This is an official press release from Boom! Studios
October 12, 2009 – Los Angeles, CA - Come meet BOOM! Studios writer J. Barton Mitchell and artist Dean Kotz, of the horror/detective thriller POE, as they appear at Geppi's Entertainment Museum for a one-day-only signing!
"We're very pleased to host writer J. Barton Mitchell and artist Dean Kotz, creators of Boom! Studios' exciting mini-series POE, one of the most insightful and interesting takes we've ever seen on one of Baltimore's most famous residents. With Halloween fast approaching and with our city's year-long celebration of POE, it's the perfect time for our friends and patrons to come meet this talented team," said Melissa Bowersox, Executive Vice-President of GEM.
Many know Edgar Allen Poe as not only the father of modern horror, but also the creator of the detective genre. But did you know he was a detective himself? Enter the world of POE and follow the famous author of darkness as he tracks a supernatural killer ravaging the streets of Baltimore!
Where:
Geppi's Entertainment Museum
301 W. Camden Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(410) 625-7060
www.geppismuseum.com
When:
Saturday, October 17th, 2009 from 12pm - 4pm
Map: Google Maps
Monday, October 12, 2009
Happy Canadian Thanksgiving Day!/ Columbus Day
Do you guys get some sort of default Holiday in November that we don't get? I don't know how this works.
It's not actually a "New World" if people are already living there. Here's to 500 years of poor decision making and syphilis. Don't go to the post office.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Light Monday
Item #1:
Randy sent this item:
Apparently somebody (possibly the California Dairy Council?) put together a Rock Opera about... a sci-fi future in which milk has made everything better. Look, I can't explain it. But if you've got 20 minutes or so, be prepared to have your world rocked.
Milkquarius
Seriously, you need to watch this thing. Its mind boggling.
Item #2:
I think the McBride siblings will appreciate this most of all:
Bacon Narwhal
Stolen from Calvin
Item #3:
Apparently, Dr. Robert Bakker, one of the most famous of paleontologists, is now at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. I have no idea how long he's been there, but I just saw him on a NatGeo documentary, and that's where he's at. Who knew?
I read Bakker's book "The Dinosaur Heresies" partially in high school and then all the way through in college. He's an interesting guy, and I'd be curious to know what's going on at that museum that they landed Bakker. Sounds like they've upped the ante since I used to go there in high school every few months.
here
I'm not sure about Bakker's reputation these days, but the way I was told in college (back in the mid-90's): he was not loved by the dino-community as he had sort of by-passed the usual route of scientific research, publishing and debate via journals and conferences, and instead went straight to a publisher and got his book out there to the public. "The Dinosaur Heresies" title was a reference to Bakker acknowledging that his hypotheses weren't accepted by the dino-community, but he wasn't letting that slow him down. And in the end, some of what he proposed is now widely accepted as theory.
More milege may vary.
I don't have an opinion on the whole thing, and I don't even know if my facts are correct.
I really, really hope a mention of Bakker doesn't accidentally draw a bunch of angry paleontologists in the comments section.
Item 4:
I'm going to get an Aye-Aye, and I'm going to put it in your kitchen.
Randy sent this item:
Apparently somebody (possibly the California Dairy Council?) put together a Rock Opera about... a sci-fi future in which milk has made everything better. Look, I can't explain it. But if you've got 20 minutes or so, be prepared to have your world rocked.
Milkquarius
Seriously, you need to watch this thing. Its mind boggling.
Item #2:
I think the McBride siblings will appreciate this most of all:
Bacon Narwhal
Stolen from Calvin
Item #3:
Apparently, Dr. Robert Bakker, one of the most famous of paleontologists, is now at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. I have no idea how long he's been there, but I just saw him on a NatGeo documentary, and that's where he's at. Who knew?
I read Bakker's book "The Dinosaur Heresies" partially in high school and then all the way through in college. He's an interesting guy, and I'd be curious to know what's going on at that museum that they landed Bakker. Sounds like they've upped the ante since I used to go there in high school every few months.
here
I'm not sure about Bakker's reputation these days, but the way I was told in college (back in the mid-90's): he was not loved by the dino-community as he had sort of by-passed the usual route of scientific research, publishing and debate via journals and conferences, and instead went straight to a publisher and got his book out there to the public. "The Dinosaur Heresies" title was a reference to Bakker acknowledging that his hypotheses weren't accepted by the dino-community, but he wasn't letting that slow him down. And in the end, some of what he proposed is now widely accepted as theory.
More milege may vary.
I don't have an opinion on the whole thing, and I don't even know if my facts are correct.
I really, really hope a mention of Bakker doesn't accidentally draw a bunch of angry paleontologists in the comments section.
Item 4:
I'm going to get an Aye-Aye, and I'm going to put it in your kitchen.
When Jamie is Gone
This weekend I:
- hung out with Jason, ate dinner, sort of watched TV
- went to a midnight movie, "Paranormal Activity"
- watched the last half of "Evil Dead 2"
- watched the last half of "Reality Bites"
- slept 4 hours
- watched "The Longest Day" (which was really very good, and I'd recommend it to anyone. Glad I finally saw it.)
- wrote official "nakedness" policy for League of Melbotis
- Went to post office - learned you can do all your postal stuff online these days and there's no reason to go to the post office
- Backed up line at post office talking to clerk about "Death of Superman" and various Justice Leaguers and DC Animated cartoons
- Went to: Target, Spirit: The Halloween Store, Home Depot, Lowe's (neither had what I was looking for), HEB (a local grocery)
- Watched the UT/ Colorado game with Matt and Nicole
- Hung out
- Re-did shelves
- Slept 7.5 hours
- am drinking coffee and considering more sleep
- Scout is asleep and laying on her back. She's dreaming she's running, so her feet and tail are moving. Its hilarious.
- am going to go into my office and do some comic-collecting-related activity
Saturday, October 10, 2009
This is happening: Marge Simpson in Playboy
Apparently, this is actually happening.
I am dumbfounded/ amazed/ amused/ probably still not buying Playboy.
Policy: Nakedness
editor's note: I actually started on this prior to reading this installment of Achewood. It was far more inspired by a diagram I had been working on at work for determining levels of tech support.
So Steven has asked:
Fair enough Steven.
To the first point, The League does, in fact, have a policy on his own nudity while blogging!
Blogging nude here occurs only after the third scotch has been imbibed.
The math works out thusly for common reviews:
Movie reviews: 2nd paragraph
Comic reviews: 4th paragraph
Television: 1st paragraph
Superman posts: stone cold sober
Political posts: before I even start, I've usually been nude and drunk for an hour
Leaguers who are into dudes are no doubt curious as to what the magnificent physique of The League actually looks like. Well, lucky you, I have decided to include a rather sexy shot of myself that Jamie usually keeps tacked to her bathroom mirror. Attempt to contain yourself.
Like Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale", The League rises from the water, revealing his form.
But the real question, then, is: Does The League have a policy for reading League of Melbotis au natural?
I was certain I'd shared this chart with you before as a helpful hint. In fact, I keep a printed copy folded up in my attache case to hand out to anyone who springs me with this very question.
The abbreviated decision chart looks like this (the full chart has more than 180 decision branches, but this usually works in a pinch and doesn't require 41 sheets of paper to print):
Please click for full flow chart
We suggest you print your own copy and keep it framed somewhere near where you might need to do some decision-making.
So Steven has asked:
What's your policy on nude blogging?
And what about nude reading?
Fair enough Steven.
To the first point, The League does, in fact, have a policy on his own nudity while blogging!
Blogging nude here occurs only after the third scotch has been imbibed.
The math works out thusly for common reviews:
Movie reviews: 2nd paragraph
Comic reviews: 4th paragraph
Television: 1st paragraph
Superman posts: stone cold sober
Political posts: before I even start, I've usually been nude and drunk for an hour
Leaguers who are into dudes are no doubt curious as to what the magnificent physique of The League actually looks like. Well, lucky you, I have decided to include a rather sexy shot of myself that Jamie usually keeps tacked to her bathroom mirror. Attempt to contain yourself.
Like Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale", The League rises from the water, revealing his form.
But the real question, then, is: Does The League have a policy for reading League of Melbotis au natural?
I was certain I'd shared this chart with you before as a helpful hint. In fact, I keep a printed copy folded up in my attache case to hand out to anyone who springs me with this very question.
The abbreviated decision chart looks like this (the full chart has more than 180 decision branches, but this usually works in a pinch and doesn't require 41 sheets of paper to print):
Please click for full flow chart
We suggest you print your own copy and keep it framed somewhere near where you might need to do some decision-making.
The League watches: Paranormal Activity
(editor's note: I just re-read this, and I came off rather harshly. I'm adding some content, because I really didn't think the movie was bad.)
You may or may not have heard about the movie "Paranormal Activity". It's currently in release and showing at the Alamo South in Austin.
I recommend reading about Paranormal Activity rather than viewing the trailer as the trailer probably gives away more than was wise to reveal, and certainly spoiled one or two of the film's tricks for me.
The biggest thing that this movie has going against it is that its been released about a full decade after "The Blair Witch Project", and to not draw a comparison would be sort of ridiculous. Like "Blair Witch" or the more recent "Cloverfield", "Paranormal Activity" purports to be "found footage" of a series of uncanny events, with a small, tight cast acknowledging that there is a camera on and running.*
I suppose my one miscue from the trailer was in believing the movie was about "Ghost Hunters"-style paranormal investigators, when it is really about a couple recording events in their own amazingly plush San Diego home (the most paranormal thing about the movie is how unlikely both the size of the house and "decorate with all the taste of a model home" look the place has).
Like Blair Witch, there also only about four characters in the movie, and that works in the context of the movie. In fact, I'm not really clear on who some of the people listed on IMDB are supposed to be. I suppose there are cut scenes?
I just never really got the same thrill from this movie that I got from Blair Witch. Perhaps because there's so much less geography? Perhaps because Blair Witch truly felt as if the actors were being toyed with, and here, our fiend feels like he's almost just a pest for part of the movie? Maybe because the thing really does have a "been there, done that" feel in its own way?
hope you like this shot, because you will see A LOT of it
In a lot of ways, it's kind of a low-budget "Blair Witch" meets the 1960's version of "The Haunting", and so in that way, the movie isn't half bad, all while not really bringing anything entirely new to the table. In fact, the filmmakers depend so much on their pretense of the "first person" camera shooting that they clearly were worried more about story or, in many ways, character.
There's a lot of pressure on the talent in this movie, as they're left to practical lighting, running their own camera and behaving like people caught on tape rather than actors playing out a scene. I can't really fault them for scenes that seemed like an improv class from time to time, and they certainly carried off the spookier scenes very well. By and large, they carried the enormous weight put upon them. Actor Micah Stone does a good job, but Katie Featherstone has more acting challenges, which she handles relatively well, without becoming oddly unsympathetic a la "Heather" from The Blair Witch, while bringing "production value" to the movie.
I am not a true horror fan. It's not that I dislike horror, but whatever gene sequence one needs to truly appreciate horror (like our friend, Wings) I simply lack. But there are certain things I find myself liking in horror movies. I think every Halloween I mention my love of "The Haunting", and because this movie replicates that same brand of fear, I can salute it. And I do feel the director and producers understood what makes a horror movie work without relying on a factoryline of teens getting it in a grizzly fashion.
But you do wish you had a better feel for who the characters are, and maybe that's what made "Blair Witch" work for me, but less so this movie, and not at all "Cloverfield".
The League's Verdict: It's possibly a renter, or a great option if you're in a Halloween mood, and you're not a fan of slasher pics, the latest Saw installment, etc... It does have some genuinely creepy parts, even if the ending feels completely telegraphed from the first frame.
*It should be noted that I did have the passing thought that the immediacy of self-documentation as a trope in horror is nothing new. After all, Frankenstein and Dracula were written as journals and self-narration. Adding a video camera may be just the natural evolution of that idea.
You may or may not have heard about the movie "Paranormal Activity". It's currently in release and showing at the Alamo South in Austin.
I recommend reading about Paranormal Activity rather than viewing the trailer as the trailer probably gives away more than was wise to reveal, and certainly spoiled one or two of the film's tricks for me.
The biggest thing that this movie has going against it is that its been released about a full decade after "The Blair Witch Project", and to not draw a comparison would be sort of ridiculous. Like "Blair Witch" or the more recent "Cloverfield", "Paranormal Activity" purports to be "found footage" of a series of uncanny events, with a small, tight cast acknowledging that there is a camera on and running.*
I suppose my one miscue from the trailer was in believing the movie was about "Ghost Hunters"-style paranormal investigators, when it is really about a couple recording events in their own amazingly plush San Diego home (the most paranormal thing about the movie is how unlikely both the size of the house and "decorate with all the taste of a model home" look the place has).
Like Blair Witch, there also only about four characters in the movie, and that works in the context of the movie. In fact, I'm not really clear on who some of the people listed on IMDB are supposed to be. I suppose there are cut scenes?
I just never really got the same thrill from this movie that I got from Blair Witch. Perhaps because there's so much less geography? Perhaps because Blair Witch truly felt as if the actors were being toyed with, and here, our fiend feels like he's almost just a pest for part of the movie? Maybe because the thing really does have a "been there, done that" feel in its own way?
hope you like this shot, because you will see A LOT of it
In a lot of ways, it's kind of a low-budget "Blair Witch" meets the 1960's version of "The Haunting", and so in that way, the movie isn't half bad, all while not really bringing anything entirely new to the table. In fact, the filmmakers depend so much on their pretense of the "first person" camera shooting that they clearly were worried more about story or, in many ways, character.
There's a lot of pressure on the talent in this movie, as they're left to practical lighting, running their own camera and behaving like people caught on tape rather than actors playing out a scene. I can't really fault them for scenes that seemed like an improv class from time to time, and they certainly carried off the spookier scenes very well. By and large, they carried the enormous weight put upon them. Actor Micah Stone does a good job, but Katie Featherstone has more acting challenges, which she handles relatively well, without becoming oddly unsympathetic a la "Heather" from The Blair Witch, while bringing "production value" to the movie.
I am not a true horror fan. It's not that I dislike horror, but whatever gene sequence one needs to truly appreciate horror (like our friend, Wings) I simply lack. But there are certain things I find myself liking in horror movies. I think every Halloween I mention my love of "The Haunting", and because this movie replicates that same brand of fear, I can salute it. And I do feel the director and producers understood what makes a horror movie work without relying on a factoryline of teens getting it in a grizzly fashion.
But you do wish you had a better feel for who the characters are, and maybe that's what made "Blair Witch" work for me, but less so this movie, and not at all "Cloverfield".
The League's Verdict: It's possibly a renter, or a great option if you're in a Halloween mood, and you're not a fan of slasher pics, the latest Saw installment, etc... It does have some genuinely creepy parts, even if the ending feels completely telegraphed from the first frame.
*It should be noted that I did have the passing thought that the immediacy of self-documentation as a trope in horror is nothing new. After all, Frankenstein and Dracula were written as journals and self-narration. Adding a video camera may be just the natural evolution of that idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)