Archive for the 'comics' Category

Charitable Comic Art Donation Fiasco

Published
by
John T Davis
on May 15, 2008
in comics, intellectual property and internet
. 0 Comments

This just came to my attention via BoingBoing, which I will now quote, as it perfectly explains the situation (emphasis mine).

компютри втора употреба
Thomas Denton of comic blog Say It Backwards has a nephew who was diagnosed with cancer. A charity called Candlelighters helped his family out. Thomas decided to use his connections in the comics world to organize some charitable auctions featuring original artwork by various artists to give something back to the organization. Apparently Time Warner (who own DC comics, who in turn own Superman, Batman and most of the cool superheroes who wear capes) objected to the selling of the pieces featuring their copyrighted and trademarked characters on eBay, specifically Superman from what I understand.
Using characters owned by the major comic book corporations is pretty common in charity auctions at comic book conventions. This is not to mention that if you go on eBay right now there are a lot of auctions for artwork featuring those same characters, none of which Time Warner seems to be going after.

Thomas has posted a statement apologising to everyone involved in the affair (artists, bidders), but it doesn’t seem right that he’s been left holding the bag for trying to something for sick kids. Some letters to Time Warner’s PR department might make them think twice about sending out cease and desist orders so wantonly, and who knows, might even prompt them to kick some cash Candlelighters’ way.

Mr Denton documents the details here. It’s in reverse chronological order, so start with the bottom most post. In short, all received money that hadn’t already been sent to Candlelighters has been refunded, and all donated art that had not already been dispatched to buyers has been returned to the artists by Mr Denton. If I am mistaken here or misstating something, please let me know. I do not want to in any way spread false information.

Reading about this has left me feeling very upset. DC of course owns the rights to those characters, and has the legal right to sue if they are used by someone else to make profit as if they owned them, but that’s not what’s happening here. As the above bolded section notes, comic artists drawing these characters for charity is nothing new, and there are many such eBay auctions that Warner Brothers is NOT taking down, though they have nothing to do with charity. Those same artists drawing art for fans on paid commission is also not new, and DC doesn’t seem to mind that either. I’m not going to speculate on why DC chose to single out Mr Denton and his singularly thoughtful and interesting charity drive, which he actually managed to get professional artists to donate their time and effort for. What I do know is that there’s a difference between having the legal right to sue someone for something and recognizing when not to exercise that right for the mutual benefit of all involved, such as in the case of a philanthropic nonprofit effort designed to give aid to an organization devoted to children with cancer.

There is no danger of dilution of DC’s brand here, or loss of profit, or association with unseemly elements (unless the company does not want to be associated with charities). This entire situation suggests at best an overeager Warner Brothers legal department employee who wasn’t thinking clearly about the context. From a PR perspective, I would go so far as to suggest a successful charity auction would have generated positive press for the company. A clever spokesperson could’ve even spun something about their characters being used in the fight against cancer. This debacle, by contrast, won’t, and shouldn’t, generate anything but negative publicity for the company.

I leave you with a request, not just to my fellow members of all my fandoms but to everyone reading this. Warner Brothers has not so much dropped as stabbed the ball here, and this nonprofit has lost the chance for a sizable donation that it could have put to the care of sick children, but on the bright side many like me who follow this sort of news have today become aware of Candlelighters and their mission. If you have the resources, please make a donation. The donation options on the Candlelighters website is easy to use and automatically generates and mails out paperwork to verify the tax deductible status of your gift.

Please spread the word about this. Even if you’re unable to donate, someone who reads your blog might be, and the more people who learn about this and complain, the less this sort of snafu will be repeated. Complaining directly to WB, not just on your blogs, might not be a bad idea either, though I am not entirely sure whom one would contact about this particular issue. Even if they don’t shift their stance on this particular set of auctions (and they should), everyone involved would be served well should they make a formal policy statement about these sorts of fundraisers and how their legal department will react to them in the future.

Thank you for your time.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , ,

Share This

Long Live the Legion

Published
by
John T Davis
on September 26, 2007
in cartoons and comics
. 0 Comments

I never really got into The Legion of Superheroes comic book series, in any of its incarnations, through no fault of its own. It’s just…some of the set up turned me off. I like to fall in love with characters and get attached to them, and that’s just hard to do with a series that’s got dozens and dozens of heroes, at least in book form. It made casual reading difficult for me, because every time I tried to pick up an issue and get into it, I’d not recognize half the characters. And finally, I think one of the things that really turned me off was the idea that it was the 30th/31st century, which meant that all the regular DCU heroes I loved were dust on the wind. The idea of superheroes aging into their twilight is a major turnoff for me, and one of the reasons I never really loved Batman Beyond, even if it did have its moments.

Having said that, I’ve caught the last few eps of the new Legion TV Series, and I’m really digging it. It takes a JLU-style approach of a core cast that makes regular appearances along with guest-star Legionnaires, which keeps me from feeling overwhelmed, and there’s not 50+ years of continuity to get bogged down in. In short, it’s accessible for the casual viewer, which I count myself as even though I’m neck deep in the mainline DCU. It’s also a lot of fun, so I don’t consciously dwell on the fact that it’s the 4th millinium and all my favorite heroes are dead. Most of all, though, it’s a really character driven show and even the bit-player heroes are given enough depth and handled with enough seriousness that I can’t help getting attached to them. To the point, even, that I wish some of them could be pulled into the mainline DCU, because I want to see them played off their 20th century predecessors, and their animated versions are just so much less screwed up and weighted down than their comic counterparts. Brainiac 5 and Tim Drake (before the canon screwed him up). Secret and Triplicate Girl. Bart Allen and Matter Eater Lad. Triplicate Girl and Killa Nilla (this is not a typo). The list goes on, and gets weirder, because I’m wicked nuts. These interactions would rule, and I can say that secure in the knowledge that it’s not just my crossover kink egging me on.

I include now a brief list of a few of my favorite Legionnaires, in no particular order. I should note that I’ve researched in depth their comic counterparts, and can say for certain if the comics had been my sole introduction to these people, I would not now be their lifelong fan, because wowzers, the angst. Not to say I don’t like those who aren’t listed here: I in fact think Timber Wolf rocks, but I’m trying to focus on those who aren’t part of the core team or are in other ways unique.

Because I realize some of my readers may already be bored to tears, the rest of this entry is ensconced underneath a cut.
For those who go on, be aware there are some very slight spoilers ahead. I try to keep them as vague as possible.

[tags]dc comics, legion of superheroes, losh, dcu, batman beyond, justice league unlimited, jlu, brainiac 5, querl dox, robin, tim drake, secret, the secret, greta hayes, the flash, kid flash, bart allen, triplicate girl, luornu durgo, timber wolf, brin londo, matter-eater lad, matter eater lad, tenzil kem, squirrel girl, doreen green, ferro lad, ferro, andrew nolan[/tags]

Continue reading ‘Long Live the Legion’

Share This

Spider Man 3 Review

Published
by
John T Davis
on May 21, 2007
in comics and movies
. 0 Comments

I caught the 1:55 showing of Spider-Man 3 with a friend yesterday. I don’t trust myself to write an in-depth review without being entirely too spoilerific, but I figured I could share a few thoughts.

Plot spoilers follow, so read at your own risk.

Overall impression: 3.7 out of 5

How did we get to this point?

Every Spider-Man movie has seemed to have a strong overarching question at its core that the story tries to solve. The first was simple: What would happen if a geeky kid got superpowers? It really just covers the initial stage of learning why such powers must be used responsibly (a difficult lesson in Peter’s case) and the idea of heroic self-sacrifice as crucial.

The second film expands on these ideas and stabilizes them. In the first film Peter accepted that there must be consequences and trade-offs, but in the second he’s taken this to an extreme to the point where everything’s coming apart around him. The idea here is to show how a superhero must strike a healthy compromise between his heroic duties, friends, family, love life, and his own personal needs. It’s no good to be a selfless lonely champion if you burn yourself out. By the end of the movie Peter seems to have learned this lesson well, which leads us into Spider-Man 3, which might as well be called a psychological drama.

When SM3 opens, it’s immediately obvious that Peter has reached a point of balance between his normal and heroic lives that was not present in the first two films. He’s happy and fulfilled and doing quite well in his relationship with Mary Jane. His movements and fighting style are smoother, more intricate, and more complex: he’s learned a lot since the first movie, and he’s finally starting to really resemble the capable hero we comic-book fans are on such good terms with.

Where are we, exactly?

And that’s actually the problem: things are going too well for him. In the continuity of the movies, from the death of his uncle to this point Peter has never really lost a fight. He’s managed to save his aunt and MJ every time they were threatened, and things have generally gone his way.

This has led him to have one trait his comic-book counterpart (who seems to suffer one personal disaster after another) does not. He’s just a bit too proud, and a bit too arrogant and overconfident. He’s a great hero, to be sure, but I think it’s important to remember that true heroes will never give themselves that label. This movie, I think, is concerned with the final bit of Peter’s metamorphosis into a more complete Spider-Man: the realization that he is not always right or infallible, that he will make mistakes and terrible things will happen, and he will have to learn to forgive both himself and those who’ve wronged him, and acknowledge those he himself has wrong. It is, in short, a critical and necessary re-affirmation of his humanity.

Yet, one does not simply wake-up and realize they have lost touch with their human side. For this to happen Peter must be brought very low, and this explains the movie’s dark tone. Events, some his own making and some not, systematically combine to tear his happy life to shreds, and Peter is too out of touch with himself and those around him to recognize the dangers, instead allowing himself to descend into his own darkness. This movie is as much about the fight between Peter and his inner demons as it is about Spidey and his latest rogues, and neither fight is very pretty. The tone is dark as pitch in places, and if you’re anything like me you’ll be sitting there trying to mentally convince our hero not to travel down his current path. Even the moment in which he comes back to the light is painful, as its set in motion by a rather shocking, painful-to-watch event. But he does, and in the end a more stable, humble hero emerges.

Diamonds in the Rough

As usual for Spidey movies, this one is made by the minor characters that help compose Peter’s universe. Parker’s landlord and his daughter stuck out particuarly in my mind. She’s actually one of my top five favorite characters at this point, and she can’t have spoken more than 1000 words in the last three films. JJ Jameson is continuing to be developed as a grey, nicer-than-he-wants-to-admit character, as opposed to the one-dimensional jerk he’s so often presented as in other mediums (especially the Spider-Man animated series). I really like that. Eddie Brock (Venom) is delightfully unsympathetic and smarmy even before he becomes completely evil, and his attempts to compete professionally with Peter provide some very interesting moments. After seeing the movie, I really like the Sandman, who I wasn’t familiar with before I saw the film. I had read some other reviews that painted him as too simplistic and flat, but I don’t think that’s it at all. He is, indeed, a simple man–not the larger than life characters we’re used to after seeing Doc Ock, Harry, and the Green Goblin–with a simple, laudable mission. Given the effect he has on Peter and vice-versa, he’s arguably one of the most important characters in any of the three films. Harry Osborne is believable both as evil incarnate and penitent hero. Without these interesting characters to blunt the impact, watching Peter struggle with his own darkness might have been too overpowering. May Parker was her usual powerful, understated self, and as usual we didn’t see nearly enough of her.

Visuals and Effects

As usual, these were all stunning. Things in Peter’s New York were bright and alive and just seemed to jump off the screen…except for when they needed to be moody and dark. Then they left you feeling like there was a cloud hanging over the theatre. The soundtrack is likewise excellent.

Negatives

The ending is rather abrupt, and leaves the status of Peter and MJ’s relationship somewhat vague. As usual, the writers killed off a character or two that I didn’t think really needed to die. At this point I want a Spider-Man 4 not for the sake of itself, but because I feel there are a few loose ends that really, really need to be tied up. This would be a terrible movie to end the franchise on. Harry Osborne’s character was also sadly underused. I would have liked to have seen more of him, and I’m not at all pleased with his role in the finale. He’s essentially written out of any future sequels at this point, which is a shame when his character obviously had so much potential.

Worth seeing?

If you’re a Spider-Man fan, the answer is a definite yes. The Harry Osborne stuff alone is worth the price of admission, as the path taken with him is quite different from the one in comic book canon. As I said above, it’s a different sort of Spidey movie, so it’ll be a different experience than the first two. The tone is significantly darker, the violence more brutal, and some of the things Peter does while under the influence of the Venom symbiote are more than slightly questionable–there was more than one spot where I cringed–and it’s a bit slower paced. If you’re considering taking a little one to see this film, think carefully about it. The PG-13 rating is well deserved, and it’s closer to R than PG, in my opinion. If you think your child is too young to see violence that leaves physical scars or excessive brutality, or people with serious relationship issues, this probably is not the film for them.

[tags]spider-man, spider man, spiderman, spider-man 3, spiderman 3, spider man 3, review, movie review[/tags]

Share This

Sexism in Comics: The Mary Jane Watson Statue

Published
by
John T Davis
on May 17, 2007
in comics, current events and rant
. 0 Comments

Edited 13 March 2008 12:25 CDT: Noticed some strange grammar errors/missing words on my local copy and wanted to make sure they weren’t present on the net.

I’ve been aware of (and disgusted by) this Mary Jane “Comiquette” for about a week, and meaning to post on it, but I kept putting it off. I’m not including the actual image in this post because looking at it for more than 30 seconds makes me cringe and more than a little angry. Aside from that, it’s just not something I want displayed on a site that amounts to my primary presence on the entire Internet.

Fandom seemed to be doing an excellent job of vocalizing our collective outrage. As a warning, some of the links on that page lead to pages written by very pissed-off, if not highly eloquent people, so there might be a spot of profanity. I link to it not because I want ya’ll to read all of it, but because I want you to get an idea of how many people are talking about this across the comics-oriented part of the blogosphere. At first, I didn’t feel I really needed to add to the discussion, as so many eloquent people, some of whom I have the honor to know at least tangentially, had taken up the challenge with wit, intelligence, and well thought out critiques. If you’re not into comics but want to know what all the fuss is about, I’d suggest this short entry from one of the founders of Girl-Wonder, a network of sites dedicated to the positive, empowered depiction of women and girls in the comic industry.

But as the week went on, I thought more about it, and came up with some things about this that bother me that aren’t being mentioned anywhere else (that I’ve seen) or that I’d like to expound on. Then, I turned on MSNBC this morning and saw that the whole thing had finally hit the news–I first saw it at 11:25AM CST, and it’s been repeated several times throughout the day. One of the “experts” they had on, a comic book store owner, basically said the statue was okay because it was a) a very expensive statue aimed at adults and b) corresponded to Mary Jane’s current self-image, as she’s a supermodel/actress. So, apparently, according to this guy, it’s okay so long as children don’t see it, and also, for those of us who didn’t know, Mary Jane’s self-image is not that of a Vogue-class model and Broadway actress, but is somewhere closer to stereotypical hypersexualized trailer trash, which is all you can logically take away from this statue without a certain measure of delusion coming into play. Given the fact that Spider Man and Mary Jane are the Marvel equivilent of Superman and Lois Lane, this is an absolutely terrible excuse.

Needless to say, my anger, which had boiled down to exasperation, was re-ignited, and I’m writing this as a catharsis as much as anything else.

Why This is Important to Me

There are a few reasons why I’m taking the time to write all this. Most immediately, the statue doesn’t represent the character of Mary Jane I’ve come to appreciate as a Spider-Man fan. For that matter, I can’t imagine Peter ever expecting her to dress that way. Secondly, this is symptomatic of the larger sexism and mysogny in the comic book industry. There’s a reason I feel slightly embarrassed about being comic aficionado, and it has nothing to do with the stories and everything to do with the fact that this sort of display is entirely too common and I’d rather not have to deal with people looking at me like I’m reading porn when I happen to be caught with an issue of … anything. This statue just happens to be so egregious in its offense that it managed to make the national news. Still, it provides an opportunity to express dissatisfaction with this sort of behavior, as many of its flaws (e.g.: dumping logic and established characterization for the sake of hypersexualization) are endemic of the industry at large. I’m not sure what the solution is, as money talks and too many people are willing to buy this sort of trash for the content creators to be fiscally motivated to commit to positive change, but I do know that spreading awareness must be part of that solution.

One of the big justifications I frequently see for this sort of hypersexuality is the assertion that comic book women aren’t real, so whatever’s done to them or however they’re dressed doesn’t matter. But the thing is, comic books, movies, and television are pervasive enough that they may influence how (some, especially younger) readers perceive reality and expect it to be. In this context, I do not believe I need to explain why this statue sends an undesirable message. Those that argue it’s for adults not children don’t seem to realize that if a young person were to see this in an adult’s collection–and make no mistake, at 130 bucks this thing is meant to be displayed–they would assume it was an acceptable thing to have around. That’s not a message I think anyone should even potentially be sending. You could argue that the solution is to not let kids see the thing (or anything like it) but if it’s not something you want a child to see because it’s inappropriate, what exactly is it you’re selling if not a sexually exploitive piece?

SquirrelGirl.jpg
Let me make a quick inductive comparison. The person on the left there is Doreen Green, otherwise known as Squirrel Girl. She’s one of my favorite (and also sadly underused) teenage superheroes, and happens to be 15 or 16 years old–it’s hard to be exactly sure with comics. Now, with her age in mind, try to picture her in a pose similar the one presented in the Mary Jane statue. You’re likely left with some level of unease and distaste. Why, if according to the manufacturer there’s nothing wrong with this sort of thing? It’s inappropriate because of her age, which can only be the case if it’s an explicitly sexualized pose, even if it’s not necessarily pornography. The Mary Jane statue is therefore not simply aimed at adult consumers in terms of price range, as the manufacturer suggests, but deals with adult subject matter, and should be either acknowledged as such, or preferably not sold at all. It should not be represented as the mainstream view of this character, as this gives a wrong impression not only of the comics but of those of us who read them that find this sort of thing offensive.

That’s pretty much my argument in a nutshell. There are some individual points I want to address for those interested, but I am aware that not everyone will want to read more about this, as what follows will be a closer examination of the incongruities of the statue itself and the coverage it’s received in the news, so I’m placing the rest of this entry under a cut.

[tags]comics, comic books, spider-man, spider man, mary jane, mary jane watson, statue, sexism, misogyny, marvel, msnbc, news media, statuette, Sideshow Collectibles, squirrel girl, censorship[/tags]

Continue reading ‘Sexism in Comics: The Mary Jane Watson Statue’

Share This

Stephen King is awesome.

Published
by
John T Davis
on June 5, 2006
in comics
. 0 Comments

In October 2005, King has signed up with Marvel Comics; this will be his first time writing original material for the comic book medium other than two pages in a benefit comic for African hunger relief in the 1980s. The 31 issue series will see him adapting and expanding his The Dark Tower series. The series will be illustrated by Eisner Award-winning artist Jae Lee. Marvel recently announced the series was delayed until 2007 in order for King to give it the attention it deserves.

 

Stephen King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Stephen King is doing a comic book series. I am beyond words.

technorati tags:

Share This

Friday Night Highlights.

Published
by
John T Davis
on May 26, 2006
in comics, medical, movies and university
. 0 Comments

“There’s a bald guy in a wheelchair waiting outside the delivery room to talk to you.”
-One of the Signs Your Baby Might Be a Mutant, from TopFive.com.

Figured I’d start with something to honor the release of X-Men 3: The Last Stand. The comic geek part of me is insisting that in the majority of all cases (primarily first generation mutants), the X-Gene doesn’t activate until the onset of puberty*.

At the same time, a good number of second-generation mutants were born with some, if not all, of their powers. Nightcrawler (Kurt Wagner) being the primary example people should be familiar with from X2.

At any rate, I’ll not be going to see the movie for a week at least. I really want to see it, of course, but my wish to not to die in a stampede of X-fans at the threatre outweighs my desire. For now.

I feel like I aced the Astronomy final. Gonna attack the paper tomorrow.

Phasers on stun. Good luck. Liquid Engineer, out.


* I can remember scads of random trivia like this, but for the life of me I never could get trig functions and the like to nest in my long-term memory. Oh well. At least I know Wolverine’s approximate upper strength limit (800 pounds, comparable with mainstream Captain America), and the current Phantom, active since 1930 (and still in his mid-thirties … gotta love how people age in comics), is the twenty-first.

I mean, that’s useful information. Right?

Share This

Close
E-mail It