WTF Wednesday: Every little thing he does is magic

From now on, I'm entering every room just like this.

Panel from Deathmate: Blue (#2)
Joe St. Pierre, writer; Sean Chen, penciller; Kathryn Bolinger, inker

Cover up: Brigade #1 (and a contest!)

Generally speaking, I try to keep things positive around here. Oh, that doesn't mean I avoid being critical — it just means I don't go out of my way to be a jerk about it. For the most part, I'd rather spend my energy talking about something I enjoy than flail around and alternate between crying at the top of my lungs or holding my breath until someone hands me a pacifier. Even though, as they say on Dagobah, hatin' is easy.

But when you come across Brigade #1 in your longbox, you gotta talk about that shit.

I must've blocked it out, because I was pretty surprised when I was flipping through my old issues and came across this stepchild:

Look, I know picking on Rob Liefeld isn't exactly original, but look at this thing. I mean, what the hell? OK, let's begin with a caveat: This cover (for a comic created, co-plotted and partially scripted by Liefeld himself) is from early in the Image poster-boy's career. At the time, Image was known for style more than substance, as well as a certain "look" that meant lots of gritted teeth, incomprehensible armor, endless pouches and as much cross-hatching as the page could handle. Oh, and characters that were suspiciously similar to other, already-popular characters from other companies (I'm surprised they didn't just introduce someone called "Molverine").

Liefeld had a lot to do with establishing the Image look, and what did it get us? Primarily an incredibly static cover, which isn't just missing a background but doesn't even have a background color. Aggravating this blanket of nothingness is a primary focus that is lost in the non-background because the character is colored almost completely in white and gray! What detail there is fades as we go from head to ... feet? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, witness the artist's famous fear of drawing anything below the ankle as our character seems to gently sink into the shapeless lump beneath him.

Speaking of lumps, let's talk about the floating heads. Now, the floating head thing has a long and distinguished past in the history of comic book covers. But these — they're just boring. Being ugly on top of that doesn't help. With the exception of the guy at top-right, there's virtually no character design and, like a sticker book, they faces look as if you could mismatch the hair and glasses until you came up with a combination you could laugh at with your friends.

Part of what's annoying about this cover — and covers like it — isn't so much the bad art. No, really. What annoys me most is the idea that it's just lazy. It looks like a half-done afterthought, where all the men are the same from the nose down (except for the big guy, who just came back from a cleaning at the dentist's) and the women have the same hair. (The big difference? Their bangs; except for the guy at the bottom-left, who has almost the same hair as the woman on the right). And I know I'm nitpicking now, and I know it's supposed to look as if the women have moist, voluptuous lips, but every time I look at them I think they're sticking their tongues out at me, as if to say, "Nyaaah! You own this comic now!"

Ugh, I could go on — from the gratutiously dripping fist to the muttonchops to the braided mullet — but I think I might snap because the more you look at it, the more questions you have. What's with the white spot on his leg? Where's his waist?

And most importantly: WHO WOULD WANT TO WIN THIS COVER?!

Phew. OK. I think I got that out of my system.

In spite of my descent into madness, you might've noticed I carefully avoided mentioning the names of any of the characters featured on this cover. There's a good reason for this; I want you to do it. As a matter of fact, I'll give this comic to the first person to correctly name all of the characters (no fair using Google, cheater); if more than one person gets it right, a "winner" will be picked at random. That's right; you could:

WIN THIS COVER!!

There's a bit of water damage at the bottom of the comic, but believe me, it doesn't make it any worse. So let's see some entries in the comments. Go on — I dare ya.

Like 'A Christmas Carol,' but with Hulks

So I get back from my trip and come across this:

"The holiday season is here and what better way to celebrate it than with the Incredible Hulk and Rampaging Rulk? Marvel is proud to unveil both Hulk #9 Santa Hulk Variant covers, illustrated by superstar artist Ed McGuinness, so you can celebrate with the stars of 2008’s hottest ongoing series! Written by Eisner-Winning, Emmy-Winning scribe Jeph Loeb and with art by superstars Frank Cho and Art Adams, including 50/50 variant covers from each artist, you get two incredible stories—one starring Rulk and another starring… WENDIHULK!? (or is it HULKDIGO!?)"

Congratulations, Marvel: I officially want to punch you in the balls. I know you've been calling the Red Hulk "Rulk," but you're actually planning to go with that? Seriously? I don't necessarily expect high literature from my Hulk comics, but "Rulk?!" (I just noticed the stocking — argh!)

And is it just me, or does it seem as if we're reaching a tipping point on the variant covers thing? Have we learned nothing? Am I going to end up on a beach shaking my fist at a giant statue of Ripclaw?!

... Hulkdigo ... eesh ...

Another verse of the low-sales blues: DC cancels Blue Beetle

Thanks to Scott over at Hero Sandwich, I just heard the news that Blue Beetle — which labored for almost three years under the burden of consistently low sales — has been canceled.

As a fan of Blue Beetle I'm disappointed, and a bit frustrated. From the beginning the title has been a comic that was critically acclaimed, but for some reason just couldn't find a larger audience. It's a shame, because Blue Beetle could be counted as a successful reboot of a legacy character, bringing in completely different aspects while maintaining (and in some cases, even strengthening) ties to what came before.

Jaime Reyes was something new, but still comfortably familiar. A young Latino from El Paso, Texas, Jaime was thrust into the DCU community of superheroes, suddenly gifted with enormous power he didn't know what to do with. Watching him struggle, then learn, then begin growing into the hero he could be, was part of the fun. I saw Blue Beetle compared to early Spider-Man more than once, and that's not far off.

Blue Beetle was also rare in that it featured a nearly fully-formed supporting cast. Best friends, eventually a cool girlfriend, and most importantly family, were essential parts of what made Jaime Reyes an interesting character. You couldn't think of this Blue Beetle without thinking of the people around him, and you ended up caring about all of them because the book was about all of them. This Blue Beetle did not stand alone.

Obviously, I'm sorry to see this title go. Like Manhunter (and Robin, Nightwing and Birds of Prey), the pieces have been put in place so the characters can be folded into other books. I'd guess Blue Beetle will make more regular appearances with the Titans somehow, and will otherwise be popping up here and there in the DCU. But it won't be the same — Blue Beetle needed its own book in order to have its own voice.

It would be easy to point an indignant finger at the big, bad corporate overlords, but I really can't blame DC for the cancellation. And you certainly can't blame the various writers and artists who have worked on the book. I blame the readers.

As a community, we always complain there aren't enough quality books out there. But when a good title deserving of our support hits the stands, we're often nowhere to be found. Actually, there is a way to find us — just look for the latest poorly thought-out crossover event or one of a dozen books whose titles start with "X-." We get the books we deserve, and we lose the ones we neglect. We can't be surprised when a comic dies after we've starved it.

No, in the case of Blue Beetle (and unlike the on-again, off-again Manhunter), DC gave the title a fair chance. It's a shame more readers couldn't do the same.

Friday Night Fights: Long live Manhunter!

As most of you probably know, Manhunter has been canceled — again. Since this is the third time this excellent superhero comic has gotten the ax, it's unlikely it will be given another chance at finding a bigger readership once it wraps up with issue #38, and that's a shame.

Manhunter has consistently been one of the best comics out there, blending spandex-clad heroics with characterizations that gave its fans people who were noble, flawed, often strong, sometimes weak, but always, always, always real. The fact that this title won't be on the stands anymore is a loss for the comics community as a whole — not just its fan-base, much less for its publisher, DC.

It'd be easy to say Manhunter obviously just couldn't cut it. If it was good enough, it would have found its readers, right? Normally I'd agree, but it's also pretty common for critically acclaimed comics to have next to no readership; smart companies give those titles a chance to build one. And DC did Manhunter no favors by canceling the book over and over. Without a consistent presence on the stands, and a possible stigma as "that book nobody liked" (why else would it be canceled, right?), the creators were fighting an uphill battle.

I only hope writer Marc Andreyko — as well as the artists who have worked on the title, from first penciller Jesus Saiz to current artist Michael Gaydos — realize it wasn't their fault Manhunter didn't make it. They just made a better book than DC deserved.

Oh, and did I mention that Kate Spencer — in addition to being a smart, strong superhero, single mom and top-level attorney — is kind of a bad-ass?


Bahlactus knows what I'm talkin' about.

Following a link? Read more Great Caesar's Post here!

Panels from Manhunter #34
Marc Andreyko, writer; Michael Gaydos, artist

Prediction: The Spirit is gonna blow

Frank Miller's Sin City-fication of The Spirit for the big screen seems to be rolling right along, and in what passes for the usual with Miller, the latest movie poster isn't very subtle about it.

On his production blog, Miller has gone on about how his movie is going to be an updated extension of what he knows was Spirit creator Will Eisner's intent. Well, guess what? I may not have been mentored by the comic book legend, but I'm pretty sure he never intended to portray all women as hard-edged hookers. Or just, y'know, slutty.

Don't get me wrong — I'm all for the beautiful women. Hell, the more, the better. But Eisner's stories were never about the awesome-cool bad-ass from Monochrome City and his loyal army of whores; they were about people being people just like anyone else, for better or worse.

I don't think Frank Miller — or anyone else — should just mindlessly ape Eisner's style, or even sensibility. But don't strip-mine someone else's well-established work just to stroke your own ego (or whatever) and leech it of all the things that made it popular and unique in the first place. Especially if you're going to do it in a way that panders to the worst stereotypes about the comic book community at large.

Hey, you hear that? That's the sound of all the goodwill comics (and their fans) got from Iron Man being flushed down the toilet.

Kirby and The New Yorker's familiar Tale

Plagiarism is nothing new in the world of publishing, and we all know that comic creators not getting their due is an original sin as old as the industry itself. But if you're going to rip someone off at least have the smarts not to ape someone as well-known as JACK FREAKIN' KIRBY!

According to the New York Post, a cartoon published in The New Yorker for its Cartoon Caption Contest wasn't meant to be a rip-off, even though it looks like a straight lift from 1962's Tales to Astonish #34. After contacting artist Harry Bliss, the magazine says the image was supposed to be a "tribute" to the original — and iconic — "Monster at My Window" cover by Jack Kirby and Dick Ayers.

The magazine is trying to fix things by having the Web site credit updated to read, "Drawing by Harry Bliss, after Jack Kirby," and normally this wouldn't bother me all that much — people try their hand at referencing Kirby all the time, with varying degrees of success.

But there are a couple of things that bug me about this episode. First, Bliss' image goes beyond a simple reference or mimicking of style. The monster, the background, practically the same guy in the window — there is nothing original about it. Secondly, this quote from the New Yorker spokesperson jumped out at me:

"Harry did it with all good intentions. He thought it was an overt reference, and not an attempt to plagiarize. He thought it was a tribute," Cassanos said. "To people in the comic world, it's a recognizable image."

Sure, comic book fans and people in the industry would recognize the reference (or at the very least, the style), but what about all the other people who read The New Yorker who aren't comic book fans? The majority of whom, I would guess, are not hardcore comics geeks. It seems a little disingenuous of the magazine to offer up the pretense that the average New Yorker reader would instantly realize the image was based on someone else's original work. Generally speaking, it is an "overt reference," but that doesn't necessarily make it a "recognizable image."

I don't think Bliss composed his cartoon with any malicious intent — but if he's enough of a fan to draw something as an homage to Jack Kirby, he should also have enough respect to give him the credit he deserves.

What do you think?

Panels taken from the New York Post Web site

Justice for Jerry Siegel

If you've followed comics at all, or have ever looked into the issue of creator's rights, you probably know the notorious story of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Siegel and Shuster aren't as well known as their creation, but in 1938 the writer and artist saw their character, Superman, hit the streets in the pages of Action Comics #1. And like a lot of artists of the time — whether they were authors, composers or almost any other creative-type at the time — they were screwed. Losing their rights to Superman left the men with $130 bucks and a job working on a character that was no longer theirs. For a long time, they didn't even get credit for coming up with the idea at all.

Finally, that changed a bit recently when a judged ruled that Jerry Siegel's estate should be given half of the copyright to the original 1938 story. It's a little complicated, and Dirk Deppey sums it up much better than I could, but here's what I understood of it:

• The copyright given back to the estate is pretty narrow, and character developments that have happened since will still have to be hashed out, but the basic defining characteristics of the Superman character have been acknowledged as being created by Siegel and Shuster.

• Since Siegel and Shuster created Superman before taking it to Detective Comics, it doesn't come under the work-for-hire rules. In other words, DC doesn't have a right to the original character, the creators do. Whoops!

• The Shuster estate will be able to file for the same reversion rights in 2013, which if I understand this correctly means Siegel and Shuster could have full ownership of the original Superman concept (along with all things "Superman," such as Lois, Jimmy, Perry, Lex and the Daily Planet) sometime after the next five years.

As Dirk mentioned in his column (other items might be NSFW), this won't really change how DC uses Superman in their comics and merchandising. But it does mean the men who created the character — a character so iconic that just his symbol is recognized around the world — will finally get the official credit they deserve, and their estates will get a piece of the financial pie DC has fattened itself on for 70 years.

Think about that — 70 years. That's a long time to wait for what should have been yours in the first place. At the risk of being corny, I just want to say congratulations to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, wherever they are — and thanks.


Panels from Action Comics #1
Jerry Siegel, writer; Joe Shuster, artist

Marvel: Redefining 'essential'

Really, Marvel? Essential Dazzler Vol. 1? Seriously?

Giving up the Ghost

Ghost Rider, the latest in an apparently now-trendy line of superhero movies, is due to open Feb 16 and I have to tell you ... I'm pretty excited.

Ha! I kid! Actually, I can't stay far enough away from what already looks like a terrible movie that somehow manages to completely miss the core mechanics of what makes the character work (mostly) in comics.

Truthfully, it makes me a little sad. I remember watching a Spider-Man TV series that was awful - the webbing looked like clothesline and the eye-lenses could have been made from a colander - and I loved it. I own the Roger Corman version of The Fantastic Four, for the love of Aunt Petunia!

I'm an enormous fan of the Spider-Man movies, too, and I thought Superman Returns was everything it should have been.

But I've only seen the first X-Men movie. I haven't seen Hulk (though I loved the show). I haven't seen Fantastic Four (and I'm not really convinced I need to see Rise of the Silver Surfer). I haven't seen Daredevil. I haven't seen Elektra.

And I'm not going to see Ghost Rider.

Which brings me to a question: Why not? What is it that makes some movies - even the "bad" ones - so much fun to watch?

What makes a superhero movie good?

Trouble on Paradise Island

You know what's wrong with Hollywood? You know what's wrong with the current crop of "actors/singers/celebrity A-holes" that are seemingly armed with everything but talent? I'll tell you what the problem is:

Lohan the one for “Wonder Woman”?

Although no talks have even begun, Lindsay Lohan thinks playing the role of Wonder Woman in the upcoming feature would be “cool.”

By Mark Umbach, FilmStew.com

Everybody is wondering which woman will be Wonder Woman. If it were up to starlet Lindsay Lohan, she says she’d take the pilot’s seat in the invisible jet in a heartbeat.

“Buffy the Vampire Slayer” vet Joss Whedon is currently developing a feature film based on the comic book superheroine for Warner Bros. Pictures. While Lohan admits that she’s currently looking for roles outside her current milieu of teen and kiddie films, she thinks playing Diana Prince would be too cool.

“Wonder Woman would be cool. I’m trying to find roles right now that are different to anything I’ve done to show my abilities, to show that I have some sort of stretch in me. Because most of the things that I’ve done so far are aimed at younger girls and are light-hearted,” she recently told OK! magazine.

Oh, hell no! No, no, no! I can't even begin to describe all the ways this is a bad idea. The only thing that keeps me from wrapping a mylar bag around my head is the fact Joss Whedon has been pretty clear that he wants someone statuesque, a warrior-woman, a goddamn AMAZON! That is not Lohan. Hey, while we're at it, why don't we cast Clay Aiken as Batman?

You just know there's some jerk somewhere who's actually considering this. I imagine a boardroom full of execs muttering "Synergy, synergy, crossover" while flapping copies of "Teen People" at each other.

There are certain things you need to make a character come alive. Look, it's simple:

Right














Wrong










Yes!























Great Hera, no!!