The D.C. Universe

Best and Worst of 2011: Movies

2012-01-02T20:38:00.001Z

Best:

5) Attack the Block

I was a bit distracted in the first hour because when you see aliens attacking London, you naturally expect The Doctor to show up. But once I got over that, I really dug this film. The fact that the filmmakers were able to create such distinctive, scary aliens on what couldn't have been a huge budget, made this even more impressive.

4) X-Men: First Class

By all rights, this should have sucked. X-Men 3 was pretty awful, and no franchise has ever rebounded by going the prequel route. But First Class manages to pull it off, thanks to a surprisingly great script and some even better performances by actors who probably had better options than an X-Men film.

3) Crazy, Stupid, Love.

Wow, Ryan Gossling has an amazing body. Wait, what? Who said that? Anyway, I wish I'd seen this in a theater instead of DVD, as there's a fantastic twist (maybe the best one since The Sixth Sense) and I'm pretty sure there would have been an impressive gasp from the audience. Almost as impressive as Ryan Gossling's abs...

2) The Muppets

An unfortunate part of getting older is that fewer and fewer things can make you feel like a kid again. The Muppets succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. Seriously, it'll be virtually impossible to act like a cynical asshole for at least a little while after seeing this.

1) The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

I thought the mystery and its resolution were a bit unsatisfying, but the characters, the acting, the directing, and even the opening credits, are all so outstanding that it's easy to overlook it. Almost as amazing is the fact that if I've historically had three turn-offs when it comes it comes to women, they're A) Tattoos, B) Body piercings and C) Emaciated bodies. Yet I found Rooney Mara's Lisbeth to be super hot. Almost as hot as Ryan Gossling.

Worst:

5) Sucker Punch

The most self-indulgent piece of crap by a director since Lady in the Water. It looks nice visually, and I guess there's a seed of a good film hidden somewhere in Sucker Punch. But it's not worth sitting through to find.

4) Green Lantern

If ever there was a superhero made for this CGI-heavy world, it's Green Lantern. This should have been two hours of pure eye candy. Unfortunately, the movie is dragged down by a dull, unimaginative script and a horribly miscast Ryan Reynolds.

3) Season of the Witch

Maybe the Nicholas Cage-iest Nicholas Cage film ever. I know the guy is bankrupt, but it can't be that bad. Just make another National Treasure film, dude.

2) Battle: Los Angeles

Occasionally, I'll be watching an otherwise crappy Syfy original movie and think, "You know, if this had a bigger budget and better actors, it might actually be pretty good." For all intents and purposes, Battle: Los Angeles is a Syfy original movie with a big budget and great actors, and yet it's still horrible. So much for that theory. It doesn't even have the simple decency to provide an actual ending.

1) Red Riding Hood

Typically, even the worst movies have some sort of redeeming quality, no matter how small. A clever line of dialogue. A cool car chase. Gratuitous nudity. Red Riding Hood manages the fairly remarkable feat of having nothing. It's an embarrassment to all involved, especially Gary Oldman, who I hope was able to buy a really nice beach house with the blood money he made from this.

Hostel: Part III

2011-12-27T20:31:00.005Z

It's always a mixed blessing when a horror movie franchise transitions from theatrical releases to direct-to-DVD ones. On one hand, it's nice--most of the time--to see series continue that otherwise couldn't, given the lackluster box office take of the last installment. On the other hand, the end result is almost always a letdown.

How big of a letdown depends on the intent of the filmmakers. Are they looking to make a good film or just keep the trademark alive for the studio? Generally speaking, I think the former is usually the case, although you look at something like what the Hellraiser series became, and it's easy to cynically start to believe the latter. Unfortunately, the economic realities of making a direct-to-DVD genre film means that even when intentions are good, the final product is not.

Hostel: Part III is, for the most part, a good film in the sense that it's competently made, seamlessly fits into the series in terms of both plot and visuals, and there are a couple of neat twists. Unfortunately, it also has a distinct lack of ambition and in at least one instance, the lack of any real budget turned what could have been a great scene into a terrible one.

Spoilers follow...

The decision to move the action from Slovakia to Las Vegas wasn't a terrible one, although I think they could have squeezed at least one more film out of the original setting. The problem with the story is that it doesn't build on the really interesting mythology of the first two films. While Hostel: Part II provided more detail about the Elite Hunting organization, Part III barely makes an effort. Sure, I guess it's nice to know they have an American branch, but aside from the tattoos, there isn't much of a connection. The bit where the audience wagers on the results of the torture sessions is more silly than anything else, and seems like a bit too much of a departure from the concept of Hostel: The wealthy paying to torture and kill people for fun. Simple yet brilliant.

The death scenes were surprisingly tame. Not that they needed to be especially elaborate, although I did get a kick out of the over-the-top stuff like the cannibalism and blood-bathing scenes in Part II. Maybe I'm just jaded, but someone getting his face sliced off just doesn't do anything for me. Unfortunately, the death scene with the most potential was evidently done in by not having enough money with which to film it properly: A girl has several (presumably carnivorous) insects poured over her, and all it results in is some horrendous CGI work as the insects improbably stream into her open mouth before a fade to black. Kind of disappointing for gore aficionados. After all, you can never go wrong with someone getting eaten alive.

Hopefully, there'll be a Hostel: Part IV. There aren't many horror franchises that still have so much material left to mine three films in, but there's still a lot of life left in this one. It'll be especially nice if the filmmakers concentrate more on the story than the death scenes, especially if they don't have the money to do them well.

Script: B-
Acting: B
Gore: B+
Overall: B

The Grand...Prize...Game!

2011-12-20T22:32:00.002Z

For some reason, I recently found myself thinking about this old bit on The Bozo Show called The Grand Prize Game.

If you're under 25 and/or didn't spend most of your childhood in front of the TV and require some background, The Bozo Show was a daily children's television program produced in Chicago and aired on WGN. And since most cable companies around the country carry WGN--I've never actually been able to figure that one out. I guess I could probably find out just by going to Wikipedia, but it turns out I don't care as much as I thought I did a moment ago. So never mind--every child in America had access to Bozo.

I don't remember much about the show, to be honest. They did skits and ran cartoons and all the usual kids show crap, but really, the only reason I watched was for The Grand Prize Game.

It's probably easier to show than explain, so here you go.

Okay, maybe you didn't feel like sitting through that. So basically, the game is this: A kid was put in front of six buckets, all lined up in front of him. He was given a ball, which he attempted to toss into the first bucket, then another ball into the second bucket, and so on. For each bucket he could successfully toss a ball into, he got a prize. The prizes got better as the buckets got further away, and if he could get balls in all six buckets, he got a--as Bozo would say--"crisp, new $100 bill!" (I know in the clip above, the dude in the suit says it's $50, but that episode was filmed way before my time. By the late '80s, inflation had bumped it up to $100.)

I was obsessed with the game when I was a kid. Not because I wanted to play it. Just the opposite. I was constantly cringing while watching. It seemed like an amazing amount of pressure to put a child under. Think about it. You're a kid. You're on national television. You're being asked to do something that, on the face, seems incredibly simple, but is actually pretty damn hard, with $100 on the line. Which, when you're that age, may as well be $1,000,000.

And worst of all, there were no second chances.

The Grand Prize Game was a cruel motherfucker. I mean, Bozo wasn't a total dick, so if a kid was somehow stupid or uncoordinated enough to miss the first bucket, he'd let him have a do-over. But from the second bucket on, if the kid missed, that was it. For me, with my pampered, sheltered childhood, it was a bit of an eye-opener the first few times that Bozo didn't come over and say, "Oh, so close! What do you say, folks? Should we give him one more shot?" No. You were simply handed your shitty prizes, the name of your at-home-player was read (like you gave a shit some kid you'd never met was benefiting from your hard work), and you were quickly ushered off-stage.

And they always lost. I'm pretty sure most of them didn't even make it past the third bucket. I must have watched hundreds of Grand Prize Games, and I can only remember one kid actually getting all six buckets. That kid should have been treated like a rock star. You won't ever convince me that anything Justin Bieber does is harder than winning The Grand Prize Game.

I like to believe that every kid who lost, never forgot the burning anger and humiliation at being bested by a series of buckets and a TV clown, and were able to refocus that pain into becoming a success at whatever they put their mind to. I know that if it were me, that experience would have eaten at me every...single...fucking...day. All hyperbole aside, f I'd been one of those kids, I guarantee I would have cured cancer by now.

I keep reading about Millennials and their need for constant praise and affirmation in the workplace, because as kids, they were never allowed to experience failure or criticism. I know a couple of these people. I work with a couple of these people. They're terrible.

America needs The Grand Prize Game, and its harsh, yet true lesson that life isn't fair, so get the fuck over it. Now more than ever.

Quitting DC Comics

2011-11-28T21:22:00.001Z

A question anyone who reads comic books well into adulthood is almost certain to encounter at some point is, "Why do you still read comic books?"

It's not really an easy question to answer. Entertainment, obviously, although that's been a matter of diminishing returns for a while now. Habit, too, I guess. I mean, it's hard to quit something you've been doing literally your entire life. One of my earliest childhood memories is sitting on my mom's lap as she used this to help teach me how to read.

But really, what it comes down to most is that I care about the characters.

I think that's true for most of the people who read comics. Certainly, I prefer to think that we're not reading just for rehashed fight scenes and often lame dialogue. It's to the credit to a lot of talented writers and artists over the years that they managed to take a truly absurd concept like superheroes and somehow create and maintain three-dimensional characters who, once a week, thousands of people across the country make the trek to their local comic book store to keep up with.

But as I was reading the DC relaunch books, I came to an unfortunate realization. These aren't my characters anymore. Some have gotten facelifts that are mostly cosmetic. Some have been completely reimagined. But regardless, across the board, it felt like I was reading the beginning of an entirely new comic book universe. And that's just not something I'm interested in doing. So I'm stopping. I'm no longer reading DC Comics. Even the titles I initially said I was going to keep up with. I got halfway through what was going to be a four week review of all the relaunch books, when I discovered I simply didn't give a damn. Aside from picking up the new The Unwritten and Morning Glories TPBs a couple of weeks ago, I haven't been in a comic book store in weeks. Honestly, it doesn't feel all that bad. If nothing else, I now have a lot more money for beer and cigars.

Just to be clear, this isn't me going all angry fanboy. Even if I don't agree with DC's decision, I understand the need for it. The comic book industry has been shedding readers for years. This relaunch was a calculated risk to pick up new customers, and no business can do that without alienating old ones. I just happen to fall into that latter category. That's okay. A lot of people seem to dig the new direction of the company. Good. I don't want to live in a world without comics featuring Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. I just won't be following along any longer.

I'm also not completely turning my back on DC. They publish an awful lot of stuff I read through Vertigo. I'll still be buying Hitman TPBs and undoubtedly a lot more back catalogue stuff down the road. And honestly, I know myself well enough to know that I'll probably cave from time to time when it comes to the new DCU stuff. It's not like you can just flip a switch and no longer dig Batman, you know?

I quit reading DC once before when I was a teenager. It was 1993 or 1994 and almost everything the company was putting out was absolutely wretched. Then, a few years later, I was in a Target in Ohio of all places, and on a whim, I picked up one of those five-issue packs of comics that you used to be able to buy at places like Target or Toys R Us. They were five issues of Mark Waid's legendary run on The Flash. I poured through them, and was like, "Whoa! I didn't even know comics could be this awesome." So I started reading them again.

Maybe something like that will happen down the road and I'll once more become a fan. Stranger things have happened. But for now, I'm done.

Paranormal Activity 3

2011-11-01T21:16:00.005Z

I wasn't going to see Paranormal Activity 3. I am, at best, a lukewarm fan of the franchise. And I thought the gimmick was already old by the first sequel. And I hate prequels. And I just wasn't in the mood to see a movie. And if I were going to see a movie last weekend, it probably would have been that Justin Timberlake movie where no one gets old and Olivia Wilde plays his mom, and wouldn't that be all kinds of weird, being in your 20s and having Olivia Wilde as your mom? At that point, isn't incest--or at least the thought of incest--a little understandable? I hope they address this situation in the movie.

But I digress. I wasn't going to see the movie, but then my electricity went out on Sunday morning, and by the time the early football games started, it didn't show any signs of coming back on. I didn't feel like going to the bar to watch the Redskins game, so I figured, what the hell, and went to the movie theater without even bothering to check the listings. When I got there, the next showing of In Time was in an hour. The next showing of Paranormal Activity 3 was in five minutes. So.

Spoilers follow...

I can't think of a film franchise that I care less about the mythology behind it than Paranormal Activity. I'm fine with the information that was provided/hinted at in the first two films as to why these two sisters seem to have such bad luck with houses and video cameras. But evidently, this is a story that needed to be told.

I love movies about haunted houses, because they're the only horror films that manage to unnerve me somewhat. I know I don't have to worry about vampires, zombies, hillbilly cannibals, or whatever. But ghosts? Who knows? Seems plausible. So to the extent I enjoy the Paranormal Activity films, it's because they're really good at producing spine-tingling moments like strange noises coming from seemingly empty rooms, or quick glimpses of shadowy figures, or little kids conversing with something we can't see.

The problem is, that's really all the Paranormal Activity films have going for them. Plotwise, there's very little that's interesting. And the logic of the entire franchise is dependent on the idea that someone's first impulse upon hearing a bloodcurdling scream or a loud crash, is to grab a video camera and start filming. I'm not going to defend Blair Witch 2 as a good movie, but at least the filmmakers were smart enough to abandon the first person POV rather than shoehorn it into a plot. I think I would have enjoyed Paranormal Activity 2 and 3 considerably more if they'd been built around the story of the first one, as opposed to its gimmick.

As for the big revelation at the end that the grandmother was part of a coven of witches who wanted to impregnate them or marry them to Toby the ghost or something...I guess it's creepy and all, but A) It was telegraphed horribly, from the moment the plot element was introduced in that book that conveniently turned up, B) Katie and Kristi seem a bit young for childbearing, so I'm not sure why the witches even wanted them, and C) It felt a bit like a ripoff of the ending of The Last Exorcism.

I have no doubt that this time next year, Paranormal Activity 4 will be in theaters. The second film ended with a cliffhanger, so hopefully they'll get around to resolving that instead of filling in plot holes no one cared about in the first place.

Script: C
Acting: B-
Gore: D-
Overall: C

Five Great Horror Movies You've Never Seen

2011-10-31T09:08:00.003Z

Or maybe you have. I dunno. I always hate lists with titles like this because no matter how obscure the entries are, someone out there has to have seen them, right? It's basically just mental masturbation for the person making the list. Look how clever and informed about pop culture I am!

At the same time, I guess it sounds better than "Five Great Horror Movies You've Most Likely Never Seen," so whatever. Happy Halloween.

1) American Gothic (1987)

Because I've seen a lot of horror films, I know that when a friend suggests taking a weekend trip to any desolate location, the correct answer is, "Thanks, no." But if you do go, and encounter a house in the middle of nowhere, the second best thing you can do is to turn around and walk in the other direction, not accept the owner's offer of hospitality as you vaguely notice that your friends seem to be disappearing one by one. Sleep in your broken down car (or plane) if you have to, but get out! Of course, if people demonstrated that level of common sense, there would be no horror movie genre. So I guess their sacrifice is worth it.

2) Bloody Movie (aka Terror Night) (1987)

Bloody Movie a.k.a. Terror Night (1987) by bmoviebabe

Some people break into the supposedly abandoned mansion of an old silent film star. The surprise isn't that said silent film star is still living in the mansion and begins offing the intruders one by one, it's that he does it in insanely clever and creatively-filmed ways, looking to his filmography for inspiration.

3) Chopping Mall (1986)

When you're a teenager, sneaking into the local mall to party and have sex is, I guess, cool. When you're in your 20s, it's really just kind of sad. Don't worry, though, Most of these oversexed young adults won't be making it out alive, thanks to malfunctioning security robots that have claws and shoot lasers and whatnot. The guy who played the preppy kid on Head of the Class is the star, if that makes any difference.

(As far as horror movies set in malls go, this is a distant second to Dawn of the Dead, but considerably better than 1989's Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge, starring Pauly Shore.)

4) Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

***Trailer NSFW***

Not for the faint of stomach, there were people back in the day who thought that the director had actually made a snuff film. He may as well have, because this is some pretty sick shit, as a group of American documentary filmmakers learn the hard way not to piss off cannibals.

5) Society (1989)

Celebrate both Halloween and Occupy Wall Street in one great film! A teenager from a wealthy California community discovers that his family and friends aren't what they appear. By that, I mean they get twisty and slimy and eat people. This isn't nearly as horrifying as what real rich people have done to this country, but what is?

DC Comics: The New 52 Reviews, Week 2

2011-09-20T00:18:00.002Z

First week's reviews here

Batwoman #1

Goddammit, this is one gorgeous comic book. Seriously, if this issue consisted of nothing but J.H. Williams III drawing Batwoman reading the phone book, I suspect I'd have still enjoyed it. Luckily, there's a great plot to go along with it. Not that there's a great sample size so far, but between Williams and Greg Rucka, Batwoman's rogues gallery is really shaping up.

The weird thing about my liking this issue so much is that I'm not sure if I even like Batwoman. For one thing, there are too many Bat-people running around in the first place. For another, Kate Kane isn't always the easiest the character to like. But throw in a great story, Bette Kane as a resentful sidekick, and Chase, Mr. Bones and the DEO, and you have a comic I'm genuinely excited about.

Grade: A-

Deathstroke #1

I've always preferred Deathstroke as a mercenary more than a supervillain, as he's been portrayed in recent years. So apparent return to his pre-Johns portrayal was a nice surprise. I also like the concept of Slade Wilson being seen as over-the-hill, and having to prove to prospective employers that he still has it. (Speaking of, it seemed like there'd be a lot of fun in future issues, contrasting Deathstroke's old-school style to the group of young mercenaries gathered to back him up in the first issue. That's obviously not going to happen now, but "I think there is no 'up-and-coming.' There's only competition," was such a great line, I can live with it.)

I do hate the giant sword. It seems like something out of either an early Image comic or a Final Fantasy game, two of my least favorite things in the world. But other than that, great first issue.

Grade: B+

Grifter #1

This issue was a bit different for me in that Grifter is the only established character getting a new series that I have no familiarity with whatsoever. I mean, I know the name and the costume and everything, and have seen him pop up in the few Wildstorm series I used to read, but that's about it.

I'm not sure how much this version is a departure from the original, but I liked it. Most of the first issues that have come out so far have done a lackluster job at setting up the series in general and the next issue in particular. If nothing else, this isn't a problem Grifter suffers from. I'm genuinely interested in seeing what happens next.

Grade: B+

Suicide Squad #1

Last week I said Batgirl was DC's most controversial new series. Who knew Barbara Gordon walking again would be eclipsed by the online reaction to Amanda Waller going from fat to skinny?

Suicide Squad was one of the great series of the late '80s, a stand-out even among a lot of great series. Most of it can be credited to John Ostrander, who managed to give personalities to a bunch of supervillains who up until then had just been costumes. Other writers have tried to replicate Ostrander's success, but mostly failed. I'm not sure if Adam Glass will succeed, but I like what I've seen so far. This first issue is nothing groundbreaking, and you can see the twist coming a mile away. But it was a nice start.

All my problems with the issue are visual. Harley Quinn's new outfit? Awful. Deadshot's new costume? Terrible. (Seriously, I see why DC wanted to revamp some costumes, but pretty much all of them? Why?) As for Amanda Waller's new look...it's just dumb. In Ostrander's run, Waller was a poor, middle-age black woman who rose up from nothing to run a top secret government agency. That's undeniably cool. Here, she looks like a supermodel. Whether it's a costume or a waistline, change simply for the sake of change is almost always a bad idea.

Grade: B

Resurrection Man #1

I read a few issues of the original series back in the '90s, when DC was apparently greenlighting every single wacky idea for a series that they were pitched (what, there's no room for Major Bummer, Vext or Young Heroes in Love in the New 52?), but it never really did anything for me. This issue has me intrigued, though. I don't remember if the people (demons, entities, whatever) trying to kill Mitch were part of the original mythology, but either way, I like what Andy Lanning Dan Abnett came up with.

I'm less wild about the new and apparently much less fun costumes for the Body Doubles. But it's a minor complaint.

Grade: B

Demon Knights #1

This feels more like one of those old Elseworlds books where a bunch of characters with similar themes get tossed into a story together. Which is fine for a one-shot or mini-series, but are people really going to want to follow the historical adventures of the Demon, Madame Xanadu, Vandal Savage and the Shining Knight on an ongoing basis?

That's not to say I didn't like the first issue. But it feels like the Demon in name only. No rhyming. No mayhem. It's basically a medieval Incredible Hulk. I'll stick with it a bit, but add this to the list of new series that probably don't need to be.

Grade: B-

Superboy #1

I'm really not a Scott Lobdell fan, although more so for stupid things he's said in the past, as opposed to his writing. So I was predisposed to dislike this series. But I have to admit, I kind of dug it.

I've also never been a big fan of the character of Superboy. But a few years ago, DC hit upon a cool idea. Rather than just be a teenage clone of Superman, what if he was a clone made from the DNA of both Superman and Lex Luthor? As far as twists go, that's a pretty awesome one, and thankfully, it's one that Lobdell seems interested in exploring. Using Rose Wilson and Caitlin Fairchild in the supporting cast is also a pretty inspired choice. I'm surprised to say this, but I'm on board.

Grade: B-

Red Lantern #1

I've never been enthusiastic about the multiple Lantern Corps. For one storyline, sure. But having Blue Lanterns, Red Lanterns, Orange Lanterns, etc., dilutes what makes the Green Lantern Corps, one of my favorite comic book concepts, so special. But I went into this with an open mind, and there's some interesting stuff here. I'm not sure if Atrocitus is a character I really want to keep up with on a regular basis, but I do like the idea of someone with a Lantern's powers not interested in keeping order or instilling fear, but just getting revenge on bad guys.

In the very least, it's earned a second issue.

Grade: C+

Mister Terrific #1

I like Mister Terrific. He's one of the few characters created fairly recently who feels like he can credibly be considered a big gun of the DC Universe. That said, he works much, much better on a team book like JSA or Checkmate, because at the end of the day, he's basically a sci-fi version of Batman in terms of both secret identity (rich industrialist) and his motivation to fight crime due to personal tragedy (his wife being murdered). So I'm not sure how necessary this series is.

The new version doesn't really do the character any favors, either. His old costume, which has always been one of my favorites, has been replaced with an ugly sleeveless outfit. Since I really dug the issue of The Spectre where Holt was introduced, I'm not wild about the change to his origin, either, even though I can see why it was necessary. On the other hand, the new version appears to be banging Power Girl. So there's that.

Grade: C

Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E. #1

It's a bit difficult to look at some of the great comics that were cancelled due to the relaunch--Zatanna, Secret Six, etc.--and not wonder how DC justifies replacing them with new series that, frankly, no one was clamoring for and have little chance of success. Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E.? Maybe the poster child for this.

Last week, Jeff Lemire's work on Animal Man blew me away. Frankenstein isn't nearly as good, but you have to admire Lemire's ability to take lesser-known characters and do interesting stuff with them. I won't be buying the second issue, but I do like the book's ambition.

Grade: C-

Green Lantern #1
Batman & Robin #1

With these two books, we arrive at the biggest problem with DC's relaunch. Certain books, DC had no problem cancelling or rebooting. Which is fine. That's the whole point of starting over with all new first issues. But other books, because they sold well or because the writer was influential enough not to have their stories yanked out from under them, are being allowed to continue on as if nothing happened. Batman & Robin and Green Lantern are two such books.

It's easy to picture someone picking up these, thinking they were getting actual first issues, only to be surprised to learn that Batman has a son and that Hal Jordan is a deadbeat who's no longer Green Lantern, and that they were being dropped into a storyline halfway through with no idea what was going on. These aren't bad comics, but nor should they be called first issues.

Grade: C-

Legion Lost #1

I have, at best, a cursory knowledge of the Legion of Super-Heroes. Like the New Gods or the Silver Surfer, it's one of those concepts that I love, but have never quite been able to embrace when it comes to reading the actual comics. Every now and then, DC does some sort of big reboot/jumping-on point for new readers, and I give it a shot, only to lose interest before too long.

This issue may be a reboot, but it sure as hell isn't a jumping-on point. I was pretty much confused from start to finish. More to the point, I didn't really have much desire to try and figure it out, either. It also didn't help that my favorite Legionnaire apparently bites it in this issue.

Grade: D-

New 52 Report Card

Animal Man: A+
Batwoman: A-
Deathstroke: B+
Grifter: B+
Detective Comics: B+
Men of War: B
Suicide Squad: B
Resurrection Man: B
Demon Knights: B-
Hawk & Dove: B-
Superboy: B-
Red Lantern: C+
Swamp Thing: C
Batgirl: C
Static Shock: C
Justice League International: C
Mister Terrific: C
Justice League: C
Batwing: C-
Batman & Robin: C-
Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E.: C-
Green Lantern: C-
Action Comics: D+
O.M.A.C.: D
Green Arrow: D
Legion Lost: D-
Stormwatch: F

Next week: Batman, Birds of Prey, Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, Catwoman, DC Universe Presents, Green Lantern Corps, Legion of Super-Heroes, Nightwing, Red Hood and the Outlaws, Supergirl and Wonder Woman.

Panel of the Week

2011-09-16T23:18:00.001Z

From Suicide Squad #1:

Play It Grand

2011-09-15T12:25:00.002Z

When I was a kid, there was a short-lived sitcom called Grand. The only reason it caught my attention in the first place was because it starred the guy from Clue and Short Circuit 2, and the kid who played the asshole with the Power Glove in The Wizard. I don't recall much about the show itself. Not even if it was any good. I'm guessing not, though. It only lasted two half-seasons.

But I definitely remembered one thing about the show: It had a great theme song. Like, one of the all-time best I've ever heard.

A while back, I found a website that had hundreds of TV show themes available for download, and sure enough, it was on there. But when I tried to find video of the opening credits, I wasn't able to. Fast forward to last week. I checked YouTube on a whim, and sure enough, someone had posted it earlier this year.

As it turns out, there were not one, but two versions of the credits.

Here's the opening from the first season:

Pretty awesome, right?

Now, before I show you the second season's opening, a little backstory. I'd forgotten all about this until I checked the show's Wikipedia entry, but in between the first and second seasons, Michael McKean left the show, meaning they had to completely redo the credits. So I don't begrudge NBC's decision to go with a different visual concept.

But holy shit, what were they thinking when it came to the theme song?!?

How can even the least creative producer or network executive take the fantastic, soulful performance from the first credits and replace it with that awful, bland--and you know what? I'm even going to use the word jive--rendition? Did some focus group like it? Did the person who made the change hate music? I doubt any American Idol contestant has ever butchered a song worse.

I really hate the recent trend of new TV shows to forego opening credits. Granted, most weren't anything special, but every now and then, a great theme song would sneak through. Of course, even then, all it takes is one guy in a suit to screw it up.

DC Comics: The New 52 Reviews, Week 1

2011-09-14T16:31:00.005Z

Technically, it's Week 2, given the release of Justice League #1 officially kicked off the DC Comics reboot/relaunch/whatever. Further complicating matters, I'm posting this in what's technically Week 3. Just go with it.

Anyway, I'm still on the fence about this whole thing, but I figure the only way to give it a fair shake is to read every single first issue DC is releasing this month. Yes, all 52. And because I have a blog, I obviously must share my opinions. No, I really don't have anything better to do. Yes, I'm grateful that I'm able to read some of these for free at Barnes & Noble so I don't go broke.

Animal Man #1

Whoa. Did not see this coming. This was fantastic. Animal Man has never been an especially compelling character, even when Grant Morrison was writing him. So to see Jeff Lemire come in an immediately not only make Buddy Baker interesting, but lay the groundwork for what seems to be a compelling mystery, caught be completely off-guard. Travel Foreman's artwork is exceptional, especially a really freaky last page. Granted, it's only been one issue, but this could easily surpass even Morrison's run. It's that damn good.

Grade: A+

Detective Comics #1

Overall, pretty solid. Tony Daniel has always been a better artist than a writer, and that trend doesn't change here. But he's come up with a better-than-average Joker story, which is impressive given the glut of Joker stories over the past few years. The dynamic of the relaunched DC Universe, where the stories take place earlier in the characters' careers, is used to good effect here, with Batman still trying to figure the Joker out and vice versa. But this still would have just been another run-of-the-mill Batman vs. Joker story, except that Daniel introduces a new villain with some potential, who by the end of the issue, has left the Joker in a fairly uncomfortable position.

I've always been a sucker for Batman stories that are narrated by Batman, which were big in the '80s, but less so recently. The danger with this device, though, is that it's really easy to go from dramatic to laughably melodramatic, as evidenced in this very issue: "I hold my breath, but the toxin penetrates my pores. Dizzy in seconds. But I can take it. I'm Batman." Yuck. I think Daniel will do well on this book, but he needs someone who can tell him to dial it back a notch.

Grade: B+

Men of War #1

I really wasn't expecting to like this. War comics, whether they're set in the cartoonish world of superheroes or something like Garth Ennis's Vertigo stuff, have never been my thing. But this wasn't bad. The idea of making Sgt. Rock's grandson the main character was an inspired choice, and I've always liked comics about people with no super powers coping with those who do.

So surprisingly, I'm on board for this one. My only concern is that the series stays at least somewhat grounded in reality. (You know, relatively speaking.) No sci-fi weapons. No trips to alien planets. Just soldiers with machine guns figuring out how to take out supervillains. No need to be a second-rate Suicide Squad or Checkmate.

Grade: B

Hawk & Dove #1

Hawk and Dove was one of my all-time favorite series, because I loved the characters and it's one of the few comics to be set in D.C. And exactly 20 years after the book was cancelled and its characters unceremoniously dispatched--Dove killed, Hawk turned into a time-traveling psycho--the characters are back in their own series.

Sterling Gates--who I like quite a bit--and Rob Liefeld--who I don't--take an odd approach with this issue. It's almost feeks like a retelling of the miniseries from way back in 1988. Hawk's still getting used to the new Dove (which is odd, given that she's been Dove longer than the first one had been when he died), Hawk's father has once again pulled strings to get him into Georgetown (I wonder if the real thing's admissions office is so easily swayed), and Kestrel pops up at the end. Still, it was a great miniseries, so like they say, if you're going to steal, steal from the best.

If I didn't dig the characters so much, I doubt I'd be quite as enthusiastic about this issue. But I do, so I am. Gates and Liefeld would have to really screw up to get me off this book. Gates, I'm not worried about.

Grade: B-

Swamp Thing #1

The problem with launching 52 new series all at once is that there are bound to be some good ones that get lost in the shuffle. Swamp Thing feels like such a series. I liked it well enough, and under normal circumstances--i.e., pre-relaunch--I probably would have given it a couple more issues. But with so many other titles vying for my money, "well enough" isn't quite good enough to stick with it. Hopefully, enough other people feel differently and support it.

Grade: C

Batgirl #1

Easily the most controversial new series DC's releasing due to Barbara Gordon getting up out of the wheelchair she's been in for years, this issue isn't likely to satisfy anyone. Not the people who didn't want her to leave her Oracle identity behind no matter what, nor the people who were fine with it, but were hoping for a better explanation than her legs simply starting to work again.

As for the actual issue, it's your nice, standard Gail Simone-written fare. Good action scenes, nice character bits, and so on. But at the end of the day, it's just another instance of DC hitting the reset button for no good reason. This is actually worse than bringing back Barry Allen or whatever, just because the DC Universe was a richer place with Barbara as Oracle instead of Batgirl.

Grade: C

Static Shock #1

Another fall-through-the-cracks book. I liked it, and I'm a big, big fan of Scott McDaniel's art. I also appreciated that the other Milestone characters will apparently be worked into the title, especially Hardware, who was always my favorite of the line.

Still, you can only read so many teen superhero books before they all start to blend together. At this point, I'm just not looking to add another one.

Grade: C

Justice League International #1

Remember how you felt when you found out there was no Santa Claus? That's about how I felt when I saw the cover for this issue and realized Dan Jurgens, not Keith Giffen and J. M. DeMatteis, wrote it. For some reason, I was under the impression the latter were. I don't have anything against Jurgens (although I'd be lying if I said he was one of my favorite writers), and it's not like he does an awful job here or anything, but it just seems like a no-brainer to have the guys who made this title a classic, handle the relaunch.

Grade: C

Batwing #1

Why? There aren't enough Bat-books already without adding another one? Morrison's Batman Incorporated is a great book, but I'm not sure the DC Universe needs multiple Batmen running around the world. They certainly don't need their own series.

That said, I thought the plot was pretty good. And I'm always impressed when Judd Winick can make it through a whole issue without getting political, even if I agree with those politics. But this one isn't for me.

Grade: C-

Action Comics #1

I actually agree with the comic book dealer in North Carolina who's boycotting all Grant Morrison comics because Superman says "GD" in this issue. Not the boycott part. Just that Superman wouldn't say "GD." Or most of the other stuff he says here. Is it fun seeing Superman as a lefty crusader against corporate greed? Sure. Does it really fit in with who Superman is? No, not really.

I don't give John Byrne a lot of credit, but Man of Steel, the '80s series that rebooted Superman for the first time, was damn near perfect. Other writers have fiddled with Superman's origin since then, but not to this degree. Morrison's All-Star Superman is one of the greatest comics I've ever read. At no point while reading it did I think that it could be improved by Superman being a punk kid whose costume consisted of a t-shirt and blue jeans.

Grade: D+

O.M.A.C. #1

I guess one could criticize DC head honcho Dan DiDio for assigning himself a series to write when there are so many actual writers who would have liked the gig. But at least he gave himself the one series that has virtually no chance of succeeding. It could be the best-written comic on the market, but no one is going to buy O.M.A.C. They're just not. Even if I'd loved this issue, I wouldn't buy the second one. I mean...it's fucking O.M.A.C.

My resolve won't be tested here, though, because O.M.A.C. is not anywhere close to the best-written comic on the market. Granted, it's not as terrible as I thought it was going to be. And I did really dig Keith Giffen's Kirby-esque artwork, and would love to see it applied to something else. But there's no getting around the fact that a character no one cares about in a lackluster first issue, is going to be a quick cancellation.

Grade: D

Green Arrow #1

At one point early in the issue, Green Arrow is on a ship fighting supervillains. He shoots an arrow into the ship's control panel, and the special arrowhead allows his hacker sidekick hundreds of miles away to take control and pilot the boat. A moment later, after one of the villains falls into the water, Green Arrow shoots another arrow into the water and freezes him.

And that sort of inanity feels like it'll be the norm here.

Grade: D

Stormwatch #1

This whole issue felt wrong. Shoehorning characters from the Wildstorm Universe into the new DC Universe will likely go down as the biggest blunder in this whole endeavour. What's the point of characters based on Superman and Batman in a universe that actually contains Superman and Batman? Why combine characters from stories aimed at mature readers with characters whose primary purpose is to sell lunch boxes and pajamas?

The Authority was one of the best superhero comics of the past decade, and even though its best days were probably behind it regardless, you hate to see great characters reduced to this.

Grade: F

New 52 Report Card

Animal Man: A+
Detective Comics: B+
Men of War: B
Hawk & Dove: B-
Swamp Thing: C
Batgirl: C
Static Shock: C
Justice League International: C
Justice League: C
Batwing: C-
Action Comics: D+
O.M.A.C.: D
Green Arrow: D
Stormwatch: F

Next week: Batman & Robin, Batwoman, Deathstroke, Demon Knights, Frankenstein, Agent of Shield, Green Lantern, Grifter, Legion Lost, Mister Terrific, Red Lanterns, Resurection Man, Suicide Squad and Superboy.

Panel of the Week

2011-09-09T23:12:00.001Z

From The Boys #58:

Creating jobs Vegas style, baby!

2011-09-08T15:51:00.002Z

I was in Las Vegas for the first time recently. I came back with less than what I went out there with, but I had a lot of fun and I'm already looking forward to my next trip. The nice thing about Vegas is that the area comprised of the Strip and downtown is so compact, one trip is really all it takes to make you a quasi-expert. A month ago, I didn't even know there was a Planet Hollywood casino. Now, I know enough to recommend which poker rooms to play in, how to use the pubic transportation system, and to look utterly horrified upon finding out someone is considering staying at the Excalibur. I could probably write a dozen blog posts about my time there, but instead I'll focus on one of the most intriguing aspects of the visit.

Walking around my first night, I did what I'm sure every Vegas newbie does: Wander in and out of the various casinos, stop to watch the Bellagio fountains, and dodge dozens upon dozens of people trying to thrust advertisements for strippers and/or prostitutes into my hands.

Now, I wasn't shocked that people were trying to offer me such literature. It's Vegas. I'd be far more surprised if they weren't. But what did take me by surprise was the sheer number of people who seem to be employed by the area's sex industry. It wasn't just one guy on the end of every block. It was three or four guys (and some women) practically every couple of hundred feet, all of them wearing shirts that had a phone number on the front promising a woman could be at your door within 20 minutes. I was tempted to test this bold claim--purely in the name of crusading for truth in advertising, of course--but ultimately decided against it.

Many of these people were Hispanic, and I'm guessing don't speak much English. So instead of talking to you, they'll fold whatever they're trying to get you to take and make loud clicking sounds with it to get your attention. And they're fucking relentless about getting your attention. You ever toss a piece of bread near some birds and watch as they all swarm over it? It's a lot like that, with people walking down the Strip playing the part of the bread. You would think that if one of the solicitors attempted to hand you a flier or a card* and were rebuffed or ignored, the others, seeing this, would take the hint and try someone else. But no. Without fail, even after you've blown off one guy, the others approach you also. As if there's a possibility that between the first offer and the second or third or fourth, you might think, "Well, I didn't really want a hooker, but in the half-second I've had to think it over, it actually sounds like a pretty good idea."

* (These cards are actually kind of cool, just because of how many different ones there seemed to be. Based on what was thrust in my face and the ones that I'd see littered all over the ground each morning, I'd estimate there were at least a couple dozen of them in circulation, all featuring different girls in varying degrees of undress. If people were so inclined, they could assemble a nice collection and trade them like baseball cards.)

I'm not sure what percentage of tourists take advantage of these services, but even if we assume it's as much as, say, 25%, I'm still amazed the industry can support so many employees--even poorly paid part-time ones--whose job it is to spend hours each night trying to get people walking down the Strip laid.

Which got me thinking.

Unemployment in this country is still hovering around 10%. Tonight, President Obama is presenting his jobs plan that will almost certainly go nowhere. Well, what's the one thing in this country that's popular regardless of the economy? Sex! What if there was some way to take the Vegas sex industry model to a macro level? Just imagine, on every street in America, from liberal D.C. to conservative Provo, you would find clusters of newly-employed people trying to force pictures of naked women in your hands. Granted, it would take a massive rewrite of federal, state and city laws, and I'm guessing social conservatives wouldn't be thrilled, but think of all the jobs! I guess while we're at it, we might as well start opening casinos across the country as well. No reason why Vegas, Atlantic City and various Native American reservations should reap all the profits. Are you with me? Can we make this happen and put Americans back to work?

Okay, maybe not. But it is interesting how much money is apparently just waiting to be made off of our various vices. If we can't add manufacturing jobs because companies keep moving them overseas, and we can't add government jobs because Republicans won't allow it, we might as well start adding jobs pushing sex and gambling, because those are always going to be popular. And evidently, very, very profitable, even in tough times.

Of the countless solicitors I saw aggressively working the crowds, not once did I see anyone get upset or annoyed with them. People would either accept their offering or just walk by, seemingly unfazed by having pictures of naked women shoved towards them. The only time I saw someone soliciting on the Strip get yelled at angrily, it was a guy urging people to renounce sin and find God. Apparently, in Vegas, that's what offends people.

Summer Movie Scorecard - Final

2011-09-05T13:51:00.000Z

Have Seen:

X-Men: First Class: A-
Rise of the Planet of the Apes: B+
Fright Night: B+
Transformers: Dark of the Moon: B
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2: B
Thor: B
Super 8: B-
Captain America: The First Avenger: B
The Hangover Part II: C+
Final Destination 5: C+
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: C
Green Lantern: D+

Panel of the Week

2011-09-02T23:42:00.002Z

From Justice League #1:

Justice League #1

2011-09-01T08:05:00.000Z

In a way, I feel bad for Geoff Johns and Jim Lee, because there was no way Justice League #1, the launching point of DC Comics's sorta-but-not-really reboot, was going to live up to the hype. Not to say that they get a free pass on what is, at best, a lackluster comic, but they also never really had a shot. So I'm trying to be somewhat sympathetic.

It used to be that the relaunching of this, the company's undisputed flagship title, would be an earth-shattering (by comic book standards, anyway) event, but DC has pulled that rabbit out of the hat so many times, it's lost any thrills that once existed. The '80s Justice League #1 was notable because it was the first time it had really been attempted, and the unexpected comedic tone took everyone by surprise. When Grant Morrison's JLA #1 came out, it had both the benefit of the mystique of a writer known mainly for his Vertigo work, as well as a pretty kick-ass opening story arc. Next was Brad Meltzer's Justice League of America #1, and that's when the wheels started coming off of this particular gimmick. It wasn't bad, but nor was it especially memorable. Giffen and DeMatteis had the League stop a terrorist attack on the UN, and introduced the mystery of Max Lord. Morrison opened with a Martian invasion. Meltzer had Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman sitting around a table, discussing who should be on the team. Well, I guess maybe readers who work in HR found it to be exciting.

Now we have what should be the most ambitious relaunch ever, as Johns and Lee aren't just restarting a title, but the entire DC Universe. And so far, it's off to a slow start.

The benefit of kicking off the new DC Universe with the Justice League is that everyone knows who all the characters are. I mean, these hypothetical new readers, for whose benefit this whole thing is being done in the first place, might not be familiar with all the different types of Kryptonite, or know that a year ago everyone thought Bruce Wayne was dead, or have heard of the Guardians of the Universe, or know what Themyscira is, and so on, but they know the basic concepts behind Superman, Batman, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman. So there's something to be said for jumping in with both feet and just giving us a balls to the wall opening story featuring all of DC's big guns.

Instead, we get Part 1 of who knows how many, an extended meeting between Batman and Green Lantern as they chase an alien through Gotham. And we meet a soon-to-be-Cyborg Vic Stone in a fairly cliched scene from every high school sports movie ever. And Superman pops up at the very end in his new ugly costume. And...it's all perfectly competent, but this was DC's chance to go big, and instead, they went prologue. There wasn't much stuff for longtime readers (my own initial reaction: "Darkseid? Again?"), and if I were a new one, would I be so intrigued by this issue that I'd want to wait a month to pay $3 to find out who this Darkseid guy is? I'm not sure I would. In these days of comics being produced primarily to fit in a TPB collection, the ability to tell a complete story in one issue is something of a lost skill among comic book writers, but if ever there was a time to rediscover it, this was the time. Speaking for myself, after five months of Flashpoint and James Robinson's seemingly interminable Justice League of America run, I'm not especially enthusiastic about yet another long story arc, which I'm guessing is what we're in for.

The art is also a problem. Don't get me wrong, Jim Lee is one of the best artists in comics. But his stuff is so big and in your face, it can easily overwhelm a comic. To a degree, that's what happened here. I would have rather seen more story and fewer widescreen panels.

To be fair, it wasn't all bad. If Johns had to kick this thing off with just a couple of characters, I'm glad he chose Green Lantern and Batman, as their relationship is a reliably entertaining one between two characters who are constantly trying to prove who has the biggest dick. In particular, Hal's realization that Batman doesn't have any powers and is just a guy in a bat costume, was excellent.

But in the end, the issue seems like style intentionally done at the expense of substance. Which would be acceptable if this were Justice League #357 or whatever, but in an issue specifically designed to lure in readers who have either never read a comic before or been away for a while, it seems like a bit of a letdown. The reaction on Twitter seems fairly positive, but I'm wondering how much of it is genuine and how much is caught up in the excitement of something new. In other words, will people still be as jazzed when Justice League #4 comes out? History would say no, in terms of both sales and enthusiasm.

I'm not any more or less sold on the merits behind the DC Reboot than I was before reading this. In the end, the deciding factors in whether or not this works or not won't be found in Justice League, they'll be found in the smaller series like Fury of Firestorm or Hawk and Dove, where the real departures from the old continuity will be found. But DC definitely could have gotten off to a better start here.

2011 Baltimore Comic-Con

2011-08-22T08:57:00.001Z

Towards the end of Mallrats, Brodie is walking through his beloved mall when he sees a small line outside the comic book store. He grabs a guy in line and demands to know what's going on, and is shocked to learn that Stan Lee is inside signing comics. Afterwards, Brodie bumps into him and gets some sage advice on life and love.

It's a cute bit of fiction. One might wonder what led Lee to do an apparently unpublicized store signing in a random New Jersey mall. Maybe he was promoting something. Maybe he was just walking though the mall, had time to kill, saw the comic book store and decided to do an impromptu signing.

Regardless, make no mistake: this scene was no more realistic than anything else in Mallrats. Because in real life, there's a well-oiled Stan Lee Autograph Machine, whose sole goal is to make as much money as humanly possible. And you don't make money by giving your autograph away.

More on that in a bit. For now, some general observations about this year's con.

-- There were definitely more people there than in years past. The line to get in was really long when I arrived a half-hour before the doors opened, and soon became ridiculously long, winding back around itself. The guy behind me was practically having a panic attack, worrying we wouldn't get in until after 11. (Our actual time of entrance: 10:15.) He kept muttering that the line wasn't moving and come on, come on, come on!!!!, and his friend would remind him that was probably because the convention hadn't opened yet. Then five minutes later, the first guy would forget and start muttering again. This was the first of many times I wanted to kill a nerd that day.

-- The highlight of the con for me was meeting Keith Giffen, J.M. DeMatteis and Kevin McGuire, the creative team of the classic late '80s/early '90s Justice League series. This is one of my all-time favorite series, and meeting the guys who gave me so many laughs when I was a kid was awesome. I like the idea of the Baltimore con reuniting classic creative teams for group signings. I would have gone to their panel, but I was stuck in Stan Lee line hell.

But even this experience was marred by one guy in particular, who had about 25 comics for Giffen alone to sign. The line was held up for 10 minutes as he removed each comic from its bag, handed it to Giffen who would sign it and hand it back, at which point the guy would put it back in its bag and repeat the process. For the more popular creators, the convention really needs to have a line monitor or something to enforce a strict limit on comics. If you have more than that, just go back to the end of the line and come through again.

(This did remind me of one of my favorite comic book memories, though. Back in the late '90s, Frank Miller did a tour to promote the release of 300. One of the places he stopped was Another Universe in Springfield Mall. Because it was Frank Miller, they had strict rules in place. If you bought a copy of 300 #1, you could get that and one other item signed. I only had one other item, so this worked out well for me. But way back in the line, there was a guy who had brought two long boxes full of comics for Miller to sign. Sadly, I didn't get to see what happened when he got to the front of the line and found out he'd only be able to get one of them signed, but I can imagine.)

-- Booth babes were out in force this year. There have always been a few at Baltimore, but nowhere near this many. There was a really hot Supergirl at someone's booth who was either married or at least had the foresight to wear a ring to keep guys from creepily hitting on her. (It didn't seem to be working.) There was an Elektra whose costume bordered on the vulgar. Two or three girls in daisy dukes asked every guy who made eye contact with them if he would be interested in checking out some comic-related website. A women in front of one table in Artist's Alley was wearing a red dress that seemed to be specially designed to shove her boobs directly in your face. Eye candy's nice and all, but it's hard not to feel at least a little pandered to.

-- Speaking of girls and costumes, this year's group of cosplayers seemed slightly more restrained than last year's. (Then again, I skipped the costume contest, so who knows what went on there.) There was a great-looking Zatanna walking around, who managed to keep it pretty classy. There were a couple of Babydolls from Sucker Punch who didn't go too overboard. I recognized last year's Black Canary, again dressed as Black Canary, but in her more conservative (i.e., no fishnets) '90s costume.

On the more disturbing side of the spectrum, without mentioning costumes, there was a girl who was probably on the wrong side of 18 who was dressed somewhat risque. Her mom was trailing after her, but Chris Hanson probably should have tagged along, too. And there was a woman who looked like she'd just given birth walking around in little more than a bikini. I'm all for confidence in your appearance, but still. Ugh.

-- Okay, Stan Lee. When I last brought him up, I'd already bought my autograph ticket and was wondering what comic of his I wanted to get signed. Over the past month, I really didn't put as much effort into it as I should have. I made a couple of half-hearted attempts at winning eBay auctions, but that's about it. Going into the con, I still hadn't bought a comic, but was leaning towards Fantastic Four #48, which aside from having a pretty cool cover (my main criteria) was also the first appearance of the Silver Surfer and Galactus.

I tried finding a lower grade copy that looked decent but wasn't overly-expensive. No luck. Every copy I saw was either crap (small tears or creases I was fine with, but not marks where someone had written on it) or priced higher than I would have liked. After a couple hours of fruitless searching, I realized that I had to make a decision. A) Buy a copy for more than I wanted to spend, B) Buy another comic I really wasn't crazy about, or C) Just eat the cost of the $50 autograph ticket and don't buy anything.

I went with A. I'm not going to say how much I spent, but let's just say that I had a figure in mind going in, and ended up going double that. Another way to look at it is that several years ago, I saw this amazing painting at the Georgetown Flea Market. Any description I give wouldn't do it justice. But it was by a listed artist, so I balked at the price. I think about it whenever I go to the flea market, and regret not buying it. This comic cost more.

I was kind of shell-shocked after spending that much money. I tried to do more shopping to clear my head, but my heart just wasn't in it. You know how when you've had a really big meal, the last thing you want to look at is more food? It felt kind of like that. It seemed like I was drowning in superhero comics. I went over to Artist's Alley and spent $20 on indie comics. Somehow that made me feel better.

But in the end, I think the expense was worth it. If nothing else, it'll look nice on my wall.

As for the actual signing, I have to admit, it was pretty efficient. I was in line for about an hour, but based on how slowly it was moving, mainly thanks to the VIP ticket holders who got to cut the line, I was expecting a longer wait. At the time, it kind of bugged me how they'd set up different stations and times for autographs and pictures, but then I realized it was probably saving me time, as there were--inexplicably, as far as I was concerned--far, far more people in line to have their photo taken with Stan than have him sign something.

The actual experience of meeting Stan left a bit to be desired. You go in, you hand your comic to a guy, who puts it in front of Stan, who signs it, at which point another guy picks it up and hands it back to you, and then you leave. You get a moment of eye contact and maybe a smile from Stan, and that's it.

And on one hand, I was fine with this. The line was long enough as it was without everyone stopping to tell Stan what big fans they were and shaking his hand. On the other hand, for $50, it seems like you ought to get maybe ten seconds of face time. I didn't have anything to say to him, but I was prepared with a line about him throwing out the first pitch at the Nationals game the night before. But I'm sure there were people who really wanted to meet Stan Lee, who can't really say they did. Everyone could have won if they'd capped the number of autograph tickets, but that would have obviously meant less money for the Machine.

I'll give Stan this, though. When the first guy put my comic in front of him, Stan started to sign it, paused, and then spent a couple of seconds trying to find the best place to put his signature. And he chose the one bit of empty space there was. So that was cool of him.

And with that, I'm going to live a life of poverty until I've saved enough money to recoup the cost of that comic. Oh, no, wait, I'm leaving today for a fairly expensive vacation. Shit. Okay, well, poverty will be here waiting for me when I get back.

Panel of the Week

2011-08-19T23:01:00.001Z

From Zatanna #16:

Panel of the Week

2011-08-12T16:24:00.001Z

From Batman & Robin #26:

Magazines used to be pretty messed up

2011-08-08T21:54:00.001Z

Fair warning: Some of the pictures in this post are possibly NSFW. Nothing awful. But just in case you work with puritans who find ostensibly erotic drawings of Nazis torturing half-naked women in comically over-the-top violent ways offensive, I'm letting you know ahead of time.

As a horror movie fan, I read Fangoria religiously as a teenager. Then at some point I just stopped. The internet probably had something to do with it, in that all of a sudden, I didn't need a magazine to get news on upcoming releases, and there were dozens of other places to find sarcastic reviews of awful low-budget movies than The Video Eye of Dr. Cyclops column.

A couple of years ago, I saw a magazine on the rack at Borders (RIP) that I'd never heard of: Horror Hound. That particular issue's cover story was a selection of the best 20 horror films of the past decade, which naturally for me meant the magazine might as well have been sprinkled with crack. Bought it. Read it. Loved it. Have bought every issue since then. It has the same sort of stuff you'd expect in a horror movie magazines--reviews, interviews, etc.--but they also cover things like comics and toys, and do a monthly retrospective on various topics like '80s straight-to-video flicks, Vincent Price films, and the Friday the 13th franchise, almost all of which are just amazing. I've saved every issue I bought.

The current issue has a retrospective on men's magazines from the 1950s to the mid-1970s. Now, when I think of men's magazines, something like this comes to mind.

Some B-list actress in a provocative photo, and the promise of articles about sports, food or sex. Because this is what men are into.

Turns out, back in the day, some men were into something a little different.

"Secret Horrors of the Nazi Torture Cult." "Lust Orgy of the Wild Nympho." "Exposed: The Antics of the Junkies-Muggers-Perverts Who Play By Day - Slay By Night."

What the fuck.

And we haven't even gotten to the picture on the cover yet. A woman, in her underwear, tied to a pole, with a swastika tattooed or branded onto her thigh, and apparently about to have killer Nazi dogs unleashed on her. Maybe if the Germans had spent more time on coming up with battle plans and less time on torture cults, they wouldn't have lost the war.

Seriously, imagine someone buying this back then. The convenience store near my office has a fairly substantial porn section, and I'll often see the men who patronize it displaying varying degrees of nervousness as they approach the counter. Some guys will pick up a Sports Illustrated and put that on top of their porn mags so people in line don't see what he's holding. Other guys just buy their Hustler with the same confidence I buy Starburst with. But this? I mean, I like the Fourth Amendment and all, but I would not have objected to the FBI putting together a watchlist of anyone who bought stuff like this.

More fun with Nazis:

Pouring molten metal into a cast-iron boot seems like an awfully convoluted way of torturing someone. Probably hurts like hell, though. By comparison, the guy holding the mask in the background seems awfully tame. Even he's bored with his own torture device, preferring instead to watch his friend.

I kind of like this cover. No, not because of the nurse-raping! Jesus! No, it's because A) For a change, the women actually seem to have a decent chance at being rescued (at least, I'm assuming those are Allied troops shooting at the Nazis, and not, like, desert nomads who will be as bad or worse), and B) Because of the "Your Filthy Mind is Making You Impotent" bit at the top. It seems odd to chide readers for having filthy thoughts right able an image of nurses being raped by Nazis and stories like, "I Led Cuba's Nympho Raiders." Way to kick your readership in the teeth. If it wasn't for filthy minds, it seems likely that Men's Epic would have folded after its first issue.

On one hand, it's nice to see women finally get the upper hand. On the other, you know what's really fucked up about this cover? The concentration camp tattoo on the redhead's chest. THAT'S where the artist decided to draw the line and insist on historical accuracy? Ugh. So uncomfortable.

By now, you might be thinking, "Wait, surely there were men in the 1960s who weren't into Nazi porn. Did they have magazines?" And the answer is yes, provided that those men were instead turned on by shirtless dudes being eaten alive by small animals.

They really were the Greatest Generation.

Panel of the Week

2011-08-05T12:27:00.002Z

From Secret Six #36:

Panel of the Week

2011-07-29T21:52:00.001Z

From Crossed: Psychopath #4:

Kastles do it again

2011-07-26T11:15:00.004Z

It wasn't quite as dramatic as last time, but the Washington Kastles won their second championship on Sunday. They came alarmingly close to blowing it in the final set, as the St. Louis Aces forced overtime and kept winning points, which would have eventually led to a super tie-breaker. (Look, I'm not going to explain. Just Google "WTT rules.")

Finally, right around 1 a.m., just as it looked like Bobby Reynolds had won match point, this happened:

You're not likely to ever see Bill Belichick ever cost the Patriots a Super Bowl victory due to premature celebration, but that's almost what happened here.

And you know what? That's exactly why I'm really gotten into WTT the past couple of years. How can you not love a professional sport where the atmosphere is still laid back enough for something like this to happen, and for everyone--coach, players, announcers, fans--not to completely lose their shit, and indeed, see the humor in it?

(Granted, it's easy to say that now, since Reynolds finally won the match a couple of minutes later, but still.)

If you haven't gone to a Kastles match yet, you have almost an entire year to make sure your schedule is clear in July. Even if tennis isn't your thing, you should still go. In a city full of teams with sociopath owners, slumping $100 million free agents, perpetual underachievers, and playoff choke artists, wouldn't it be fun to root for a team that's none of those things?

Best and Worst Comic-Con Exclusives

2011-07-23T13:54:00.004Z

Once again, nerds have made their annual pilgrimage to San Diego for Comic-Con. And even though, in theory, this is in my wheelhouse, I still don't get the appeal. As best I can tell, the entire process is an unpleasant experience. First, you have to get your badge, which usually sell out in lightning speed and involve at least one major computer glitch. Then you have to secure lodging, which also quickly sells out and can be pricey if you don't get the Comic-Con rate.

Then once you get there, you have to navigate through thousands upon thousands of con-goers, all of whom want to attend the same panels and get the same autographs you do. I wonder how many people started off this weekend with grand plans of attending the Avengers panel and getting autographs from the cast of Doctor Who, but ended up settling for the Warehouse 13 panel and meeting Erin Gray.

The one undeniably cool benefit of going to Comic-Con, though, is access to exclusives, some of which are pretty fucking awesome. Then there are others that might be pretty fucking awesome, but just to a small subset of people. Then there are some that aren't in any way pretty fucking awesome.

Pretty Fucking Awesome:

Stitched DVD signed by writer/director Garth Ennis - $15

The last time a noted comic book writer got it in his fool head that he should direct a movie, the result wasn't pretty. I have more faith in Garth Ennis's debut as a filmmaker, as A) This is just a short film, and B) It has zombies. It's amazingly hard to screw up a zombie movie. It happens sometimes. But it's not easy.

Duck Tales #1 variant cover - $10

I don't read Duck Tales. But goddammit, that's an awesome cover. Also, one of the better NES games.

TARDIS Bobblehead - $20

Generally speaking, I think there are too many bobbleheads in the world. Athletes are okay, but for some reason it really irks me that I can go to USA's website and order bobbleheads of the characters on Royal Pains. I'm willing to make an exception for something as cool as this, though. Added bonus: It makes the TARDIS sound! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Or something like that.

Rayola Plush (Grayscale Colorway) - $50

Aw. It's a sad plushie. A sad, colorless crayon plushie. Deep. If you color him in with a magic marker, does he stop crying?

Not Pretty Fucking Awesome:

Emilia Clarke Signed Trading Card - $100

As awesome as Game of Thrones is, and as hot as Emelia Clarke is on it, I couldn't see myself paying $1 for a card with her autograph on it, much less, $100. Even if she was naked and covered in dragons. Also, she looks better as a blonde.

Baby Doll Mini Bust - $65

Proudly display this in your home, and people will think that you're both a perv and have horrible taste in movies.

Green Lantern Movie Light-Up Bearbrick - $16.99

You don't use an iconic box design like the one from the '80s Super Powers line, arguably the best superhero action figures ever made, for a weird Japanese toy ("weird" and "Japanese toy" might be redundant) based on a crappy movie.

Stan Lee Limited Edition Package - $300

This is similar to the Stan Lee VIP package for the Baltimore Comic-Con, but this one comes with a bust of Stan Lee. Look, while I'm certainly not into every aspect of geek culture, I try to take a live-and-let-live approach, passing no judgment (well, okay, some judgment) on how my fellow collectors spend their time and money. But...if you proudly display a bust of Stan Lee in your home with the same reverence my grandmother used to display a picture of the baby Jesus, you probably deserve to have your lunch money stolen from you.

Panel of the Week

2011-07-22T14:32:00.000Z

From Power Girl #26:

The great Netflix tantrum

2011-07-18T20:50:00.003Z

One of the best and worst things about Twitter is that it gives you people's immediate and unfiltered reaction to just about anything. Sometimes, like when we found out bin Laden was dead, or the Women's World Cup team beat Brazil, it's great. Last week, when Netflix announced it was going to raise its subscription fees, it was not great. I've never seen a bigger collection of crybabies. People were threatening to cancel subscriptions, the company was being called things usually reserved for Bank of America and BP, and the Huffington Post quickly whipped up a feature that listed alternatives for anyone thinking about leaving Netflix.

You know what? Go ahead. Quit. Please. There's really no reason why there should be long waits for movies like Battle: Los Angeles or Red Riding Hood, but there are. Maybe with fewer of you, it won't take as long for me to receive two movies that have a combined Rotten Tomatoes rating of 46%. I've also noticed that sometimes the quality of streamed movies isn't as good as it probably should be. I can't say for certain that it's because so many Netflix users are clogging up the internet and slowing my movie down, but hey, it seems plausible.

We live in a culture where it's possible to get a ridiculous amount of content online cheaply, if not for free. iTunes put CD stores out of business. Amazon sells books at 40% off. Hulu claims to have been charging for its premium service for a year now, but I can still access pretty much everything I want to see for free, so I'm not sure what's going on there. And through the wonder of BitTorrent, you can find virtually anything you're looking for at no cost at all.

So the complete meltdown following Netflix's announcement; the sheer indignation at actually being asked to pay a higher--albeit, still extraordinarily fair--price for something great, was too much for me to take. From the online reaction, you'd think Netflix was going to start charging testicles.

I'm on the 3 DVDs at-a-time/streaming plan. As of September, that'll increase to $23.98. Honestly, I couldn't even tell you what I've been paying. Since it's been years since I signed up for Netflix and because I'm one of those fiscally irresponsible people who never really examines their monthly credit card statement and just takes it on faith that no one would want to steal their identity, my reaction was basically, "Wait, you mean Netflix doesn't already cost $23.98 a month?"

Let's break that $23.98 down. I'd say I get approximately 15 DVDs a month from Netflix. (Although I don't actually watch all of them. I tend to have a lot of low-budget horror movies in my queue, so I'll often pop one in and decide after two minutes that it's too shitty even for me. Seriously, how can a movie with a brilliant title like Cheerleader Autopsy be so bad?) That means I'll be paying $1.60 per rental. In a world of $9.50 matinees at a theater, that seems like a steal. And guess what? If I have a particularly slothful month, where I'm doing little more than watching and returning movies, that means I'm paying even less! So if I get fired tomorrow and spend a depressed month on my couch, I'd probably increase to something like 25 DVDs a month. Then I'm just paying 96 cents per film! At that price, it almost seems irresponsible to even have a job and/or ever leave your couch!

And of course, that's not even counting streaming. I don't stream a lot of stuff, just because whenever I get a sudden urge to watch a particular movie and check to see if it's available for streaming, the answer is almost always no. But it's a nice feature to have access to. After watching a fair amount of the World Series of Poker on Saturday, I was in a Vegas mood, so I went out on my balcony and watched Casino on my laptop, fantasizing about what Sam and Nicky would do to some of the douchier-looking players in the WSOP if they'd tried wandering into the Tangiers wearing hoodies and mirrored sunglasses and lecturing about EV or pot equity. Broken fingers all around, probably.

But you know why I really can't get upset over the Netflix rate increase? Why, even if they'd announced they were going to start charging $30 or $40 a month, I wouldn't leave? Because I still remember Blockbuster. Do you? You know, Blockbuster Video? Lousy movie selection? Two-day rentals? Late fees? Being ready to go to bed before suddenly remembering that you hadn't returned the movies you had checked out, so you'd have to jump in the car and get to the store before midnight?

At the time, we blindly accepted this, because we couldn't imagine any alternative. It wasn't until Netflix started doing to Blockbuster what Blockbuster had so gleefully done to hundreds of independent video stores over the years, that we realized exorbitant late fees and unreasonably short rental periods actually weren't a necessary evil of the video rental business. All of a sudden, Blockbuster tried making up for years of customer abuse. No more late fees. Five-day rentals. More copies of new releases. But it was too late, and the company's currently circling the drain. You always hate to see people lose their jobs, but is anyone going to be sorry the day the last Blockbuster gets shuttered?

If I'd rented 15 DVDs a month from Blockbuster, the total cost would have been upwards of $75. Additionally, that cost prevented people from experimenting too much. The only reason I can rent a movie called Cheerleader Autopsy that I know has a 99% chance of sucking, is because I know that if it does, it goes right back into the mail, and the only thing it's cost me is a slight delay in seeing the next movie in my queue. Remember browsing through the shelves and finding a movie you'd never heard of before that looked like it might be good, but not being able to bring yourself to take the risk? Or getting it and hating it, but feeling like you had to stick with it to get your money's worth? Two things we'll never have to go through again.

So stay with Netflix, leave, switch to a different plan, whatever. But don't for one second pretend the service isn't worth every penny you're paying for it. Not when we were paying so much more for so much less just a few years ago.

Panel of the Week

2011-07-15T23:31:00.000Z

From Flashpoint: Citizen Cold #2:

Sports hell

2011-07-13T17:05:00.001Z

If Dante lived today, he could have cut the length of The Inferno down considerably by combining the First Circle of Hell (Limbo), the Third Circle (Gluttony), the Fourth Circle (Greed) and the Eighth Circle (Fraud) into just one really big circle that contained all these things: A sports memorabilia show.

I went to the Dulles Expo Center on Saturday for the semi-annual Collector's Showcase of America show. I'd never been to the Expo Center before. I've heard about it for years, typically in radio commercials for gun shows, career fairs, and other things that I'd never travel all the way to Dulles for. But this time, curiosity got the better of me, and I made the trek out there. Just based on the name alone, I was expecting this big, grand building, along the lines of the Baltimore or D.C. convention centers. It turns out the Dulles Expo Center was simply either a remodeled former Walmart or was designed like one. Frankly, it was kind of a letdown.

The show itself was...strange. Obviously, I'm familiar with large gatherings of nerds who flock together in order to expand their collections, meet their heroes, get autographs, and so on. This felt different, though. The people at this show seemed...I dunno. Sadder? More desperate? I can't exactly articulate why I'm mostly fine with comic book collectors, but I found sports memorabilia collectors to be so profoundly disturbing. And even if I could, it would likely just come off as self-serving rationalization, since I identify much more with the former than the latter. But a lot of these people seemed weird. Yes, comic book readers are also weird. These people were more weird.

One possible reason for this reaction is that as a sports fan, I'm uncomfortable seeing favorite teams and players, amazing accomplishments, and treasured memories, all broken down into dollars and cents for easy mass consumption. You might have the fantasy of, say, catching a home run ball, meeting the player who hit it after the game, and having him sign it for you. But the reality is, the closest to that you're likely to get is by attending one of these shows, where you can pay exorbitant prices for one of the dozens of baseballs that player has signed each day in the clubhouse. Or maybe you did catch the ball, but the only way you're able to get him to sign it is by coughing up $100 he's demanding so he can pay the mortgage on his third home.

The age of some of the attendees might have had something to do with it. You go to a comic book convention, you mostly see guys in their 20s or 30s. Lots of disposable income, few life priorities. Here, it wasn't at all uncommon to see guys in their 50s, 60s, or even older, wearing jerseys and flipping through a stack of baseball cards or whatever with the glazed-over eyes of drug addicts who just stumbled upon an expo center full of heroin. For me, as a collector, it was a bit like seeing the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. You'd like to think these guys have better things to do, like spend time with grandchildren or blow their social security check in Atlantic City. God knows, I'm not still going to be collecting comics at that age. At least, I hope I'm not.

Speaking of autographed baseballs! There were tons of autographed everything at the show, but especially baseballs. Naturally, all the signatures were guaranteed to be authentic. I'd love to know what percentage of them actually were. I'm not saying the dealers were shady, but God only knows how they acquire these things, so you have to figure at least a decent percentage were fake. If only life were like Pawn Stars, and I could just call a buddy who would come over with a magnifying glass and tell me whether or not Reggie Jackson really does form his R the way it is on the ball.

This particular dealer was charging over $200 for Bryce Harper autographed balls. By comparison, this was twice what Tim Lincecum's balls were worth. So basically, an 18 year-old minor leaguer's signature is worth two times that of a Cy Young Award-winning, World Series champion, All-Star pitcher. I guess part of that can be explained by geography, but still. Either way, I clearly should have gotten Harper's signature when I had a chance.

If autographed baseballs struck you as too mainstream and predictable, you could have bought autographed stadium seats. I was actually annoyed to see stuff like this. I mean, that seat has--or should have, anyway--sentimental value for precisely one person on the planet: The guy who was sitting in that seat during a big game and then tore it out. Even if you were a fan of the team who played in that stadium and/or of the players who signed the seat, would it really mean anything to you to own it? I suppose some people would say yes, but they shouldn't.

Yeah, I wasn't really sure what this was doing at a sports memorabilia show, either. Maybe it used to belong to Marge Schott?

In a building full of worthless items for sale, a Metro pamphlet for people taking the train to Nationals games was probably the most worthless. I don't even want to think about how pathetically obsessed you'd have to be with the Nationals to want this. I didn't ask the dealer how much they cost, simply out of fear I'd get annoyed and make a smart-ass comment.

On the other hand, as someone who's only a slightly pathetically obsessed Nationals collector, there were two things I saw at the show that I was tempted to get, although technically, neither one actually had anything to do with the Nationals. The first was a pennant from the 1969 All-Star Game held at RFK. The second was a ticket stub from the very first Senators game in 1961. I would have liked them, but not enough to pay $75 and $50, respectively. A couple of days later, I am sort of regretting not getting the pennant, though.

It says a lot that this was the highlight of my time at the show: Virgil, from '80s/'90s WWF, was there! The poster behind him seemed to indicate that Ted DiBiase was on tour with him, but no, it was just Virgil. He was selling autographed pictures and posing for photos with fans (for a fee, of course). He even had the Million Dollar Belt--or at least, a serviceable reproduction--and would let people sling it around their shoulder when they posed for the photo.

I didn't speak to him (when it comes to minor celebrities hawking wares, I've never quite figured out how to say, "Hi, big fan. But no, I don't want to buy anything,") and he didn't appear to have a lot of people stop by his booth. But for those who did, he seemed just super, really out-of-his-way nice to his fans. It'd be great if the WWE gives him (and DiBiase) more work.

And that was my Saturday morning. Total amount spent: $0. I tried to find some inexpensive bauble simply to justify the $5 admission price, but I couldn't find anything. Well, other than that swastika. So I left empty-handed. As I walked out, I passed a father pushing his baby in a stroller. The baby was wearing a Vikings jersey. I guess it's nice that once all those old guys I saw die off, there'll be a new generation of collectors ready to take their place.

Summer Movie Scorecard

2011-07-10T13:35:00.000Z

Have Seen:

X-Men: First Class: A-
Transformers: Dark of the Moon: B
Thor: B
Super 8: B-
The Hangover Part II: C+
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: C
Green Lantern: D+

Definitely Seeing:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Captain America: The First Avenger
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark
Fright Night
Final Destination 5

Might See:

Crazy, Stupid, Love.
Cowboys & Aliens
The Change-Up
30 Minutes or Less
Conan the Barbarian
Our Idiot Brother

Panel of the Week

2011-07-08T23:24:00.000Z

From The Boys #56:

The search for Stan

2011-07-07T23:08:00.011Z

Tickets for the Baltimore Comic-Con went on sale a couple of weeks ago. I got mine, but passed on the "Stan Lee VIP Package." Said package includes a ticket to the con, one Stan Lee autograph on an item (item not included), one photo with Stan Lee, access to a faster autograph line, an exclusive Stan Lee VIP badge and lanyard, preferred seating at Stan’s panel, and "exclusive commemorative items," whatever that means. All for the low price of $195.

The first two, I wanted. I guess the faster line access would come in handy, too. But I don't want a photo, I'm not going to his panel, and I'm not sure what I would do with a bunch of Stan Lee commemorative items. The guy's a convention whore these days. It's not like it's especially difficult to meet him. Certainly nothing worth commemorating with trinkets.

So I opted for just the normal Stan Lee autograph ticket. For only...ugh...$50.

I feel vaguely nauseous over it. I guess this means I can no longer make fun of sports fans who pay exorbitant sums to athletes to sign a jersey or ball. I paid $5 for Neal Adams's signature a couple of years ago, but justified it because A) It wasn't that much, B) I really wanted his autograph on one particular comic, and C) Neal Adams doesn't get a whole lot of work these days, and what work he does get isn't especially good. So it actually almost felt altruistic.

Lee is different. To begin with, he's loaded. I'm not sure how loaded, but I'm fairly confident that he could travel around the country on his own dime signing comics for free, and his bank account would still be bigger than the combined savings of everyone reading this, times a thousand. It'd be nice if he signed stuff for free, like 99.99% of comic book pros do, but even if he absolutely feels the need to charge something, $50 is just obnoxious.

The other key difference is that with Adams, I really love the issue he signed. It's my favorite Joker story of all time. Conversely, I'm fairly sure I've never read a single thing Stan Lee's written. I'm a DC guy. He's a Marvel guy. Our paths simply never crossed. (I tried flipping through the TPB collection of those comics he did for DC a few years back, where he reimagined DC characters as if he'd created them. Interesting premise, but lousy execution. I don't think I made it through five pages.)

So why am I shelling out $50 for an autograph of someone whose work I've never even read? Because while I may not be a Marvel fan, I can appreciate the historical importance and indeed, the genius of the characters he created. So having a framed vintage Stan Lee-autographed comic would be pretty awesome. I mean, there aren't that many giants in the comic book industry left. Jack Kirby? Dead. Siegel and Shuster? Dead. Bob Kane? Dead. Gardner Fox? Dead. Steve Ditko? Alive, but a bitter recluse who refuses to sign anything. Stan Lee's more or less the last man standing. After he's gone, it'll just be the Jim Shooters, Todd McFarlanes and Geoff Johns of the world.

So that brings me to my current dilemma: Which Stan Lee comic do I want on my wall?

Initially, I thought not having sentimental attachment to any of his comics would make it easier to find one, in the sense that I wouldn't get hung up on feeling like I had to get one particular (i.e., potentially really expensive) issue. But it's actually even more difficult, because now the only thing I can judge a comic by is how nice the cover is. And it turns out that the covers of a lot of those Marvel comics from the '60s and '70s aren't exactly aesthetically pleasing.

I like Spider-Man. The movies, anyway. And the character is Lee's most famous creation. So I figured I'd start there. He wrote the first hundred or so issues of The Amazing Spider-Man, and having gone through a gallery of covers of each issue, it turns out that almost all of them look like...well, I won't use the word "crap," but definitely something similar to crap. Naturally, the only ones I really like are out of my price range.

Like this one:

Or this one:

I mostly like this one. And as a bonus, it's affordable.

But is it me, or does the "Spidey Saves the Day!" box completely ruin an otherwise perfect image? Isn't Spidey saving the day a bit of a given? You'd think "The End of the Green Goblin!" would be more than enough to sell a comic.

I guess after Spider-Man, my favorite Marvel property is the X-Men. But all the early X-Men covers are pretty ghastly. Case in point:

From there, the choices get a little muddled. Lots of great Fantastic Four covers, but I really couldn't care less about the characters. Ditto for Daredevil, Thor or the Avengers. Aesthetics may be important, but it also feels like I ought to have some affection for whatever's on the cover. Otherwise, I might as well just have Lee sign a blank sheet of paper and get that framed.

I'm not a big Silver Surfer fan either, but the character's always had a certain cache of coolness. Watch Breathless if you don't know what I mean. And I do really like this cover.

So this probably the front runner at the moment, but who knows. I have another month to troll eBay before I have to make a decision.

Oh, and just to further my point about how Stan Lee really doesn't need to be charging $50 an autograph, check this shit out:

This issue is from 1992. The fact that it's professionally graded means that a company paid him good money to sign comics that he didn't even write, largely featuring characters he didn't even create. And people actually buy them! What's up with that?

Panel of the Week

2011-07-01T11:22:00.001Z

From Gotham City Sirens #24:

Jack Evans hates online poker

2011-06-29T22:30:00.002Z

This morning, the D.C. Council's Finance and Revenue Committee, led by Councilman Jack Evans, had a hearing on the District's plan to offer online gaming later this year. The authorization of said gaming became law some time back, but since it was passed as a provision from Councilman Michael Brown in a budget bill that Evans apparently never bothered to read, and is set to go online in just a couple of months, he now finds himself having to rush in order to kill it before it's too late. And rest assured, that was the point of today's hearing.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, this is a subject of particular interest to me. Had I known about the hearing before today, I would have taken the day off work and gone. As it stood, I had to settle for watching the live stream.

Well, trying to watch the live stream, in any case. This became a frequent occurrence:

My office has a T1 line, so I know the problem wasn't on my end. It's great that D.C. offers live streams of hearings, and to the government's credit, the video of the hearing was posted extremely quickly, but the buffering issues during the hearing were unbearable. Maybe once that online poker revenue starts pouring in, they can spring for better computer equipment.

The hearing lasted over four hours. I lost interest way before that, but here are some of the more interesting moments from the first half or so, along with where in the video they occur.

00:01 -- Evans begins the hearing by going over the parameters of the bill. The three biggest points: 1) Players will only be able to access the system from between 10 a.m. to 4.a.m., presumably to keep the real degenerates from losing all their money, 2) Players will only be able to access the system from approved hot spots inside the city, as opposed to their homes, and 3) Players will only be able to deposit $250 a week.

Immediate reaction from the online poker community to these has been less than kind (especially that last one), but for what it's worth, I'm fine with all of them.

07:30 -- Evans reminds us that even though online gaming has already been passed (however unknowingly) by the council, it can also be unpassed. Okay, Jack, we get it. Your dick is as big as Brown's.

17:15 -- D.C. CFO Natwar Gandhi reads the list of what games will be available online: Blackjack and Victory at Sea (yeah, I don't know what that is, either) at first, followed by poker, bingo, e-scratch (I'm assuming that's an online version of scratch-off lottery tickets, which...wow, how lame do you have to be to play those?), and "random number generated games," which I take to mean online keno or slots. I think they'd be better off sticking with just poker, blackjack and bingo, but whatever.

39:40 -- Evans seems to suggest to Gandhi that since the council might decide to unpass the online gaming legislation down the road, wouldn't it be swell if they could just agree to drop the whole thing now before any more money is spent? Gandhi suggests this is something Evans and the council perhaps should have considered before they voted for it. Burn.

(And ultimately, this is Evans's biggest problem. He can complain about how online gaming in D.C. came into being, and to be fair, it's not a wholly invalid point. But the bottom line is that Evans and the rest of the council voted for it. So now he gets to live with it.)

1:01 -- Evans is relieved to hear that D.C. libraries can be blocked from accessing the gaming site. Next issue: Suppose two businesses, X and Y, each want to license an authorized hot spot for online gaming. Isn't there a danger of X bribing someone in government to ensure it gets one and Y doesn't? A confused D.C. Lottery chief Buddy Roogow does his best to pretend this is somehow a valid concern, and reassures Evans they'll keep an eye out for that sort of thing.

1:26 -- Councilman Tommy Wells asks Attorney General Irv Nathan about how the placement of gaming hot spots will be legislated and/or regulated. Nathan responds that formal legislation likely won't be necessary, and essentially says that basic common sense should be sufficient. Wells wants to know what will happen if a hot spot somehow ends up in a school. Or the basement of the Wilson Building. Rather than explain the definition of common sense, Nathan simply assures him that schools and the basement of the building they're currently sitting in would almost certainly not be granted gaming licences.

1:35 -- After Evans goes off on a tangent about how the city taking money from poor people via online gaming is wrong or something, Gandhi points out D.C., with its roughly 1,000,001 different forms of lotteries, crossed that Rubicon a long time ago. Evans acknowledges the point, but then seems to imply that if it were up to him, there would be no D.C. lottery. Yeah, good luck running for mayor with that as your platform, Jack. Seniors in D.C. love lottery tickets like teenager girls love Bieber.

1:52 -- In a surprise cameo, Patrick Thibodeau of DC Blogs pops up to speak out against the implementation of online gaming in D.C. Suffice it to say that I disagree with him on this, and when he brought up the issue a few weeks ago on his site, I posted a response to his concerns. You can check it out here, if you want.

Anyway, that's about when I bailed. So let me just close with this: It's fairly obvious that Evans and Wells would like to kill online gambling in D.C. Or in the very least, keep delaying its implementation indefinitely. They shouldn't. Aside from providing much needed revenue to the city, there's a basic question of personal freedom. There's no reason why Americans shouldn't be allowed to play poker online, and that freedom trumps concerns about exploiting the poor or those with gambling problems. As Gandhi points out, D.C. embraced gambling a long, long time ago. The difference is, poker--and even blackjack or bingo or whatever the hell Victory at Sea is--actually gives the player a chance to win. Scratchers don't. Lotto drawings don't. So if we're not going to do away with the whole lottery apparatus in the interest of protecting potential problem gamblers, the very least we can do is give them fighting odds.

Panel of the Week

2011-06-24T11:35:00.001Z

From Brightest Day Aftermath: The Search for Swamp Thing #1:

Your ad here

2011-06-23T11:29:00.002Z

If you have a blog that's been around for a while, chances are you're on several PR email lists that may or may not have anything to do with your blog.

I get a fair amount of press releases, usually about musical acts I've never heard of. Occasionally, I get requests to publicize stuff. Charity events, museum exhibits, newspaper articles, Democratic Party meetings, etc. Sadly, never anything fun and/or cool. So I typically ignore them because none of them interest me, so I'm assuming none of them will interest you, either.

I did once get an offer to interview the guy who played Ted on Scrubs, who was touring through D.C. with his acapella/sketch comedy group. I didn't respond to the email. It's easily in my top five mistakes of all time.

But in the past week, I've gotten a few somewhat unusual promotional requests, so what the hell. Maybe there's something you'll enjoy.

-- The Hot 99.5 "Hotty" Awards. In the email, I was encouraged to nominate myself for something. I'd very much like to win the award--excuse me, the Hotty--for Hottest Bathroom, which, believe it or not, is an actual category. You're so crazy, Hot 99.5! Play that Katy Perry song again for the millionth time! No, that other Katy Perry song! No, that other Katy Perry song!

-- When you read my posts about the Smurfs' Village iPhone game, did you find yourself thinking, "This sounds absolutely fascinating. Where can I learn more about this wonderful game?" but were just too lazy to use Google? Don't worry, here's a link to what I can only describe as a frighteningly comprehensive website entirely devoted to Smurfs' Village. Well, whatever. I spent Sunday at a comic book convention and wrestling. I have no right to tell people what they should do with their free time.

-- Sierra Club? You're up:

On Wednesday, June 22nd at 6:00 p.m., the Sierra Club’s Washington, D.C. Chapter will hold a streetcar happy hour at Ray's the Steaks, 3905 Dix St. NE, located a short walk from the Minnesota Avenue Metro Station. Please join fellow sustainable transit advocates have a drink and informally discuss the streetcar system that will soon come to the District.

The Sierra Club plans to hold periodic happy hours in different neighborhoods across D.C. If you would like to suggest a location for a future happy hour, please contact Jason Broehm, chair of the Chapter’s transportation committee, at jason.broehm[@]dc.sierraclub.net. To learn more about Washington's streetcar initiative, visit www.streetcars4dc.org.

I'm too late to publicize last night's happy hour, but apparently, there'll be future ones for all you sustainable transit advocates out there. And presumably, if D.C. gets street cars, you'll be able to attend more happy hours and not have to worry about driving home. See, it all ties together.

-- I was dumbfounded to discover there's actually a singer named Christian TV who is real, and not the invention of The Onion or Weird Al Yankovic. Here's a little bit about him:

He is on tour with the Millionaires, Breather Electric and Set if off! The tour will stop in Baltimore on June 24^th at Sonar. His smash single, “Love 2 Baby” is steady climbing up the charts and a favorite of Britney Spears!

Obviously, I immediately went on Twitter and made fun of his name. But then the guy responded and was pretty cool about it. Anyway, if you're so inclined, read about him and watch his video, and go see him tomorrow night at whatever Sonar is.

So there you go. See? I know how to play ball. Now, someone offer me something cool to plug.

Capitol Punishment

2011-06-22T21:45:00.007Z

Ever since I've started watching wrestling again a couple years ago after about 20 years of not watching, and indeed, looking down my nose at it, there have been three WWE events in D.C. The Survivor Series, an episode of Monday Night Raw and a house show. The first two were great. The third, not so much. It had its charms--it seemed less scripted and the wrestlers weren't quite as militant about maintaining kayfabe (at one point, Maryse broke character and burst out laughing because the ref pinched her ass or something)--but if I'm going to shell out money to go see a show, I need the bells and whistles of a televised broadcast.

Still, when the WWE announced last winter that there'd be another pay-per-view in D.C., I wasn't going to go. Originally, it was advertised as Fatal 4-Way, where each match would consist of four wrestlers against one another. The concept sounded awful, and definitely not worth spending money to go see. Evidently, the WWE came to the same conclusion, so a couple of months ago, they changed it to Capitol Punishment.

A D.C.-themed WWE event? Sold!

-- By far, the weirdest part of going to a WWE show is seeing grown men carrying championship belts. Most are just plastic replicas, but some are really expensive custom made ones that are actually made out of metal and leather. For me, this phenomenon falls into the same category as costume contents at comic book conventions: I don't get it. I don't really approve of it. But it is what it is.

As I walked through the Verizon Center concourse before the show, I actually thought about doing a post consisting of nothing but funny pictures of guys walking around with belts slung over their shoulders. Then an odd thing happened: I didn't see very many of them. Sure, there were a few, but not nearly as many as I've seen in the past.

-- There was no Divas match, which was great. When you think about it, it's actually kind of amazing that the WWE has somehow managed to make drop-dead gorgeous women fighting and groping each other into such a dull exercise.

-- At one point, the Bella Twins' entrance music started playing, and I thought maybe there was going to be a Divas match after all. But no, they weren't wrestling. Apparently, Keystone Light was a Capitol Punishment sponsor, so they came out along with...wait for it...freaking Keith Stone!

Keith Stone! Totally in character, carrying his trademark Keystone Light, which he and the Bellas enjoyed (or at least, pretended to enjoy; I haven't heard good things) when they sat ringside. In between matches, more people in that section wanted their picture taken with him than the Bella Twins.

So I've now seen Keith Stone and the Geico Caveman at D.C. sporting events. If I ever run into that Progressive Insurance chick, I win pitchman bingo.

-- They hired an Obama impersonator to do some really just awful shtick. I'm pretty sure it was the same one who was thrown out of that GOP event last week for making fun of the Republican presidential candidates. I'm trying not to think about how much money that guy must make. It would just make me angry.

-- The matches were actually pretty good, up until the end. The Miz vs. Alex Reilly was both my favorite and least favorite. It was a great match, but it's annoying to see The Miz go from WWE Champion to jobber within a matter of weeks. The WWE is really lousy at figuring out what to do with ex-champions not named John Cena once they've lost the belt. Maybe The Miz and Sheamus can form a tag team. Or in the very least, a support group.

I didn't really think they were going to let R-Truth beat Cena, but I was hoping. Ever since his heel turn, R-Truth has been awesome. So needless to say, the stupid way the match ended--a kid planted in the audience threw his soda in R-Truth's face, distracting him just long enough for Cena to get the win--was not the best way the night could have ended.

-- After it was over, we were exiting the Verizon Center when I saw a douchebag and his friend harassing some little kids who were wearing Cena shirts. "Why do you like John Cena?" the guy demanded, as he towered over them. Luckily, there was a security guard nearby, and he promptly threw them out of the building. Which wasn't that big of a deal, since everyone was leaving, but it was still the right thing to do.

Outside, the guy and his friend (who was wearing an Ultimate Warrior wig and stalked around huffing and puffing, just like the Warrior would do) kept it up, actually getting into the face of a guy in a military uniform who just stood there stoically.

Another security guard came up and told him to knock it off or else. Suddenly faced with the prospect of spending the night in jail dressed in that outfit, he and his friend hightailed it out of there.

And you know, I get what he was doing. It was just kayfabe, and he was simply getting into the spirit of the evening, playing the heel role. And his retarded friend was just...well, I'm not sure what he was doing. But for Christ's sake, leave kids out of it, huh? They're not going to know what you're doing. Assholes.

So, Capitol Punishment was a rousing success, completely selling out. Now, when does D.C. get a WrestleMania?

2011 D.C. Comic-Con

2011-06-21T08:28:00.005Z

Sunday was Father's Day. As it happens, mine lives a few hundred miles away, so other than a present and a phone call, I was off the hook in terms of having to make plans. Thus, I was free to indulge two of my iffier passions in life: comic books and professional wrestling, as the Gods of Awesome Timing scheduled the D.C. Comic-Con and the WWE's Capitol Punishment pay-per-view on the same day.

I felt last year's inaugural D.C. Comic Con was a good first step, but only if the show had aspirations to grow. Unfortunately, while there seemed to be a better selection of comics, and this year's guests were better than last year's, the convention organizers don't appear to have any desire to expand beyond George Mason University's Student Union Building II, never mind, actually hold the D.C. Comic Con in D.C.

I realize that since it's not my money at stake, it's really easy for me to say, "Hey, guys, you should be holding this thing in the D.C. Convention Center or at least the ballroom of the Washington Hilton, not the same building I once took the LSAT in." But it's not like D.C. doesn't have more than enough nerds to fill a dozen convention centers. Additionally, there isn't a big, pop culture-ish event of any sort that's held in this city, meaning interest would be huge, even among non-comic book readers. And when you consider the close proximity to New York, Baltimore, Philly, etc., it almost seems like it would be impossible to fail.

Since Marc Nathan, the organizer of the Baltimore Comic-Con, also helps runs this one, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason for keeping the D.C. show small and unambitious is so it won't cannibalize the audience for Baltimore. If so, he needn't worry. There's plenty of nerdiness in this region to go around. But I get why it might be a concern, so here's what I would suggest: A point of pride for the Baltimore Comic-Con is that it's strictly about comic books, not an overall pop culture convention, as San Diego and most other shows have become in recent years. So why not go the opposite route for D.C.? Let Baltimore stay all about comics. For D.C., yes, have comics, but also fly in Bruce Campbell and Felicia Day and other C-list celebrities to sign autographs. Let the horror, RPG, anime, etc. exhibitors in. Have booth babes. Whatever. Comic book purists may turn their noses up at Wizard World shows, but there's nothing inherently evil about them, and they're held in pretty much every major city in America--except, inexplicably, D.C.--so you can't say they're not popular. And if the D.C. show was held in spring and Baltimore in the fall, enough time would pass between them so that Baltimore shouldn't lose much, if any, business.

There's a huge vacuum in D.C. just waiting to be filled, and if Nathan and company aren't interested, they should surrender the D.C. Comic-Con name to someone who is, and just have the George Mason show fall under the Virginia Comic-Con umbrella.

Anyway, on to the con itself.

--It seemed like there was a better variety of dealers this year. One guy in particular had a great selection of '60s and '70s comics that weren't in super condition, but were only $3 each. I picked up some old Batman comics. I haven't read them yet, but I have smelled them. Seriously, old comics smell awesome. If Blogger offered a scratch and sniff widget, I'd show you.

-- I was one of the first 100 people to get in, so I got the con exclusive, a free copy of Witchblade #136 with the D.C. Comic-Con variant cover.

See? The Washington Monument! Cherry blossoms! Things you find actually in D.C., not on the George Mason campus! Regrettably, several people beat me to putting their copies up on eBay, where demand would have been soft regardless. But now with the oversaturation, it's virtually non-existent. Since I'm not a Witchblade fan, I suspect this is going to end up in the trash.

-- Probably the biggest factor in my deciding to go to the con this year was that Larry Hama was one of the guests. The guy wrote the G.I. Joe comic when I was a kid. The guy's still writing the G.I. Joe comic. I used to dream of owning a copy of G.I. Joe #1, which, back in the day, Overstreet had priced at something like $50. But when you're 8 or 9, $50 might as well be $5,000,000.

Eventually, I grew up and moved on to more mature material. You know, like Batman. So I never did get a copy of this issue, even though A) It's no longer worth $50, and B) Even if it was, I could now afford it. But when I heard Hama was going to be there, all of a sudden, it became vitally important that I own a copy. I didn't hear about the show in time to buy one on eBay, so as soon as I got into the con, I made a beeline to the first dealer I saw with a good back issue selection and was in luck.

Granted, owning this isn't quite as cool as it would have been when I was a kid, but it's still a nice thing to have.

It was only after I got home that I realized Hama also wrote the Barack the Barbarian mini-series. Which was pretty godawful, but I still would have gotten it autographed. The lesson being, always do your homework before you go to one of these things.

-- Finally, I had a bit of a...well, not exactly an epiphany, but a moment of realization while at the show.

When I first started going to conventions as a kid, the coolest part was looking at the comics that dealers had hanging up on the rack behind them. The really old and/or rare and/or valuable ones. Back then, I was mostly relegated to the quarter bins. Maybe the dollar bins, if I'd saved my money. But the rack comics? So far out my price range, it wasn't even funny. Forget $50 for G.I. Joe #1, Silver Age comics usually went for hundreds. Golden Age books, even more.

But between eBay and the collapse of the comic book collectibles market, prices have dropped considerably. And now, as someone who has a fair amount of disposable income, I looked at those same comics I did 20 years ago, and suddenly realized, "Holy shit, I can actually afford these."

That doesn't mean I'm going to buy them. I have no real desire to be a hardcore collector. But ever since it was announced that Stan Lee was going to be the guest at the Baltimore Comic-Con in August, I've been thinking about how cool it would be to have a Stan Lee-signed comic. It just seems like the sort of thing every comic book fan should own. And while I could easily find something that he wrote relatively recently for little money, how much cooler would it be if it was an early issue of The Amazing Spider-Man or X-Men? Not even in mint condition. Just in reasonably good shape that I could frame and hang on my wall? What's the most I can spend on one comic book and still maintain a decent amount of self-respect? I suspect I'm going to find out.

Tomorrow: My day of geekery continues with a recap of Capitol Punishment.

Green Lantern

2011-06-19T08:41:00.007Z

In Brightest Day,
In Nightest Black,
This Movie Sucks,
I Want My $10 Back

Okay, whatever, I took liberties with the oath. But it was surprisingly difficult to rhyme a word with "night" that fit my angry fanboy agenda.

Spoilers follow...

The Good:

-- Amanda Waller. This was the one and only nerdgasm I had throughout the entire film. What a great, unexpected character to just pop up out of nowhere. They even threw in her origin! There was no reason to show the flashback of her husband being killed; that was just meat thrown to the fanboys. And it was appreciated. (Joy almost turned to outrage when it looked like they'd killed her off, but based on her exit, she seemed to be okay. Given that they cast an actress like Angela Bassett in the role, I'm guessing she's going to be the Samuel L. Jackson of the DC film universe.)

-- Blake Lively. Hot. Also, not nearly as unbelievable as the world's youngest test pilot/aerospace company executive as I'd expected going in. Don't get me wrong, she was still horribly miscast, but she's the least of the film's problems.

-- The post-credits sequence. At least, in the sense that unlike with Marvel films, I didn't have to sit through the entire closing credits to see it. As for the actual scene, it sets up the sequel nicely and all, but it seems to come out of nowhere. I know why Sinestro puts on the yellow ring, but most of the audience probably didn't.

The Bad:

-- Ryan Reynolds. I'm not sure why an actor who specializes in playing cocky guys was cast as a character who's mostly straight-laced. To his credit, though, his brief attempt at a superhero voice was a hell of a lot better than Christian Bale's Batman voice.

-- The ring constructs. Some were good. I enjoyed the race track. But on the whole, they exhibited a surprisingly lack of imagination on the filmmakers' part. I mean, it's a movie about a ring that can literally create anything the user thinks of. This should have been two hours of pure CGI eye candy. Instead, we got machine guns and flamethrowers and other assorted crap.

Speaking of--and this is like, Green Lantern 101, not something that should have been overlooked, especially with so many DC Comics people consulting--a flamethrower made from a Green Lantern ring should have been shooting green flames, not orange. Ditto for the machine guns and its bullets. Green, guys. Green. You know, like the name of the character? Come on.

-- The costume. Way too busy. You had the weird thing going on with the chest emblem, the suit crackling with green electricity or whatever, etc. The classic GL costume is one of the best to ever appear in comics. It didn't need to be improved for the movie. I'm also confused why it has an indentation for Hal's navel. How tight is that thing?

The mask also looked really bad. When Carol immediately realizes it's Hal underneath it, it was a cute moment, but it sort of seemed like one of those scenes where the writer thought, "The idea of a domino mask protecting someone's identity is absurd. Stupid comics! I'm going to deconstruct it, thus proving how much smarter I am."

-- Too many villains. Parallax sucked. (A cloud with a face? Jesus.) Hector Hammond was okay, but his whole arc seemed largely pointless. Sinestro spent most of the film being heroic. Rather than make this film into a mash-up of Geoff Johns storylines, they should have adapted the two Emerald Dawn mini-series from the early '90s, which was a great GL origin story that would have focused mostly on Sinestro and his penchant for fascism.

-- The Guardians. A lot of the CGI through the film was noticeably weak, but the Guardians were almost laughably bad. They should have used real actors with painted blue faces, instead of going for all CGI.

-- The ring. I was mostly fine with the changes to the lantern, but the ring was perfect the way it is in the comics and didn't need to be "improved upon."

The Ugly

-- The voice-over at the beginning. Has there ever been a good movie that began with an expository voice-over? I realize the audience needed to be caught up to speed on a lot of stuff, but how about letting them discover what was going on along with Hal, instead of just having Geoffrey Rush dump everything in their laps at once?

-- The Green Lantern oath. I can't put all the blame on the movie, here. It's an element from the comics, after all. But I've always thought it was corny, and the bit at the end where Hal recites it just before he defeats Parallax, was corny times a thousand.

Panel of the Week

2011-06-17T18:53:00.001Z

From Flashpoint: Grodd of War #1:

One man's trash

2011-06-16T03:36:00.001Z

A few years ago, I went through a brief phase where I'd buy stuff and try and flip it on eBay. It started one Sunday when I bought this small painted plate at the Georgetown Flea Market for a dollar. When I got home, I realized I didn't like it quite as much as I thought I did. Instead of just tossing it, I Googled the artist's name from the back of the plate and it turned out that he was actually a painter of some renown. I'm not saying I'd found a long lost Picaso or anything, but if you traveled in whatever lonely circles are traveled in by collectors of painted plates, you'd have probably heard of the guy. I put it on eBay and sold it for $50.

"Wow!" I thought. "I just turned $1 into $50 (minus eBay fees)! If I can do that on a regular basis, this would make a very nice second income for myself. One that the IRS need never know about!"

So for the next few weekends, I hit as many garage sales, flea markets and estate sales as I could. And while I managed to find and resell a few things, I never got anywhere near the profit margin from that plate. And when you considered the time and money I was investing in not just the acquisition of objects, but the packaging and listing as well, it occurred to me that I could make a lot more for a lot less effort if I just volunteered for weekend overtime projects at the office. So that was kind of the end of that experiment.

But aside from not being especially cost-effective, I came to realize that my plan had other flaws as well:

1) Not everyone is as lazy as that first flea market dealer. Most people actually price their goods correctly, if not overprice them.

2) If you're going to try and flip art or antiques or other rare-ish items, you need a decent bankroll. It's a lot easier to buy something for $300 and sell it for $350 than it is to buy something for $1 and sell it for $50. And your bankroll has to be big enough that if your $300 investment turns out to be worthless, you can just shrug and move on, not think, "Holy shit, I just lost $300!" and be paralyzed.

3) My apartment is full of stuff I've gotten at Georgetown and Eastern Market, so I'm pretty unsuited for flipping items anyway, in the sense that I tend to fall in love with them and start to think about how much nicer they'd look in my home than in someone else's.

Recently, I've started watching Pawn Stars on the History Channel. For the uninitiated, the show's about a family-owned pawn shop in Las Vegas where people come to sell various vintage treasures, which often fit in very nicely with the theme of the channel. It's also probably the least real reality show I've ever seen. Rick, the owner of the store, has such an encyclopedic knowledge of almost every item that comes in the store, it's clear that he bones up ahead of time. They do little comedic bits that were obviously pre-planned, if not entirely pre-scripted. There was even a dream sequence in an episode, where Chumlee, one of the employees, fantasizes about going on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, complete with Meredith Vieira cameo. The fuck? How can you have a dream sequence in a reality show?

But Pawn Stars has managed to renew my interest in buying and re-selling stuff. The show may be as fake as hell, but seeing Rick's eyes light up when someone brings in something cool that he knows he can sell, is completely genuine. The best thing I've seen on the show so far was a gambler's kit from the 19th century, which held a deck of cards, poker chips, and other various tools of the trade, not to mention, a knife and a revolver, for when things got dicey. Rick and I were both geeking out over it.

Will I be lucky enough to come across something like that or other items from the show, such as a document signed by John Hancock, or a Civil War belt buckle with a bullet lodged in it (which actually turned out to be fake)? Probably not. But that might actually make this more enjoyable. Instead, I'll have to think outside the box and focus on stuff that isn't so obviously popular. So I think it'll be entirely possible to have fun and turn a profit, as long as I focus more on the former than the latter.

Seriously, though, don't tell the IRS.

Panel of the Week

2011-06-10T18:07:00.001Z

From Flashpoint: Citizen Cold #1:

Nerd TV

2011-06-09T18:14:00.001Z

Kevin Smith made his name with realistic banter between comics lovers in Clerks, Mallrats, and Chasing Amy. Now he's angling to capture the real thing.

The indie moviemaker put out a casting call for comics geeks to show up last week at his The Secret Stash shop in Red Bank, N.J., with plans for a three-day shoot starting June 14. "He's not looking for actors, he's looking for real people who live and breathe the comic book lifestyle. Must be funny outgoing and have a knowledge and passion for comics, superheroes, movie memorabilia and everything that goes with it," read the recruitment post on Facebook.

Last night he tweeted that the show would be on AMC, which recently announced plans for a stronger reality-show lineup. The pitch for comics fans also included a request for collectors. "It's Pawn Stars for Fanboys, and if you have something to sell/trade/or value, we want you to bring it to us!," the post added. (EW)

I like Kevin Smith. I like comic books. I like Pawn Stars. So in theory, I should be really excited about this. But I'm not. Not because it'll make comic book readers look bad or anything--though it almost certainly will do that--but because the show's probably going to be boring as hell.

The time to do a reality show set in a comic book store was the early '90s, during the speculator boom. You had kids reading comics. You had adults reading comics. You had people treating comics like they were legitimate long and short term financial investments. And the publishers! Oh, my God, the publishers! Their complete ineptitude made the whole thing a train wreck, but a fascinating one. Marvel was greedily gouging fans by publishing a ridiculous number of badly-written comics, DC was cluelessly trying to imitate Marvel by dumbing down their comics as much as possible, Image was making them both look stupid by selling millions of copies of little more than blatant ripoffs and splash pages to ADD fanboys, and Wizard Magazine was the carny virtually running the whole industry.

And of course, the nexus for all of that was the local comic book store.

Today, most comic book stores are actually respectable places of business. Going into one in the '90s, though, was basically like walking into some nerd's basement that had a cash register set up in it. Socially maladjusted owners and staff? Check. Posters of bikini-clad superheroines in erotic, anatomically impossible poses hanging on the walls, ensuring that no female customers would feel welcome, or for that matter, safe? Yup. A halfhearted attempt at best at pretending they were actual businesses, as opposed to a hobby to be enjoyed when convenient for the proprietors? Uh-huh. Apparently, banks gave loans to anyone who walked in back then, even a dude wearing a Punisher t-shirt.

So I'm not sure what the point of this show is. I'm also not sure if it's good or bad that they're doing a casting call. On one hand, interesting people are never a bad thing on a reality show. On the other, you don't want people who are going to play to the cameras. I'm sure there's one geek out there who thinks the key to making it on the show is to ramp up his geekiness by 1,000% and act like the comic book store version of Jack Black's character in High Fidelity, and he's probably right.

If they're serious about doing a Pawn Stars for comics, it's hard to imagine how they're going to get collectors to bring in their rare comics if they haven't already unloaded them by now. I suspect we'll see a lot of this sort of thing: A guy in his late 30s/early 40s who collected comics during the speculator boom and never threw them out, brings in a box full of stuff like X-Force, Prime and Glory, in mint condition and all bagged and boarded, thinking he's doing the store a favor and anticipating a nice payday for himself. He's stunned to discover that the comics are virtually worthless. He attempts to haggle with the clerk, dropping his asking price from $1,000 to $500 to $100 to "Well, can I just leave them here? I really don't want take them back home." After thinking about it for a moment, the clerk agrees, but reluctantly. The comics end up in the dumpster.

We'll also undoubtedly be treated to the interactions between the staff and the customers. God only knows what fascinating gems that'll produce. Debate over whether Batman could beat Galactus? DC reboot: Good idea or bad? Is Brian Bendis a great writer or the scourge of the Marvel Universe?

Now, will I watch that sort of thing? Yeah, of course. But it's hard to imagine too many other people doing so. Reality TV shows on cable often appeal to just a niche audience, but this may be a whole new level of nichiness.

Number 1/8

2011-06-07T18:24:00.004Z

I went to the Bowie Baysox game on Saturday. The opposing team was the New Britain Rock Cats, and when they were up in the second inning, I was fiddling with my phone when I heard a murmur going through the crowd, along with a few chuckles. I glanced up at the plate, and this is what I saw:

No, they hadn't started playing a mid-innings little league game, like in The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training. Nor was it a real life Rookie of the Year situation. The truth was a lot less interesting and sadly, had nothing to do with the plot of a kids' movie: It was just a really short baseball player. His name is Chris Cates, and the Rock Cats' website lists him at 5'3. Which I guess I'll take their word for, but I would have guessed shorter.

Predictably, the Bowie crowd had a bit of fun with their heckling when he was batting. But to their credit, only for his first at-bat. The next two times he came up, no one really brought it up. I can't remember if he ever actually got on base, but he did knock a hard one towards center field, which was caught. That seemed to surprise the crowd. And while it's unlikely a guy his size will ever reach the majors, AA ball is nothing to sneeze at. There are guys rotting away at single A who will never even make it that far.

Anyway, when I got home, I wondered who the shortest person ever to play in the big leagues was, and thankfully, Google and Wikipedia came through. His name was Eddie Gaedel, who, in 1951, played in one game for the St. Louis Browns, who eventually become the Orioles.

I thought this was a pretty fascinating story and since the hippies at Wikipedia don't believe in copyright, I'll republish however much I want:

Browns owner Bill Veeck was a showman who enjoyed staging publicity stunts. He found Eddie Gaedel through a booking agency. Due to his size, Gaedel had worked as a riveter during World War II. Gaedel was able to crawl inside the wings of airplanes. After the war, Gaedel was the promotional mascot for Mercury Records.

Gaedel was secretly signed by the St. Louis Browns and put in uniform (with the number "⅛" on the back). Gaedel came out of a papier-mache cake between games of a doubleheader to celebrate the American League's 50th anniversary, and as a Falstaff Brewery promotion. Falstaff, and the fans, had been promised a "festival of surprises" by Veeck. Before the second game got underway, the press agreed that the "midget-in-a-cake" appearance had not been up to Veeck's usual promotional standard. Falstaff personnel, who had been promised national publicity for their participation, were particularly dissatisfied. Keeping the surprise he had in store for the second game to himself, Veeck just meekly apologized.

Although Veeck denied the stunt was directly inspired by it, the appearance of Gaedel was unmistakably similar to the plot of "You Could Look It Up," a 1941 short story by James Thurber. Veeck insisted he got the idea from listening to the conversations of Giants manager John McGraw decades earlier when Veeck was a child.

Gaedel entered the second half of the doubleheader between the Browns and Detroit Tigers in the bottom of the first inning as a pinch-hitter for leadoff batter Frank Saucier. Immediately, umpire Ed Hurley called for Browns manager Zack Taylor. Veeck and Taylor had had the foresight to have a copy of Gaedel's contract on hand, as well as a copy of the Browns' active roster, which had room for Gaedel's addition.

The contract had been filed late in the day on Friday, August 17. Veeck knew the league office would summarily approve the contract upon receipt, and that it would not be scrutinized until Monday, August 20. Upon reading the contract, Hurley motioned for Gaedel to take his place in the batter's box. (As a result of Gaedel's appearance, all contracts must now be approved by the Commissioner of Baseball before a player can appear in a game.) The change to that day's St. Louis Browns scorecard, listing Gaedel and his uniform number, had gone unnoticed by everyone except Harry Mitauer, a writer for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. The Browns' publicity man shunted Mitauer's inquiry aside.

Gaedel was under strict orders not to attempt to move the bat off his shoulder. When Veeck got the impression that Gaedel might be tempted to swing at a pitch, the owner warned Gaedel that he had taken out a $1 million insurance policy on his life, and that he would be standing on the roof of the stadium with a rifle prepared to kill Gaedel if he even looked like he was going to swing. Veeck had carefully trained Gaedel to assume a tight crouch at the plate; he had measured Gaedel's strike zone in that stance and claimed it was just one and a half inches high. However when Gaedel came to the plate, he abandoned the crouch he had been taught for a pose that Veeck described as "a fair approximation of Joe DiMaggio's classic style," leading Veeck to fear he was going to swing. (In the Thurber story, the midget cannot resist swinging at a 3-0 pitch, grounds out, and the team loses the game).

With Bob Cain on the mound - laughing at the absurdity that he actually had to pitch to Gaedel - and catcher Bob Swift catching on his knees, Gaedel took his stance. The Tigers catcher offered his pitcher a piece of strategy: "Keep it low." Cain delivered four consecutive balls, all high (the first two pitches were legitimate attempts at strikes; the last two were half-speed tosses). Gaedel took his base (stopping twice during his trot to bow to the crowd) and was replaced by pinch-runner Jim Delsing. The 18,369 fans gave Gaedel a standing ovation.

How has this not been made into a movie?!? Fuck Rudy, this would be a million times better. Back in the '80s, this would have been a great vehicle for Emmanuel Lewis. Nowaways? I dunno, Peter Dinklage? He might be a bit too old, but the guy has heat thanks to Game of Thrones.

If nothing else, I can't imagine how the Orioles haven't done a Eddie Gaedel bobblehead night, and they should really get on that.

Summer Movie Scorecard

2011-06-05T12:03:00.002Z

Have Seen:

X-Men: First Class: A-
Thor: B
The Hangover Part II: C+
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: C

Definitely Seeing:

Super 8
Green Lantern
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Captain America: The First Avenger
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark
Fright Night
Final Destination 5

Might See:

The Beaver
Everything Must Go
Bad Teacher
Larry Crowne
Horrible Bosses
Crazy, Stupid, Love.
Cowboys & Aliens
The Change-Up
30 Minutes or Less
Conan the Barbarian
Our Idiot Brother

Panel of the Week

2011-06-03T21:08:00.001Z

From Batman: Knights of Vengeance #1:

The DC reboot

2011-06-02T23:01:00.004Z

DC Comics has a new strategy to be No. 1 in comic books: all-new No. 1's.

Starting this summer, the publisher will re-number its entire DC Universe of titles, revamping characters such as Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and others from its 76-year history for a more modern and diverse 21st century.
...
In September, an additional 51 first issues will make their debut, introducing stories that are grounded in each character's specific legend but also reflect today's real-world themes and events. Lee spearheaded the costumes' redesign to make characters more identifiable and accessible to comic fans new and old.

"We really want to inject new life in our characters and line," says Dan DiDio, co-publisher of DC with Lee. "This was a chance to start, not at the beginning, but at a point where our characters are younger and the stories are being told for today's audience." (USA Today)

Years ago when, frankly, I cared about comics a lot more than I do now, I would have been up in arms about this. Not in a send-death-threats-to-the-editor type way (which comic book fans have been known to do), but certainly a grumbling-to-myself-and-maybe-posting-a-brief-rant-on-a-message-board way. Now? It kind of bugs me just on principle. But I think it's probably the right move.

John Byrne is one of the biggest blowhards in history, but back on his old AOL message board, he made what I thought was a really good point: That as originally conceived, comic books weren't meant to be read by the same people for years and years and years. You read them as a kid, you grew up, and you moved on. At some point, comic book readers stopped moving on and just kept reading into their teens, 20s, 30s, and so on. But since no one just wants to read a never ending story where nothing important happens, those readers also demanded comic book characters grow up and change along with them. So DC let Superman and Lois Lane get married, has had Batman go through a series of Robins, killed off numerous characters and replaced them with new versions, and so on.

And for the past 20 or 30 years, it's sort of worked. But every time they attempt to deliver that kind of change, it's been with diminishing returns. How many times can the Justice League break up and reform? How many times can a C-list character be killed for dramatic effect? (Or for that matter, an A-list character be killed for a spike in sales and some mainstream media coverage, only to be resurrected within a year?) Every now and then, DC will pull a new rabbit out of the hat we've never seen before, but those have been getting fewer and far between. And then it's back to business as usual, trying to figure out how to make the millionth story where Batman fights the Joker interesting.

Hence this reboot. Which DC is insisting isn't really a reboot so people like me won't get mad and quit buying comics. But yeah, it's a reboot. And it's hard not to take a bit personally. Essentially, DC is saying, "Hey, guys, we really appreciate you buying our comics over the past however many years, but there just aren't enough of you anymore, so we're going after a new audience. Sorry."

It kind of hurts. Comic book readers have a weird relationship with continuity. It's not an especially healthy one, but it's a necessary evil when it comes to superhero comics. It's almost a social contract between readers and publishers. Readers will buy--or at least, keep up with--comics they might not have otherwise in order to follow the fictional universe their favorite characters inhabit, and publishers will make an effort to keep that entire universe as cohesive as possible in order to reward readers' loyalty. DC is breaking that contract. The entire DC Universe that I've read and loved (to varying degrees) since I was a kid will cease to exist in September.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, does it matter that all those great Batman stories I've read will no longer "count"? No, not really. But it's still a bit disappointing.

But like I said, I think this is probably the right move. This isn't a problem of fixing something that isn't broken. The DC Universe has become a tragic mess, especially over the past decade or so. In the past, DC's been able to temporarily patch up its continuity problems with stories like Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour and Infinite Crisis, without upsetting the overall flow of the company. I don't think that would work this time. It's gotten that bad. I'm not even sure what audience DC is making comics for these days. They're obviously not designed for casual readers, and increasingly, they don't even seem designed for longtime readers like myself. It's like DC Comics has mainly been producing comics for the enjoyment of the people who work at DC Comics.

So basically, I can't stand the current state of the DC Universe, but nor am I happy that it's being done away with. From the reactions I've seen online, a lot of people appear to feel the same way. So the potential for DC to completely alienate a large portion of its customer base seems likely. If nothing else, you have to give them credit: This plan takes major balls.

Ultimately, it'll come down to how well that plan is executed. From what little we've seen, I'm not encouraged. Some of the story changes seem a bit too radical for my taste, and some of the redesigned costumes are absolutely awful (looking at you, Firestorm). So worst case scenario, I decide the new DC Universe isn't for me and take this opportunity to jump off and do something else with my time and money. John Byrne would probably say it's the right move.

In the year 2000

2011-05-31T10:44:00.000Z

Whenever someone complains about the lack of flying cars or hoverboards or whatever, I think about those AT&T ads from the early '90s where Tom Selleck told us about all the cool shit we were going to have at some unspecified future date, courtesy of AT&T. They made quite an impression on me as a kid, but I hadn't actually seen them for years, until they were mentioned in a tweet yesterday from @suemarks by way of @RossHero.

Surprisingly, they were pretty on the mark in their predictions. (Well, not so much in terms of set design. Check out their idea of the grocery store of the future. Yeah, Safeway looks just like that.) Certainly more so than that Qwest broadband commercial from ten or so years ago, back when everyone was still excited about the internet, where the weary traveler checks into a rundown motel in the middle of nowhere and asks what sort of entertainment options were available, to which the bored girl working the front desk says something like, "Every movie...ever made...on your TV." I'm still waiting for that shit.

What's interesting is that AT&T got most of the overall concepts right (i.e., video phones), but some of the details are just laughably bad (i.e., video phones in phone booths). Here are some other misses in these ads that, in hindsight, seem quaint, if not ridiculous.

"Have you ever...sent someone a fax from the beach?" - So close! But not quite. AT&T correctly anticipated the rise of tablets, but still thought we'd be sending faxes? This isn't nearly as bad as Back to the Future II's wall-mounted fax machines, but it seems like a failure of imagination on AT&T's part.

"Have you ever...paid a toll without slowing down?" - Were EZ-Passes really that hard to anticipate? Imagine having to drive around with a credit card reader mounted on your dashboard. I think I'd rather just slow down and pay cash.

"Have you ever...bought concert tickets at a cash machine?" - Check out that spiffy 3-D interface. Now go to Ticketmaster. Where did we go wrong?

"Have you ever...carried your medical history in your wallet?" - I'm cringing just thinking about that one. "Oh, no! I lost my wallet. And, uh, my entire medical history. Shit." People are worried about online medical records being hacked into now. Imagine if they were all contained on one easy-to-read card that could be lost or stolen.

"Have you ever...gotten a phone call on your wrist?" - I know we all loved Dick Tracy, but is there a single more impractical idea than a phone attached to your wrist? Try having an imaginary conversation on an imaginary watch-phone and see how long before it feels awkward and uncomfortable. Even now, I recently read in Wired or somewhere that some company is trying to make the idea work. It's not going to happen, guys.

"Have you ever...renewed your drivers license at a cash machine?" - Geez, AT&T was really big on us using ATMs for all kinds of things, weren't they? They probably would have been disappointed to learn that 20 years later, we still use them exclusively to get cash from. And given the rise of electronic payments, not really even so much that anymore. But this one is noteable for two reasons: First, we're still waiting in long lines at the DMV. At most, we can renew at home online, but that's it. It's not like a new license pops out of our modem. Second, what are the odds that both actors in that segment (Wallace Langham and Traylor Howard) went on to be...well, not big stars, but at least achieve "Hey, it's that guy!" status?

"Have you ever...had an assistant who lived in your computer?" - This one was the biggest reach. It's so out there, I can't believe even AT&T's most optimistic people thought this was a possibility. They basically promised artificial intelligence. Describe Google and StubHub to someone in the '90s after they saw this ad, and they'd probably be disappointed. "You mean I'll have to do the typing myself? Why can't the computer just do it?" I'm surprised AT&T didn't also have the computer make the woman breakfast and give her a massage.

Five things I learned at today's Phillies/Nats game

2011-05-30T19:45:00.006Z

1) Roy Halladay is mortal. We were surrounded by Phillies fans in our section, and each home run the Nationals scored stunned them. Like, actual moans of pain, getting progressively worse with each one. It was like what people in Metropolis must have felt the first time they saw someone use Kryptonite against Superman.

Not only is he mortal, but even though the Nationals lost, he made them look pretty good. So here's what I don't get: If the Nationals can homer three times off of arguably the best pitcher in baseball, why the hell aren't they homering a dozen times a game off the dregs of the National League?

2) Phillies fans really hate Jayson Werth. I get this to an extent. I understand booing. That's almost mandatory. But the chants of "Jayson. Jayson. Jayson," and "Werth-less"? Come on. The man left Philly for $126 million. There isn't a Phillies fan in the world who, for that kind of cash, wouldn't not only decamp for D.C. in a heartbeat, but also get the Nationals logo tattooed across his or her chest.

3) Global warming is real. It was hot as fuck. I saw more bottles of water poured over heads than consumed. There was enough collective sweat at the ballpark to fill every public pool in D.C. The Metro ride home was completely packed with wet people. It was actually more traumatic than the game itself.

4) MLB really needs to crack down on All-Star ballot stuffing promotions. Before the game on the JumboTron, they listed all the prizes you could get by turning in All-Star ballots (presumably ones voting for Nationals players). I forget exactly what they were, but one ballot gets you some worthless trinket, 100 gets you a Pudge Rodriguez bobblehead, and so on, up to 10,000 ballots, which gets you on the field during batting practice or something.

At one point, I saw a 30-person deep line in front of the table where you could pick up ballots and thought, "Hey, good for Nats fans! Sure, it's bribery. But it's also team spirit." Then I realized the water fountain was next to the table, and that's what people were lined up for. Did I mention it was hot as fuck? Because it was.

So I question the value of ballots that are bought and paid for, and so should MLB. On the other hand, I do kind of want that Pudge bobblehead.

5) Teddy will never win. At least not anytime soon.

I was wavering on whether or not I wanted to go to the game today. On one hand, it's not like I ever really need my arm twisted to go to a Nationals game. And I do like seeing a great pitcher in action, regardless of what team he's on. On the other hand, it was against the Phillies, which means busloads of Phillies fans coming in and basically taking over the stadium, which is never fun. But when the Washington Post's Dan Steinberg theorized that today might, just might, be the day Teddy finally won? I was all in. Look, this is a team that isn't even close to contending. We have to take our landmark franchise moments as they come.

So anyway, you know that guy who claimed he saw signs the world was going to end on May 21? And all those people who bought into it and gave away all their worldly possessions and gathered together to await the apocalypse that never came? That's kind of what happened here, with Steinberg playing the role of that crazy guy, and me as the equally crazy, yet much sadder, person who was like, "Hell, yeah! This guy's onto something!" (I wasn't completely nuts. I went to the game with two friends, and wisely didn't speak of my hopes for Teddy. Because then I would have been the mad prophet, raving nonsense about Teddy finally winning.)

Obviously, he lost. Again. And the sad thing is, even at this point in the race:

I still thought it was in the bag, and that the monster lead Abe, George and Tom had was deliberate, just to make Teddy's eventual win that much more dramatic. Then Abe won. Or George. Or Tom. I dunno. I stopped paying attention at a certain point when reality hit. For all I know, the Pittsburgh Perogies parachuted in and stole the win. It doesn't matter.

But in the end, I'm fine with the result. Would Teddy winning have been cool to see? Sure. Would it have made Jayson Werth happy, resulting in his batting average doubling virtually overnight and sending the Nationals skyrocketing into first place in the division? Almost certainly. But I can't disagree with those who say Teddy should win only when the Nationals finally win the World Series. Or make the World Series. Or a playoff game. Or some important day in Nationals history. Not just a Memorial Day game played in front of a crowd of people who would just as soon vomit on Teddy as see him win.

So I'm glad Steinberg got this one wrong. And since it was either going to the Nationals game or sleeping in, then trying to finally finish Red Dead Redemption in my underwear with the AC cranked up, I think I made the right choice.

Panel of the Week

2011-05-27T18:09:00.000Z

From Gotham City Sirens #23:

Stars and shorts

2011-05-25T08:21:00.000Z

As we found out last week, the new Wonder Woman TV series wasn't picked up by NBC. Based on how bad the pilot supposedly is, no one seemed to really care one way or the other...until this photo was tweeted a couple of days ago.

After nerds took to the internet to decry the original costume, NBC's apparent reaction was to chop half of it off. Now those same nerds seem either really glad the show wasn't picked up or really upset it wasn't picked up.

I forget where I read it, but someone said this outfit made Lynda Carter's old costume look like granny panties. That's a gross understatement. It makes a lot of Victoria's Secret underwear look like granny panties. Especially when you consider that Adrianne Palicki would presumably have to actually run around and kick people while wearing it, not just pose for photos. Also: Hello, chaffing.

And while, as a comic book reader, it's tempting to look at that photo and say, "This thing would have been a train wreck and thank God it's never going to air," I kind of hate to admit it, but I have to give the producers credit for staying faithful to the comics, despite all common sense and probably the costuming department warning against it. Over six Batman films, Hollywood hasn't once tried to faithfully recreate a Bat-suit, preferring instead to make them look more like suits of armor. The less said about the upcoming CGI-ed Green Lantern costume, the better. That weird belt buckle she's wearing aside, this costume is almost too faithful.

Here's what really bugs me, though. In the context of the show, what possible reason would Wonder Woman have for wearing this costume, as opposed to the other one? I mean, in the comics, she just has the one outfit, so it's not an issue. But on the show, she'd presumably spend most of her time in the less revealing costume and only break this one out occasionally. But why, exactly? If, unlike her comic book counterpart, she actually owns a pair of pants, what would make her forego them for...well, no pants? Is that her costume for really hot days? To land an endorsement deal with Nair? When she's trying especially hard to get laid?

At least Palicki comes out ahead. Sure, the loss of a regular paycheck sucks. But I don't even want to think about all the salads and gym time it would take to fit into that thing.

Panel of the Week

2011-05-20T23:51:00.001Z

From Batman: Gates of Gotham #1:

Upfronts

2011-05-19T16:23:00.002Z

There's a movie called The TV Set starring David Duchovny that came out a few years ago. It's about a TV writer trying to launch a new series and keep it true to his vision, despite efforts from the network and his own actors to dumb it down as much as possible. It's not especially hilarious and it's not like it's all that difficult to satirize the entertainment industry, but it has a good cast and there's something about a constantly exasperated Duchovny that's just inherently funny, so it's worth watching.

The one thing the film does really well, though, is capture how incredibly awful and/or cheesy the trailers for new series are that the networks show at their upfronts each year. Much worse than movie trailers, which are only about 90 seconds, generally have more to work with, and only need to sell you on committing to a two-hour film. On the other hand, TV show trailers can be twice as long, can't really encapsulate what the series as a whole is about since they only have the pilot episode to work with, and are trying to entice you to spend 30 minutes to an hour each week watching the show for (they hope) the next several years.

Having watched all the trailers/clips/behind-the-scenes features for this fall's new TV shows (don't worry, I did all this viewing all at work. Obviously, my personal time is valuable and reserved for more important things like...well, never mind), I don't think there's a must-see series among them, despite liking quite a few of them. But at least it's not as dire as last year, when NBC was telling us how awesome Perfect Couples was going to be.

NBC

Free Agents: Great candidate for the first cancellation of the year. As a Buffy fan, I like seeing Anthony Head, but I can't imagine the viewer who will watch the first episode and decide Hank Azaria and Kathryn Hahn navigating an on-again, off-again relationship for weeks...months...years is in any way an appealing prospect.

Grimm: Could be fun, could be stupid. Regardless, this looks like a Syfy series that somehow escaped from basic cable and ended up on a network.

The Playboy Club: I guess the only way to make Playboy seem relevant in 2011 is to go back to the 1960s. I approve of a series about Amber Heard walking around in a bunny outfit, but not enough to watch a lame period piece starring the dude LeAnn Rimes cheated on her husband with.

Bent: I didn't know David Walton's name until I saw it in the trailer, but I recognize his face, and this will be his third sitcom in the span of little over a year. So I guess NBC's determined to keep trying until either he gives up or we do. Actually, this one does't look all that bad, even though I've never quite gotten the appeal of Amanda Peet.

Awake: This seems like it could be really good. The trailer reminds me a bit of Journeyman. Remember Journeyman, America? That great show you let get cancelled a few years ago? Let's not make the same mistake twice.

ABC

Work It: That's the clip the network thinks will make viewers want to watch? ABC cancelled Mr. Sunshine to make room for this? No wonder Matthew Perry is back in rehab.

Charlie's Angels: I'd watch a show where Minka Kelly reads a different city's phone book each week, so the karate is just a bonus. I hope Hollywood learned its lesson with The Bionic Woman remake, in that '70s action shows featuring women fighting crime while undercover as swimsuit models or tennis pros or whatever, don't need to be reimagined as dark, brooding series where everyone keeps their clothes on all the time.

Once Upon a Time: Jesus, God, this looks bad. Jennifer Morrison almost single-handedly ruined this season of How I Met Your Mother, but I'm not sure she deserves this.

Man Up: The title's dumb, but I like Dan Fogler and the clip made me laugh. I'm in.

CBS

Person of Interest: I'll watch just because of the involvement of J.J. Abramas and Michael Emerson, but I'm still suffering from Lost fatigue and not really in the mood for another series with a dense mythology. Jim Caviezel just blowing shit up is fine for now.

2 Broke Girls: I like Kat Dennings a lot, but the other actress's voice is like nails on a chalkboard. Pass.

A Gifted Man: Somewhat Lifetime-esque, this might be a show I somehow end up watching and enjoying, but deny ever watching or enjoying. (Cough...Joan of Arcadia...cough.)

Unforgettable: Another cop show with a lame gimmick. I suspect we're getting closer and closer to that show at the end of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, where Kristen Bell talked to animals, becoming a reality.

Fox

Terra Nova: I guess it's nice that the networks keep trying out sci-fi shows, even though most of them suck and they never, ever seem to work. I gave The Event two episodes before bailing. I'll give Terra Nova at least that.

Alcatraz: Another J.J. Abrams show, this one is obviously nothing but dense mythology. But it also looks really good, so I'll give it a shot.

New Girl: Zooey Deschanel being adorable and wearing glasses? Sold!

Panel of the Week

2011-05-13T22:21:00.002Z

From Flashpoint #1:

Thor

2011-05-09T22:30:00.004Z

Ever since X-Men came out over a decade ago, Marvel's been pumping out films on a regular basis. They haven't all been winners (Spider-Man 3, Fantastic Four, etc.), but there have been only two that when they were announced, I thought, "Is this really a good idea?" The first one was Man-Thing, which went straight to DVD. The other one was Thor.

There's something just profoundly uninteresting about the character. Granted, I say that as someone who's read maybe three issues of Thor in my entire life, and only a handful of Avengers comics he appeared in. But at no point have I ever thought that this is a character who needed to have his own movie. Twenty years ago, Thor appeared in one of the Incredible Hulk TV movies, and it was pretty much a train wreck. That's more or less what I expected here.

I was sort of wrong. Thor isn't a great movie, but it gets by on sheer enthusiasm, if nothing else. And it sure looks pretty.

Spoilers follow...

The Good:

-- The casting. I love the fact that aside from Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins (and the various actors making cameos), pretty much everyone in the film is either an unknown or a "Hey, it's that guy!"-type actor. Even better, they're actually really good. I mean, this stuff isn't exactly Shakespeare. You need people who can play roles that require ridiculous costumes and dialogue and do so convincingly. Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston somehow manage to get through all their lines without once coming off as campy.

-- Hawkeye. This is the benefit of staying away from spoilers. I knew Jeremey Renner would be playing the character in The Avengers, but I had no idea he'd be introduced here. (And when you consider how many movie sites seem to have decided news like that doesn't count as a spoiler, I'm amazed I missed it.) When you see the hand grab the purple bow, I think half the theater had a geekgasm. Not to be confused with an actual orgasm, which I'm almost positive the woman behind me had when Hemsworth was walking around with his shirt off.

-- The special effects. CGI has gotten to the point where I'm not even sure how much it's possible to improve on it going forward. Asgard looks that good. The best thing that ever happened to Marvel was the film rights to its various properties being tied up through the 1990s. Imagine if they'd tried something as ambitious as Iron Man or Thor back then. The effects would look ghastly compared to now.

-- I finally learned how to pronounce Mjolnir! Okay, this isn't something that's weighed heavily on my mind. But when I actually heard it said correctly, I realized that whenever I've read a comic where Thor appeared, I'd been subconsciously reading it as Ma-jawl-nir. So I'm not big on Norse mythology. Sue me. Unfortunately, Kat Dennings' character immediately started pronouncing it as meow-meow, which is now stuck in my head.

The Bad:

-- The plot. I'm not sure it could have been more by-the-numbers. Worse, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Thor proves he's worthy to wield meow-meow--I mean, Mjolnir--by being willing to sacrifice his life to protect innocent people? Is there any reason to think he wouldn't have done that beforehand, even before he was exiled? Everyone in Asgard seemed to think he was a pretty stand-up guy. A little impetuous, and maybe rude to his father. But a good, loyal friend. I'm not sure what lesson was learned here.

-- The romantic subplot. Look, most, if not all, human beings would agree Natalie Portman is pretty hot. But when you come from a race of (mostly) physically perfect Norse gods, I'm not sure she's that hot. I definitely didn't buy Thor promising to come back for her after knowing her for all of two days.

The Ugly:

-- The post-credits scene. We've had four of these now in the Marvel film universe: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2 and now Thor. It was cool at first. Tony Stark walking into his living room and finding Nick Fury? Awesome. But ever since then, the gimmick's been providing diminishing returns. The bit at the end of The Incredible Hulk had a Stark cameo. Iron Man 2 introduced Mjolnir. Thor introduced the Cosmic Cube. It just seems like they've devolved into a series of, "Hey, this'll get the fanboys all hot and bothered!" moments. Which...okay, I guess, but if you're going to make people sit through the entire closing credits, it'd be nice if these scenes were a bit more substantive.

Panel of the Week

2011-05-06T23:50:00.000Z

From The Boys #54:

Free Comic Book Day 2011

2011-05-05T11:34:00.001Z

To be honest, I'm a bit down on comics at the moment. Creatively speaking, the comic book industry is always one of peaks and valleys, and it seems that it's been in a bit of a valley for a while. I think the most excited I've been inside of a comic book store recently was a couple of weeks ago when I saw there was a new Hitman TPB out. In other words, a collection of comics from the 1990s that I'd already read a dozen times.

But that's the great thing about FCBD. It allows longtime comic book readers to sample stuff they otherwise wouldn't have seen (Love and Capes and The Sixth Gun were last year's best discoveries) and allows new readers to tip their toes into the great ocean of geekdom without spending a dime.

Area comic book stores celebrating FCBD include Big Planet Comics, Fantom Comics and Laughing Ogre Comics. Go down and stock up. Hell, pick up a Hitman TPB, too. It's not free, but it is maybe the greatest comic ever published.

As always, here are the best bets of what free comics to pick up:

Green Lantern: Flashpoint Special Edition: What's Flashpoint? If you don't already know, don't ask. It'll just make your head hurt. But you're probably going to see Green Lantern this summer, so you may as well familiarize yourself with the character in this origin story.

Super Dinosaur Origin Special #1: Yeah, I know. Super Dinosaur? Really? Frankly, I'm not overly optimistic, either. But it's the comics that have the dumbest-sounding premises that often turn out to be the biggest surprises.

The Amazing Spider-Man: I'm a DC guy, so am I willing to pay to read a Spider-Man comic? Probably not. But will I read one for free when it's written by Dan Slott, the guy who made me break my no-Marvel rule with his excellent run on She-Hulk, easily one of the best comics of the past decade? Yep.

2000 AD: Aside from the collections of Alan Moore stories, I haven't read much 2000 AD, the long-running British sci-fi series. What I have read can be described as either: 1) Pretty cool, or 2) I just don't get the British. Hopefully, this issue will be the former.

Bongo Comics Free For All: I realized recently that I don't watch The Simpsons anymore. I think I've seen maybe five episodes in the past two years. But for some reason, every FCBD I look forward to The Simpsons comic. There's also a Futurama comic if you're into that sort of thing. (I realize this'll cost me major geek cred, but I could never get into Futurama.)

Captain America/Thor: Cap and Thor get sent back in time to King Arthur's Court! Yeah, uh...I don't know what to tell you. Marvel kind of skipped over the goofy Silver Age stories that DC happily embraced back in the '60s and '70s. Maybe they're making up for lost time? Whatever. I'm sure it'll be fine. And hey, more movie tie-ins!

Misadventures of Adam West: I'm pretty sure Bruce Campbell already did this gag with My Name is Bruce. But come on:

"The Man, The Myth, The Amulet? Legendary star of the small and silver screen, ADAM WEST, has his career youth-enized in this hip-whimsical,trans-dimensional epic of an adventure. When a mysterious fan delivers an exotic amulet to Mr. West's doorstep he is Dorothy-fied on an odyssey that will change his career, his love life and inadvertently make him the man that saves the universe!"

How do you not read this?

Me, old women and buses

2011-05-04T16:25:00.006Z

All of these took place in the last month.

-- It's finally spring, which means a great many things, but if you're a heterosexual male, it mainly means women are wearing skirts. Hooray!

As I do every morning, I was taking the bus to the Metro station, and an attractive woman wearing a fairly short skirt got on. Now, I'm very conscious of the thin line between looking at a woman's legs and staring/leering in these situations, and I do my best not to cross it. Do I always succeed? I dunno, probably not. I mean, I don't think I ever "leer," although maybe I occasionally linger a bit longer than is proper. ("Proper" being entirely subjective, but if you're a woman and you think a guy should never pay attention to these things, well, welcome to fantasyland.) But in the very least, I've never been caught staring and had the woman quickly pull her skirt down to cover more of her legs, as I've seen happen to other guys. Nor do I do the move where I take furtive glances every few seconds, as that feels somewhat pervy.

So the woman in the skirt sat down, and I quickly got my eye candy for the morning. Super. I then happened to look over at an old woman who was sitting directly across from her. She was looking right back at me. Then she started violently pumping her fist up and down in what is the universally understood pantomime for jerking off.

What the fuck.

I was immediately mortified, as I thought the old woman was...well, I didn't know what exactly she was doing. Registering her extreme disapproval of my looking at a woman with lust in my heart, I guess. I started to question exactly how long my eyes had been on the woman in the skirt. Maybe I had been staring? No. It was just a second, tops. Even if this woman was the biggest prude in the world, that wasn't long enough to even warrant a disapproving glare, never mind, being called out in such a public (not to mention, highly disturbing) way.

As she kept pumping her fist, still looking at me, I wondered how I was going to get out out of this. The other passengers were undoubtedly going to notice what she was doing. Then they were going to notice who she was staring at. We still had a good seven or eight minutes before we reached the Metro station. This had the potential for getting really uncomfortable really fast. And I see a lot of these people every single day. So, great. I was going to be known as the bus perv.

Suddenly, the woman stopped pumping her fist, opened her hand, and inside, she had a small container of nasal spray that she'd been shaking. She gave herself a quick puff in each nostril, put the spray away, and went back to her book.

Irritated at her for putting me through that, and myself for being paranoid, I spitefully took another glance at the woman in the skirt's legs. This time, for a full two seconds. Then I looked back at the old woman to see if she wanted to make something of it. She didn't. It felt stupidly triumphant somehow.

-- When I boarded the bus, I noticed that all the seats in back were full, but there were three or four in the very front which were empty. It seemed odd, as those are the ones people generally gravitate to first, as you have more leg room and can get off faster. So I sat down next to an old woman, and started to fiddle with my phone.

Immediately, the most godawful stench in the world assaulted me. I can't even describe it. It was literally like nothing I'd ever smelled before in my life. It wasn't body odor. It actually smelled vaguely chemical in nature. I've never been around embalming fluid, but for whatever reason, I decided that's what this woman smelled like. Not just embalming fluid, either. Embalming fluid after it's been injected into the corpse and then drained.

It suddenly became clear why the seats around her were empty. The weird thing was, she was dressed exquisitely. Hat. Brooch. Stylish coat. In other words, not someone who should smell this bad. Maybe she was into making her own perfume in her bathtub like a moonshiner or something?

Oddly, my first thought wasn't, "Holy God, I have to get away from this woman as fast as possible or I'm going to die." It was, "If I flee to the back of the bus or even just move down a couple of seats, I'm probably going to hurt this poor old woman's feelings." So like an idiot, I just sat there for the whole ride, and every ten seconds or so, the weird odor would wash over me and my brain would temporarily stop working. I couldn't even breathe through my mouth because I was terrified I'd somehow taste the smell, which just seemed like it would be so much worse.

For the rest of that day, the odor would periodically hit me out of nowhere. I couldn't tell if it was just sensory memory or worse, if the woman's stench had clung to me, like in that Seinfeld episode with Jerry's car. This is the price you pay for being caring about other people's feelings.

-- It was evening rush hour, and the bus in front of the Metro station was filling up fast. I sat in one of the front seats. This is always tricky, because if an elderly, handicapped or pregnant person happens to board, you're obligated to give up your seat to them. This was especially true in this situation, as everyone else in those front seats that day was either female, elderly or a little kid. Thus, if anyone would have to surrender their seat, it would be me.

So of course, an old woman got on. I was tired and I really didn't want to give up my seat. But on my Golden Girls scale, she was a Sophia, so I kind of had to.

"Excuse me, miss?" I asked. (An old friend of mine who fancied himself a pick-up artist once told me that I should refer to old women as "miss" instead of "ma'am." His theory being, old women will appreciate it and young women will see you do this, and find it charming. I think this is bullshit, but I kind of fell into the habit of doing it when I knew him, and can't get out of it.) "Would you care to sit down?"

"Oh, no, I'm fine. Thank you," she responded, and grabbed onto one of the hand rails near my seat. Well, whatever. I'd tried.

Between then and when the bus departed, one of the seats up front opened up and a guy about my age sat down in it. As the bus was pulling away, he looked up from his iPod and noticed the old woman standing by me.

"Ma'am? Do you want to sit down?" he asked.

She again started to decline, but the guy practically leapt out of his seat, put his hand on her shoulder, and gently guided her into it. "I...well, okay," she said, and sat down. I had to fight the urge to give her an incredulous look. Like, what, my seat wasn't good enough?

"That was very nice of you!" a middle-aged woman who hadn't been on the bus when I'd offered up my seat, whispered to the guy, just loudly enough for everyone nearby to hear. He beamed, seemingly agreeing that he was indeed pretty awesome. Then she glanced over at me, still in my seat, more than a little judgmentally.

"Hey, whoa, don't even! I tried to offer her my seat! She refused! I respected her decision to remain standing! He practically wrestled her into his seat! I'm the good guy here, not this attention whore douchebag!" That's what I wanted to say. Instead, I just inwardly sighed and accepted defeat. Sometimes, trying to correct people's misconceptions isn't worth it.

I won't go so far as to say that when a guy offers a woman his seat on the Metro, she's obligated to accept it. There are numerous reasons why she may not want to, ranging from getting off at the next stop to hemorrhoids. But generally speaking, if there is no compelling reason not to sit down, it seems like the nice thing to do would be to just take him up on the offer.

America's new enemy

2011-05-03T08:34:00.001Z

The last time I made a point of walking by the Newseum was the day after the 2008 election, when all the newspapers announcing Obama's election were on display. There were lots of people there, posing in front of and taking photos of the various front pages, and everyone was generally really happy.

Yesterday, I headed over there to see the various announcements of bin Laden's death, and like before, there were lots of people there, posing in front of and taking photos of the various front pages, and everyone was generally really happy. A bizarre kind happiness where someone being shot in the eye and dumped into the ocean brings us pleasure. But still really happiness.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal's was my favorite front page.

Simple. To the point. Red font, evocative of blood. In fact, I think the only way it could have improved is if if the letters had been dripping blood, but I guess the AP Stylebook would probably frown on that.

As I was perusing the newspapers, a group of high school kids walked by and upon seeing the papers, one kid moaned, "Great, we need a new enemy now."

At first, I didn't think much of it, but when I got back to work and checked Twitter, I found this, via @briantruitt and @Fowler_IGN.

I think America just found its new enemy.

As an artist, there are certain things you don't do. You don't try and improve on the Mona Lisa, you don't take it upon yourself to write a sequel to Catcher in the Rye, and you don't butcher Smells Like Teen Spirit. I love the song, too, Miley. That doesn't make me qualified to get up in front of a big crowd and sing it.

Now am I saying that we should treat Miley Cyrus the same way we did bin Laden, sending in a SEAL team to capture or kill her? No. But after this, I don't think rendition to Gitmo should be taken off the table.

Summer Movie Scorecard 2011

2011-05-01T14:38:00.002Z

2011 feels a bit odd in regards to summer movie season.

Maybe it's because with stuff like Sucker Punch, Source Code, Scream 4 and Fast Five already out, it feels like it actually started a few weeks ago, and fatigue is already setting in.

Maybe it's because while there are a ridiculous 25 films that I'm either going to see or might go see, there isn't one that I'm especially jazzed about, like with Star Trek or The Dark Knight in years past. The one I'm most looking forward to is probably Fright Night of all films, because I loved the original and think the remake with David Tennant could be even better.

Or maybe it's just that a lot of this year's films look like they have the potential to really, really suck. Yeah, I'm looking right at you, Green Lantern. Also, last year, the summer movie season started with Iron Man 2. This year: Thor. I don't have a good feeling about this.

Have Seen:

Definitely Seeing:

Thor
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
The Hangover Part II
X-Men: First Class
Super 8
Green Lantern
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Captain America: The First Avenger
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark
Fright Night
Final Destination 5

Might See:

The Beaver
Everything Must Go
Priest
Bad Teacher
Larry Crowne
Horrible Bosses
Crazy, Stupid, Love.
Cowboys & Aliens
The Change-Up
30 Minutes or Less
Conan the Barbarian
Our Idiot Brother

Panel of the Week

2011-04-29T11:43:00.000Z

From Action Comics #900:

What the Redskins can learn from the WWE Draft

2011-04-26T15:57:00.002Z

Last night was my first time watching the annual WWE Draft on Monday Night Raw. Of course, it's not really a "draft" in the traditional sense of the word. The WWE's two shows, Raw and SmackDown, basically just move people back and forth between the two while the assembled rosters of both shows' wrestlers are backstage, cheering or looking shocked, and pretending to give a damn whether Rey Mysterio appears on USA or Syfy each week. The draft didn't affect the vast majorities of either show's roster--after all, trading people like Yoshi Tatsu wouldn't be worth even the minimal effort it would take to update the WWE's website to reflect such a move--but there were a couple of surprising moments, and in the end, it was good, goofy fun, and aside from the half-hour I fell asleep on the couch, I greatly enjoyed it.

The NFL Draft is this week also. It's a decent bet that the Redskins will take a quarterback in the first round. Not even one of the top quarterbacks. Just whoever happens to be left over by the tenth pick. Or later, if they trade down. But who knows? According to a tweet I saw this week, Mike Shanahan is "intrigued" by a couple of the wide receiver prospects. Or he could take a nose tackle to compliment the 3-4 defense he's so insistent on. Or, in a moment of extreme indecision, he could call Vinny Cerrato for advice and end up taking a tight end.

There are a lot of reasons why no sane person in the Redskins organization (should one exist) look to the WWE for inspiration for draft day strategy. One's a sport, the other is sports entertainment. One is real, the other one is scripted. One features athletes with human being names like Tom Brady, Adrian Peterson and Julius Peppers, the other features athletes named Big Show, The Miz and Kelly Kelly. But given that there's no "must haves" in the draft this year, and given that no one, even local sports pundits, seem to agree on what needs the Redskins actually have, why not just write off 2011 as a wacky experiment and have fun by applying WWE logic to the draft?

Here's how:

1) Draft personality over skill

With its first two draft picks, SmackDown chose John Cena and Randy Orton, arguably the two most popular members of the Raw roster. Neither one is an especially exciting wrestler, but fans really dig their schtick, and that's why they keep winning championships. Sure, the Redskins could follow one of the two "conventional" draft strategies: Filling positions of need or taking the best player currently on the board. But instead, why not go for a character?

Let's be honest. It's not like the Redskins are going to be contenders anytime soon. In fact, under Dan Snyder, it's questionable whether the Redskins will be contenders ever again. After one or two more losing seasons, Snyder will fire Shanahan and Bruce Allen, and hire a new coach and GM who will likely just blow up the team again. So if we don't have a Super Bowl in our future, why not draft a player with a delightful personality, whose shenanigans will distract us even as the team finishes under .500 for the next ten consecutive seasons? Not Haynesworth-type shenanigans, mind you. To paraphrase Super Troopers, we need someone whose shenanigans are cheeky and fun, not cruel and tragic. Think about Clinton Portis's propensity for putting on costumes, and how much better the past few years would have been if he'd kept doing that instead of becoming a whiny diva.

2) Think outside the box. Like, way outside.

Except for one, all the picks last night made sense on some level, as the wrestlers drafted from one brand to another were either popular with fans (Cena, Orton), fun to watch in the ring (Big Show, Rey Mysterio, Sin Cara), or deserving of a promotion from SmackDown to Raw (Alberto Del Rio). The one that didn't make sense was Mark Henry.

Being a very large man even by WWE standards and having no tangible assests aside from that, Mark Henry basically serves one purpose: To be beaten by up-and-coming wrestlers, thus proving that they're capable of defeating a very large man and should be taken as legit threats. So there's really no reason why they'd bother sending him from Raw to SmackDown, except maybe that The Great Kali serves more or less the same purpose he does, and so it made sense to move Henry to SmackDown and also give that brand's up-and-coming wrestlers the chance to beat him up.

But in the absurd context of the WWE Draft, where we're supposed to play along and pretend the whole thing is real and that it's all about each brand attempting to strengthen itself, it was a surprising pick given that there were roughly 40 other Superstars and Divas to pick from on Raw, and therefore, roughly 40 better options than Mark Henry. The Redskins could do something similar. If there isn't a good quarterback to take, and none of the other options really jump out at Shanahan, do something unpredictable and crazy.

Take a running back from a Division III school that no one's ever heard of, and who may not have even bothered declaring for the draft. but who has lots of heart and pluck.

Draft a kicker and count on the fact that being the first ever kicker taken in the first round will pressure him to become the best kicker in the history of the NFL. Where he's making, like 70-yard field goals on a regular basis. Frankly, it all seems so simple, I don't see how this plan could fail.

Hell, just draft Mark Henry. The dude may not be a great wrestler, but he is fucking huge and can probably contribute to the offensive line.

3) Don't let a little thing like another team drafting the player you want, get in the way

The first pick of the WWE Draft saw John Cena going from Raw to SmackDown. As Cena happily put on his new Team SmackDown shirt, fans were shocked. Was the WWE really going to send its biggest star, its most popular wrestler, its biggest cash cow, from its premiere brand to its...I mean, I don't want to use the word "ghetto," but, well...

As it turned out, the answer was, "No. What are you, retarded?" Because with the last pick of the WWE Draft, Raw stole Cena back from SmackDown! If the whole thing wasn't fixed, you undoubtedly would have seen a palpable look of relief on Cena's face, as he realized he wouldn't be slumming it with the likes of Drew McIntyre and Kofi Kingston on Friday nights on Syfy, after all.

So if the Redskins want, say, Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert, but other teams beat them to it, no big deal. Just draft him anyway. Sure, the other team will likely object, and maybe attempt to cite rules that say once a player has been drafted, another team can't swoop in and steal him. But I would ask, is there actually such a rule? Or is it more of an understanding among gentlemen? And even if there are rules to that effect, once Newton or Gabbert have had some time to contemplate whether he'd be happier in Charlotte or Buffalo or wherever, or a vibrant football city like D.C., where Dan Snyder is anxious for the opportunity to throw millions of dollars at him, he'll soon get word to his agent that it's suddenly his lifelong dream to be a Washington Redskin and refuses to play for Charlotte or Buffalo or wherever, and the two teams will just have to work something out.

Panel of the Week

2011-04-22T23:01:00.001Z

From Zatanna #12:

Watching Bryce Harper

2011-04-18T11:48:00.012Z

I went up to Hagerstown, MD yesterday to see the Hagerstown Suns play a double-header against the Lakewood BlueClaws. Okay, that's not entirely accurate. I didn't really care so much about the Suns, and I'll be surprised if I ever set foot in Hagerstown again. I went there for the sole purpose of seeing future savior of D.C. baseball --and heck, I'll go ahead and say it: future Hall of Famer--Bryce Harper play up close, before he gets promoted to Double-A, then Triple-A, and eventually, the Nationals, at which point I'll pretty much be watching him exclusively on TV and from the cheap-ish seats at Nats Park.

It was a lot of fun, especially if, as I do, you tend to enjoy minor league games more than major league ones. If you have time to go to Hagerstown one weekend (or possibly Woodbridge, if he goes there before he heads up to Harrisburg), I'd recommend making the trek. I mean, tickets in the VIP section are $10. At Nats Park, $10 puts you in section 405.

The Suns team store has essentially been reconfigured as the Bryce Harper Store. If you wanted a shirt or a jersey featuring other Suns players, this is not currently the store for you.

The girl manning the cash register assured people in the store that the Suns do in fact have other players. If I hadn't actually seen them, I'm not sure I would have believed her.

One of the nice things about minor league baseball is how approachable the players are. Before the game started, several of them went up and down the fence, talking to fans and signing autographs. Harper was a noticeable exception. And it's not like the fans were only interested in Harper's autograph, but his was clearly the most coveted. But they were SOL both before the game and between games, as Harper not only didn't sign anything for the crowd gathered along the first base line, but purposely wouldn't even make eye contact or in any way acknowledge their existence.

I didn't want an autograph, but I could empathize with those who did. The kids, anyway. Not so much the adults who'd brought binders full of baseball cards. So Harper's avoidance sort of came off as, at best, aloof, and at worst, a bit douchey. I maybe understood him not signing stuff before the game for whatever reason--getting mentally prepared, letting the other players enjoy the spotlight, etc.--but when people are shouting out your name ten feet away from you, smile...wave...let them know you'll sign stuff after the game...do something other than completely ignore them.

Here's one instance that did seem to fall squarely into the douchey category: Harper grounded out to first to end an inning. Instead of going back to the dugout, he took off his helmet, tossed it at the feet of the player who was serving as first base coach, and headed to the outfield, leaving the player to pick up the helmet, take it in, get Harper's cap, glove and sunglasses, and run out to center field to deliver them. After the half-inning was over, the Suns' manager stopped Harper on his way into the dugout with a hand on his chest and words were briefly exchanged. I couldn't hear what was said, so I can't be certain the two events were connected, but the manager didn't seem especially happy. Nearby fan reaction to the helmet tossing included, "What a tool," and "Oh, Bryce." Hopefully, this isn't an early warning sign of diva behavior.

But if Harper was a tool yesterday, he had plenty of company in the stands. At the start of the game, several fans would walk up to the fence to watch the game or take photos or try and get Harper's attention, blocking the views of the people in the seats. Eventually, an usher had to rope that section off. Later, one fan literally reached out and grabbed a player walking into the dugout and tried to hand him a ball to give Harper to sign. The player politely declined. Another fan whined at Harper to sign an autograph during the game. "He's working!" some woman snapped at him.

The worst Harper fan was also the one most likely to be planning to make a Bryce Harper skin suit. He was in his 40s or 50s, wore a hoodie, and would often lean over the fence and stare right into the dugout at Harper. He recorded him coming on and off the field every inning on his phone. And when he wasn't being weird, he was being a jerk. At one point, a couple of little kids right next to him begged one of the players to toss them a foul ball that had landed on the field. The player did so, and the asshole actually stood up, moved in front of them, and snatched it out of the air. Incredulous fans who witnessed this had to publicly shame him before he reluctantly gave the ball to the kids. And then a minute later, he asked for it back so he could take a picture of it. What the fuck? Later, he creepily said to a woman behind him, "But if number 34 had been the one who'd tossed it, it would have been another story." I'm telling you: Skin. Suit. Watch your back, Bryce, and don't help any strangers load stuff into vans.

The day had a happy ending: The creepy fan left early, the Suns won both games, and Harper finally signed autographs.

I can't even imagine what kind of pressure Harper is under. Being 18 years old, having the hopes of a losing franchise resting on your shoulders, and maybe scariest of all, having fans to please. I'm not saying I'd be handling it any better than he is, but Jesus, kid, the world's your oyster. Lighten up a bit and enjoy it.

Scream 4

2011-04-17T19:03:00.005Z

It's a sign you're getting old when only half the young actresses making cameos in Scream 4 (of whom there are a lot), you think you recognize, but later have to go to the IMDB to confirm who they are, and the other half, you've never seen or heard of in your life, because they're famous for being on shows called Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide or Life Unexpected. Are these actual TV shows? They can't possibly be.

Remember Scream 2? Sarah Michelle Gellar? Jada Pinkett? Heather Graham? Those were cameos! Everyone knew who they were! Julie Taylor from Friday Night Lights? Meh.

Anyway, Scream 4. I had problems with the beginning and the end, but everything in the middle is pretty great. And honestly, even the beginning and the end weren't dealbreakers. This would be a really great place to end the franchise--or at least wait another decade for new events from which to mine social commentary--but if the rumors about this being the start of a new trilogy are true, this isn't a bad place to start.

Spoilers below...

Meta humor is incredibly difficult to pull off, and the beginning of the movie, revealed to be a film-within-a-film-within-a-film, including a couple of cheap shots at the Saw franchise, doesn't quite pull it off. The part with Kristin Bell and Anna Paquin, especially, felt really forced. And while I'm usually willing to suspend disbelief when it comes to these sorts of films, the characters conveniently watching Stab 7 just before the killer strikes, was a bit much.

After that, though, it's a fun ride. One of the things I've always dug about the Elm Street, Friday the 13th and Halloween films is how their respective settings--Springwood, Crystal Lake and Haddonfield--almost become characters themselves, and we get to see how they evolve and react to all the horrible shit that goes on with each new installment. So it was fun to see Woodsboro again, especially since Scream 2 and Scream 3 took place elsewhere. I'm one of those people who could never live in a sleepy small town, but for some reason, I think I'd really enjoy it if a killer struck every few years. I'm not sure what that says about me.

The returning characters are a different story, though. I was kind of hoping at least one out of Sydney, Dewey or Gale would get killed off, and I was somewhat disappointed they all survived. Gale, in particular, seemed especially expendable this time around. Sydney dying would have also given the franchise a fresh start. In fact, for most of the film, I thought that the ultimate goal of Scream 4 was to transition Emma Roberts in as the new heroine, so it seemed like there was a decent shot that Sydney would end up as either a victim or--and this would have been really cool--the killer.

In regards to the reveal of the killers, I thought the film handled it as well as it reasonably could have. It didn't have nearly the punch of the reveal in the original, given that by now we're fully expecting two killers in each film, and there were only a few suspects left alive by the end, and I think we all knew it wasn't Jill's ex-boyfriend or Marley Shelton's character (another reason I wanted Gale to die: she and Dewey would have been adorable together). But at least it wasn't like Scream 2, where Timothy Olyphant conveniently disappeared for the entire last hour, and the only real surprise was who Laurie Metcalf's character really was.

So while the Jill/Charlie team-up wasn't exactly a shock when we found out about it, I thought the logic behind it was insanely clever: Their attempting to rewrite the original story, only with Sydney and Randy ending up together. Well, at least, that's what Charlie thought. I was disappointed Jill was just stringing him along. Once again, the film geek doesn't get the girl.

But that's not what really irritated me about the ending. What irritated me is that Jill should have gotten away with it. A recent trend in horror films is that these days, the bad guy often wins in the end. How great would it have been if that had been reflected here, given that the Scream films have always served as a commentary on the horror genre? And are we really supposed to believe Jill wouldn't have even checked to see if Sydney had a pulse, given how meticulous she was about everything else, including beating the shit out of herself? Come on. I also wasn't wild about the film relying on the old, tired "killer reveals a piece of information he/she couldn't possibly have had" bit as what tipped Dewey off.

But other than none of the heroes dying and the killer getting caught, I had a lot of fun. In the very least, it wiped the bad taste of Scream 3 out of my mouth, Hayden Panettiere looks totally hot with short hair, and Anthony Anderson's death scene is one of my favorite in recent memory. Can't ask for too much more than that.

Script: B+

Acting: B+

Gore: B

Overall: B+

Panel of the Week

2011-04-15T07:56:00.000Z

From Night of the Living Dead #4:

Tilting D.C.

2011-04-14T16:36:00.001Z

I missed the heyday of the online poker boom, where Americans could make deposits from their checking accounts and gamble with real money. It wasn't until a couple of years after Bill Frist snuck the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act into a complete unrelated security bill, making it illegal for U.S. financial institutions to transfer funds to sites like Pokerstars or Full Tilt and effectively killing online poker in the U.S., that I got into it. It's hard to express how repugnant it is that the Land of the Free is one of the few countries in the world where adults aren't allowed to play poker with their own money. But that's modern conservatism for you. Everyone's morality needs to be regulated, except for the CEOs getting rich by breaking the backs of the middle class or Republican congressmen trying to fuck underage pages.

Anyway, because I can't deposit money into my Pokerstars or Full Tilt accounts via my bank account, and because I'm wary of trusting the shady sites that will still transfer money (most of which seem to be based either in Russia or various east European countries I've never heard of), I'm stuck playing in the free sections of both sites. And it's not always bad. Sometimes, I'll find a game where the players know what they're doing, and get in some good practice. Much more often, though, I'll enter a freeroll tournament or a sit and go and some jackass will go all-in on the very first hand. Betting $15,000 to win $45 is hardly good EV, so it's not something you'd ever see happen where real money is at stake. But it's an annoyingly regular occurrence when nothing's actually at risk. Even when you don't encounter donks like that, free poker is still a poor simulation of the real thing. My play is no different. I'm a lot more likely to call a big raise with a marginal hand like two pair or a straight draw than I would if making a terrible read would actually cost me something.

So as someone who wants to play poker for real money, but not have to drive to Charles Town to do it--or for that matter, Atlantic City or Vegas--this was interesting news:

The District is becoming the first U.S. jurisdiction to allow Internet gambling, trying to raise millions of dollars from the habits of online poker buffs and acting ahead of traditional gambling meccas like New Jersey and Nevada.

Permitting the online games was part of the 2011 budget and a 30-day period for Congress to object expired last week, said D.C. Council member Michael A. Brown, who authored the provision.

The gaming would be operated by Intralot, a Greek company, and would be available only to gamblers within the borders of the District. (The Washington Post)

The timing of this was odd. Less than a week after Republicans in Congress told D.C. that it couldn't use its own funds for abortions and needle exchange programs, those same Republicans were going to turn around and let D.C. become an online den of iniquity? The always-entertaining Michael Brown seems to think so.

I find his naivite adorable. There's no way this is going to happen.

Republicans would probably try and kill D.C.'s online gambling plan regardless, but Brown all but jumping up and down in front of them, shouting, "Ha, ha, we tricked you! Too late to do anything about it!" is only going to make them more determined to do so. Ideally, this whole thing would have waited until Democrats controlled the House again, but in the very least, not openly taunting people who have demonstrated they have no respect for the concept of D.C. home rule, seems like it would be the prudent approach.

From the Washington Times:

But a spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Wednesday that the 30-day time period cited by Mr. Brown was merely symbolic and does not bar future action.

"That's not how Congress reviews controversial legislation passed by the District of Columbia," committee spokesman Frederick Hill said. "In practice, that is done through the normal legislative process or through spending bills or riders that restrict federal funds based on the implementation of certain laws."

Despite Mr. Brown's announcement, made to the Associated Press, Mr. Hill said the issue has not yet come up in Congress in the form of a hearing or a bill that would require action. Until it does, he said, "There is no specific plan to block the legislation."

Yeah, I dunno. That doesn't exactly scream, "Online poker? Sure, go for it, guys," to me. If Congress can't block the new law outright, I'm sure they'll find some other creative way of doing it. Lots of municipalities are interested in legalizing online poker, but in absence of a federal law, no one seems to want to go first. Not even Nevada. If D.C. does, that'll open the floodgates nationwide, leading to much conservative teeth gnashing about the evils of gambling, and how it would be just another tax on the American people, and what about the children, and so on. So I expect this to be killed fairly quickly.

The sad thing is, this plan really would bring in millions to the city. I think it'd actually exceed the projections of $13 million in revenue by 2014. Yes, some of that revenue would be made off of District residents who would lose money that they can't afford to lose. Most likely the same people you see at convenience stores blowing $20 on DC-5 tickets every day. But because non-D.C. residents would be allowed to play so long as they were inside the city limits, there'd also be tons of Virginia and Maryland residents who would make the trek in every weekend. Hell, every weeknight, too. Imagine empty storefronts somewhere in D.C. Now imagine them full of tables and internet routers, and people paying by the hour (so also, more jobs and tax revenue! Yay!) to sit down with their laptops, contributing rake after rake to the city's coffers. And don't forget about the tourists, who would come for business trips or sight-seeing and leave behind a lot more money than they'd planned.

I'd very much love to be proven wrong on this, and by the end of the year, supplementing my income via fish who have no poker acumen whatsoever. I'd actually just settle for some real competition. But I don't have a whole lot of faith in that happening. In other words, I better get used to playing freerolls.

Protests and pundits

2011-04-13T10:26:00.004Z

In general, I hate protests. They hardly ever seem to actually accomplish anything, and the protests around here have an annoying habit of inconveniencing me when I'm simply trying to get from Point A to Point B.

Mayor Gray's and the city council's protest on Monday in front of the Dirksen Senate Office Building against the riders in the budget bill that infringe upon D.C.'s rights, is no different. The odds of their actions changing the mind of even one person in Congress were less than the odds of every D.C. sports team winning a championship this year. But I think you have to respect Gray and company's willingness to get themselves arrested for something they believe in. Was it largely a political stunt? Yeah, maybe. But they could have just given a speech in front of the Wilson Building and called it night. Instead, they went and got arrested, which, I don't care who you are or what the circumstances are, isn't a fun experience.

So this tweet from Matt Yglesias, who I generally like, rubs me the wrong way:

What smug, sanctimonious bullshit. Civil disobedience only counts if there's the possibility of a lengthy jail sentence or getting knocked around by the cops? Did I miss where Gray compared himself to Martin Luther King Jr. or something? And how many times has Yglesias himself practiced "real civil disobedience"?

Gray and Yglesias are both D.C. residents. Gray and Yglesias are both progressives. Gray and Yglesias share similar irritation about Congress's actions. So their interests are clearly aligned. Yet Gray actually got up and did something to achieve those interests. A futile and largely symbolic something, sure. But it was something. Yglesias simply advocates for those interests on his blog. And while that serves an important function, it doesn't give him the standing to sneer from the safety of his keyboard, either.

I've never been arrested for civil disobedience. But even if I had, I doubt I'd take it upon myself to try and separate the "real" from the "faux." Especially if those committing it were doing so in support of an issue I supported. I'm not saying Yglesias had an obligation to be out there with Gray, or even cheer him on from the sidelines, but it seems like while someone's getting arrested and going to jail for a cause that you believe in, the very least you could do is refrain from making snide comments on Twitter before going out for happy hour.

RIP PC Gaming

2011-04-12T10:01:00.003Z

My first experience with video games came from arcades and my Atari 2600, but it wasn't until my family got an Apple IIc that I really got into them. I was living outside the U.S. at this point, and there was this small store in a sketchy part of the city that sold computers and parts, but also had a huge catalogue of pretty much every computer game ever released, with the copy protections cracked. If you brought your own blank 5 1/4-inch floppy disk, they'd copy any game for you for only $5 each. Luckily, it never occurred to my parents that this sort of blatant piracy was wrong, so we made frequent trips.

My friends would come over and we'd play Phantasie or The Bard's Tale, each of us taking responsibility for the decisions of one of the members of our party of adventurers. Alone, I struggled through Infocom's text games like Zork and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And when a new King's Quest or Space Quest game came out, it was the high point of my year. (Sadly, if a new King's Quest or Space Quest game came out today, it would still be the high point of my year.)

The mid-90s were a great time to be a gamer. Dark Forces, Betrayal at Krondor, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Civilization II, Warcraft, Jagged Alliance, etc. were all amazing games. I barely touched my Super Nintendo, and never even owned a Nintendo 64 or a Playstation. I didn't need one. Before Kotaku or Joystiq, there was PC Gamer magazine, which was not only the best place to find out about upcoming games, but had an incredible collection of columnists.

Then technology fucked everything up.

Publishers started focusing on graphics over gameplay, and the whole industry began tilting towards multiplayer games, which weren't really my thing. Don't get me wrong, I logged in plenty of hours of Doom II and Warcraft over my 14.4K modem, but I always preferred games with good stories that I could play leisurely, as opposed to ones with non-stop action. Unfortunately, I was in a minority, and the adventure game genre, which had been so prevalent in the '80s and '90s, slowly vanished.

There's a famous article on Old Man Murray about why adventure games deserved to die. It's pretty spot on. In my case, it's especially telling that after years of burning through various adventure games, I played the game featured in the article, Gabriel Knight III, and not once did it ever occur to me that constructing a fake moustache using a packet of syrup and cat fur was in any way strange. It was just the kind of crap you did. On the whole, Gabriel Knight III wasn't bad, but it's impossible to excuse awful details like that once you become aware of them. That was probably the last adventure game I ever played. I got the last King's Quest game, but that was as much action as adventure, and worse, it really sucked.

The demands of new graphic-heavy games became an issue, too. It used to be that when you purchased a game, you could be certain that it would work on your computer. That was no longer the case by the late '90s/early '00s. Sure, they listed the system requirements on the package, but for people like me who never bothered to learn more about computers than how to turn them on, that didn't mean much. All I knew is that a month after getting a brand new Compaq, I bought Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, only to get home and find that my system couldn't handle it. You shouldn't have to have a top of the line processor or video card just to get a computer game to work.

I was in Best Buy a couple of weeks ago, and in a moment of nostalgia, decided to check out the PC games section. It was pathetic. Most of the titles on the handful of shelves were World of Warcraft-related, with a few other MMORPGs and games aimed at young kids there also. There were other random games, but nothing that really caught my interest. Except for one:

Art of Murder? Great title! Three games for $20? What looked like some good, old-fashioned adventure gaming? Sold!

Before I bought it, it occurred to me that I should probably check out reviews for this game on my phone, just in case it turned out that you couldn't actually judge how good a game was simply by it having a cool title and a low price. But I didn't.

So I got home, installed it on my computer, and started playing. Ten minutes later, I'd quit and had gone back to Dead Rising 2 on my Xbox. The game exemplified everything that's horrible and tedious and contrived about adventure games.

It begins in the least-convincing FBI field office ever (the fact that only three people are currently working in it is explained by it not "officially" opening for a few more days). The voice acting is sub par. But I could overlook both of those. What I couldn't overlook, though, was the horrible gameplay. The excitement begins with you having to find your partner's cell phone number and call him, and then print off a report for your boss. You'd think both these tasks would be easy. So easy, in fact, that it wouldn't even be worth putting in the game. But no. The former requires you to find the number on a bulletin board, dial it, realize it's the wrong number, and have a secretary email you the correct one. The latter is complicated by the office printer being out of paper, at which point you get to go into the supply room to look for more.

Needless to say, this stretches the definition of "adventure."

Don't get me wrong, it's a great, realistic portrayal of office life. But no one fucking buys a game called Art of Murder in the hopes that it's accurate simulation of working in an office. I'm sure the game gets better later on--although, going by those reviews I didn't read when I should have, maybe not--and I'll probably give it another shot when I'm really just super fucking bored. But I'm never buying another PC game. Ne. Ver.

RIP Adventure Gaming. You gave me a lot of great years. But now I guess it's all about killing Nazis and zombies and Nazi zombies on consoles. Actually, that doesn't sound so bad.

Panel of the Week

2011-04-08T13:55:00.000Z

From Secret Six #32:

Panel of the Week

2011-04-01T19:35:00.000Z

From Butcher Baker, the Righteous Maker #1:

Opening Day

2011-03-31T21:28:00.002Z

Today wasn't nearly as exciting as last year's Opening Day, what with its warm weather and drunk Phillies fans and Obama and still having Stephen Strasburg to look forward to and all. It was cold and wet and fairly miserable. I got a free Nationals cap, which can go with my ever-increasing collection of free Nationals caps that I never wear. (Although the Fourth of July one is pretty spiffy.) And predictably, the Nationals lost. It really wasn't even much of a contest.

But it was Opening Day, so it was still pretty fucking awesome. It's hard to believe it wasn't that long ago that I hated baseball. What was up with that?

Rebooting Batman

2011-03-30T23:31:00.001Z

A number of interesting news bites have come out of a recent interview with Jeff Robinov, president of the Warner Bros. motion picture group, including word of a planned "Justice League" movie in 2013. Possibly paving the way for that DC superhero team-up is another off-hand comment in the same interview — one that could indicate plans to reboot the entire Batman movie franchise after Christopher Nolan's third and final film, "The Dark Knight Rises."

"We have the third Batman, but then we’ll have to reinvent Batman," Robinov told the L.A. Times. "Chris Nolan and [producing partner and wife] Emma Thomas will be producing it, so it will be a conversation with them about what the next phase is."

Could Batman be headed for yet another reboot? It certainly seems that way. (Splash Page)

This isn't surprising news, but it's still disappointing. It used to be that rebooting was the nuclear option of movie and TV franchises. An admission that things had gotten so dire, either because the story needed to be refreshed or that the series was no longer profitable, that that there was no other way to salvage it. Now it's just routine. Battlestar Galactica. James Bond. Star Trek. Spider-Man. Superman. Friday the 13th. A Nightmare on Elm Street. V. A few of these may have required reboots, but most didn't. Neither does Batman.

If movie trilogy history is a reliable indicator, The Dark Knight Rises is probably going to be bad. Maybe just lackluster bad, like The Godfather Part III, Return of the Jedi or Back to the Future Part III. Maybe epically bad, like Scream 3, Spider-Man 3, or Jurassic Park III. And even if it somehow defies the odds and ends up being good, the franchise is still faced with losing Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale, on top of no longer having Heath Ledger. So on one hand, I can see why WB might want to start from scratch.

But on the other hand, it seems like it's mainly being done for two awful reasons: First, as an ego stroke to Nolan, and second, so they can put Batman into a Justice League movie.

Batman comics have been coming out on a more or less monthly basis for decades. Have all of them been good? No. But every month, with each issue, their writers and artists take what other writers and artists have done before them--the good stuff, the bad stuff, and the really ugly stuff--and build on it. They don't have the luxury of just ignoring everything and starting over, and they certainly don't get to declare that their Batman story is the end of the franchise.

So I sort of have a problem with what Nolan and WB are apparently doing. Batman doesn't need to be "reinvented" after The Dark Knight Rises. Just continued. Nolan's films are great. But they're not so great that they need to be concluded when Nolan and Bale depart. There are other writers and directors who can build on the foundations of what he, Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer have constructed. There are other actors who can play Batman. (Some can probably even do a halfway decent Batman voice, as opposed to Bale's violent rasping.) Are we going to get a new Batman trilogy every decade, each one retelling his origin, fighting the Joker, banging Catwoman, etc. over and over? That kind of seems like the road WB is going down.

There's also the implication that Nolan's version of Batman is somehow incompatible with a Justice League film. I get that he and Bale want nothing to do with it--if I were them, I wouldn't either--but since they're leaving anyway, that shouldn't be an issue. Batman's perfectly capable of patrolling Gotham in a Dark Knight Rises sequel and helping Superman and Wonder Woman fight Amazo or Starro the Conqueror or whoever in Justice League. He does it every month in the comics, and no one's head explodes.

Finally, how the hell is a Justice League film going to come out in 2013? They're not going to have time to relaunch Batman before then, and it's going to be difficult to tie the new Green Lantern and Superman franchises into it. If it's going to be totally separate from the existing franchises, doesn't that totally defeat the purpose of even doing a Justice League film?

Whatever. All this makes my head hurts. Just bring back Super Friends.

Sucker Punched

2011-03-28T12:01:00.000Z

There are three kinds of bad movies.

There are the ones that are practically willfully bad and clearly have no regard whatsoever for their audiences' intelligence. Everyone involved knows they're making a piece of shit, but they're getting paid, so who cares? These are your Batman & Robins, Jonah Hexes, Clash of the Titans, etc.

There are the ones that are bad, but not maliciously so, and through no real fault of their own in the sense that they had natural limitations--be it budget or actors or plot or whatever--and simply weren't able to overcome them. Getting upset with these movies for being bad is like blaming a toddler for not being able to dunk a basketball. A lot of horror movies and Jennifer Aniston films fall into this category. I'd even throw something like Battlefield Earth in there.

Then there are movies that you can tell started out as labors of love. That the director honestly wanted to make a great film, but somewhere along the way, it just gets away from him and the end result blows. And for some reason, these are typically the most annoyingly bad movies of all. Jersey Girl. Phantom Menace. Lady in the Water. Sucker Punch.

Sucker Punch is an unpleasant film to sit through. It's boring. It's pretentious. It's predictable. It never goes more than five minutes without attacking you with loud music in the background for extended periods of time. (To be fair, though, the soundtrack's pretty good.) To its credit, it is visually stunning. But frankly, that doesn't carry nearly as much weight as it used to. Eye candy's nice, but not $9.50-for-a-matinee nice.

In fact, it looks so good, I rewatched the trailer yesterday, and there are so many really awesome images throughout it--explosions, zeppelins, sword fights, dragons, Emily Browning's midriff--I found myself wondering, less than a day after I'd seen the film, "Geez, was it really that bad? Could I be wrong? Because this shit looks pretty awesome." Then I thought back to how I felt in the theater, being bored and irritated and wondering if this was really all there was to the film, and how aside from exactly two moments of soft laughter, the rest of the audience seemingly feeling the exact same way, and realized, no, I was right the first time, the movie really does suck.

The real problem with Sucker Punch isn't that it's an awfully made film. It's that it's so goddamn lazy, it's indistinguishable from an awfully made film. It dutifully goes from Point A to Point B to Point C to Point D to Point E, relying on one of the most formulaic plots in fiction, where the hero(ine)'s goal is to collect a series of objects for whatever reason. And then, special effects and hot girls in burlesque outfits aside, does nothing remotely interesting with said plot. Even the minor twist at the end feels predictable, probably because Scott Glenn more or less tells you early on there's going to be a twist.

(I'll give Zack Snyder credit for this: Scott Glenn was fucking awesome casting. I wish he could have been in a better movie, but it was great to see him, cheesy lines and all, and he seemed like he was having fun.)

When I was a kid, I would have loved Sucker Punch. In fact, I probably would have assigned it some sort of depth that I'm almost positive it doesn't actually have. Hell, even just a few years ago, I would have been mostly satisfied with just the effects. Now, though? Meh. Sucker Punch isn't a story. It's a lot of moving parts meant to resemble a story. And sometimes that's okay, but for some reason, here, it wasn't.

Panel of the Week

2011-03-25T14:04:00.001Z

From Batman Incorporated #4:

Well, it's certainly shiny. And hey...boobs!

2011-03-21T23:02:00.002Z

When one starts a blog, one obviously wants to dive right in and discuss matters of grave national importance. As such, one of my first blog posts, written almost exactly five years ago, concerned rumors about Lindsay Lohan wanting to play Wonder Woman in what was, at the time, going to be a film with Joss Whedon writing and directing.

Currently, of course, it's doubtful that Lindsay Lohan could even get a job as an extra in a movie. But in 2006, the idea sounded horribly plausible in a studio-executives-are-fucking-idiots kind of way.

Lohan's fortunes aren't the only thing that's changed since then. Whedon switched comic book universes and is directing The Avengers. Wonder Woman got pants. And the Wonder Woman movie became the Wonder Woman TV show with Adrianne Palicki in the lead. I thought it was pretty lousy casting at first, knowing her just from Friday Night Lights. But now having seen her in the costume (and new hair color), I have to admit, she definitely pulls off the look.

And let's talk about the costume.

When I heard about the plot of the new TV show--business executive by day, crime fighter by night, or whatever--I assumed there wouldn't even be a costume. Or if there was one, it'd be like something from the X-Men films: Black leather, bland, and having nothing to do with the costume that--regardless of how you may feel about the merits (or lack thereof) of a woman fighting crime in a swimsuit and high-heel boots--is one of the most iconic in all of comics.

So on one hand, from the comic book fan perspective, this is a nice surprise in that it shows respect for the source material. And the bustier certainly doesn't shy away from emphasizing Palicki 's greatest...er...heroic assets.

But on the other hand, let's be honest...it looks fucking ridiculous.

What the hell is David E. Kelley thinking? This is a million times worse than the outfit that Lynda Carter wore in the old TV show. And that only worked because the show was intentionally campy. The disconnect between this costume and what the TV show seems to be shooting for, couldn't be bigger.

Not that I've read a ton of Wonder Woman comics over the years, but when it comes to the ones I have read, there have been only two writers who I thought ever really made the character interesting. George Perez, who went heavy on the Greek mythology aspects, and Greg Rucka, who turned the book into a political drama. (Picture The West Wing, if President Bartlet was a chick with super powers.) Kelley's concept for the show doesn't sound anywhere near as good, so the margin for error when it comes to stuff like getting the costume right is a lot smaller.

Best case scenario: The show's a goofy guilty pleasure, kind of a cross between Ally McBeal and Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Worst case scenario: It's exactly what you think of when you look at that costume: One of those awful mid-'90s syndicated action shows, only with a larger budget. My money's on the latter.

Panel of the Week

2011-03-18T23:45:00.002Z

From Brightest Day #22:

Bracketology for fun and profit

2011-03-15T10:38:00.000Z

During the average college basketball regular season, I watch approximately 0.0 hours of college basketball. I really only perk up every few years when my alma mater somehow sneaks into tournament contention. Or this past season, during the Duke/Maryland game, but that was mainly just to see whether or not there'd be riots again. I mean, I barely care about pro basketball. I don't have time for a bunch of kids who aren't even at that level.

But I do love the NCAA Tournament. Partly because of the chaotic flurry of so many games in such a short period, partly because of the possibility--likelihood, even--of incredible, epic upsets, and mostly because it's the one time a year where office gambling is...if not sanctioned, at least permissible in the sense that management's willing to look the other way rather than destroy office morale.

(One of the years I was running the office pool, one of my co-workers who was clueless about how NCAA pools work, asked me, right in front of my boss, whether or not as the organizer, I was taking anything off the top. Since that's the difference between sort of illegal gambling and extremely illegal gambling, I was forced to fall all over myself to assure the boss that I wasn't running a sportsbook out of the office.)

And thank God for the Internet, because one is no longer limited to just the office pool or a contest run through the local paper. There are dozens of bracket contests to be found. Once, they gave out pretty good prizes, too. Lots of money. Cool trips. Nice toys. Ten years ago, some company I can't remember offered a billion dollars for a perfect bracket. Since the odds of accomplishing this are virtually impossible, they obviously never had to pay it off and it was offered just for publicity. But it's the thought that counts.

Now, though? Bad economic times in general and bad economic times for media outlets in particular, have led to some really dubious prizes. Sure, ESPN is awarding $10,000 for the person with the best bracket. But others aren't being nearly as generous. It might be a bit unfair to compare today's offerings with the ones from when the economy was in better shape, but it's still a letdown.

Regardless, over the next couple of days, I'll be entering all of them. Because what else is there to do in the office this week?

The Washington Post: Vouchers for The Capitol Deal. Which seems to be some kind of Groupon rip-off, but more importantly, is a subsidiary of...The Washington Post! Cheap. This is the same newspaper that when I was a kid, used to give away $100 a week for the reader who picked the most NFL games correctly. I know those days are long gone for the Post, but surely, they could spring for a better prize.

NBC: "Big Money Prizes"? That's more like it! How much we talking, NBC? $2,000? Well, that's...big-ish, I guess. I mean, compared to $0. Considering that Comcast is raising cable rates again, you'd think they could do a little better.

CBS: A trip to the 2012 Final Four. That's actually a pretty great prize. The benefit of being the network airing the games, I guess. I'm also really glad that even though the NCAA is doing its best to convince us that the tournament starts tomorrow, CBS isn't buckling under and is still using Thursday as the deadline to get brackets in. I suspect the NCAA is already working on a way to fix this next year.

Chicago Sun Times: $1,000,000? Right on!

Okay, yes, you have to get a perfect bracket to win that. But still! A million bucks! But what if you get just one game wrong? What do you win then? $10,000? Man, that's an awfully big drop-off, given that it's nearly as impossible to get an almost-perfect bracket. What if you miss three games? I mean, again, virtually impossible, right? Only $1,000? Jesus.

Okay, what do you win if you just get the most right of all the entrants? That's got to be worth at least $500, right? No? You just get an iPod Touch? Oh.

The New York Times: Winner gets an iPad. Good prize, but I'm a bit alarmed that they don't specify an iPad 2. The most famous newspaper in the world wouldn't really cheap out on us by giving away an obsolete model, would they?

Fox Sports: It pains me to say this, but after ESPN's guaranteed $10,000 prize, Fox has the best contest around. Fox too, is doing the stupid $1,000,000 for a perfect bracket nonsense, but it's also giving away a 60" TV, trips to Vegas, and varying amounts of Hooters wings.

If Fox put as much effort into its news operation as its bracket contest, the world would be a much better place.

But is it art?

2011-03-14T09:53:00.001Z

I like going to the Georgetown Flea Market because it's a good place to find nice artwork for surprisingly affordable prices.

It's also a place where you can find some truly horrific artwork. (Prices vary.)

I mean, it's not bad in a technical sense. It's competently done and all. But why is he wearing a man-thong?

I'd actually appreciate it more if the dude in the painting was completely naked. I obviously wouldn't want it hanging on my wall, but at least I'd recognize the intrinsic artistic properties of a nude figure painting.

But this is even more revolting than showing the guy's junk. If you're the artist and you're painting a dude in a pose that's...well, I'm not really sure how to describe that pose. But why suddenly get shy when it comes to the actual goods?

Surely the good people of Georgetown deserve full frontal nudity in their artwork.

Panel of the Week

2011-03-11T08:40:00.000Z

From Titans #33:

Panel of the Week

2011-03-04T08:31:00.001Z

From Marvel Zombies Supreme #1:

Off the rails

2011-03-03T17:37:00.002Z

I''ve noticed a recent uptick in a Metro behavior that I've long found annoying, but have now really grown to really hate. Which is, during rush hour, someone asking me to let them out of their seat before the train has come to a complete stop, just so they can get up and be closer to the doors when they open. This comes in two forms: 1) The person in the inside seat asking the person on the aisle seat to stand and move aside so they can get out, and 2) The person in the aisle seat asking the person standing right beside them to let go of the handrail and move so they can stand up.

Let's talk about the second one first. If you're standing in the aisle on the Metro, there are no poles close by and you often have only two options to keep yourself steady and upright, neither one great. You can either hold onto one of the handrails that run along the top of the train or you can hold onto one of the handrails that are on the back of each Metro seat. The former is hella uncomfortable, and the latter doesn't really provide much in the way of balance. But they're better than nothing, which is what you have if you have to let go of them in order to allow someone out of his or her seat.

A couple of months ago, the train I was on was incredibly jerky. I was standing up and, my feet planted, hanging onto one of the seat handrails for dear life. About a minute before we reached the station, the guy in the seat next to me tapped me on the arm and said, "Excuse me," and started to stand up. Just then, we hit whatever the subway track equivalent of a big wave is, and even with my death grip on the handrail, I was thrown forward a couple of steps. If I'd let go a second earlier, I would have gone flying into the old woman standing in front of me.

Being asked to move by the person sitting next to you is an even bigger pain in the ass. You have to get out of your seat while the train is still moving, and if it's crowded, also ask anyone standing nearby to make room as well. Same situation: As the train was pulling into the station, the woman sitting next to me said, "I'm getting off at the next stop," and stood up expectantly. If I'd paused a second to think about it, I would have told her politely that I'd get up when the train had stopped. Unfortunately, I complied. This time, I didn't almost go shooting across the train, but it wasn't exactly a smooth procedure, either.

If these two had been isolated incidents, I might not be making such a big deal out of it. But I'd say that as of late, it either happens to me or I see it happen to someone else at least once or twice a week. Going forward, I've decided not to play along. I'm just going to acknowledge the request but not actually move until the train stops. Or if that's too subtle, I'll tell the person, "Sure, but I'm going to wait until the train stops." Largely because it's a pain in the ass, but more importantly, it's a bullshit thing for someone to ask in the first place.

I mean, do people think that if they're not near the door the moment it opens, they might not make it off? In all my years of riding the Metro, I've seen exactly one person be trapped on a train because he couldn't get off before the operator closed the doors. Hell, I once saw a woman who had dozed off and didn't wake up until the "Step back, doors closing" message played, and still had enough time to realize she was at her stop, leap up, dash to the doors, and jump off before they closed. I'm somewhat more sympathetic to the argument that people might want to get off quickly so they can catch another train, but not so sympathetic that I'm going to do anything about it. It's rush hour. It's not like there isn't going to be another train in three minutes.

The only way this advance notification is even sort of excusable is if you're simply giving the person next to you a heads up that you're getting off at the next stop, without the expectation that they're immediately going to move for you. But unless they have a kid or a large bag in their lap that would make standing up more complicated than usual, it seems unnecessary. I think Metro riders are pretty well trained to recognize the body language of the person next to us when he or she is preparing to leave the train, and will quickly move aside when it's appropriate.

I get being in a hurry. But if it's really that important, stand up at the stop before yours so you're ready to disembark. Or hey, just don't sit down in the first place. Certainly not in a window seat. You can have the comfort of sitting down during your rush hour commute or you can be the first one off the train. But when you try and have both, you're being an asshole.

My favorite Charlie Sheen moments from today

2011-02-28T21:50:00.001Z

If Charlie Sheen dies of an overdose tomorrow or kills himself or asphyxiates while in the middle of a porn star three-way (all equally plausible possibilities), I suspect that 20 years from now, we'll be telling our children about this day the same way our parents told us about the moon landing. Maybe not with quite so much reverence. But just as much awe.

Major League aside, I've never been a big Charlie Sheen fan. I like several of his movies--Platoon, Wall Street, Lucas, Men At Work--but I suspect that almost any other actor could have played his parts in those films and I would have liked them just as much. Rick Vaughn is the only role of his that I absolutely can't imagine anyone else playing. Also, there's always just been something too...Charlie Sheen-ish about Charlie Sheen for me to like, if that makes any sense. So this was kind of a great day, in that it complete validated my anti-Charlie Sheen bias. As if the past few days--not to mention, weeks and months--hadn't already. But while the story admittedly isn't quite as significant as a potential government shutdown or various revolutions in the Middle East or whatever, it was just an epic day of journalism. Hey, not everything has to be Watergate.

In Transmetropolitan, there's an issue where Spider Jerusalem gets bored and starts calling into various TV talk shows to terrorize the hosts. That's what I thought of when I saw Sheen's interviews with Today, Good Morning America and TMZ today. I mean, we knew he had major issues, but no one knew they were this out of control. The TMZ interview, especially, was really just awful to watch, regardless of how you feel about Sheen. You know that kid in high school who would never get into a fight himself, but was really good at instigating them between other guys? That's kind of how it came off, as, over the course of 45 minutes, the douchey TMZ guy happily gave Sheen all the rope he needed to hang himself.

(I'll cop to occasionally watching bits and pieces of TMZ's TV show, and I often find myself wondering what those people--aside from Harvey Levin, who actually seems like a smart guy--would be doing if not for that site/show. Flipping burgers? Digging graves? Selling their bodies in West Hollywood for rent money? It's unbelievable that hardworking Americans are losing their homes left and right, meanwhile, that idiot with the long hair is probably pulling down six figures.)

So between his three appearances today, these are my favorite statements of Sheen's during his media blitz:

4) "Aaron Sorkin, anyone? Dude just won an Oscar last night. They got in my man's grill and they messed up his blend and the ink in his pen ran out. The show, my dad will even admit this, drifted into the rose garden and wilted after that." (TMZ)

Upon hearing this, it suddenly dawned on me that we never really did hear any grumbling from The West Wing's cast about the quality of the show after Sorkin left. And considering how awful the fifth season was especially, grumbling would have been justified. Martin Sheen, in particular, must have felt it the most. No more stirring speeches. No more folksy quips. Or at least, if there were stirring speeches and folksy quips, they weren't nearly as good as before. So if this is true, I guess good for him for keeping his feelings to himself. I wondered if Sheen felt better about the last season when the show started to get good again. Then I remembered that he was barely in it, as it basically became the Josh and Santos Show. So probably not.

3) "You borrow my brain for five seconds and just be like, 'Dude! Can't handle it! Unplug this bastard! Yeah!' Because it just...it fires in a way that is...um...I don't know...maybe not from this particular terrestrial realm." (GMA)

Aside from maybe Charles Manson, I'm not sure I've ever seen someone so eager to hype his own insanity.

2) "Because I'm telling the truth and you love me?" - Sheen to one of his "Goddesses," as he gives her a hug and kiss. (TMZ)

I don't really know what to make of Sheen's porn star friends. I mean, they have to know he's completely and absolutely fucked up, right? So are they using him for his fame and money, or is it that they're also fucked up and as such, legitimately don't see anything weird about this situation? If it was anyone else but porn stars, I'd be inclined to believe the former. But based on countless interviews I've heard on Howard Stern, I'm fairly certain there's no such thing as a perfectly sane porn star. So they probably really do buy into his bullshit. Once all the dust of this current crisis settles, I hope they can all get together and make that porn star mansion plan work.

I feel a lot less kindly towards Sheen's idiot entourage, who also appeared during the interview, laughing their asses off at their pal's self destruction. Unfortunately, instead of having a Turtle, a Drama, and an E, Sheen seems to have all Turtles looking out for their own self-interests. Is there any chance those guys won't leave him high and dry the moment he tries to get better and the party stops?

1) Jeff Rosen: "You want a raise?" Sheen: "Yeah. Look at what they put me through." (Today)

Most people in Sheen's shoes would be trying to figure out a way to keep CBS from firing him. Sheen, on the other hand, has the balls to demand a $26,400,000-a-year raise.

I don't know if he's trying to absolutely guarantee that he gets fired, is hoping to use that figure as some sort of starting point for salary negotiations, or genuinely thinks he deserves $26 million more a year, but honestly? I like the cut of his jib. It's rare to see this level of self-confidence, which is usually only found in serial killers. I think he should at least consider running for president.

Panel of the Week

2011-02-25T23:20:00.001Z

From Action Comics #898:

Oscar Picks

2011-02-25T17:56:00.001Z

Best Picture

What will win: The Social Network

What should win: The Social Network

What shouldn't win: The Kids Are All Right

What would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: The Social Network

Best Director

Who will win: Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan

Who should win: David Fincher, The Social Network

Who shouldn't win: David O. Russell, The Fighter

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Christopher Nolan, Inception

Best Actor

Who will win: Colin Firth, The King's Speech

Who should win: James Franco, 127 Hours

Who shouldn't win: Jeff Bridges, True Grit

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Leonardo DiCaprio, Shutter Island

Best Actress

Who will win: Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Who should win: Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Who shouldn't win: Jennifer Lawrence, Winter's Bone
Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Ashley Bell, The Last Exorcist

Best Supporting Actor

Who will win: Jeremy Renner, The Town
Who should win: Christian Bale, The Fighter
Who shouldn't win: Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are Alright
Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Sam Rockwell, Iron Man 2

Best Supporting Actress

Who will win: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
Who should win: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
Who shouldn't win: Melissa Leo, The Fighter

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Rebecca Hall, The Town

Best Writing – Original Screenplay

Who will win: Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg, The Kids Are Alright
Who should win: Christopher Nolan, Inception

Who shouldn't win: Mike Leigh, Another Year

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland, The Last Exorcism

Best Writing – Adapted Screenplay

Who will win: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network

Who should win: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network

Who shouldn't win: Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, True Grit

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network

Best Animated Feature

What will win: Toy Story 3

What should win: Toy Story 3

What shouldn't win: The Illusionist

What would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Toy Story 3

Dwayne McDuffie

2011-02-22T19:11:00.003Z

1993 might have been the worst year ever for comic books.

DC followed up the awful "Death of Superman" storyline with an even worse one where they brought him back. Marvel was publishing a gazillion comics a month, making it economically impossible to keep up with everything. Image was putting out crap. Nicely drawn crap. But crap. And the entire industry seemed geared towards speculators and ADD fanboys. It was so bad that not long afterwards, I quit reading comics for a few years.

Arguably, the one bright spot that entire miserable year was the launch of Milestone Comics.

Considering the sheer glut of bad superhero comics being produced, the last thing the industry probably needed at that point was another line of superhero books. But rather than just put out comics that the masses would devour, Milestone took the much riskier approach of focusing on minority superheroes. Black superheroes were nothing new in 1993, but the idea of not giving them a name with "Black" in front of it (i.e., Black Lighting, Black Panther,etc.) was surprisingly revolutionary. Still, all this could have easily been dismissed as a gimmick; an exercise in political correctness, except the comics were actually really good. Hardware was my favorite, but I also enjoyed Static and Blood Syndicate.

The writer behind these books was Dwayne McDuffie, who died today. Aside from the Milestone books, he also worked on the Justice League series on Cartoon Network and some recent stuff for DC and Marvel. Unlike with most comic book creator deaths, McDuffie was still relatively young and probably had his best work ahead of him.

He was also a major online presence on various message boards and websites, going all the way back to Compuserve. I never personally interacted with him, but from what I saw, he was never anything less than a class act.

Sometime soon, I'm going to back and pick up all those Milestone comics I missed when I stopped reading comics.

Panel of the Week

2011-02-18T12:15:00.000Z

From The Boys #51:

Assholes without Borders

2011-02-16T18:11:00.005Z

Borders announced today that its two D.C. stores were among the 200 that will be closing. I'm bummed. I love Borders. I've really loved its generous coupon program these past few years, which, hindsight being 20/20, might have been a little bit too generous. When you start training people to only shop when they're getting at least 33% off, you've pretty much permanently shaved 33% off your profit margin. A few weeks ago, I was in Borders and saw a book I wanted, but couldn't bring myself to pay full price for it, even though I wouldn't think twice about doing so at Barnes & Noble or an airport news stand. I came back two days later with a coupon.

When I had a retail job several years ago, the company I worked for declared bankruptcy and our store--along with pretty much every other one in the chain--immediately went into liquidation mode and soon closed. I wasn't overly broken up about this, as I'd been there only a couple of months and it was just a short-term gig while I looked for something better. But some of the longtime employees took it really hard. It especially sucked for my boss, who, when he applied for management positions at other stores, was often told that his years of managerial experience were nice, but they really wanted someone with a college degree. Having worked both retail and food service, I'll never say those jobs are easy, because they're not. But nor do they require college, even on the managerial level.

So I know what the Borders employees are in for, and it's not pretty. Liquidation sales are coming, and nothing brings out customers' inner assholes like A) The chance to save money, and B) The panic that they're not saving as much money as they think they could be.

Here are a few tips about how not to be that asshole customer during the upcoming liquidation. (I was thinking of structuring this as a Goofus and Gallant-type thing, but frankly, I couldn't come up with enough examples of good customer behavior to justify the Gallant part.)

1) Don't ask when sale prices will be reduced further. The rank-and-file employees often don't know. And if they do, they've probably been instructed not to tell customers.

2) On a related note, if you want something badly that even on sale is more than you want to pay, go ahead and get it instead of holding out for as long as possible. One customer had her heart set on this particular item. I guess she lived or worked nearby the store, so she would often come in and look at it. She asked, unsuccessfully, if we could hold it for her until the price went down further. (More on that in a moment.) She would even call every couple of days to see if we still had it in stock. And the whole time, I wanted to scream at her, "Look, you're quibbling over saving $30 or $40 more, tops. JUST. FUCKING. BUY. IT." But she didn't. And eventually when she called, I got to tell her, "No, sorry, it's gone." That gave me more satisfaction than it probably should have.

3) No, seriously, you can't return that. I'm guessing Borders will soon institute a no returns policy, as the whole point of liquidation is to get merchandise out of the store, not add to the inventory. Our last week, we had people trying to return stuff they'd bought during the liquidation, despite several "No Returns or Exchanges" signs posted around the registers. A woman came in with something she'd bought the week after we declared bankruptcy, and asked for a refund. We told her no. She asked if she could exchange it. Again, we told her no. Apparently completely oblivious to the "STORE CLOSING! 40%-50% OFF EVERYTHING!" signs throughout the store, she got angry and told us that with our attitude, we wouldn't be in business for much longer. We all got a good laugh out of that.

4) Don't ask employees to hold stuff for you until the prices go down. Why should they care if you save more money? Also, doing so would likely be a fireable offense. See, the bonus of the person running the liquidation at each store depends on how much merchandise he can unload. When employees start hoarding merchandise, either for their benefit or a customer's, that's money out of his pocket. He won't be happy, and he likely has the authority to fire anyone he wants.

5) Don't be high maintenance and/or a dick. I mean, try never to be a high maintenance and/or a dick, but understand that doing so during a liquidation sale is a lot more likely to blow up in your face. Under normal circumstances, retail employees are obviously required to be nice and patient, or they'll lose their jobs. But if they're already losing their jobs, that fear isn't much of a motivator. For those three or four glorious weeks of our liquidation sale, my co-workers and I operated on three settings: Neutral, Unhelpful, and I Honestly Don't Give a Fuck.

Neutral was our default position. We performed the barest essentials of our jobs, which was basically to just ring customers up and not set them on fire.

If the customers got too needy, we'd shift into Unhelpful:

"Hey, I couldn't find what I was looking for. Do you have it in stock?"

"Sorry, if it's not on the shelf, we probably don't have it."

"Well, is there anywhere else you could check? In the back, or maybe call one of your other stores?"

"Not really."

"Do you think you'll be getting more in?"

"I dunno. Maybe."

"Can I leave my number so you can call me if you do?"

"I don't think I'm allowed to. Sorry."

I Honestly Don't Give a Fuck is the nuclear option of liquidation retail. I never got to this point myself, but my manager did, and it was great. This one woman was a longtime customer, and was always a pain in the ass. She came in during the sale and started making the same sort of annoying requests that my manager had been putting up with for years. This time though, he said--not with these exact words, but unmistakably something with that sentiment--that he'd soon be out of a job and he honestly didn't give a fuck about her problems. One of my fellow clerks, on his last day, literally did say, "I don't give a fuck," to a customer who, frankly, probably didn't deserve it. But hey, life's unfair.

I guess if there is one Gallant-esque tip I could give, it's this: If you find yourself in a conversation with a retail employee who's losing his job soon, ask him if he has anything lined up, and say something supportive if the answer is no. I'm not saying you necessarily need to really care, but I always thought it was a nice gesture when a customer acknowledged me as a human being and not just an extension of the cash register.

What The Rock is cookin'

2011-02-15T16:25:00.004Z

The most exciting sporting event I've ever been to was Stephen Strasburg's debut with the Nationals last year. If I'd been at the Honda Center in Anaheim yesterday, last night's Monday Night Raw might have been a close second.

After seven years in Hollywood that ranged from blockbusters like "The Game Plan" and duds like "The Tooth Fairy," Dwayne Johnson came back to the scene that made him a star, announcing his return as the guest host for WrestleMania.

The crowd in Anaheim, California went absolutely berserk when the lights went out followed by the speakers blasting out, "If you smell....what The Rock....Is Cookin."

The most electrifying man in sports entertainment pulled off one of the most electrifying moments in recent WWE memory. It was a trip down memory lane for those fans that remember the WWE Attitude era, seeing The Rock pull off all his trademark lines while also trashing both heels and faces alike. (Bleacher Report)

"Absolutely berserk" is an understatement. A crowd hasn't demonstrated that level of complete and utter devotion to one man since Jonestown.

It feels more than a little foolish to talk about something happening in professional wrestling the same way I would something happening in football or baseball, but damn, that was some exciting stuff last night. For nearly 20 minutes, The Rock gave a speech to the crowd that managed to both point out how awful the WWE has become since he was a part of it (I missed that entire era, but fans seem to speak really highly of it, so I'll take their word for it) and inject new life into the company in the lead-up to WrestleMania. It was even more impressive when you consider how awful the preceding two hours of Raw had been, with weaker-than-usual matches and a stupid kiss-cam gimmick. Although, it was weirdly amusing to see The Miz and Michael Cole struggle to both give their condolences to Jerry Lawler on the death of his mother and maintain kayfabe, talking about how he was going to get his ass kicked at this Sunday's pay-per-view.

(Speaking of long speeches, I'll repeat a question I once asked on Twitter: Why is it that wrestlers can come out every week and give lengthy monologues without any visual aides whatsoever, but celebrated actors on Saturday Night Live can't get through more than a couple of lines without having to glance at cue cards? I'm not saying all these guys are gifted thespians, and some are clearly less gifted than others, but they're also a lot more talented than people give them credit for.)

The best part was The Rock trashing John Cena, while the crowd, who twice earlier that night had been wildly cheering Cena, started happily chanting, "Cena sucks!" I mean, just from a business perspective, regardless of how you feel about the WWE or professional wrestling in general, this is pretty fascinating. It would be like McDonald's introducing a new sandwich or bringing back the Arch Deluxe or whatever, and having the ad campaign center around how awful the Big Mac is. The WWE is taking the face of its company and biggest cash cow, and putting his image through the ringer. Maybe this results in Cena turning heel. (Not likely.) Maybe this storyline will end with The Rock developing respect for Cena and giving him The Rock Seal of Approval. (Unfortunately, much more likely.) But for now, it's interesting stuff.

It is a little weird that The Rock implied he'd be sticking around the WWE well beyond WrestleMania. In fact, he didn't so much imply it, as he came right out and said it. In all likelihood, he's not. Even part time. And if it wasn't for the fact that his movie career has stalled, he probably wouldn't be back now. (Of course, he only has himself to blame for that. It's not like anyone had a gun to his head, forcing him to abandon action films and make family-friendly crap like The Tooth Fairy or Race To Witch Mountain. At least, I hope no one did. It would explain a lot, though.) So I'm not sure how he's going to extricate himself from that guarantee. Or who knows, maybe there's a deal in place where he will stick around. If so, Linda McMahon should run on that accomplishment in her next Senate run, as it's far more impressive than anything else she's done.

Every now and then, the WWE proves it can pull off something great. Don't get me wrong, based on its track record, I still have faith that it might manage to screw even this up. But for now, I'm cautiously optimistic that the next couple of months are going to be a lot of fun.

Panel of the Week

2011-02-11T08:26:00.002Z

From Star Trek: Infestation #1:

How many ways can you choke a kid, anyway?

2011-02-10T15:08:00.001Z

It's a shame that A) Susan Burke teaches in Maryland and not D.C., and B) She wasn't arrested a year ago, because Michelle Rhee would have had a field day with this story if it had occurred in a District school when she was here. A teacher who allegedly choked and punched half the students in her class? That's the kind of bogeyman Rhee could have used to get rid of another hundred or so teachers.

This seems like an open-and-shut case, and it's not likely to be as interesting to the public as when a female teacher is caught having sex with a male student (which seems to be happening a lot more frequently these days, and which guys will only grudgingly admit is a crime, even as we resist the urge to high-five the victims), so it'll probably fade quickly.

But for now, it's still in the news and last night, WJLA did a story on it. At one point a reporter--I didn't catch who--was talking to one of the children who was allegedly abused by Burke. The reporter asked her what had happened.

Girl: "She choked me." WJLA reporter: "Show me how." And she did:

Okay, setting aside the wisdom in making an abuse victim--especially one her age--recreate the abuse on herself for no particularly good reason, how is this a question that needed to be asked?!? (And it was actually more like a command, which would seem to make it worse.)

We all know what choking is. What the fuck did the reporter think she was going to do? Wrap both of her hands around her throat and violently start shaking herself? Pull out a garrote, like in a James Bond film, slide it around her neck, and pull? What precise example of choking was he looking for?

Did he think that maybe the kids are lying, and tried to lay a clever trap, hoping that the girl wouldn't know what choking actually was and she'd start biting herself or something?

Did he think the image would look good on his reel when it's time for local Emmy submissions?

Thank God he didn't ask her to demonstrate on herself how she'd been punched.