seems... short-sighted.
-It all sort of had the same vibe as the failed 1997 TV show for some reason.
I would love a JLA movie. A huge, Earth-shattering Morrisonian epic would be great (WWIII?). I sort of got the feeling the screen writers picked up recent JLA comics to see what the comic was actually like, were impressed that it's not the kiddie faire they assumed they'd be adapting, and started lifting from Rucka's "Project OMAC" series and Countdown to Infinite Crisis rather than actually understanding how all of this fit. This was serious, latter-day JLA lore, when the DC was in need of rebooting and retro-fitting, not entry-level stuff.
So, yes, I am happier with no JLA movie rather than a compromised JLA movie.
Also, WB... Morrison will soon be done with many of his comic-writing duties. I am sure Paul Levitz and Dan Didio have his number, if you'd like it.
Read here.
Everything about the movie's production sounded... wrong. It reminded me very much of the press coming out regarding the attempt at a Superman movie before Singer took the reins.
-It was not going to be a Magnificent Seven-style story, bringing the JLA together.
-Rumors were floating that it involved Brother Eye, which works in DCU continuity, but would baffle fans of the Batfilm franchises and cartoon.
-In order to avoid conflict with the Superman movies, rumor was it was to have Superman "dead" through the film. Dead. Ie: We don't need Superman for this movie, a point with which I will not agree.
-They were casting young, hip and sexy with CW-style fluffy bunny actors.
-They were talking about one of the old Mad Max guys for Martian Manhunter for some reason. The last live-action J'onn we got was played by David Ogden Stiers. A fine actor, but... not exactly super-hero material.
-Not casting Bale as Batman and Routh as Superman seems... short-sighted.
-It all sort of had the same vibe as the failed 1997 TV show for some reason.
I would love a JLA movie. A huge, Earth-shattering Morrisonian epic would be great (WWIII?). I sort of got the feeling the screen writers picked up recent JLA comics to see what the comic was actually like, were impressed that it's not the kiddie faire they assumed they'd be adapting, and started lifting from Rucka's "Project OMAC" series and Countdown to Infinite Crisis rather than actually understanding how all of this fit. This was serious, latter-day JLA lore, when the DC was in need of rebooting and retro-fitting, not entry-level stuff.
So, yes, I am happier with no JLA movie rather than a compromised JLA movie.
Also, WB... Morrison will soon be done with many of his comic-writing duties. I am sure Paul Levitz and Dan Didio have his number, if you'd like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)