If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The official trailer for the Watchmen movie is up over at Apple’s official movie trailer site. It looks like this movie is going to be as great as I have been hoping it would be. Seriously, I think Alan Moore will even have a hard time watching this and feeling pesimistic about it’s potental.
Science fiction blog io9 has an article explaining the Jack Kirby created characters from DC’s Fourth World line of books. The characters have been popping up in DC books as of late and reportedly they are the core characters in this summer’s big event Final Crisis.
I wouldn’t actually know since I am not reading it.
In fact, I’m not reading any DC Universe comics right now. They are just too hard to understand. It seems the reader is required to have an extensive knowledge of the history of the DC Universe and that’s something I just don’t have. I wouldn’t know a Mother Box from a bread box. When reading Amazons Attack!, I had no idea who the gray haired, heavy set woman revealed on the last page was. In fact, I thought it was Beatrice Arthur. I had to go online and do some reading to find out it was a character from the New Gods line called Granny Goodness.
Granny Who?
I have a strong suspicion that I’m not alone on this. All three of the New Gods books in the 70’s were canceled because of low sales. This means not an awful lot of people were reading them. How then are readers today supposed to know everything there is to know about the characters from New Gods?
I just don’t get it.
From this week’s Internet comic book gossip column Rich Johnson’s Lying in the Gutters:
I’m getting more reports of people who’ve commissioned pieces from Michael Golden complaining about the length of time the pieces take, the lack of communication, and the practice of taking on more commissions when there are years worth uncompleted.I don’t think anyone commissioning such a piece right now can be under any illusion of the amount of time Mike takes.
While most creators take less time to fulfil a commission, some take more - Brian Bolland and Simon Bisley are two examples.
As for communication, there’s very little more to say than, “It’ll be ready when it’s ready.”
I blogged last year about someone paying Michael Golden for a commissioned piece of artwork, only to get the runaround for months and months from both Michael Golden and his art agent, Renee Witterstaetter. When the fan finally got his artwork, it contained an insult from Golden. He included the phrase “Patience is a viru [sic]” in the piece.
Both classy and professional.
I understand some artists take longer to do their artwork. What I don’t understand is how someone can take someone’s money for a commissioned piece of art and then not get around to doing it. What’s even worse is when they take time to then attend comic book conventions where they take on even more commissions for artwork. I think that if you already have a backlog of commissions, you shouldn’t be going out and taking more commissions. You should concentrate on fulfilling the commissions you already have.
Personally, I would never pay a comic book artist for commissioned artwork. If I had $500 to blow on something comic book related, I would buy comic books. I’d pick up some more D.C. Comics Absolute Editions or maybe more Marvel Omnibus Editions or Marvel Masterworks.
If I wanted artwork that was comic book related, I would buy something licensed and authorized.
I wouldn’t buy a sketch. Ever. Not only are they usually way overpriced, technically they aren’t even legal. Unless the artist in question owns the rights to the character being sketched, they are unauthorized to use the characters for commercial gain. Just because comic book publishers choose to turn a blind eye to the practice of artists charging fans hundreds of dollars to create art depicting their intellectual property doesn’t mean they always will. Eventually publishers will realize that when a fan pays hundreds of bucks for a sketch of Wolverine smoking a cigar, that fan could be spending that money on licensed merchandise.
A list of the top 20 selling graphic novels sold by book retailers in the United States shows something that is beyond dispute - manga is popular and superhero comics are not. It’s not even close.
If I worked over at Marvel or DC, I would be worried. In fact, I would be very worried. Out of the top 20 graphic novels sold in books stores, only two (2) come from Marvel and DC.
The one lone book from Marvel is an adaption from a Laurell K. Hamilton Anita Blake Vampire Hunter novel. The characters don’t belong to Marvel. Both the author and the series has an existing fan base that automatically resulted in sales with readers that may have never read a graphic novel before.
The lone DC book was the acclaimed Alan Moore’s Watchmen. It was first published in 1986 and is considered by almost everyone to be the greatest graphic novel ever written.
Eighteen of the top 20 graphic novels sold in book stores did not come from either Marvel or DC. How can both companies just continue to ignore that? If I was in charge of either Marvel or DC, I would mimic the manga model. I find it remarkable that they don’t.
I read on the Internets that marvel_b0y — the low level Marvel Comics staffer and anonymous whistle blower type blogger — is no more. His account on LiveJournal is history.
They killed marvel_b0y. The bastards.
First they killed Black Goliath. Then they killed Captain America. Now they’ve killed marvel_b0y.
Who’s next?
I enjoyed reading his posts about what goes on in the bowels of Marvel Comics. Not only were they interesting, it was obvious the muckety mucks at Marvel were not too happy with his posts. Marvel lawyers sent marvel_b0y a cease and desist letter on letterhead decorated with goofy looking Marvel superheroes. If the goal of a cease and desist letter is to intimidate, I’m not sure including the likeness of Iron Man or Captain America is a good idea. Iron Man has become a dick and Captain America is dead.
My hope is that marvel_b0y will return. Normally when Marvel Comics kills someone off, it doesn’t last very long.
It’s been about five days since Pittsburgh Comicon organizer and comic book retailer Michael George was convicted of murdering Barbara George, his first wife. Not only was he convicted of first degree murder for killing the mother of his two children, he was convicted of insurance fraud and obtaining money from an insurance agency under false pretenses.
The insurance fraud stems from the fact that Michael George made the murder appear t be a robbery and he fraudulently reported the loss of multiple high-value comic books to his insurance company. His insurance company paid him $13,000 to compensate him from the loss of these comics. The comics the jury decided he never owned.
Wont he now have to pay that money back?
Then there’s the matter of the $125,000 Michael George collected on Barbara’s life insurance policy. Since the jury ruled that Michael killed Barbara, wont he have to pay that money back too? Convicted murderers aren’t normally allowed to collect on the life insurance policy of their victims. And when I say normally, I of course mean never.
So where exactly does this leave the Pittsburgh Comicon?
The show is owned by Michael and Renee George. How will all this effect the show? Will the insurance companies that paid large sums of money to Michael George under fraudulent terms now move to seize assets belonging to him? Wouldn’t the Pittsburgh Comicon be one of those assets?
I’ve been checking out the Pittsburgh Comicon website every day since the verdicts were handed down. Everything looks the same. Not one mention of the fact that the show’s co-promoter has been convicted of murdering the mother of his children and is now facing a mandatory life in prison. Further more, prosecutors in the case claimed that Michael George killed his first wife so that he could start a new life with his mistress, the woman he is married to now.
She is the show’s other co-promoter.
It seems to me all this would require some sort of statement from the show. Not only is Michael’s name still featured on the Pittsburgh Comicon website, so is his photo.
There’s already talk among some comic book creators about boycotting the show on the grounds that it is supporting a man convicted of murder.
Last month I was contacted by Patrick Thomas, the Marketing Director of the Pittsburgh Comicon. He assured me that no matter what happened in Michael George’s trial, the 2008 Pittsburgh Comicon would be going on as planned and that nothing would prevent that. I don’t know Patrick, but I know people that do. I’ve been assured that when he says something, you can bank on it.
Posted on Feb 15th, 2008
Things are not looking good for comic book retailer and Pittsburgh Comicon promoter Michael George.
From this morning’s Detroit Free Press:
Allegations that Michael George cheated on the wife he is accused of killing will be allowed in his upcoming trial, a Macomb County Circuit Court judge ruled Thursday.
George, 47, is to go on trial Feb. 26 in the July 13, 1990, death of his wife, Barbara George, 32, who was shot in the head in the couple’s Clinton Township comic book store.
Judge James Biernat made several other rulings Thursday: He denied George’s request to exclude testimony about his behavior after his wife’s death — such as witnesses’ accounts that he wore sunglasses to and flirted with other women at his wife’s funeral. He also denied George’s request to quash charges of insurance fraud.
His own lawyers admit he committed acts of adultery with more then one woman. I would say this is a very bad development.
I’ve been trying to keep up with the online funny book feminist overreaction to Tiffany Fallon being painted up to look like Wonder Woman on the cover of Playboy. Even though Fallon is technically nude on the cover, it’s not the most titillating image to ever grace the cover of a magazine, especially a magazine such as Playboy. You have to look close to even realize that she is indeed even naked.
Some funny book feminists have been vocal with their disapproval of the cover. Ragnell writes over at Written World:
If they’re smart, they’ll put their foot down and try and reclaim that image. Pink Raygun (NSFW) asked if we’d see a model as Batman in the same sort of thing. The answer’s no. You won’t see Batman in paint on the cover of Playgirl because DC protects their copyright to Batman, and goes out of their way to stop sexualized images of Batman. The character is money to them, they want to control how the public receives him.
The “sexualized images of Batman“ she is referring to is the watercolor artwork of artist Mark Chamberlain. They are more then just sexualized images of Batman. They show Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder engaged in various sex acts. With each other.
Say what you want about the Playboy cover, but at least Wonder Woman isn’t engaged in sodomy with an under aged minor.
It’s true DC sent a “cease & desist” letter to the New York Chelsea art dealer that was selling the gay Batman and Robin watercolors. That was over two years ago. I don’t know what ever became of the case. Honestly, I don’t really care. I noticed today that at least some of the art is still up for sale at the artist’s website. That makes me think DC wasn’t too successful in getting the art removed.
Wonder Woman on the cover of Playboy is not the same thing as artwork featuring Batman and Robin engaged in sodomy. Then again, what if it was? I don’t remember anyone - male or female - getting angry over the Chamberlain artwork showing Batman engaged in gay sex. In fact, I remember the complete opposite. I remember most people reacting to the gay Batman and Robin art as though it was kind of funny.
Imagine that.
There is a new version of the Comic Collector, the database software for keeping track of a comic book collection. I wrote a review of version 3. I like the software and can’t recommend it enough. I was about to pay for the $20 upgrade when I noticed the this blurb on the Comic Collector website:
If you purchased Comic Collector for Windows before November 14 2006, you are entitled to a free upgrade to version 4 (because of the EULA effective before that date). Please contact us to request your new license key:
I’m glad I read this before I sent them another $20. Not that I’m against the folks that make this software making as much money as they can. They have not only created a fantastic piece of software for managing a comic book collection, they have constantly worked on making it even better. I contacted them and quickly received my free upgrade key.
That’s something the makers of ComicBase seemingly haven’t been willing to do. I’m not a big fan of ComicBase. I believe my review of ComicBase Express reflects this.
I haven’t used the new version yet other then to upgrade it. I haven’t added any new issues to my collection. It looks quite spiffy.
Comic Book Resources continues with part 3 of a 5-part interview with Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada concerning the recent storyline involving Spider-Man. Quesada has long made it known that he believes having Peter Parker/Spider-Man married to Mary Jane Watson was a big mistake. He believes that it somehow curtails good story telling by having the character married. Or he thinks that kids can’t relate to a married character. It’s hard to keep track of the many reasons Quesada has for not wanting Spider-Man married.
Quesada’s reasons seem to change a lot.
If the belief that Spider-Man must be a single to craft interesting stories seems silly, the method Quesada uses to achieve this objective seems absolutely insane - Spider-Man makes a deal with the Devil that will save his elderly aunt from dying if he allows the Devil to not only magically undue his marriage, but to make everyone magically forget that they were even married. As though the marriage never happened. Oh, and the Devil also agrees to make everyone magically forget that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. A fact everyone knows ever since he removed his mask on national television and announced that he was Peter Parker (see CIVIL WAR #2).
Needless to say, fans have been critical of this magical storyline.
In the Comic Book Resources interview, Quesada is asked why he didn’t just have Peter and Mary Jane get a divorce. It’s a good question. Here is Quesada’s reply:
Sure, that would have been a very easy solution. However, how would a parent feel when they had to explain to their kid that Spider-Man just got divorced from his wife? How would that headline read across the AP or on USA today? The same can be said with an annulment. Sure, divorce is a reality of life, but Peter Parker and Spider-Man are not the types of characters that would do that. Spider-Man is a worldwide icon and is considered one of the good guys, like Superman.
Not the type of characters that would do that? What is that supposed to mean? I’m sure the people that have gone through a divorce would like to know. Speaking as just such a person, I certainly would like to know.
Someone can’t be considered a good guy if they have been divorced? This hits a nerve with me. Normally one only finds this type of ignorant bigotry at an evangelical church, not in a comic book.
So Peter Parker isn’t the type of character to get a divorce, but he is the type character to enter into a magical arraignment with the Devil? The inference is that it’s better to strike a deal with Satan then it is to get divorced. Either way Peter is breaking his marriage vows. One requires him to enter into an unholy pact with Satan, the other requires him to sign a bunch of paperwork and pay a lawyer.
Joe Quesada picks option number one evidently because it makes him a better person.
Quesada claims parents would have had a hard time explaining Spider-Man getting a divorce. Imagine how hard it will be for them to put a positive spin on Spider-Man entering into an agreement with Satan.
How is that preferable to getting a divorce?
