Why aren't there more Black supervillains? [Archive]

Imaginos666

06-11-2009, 07:59 AM

Most people aren't aware of how profound the social barriers are in America. Racism — or any kind of xenophobia —*is really nothing more than a reflection of a person's own limited experience in life (which is a polite way of saying "ignorance," I guess.)

I don't think Marvel/DC's limited number of black characters is a symbol of overt racism. It's a reflection of creators' hesitation to put their own ignorance on public display. This kind of experience needed to write an "authentic" character isn't the kind of thing you can learn from a library book. And no matter what you do, readers will be lining up to second-guess your motivation, anyway, because everyone will define "authentic" using their own limited collection of experiences.

As for black villains that transcended fictional stereotypes, how about Spawn and Chapel? Spawn might qualify for that nebulous "anti-hero" definition, but I don't recall race every being a factor for these characters (which was about the only thing I admired about those otherwise wretched comics.)

Imaginos666

06-11-2009, 08:05 AM

More non-black blacks as villains:

Nekra, who was African-American albino (Mandrill started out as a Caucasian with African features, until he mutated further into a KKK'ers nightmare; if Gerber were still alive, I'd ask if that was his intent).

Mr. Bones (who started out as a villain) who was quite surprised to find out he was African American, as his skin and blood were transparent.

Black Manta, sort of, as he wore a full body suit and helmet.

I think Thunderball of the Wrecking Crew qualifies as the first black supervillain where his complexion and ancestry was irrelevant to his character; anybody have an earlier example?

Black Manta was still a racial supremacist (he wanted to create an underwater world where blacks could live in freedom.) Still, I always liked that David Michelinie turned him into such a bloodthirsty character back in the '70s.

What's interesting is that Manta was later given another origin that falls in line with something else Steven wrote about this week. As a child, Manta was kidnapped by pirates where he was used as a slave —*and was sexually abused for years —*before winning his freedom. This is one of the only(?) cases I can think of in mainstream comics of a male being sexually assaulted by other males.

AoAMimic

06-11-2009, 09:17 AM

Sometimes the similarities are eerie between characters in superhero comics and professional wrestling. There's been a similar issue with characters in the squared circle. In comics, the characters are defined by their "blackness," and in wrestling, also a white male dominated industry, the nature of the character is similarly defined by location. It's almost a joke that every black wrestler comes from a) Harlem b) the Deep South or c) a foreign land known for having black people. On C, it doesn't have to be specific "the jungles of Africa" or "the islands of the Carribean."

Froggy

06-11-2009, 11:37 AM

i would LOVE to see some villain like ras kass

idk why but I have this idea of a dude dressed like him talking in midair and superman flies at him and he sticks his hand out and Supes stops

NatGertler

06-11-2009, 04:54 PM

This is one of the only(?) cases I can think of in mainstream comics of a male being sexually assaulted by other males.There's always this (http://www.postmodernbarney.com/2004/09/marvel-and-gay-characters-hulk.html).
Then there's the question of whether one considers League of Extrordinary Gentlemen to be "mainstream".

Nitz the Bloody

06-11-2009, 08:32 PM

There's always this.
Then there's the question of whether one considers League of Extrordinary Gentlemen to be "mainstream".

Same grounds as the raping of Herr Starr in Preacher; it's a bad guy who gets it as punishment for being a bad guy, so the rape is just cruel humor. I can't think of a storyline where a good-hearted man is raped and actually suffers post-traumatic stress from it.

Brenz

06-12-2009, 07:54 AM

Dethlok: a black hero whose race is unimportant, but also a black hero stripped of his race.

Good? Bad?

bartl

06-12-2009, 09:42 AM

Dethlok: a black hero whose race is unimportant, but also a black hero stripped of his race.

Good? Bad?
I'm kind of indifferent.

comicsmetal

06-13-2009, 01:40 PM

I think you do not see more black Supervillans or superheros is:
1.Marvel and DC do not want the racist card
2.Not that many blacks read comics as I have seen in the comic shop most of them are all white(I do see few black in the shop.)

bartl

06-13-2009, 06:13 PM

comicsmetal

06-13-2009, 06:24 PM

Most of the blacks you see in the comic shop are all white?

Watch out for zebra crossings....

Sorry for my bad sentence structure but there are not many black people in the comic book store.The average audience who read comics are white male so you are going to see a bundle of white characters then black.

zebop

06-13-2009, 08:34 PM

I've been a Black male reading comics for over 40 years and I don't think the problem is so much a lack of Black supervillains or superheroes as there is a lack of Black writers, artists and editors at Marvel, DC and in the comics industry as a whole.

Give Black fans of comics something that reflects them and both their fantasies and realities and I think they will support well-made comics with Black super heroes and villians. So will White fans, because at the end of the day nobody wants to waste their money on a crappy comic book.

I haven't read Mr. Moore's article yet, but I don't so much worry so much that Erik Kilmonger isn't taken as seriously as Victor Von Doom. If someone was interested in rebooting the character, yeah maybe he could become a Fantastic Four level threat, but right now there's no interest.

To Mr. Grant's other point about how under work-for-hire, nothing is sacred about any character except a major one. You can take a lame-o like Dr. Light and one day he's a professional punching bag and the next he's a remorseless rapist. Progress?

I've always thought that only a handful of writers truly "get" Thanos and nobody better than Jim Starlin. So when Mark Waid had Thanos chasing after Ka-Zar like a Road Runnner/Coyote cartoon or Dan Jurgens using Thanos badly in a Thor arc, along comes Starlin on one of his Infinity mini-series telling Warlock, those were misbehaving "robots" in those stories.

But it's the nature of the beast and every writer who has an interesting or different take on a character knows another writer can come along with the blessing of management and wipe it all away like it never happened.

Dennis

06-14-2009, 12:14 AM

I think only white guys can look good wearing brightly colored tights.

Chewbacca

06-15-2009, 12:36 AM

section 8

06-15-2009, 12:49 AM

bartl

06-15-2009, 08:05 AM

They didn't make a big deal of it, but wasn't Lex Luthor black in the Superman cartoons of the 90's?

I liked that. Also Two-Face was black in the cartoons after the 1989 movie.

Obviuosly not a case of making up new black villains, but they seemed to be some indication that progress of a sort was being made.

(Along the same lines, Catwoman was black for a while in the 60s show.)
IIRC, Eartha Kitt played the role as a lark; then, due to her controversial opinions on the Viet Nam war, her popularity went down the tubes, and it was because of the numerous Batman repeats that she kept in the public eye, and, when Viet Nam became a memory, her career was revived.

Billy Dee Williams was originally pegged to play Two-Face; frankly, Tommy Lee Jones was not a physical fit for a part where the physicality of the character was key.

bartl

06-15-2009, 08:06 AM

Isn't Marvel's Tombstone also an African American Albino?
Grant brought it up in his column.

rickshaw1

06-15-2009, 02:06 PM

For once, I agree with Steven, and will go even farther.

In comics, you will not get true equality among diverse racial characters UNTIL you get supervillians that are as great as caucasians. And that will never be because of the racial climate in the US.

For true greatness, there has to be the ability for a character to be just as good, or bad, as the next. In a climate of a racially charged atmosphere, the comic companies will not just protect the characters or not, but the companies image as well. Milestone is a perfect example. The owners and creators were not a majority caucasian, so it was acceptable for them to have multicultural/race heros and villians. DC has a corporate image to maintain, and it is not the sole responsibility of one person to watch over. Therefore, corporate think takes over. Any kind of controversy makes their tummies hurt. It might draw the "wrong kind of attention" to an individual that okays that kind of character, and possibly slow their career progression.

But, for a truly great bad guy to come along that isn't lily white, then several things must fall into place.

First, the character must be interesting. Magneto was at first a bombastic jerk with great power and an interesting look. His look wasn't specifically "white", it was just a look. Given the sheer amount of characters out there, it is getting harder and harder to come up with interesting looks that are relevant to the character and not just cookie cutter, as well as being that much harder to find an unused name.

Second, there are great writers, and there are hack writers. Great writers will come up with motivations that propel their characters. Hack writers will use the easiest fix, the easiest path to get a character from point a to point b. Hate to say it, but its far to simple to fall into the category of "character is black, therefore, he/she is angry. For years it seemed to me that every recurring black character on tv was a wise and loving grandmother, an angry black gang youth, or the dressed to the nines college professor. The cliche's were horrible. One of the first real breaks was the "buddy" character on the live action "Flash" tv show. He seemed like a normal guy, who happened to be black. Wow. It was very refreshing. The show itself varied in quality per episode in my young eyes, but it was cool that the cast wasn't sterling white.

and third, the characters need motivations that don't necessarily stem from their "race", but perversely, can come from them. And by that I mean that a character can be black, be young, and be angry, but if all they are there for is to BE young, black, and angry, then they will fail because they have no depth to them. Tony Isabella created Black Lightning. Now, the name, not so fond of. But the character itself was pretty good. This was a man whose motivation was clear, to give back and help his community. There was a bible on the character that was totally ignored by later writers (Winick), and a reason for being. He was young and black, but it wasn't his only reason for being. It certainly shaded his actions, his background, but his motivations were specific to the character, and not so cliched that the character was merely a stereotype.

That is why the Superman's Reign: Tangent maxi series was so much fun to me. Here was a character of immense power, that basically fit the mold of a superhero, yet went off the rails, not because he was black, but because he lost his way. Being black had nothing to do with his motivation.

I called for more diverse hero's and villain's for years at DC. Lately, we are getting characters like Michael Holt, Jakeem Williams, and others that happen to be not white, and they are great. But they will not achieve real greatness until they are afforded the respect of being allowed to be characters and people first, and not just racial cyphers.

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 02:39 PM

Grant brought it up in his column.

I did, since I've written Tombstone, and when I learned, while researching the character, that he was black, I was baffled. I mean, why? Aside from tying him in with black Bugle editor Robbie Robertson, who among Spidey bit players didn't have much in the way of backstory, and I thought tying Robbie into some sort of quasi-criminal past - which all black characters in comics seem to have, apparently none of them ever grew up in upper middle-class suburbs - wasn't an especially good idea, though I understand why it seems terribly undramatic to have middle-upper-middle class black characters with no memories of cross-burnings or crack dealers haunting their every waking moment and who didn't "rise above" their circumstances to become inspirations to us all. (And, to be fair, the idea has since extended to pretty much every white character having some sort of crime or sexual abuse/assault in their pasts, but all that really means is that there's no way to take a very bad idea too far.)

But still. A black guy who's the whitest guy on the planet. Good joke.

By the way, I believe you and others brought up Black Manta, but as I recall he was around for a few years before he ever took off his helmet to reveal he had black skin - seems to me that was a Steve Skeates innovation at the dawn of "relevant comics" but I might be wrong - or any motivation other than just plundering the seven seas for booty and getting revenge on Aquaman. So all that other stuff was tacked on after the fact, and it didn't help make him any better a villain than he had ever been, which was pretty much not. (The terrible costume didn't help; I love Nick Cardy's work but super-costume design wasn't his strong suit.)

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 03:00 PM

Tony Isabella created Black Lightning.

You know the origin of Black Lightning, right? DC had decided they needed a black superhero, and Robert Kanigher created one: the Black Bomber, whose gimmick was that he was a racist returning white Vietnam war veteran. Who at night - I presume it was some sort of sleep compulsion thing, ALA Rose & The Thorn - dressed in blackface and took to the streets to as a black revolutionary to aid his oppressed black brothers and sisters in their battle against The Man! Now Kanigher was no stranger to absolutely nutty ideas, and was certainly egotistical enough to think this was a work of genius, but he wasn't flat out stupid, so I tend to believe The Black Bomber was actually a work of revenge, since by the time of the character's creation he was being marginalized after over two decades of faithful service to the company, and the Black Bomber might have seemed a perfect opportunity to shiv DC in the ribs for putting him out to pasture as editor and cutting his workload as writer.

The powers that be up there certainly didn't see a problem with the work, until Tony was brought in to "polish it" for publication. Tony did have a clue, patiently explained why publishing THE BLACK BOMBER would bury the company, which was already hemorrhaging sales and would continue on that path as the '70s dragged on, and got permission to create a different black superhero who might indicate that DC was maybe sensitive to racial issues.

Right after Dwayne McDuffie got his recent abortive JLA assignment, I ended up at a show with him, and he told me about all the characters - you know, like the core Justice League - he had been forbidden to use in the book. But he figured he'd bring in as many black characters as DC had, since there appeared to be no obstacles to using them. In the midst of his list, I blurted, "Lois Lane!" (A famous late '70s Lois Lane story, also written by Kanigher, which may suggest either a favorite gimmick or an obsession, had Lois kinking up her hair and dying her skin black - her features otherwise didn't change - to discover what the reality of blacks in early '70s America was. Kanigher's "obsession" with black characters who were really disguised white characters may have just been a regurgitation of a ridiculously popular '50s western comics gimmick of a white man coloring his skin and hair and committing heroic deeds in Indian guise, Marvel's Apache Kid for instance.) Dwayne said he was considering looking into that possibility.

So I asked about the Black Bomber.

Dwayne was looking into that too, but didn't think it would happen. I would've loved to have seen what he'd do with that character, though.

- Grant

Dwayne McDuffie

06-15-2009, 03:32 PM

Right after Dwayne McDuffie got his recent abortive JLA assignment, I ended up at a show with him, and he told me about all the characters - you know, like the core Justice League - he had been forbidden to use in the book. But he figured he'd bring in as many black characters as DC had, since there appeared to be no obstacles to using them.
....

So I asked about the Black Bomber.

Dwayne was looking into that too, but didn't think it would happen. I would've loved to have seen what he'd do with that character, though.

- Grant

Not quite what happened. I infamously didn't get to choose any members of the team, but DC kept adding black characters to the roster during my run. I charitably assume they did this because no one cared about those characters and thus they were available, and not because I was the writer.

I don't remember our Black Bomber discussion, but it must have stuck, I actually ending up putting a version of him on an alternate universe Justice League during my brief run.

To the earlier point, the black characters I've written tend to be from varying backgrounds, my version of Deathlok was a suburban computer programmer. When I wrote Captain Marvel, she owned a financially-struggling shipping company. Static is a working class high school student. Rocket is probably on Food Stamps. Hardware is an upper middle class professional. Icon is stinking rich. It isn't any more difficult to write Blacks who aren't from the mythical 1970's Blaxploitation film ghetto than it is to write whites who aren't from wherever the Brady's lived.

My favorite villain ever is The Wire's Stringer Bell, a black drug lord created entirely by white writers (okay, actually it's Mel Profit from the old "Wiseguy" series, but that doesn't particularly help my argument. Forget I mentioned it).

Michael P

06-15-2009, 04:02 PM

You know the origin of Black Lightning, right? DC had decided they needed a black superhero, and Robert Kanigher created one: the Black Bomber, whose gimmick was that he was a racist returning white Vietnam war veteran. Who at night - I presume it was some sort of sleep compulsion thing, ALA Rose & The Thorn - dressed in blackface and took to the streets to as a black revolutionary to aid his oppressed black brothers and sisters in their battle against The Man! Now Kanigher was no stranger to absolutely nutty ideas, and was certainly egotistical enough to think this was a work of genius, but he wasn't flat out stupid, so I tend to believe The Black Bomber was actually a work of revenge, since by the time of the character's creation he was being marginalized after over two decades of faithful service to the company, and the Black Bomber might have seemed a perfect opportunity to shiv DC in the ribs for putting him out to pasture as editor and cutting his workload as writer.

As I heard Isabella tell it, BB actually turned into a black guy (something about experiments on soldiers to make them more stealthy in the jungle). And that there were not one, but two scenes where he saved a black person, changed back, and immediately became disgusted with what he'd done. And that his costume was essentially a basketball jersey.

Didn't know it was Kanigher who was behind it all, though. Still, this is my favorite comic story to tell non-comics people. Haven't had anyone not accuse me of making it up yet.

Paul McEnery

06-15-2009, 04:40 PM

As I heard Isabella tell it, BB actually turned into a black guy (something about experiments on soldiers to make them more stealthy in the jungle). And that there were not one, but two scenes where he saved a black person, changed back, and immediately became disgusted with what he'd done. And that his costume was essentially a basketball jersey.

Didn't know it was Kanigher who was behind it all, though. Still, this is my favorite comic story to tell non-comics people. Haven't had anyone not accuse me of making it up yet.

Honestly, I don't think it's that crazy of an idea. For a start, it's just riffing off a movie -- damn if I remember what it's called -- where some racist guy wakes up and finds he's turned black overnight.

And second, I think that's well entertaining and edgy. Surely it's time for Vertigo to pick up on this!

Dwayne McDuffie

06-15-2009, 04:57 PM

Honestly, I don't think it's that crazy of an idea. For a start, it's just riffing off a movie -- damn if I remember what it's called -- where some racist guy wakes up and finds he's turned black overnight.

And second, I think that's well entertaining and edgy. Surely it's time for Vertigo to pick up on this!

Watermelon Man. I always assumed it was a take on that movie, too.

Paul McEnery

06-15-2009, 05:00 PM

Watermelon Man. I always assumed it was a take on that movie, too.

How could I forget?

Wait, did Herbie Hancock do the music or something?

Thinks about saying the cruel thing. Decides not to.

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 05:02 PM

My favorite villain ever is The Wire's Stringer Bell, a black drug lord created entirely by white writers (okay, actually it's Mel Profit from the old "Wiseguy" series, but that doesn't particularly help my argument. Forget I mentioned it).

If a villain has to come in second to anybody, Mel Proffit's the one to come in second to. Still one of Spacey's only two great performances (the other being L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). And Stringer Bell may've been created entirely by white guys, but it was Idris Elba who made that character. 's funny, but the best characters on that show were all black: Stringer, Prop Joe, Lester Freeman, Lt. Daniels, Bunk, and especially Omar.

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 05:04 PM

As I heard Isabella tell it, BB actually turned into a black guy (something about experiments on soldiers to make them more stealthy in the jungle). And that there were not one, but two scenes where he saved a black person, changed back, and immediately became disgusted with what he'd done. And that his costume was essentially a basketball jersey.

I remember the basketball jersey, but was never quite sure of the mechanism by which he "turned black." Still amounted to blackface, whatever you called it. Also didn't recall whether the character recalled his transformations.

Didn't know it was Kanigher who was behind it all, though. Still, this is my favorite comic story to tell non-comics people. Haven't had anyone not accuse me of making it up yet.

Yeah, Kanigher's brainchild...

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 05:15 PM

Honestly, I don't think it's that crazy of an idea. For a start, it's just riffing off a movie -- damn if I remember what it's called -- where some racist guy wakes up and finds he's turned black overnight.

At least in that they could make a claim to social critique, since the "white guy" is Godfrey Cambridge and Melvin Van Peebles was the director, and they were both very much in on the joke, and had specific things they wanted to say involving race relations. I suspect had they starred, oh, Peter Boyle in the part, the contemporaneous response and how the film is remembered today would've been significantly different.

BLACK BOMBER did, essentially, star Peter Boyle...

And second, I think that's well entertaining and edgy. Surely it's time for Vertigo to pick up on this!

And today Vertigo might be able to do something with it, but conditions are considerably different and I suspect they'd still want, minimum, a black writer on it. You could take the concept well into satire and humor, but from everything I understand, the original version was played with deadly seriousness.

It occurs to me that DC might also have been reacting at the time to the cancellation of GREEN LANTERN/GREEN ARROW, which according to legend - no idea how true it is, but if it's true it may have been a factor - had its sales killed by the main distribution chain throughout the South refusing to carry the book following their "Black Lantern" issue, which gouged out a substantial portion of their sales. If this is true, the "white man who becomes a black man" bit might not have been entirely Kanigher's idea but a corporate notion for mollifying cranky racist distributors by being about to point out that the character isn't really black after all. But that's just speculation.

- Grant

Paul McEnery

06-15-2009, 05:17 PM

And today Vertigo might be able to do something with it,

Oh dear god no, please. It was a joke. A joke!

no, go on Dwayne, see if they'll go for it

Dwayne McDuffie

06-15-2009, 05:48 PM

If a villain has to come in second to anybody, Mel Proffit's the one to come in second to. Still one of Spacey's only two great performances (the other being L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). And Stringer Bell may've been created entirely by white guys, but it was Idris Elba who made that character. 's funny, but the best characters on that show were all black: Stringer, Prop Joe, Lester Freeman, Lt. Daniels, Bunk, and especially Omar.

- Grant

Omar's such a good character that I forgot he was a villain.

Dwayne McDuffie

06-15-2009, 05:55 PM

How could I forget?

Wait, did Herbie Hancock do the music or something?

I was thinking Mongo Santamaria, but now I think maybe you're right and I'm remembering a cover version?

Paul McEnery

06-15-2009, 06:36 PM

I was thinking Mongo Santamaria, but now I think maybe you're right and I'm remembering a cover version?

Our friends at Wikipedia say that the film nicked the title off of Herbie Hancock.

Which makes me wonder if they weren't having a crack at him.

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 09:15 PM

Oh dear god no, please. It was a joke. A joke!

Comics are a serious business, Paul, and your joke is someone else's great idea.

You know, like raising Jason Todd from the dead.

Be very careful what you joke about.

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 09:17 PM

Omar's such a good character that I forgot he was a villain.

He wasn't, really. He was a tweener. Great tweeners are even harder to create than great villains.

- Grant

bartl

06-15-2009, 09:49 PM

By the way, I believe you and others brought up Black Manta, but as I recall he was around for a few years before he ever took off his helmet to reveal he had black skin - seems to me that was a Steve Skeates innovation at the dawn of "relevant comics" but I might be wrong -
I did bring it up, and I DID know that his skin color was a major retcon, which was one of the reasons I called him a "non-black black supervillain". I should have been more detailed.

I'm going to look it up, but I believe that his skin color was post-"relevancy".... It was in 1977, and David Michelinie was the writer (Adventure 452 - Aquaman 57). A couple of years after the "relevancy" kick died down (comics historians might have dates in, but to me, by late 1974, it had already died down quite a bit).

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 10:24 PM

I'm going to look it up, but I believe that his skin color was post-"relevancy".... It was in 1977, and David Michelinie was the writer (Adventure 452 - Aquaman 57). A couple of years after the "relevancy" kick died down (comics historians might have dates in, but to me, by late 1974, it had already died down quite a bit).

Yeah, probably was David, just didn't remember it being that late. By my reckoning, the "relevancy" craze (and not just "relevance"...) launched with the first O'Neil-Adams issue of GREEN LANTERN-GREEN ARROW (there were other comics prior that fit the bill but that was the first comic that made "relevancy" a part of its marketing strategy) and died with the first issue of SHAZAM!, all "relevant" stories afterward being vestigial.

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-15-2009, 10:30 PM

As for black villains that transcended fictional stereotypes, how about Spawn and Chapel? Spawn might qualify for that nebulous "anti-hero" definition, but I don't recall race every being a factor for these characters (which was about the only thing I admired about those otherwise wretched comics.)

Todd was on Oprah once after he had an issue where KKK members lynched Spawn.

As for Chapel, the government assassin who murdered the guy who killed Spawn?

He's been forgiven by Obama...
http://www.akirathedon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obama-with-a-big-gun.jpg

Must be because they both like guns.

My apologies to the unsuspecting eyeballs wounded upon viewing of that image.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-15-2009, 10:38 PM

You know the origin of Black Lightning, right?

Is there a reason built into the character that he is still called 'Black Lightning' and not just 'Lightning'?

IT took Dwayne McDuffie one panel in Damage Control to change Black Goliath to Goliath...

In the midst of his list, I blurted, "Lois Lane!" (A famous late '70s Lois Lane story, also written by Kanigher, which may suggest either a favorite gimmick or an obsession, had Lois kinking up her hair and dying her skin black - her features otherwise didn't change - to discover what the reality of blacks in early '70s America was.

- Grant

She was curious black
http://wayneandwax.com/wp/images/LoisLaneBlack.jpg

There's a look at the issue here. (http://comicbooksrevisited.blogspot.com/2007/12/supermans-girlfriend-lois-lane-106-part.html)

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 11:32 PM

Is there a reason built into the character that he is still called 'Black Lightning' and not just 'Lightning'?

Um... 'cuz DC already owned the name Black Lightning? (Or, as I like to tease Tony, "You named DC's first black superhero after Johnny Thunder's horse?!!!") (Though, technically, Johnny Thunder isn't DC's first black superhero, only the first with his own comic.)

There's also a DC character named Lightning - half of some Titans related duo named Thunder & Lightning - and Lightning is a member of the THUNDER Agents, whose trademark is still active even if the series currently isn't...

I took one panel in Damage Control to change Black Goliath to Goliath...

I am always reminded of the kids' joke -

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Goliath.
Goliath who?
Goliath down, you looketh tired.

Whaddayamean you took one panel?

There's a look at the issue

Oh dear lord, a machine turns white people black?

I'm surprised Amos Fortune didn't use it on the Justice League...

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-15-2009, 11:46 PM

Um... 'cuz DC already owned the name Black Lightning?

I mean these days.

I am always reminded of the kids' joke -

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Goliath.
Goliath who?
Goliath down, you looketh tired.

What ever happened to the 'Steven Grant Kids Komedy Hour'?

Whaddayamean you took one panel?

Yeah, then that stupid McDuffie took all the credit!

(Typo! Horrendous work keyboard. Both too toch sensitive and not enough, at the same time. Works fine for editing - but for when I'm not doing that and using company time to post on here? Terrible).

Oh dear lord, a machine turns white people black?

I'm surprised Amos Fortune didn't use it on the Justice League...

- Grant

She did it to teach the racist black folk a lesson!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XZ-thau2xnE/R1dtZGPELgI/AAAAAAAAAb0/jtd6HSGtrOI/s400/LL106F.jpg
http://www.dudetubeonline.com/2007/07/01/lois0702b.jpg

Steven Grant

06-16-2009, 01:18 AM

What ever happened to the 'Steven Grant Kids Komedy Hour'?

The sponsors pulled out. Then I set up a new kids' show, Sicily Street, designed to teach kids how the world really worked, brought to you by the letters D-O-A and the numbers racket, but we sort of ran into legal trouble with that one, and a law was passed forbidding me from ever coming within 100 yards of children's TV again...

Yeah, then that stupid McDuffie took all the credit!

Yeah, what a glory hound.

She did it to teach the racist black folk a lesson!

To Kanigher's credit, he did write the Sgt. Rock two-parter (with the same general idea) called "What Color Is Your Blood?" that was considered something of a civil rights breakthrough in comics in 1966, where German soldiers in WWII learned a valuable lesson about prejudice and racism.

The most disturbing aspect of that Lois Lane page was discovering that Dave Stevens was black. I never knew...

- Grant

Imaginos666

06-16-2009, 07:05 AM

Gerard Jones wrote a story toward the end of The Shadow Strikes that I always found interesting. The Shadow's origins were still a confusing mystery, as were the backgrounds of most of his agents. One of them (maybe Joe Cordona) started getting curious about some of the people he worked with, but it was implied that sticking his nose where it didn't belong would be unhealthy. He kept snooping anyway, particularly into the background of Margo Lane. Turns out Margo was raised in a brothel, the daughter of a black prostitute (her father was a white customer.)

I think this is a great interpretation of Margo Lane, but it's not really a story you can tell in a pulp homage. Whenever you get a period piece -*whether it's a western, gangster movie, etc. - race ALWAYS gets swept under the rug. All of the white characters are curiously tolerant and enlightened, but usually the story fails to acknowledge there was ever a problem. It's no coincidence that the Indiana Jones movies are so hesitant to show Indy in America.

In a Rolling Stone interview not too long ago, Randy Newman said he was asked to do a song for a Disney movie (he didn't say which one, but I suspect it was The Princess and the Frog) and was shown some demo footage. Even though it took place in the early 20th century, the scene showed blacks and whites eating together in the same restaurant. Newman asked them if they were making a science fiction movie, but the joke went over their heads.

bartl

06-16-2009, 08:53 AM

Yeah, probably was David, just didn't remember it being that late. By my reckoning, the "relevancy" craze (and not just "relevance"...) launched with the first O'Neil-Adams issue of GREEN LANTERN-GREEN ARROW (there were other comics prior that fit the bill but that was the first comic that made "relevancy" a part of its marketing strategy) and died with the first issue of SHAZAM!, all "relevant" stories afterward being vestigial.
I actually had written that I would put it at Shazam! #1, but I looked it up, and found that Shazam #1 was cover dated February, 1973, and I recall reading an article about comic book relevancy in the autumn of 1974, and did not think the article to be hopelessly out of date at the time, so I cut it out of my post. I had the beginning pegged at beginning of the Deadman series, but I like yours (and the thinking behind it) better.

bartl

06-16-2009, 09:01 AM

There's also a DC character named Lightning - half of some Titans related duo named Thunder & Lightning - and Lightning is a member of the THUNDER Agents, whose trademark is still active even if the series currently isn't...
Copyrights on the stories are still valid, which also means that derivative works are copyrighted. But I doubt the trademarks are still valid (meaning that someone could probably publish a comic called "Thunder Agents", as long as it has nothing to do with the originals). Trademarks need to be actively used to be valid. Now, if the owner of the copyrights published or licensed the characters, then he, she, or it can certainly reclaim the trademark.

Hmmmm... I wonder if that will be a major use for ebooks and ecomics: trademark protections.

bartl

06-16-2009, 09:02 AM

I'm surprised Amos Fortune didn't use it on the Justice League...
There's another minority group generally under represented in comics: Fat people.

Steven Grant

06-16-2009, 11:01 AM

I actually had written that I would put it at Shazam! #1, but I looked it up, and found that Shazam #1 was cover dated February, 1973, and I recall reading an article about comic book relevancy in the autumn of 1974, and did not think the article to be hopelessly out of date at the time, so I cut it out of my post. I had the beginning pegged at beginning of the Deadman series, but I like yours (and the thinking behind it) better.

The first Deadman story, in STRANGE ADVENTURES #205, was the first Big Two Code-breaker story - in quiet defiance of the Comics Code the only authority figure in the story was a classic corrupt cop who abetted heroin smuggling, thus breaking two Code taboos at the same time - but it was framed in a hard-boiled pulp story construction and neither the cop nor heroin were the central issue of the story; that was the (also hard-boiled pulp) series gimmick of acrobat Boston Brand hunting down his own murderer. (Arnold Drake's sop to comics was that Brand was doing this while already dead, with his body already moldering in the grave.)

GL/GA was the first comic whose raison d'etre was "relevancy." I pick SHAZAM! #1 as the end of the experiment because it was the where DC threw open the gates to "old-fashioned just fun" comics - or their '70s interpretation of it. There were certainly any number of vestigial "relevant" stories that came after, and certainly plenty of articles about it, and neither ever really left entirely, but the "back to basics" movement was already on, and the idea of the comics (which is to say superhero) story being about social and political issues was already in eclipse, with the new concentration on "making comics fun again."

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-16-2009, 11:04 AM

Copyrights on the stories are still valid, which also means that derivative works are copyrighted. But I doubt the trademarks are still valid (meaning that someone could probably publish a comic called "Thunder Agents", as long as it has nothing to do with the originals). Trademarks need to be actively used to be valid. Now, if the owner of the copyrights published or licensed the characters, then he, she, or it can certainly reclaim the trademark.

Hmmmm... I wonder if that will be a major use for ebooks and ecomics: trademark protections.

Comics are kind of funny like that. There's an argument that anything traded on the back issue market keeps a trademark in effect. I don't know whether that's ever been tested in court, but I know it has been successfully argued in closed door proceedings, though those don't quite have the force of law.

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-16-2009, 11:07 AM

There's another minority group generally under represented in comics: Fat people.

Nonsense. We'll always have Bouncing Boy. And The Flash was fat at least three times that I can remember. And what about Foggy Nelson? And The Kingpin, who keeps claiming he's all muscle the same way Cartman keeps protesting that he's big boned? And Doiby Dickles! And Amanda Waller! Who could ask for more?

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 06:11 PM

There's another minority group generally under represented in comics: Fat people.

Not really a minority - hello fellow Australians! - and not really the same thing at all.

Paraphrasing Gervais - 'Why not stop eating ten pie and chips a day, and try eating nine?'

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 06:22 PM

Nonsense. We'll always have Bouncing Boy. And The Flash was fat at least three times that I can remember. And what about Foggy Nelson? And The Kingpin, who keeps claiming he's all muscle the same way Cartman keeps protesting that he's big boned? And Doiby Dickles! And Amanda Waller! Who could ask for more?

- Grant

Says the man who wrote a story about The Blob not being able to touch his toes!

Steven Grant

06-16-2009, 09:17 PM

Says the man who wrote a story about The Blob not being able to touch his toes!

AND THE BLOB!

(C'mon, tell me that story wasn't a good joke. I dare you.)

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 09:43 PM

AND THE BLOB!

What are the fatties complaining about?

(C'mon, tell me that story wasn't a good joke. I dare you.)

- Grant

If I hadn't just heard the Goliath joke...

No, I liked it - probably the best use of The Blob ever!*

(*Which isn't meant to sound like a backhanded compliment!)

Steven Grant

06-17-2009, 12:58 AM

No, I liked it - probably the best use of The Blob ever!*

(*Which isn't meant to sound like a backhanded compliment!)

I didn't take it as one. I always liked the Blob's first two appearances in X-MEN, which I read at the time they came out.

- Grant

GHalecki

06-17-2009, 07:31 PM

A related question for the pros here, if you wouldn't mind.

When writing a charachter that you can forsee as being particularly identified with a group (meaning someone that is not a straight white male I guess), do you consider, or have you run into an issue where, that if something bad happens to them in the story, you will get complaints that you are being too tough on the charachter based on XXXXX because you hate that group?
And conversely, do you see a situation where you will hear that you are making them look too good because you are trying to put them over, on that same basis?

Just as an example, I am confounded when I see complaints about what happened to Barbara Gorden, in regards to the paralysis, by people saying 'see? DC hates women! Why would they do something horrible like that to her if they didn't hate women?" but in other places I have seen people complaining about how seemingly superhumanly smart and capable she was in her role as Oracle, by saying that she was only that good because of some silly pro feminist "girl power" agenda that needs to artificially prop up a female charachter into an unwarrented place of prominance.
Personally, I find both arguments equally assinine.

Have you any comments on this phenomina occuring, and is it something you consider when writing or creating a new charachter?

Steven Grant

06-17-2009, 09:19 PM

When writing a charachter that you can forsee as being particularly identified with a group (meaning someone that is not a straight white male I guess), do you consider, or have you run into an issue where, that if something bad happens to them in the story, you will get complaints that you are being too tough on the charachter based on XXXXX because you hate that group?

Not really. I don't consider much when writing a story besides what the story demands and what the editor insists on. Generally, if I think some characterization or event is heinous in some unintended way I don't do it. But it doesn't concern me much what other people think of it, only what I think of it.

- Grant

Steelhead

06-17-2009, 11:22 PM

My apologies to the unsuspecting eyeballs wounded upon viewing of that image.What the hell is that shit coming out of that dude's armpit? Rabid II? I think I'm blind.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-18-2009, 01:47 AM

I didn't take it as one. I always liked the Blob's first two appearances in X-MEN, which I read at the time they came out.

- Grant

I think he's made less and less sense as a villain as time goes on.

'You can't punch him' is really about the limit of his powers.

By the time I started reading comics, he was just there to pad out supervillain teams.
And occasionally cry that Pyro had the legacy virus.

GHalecki

06-18-2009, 08:28 AM

Not really. I don't consider much when writing a story besides what the story demands and what the editor insists on. Generally, if I think some characterization or event is heinous in some unintended way I don't do it. But it doesn't concern me much what other people think of it, only what I think of it.

- Grant

Thanks kindly.

bartl

06-18-2009, 04:44 PM

When writing a charachter that you can forsee as being particularly identified with a group (meaning someone that is not a straight white male I guess), do you consider, or have you run into an issue where, that if something bad happens to them in the story, you will get complaints that you are being too tough on the charachter based on XXXXX because you hate that group?
Hey, there will always be idiots, fanatics, and bigots who think that way. Best to ignore them once they show their colors.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-18-2009, 08:28 PM

Hey, there will always be idiots, fanatics, and bigots who think that way. Best to ignore them once they show their colors.

And just as many who react when something good or positive happens to thos characters.
Best to ridicule them endlessly once they show their colours!

Dennis

06-18-2009, 09:30 PM

3 black teens went walking by me today making fun of my race. This is a pretty normal occurrence for me.

There was this piece of news today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8107039.stm

One in four South African men questioned in a survey said they had raped someone, and nearly half admitted having attacked more than one victim.

The study, by the country's Medical Research Council, also found three out of four who admitted rape had attacked for the first time during their teens.

It said practices such as gang rape were common because they were considered a form of male bonding.

This type of behavior should be in fiction, not more guys in spandex posing and teeth gritting. Don't whitewash other races.

GHalecki

06-19-2009, 07:52 AM

Hey, there will always be idiots, fanatics, and bigots who think that way. Best to ignore them once they show their colors.

That is real easy to say, right about up to the point where these idiots actually start having a negative effect on your livelyhood.

It is all great and noble to say "there is nothing actually wrong with writing the story this way, and that is what I am going to do" but once "right thinking morally and socially conscious" crowd gets a hold of your work and WANTS to misinterpret it to fit their way of thinking, then what? Maybe it causes enough of a stir over a long enough period (because frankly some people have nothing better to do with their loves), that your book that was selling just well enough to keep on the rack and keep you in a job, takes a dip in sales because of it, your ignoring them might just mean that all of a sudden your kid can't go to college this fall.

Steven Grant

06-19-2009, 11:56 AM

That is real easy to say, right about up to the point where these idiots actually start having a negative effect on your livelyhood.

It is all great and noble to say "there is nothing actually wrong with writing the story this way, and that is what I am going to do" but once "right thinking morally and socially conscious" crowd gets a hold of your work and WANTS to misinterpret it to fit their way of thinking, then what? Maybe it causes enough of a stir over a long enough period (because frankly some people have nothing better to do with their loves), that your book that was selling just well enough to keep on the rack and keep you in a job, takes a dip in sales because of it, your ignoring them might just mean that all of a sudden your kid can't go to college this fall.

I can't recall any instances coming anywhere near that since the '50s, except for maybe Mike Diana whose case was considerably more complicated than that, so unless prevailing winds change drastically, it's not worth worrying about.

- Grant

Paul McEnery

06-19-2009, 01:55 PM

all of a sudden your kid can't go to college this fall.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

If you think anyone selling comics at that level can even afford to have a kid, let alone send one to college...

Paul McEnery

06-19-2009, 01:55 PM

3 black teens went walking by me today making fun of my race. This is a pretty normal occurrence for me.

After all, it's not like any of your other characteristics lead people to make fun of you.

Paul McEnery

06-19-2009, 01:57 PM

And just as many who react when something good or positive happens to thos characters.
Best to ridicule them endlessly once they show their colours!

What, like when they say that people complaining about a racist presentation in a book must be bigots?

Paul McEnery

06-19-2009, 01:59 PM

What are the fatties complaining about?

If I hadn't just heard the Goliath joke...

No, I liked it - probably the best use of The Blob ever!*

(*Which isn't meant to sound like a backhanded compliment!)

What, better than when he ate The Wasp's guts?

Surely not!

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-21-2009, 07:56 PM

What, like when they say that people complaining about a racist presentation in a book must be bigots?

I'm not saying the Aryan Nation are right in anyway, just that a reasonable person could reasonably see that there is a Zionist conspiracy going on, and that the government should be overthrown to stop it.
And yet you call me anti-semtic?
Shame on you!

What, better than when he ate The Wasp's guts?

Surely not!

Really?

When?

Shouldn't he have eaten Giant Man to prove how big and hungry he is?

I mean she gets small, anyone can eat her*!

*Nice to buy her a drink first, though.

Steven Grant

06-21-2009, 09:29 PM

just that a reasonable person could reasonably see that there is a Zionist conspiracy going on, and that the government should be overthrown to stop it.

Eh?

Depends what you mean by "Zionism," I guess. There's a difference between wanting Jewish conquest, whether economic, political or military, of the world - the traditional meaning of "Zionism," if we're talking of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - and wanting an Israel capable of defending itself and ensuring its own continued existence. If you're speaking of American Jews, I'd wager that of those who care about Israel at all (and there are some that don't) the vast majority, somewhere in the vicinity of 100%, fall into the latter category. Now I don't necessarily agree with their assessment of what strong defense entails, but I certainly understand why they feel that way and the significance Israel has in their religion. (Not that I give a rat's ass about their religion either, but that's a philosophical difference about religion, not Judaism.)

While Jews in government tend to favor a strong Israel (hi, Rahm) I don't know that I'd call that a "conspiracy." They're pretty open about it. To the extent a "conspiracy" on that account exists, it's the tendency to conflate a desire to temper the behavior of the Israeli government with a desire to crush The Jews, which isn't the same thing at all, and I know many American Jews who don't much approve of the way the Israeli government comports itself.

Curiously, to the extent you can say a "Zionist conspiracy" exists in America, it seems to be the work of non-Jews, specifically nutjob rightwing Fundamentalist Christians (and I don't mean all Fundies, I mean the nutjobs; while I believe you have to be at least a little nutty to swallow Fundamentalist Christianity, I know perfectly nice Fundamentalists who restrict their nuttiness to that particular expression of it and don't make nuttiness a general feature of their lives) who look forward to Israel triggering Armageddon and fulfilling prophecy that will result in the Second Coming Of Christ. A lot of them have funneled money, legally and illegally, into Israeli "defense" in the past thirty years.

I'd like to know where the overthrowing the government would make everything better part comes in, though. Unless it's replaced with a government that's overtly hostile to Israel.

I guessing your statement was made facetiously in parallel with other comments made or implied during this discussion, but it really doesn't come out in your phrasing.

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-21-2009, 09:39 PM

Eh?

Depends what you mean by "Zionism," I guess. There's a difference between wanting Jewish conquest, whether economic, political or military, of the world - the traditional meaning of "Zionism," if we're talking of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - and wanting an Israel capable of defending itself and ensuring its own continued existence. If you're speaking of American Jews, I'd wager that of those who care about Israel at all (and there are some that don't) the vast majority, somewhere in the vicinity of 100%, fall into the latter category. Now I don't necessarily agree with their assessment of what strong defense entails, but I certainly understand why they feel that way and the significance Israel has in their religion. (Not that I give a rat's ass about their religion either, but that's a philosophical difference about religion, not Judaism.)

While Jews in government tend to favor a strong Israel (hi, Rahm) I don't know that I'd call that a "conspiracy." They're pretty open about it. To the extent a "conspiracy" on that account exists, it's the tendency to conflate a desire to temper the behavior of the Israeli government with a desire to crush The Jews, which isn't the same thing at all, and I know many American Jews who don't much approve of the way the Israeli government comports itself.

Curiously, to the extent you can say a "Zionist conspiracy" exists in America, it seems to be the work of non-Jews, specifically nutjob rightwing Fundamentalist Christians (and I don't mean all Fundies, I mean the nutjobs; while I believe you have to be at least a little nutty to swallow Fundamentalist Christianity, I know perfectly nice Fundamentalists who restrict their nuttiness to that particular expression of it and don't make nuttiness a general feature of their lives) who look forward to Israel triggering Armageddon and fulfilling prophecy that will result in the Second Coming Of Christ. A lot of them have funneled money, legally and illegally, into Israeli "defense" in the past thirty years.

I'd like to know where the overthrowing the government would make everything better part comes in, though. Unless it's replaced with a government that's overtly hostile to Israel.

I guessing your statement was made facetiously in parallel with other comments made or implied during this discussion, but it really doesn't come out in your phrasing.

- Grant

Wowsers.

I was going for a throw away line mocking the 'I'm not a bigot for saying the bigot view point is quite reasonable in this instance', carried over from the other thread, brought about my amazement at one person - still blindly ignorant about what they were saying there - denouncing that sort of thing here.

Aryan Nation pretty much picked because I'm working my way through Oz at the moment, and Beecher is still tussling with their head guy (who just killed his own son), and so I picked them as an over the top example.

Steven Grant

06-21-2009, 11:56 PM

I was going for a throw away line mocking the 'I'm not a bigot for saying the bigot view point is quite reasonable in this instance', carried over from the other thread, brought about my amazement at one person - still blindly ignorant about what they were saying there - denouncing that sort of thing here.

Yeah, figured that was the case but I've been hearing that Zionism/ZOG thing coming up again a lot lately and you gave me an excuse to comment.

Aryan Nation pretty much picked because I'm working my way through Oz at the moment, and Beecher is still tussling with their head guy (who just killed his own son), and so I picked them as an over the top example.

Yeah, Schillinger. (Played by J. Jonah Jameson!) He's one of the sample "rides" in my HBO theme park...

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-22-2009, 12:14 AM

Yeah, figured that was the case but I've been hearing that Zionism/ZOG thing coming up again a lot lately and you gave me an excuse to comment.

All I know about it is what I read in Eisner's 'The Plot'... so I know of a framing device, some basic history and the first three pages of the part where he compares one book with another (which was interesting and all, but I kept falling asleep reading it).

Yeah, Schillinger. (Played by J. Jonah Jameson!) He's one of the sample "rides" in my HBO theme park...

- Grant

You ride him, or he rides you?

I meant to say earlier, you left a few out -y'know, the good ones - where's the Entoruage ride?
Hundreds of beautiful girls throwing themselves at you, doing anything just to get near you?
Or the Curb Your Enthusiasm ride, where everything you do or think leads to your downfall... which could lead into the In Treatment ride, where you tell Gabriel Byrne all your problems until he explodes, crossing professional boundries, telling you what a self involved shit you are?

JCAll

06-22-2009, 01:06 AM

I can't recall any instances coming anywhere near that since the '50s, except for maybe Mike Diana whose case was considerably more complicated than that, so unless prevailing winds change drastically, it's not worth worrying about.

- Grant

Well, I don't know about comics. But I know that FOX was petitioned to take Power Rangers off the air in the 90 because the original Black Ranger was black. IT wasn't a long time later that the actor was let go, along with other over salary disputes supposedly, but I don't think there were any more black Black Rangers after that.

Silly thing to get angry over though, since Zack was one of the best characters on that show, behind Billy and Lord Zedd.

Some people are afraid that negative publicity from things like this will hurt their sales though, even though I don't think it ever actually has.

Steven Grant

06-22-2009, 10:28 AM

You ride him, or he rides you?

Working that out is the point of the ride.

I meant to say earlier, you left a few out -y'know, the good ones - where's the Entoruage ride?

I didn't forget about ENTOURAGE, I just didn't want to list ever HBO series ever made...

which could lead into the In Treatment ride, where you tell Gabriel Byrne all your problems until he explodes, crossing professional boundries, telling you what a self involved shit you are?

Personally, I think IN TREATMENT is a flaming pile of crap more geared to feed into Hollywood fetishism than anything else, but I like the idea of an amusement park "ride" where you undergo psychotherapy with an animatronic Gabriel Byrne...

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-22-2009, 10:45 AM

Well, I don't know about comics. But I know that FOX was petitioned to take Power Rangers off the air in the 90 because the original Black Ranger was black. IT wasn't a long time later that the actor was let go, along with other over salary disputes supposedly, but I don't think there were any more black Black Rangers after that.

I doubt the authenticity of this story. I was semi-paying attention to MMPR at the time it aired and never heard a word about any petition. By the mid-'90s, any petition to get an actor off TV simply because he was black would've triggered a huge backlash. I also can find no reference to any such issue in any available bio of Walter Jones, all of which say he was replaced (by Johnny Yong Bosch) over salary and contractual disputes. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of a racist drive to banish him from the show, though petty racism within the production wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. If you've got any credible source for the petition story, I'd love to see it.

Some people are afraid that negative publicity from things like this will hurt their sales though, even though I don't think it ever actually has.

These days virtually everyone embraces anything that will get them attention that lifts them into special view as long as it's nothing to do with kiddy porn, child abuse or something that requires a prison term. (Except stealing jewelry, apparently.)

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-22-2009, 05:35 PM

Working that out is the point of the ride.

I didn't forget about ENTOURAGE, I just didn't want to list ever HBO series ever made...

But you did list two Showtime shows... though bizarrely, the gengre of 'HBO show' fits them well.

Personally, I think IN TREATMENT is a flaming pile of crap more geared to feed into Hollywood fetishism than anything else, but I like the idea of an amusement park "ride" where you undergo psychotherapy with an animatronic Gabriel Byrne...

- Grant

I picked it up the other week - the fun part with a lot of HBO shows is they release them on DVD here first, before they go on TV, so they arrive with no buzz what so ever, and within a week drop ridiculously in price.
So I'm watching it for less than a buck an episode.
It's alright so far... Melissa George hasn't gotten any better at acting since she was on Home And Away... but I'll happily watch Gabriel Byrne in almost anything.

Speaking of, did you see him in the Aussie film Jinabyne?
I know you loved the diorectors previous, Lantanna, and was wondering how you enjoyed his next one.
(I liked Lantanna but Jindabyne knocks it out the park).

Steven Grant

06-22-2009, 06:30 PM

But you did list two Showtime shows... though bizarrely, the gengre of 'HBO show' fits them well.

I did? Which ones?

It's alright so far... Melissa George hasn't gotten any better at acting since she was on Home And Away... but I'll happily watch Gabriel Byrne in almost anything.

I like Gabriel Bryne but if I'm that desperate to see him I'll watch MILLER'S CROSSING AGAIN...

Speaking of, did you see him in the Aussie film Jinabyne? I know you loved the diorectors previous, Lantanna, and was wondering how you enjoyed his next one. (I liked Lantanna but Jindabyne knocks it out the park).

No, never heard of JINABYNE but you're misremembering: I thought LANTANA (for whatever reason it was released with that spelling here) royally sucked, just incredibly slopping storytelling and character psychology, a plot that wouldn't commit, and a non-ending intended to convince us how clever and arty the director was. Very unsatisfying movie.

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-22-2009, 06:51 PM

I did? Which ones?

None actually on a search - bizarre, they changed the branding here.

I'd assumed Deadwood was Showtime in America as well, as they don't normally do total rebrands for the Showtime channel here.
Pretty certain HBO isn't even on my boxset (of course, it could be because I was either stoned or playing a Deadwood drinking game when I watched it).
I'd really thought it was an attempt by another channel to do 'HBO.

Had assumed that's why The Wire had a scene making fun of it.

Just ignore me generally is the message here.

I like Gabriel Bryne but if I'm that desperate to see him I'll watch MILLER'S CROSSING AGAIN...

Not End Of Days?

No, never heard of JINABYNE but you're misremembering: I thought LANTANA (for whatever reason it was released with that spelling here) royally sucked, just incredibly slopping storytelling and character psychology, a plot that wouldn't commit, and a non-ending intended to convince us how clever and arty the director was. Very unsatisfying movie.

- Grant

Maybe you just didn't get the sarcasm in the film either!

It was a non-plot - just something to hang those characters around - characters who are incredibly real, maybe something was lost in translation, but they were very accurate to people you will see/meet around Sydney.

And what was the non-ending?
LaPaglia and Armstrong decided to stay together at the end having realised they loved each other... was a pertty definitive ending as the film was all about their relationship.
(And the montage showed where every other character ended up - the female cop talked to the guy in the restaurant, the lower class couple stayed together happy as always, Rachel Blake's divorcee stayed living in ignorance of her own pitiful life dreaming she was someone else and her too nice ex-husband sat around wishing he was with her, and the gay guy lived his unhappy existence wishing for the sort of happiness his indenial ex-lover had acheived, and by losing his wife Geoffry Rush was free to deal with his grief over his daughter).
The 'murder mystery' was just a hook to bring the characters together.

Although here could be where the problem is...

US Poster/DVD cover:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/153/1033075.jpg

Australian poster/DVD cover:
http://www.impawards.com/2001/posters/lantana.jpg

Could be different films altogether.

But you should check out Jindabyne - it has amurder, shows you the killer, and has even less to do with solving it.
And, it's based on one of the stories that was used in Altman's Shortcuts, so you can have fun comparing the two.

JCAll

06-22-2009, 07:18 PM

I doubt the authenticity of this story. I was semi-paying attention to MMPR at the time it aired and never heard a word about any petition. By the mid-'90s, any petition to get an actor off TV simply because he was black would've triggered a huge backlash. I also can find no reference to any such issue in any available bio of Walter Jones, all of which say he was replaced (by Johnny Yong Bosch) over salary and contractual disputes. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of a racist drive to banish him from the show, though petty racism within the production wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. If you've got any credible source for the petition story, I'd love to see it.

- Grant

15 year old rumors I remember from childhood, probably. I also remember hearing that they changed Lord Zedd because people has wrote in complaining, and wouldn't be that surprised if people had done similar with Zack. Assuming any of it is true.

I doubt racism playing any part in the actor change, money is the only thing that will motivate the change of something so popular, but the part about them getting letters always just sounded reasonable.

I suppose after so long, here's no way of knowing for sure. But if it wasn't mentioned in his biography, it probably is just an urban legend.

Steven Grant

06-23-2009, 01:17 AM

None actually on a search - bizarre, they changed the branding here.

That's not unusual in overseas broadcast of American TV shows. Is Showtime in Australia an entity related to Showtime here? I always thought they developed independently.

Anyway, most of Showtime's originals are so unbearably crappy they're smart to get HBO originals. The only decent Showtime original that springs to mind is The Tudors, and I'm pretty sure that's not Showtime-generated.

Maybe you just didn't get the sarcasm in the film either!

No, I got it. I just thought sarcasm is wasted when all of your characters already behave like idiots. Sort of overkill.

It was a non-plot - just something to hang those characters around - characters who are incredibly real, maybe something was lost in translation, but they were very accurate to people you will see/meet around Sydney. And what was the non-ending?

That cultural familiarity with Sydney may help in viewing, but it doesn't encourage me to visit Sydney. (I know and like quite a few Australians, by the way, so I don't think the film really represents them.) But you specify the non-ending yourself: LaPaglia & Armstrong decide to stay together. While I have nothing against that per se, there's virtually nothing established in the characters in the course of the film that suggests either of them even wants to consider that an option, and so it doesn't serve any story logic but plays instead like the screenwriter or director just couldn't think of any other ending and said, "Okay, wot the hell!" (Bear in mind it's been years and years since I've seen it.)

The murder mystery may have been just a springboard to personal stories but by and large once you've introduced a mystery as a dramatic device in a movie just throwing the mystery away isn't likely to win any goodwill from your audience, since you're basically asking them to invest their time and cognitive functions in the mystery. You can blow it off it you like but don't expect the audience to applaud unless you replace it with something that represents a real payoff. Which the LaPaglia-Armstrong "reunion" wasn't.

Funny you should bring up SHORT CUTS, because from what I've seen of Lawrence's pictures (I saw BLISS, oh, decades ago now) I'd drop him among the number of directors (now rather a dying breed here) convinced they're doing really first rate Robert Altman when they're really doing fourth-rate Alan Rudolph. Or, if you really want to get ugly about it, second-rate Atom Egoyan.

I really don't like his stuff. There's a thin line between daringly iconoclastic and inept and from my perspective Lawrence's films fall on the wrong side of it. But I can understand why some might think otherwise. I'll be happy to catch JINDABYNE if it ever shows up here, but as far as I know it's unknown here. (There was a time when all kinds of Aussie films breezed through, and I watched a lot of them, particularly those with Frances O'Conner, Guy Pierce, Hugo Weaving or Naomi Watts in them - oh, and that whatsisname guy, something Crowe - but almost none come through anymore.)

- Grant

bartl

06-23-2009, 11:14 AM

Yeah, figured that was the case but I've been hearing that Zionism/ZOG thing coming up again a lot lately and you gave me an excuse to comment.
Although there are the Kahane/Kahane Chai/JDL group, which has been banned in Israel.

The Jewish Defense League is an interesting organization, as it first recruited members as being a sort of Guardian Angels for Jews being terrorized by crime with no support from the police; many who supported the organization left quickly when it became political, and were long gone by the time Kahane started considering expulsion/genocide of the Arabs in Israel as a reasonable solution.

I worked for a while with New York activist Bruce Bailey in the 1980's (we were working for a common cause), who had a number of well-publicized run-ins with the JDL. He was surprised at how many reasonable people had once been members. I informed him that, at the beginning of the group, many joined simply because they gave free self-defense classes to Jews, and left when Meir Kahane effectively decided that "D" stood for offense rather than defense.

bartl

06-23-2009, 12:37 PM

Steven Grant

06-23-2009, 04:34 PM

Although there are the Kahane/Kahane Chai/JDL group, which has been banned in Israel.

The JDL is a whole different kettle of fish entirely, but using them to represent anything is like saying, look, the Aryan Nations exist and that proves the Canadian government is out for world domination. The two halves of the equation don't balance.

Did I ever mention that, as a writer, I was kicked out of the Anti-Definition League for being anti-semantic?

- Grant

Dennis

06-23-2009, 05:52 PM

there was a column about Jews and Hollywood not too long ago:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

What about Jews and comic books now?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-23-2009, 05:54 PM

That's not unusual in overseas broadcast of American TV shows. Is Showtime in Australia an entity related to Showtime here? I always thought they developed independently.

Anyway, most of Showtime's originals are so unbearably crappy they're smart to get HBO originals. The only decent Showtime original that springs to mind is The Tudors, and I'm pretty sure that's not Showtime-generated.

I'm not sure how related the showtimes are, but they've just launched a spin-off 'Showcase' channel here, playing shows such as Dexter, The Riches etc. so I assume there's more relationship other than just the name.
With HBO shows though, we usually only get the well received and acclaimed one's, so it's often left on branding - the channel isn't available, and only the top shows get released so it's held in high regard.

That cultural familiarity with Sydney may help in viewing, but it doesn't encourage me to visit Sydney. (I know and like quite a few Australians, by the way, so I don't think the film really represents them.)

I don't think it was trying to represent the city as a whole, just those are pretty spot on to the sorts of people who are about.

But you specify the non-ending yourself: LaPaglia & Armstrong decide to stay together. While I have nothing against that per se, there's virtually nothing established in the characters in the course of the film that suggests either of them even wants to consider that an option, and so it doesn't serve any story logic but plays instead like the screenwriter or director just couldn't think of any other ending and said, "Okay, wot the hell!" (Bear in mind it's been years and years since I've seen it.)

That's not correct - there's plenty throughout the film showing that the two do want to stay together, they just aren't sure how.

The murder mystery may have been just a springboard to personal stories but by and large once you've introduced a mystery as a dramatic device in a movie just throwing the mystery away isn't likely to win any goodwill from your audience, since you're basically asking them to invest their time and cognitive functions in the mystery. You can blow it off it you like but don't expect the audience to applaud unless you replace it with something that represents a real payoff. Which the LaPaglia-Armstrong "reunion" wasn't.

I see the poster isn't up today - did you see it when it was up yesterday?
LaPaglia and Armstrons relationship was the selling point here, and what everyone went in to see.
For me the murder was just a blessed release from Barbra Hershey, who personally I cannot stand in anything I've seen her in.

Funny you should bring up SHORT CUTS, because from what I've seen of Lawrence's pictures (I saw BLISS, oh, decades ago now) I'd drop him among the number of directors (now rather a dying breed here) convinced they're doing really first rate Robert Altman when they're really doing fourth-rate Alan Rudolph. Or, if you really want to get ugly about it, second-rate Atom Egoyan.

Ouch!
I've got to say I really like his films, although I am willing to wear that I probably boost him up a little - without meaning to - because I know he's getting certain areas 'right' and such, and so it feels more real and has more relevency.
(I've noticed this in others from abroad - working at a foreign film channel I've often seen a film that I thought was nothing special, yet people from the country it was made rave about it).

I really don't like his stuff. There's a thin line between daringly iconoclastic and inept and from my perspective Lawrence's films fall on the wrong side of it. But I can understand why some might think otherwise. I'll be happy to catch JINDABYNE if it ever shows up here, but as far as I know it's unknown here. (There was a time when all kinds of Aussie films breezed through, and I watched a lot of them, particularly those with Frances O'Conner, Guy Pierce, Hugo Weaving or Naomi Watts in them - oh, and that whatsisname guy, something Crowe - but almost none come through anymore.)

- Grant

Don't worry - we're not seeing the films either.
Nothing worth seeing has come out of Australia in quite awhile.
There's no private funding because there's just no money it - Bliss was a bit of an hit here and a critical darling, and it still took Lawrence sixteen years to raise thje money for Lantana - and the government funding body is an utter joke.
They've recently cleared house and changed the rules with the funding body so maybe in a year or two things will start coming out again, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
(Way too many shit boring dramas by way too many self-important film makers have turned the Australian public off of watching Australian films, so even good one's sail by unnoticed).
(Oh, there was Wolf Creek, which semed to have done alright, but it was a pile of shit).

Jindabyne had a release, the trailer was up on apple (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/jindabyne/), but may well have sailed by unnoticed.

Dennis

06-23-2009, 06:02 PM

Yeah, figured that was the case but I've been hearing that Zionism/ZOG thing coming up again a lot lately and you gave me an excuse to comment.

The Zionist government angle is part of it, i think most of the conspiracy people talk about Jews and the Media more often. And I guess there would be more talk about finance stuff now.

bartl

06-23-2009, 09:50 PM

The JDL is a whole different kettle of fish entirely, but using them to represent anything is like saying, look, the Aryan Nations exist and that proves the Canadian government is out for world domination. The two halves of the equation don't balance.
I guess it got lost in the thread; I was TRYING to come up with a Jewish equivalent to Aryan Nation.
Did I ever mention that, as a writer, I was kicked out of the Anti-Definition League for being anti-semantic?
Well, I did hear that when you did the Pope John Paul II comic, you were widely accused of definition of character.

Steven Grant

06-23-2009, 09:58 PM

What about Jews and comic books now?

Nobody cares. Seriously.

And whoever wrote that comment in the L.A. Times has their head up their ass. "Jews" don't run Hollywood. Banks run Hollywood, and, despite folklore, Jews and banks aren't anywhere near the same thing.

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-23-2009, 10:11 PM

I'm not sure how related the showtimes are, but they've just launched a spin-off 'Showcase' channel here, playing shows such as Dexter, The Riches etc. so I assume there's more relationship other than just the name.

THE RICHES aired on F/X here so I assume "Showcase" is just picking up product from whoever will sell it to them, and has no connection to Showtime.

I don't think it was trying to represent the city as a whole, just those are pretty spot on to the sorts of people who are about.

Ah. I have no idea what that means.

That's not correct - there's plenty throughout the film showing that the two do want to stay together, they just aren't sure how.

If that's the case, it sure didn't make an impression on me. LaPaglia's character struck me throughout as not having the slightest interest in his wife but hoping she'd say it so he didn't have to.

I see the poster isn't up today - did you see it when it was up yesterday?

I saw it but don't know why it's down. I didn't touch it.

LaPaglia and Armstrons relationship was the selling point here, and what everyone went in to see.

Okay, but it didn't play true to me at all.

For me the murder was just a blessed release from Barbra Hershey, who personally I cannot stand in anything I've seen her in.

I'm with you on that, at least, and for awhile she was showing up in damn near everything...

(I've noticed this in others from abroad - working at a foreign film channel I've often seen a film that I thought was nothing special, yet people from the country it was made rave about it).

Oh, god, here critics are constantly raving about this indie film or that, and how brave or daring or "real" or powerful it is, or how the director - it's always the director - confronts the "human condition" and an endless parade of other buzz terms, and when I finally see them they're the worst kind of drivel, mostly try-out reels for Hollywood infused with the flavor-of-the-day "artitude." And I used to love indie and art films. But there are almost no genuine indie films content-wise anymore, they're all Not-Quite-Ready-For-Hollywood-Players films...

Jindabyne had a release, the trailer was up on apple (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/jindabyne/), but may well have sailed by unnoticed.

Might've gone straight-to-video...

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-24-2009, 01:09 AM

THE RICHES aired on F/X here so I assume "Showcase" is just picking up product from whoever will sell it to them, and has no connection to Showtime.

Well, it's a sister channel to our Showtime, but until Deadwood, it only played movies.

Ah. I have no idea what that means.
Just that I don't think they aimed to represent a whole city.

If that's the case, it sure didn't make an impression on me. LaPaglia's character struck me throughout as not having the slightest interest in his wife but hoping she'd say it so he didn't have to.

I think it's actually touched on in the film that he doesn't know how to express himself or connect properly - there's a definite comment on it in the scene with the jogger whose nose he breaks and then hugs.

Okay, but it didn't play true to me at all.

I'm with you on that, at least, and for awhile she was showing up in damn near everything...

Maybe if she stopped showing us how hard she's working at her acting she'd be better, but I still think she'd annoy the heck out of me.
(I feel the same about Ellen Page, who everyone raves on - it's not good acting when you can see how hard they are acting).

Oh, god, here critics are constantly raving about this indie film or that, and how brave or daring or "real" or powerful it is, or how the director - it's always the director - confronts the "human condition" and an endless parade of other buzz terms, and when I finally see them they're the worst kind of drivel, mostly try-out reels for Hollywood infused with the flavor-of-the-day "artitude." And I used to love indie and art films. But there are almost no genuine indie films content-wise anymore, they're all Not-Quite-Ready-For-Hollywood-Players films...

Well, Sundance seems to have become a genre - and as soon as I see a film that has a Sundance wreath in a trailer, my mind starts to wander.

Might've gone straight-to-video...

- Grant

It's worth a shot - even Laura Linney isn't as annoying as normal - possibly because every other character seems to find her really annoying...
(Had no audio before, so just watched that trailer now - again, doesn't even try to be as much of a thriller as it looks there).

bartl

06-24-2009, 08:49 AM

And whoever wrote that comment in the L.A. Times has their head up their ass. "Jews" don't run Hollywood. Banks run Hollywood, and, despite folklore, Jews and banks aren't anywhere near the same thing.
There is, at least, a factual, albeit hundreds of years out of date, basis for this. During the feudal period, the Roman Catholic Church forbade lending money for interests. The Jewish religion prohibits charging interest on personal loans (loans for people in need), but not business loans (loans being used with the idea of eventual profit in mind). As Jews were not part of the feudal system, the major occupations open to them were trading and moneylending. During the growth of towns and the middle class, where the need for business loans became necessary for the growth of society, the Roman Catholic Church altered their stand on charging interest, but the biggest banks at the time were run by Jews, and the stereotype stuck.

Of course, now we have the International Jewish Communist Bankers to worry about.

Steven Grant

06-24-2009, 10:34 AM

I think it's actually touched on in the film that he doesn't know how to express himself or connect properly - there's a definite comment on it in the scene with the jogger whose nose he breaks and then hugs.

Vaguely remember that, and vaguely recall feeling it just made him look like an asshole who doesn't really care who he hurts, he only cares about deflecting consequences for his actions.

(I feel the same about Ellen Page, who everyone raves on - it's not good acting when you can see how hard they are acting).

Don't mind her but wouldn't go out of my way to watch her.

Well, Sundance seems to have become a genre - and as soon as I see a film that has a Sundance wreath in a trailer, my mind starts to wander.

Sundance is worse than a genre these days. It's a brand.

It's worth a shot - even Laura Linney isn't as annoying as normal - possibly because every other character seems to find her really annoying... (Had no audio before, so just watched that trailer now - again, doesn't even try to be as much of a thriller as it looks there).

Laura Linney, huh? You're not encouraging me. Funny, Linney was a much better actress before she was generally acknowledged as a serious actress. This is what happens when people take their own press to heart...

Sounds like marketing people have gotten hold of the film...

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-24-2009, 11:09 AM

There is, at least, a factual, albeit hundreds of years out of date, basis for this. During the feudal period, the Roman Catholic Church forbade lending money for interests. The Jewish religion prohibits charging interest on personal loans (loans for people in need), but not business loans (loans being used with the idea of eventual profit in mind). As Jews were not part of the feudal system, the major occupations open to them were trading and moneylending. During the growth of towns and the middle class, where the need for business loans became necessary for the growth of society, the Roman Catholic Church altered their stand on charging interest, but the biggest banks at the time were run by Jews, and the stereotype stuck.

As I mentioned before, Jews were also highly prized by medieval kings because they were educated and could count, and usually given special protection by those kings, whose money usually funded nascent banks they let "their Jews" run. The "special protection," especially in the German Kingdoms, was what triggered the first mass attacks on Jews in the Crusades, as Crusaders marched across Germany toward the Holy Lands, since even then rumors of how Jews ensorcelled Kings - while really in most cases they were little more than slaves to them - were rampant, since the Crusades had ramped up Christian Identity to incensed heights and because of their "strange ways" Jews already thought of as something alien to "normal life." (Jews were rarely much appreciated in the first place, but generally left alone for much of the Middle Ages.)

There really weren't any rich Jews in Europe during the Middle Ages. They tended to be vassals just like anyone else, when they weren't nomadic. When the economic explosion took place in Europe and the system shifted from feudalism to proto-capitalism, it wasn't so much that Jews ran the banks, though there were a handful of Jewish families well placed due to their connections with kings to start banks and ended up making a lot of money not so much loaning for businesses as loaning money to kings to finance wars (that's where the real money was), as Jews were far better equipped to succeed in business, because they could, you know, keep ledgers, a skill it took quite a while to impart to the non-Jewish population. Apparently Europeans were historically naturally inept at basic mathematics.

As far as the Catholic Church goes, while it officially banned "usurous" practices in lending, never much interfered with it - the Church preferred not to give Earthly Princes much cause to raise arms against it, so it tended to scold but not slap - and in fact the Vatican Bank was a big fan of interest, to the point where Dante, in his INFERNO, banished the "money lenders" to a specific circle of hell destined for usurers, those enemies of nature who made to grow what does not in nature grow. (That is, their stash of money.) In the INFERNO, Dante wasn't writing so much a religious tract as a vicious satire on many of his enemies of the day, including some bankers. (None of whom, I believe, were Jewish.) Of course, the Church was more than happy to do whatever it pleased to bring money into Church coffers - in the Middle Ages it considered itself both God and Caesar, don't forget - and those practices are among the things that put it on Martin Luther's shit list, like manufacturing/selling saintly relics and selling absolutions.

Some Jews were moneylenders in the Middle Ages, but mostly as intermediaries for kings or other nobles. Most others were ghettoized (in the case of Venice, quite literally) and as poor as anyone else in Europe. As I mentioned before, their main association with money in early European history comes from their forced employment as the face of tax collection, by kings. Which made it easy to associate them with "the money changers" Jesus chased from the temple, when in the Crusades that whole "Christ-killers" thing started up as a rallying cry against them, "religionizing" what had to that time been a mostly secular beef against Jews for tax collection...

Of course, now we have the International Jewish Communist Bankers to worry about.

Yeah, I always wondered how they managed to be both bankers and Communists....

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-24-2009, 06:38 PM

Vaguely remember that, and vaguely recall feeling it just made him look like an asshole who doesn't really care who he hurts, he only cares about deflecting consequences for his actions.

They cover that when he's chatting with the guy in the bar - he's blatantly shocked and struggling with seeing someone who could actually make an emotional display.

Don't mind her but wouldn't go out of my way to watch her.

I had to cut a promo for Hard Candy, and by the end wished the pedophile had taken her out with him.
Wrinkling your face to show ever thought isn't acting.

Sundance is worse than a genre these days. It's a brand.

Remember when it had films like Blood Simple, or when Reservoir Dogs, El Martiachi and Poison (Todd Haynes debut) in it?
The films that people wanted to see?

Laura Linney, huh? You're not encouraging me. Funny, Linney was a much better actress before she was generally acknowledged as a serious actress. This is what happens when people take their own press to heart...

Someone somewhere else on CBR once commented on how for someone hailed by critics as a great actress, she always plays the same role - someone really put upon by others who is struggling with their own problems but putting them aside to deal with the other peoples ones, who then learns a lesson that there's nothing wrong with taking a bit of time for yourself.
Which I'd thought was a bit of a generalization, but then I watched the Savages - and that poster hadn't mentioned that film as one of them.

The one plus to her being in Jinabyne is, as I mentioned, lots of characters keep pointing out how annoying and useless she is.
(Which is kind of funny because her character keeps taking things on herself, and everyone else keeps telling her not to - it's the closest to playing against type she'll get these days).

Sounds like marketing people have gotten hold of the film...

- Grant

Well, we wouldn't want anyone making an informed decision about what they watch, would we?

Steven Grant

06-24-2009, 11:56 PM

They cover that when he's chatting with the guy in the bar - he's blatantly shocked and struggling with seeing someone who could actually make an emotional display.

Eeeeyeaaaah... um... that just kind of made him look like a sociopathic dickhead... I suspect we may be staring down cultural differences here, but it's hard to have much empathy for a grown man who behaves like he hasn't set foot in public since the 1920s...

I had to cut a promo for Hard Candy, and by the end wished the pedophile had taken her out with him. Wrinkling your face to show ever thought isn't acting.

Oh, but she's so cute. What's HARD CANDY?

Remember when it had films like Blood Simple, or when Reservoir Dogs, El Martiachi and Poison (Todd Haynes debut) in it? The films that people wanted to see?

That was before Hollywood colonized the place. A lot of the types of films that used to be seen at Sundance bumped over to simultaneous counter-festival Slamdance, and then Hollywood colonized that. And it became the place for directors to show off how they can do music video style films and for screenwriters to show off edgy but ultimately socially very conservative scripts (made into movies by directors showing off how they can do music video style films), so Hollywood would believe they know what The Kids want to see. While proving their "artistic" chops.

Amusingly, Hollywood seems to have more or less lost interest in the festival this season. Almost no producers I know went there or Cannes this year. The pseudo-indie route to Hollywood seems to be bellying up...

(Which is kind of funny because her character keeps taking things on herself, and everyone else keeps telling her not to - it's the closest to playing against type she'll get these days).

In Ellen's defense, she can only act in the roles producers will hire her for.

Well, we wouldn't want anyone making an informed decision about what they watch, would we?

Not before they've already spent their money, no...

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-25-2009, 07:25 PM

Eeeeyeaaaah... um... that just kind of made him look like a sociopathic dickhead... I suspect we may be staring down cultural differences here, but it's hard to have much empathy for a grown man who behaves like he hasn't set foot in public since the 1920s...

He's a cop - of course he's a sociopathic dickhead.
You're telling me you don't know anyone, or the attitude of men not showing emotion?
Never met someone whose lost touch with themselves over the years - distanced from themselves, let alone anyone else?
He's having a sex only affair with a woman from he met at a salsa dancing class - something he and his wife are doing to have something in common.

Oh, but she's so cute. What's HARD CANDY?

Terrible snuff fantasy film that somehow convinced people it actually had something to say a few years ago.
A young girl meets a pedophile photographer online and they meet up in a cafe. He convinces her to come home with him but.... it turns out she's stalking him and set it all up so she could torture him and play mind games with him.
And that's as deep as it gets - she hadn't ever been molested, just felt she had to do something about it.
Snuff fantasy for the middle class.

That was before Hollywood colonized the place. A lot of the types of films that used to be seen at Sundance bumped over to simultaneous counter-festival Slamdance, and then Hollywood colonized that.

IS that the one Trey Parker started for the sole reason of screening Cannibal: The Musical?

And it became the place for directors to show off how they can do music video style films and for screenwriters to show off edgy but ultimately socially very conservative scripts (made into movies by directors showing off how they can do music video style films), so Hollywood would believe they know what The Kids want to see. While proving their "artistic" chops.

Amusingly, Hollywood seems to have more or less lost interest in the festival this season. Almost no producers I know went there or Cannes this year. The pseudo-indie route to Hollywood seems to be bellying up...

I always see it as social mistfit A, meets social mistfit B (one of whom probably fits into society on the outside, but on the inside feels alone), and they go on a road trip and see the real America.

And beyond that, the studios made Juno, and everyone thought they were seeing an indie film - that showed how pointless sundance was to everyone.

In Ellen's defense, she can only act in the roles producers will hire her for.

But the films Laura does are often pretty low key films - I'd imagine something like the Savages only really got rolling once she and Hoffman signed on.

Not before they've already spent their money, no...

- Grant

And then people stop spending money on genre x, and so they assume genre x is dead - not that they kept pushing crap into it or misleading people about it - until years later someone makes a genre x film, and suddenly it's the big rebirth....

bartl

06-25-2009, 09:03 PM

He's a cop - of course he's a sociopathic dickhead.
Note, all, that this is the person who calls me a bigot.

Steven Grant

06-25-2009, 09:08 PM

He's a cop - of course he's a sociopathic dickhead. You're telling me you don't know anyone, or the attitude of men not showing emotion?

Honestly, I don't personally know anyone under the age of 80 who even gives two shits about it anymore. Never met someone whose lost touch with themselves over the years - distanced from themselves, let alone anyone else?[/QUOTE]

C'mon, seriously, what does that even mean? It's the sort of thing that only novelists, filmmakers and psychologists think exists in real life. It's a popular media gimmick so writers/directors/etc. can demonstrate how insightful and sensitive they are by trotting out insensitive characters who can be "sensitized" in the course of goofy plots.

In real life, we call people who have "lost touch with themselves" schizophrenics. It's a paradox: if you know you've "lost touch with yourself," you haven't lost touch with yourself.

He's having a sex only affair with a woman from he met at a salsa dancing class - something he and his wife are doing to have something in common.

I'm guessing you mean both of them are salsa dancing, not having sex only affairs...

See, here's my theory on such things: once the Maslovian basics are taken care of, people pretty much get what they want. So if he's have a "sex only affair," it's not because he has "lost touch with himself," it's because he wants a sex-only affair.

And beyond that, the studios made Juno, and everyone thought they were seeing an indie film - that showed how pointless sundance was to everyone.

It's not pointless. It's a promotional gimmick to give films, actors, screenwriters and directors "indie cred," so they can be marketed as cutting edge by Hollywood.

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-25-2009, 09:09 PM

Note, all, that this is the person who calls me a bigot.

Pretty sure he was a) being sarcastic and b) referring to the image of cops in films.

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-25-2009, 09:32 PM

Honestly, I don't personally know anyone under the age of 80 who even gives two shits about it anymore.

Maybe the world of 'In Treatment' has paid off then - I've seen plenty of it.

We're bred to be tough down here.
(Thus I'm an utter failure.)

C'mon, seriously, what does that even mean? It's the sort of thing that only novelists, filmmakers and psychologists think exists in real life. It's a popular media gimmick so writers/directors/etc. can demonstrate how insightful and sensitive they are by trotting out insensitive characters who can be "sensitized" in the course of goofy plots.

In real life, we call people who have "lost touch with themselves" schizophrenics. It's a paradox: if you know you've "lost touch with yourself," you haven't lost touch with yourself.

Well, lost his place in the world then - and you have to know or have seen people like that.
There are several scenes showing him out of touch with everyone around him and not knowing how to express it - from beating too hard on a crook, to treating his son like a crook for smoking a bong.
He's closed himself off from his wife, without meaning to, and doesn't know how to let her in or get in close to her.

It's interesting in the film - he's losing his wife for being too closed off, the other character has lost his for giving too much.
The only guy in a happy relationship is the unemployed neighbor who has struck a happy balance with his wife.

I'm guessing you mean both of them are salsa dancing, not having sex only affairs...

See, here's my theory on such things: once the Maslovian basics are taken care of, people pretty much get what they want. So if he's have a "sex only affair," it's not because he has "lost touch with himself," it's because he wants a sex-only affair.

Yeah, but why does he want that?
He's got a wife who is up for it, and who loves him - in fact he's got everything he could need in life - and yet he still goes and does that.

It's not pointless. It's a promotional gimmick to give films, actors, screenwriters and directors "indie cred," so they can be marketed as cutting edge by Hollywood.
- Grant

And then that runs out, and they have to find something new - which they wouldn't have to do if they didn't artificially inflate things in the first place.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-25-2009, 09:35 PM

Pretty sure he was a) being sarcastic and b) referring to the image of cops in films.

- Grant

1) Yeah.

2) Sorta.

The job requires them to be dicks to people - it does carry over, even in small ways.
My sisters boyfriend is a cop, and even when he's off duty, he still looks at you like cops look at people.

But yeah, I mean, The Wire is written by a cop and hailed as being realistic - they are all closed off people as well, messing up everything outside of their job.

Steven Grant

06-26-2009, 01:13 AM

Well, lost his place in the world then - and you have to know or have seen people like that.

Like I said, most people (in late Maslovian stages, anyway, which includes pretty much every middle class and above person on the face of the earth) are exactly where they want to and doing exactly want to do, even if they don't want to admit it. If they weren't they'd do something about it. You can follow the logic easily enough: most of them don't do anything about it, therefore what they really want is what they've got.

There are several scenes showing him out of touch with everyone around him and not knowing how to express it - from beating too hard on a crook, to treating his son like a crook for smoking a bong.

See, I'd say all that counts as expressing it.

He's closed himself off from his wife, without meaning to, and doesn't know how to let her in or get in close to her.

No, he has closed himself off from his wife because that's what he really wants. He just don't want anyone thinking he's the bad guy. That's pretty common.

It's interesting in the film - he's losing his wife for being too closed off, the other character has lost his for giving too much. The only guy in a happy relationship is the unemployed neighbor who has struck a happy balance with his wife.

See, even that "happy balance" thing is psychobabble. That's not how marriages work. It's like prenuptual agreements: a pre-nup is a surefire sign that whichever party is asking for it not only doesn't really want to be married, they're already looking down the road for a failed marriage. If you seriously expect love to last, don't ask for a pre-nup. If you seriously don't expect love to last, don't get married. This isn't a difficult equation.

(Or, as Mick Jagger once sang, "The people that I knew in school grew up and settled down, and they mortgaged off their lives. One thing's not often said, but I believe it's true: they just get married 'cause there's nothing else to do.")

Yeah, but why does he want that? He's got a wife who is up for it, and who loves him - in fact he's got everything he could need in life - and yet he still goes and does that.

Y'know, there is only one reason why a married man cheats on his wife. And there's your answer: because he doesn't want to be married to her, but he's unwilling to do the one thing that would address that situation because it would turn him into the "bad" guy, and it's more important to him that people not think he's a bad guy than it is to break away from his wife. So he stays miserable, and keeps her miserable, but, like I said, while he might not lose what he really doesn't want, he does get what he wants.

And then that runs out, and they have to find something new - which they wouldn't have to do if they didn't artificially inflate things in the first place.

Whoops. I was thinking we were still talking about marriage. Anyway, that's a basic principle of Hollywood, and most mass media: nothing exceeds like success.

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-26-2009, 01:16 AM

The job requires them to be dicks to people - it does carry over, even in small ways. My sister's boyfriend is a cop, and even when he's off duty, he still looks at you like cops look at people. But yeah, I mean, The Wire is written by a cop and hailed as being realistic - they are all closed off people as well, messing up everything outside of their job.

Yeah, that's not quite the same as being a sociopath.

Depends on the cop, though. My next door neighbor's a cop, and he's a very nice guy. So I wouldn't say they're all closed off people, but certainly the job doesn't help...

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-30-2009, 11:15 PM

Want to comment on the other stuff - basically you're wrong about everything!!! - but pressed for time right now - deadline time - but going back to the racial equity part of the thread (everyone can be evil!) - I picked up Omega The Unkown collection cheap at a con on the weekend, was flipping through it and saw you wrote a conclusion to it...
What the heck is with the line 'Jumping Golliwogs'?
For shame, Mr.Grant, for shame.

Mentally add the smilies liberally though out the post if need be.

Steven Grant

07-01-2009, 01:34 PM

What the heck is with the line 'Jumping Golliwogs'?

It was something I pulled out of somewhere that the character said once. (I don't even remember which character said it. Hellcat?) Not my finest moment, but believe it or not I had never heard the term "golliwogs" before that point. It just wasn't used in the part of Wisconsin I grew up in, and I never ran across it in any reading or viewing I'd done. Live and learn. I'm surprised it wasn't edited out of the reprint.

- Grant

bartl

07-01-2009, 03:00 PM

It was something I pulled out of somewhere that the character said once. (I don't even remember which character said it. Hellcat?) Not my finest moment, but believe it or not I had never heard the term "golliwogs" before that point. It just wasn't used in the part of Wisconsin I grew up in, and I never ran across it in any reading or viewing I'd done. Live and learn. I'm surprised it wasn't edited out of the reprint.
Perhaps you heard this record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog_(song))?

Dennis

07-02-2009, 11:22 PM

saw a Bruno pic that shows what white guys try to do to the black male:

http://perezhilton.com/2009-07-02-recut-bruno-simply-too-scandalous-for-the-big-screen

look at the asian guy (yeah right), and the girl has a bigger dick than the black guy

Dennis

07-04-2009, 10:42 PM

comics should have more authentic spelling and grammar - good read:

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html

“We get dat lunch,” Mr. Jackson. “We gotta get dat lunch and brickfuss.” He means the free breakfast and lunch poor students get every day. “Nigga, we know’d you be lovin’ brickfuss!” shouts another student.

Steven Grant

07-05-2009, 12:41 AM

Perhaps you heard this record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog_(song))?

Don't think so, but that's certainly a curiosity.

- Grant

Dwayne McDuffie

07-05-2009, 11:43 AM

comics should have more authentic spelling and grammar - good read:

http://martynemk.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html

Really? We're linking to essays by Stormfront members now?

Steven Grant

07-05-2009, 01:48 PM

Really? We're linking to essays by Stormfront members now?

Sometimes Dennis says interesting things, but other times he'll start in with this goat-baiting rubbish just to get a rise out of people so he can feign moral indignation and cry liberty if anyone suggests he has his head up his ass. Experience suggests it's best to just ignore him at those times. Which, you might have noticed, pretty much everyone did.

I'm getting slow in my old age, though. What's Stormfront? (I can imagine from the sound of it...)

- Grant

Dwayne McDuffie

07-05-2009, 02:57 PM

I'm getting slow in my old age, though. What's Stormfront? (I can imagine from the sound of it...)

- Grant

Thanks for the Troll alert, sometimes these guys show up on my board, and they're serious. Stormfront is the white supremacist group with the largest internet presence. Having failed at, well, everything in their lives, they find self-worth in their imaginary genetic superiority.

Steven Grant

07-05-2009, 03:20 PM

Thanks for the Troll alert, sometimes these guys show up on my board, and they're serious. Stormfront is the white supremacist group with the largest internet presence. Having failed at, well, everything in their lives, they find self-worth in their imaginary genetic superiority.

Mike Grell used to live in Couer d'Alene, near the home of the Aryan Nations, and used to have a great time watching all these guys with no chins or foreheads talking about genetic superiority and the need to "protect the gene pool." Apparently Couer d'Alene tolerates them but the people there are generally embarrassed by them and annoyed that the rest of America associates Couer d'Alene with white supremicists.

But that's the great thing about the Internet, innit? Everyone can indulge their own fantasy lives before they're not required to directly interact with anyone...

- Grant

bartl

07-05-2009, 11:04 PM

Brenz

07-07-2009, 07:44 PM

I'm late to the party but:

1) That Obama/Chapel team-up somehow offends me as much as his two-page spread of Jesus beating up Greek gods.

2) Dennis, I preferred you when you were adorably misinformed rather than vaguely anti-everybody.

Steven Grant

07-07-2009, 09:56 PM

1) That Obama/Chapel team-up somehow offends me as much as his two-page spread of Jesus beating up Greek gods.

Say what?

- Grant

Dennis

07-07-2009, 11:03 PM

What exactly is villainy? Villainy is not realistic evil, it's fantasy naughtiness. A great villain is someone you can love and admire. You see this in pro wrestling - the heel isn't someone really terrible, he's just a guy who bends the rules in amusing and predictable ways. A villain is like that crazy uncle you have to see every year at Thanksgiving - he's gonna be obnoxious and embarrassing, but you can't be too mad at him, he's family.

And that's why a villain has to be the same race as the hero. Because race is family. In the end, we just want to laugh about all that conflict we just experienced. It's comforting to take something like evil and bad behavior, and turn it into something cute.

Hannibal Lecter is loved because he provides great dinner conversation - it's a little unfortunate he's eating someone's brains though. And Darth Vader can destroy planets and oppress billions, but he's really not that bad, he's my Dad! And female villains always have nice asses.

But if you have a total stranger at the family dinner telling inappropriate jokes, that's creepy. You want to celebrate your family, even the weirdos in your clan - maybe they can make up for it by being charming or smart or rich. But if someone outside your family is messing with you, it's no longer fun and games.

Steven Grant

07-08-2009, 02:45 AM

Hanzo the Razor

07-08-2009, 08:11 AM

Yeah, that's way off.

I think the mark of a great villain is the challenge he presents to the hero and sometimes the reader themself.

Brenz

07-08-2009, 11:54 AM

Sorry...it's apparently much longer than two pages. (http://www.comicsbulletin.com/rage/111195363490019.htm)

Scroll down past all the gorgeous art. I believe Benes collaborated with him on it.

Have you noticed when really banal people find Jesus, they manage to find an equally banal Christ? I'm thinking of Stevie Baldwin here.

Dennis

07-08-2009, 02:02 PM

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Pool-Boots-Kids-Who-Might-Change-the-Complexion.html

More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason.

"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.

The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers' first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.

"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."

Steven Grant

07-08-2009, 02:49 PM

Have you noticed when really banal people find Jesus, they manage to find an equally banal Christ? I'm thinking of Stevie Baldwin here.

Accept Jesus as your personal savior or Stephen Baldwin will beat you up. (Seriously, he said once he'd beat up anyone who didn't accept Jesus as their personal savior. Led me to believe he had only read the Cliff's Notes for the New Testament.)

- grant

Imaginos666

07-09-2009, 07:15 AM

Accept Jesus as your personal savior or Stephen Baldwin will beat you up. (Seriously, he said once he'd beat up anyone who didn't accept Jesus as their personal savior. Led me to believe he had only read the Cliff's Notes for the New Testament.)

- grant

That's usually the case for vocal fundamentalists. It's rather amazing how much of mainstream Christianity has nothing do do with anything written in the Bible.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

07-20-2009, 07:51 PM

That's usually the case for vocal fundamentalists. It's rather amazing how much of mainstream Christianity has nothing do do with anything written in the Bible.

And the bits they spout quite often are misinterpretations of the Old Testament, which Jesus and Paul changed anyway.

It's like they're just making it up (as they go along)!

FunkyGreenJerusalem

07-20-2009, 07:56 PM

I'm surprised it wasn't edited out of the reprint.

- Grant

Editors probably not heard it either.
As a child, I'd never made the connection/even had it cross my mind that they were supposed to represent black people, up until I was told that's why they were now unacceptable.
I thought they were just some evil toy that used to harass Noddy, not racist old Enid doing her bit.
(Although once the connection becomes clear... she really was a racist old biddy!)

FunkyGreenJerusalem

07-20-2009, 08:01 PM

Like I said, most people (in late Maslovian stages, anyway, which includes pretty much every middle class and above person on the face of the earth) are exactly where they want to and doing exactly want to do, even if they don't want to admit it. If they weren't they'd do something about it. You can follow the logic easily enough: most of them don't do anything about it, therefore what they really want is what they've got.
See, I'd say all that counts as expressing it.
No, he has closed himself off from his wife because that's what he really wants. He just don't want anyone thinking he's the bad guy. That's pretty common.
See, even that "happy balance" thing is psychobabble. That's not how marriages work. It's like prenuptual agreements: a pre-nup is a surefire sign that whichever party is asking for it not only doesn't really want to be married, they're already looking down the road for a failed marriage. If you seriously expect love to last, don't ask for a pre-nup. If you seriously don't expect love to last, don't get married. This isn't a difficult equation.
(Or, as Mick Jagger once sang, "The people that I knew in school grew up and settled down, and they mortgaged off their lives. One thing's not often said, but I believe it's true: they just get married 'cause there's nothing else to do.")
Y'know, there is only one reason why a married man cheats on his wife. And there's your answer: because he doesn't want to be married to her, but he's unwilling to do the one thing that would address that situation because it would turn him into the "bad" guy, and it's more important to him that people not think he's a bad guy than it is to break away from his wife. So he stays miserable, and keeps her miserable, but, like I said, while he might not lose what he really doesn't want, he does get what he wants.

- Grant

Sorry to cram it all in like that, but I still disagree - People do things they don't want to without reason.
Or, do things without thinking about what they really want - long term - and end up with an unsatisfying short term, and a horrific long term.
Be it from deeper psychological issues - your argument seems to be totally focused on conscious thought, with everyone knowing what they want - or from the fact that all it takes is a little too much or not enough of one chemical in the brain at anyone time to make someone go totally irrational.
People make mistakes, or don't know how to communicate - and it's not always as simple as 'that's what they wanted to do'.
(I mean some people later try and back away from what they did want to do once they find out the consequences, but not everyone, all the time).