We are seeing the first views of the new Spider-Man and Superman movies. So far I'm not impressed. I was half-way through the Spider-Man trailer before I realized that it wasn't for some new Twilight take-off (or possibly it was). In the comics and the original movie, Peter Parker was always a likable nerd with bad luck. The new movie seems to be remaking him into a misunderstood heart-throb.
Over at Marvel, they have killed Peter Parker and replaced him with someone else. Again!!! This plot device was over-used by the time they brought back the Spider-Clone. I can't believe that they are doing it again. Not that it matters to me. I stopped caring about the character after they erased 30+ years of continuity. The Peter Parker they killed isn't "my" Peter Parker. He is a creation of Mephisto.
It doesn't matter what the ethnicity is of Peter's replacement. They will bring Peter back by the time the movie comes out.
Wired has a first look at the new Superman. I notice that he is in another textured rubber costume. I assume that they do this because it is easier to reproduce digitally.
The last Superman reboot left such a bad taste that I don't have much interest in this one. When I think of a Superman movie I now think of the bullet-in-the-eye, torturing dogs, Superman-as-Christ, Superman-as-stalker/rapist, and "Truth, Justice, and all that."
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Looking back at Captain America
I haven't bothered looking things up. This is just my personal recollections abut Cap in the comics.
The Silver Age of comics is usually defined as beginning when the Flash was created as a new character but inspired by the Golden Age version. He was followed by Green Lantern and some others. All of these were published by DC but Timely Comics decided to follow DC's lead. At the same time they changed their name to Marvel Comics.
Marvel's first creation, the Fantastic Four, included a Silver Age version of the Human Torch. By the third issue of the FF, the Sub-Mariner had been introduced but, in this case, it was the original character instead of a new version.
It didn't take Stan Lee long to test the waters for bringing back the third of Timely's big three heroes. Captain America made a guest appearance in the Human Torch's solo strip. As it turned out, it wasn't the real Cap, just an acrobat using Cap's identity to get close to a car that he wanted to steal.
The real Captain America finally appeared in Avengers #4 when the Sub-Mariner chanced on some Eskimos worshiping a figure frozen in ice. The Sub-Mariner threw a temper tantrum and tossed the figure into the ocean where it drifted south and began melting. It was found by the Avengers who were hunting the Sub-Mariner. The figure was, of course, Captain America, who had been in suspended animation until the heat of the Avengers' submarine thawed him out.
Cap joined the Avengers and became the leader a couple of years later when the founding members quit. Cap also received a solo strip, sharing Tales of Suspense with Iron Man.
Cap made a guest appearance in an early issue of Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. This was also the first real appearance of his side-kick, Bucky. Stan Lee hated side-kicks so Bucky died in the same event that froze Cap.
When Cap first appeared, Iron Man added some gimmicks to his shield so that it returned automatically. He could even control its flight. This only lasted a couple of issues. Cap explained that he threw that stuff out because it ruined the shield's balance.
At first Cap struggled to find a direction. In his first few appearances he fought groups of criminals. This was followed by an origin issue and a return to WWII (complete with Bucky).
The strip returned to the present with Cap realizing that it was the anniversary of the Red Skull's death. Sure enough, some of the Skull's agents activated the Sleepers - three robots that were designed to destroy the world. Obviously, Cap stopped them.
It eventually turned out that the Skull had also been preserved in suspended animation. Just think of the irony if his Sleepers had succeeded in avenging his death when he hadn't actually died.
Cap began running into a SHIELD agent called Agent X who reminded him of his lost love, Peggy Carter. She eventually turned out to be Peggy's sister Sharon.
After Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD was canceled, the whole organization moved in with Cap for a while with Cap taking the unofficial role of special troubleshooter.
At one point Rick Jones became the new Bucky in a few issues done by Jim Steranko. Stan still didn't like teen side-kicks and dropped Rick as soon as he took over the writing again.
The Cosmic Cube began in Captain America. It was created by AIM (Advanced Idea Mechanics) but the Red Skull managed to get it a couple of times. The second time he used it to exchange bodies with Captain America. Then he watched Cap run from the police and some ex-Nazis who had a grudge against the Skull. Along the way Cap ran into Sam Wilson and convinced him to become a super hero - the Falcon. At first the Falcon was just an acrobat with a trained falcon but later his costume was redesigned so that he could fly.
The book became an official team-up between Cap and the Falcon. Sharon Carter was the unofficial third member of the partnership.
Stan finally left the comic for good. Steve Englehart took over and answered the burning question of who was the Captain America during the 1950s? (Actually, I think that Roy Thomas was the only one who really cared. Thomas spent years working out the exact chronology of who wore the Captain America costume when.) It turned out that the government used a new version of the Super Soldier Serum to create a new Captain America and Bucky during the 1950s. The serum was defective and they became irrational so the government put them in suspended animation until the 1970s.)
Englehart made some significant changes to the characters. At some point Cap's identity as Steve Rogers had become public so he adopted the identity of Roger Stevens and got a job with the NYCPD. He also gained mild super strength (Englehart insisted that he was returning Cap to his original levels).
The most significant event came when Cap and the Falcon foiled an attempt by President Nixon to take over the country. Cap resigned as Captain America and became the Nomad (the 1950s Bucky later took this role). There was a sub-plot with various people attempting to take Rogers's place as Captain America and failing. Eventually Steve Rogers returned to the role.
The Red Skull captured the Falcon and revealed that he was really "Snap Wilson", a petty criminal. The Skull had given Snap a new personality when he had the Cosmic Cube. Honestly, I'm not sure how this was resolved.
Jack Kirby returned to Marvel and took over Captain America as writer/artist. The Falcon was dropped along with the Snap Wilson plotline. Sharon Carter vanished (even though she was a Kirby creation) and Cap's strength returned to normal. Kirby didn't stay long.
In the late 1970s, writers were figuring out what made Captain America unique. In the Avengers, Jim Shooter defined him as the hero who would never give up. Other writers added that he was the one man who would fight for dreams. By the early 1980s, Cap had changed from an acrobat wrapped in a flag to a real symbol.
After a stint with writer J. M. Dematties which I didn't care for, Cap came into his own. Publication was increased from monthly to fifteen issues per year with biweekly issues during the Summer. This was a very productive time with writer Mark Gruenwald writing the comic from 1985-1995. DeMatties had killed off the Red Skull but Gruenwald brought him back in a body cloned from Steve Rogers. He also invented Crossbones, the Skull's principle agent (get it: Skull and Crossbones?).
Sharon Carter disappeared and was presumed dead so Cap began a relationship with Diamondback, a reformed criminal.
In one of the Summer story arches, some drugs bonded with Cap's blood, making him perpetually angry. The only cure was a complete blood transfusion. This meant that Cap tied at a normal rate.
In one plot that now seems trite, someone in the White House discovered that the government owned the trademark to "Captain America". They informed Cap that he would be answerable to them. Instead he resigned and began calling himself "The Captain" and carrying a silver shield provided by Tony Stark. A new Captain America was recruited. Eventually President Reagan found out what was going on and ordered the Captain America identity be returned to Steve Rogers. (In an issue of the Avengers, an alien erased all knowledge of Captain America's secret identity.)
Cap also lost his shield for a while. It dropped into the Atlantic.
Eventually his Super Soldier enhancements began to break down and Cap started to die. Tony Stark provided a version of his Iron Man armor to provide life support but Cap eventually died.
He got over it, of course and was reunited with Sharon Carter who was peeved that he forgot all about her for a decade. They fought the Red Skull who had gotten the Cosmic Cube for the third time.
This incarnation lasted five or six years before Cap died again. This time he was blown up. He returned, of course.
Marvel's cross-continuity event, the Civil War, starred Captain America as the leader of the forces that resisted registering with the government. At the end of the war he was killed again, this time by a brainwashed Sharon Carter.
For decades there were only a few constants in the Marvel Universe. The biggest one was that Bucky died. That was finally reversed. It turned out that he was saved by the USSR, given cyborg parts, and kept frozen until they needed him to kill someone. He became the new Captain America.
Steve Rogers was brought to life, yet again and currently heads SHIELD.
The Silver Age of comics is usually defined as beginning when the Flash was created as a new character but inspired by the Golden Age version. He was followed by Green Lantern and some others. All of these were published by DC but Timely Comics decided to follow DC's lead. At the same time they changed their name to Marvel Comics.
Marvel's first creation, the Fantastic Four, included a Silver Age version of the Human Torch. By the third issue of the FF, the Sub-Mariner had been introduced but, in this case, it was the original character instead of a new version.
It didn't take Stan Lee long to test the waters for bringing back the third of Timely's big three heroes. Captain America made a guest appearance in the Human Torch's solo strip. As it turned out, it wasn't the real Cap, just an acrobat using Cap's identity to get close to a car that he wanted to steal.
The real Captain America finally appeared in Avengers #4 when the Sub-Mariner chanced on some Eskimos worshiping a figure frozen in ice. The Sub-Mariner threw a temper tantrum and tossed the figure into the ocean where it drifted south and began melting. It was found by the Avengers who were hunting the Sub-Mariner. The figure was, of course, Captain America, who had been in suspended animation until the heat of the Avengers' submarine thawed him out.
Cap joined the Avengers and became the leader a couple of years later when the founding members quit. Cap also received a solo strip, sharing Tales of Suspense with Iron Man.
Cap made a guest appearance in an early issue of Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. This was also the first real appearance of his side-kick, Bucky. Stan Lee hated side-kicks so Bucky died in the same event that froze Cap.
When Cap first appeared, Iron Man added some gimmicks to his shield so that it returned automatically. He could even control its flight. This only lasted a couple of issues. Cap explained that he threw that stuff out because it ruined the shield's balance.
At first Cap struggled to find a direction. In his first few appearances he fought groups of criminals. This was followed by an origin issue and a return to WWII (complete with Bucky).
The strip returned to the present with Cap realizing that it was the anniversary of the Red Skull's death. Sure enough, some of the Skull's agents activated the Sleepers - three robots that were designed to destroy the world. Obviously, Cap stopped them.
It eventually turned out that the Skull had also been preserved in suspended animation. Just think of the irony if his Sleepers had succeeded in avenging his death when he hadn't actually died.
Cap began running into a SHIELD agent called Agent X who reminded him of his lost love, Peggy Carter. She eventually turned out to be Peggy's sister Sharon.
After Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD was canceled, the whole organization moved in with Cap for a while with Cap taking the unofficial role of special troubleshooter.
At one point Rick Jones became the new Bucky in a few issues done by Jim Steranko. Stan still didn't like teen side-kicks and dropped Rick as soon as he took over the writing again.
The Cosmic Cube began in Captain America. It was created by AIM (Advanced Idea Mechanics) but the Red Skull managed to get it a couple of times. The second time he used it to exchange bodies with Captain America. Then he watched Cap run from the police and some ex-Nazis who had a grudge against the Skull. Along the way Cap ran into Sam Wilson and convinced him to become a super hero - the Falcon. At first the Falcon was just an acrobat with a trained falcon but later his costume was redesigned so that he could fly.
The book became an official team-up between Cap and the Falcon. Sharon Carter was the unofficial third member of the partnership.
Stan finally left the comic for good. Steve Englehart took over and answered the burning question of who was the Captain America during the 1950s? (Actually, I think that Roy Thomas was the only one who really cared. Thomas spent years working out the exact chronology of who wore the Captain America costume when.) It turned out that the government used a new version of the Super Soldier Serum to create a new Captain America and Bucky during the 1950s. The serum was defective and they became irrational so the government put them in suspended animation until the 1970s.)
Englehart made some significant changes to the characters. At some point Cap's identity as Steve Rogers had become public so he adopted the identity of Roger Stevens and got a job with the NYCPD. He also gained mild super strength (Englehart insisted that he was returning Cap to his original levels).
The most significant event came when Cap and the Falcon foiled an attempt by President Nixon to take over the country. Cap resigned as Captain America and became the Nomad (the 1950s Bucky later took this role). There was a sub-plot with various people attempting to take Rogers's place as Captain America and failing. Eventually Steve Rogers returned to the role.
The Red Skull captured the Falcon and revealed that he was really "Snap Wilson", a petty criminal. The Skull had given Snap a new personality when he had the Cosmic Cube. Honestly, I'm not sure how this was resolved.
Jack Kirby returned to Marvel and took over Captain America as writer/artist. The Falcon was dropped along with the Snap Wilson plotline. Sharon Carter vanished (even though she was a Kirby creation) and Cap's strength returned to normal. Kirby didn't stay long.
In the late 1970s, writers were figuring out what made Captain America unique. In the Avengers, Jim Shooter defined him as the hero who would never give up. Other writers added that he was the one man who would fight for dreams. By the early 1980s, Cap had changed from an acrobat wrapped in a flag to a real symbol.
After a stint with writer J. M. Dematties which I didn't care for, Cap came into his own. Publication was increased from monthly to fifteen issues per year with biweekly issues during the Summer. This was a very productive time with writer Mark Gruenwald writing the comic from 1985-1995. DeMatties had killed off the Red Skull but Gruenwald brought him back in a body cloned from Steve Rogers. He also invented Crossbones, the Skull's principle agent (get it: Skull and Crossbones?).
Sharon Carter disappeared and was presumed dead so Cap began a relationship with Diamondback, a reformed criminal.
In one of the Summer story arches, some drugs bonded with Cap's blood, making him perpetually angry. The only cure was a complete blood transfusion. This meant that Cap tied at a normal rate.
In one plot that now seems trite, someone in the White House discovered that the government owned the trademark to "Captain America". They informed Cap that he would be answerable to them. Instead he resigned and began calling himself "The Captain" and carrying a silver shield provided by Tony Stark. A new Captain America was recruited. Eventually President Reagan found out what was going on and ordered the Captain America identity be returned to Steve Rogers. (In an issue of the Avengers, an alien erased all knowledge of Captain America's secret identity.)
Cap also lost his shield for a while. It dropped into the Atlantic.
Eventually his Super Soldier enhancements began to break down and Cap started to die. Tony Stark provided a version of his Iron Man armor to provide life support but Cap eventually died.
He got over it, of course and was reunited with Sharon Carter who was peeved that he forgot all about her for a decade. They fought the Red Skull who had gotten the Cosmic Cube for the third time.
This incarnation lasted five or six years before Cap died again. This time he was blown up. He returned, of course.
Marvel's cross-continuity event, the Civil War, starred Captain America as the leader of the forces that resisted registering with the government. At the end of the war he was killed again, this time by a brainwashed Sharon Carter.
For decades there were only a few constants in the Marvel Universe. The biggest one was that Bucky died. That was finally reversed. It turned out that he was saved by the USSR, given cyborg parts, and kept frozen until they needed him to kill someone. He became the new Captain America.
Steve Rogers was brought to life, yet again and currently heads SHIELD.
Friday, July 15, 2011
EReaders & the Future
I saw a column on ZDNEWS (which has since scrolled off) predicting that ebook readers (ereaders) may be available this year for Christmas but they will be gone by next year, displaced by tablets. I don't think so.
Tablets have a lot to offer readers. They have a larger, back-lit, color screen and they are not tied to any particular seller. I have read several books on an Android tablet.
But, tablets also have significant drawbacks. They are heavy, they don't work well in bright light, and, most important, they have limited battery life. After using my tablet for several hours to keep up on email and Facebook and for light browsing, by the end of the evening I had to make a choice - do some reading or charge my tablet. Even if your tablet gets ten hours of life, that will not last two evenings.
I suppose that I could use it with the charger plugged in. Or I could leave it plugged in overnight. I don't do that because I worry about shortening battery life by overcharging it. My phone loses some of its charge if it is plugged in too long so I expect my tablet to do that also.
So, neither device has a clear advantage over the other. Instead there are a series of trade-offs.
What really made me decide on getting an ereader was an upcoming vacation. We will have limited access to power and I expect to be reading outside part of the time. Those are conditions that really favor an ereader.
Since getting one I find that I appreciate the weight difference a lot. I like the look of the page on the tablet but the ease of handling is a bigger factor than I expected.
Another factor is price. Just a year and a half ago ereaders cost a few hundred dollars. Now you can get a Kindle, Nook or Kobo for less than $150. That's not quite an impulse purchase but it is cheap enough that you do not have to choose between a tablet and an ereader. You can get both.
And that is the biggest reason why dedicated devices will continue. It is the same reason that people are still buying iPods. They are cheap and convenient enough to justify on their own.
Tablets have a lot to offer readers. They have a larger, back-lit, color screen and they are not tied to any particular seller. I have read several books on an Android tablet.
But, tablets also have significant drawbacks. They are heavy, they don't work well in bright light, and, most important, they have limited battery life. After using my tablet for several hours to keep up on email and Facebook and for light browsing, by the end of the evening I had to make a choice - do some reading or charge my tablet. Even if your tablet gets ten hours of life, that will not last two evenings.
I suppose that I could use it with the charger plugged in. Or I could leave it plugged in overnight. I don't do that because I worry about shortening battery life by overcharging it. My phone loses some of its charge if it is plugged in too long so I expect my tablet to do that also.
So, neither device has a clear advantage over the other. Instead there are a series of trade-offs.
What really made me decide on getting an ereader was an upcoming vacation. We will have limited access to power and I expect to be reading outside part of the time. Those are conditions that really favor an ereader.
Since getting one I find that I appreciate the weight difference a lot. I like the look of the page on the tablet but the ease of handling is a bigger factor than I expected.
Another factor is price. Just a year and a half ago ereaders cost a few hundred dollars. Now you can get a Kindle, Nook or Kobo for less than $150. That's not quite an impulse purchase but it is cheap enough that you do not have to choose between a tablet and an ereader. You can get both.
And that is the biggest reason why dedicated devices will continue. It is the same reason that people are still buying iPods. They are cheap and convenient enough to justify on their own.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
More on Phone Spam
Yesterday I wrote about AirPush, an Android add-on that allows applications to send spam to the notification bar, even when you are not using the affected app. I consider this to be the worst kind of spam.
Someone commented on my post pointing out that AirPush has an opt-out function. So, does that absolve them?
Hell no. It would if the ads included a link to the opt-out. They do not. In fact, there is no clue to where they come from. It took me a few tries with Google to figure it out and I'm a lot better at this than most people.
Without a notification you first have to figure out that AirPush is to blame then you have to do further research to find out that there is an opt-out. If you go to their web site you have to enter as a developer and check the FAQs. That's a lot of digging.
I double-checked the app that carried AirPush. It actually includes three different products that push ads. It has a detailed explanation of why it needs different permissions but it never comes out and says that you will get spam notifications or that you can opt-out. Further, all of that was changed since I installed the app last year. A more ethical developer would have included the changes to the advertizing policy at the top along with instruction on how to opt out.
To summarize, there is a way to opt-out but no one volunteers it. You have to dig to find it. That is as bad as not offering an opt-out.
If AirPush wants to be ethical then their contract should require that the developer make it clear that spam will be delivered and how to opt out. Without that they are just another shady operation that should be shut down by Google.
Someone commented on my post pointing out that AirPush has an opt-out function. So, does that absolve them?
Hell no. It would if the ads included a link to the opt-out. They do not. In fact, there is no clue to where they come from. It took me a few tries with Google to figure it out and I'm a lot better at this than most people.
Without a notification you first have to figure out that AirPush is to blame then you have to do further research to find out that there is an opt-out. If you go to their web site you have to enter as a developer and check the FAQs. That's a lot of digging.
I double-checked the app that carried AirPush. It actually includes three different products that push ads. It has a detailed explanation of why it needs different permissions but it never comes out and says that you will get spam notifications or that you can opt-out. Further, all of that was changed since I installed the app last year. A more ethical developer would have included the changes to the advertizing policy at the top along with instruction on how to opt out.
To summarize, there is a way to opt-out but no one volunteers it. You have to dig to find it. That is as bad as not offering an opt-out.
If AirPush wants to be ethical then their contract should require that the developer make it clear that spam will be delivered and how to opt out. Without that they are just another shady operation that should be shut down by Google.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Phone spam
What would you think if you installed a program on your PC and once or twice a day it popped up an ad, even if the program wasn't running? There are several possible terms, none of them complimentary.
That is what started happening with my phone several days ago. Once or twice a day I would see a star in the notification bar with a link to a questionable site. My first thought was that I had installed a new program that caused this. I tried uninstalling my most recent programs but that did not work. I also did a virus check of my phone but that didn't find anything, either.
Eventually I tracked it down thanks to some Googling and message boards. It turns out that there is a new player in the Android marketplace called AirPush. They make an add-on. A developer adds this to an existing app and it starts delivering ads. AirPush says that it can substantially increase a developer's income. That is because it separates the ad from the app so ads are delivered even when the app is not being used.
Now, I don't have any problem with a free app displaying an ad at the bottom when I use it. I figure that is no different from ads on broadcast TV. But, I really object when the ads appear when I am not using the app. This would be like having my TV turn itself on and showing an ad at random times.
Fortunately someone wrote a free app called AirPush Detector. This identifies any installed apps that use AirPush. With the help of that I determined that BloggerDroid was the culprit and removed it. It was a small loss - I installed it a year ago and only used it a few times.
BloggerDroid did not include AirPush when I installed it. That was added later and pushed out as an update. This is pretty sneaky since in made it nearly impossible to identify the offending app without AirPush Detector.
Until now I have strongly preferred Android over Apple because I don't like giving so much control of my technology over to as capricious a company as Apple. This may make me rethink my position. I don't like giving control of my phone over to Steve Jobs but I like AirPush even less.
With luck Google will come out with a policy forbidding this. If not, I can get a new phone next year.
That is what started happening with my phone several days ago. Once or twice a day I would see a star in the notification bar with a link to a questionable site. My first thought was that I had installed a new program that caused this. I tried uninstalling my most recent programs but that did not work. I also did a virus check of my phone but that didn't find anything, either.
Eventually I tracked it down thanks to some Googling and message boards. It turns out that there is a new player in the Android marketplace called AirPush. They make an add-on. A developer adds this to an existing app and it starts delivering ads. AirPush says that it can substantially increase a developer's income. That is because it separates the ad from the app so ads are delivered even when the app is not being used.
Now, I don't have any problem with a free app displaying an ad at the bottom when I use it. I figure that is no different from ads on broadcast TV. But, I really object when the ads appear when I am not using the app. This would be like having my TV turn itself on and showing an ad at random times.
Fortunately someone wrote a free app called AirPush Detector. This identifies any installed apps that use AirPush. With the help of that I determined that BloggerDroid was the culprit and removed it. It was a small loss - I installed it a year ago and only used it a few times.
BloggerDroid did not include AirPush when I installed it. That was added later and pushed out as an update. This is pretty sneaky since in made it nearly impossible to identify the offending app without AirPush Detector.
Until now I have strongly preferred Android over Apple because I don't like giving so much control of my technology over to as capricious a company as Apple. This may make me rethink my position. I don't like giving control of my phone over to Steve Jobs but I like AirPush even less.
With luck Google will come out with a policy forbidding this. If not, I can get a new phone next year.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Alphas
Syfy has a new superhero show - Alphas.
The concept mixes elements of the X-Men, Heroes, and No Ordinary Family. You have "Alphas", people born with special abilities. Some of these have been gathered into a team to investigate special crimes. In the pilot, the crime being investigated involved other alphas and that may be the direction the show takes.
The Alphas themselves might as well be called mutants. They are born with special abilities although not on the level of the other shows. Also, many of the abilities have a built-in downside. The guy with super strength can only turn it on for a few minutes before harming himself. When the woman with super senses concentrates on one sense, she shuts down the others. In addition, they have some normal human failings. The strong guy is a former FBI agent and treats the others as amateurs.The hypnotist has few morals. The guy who can see the electromagnetic spectrum has all sorts of issues.
Not surprisingly, the leader of this group is a psychiatrist. Part of his pitch for new recruits is that he can help them adjust to the problems that come with their abilities.
There are a few problems with the science, especially with the guy who sees broadcasts but it is easy to ignore these and just go with it.
The show follows Eureka and Warehouse 13 but it has a much harder edge than either of those shows.
The concept mixes elements of the X-Men, Heroes, and No Ordinary Family. You have "Alphas", people born with special abilities. Some of these have been gathered into a team to investigate special crimes. In the pilot, the crime being investigated involved other alphas and that may be the direction the show takes.
The Alphas themselves might as well be called mutants. They are born with special abilities although not on the level of the other shows. Also, many of the abilities have a built-in downside. The guy with super strength can only turn it on for a few minutes before harming himself. When the woman with super senses concentrates on one sense, she shuts down the others. In addition, they have some normal human failings. The strong guy is a former FBI agent and treats the others as amateurs.The hypnotist has few morals. The guy who can see the electromagnetic spectrum has all sorts of issues.
Not surprisingly, the leader of this group is a psychiatrist. Part of his pitch for new recruits is that he can help them adjust to the problems that come with their abilities.
There are a few problems with the science, especially with the guy who sees broadcasts but it is easy to ignore these and just go with it.
The show follows Eureka and Warehouse 13 but it has a much harder edge than either of those shows.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Nooking it up
I find that reading books on my tablet is easier than carrying a book around with me. The main problems are that the tablet is still a little large and heavy and the battery life. With a vacation coming up in a situation where I might have trouble charging, I decided that a dedicated reader might be a good idea.
At the same time, my wife decided to try a reader.
We went with different models of the Nook. I went for the new touch-screen version. It is small, light, and has great battery life. My wife wanted something that was lit instead of depending on ambient light so she got a Nook color. This is a stripped-down tablet.
We went with these because, at this time, Amazon does not have a Kindle to match either unit.
I found my Nook to be exactly what I expected. It is light-weight and still fairly easy to read although not as easy as my tablet. I charged it, loaded it with some books, and was off.
My wife's experience is not quite as good. She has never gotten along well with touch screen and we haven't finished configuring everything on her tablet.
I can say that the Nook Color seems fairly responsive even though it uses an older and slower chip than others. It is surprisingly light-weight and it is able to play video files, at least the ones provided by Barnes and Noble.
One of the selling points to me was the existence of a program that stripes books from Amazon of their DRM (Digital Rights Management). I tried this Sunday to be sure that it works. Keep in mind that I am only using this to load books that I purchased on alternate devices.
Surprise. On Monday, Amazon sent an update to the Kindle for PC program that stopped the program from stripping the DRM. Fortunately I had an easy fix - remove the updated program and re-install the earlier version. I also turned off the auto-update setting.
Even with this, it is complicated moving a book from Kindle to Nook. First I have to download the book onto my PC. Then I have to copy it to a different directory and use a command-line function to remove the DRM. Then I use a program called Caliber to reformat the book in EPub. Finally, I copy this to my Nook. The whole process requires three programs and four directories. This is a strong incentive to make future purchases from Barnes and Noble instead of Amazon.
At the same time, my wife decided to try a reader.
We went with different models of the Nook. I went for the new touch-screen version. It is small, light, and has great battery life. My wife wanted something that was lit instead of depending on ambient light so she got a Nook color. This is a stripped-down tablet.
We went with these because, at this time, Amazon does not have a Kindle to match either unit.
I found my Nook to be exactly what I expected. It is light-weight and still fairly easy to read although not as easy as my tablet. I charged it, loaded it with some books, and was off.
My wife's experience is not quite as good. She has never gotten along well with touch screen and we haven't finished configuring everything on her tablet.
I can say that the Nook Color seems fairly responsive even though it uses an older and slower chip than others. It is surprisingly light-weight and it is able to play video files, at least the ones provided by Barnes and Noble.
One of the selling points to me was the existence of a program that stripes books from Amazon of their DRM (Digital Rights Management). I tried this Sunday to be sure that it works. Keep in mind that I am only using this to load books that I purchased on alternate devices.
Surprise. On Monday, Amazon sent an update to the Kindle for PC program that stopped the program from stripping the DRM. Fortunately I had an easy fix - remove the updated program and re-install the earlier version. I also turned off the auto-update setting.
Even with this, it is complicated moving a book from Kindle to Nook. First I have to download the book onto my PC. Then I have to copy it to a different directory and use a command-line function to remove the DRM. Then I use a program called Caliber to reformat the book in EPub. Finally, I copy this to my Nook. The whole process requires three programs and four directories. This is a strong incentive to make future purchases from Barnes and Noble instead of Amazon.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Horror Night on TV
When I was young the big thing on Friday night was Double Chiller Theater. One of the local TV stations would show two horror movies starting at 11:30 Friday night. Later a Cleveland station started their own horror movies on Saturday. This was so successful that they expanded to Friday. They also had a colorful host called the Ghoul. He wore a bad wig, sun glasses with one lens punched out, a fake mustache and goatee and a lab jacket. I always suspected that he did the show drunk. His movies were usually bad and he livened them up by adding sound clips.
Those days ended a long time ago but cable channel TCM has been showing horror movies on Thursday night. Last week they included the Village of Giants (which had a surprisingly good cast). This week they are starting with The Blob.
I wish they did this on the weekend but it makes Thursday more fun.
Those days ended a long time ago but cable channel TCM has been showing horror movies on Thursday night. Last week they included the Village of Giants (which had a surprisingly good cast). This week they are starting with The Blob.
I wish they did this on the weekend but it makes Thursday more fun.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Tablet Wars
ZDNews has a couple of columns on tablets. Their conclusion is that Apple owns the market and that no one can catch up. The only thing left is to fight to be a distant number two, fighting for a tiny market of people who do not like Apple. Is this a valid assessment? I don't think so. We've been here before with the iPhone.
Remember how young this market is. The iPad started shipping less than fifteen months ago. That gives Apple a big head start but not an insurmountable one.
Fifteen months after the iPhone was released Apple had no competition at all. The first touch-screen competitors like the Blackberry Storm were unimpressive. Even the Android phones released before 2.1 had serious problems. At that point the release cycle was so fast that some phones were outdated by the time they hit the shelves. Despite that, more Android phones are sold than iPhones.
Yes, Apple has advantages. They have a head start, a big app store, and low production costs. They are also tied to one form factor. The head start will become less important over time. Android's app store is smaller but growing. It is also more open. People who want adult content on their device will have to go to Android or settle for a browser-based experience. Besides, just how many fart applications do you need?
The basis of Apple's low production costs is coming under fire. A plant in China makes all of their hardware and working conditions there do not meet American standards.
The forms factor is Apple's biggest weakness. Many companies think that a 7" screen is desirable. It is lighter and easier to carry and it can be sold for less. Also, most tablets are more open. You can plug in a memory chip or possibly a camera.
The iPad has one advantage over the iPhone. Originally you were locked into AT&T if you wanted an iPhone. That gave Verizon and Sprint an incentive to push their own hardware. Base models of the iPad do not need a wireless contract so there are no big wireless retailers pushing alternatives (although some tablets have data plans).
Come back in a year and see how the market has shaped up. I expect that Apple will still be the leader but will have some worthy competition.
Remember how young this market is. The iPad started shipping less than fifteen months ago. That gives Apple a big head start but not an insurmountable one.
Fifteen months after the iPhone was released Apple had no competition at all. The first touch-screen competitors like the Blackberry Storm were unimpressive. Even the Android phones released before 2.1 had serious problems. At that point the release cycle was so fast that some phones were outdated by the time they hit the shelves. Despite that, more Android phones are sold than iPhones.
Yes, Apple has advantages. They have a head start, a big app store, and low production costs. They are also tied to one form factor. The head start will become less important over time. Android's app store is smaller but growing. It is also more open. People who want adult content on their device will have to go to Android or settle for a browser-based experience. Besides, just how many fart applications do you need?
The basis of Apple's low production costs is coming under fire. A plant in China makes all of their hardware and working conditions there do not meet American standards.
The forms factor is Apple's biggest weakness. Many companies think that a 7" screen is desirable. It is lighter and easier to carry and it can be sold for less. Also, most tablets are more open. You can plug in a memory chip or possibly a camera.
The iPad has one advantage over the iPhone. Originally you were locked into AT&T if you wanted an iPhone. That gave Verizon and Sprint an incentive to push their own hardware. Base models of the iPad do not need a wireless contract so there are no big wireless retailers pushing alternatives (although some tablets have data plans).
Come back in a year and see how the market has shaped up. I expect that Apple will still be the leader but will have some worthy competition.
Monday, June 13, 2011
X-Men First Class - Quibbles and Complaints
First off, X-Men First Class is a much better movie than X-Men 3 was and possibly better than the original X-Men movie. That said, it does have some problems.
The first problem is its length. It is a long movie and I kept wanting them to get on with things. It was probably too ambitious. It included full back stories on Magneto, Professor X, Mystique, and the founding of the team plus a major sub-plot on the Beast and mutant acceptance in general. And that doesn't even include Sebastian Shaw and his plans. That's a lot to cram into a single movie.
The second problem is that they already used all of the A-list mutants and a lot of the B-list ones. The few A-list mutants who do appear have already been in the other movies, played by older actors.
On to quibbles.
I didn't like the casting on Beast at all. The original character was drawn to look almost like a Neanderthal. He had huge hands and feet that let him find a grip on almost anything. He was also fairly strong and able to bounce around. The movie's version is tall and thin with prehensile feet. There is only one quick training scene that hints that he has other abilities besides ugly feet.
The movie is set in 1962 but most of the 60s references are from later in the decade. Professor X uses the word "groovy". The women are wearing miniskirts. Not only did miniskirts come later but no CIA agent would wear one to a debriefing. The women's underwear is wrong. The did remember to use garter belts instead of pantyhose but Moira MacTaggert should have been wearing "granny panties" and a girdle instead of sexy bikini briefs.
There was a major spy craze during the 60s and elements of the movie are drawn from that. Shaw's submarine and nightclub booth that hides a secret entrance to the villain's lair are examples. But, the spy craze was inspired by the James Bond movie, Goldfinger which came out in 1964.
The first problem is its length. It is a long movie and I kept wanting them to get on with things. It was probably too ambitious. It included full back stories on Magneto, Professor X, Mystique, and the founding of the team plus a major sub-plot on the Beast and mutant acceptance in general. And that doesn't even include Sebastian Shaw and his plans. That's a lot to cram into a single movie.
The second problem is that they already used all of the A-list mutants and a lot of the B-list ones. The few A-list mutants who do appear have already been in the other movies, played by older actors.
On to quibbles.
I didn't like the casting on Beast at all. The original character was drawn to look almost like a Neanderthal. He had huge hands and feet that let him find a grip on almost anything. He was also fairly strong and able to bounce around. The movie's version is tall and thin with prehensile feet. There is only one quick training scene that hints that he has other abilities besides ugly feet.
The movie is set in 1962 but most of the 60s references are from later in the decade. Professor X uses the word "groovy". The women are wearing miniskirts. Not only did miniskirts come later but no CIA agent would wear one to a debriefing. The women's underwear is wrong. The did remember to use garter belts instead of pantyhose but Moira MacTaggert should have been wearing "granny panties" and a girdle instead of sexy bikini briefs.
There was a major spy craze during the 60s and elements of the movie are drawn from that. Shaw's submarine and nightclub booth that hides a secret entrance to the villain's lair are examples. But, the spy craze was inspired by the James Bond movie, Goldfinger which came out in 1964.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Green Lantern
I never really got the character in the 1960s. He created big balloon hands and other objects out of his ring. And the whole yellow thing. His ring was powerless against anything colored yellow. How does that work? Yellow is a primary color. Green includes yellow. Just how yellow does something have to be? What about in the dark? Could he carry some spray paint around to neutralize yellow?
I did get excited about the comic when Denny O'Neil and Niel Adams took over and teamed GL with Green Arrow. Green Arrow was a second-rate hero at best. He was a rich guy who dressed up in green and fought crime with trick arrows. Hawkeye did the same thing but with more flair. Green Arrow was mainly chosen because both characters had "green" in their name.
For the team-up, they reworked Green Arrow. He lost his money, grew a beard and mustache and adopted a darker colored costume. He moved into the ghetto and developed a social conscience.
Green Arrow mainly acted as Jiminy Cricket to Green Lantern.
The team-up began when people in a ghetto started throwing trash at Green Lantern. An old black man explained that GL had been doing a lot for blue-skinned folks, some red skins and some green skins but not enough for the black skins.
Green Lantern, Green Arrow, and one of the Guardians of Oa who created the Green Lantern Corps went on a tour of America. Many of the stories were over the top in their social commentary but they were head and shoulders better than most comics of the times. Plus there was Neil Adams' artwork.
Spider-Man was the first comic to really tackle drugs with a trio of issues revolving around his roommate's drug addiction. The Comics Code was rewritten because of this and drug use was allowed for anti-drug stories. The Green Lantern/Green Arrow version was to show that Green Arrow's teen age sidekick was addicted to heroin. It was a powerful story.
Relevance did not equal sales. The comic was canceled. The last issue featured an early eco-saboteur who was crucified along with GL and GA on the tail sections of some airplanes.
The pair resurfaced a few years later as a backup strip then in their own comic. They split up and the book went back to being Green Lantern.
Then it got complicated.
There was a craze in the 1980s to replace the title character. Green Lantern was one of the first in this trend. Hal Jordan, the original Green Lantern was replaced by two Earthlings and eventually a small cadre of Green Lanterns. During this period the comic was renamed Green Lantern Corps.
Hal Jordan eventually took over the staring role only to run into the end of the replacement hero trend. Superman died and his syborg replacement was actually evil. The evil Superman blew up Green Lantern's home city. This drove Hal Jordan crazy and he decided to turn time back to the original event then roll it forward again so that Central City survived.
Along the way the Green Lanterns were eliminated except for a single new Lantern named Kyle Rayner who eventually killed Hal Jordan. As penance, Hal became the Specter for a while before returning to life as Green Lantern.
The only times I really followed the strip were during the O'Neil/Adams run and during the Green Lantern Corps. I think I bought one or two of the Kyle Rayner issues.
The only Green Lantern appearances that I really liked were the ones in the animated Justice League. That had John Stewart, one of the replacement GLs. Presumably they chose Stewart because his character is black. Regardless, he was one of the more interesting character. The animators did a great job of showing glowing green energy when he used his ring.
I did get excited about the comic when Denny O'Neil and Niel Adams took over and teamed GL with Green Arrow. Green Arrow was a second-rate hero at best. He was a rich guy who dressed up in green and fought crime with trick arrows. Hawkeye did the same thing but with more flair. Green Arrow was mainly chosen because both characters had "green" in their name.
For the team-up, they reworked Green Arrow. He lost his money, grew a beard and mustache and adopted a darker colored costume. He moved into the ghetto and developed a social conscience.
Green Arrow mainly acted as Jiminy Cricket to Green Lantern.
The team-up began when people in a ghetto started throwing trash at Green Lantern. An old black man explained that GL had been doing a lot for blue-skinned folks, some red skins and some green skins but not enough for the black skins.
Green Lantern, Green Arrow, and one of the Guardians of Oa who created the Green Lantern Corps went on a tour of America. Many of the stories were over the top in their social commentary but they were head and shoulders better than most comics of the times. Plus there was Neil Adams' artwork.
Spider-Man was the first comic to really tackle drugs with a trio of issues revolving around his roommate's drug addiction. The Comics Code was rewritten because of this and drug use was allowed for anti-drug stories. The Green Lantern/Green Arrow version was to show that Green Arrow's teen age sidekick was addicted to heroin. It was a powerful story.
Relevance did not equal sales. The comic was canceled. The last issue featured an early eco-saboteur who was crucified along with GL and GA on the tail sections of some airplanes.
The pair resurfaced a few years later as a backup strip then in their own comic. They split up and the book went back to being Green Lantern.
Then it got complicated.
There was a craze in the 1980s to replace the title character. Green Lantern was one of the first in this trend. Hal Jordan, the original Green Lantern was replaced by two Earthlings and eventually a small cadre of Green Lanterns. During this period the comic was renamed Green Lantern Corps.
Hal Jordan eventually took over the staring role only to run into the end of the replacement hero trend. Superman died and his syborg replacement was actually evil. The evil Superman blew up Green Lantern's home city. This drove Hal Jordan crazy and he decided to turn time back to the original event then roll it forward again so that Central City survived.
Along the way the Green Lanterns were eliminated except for a single new Lantern named Kyle Rayner who eventually killed Hal Jordan. As penance, Hal became the Specter for a while before returning to life as Green Lantern.
The only times I really followed the strip were during the O'Neil/Adams run and during the Green Lantern Corps. I think I bought one or two of the Kyle Rayner issues.
The only Green Lantern appearances that I really liked were the ones in the animated Justice League. That had John Stewart, one of the replacement GLs. Presumably they chose Stewart because his character is black. Regardless, he was one of the more interesting character. The animators did a great job of showing glowing green energy when he used his ring.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Steampunk Conventions
I'm not an expert, I've only been to two but I can make some observations on steampunk conventions.
First as an aside I will define steampunk. My definition is science fiction as it might have been conceived by Victorians. Steampunk appears independently in different media. In literature it started as dystopian views of a parallel world with steam-powered mechanical computers. More recently examples are considerably lighter and are set in a parallel world where scientific advances and/or magic exist. There are also people who make steampunk devices - computers with lots of brass and typewriter keys. Steampunk fashion is sort of an offshoot from goth with lots more color plus goggles. Steampunk music still defies definition.
So, what does a steampunk convention consist of? A normal science fiction convention has guest writers and media stars and panels who talk about trends in the field. People dress up as characters from comic books and movies. None of that happens at steampunk conventions.
The biggest thing is giving people a chance to dress up and show off. There are no steampunk movies to emulate (there are movies with steampunk elements but no one copies them). Everyone creates their own styles. Most of it is based on Victorian or military styles but you also have belly dancers and Utilikilts mixed in. There are lots of top hats and nearly everyone has goggles, most of them non-functional).
The most creative people have made accessories - brass jet packs with folding wings or powered gauntlets. Nerf guns are easily converted into formidable-looking weapons.
Panels tend to be on how to do things: how to make costumes, where to find raw materials, etc. Other topics usually cover background knowledge like Victorian industrial design or the history of airships.
Vendors mainly sell clothing. There are no reproduction light sabers or clever T-shirts. Instead you find corsets, hats, jewelry, and gears. Plus goggles.
So far, steampunk music is undefined. I have seen maybe a dozen acts an none of them are remotely similar. The biggest name, Abney Park, came from a goth-industrial background. Others play world music or traditional 19th century music with some sort of a twist. One band played outright headbanger music but sang about Tesla coils. The only similarity was how the bands were dressed. To hats, corsets, and kilts are common.
I suspect that over time more tv shows and movies will include steampunk elements and people will begin copying them instead of inventing their own characters and the genre will become less creative but in the meantime it is nice to see hundreds of people come together to celebrate creativity instead of fandom.
Goggles are the defining trait of steampunk. Engineers need them so everyone wears them, presumably to protect the eyes when running the steam machinery that powers the convention. Some people have attached extra lenses to their goggles.
First as an aside I will define steampunk. My definition is science fiction as it might have been conceived by Victorians. Steampunk appears independently in different media. In literature it started as dystopian views of a parallel world with steam-powered mechanical computers. More recently examples are considerably lighter and are set in a parallel world where scientific advances and/or magic exist. There are also people who make steampunk devices - computers with lots of brass and typewriter keys. Steampunk fashion is sort of an offshoot from goth with lots more color plus goggles. Steampunk music still defies definition.
So, what does a steampunk convention consist of? A normal science fiction convention has guest writers and media stars and panels who talk about trends in the field. People dress up as characters from comic books and movies. None of that happens at steampunk conventions.
The biggest thing is giving people a chance to dress up and show off. There are no steampunk movies to emulate (there are movies with steampunk elements but no one copies them). Everyone creates their own styles. Most of it is based on Victorian or military styles but you also have belly dancers and Utilikilts mixed in. There are lots of top hats and nearly everyone has goggles, most of them non-functional).
The most creative people have made accessories - brass jet packs with folding wings or powered gauntlets. Nerf guns are easily converted into formidable-looking weapons.
Panels tend to be on how to do things: how to make costumes, where to find raw materials, etc. Other topics usually cover background knowledge like Victorian industrial design or the history of airships.
Vendors mainly sell clothing. There are no reproduction light sabers or clever T-shirts. Instead you find corsets, hats, jewelry, and gears. Plus goggles.
So far, steampunk music is undefined. I have seen maybe a dozen acts an none of them are remotely similar. The biggest name, Abney Park, came from a goth-industrial background. Others play world music or traditional 19th century music with some sort of a twist. One band played outright headbanger music but sang about Tesla coils. The only similarity was how the bands were dressed. To hats, corsets, and kilts are common.
I suspect that over time more tv shows and movies will include steampunk elements and people will begin copying them instead of inventing their own characters and the genre will become less creative but in the meantime it is nice to see hundreds of people come together to celebrate creativity instead of fandom.
Goggles are the defining trait of steampunk. Engineers need them so everyone wears them, presumably to protect the eyes when running the steam machinery that powers the convention. Some people have attached extra lenses to their goggles.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Renewals and Cancellations
The Human Target was canceled for next year. This is no surprise. Its ratings kept dropping.
This show shows the signs of network tampering. The first season featured fast-paced action with a lot of humor. Stories were told in non-linear fashion. An episode would open on Chance in a tight fix then alternate scenes between advancing the plot and showing how he got there in the first place. The comedy Grounded For Life did the same thing its first season then switched to normal linear plots.
I'm betting that someone at Fox decided that Human Target was too hard to watch and needed to switch to linear stories and add some women to the cast. The second season lost a lot of its light humor in favor of more character interaction. It slowed the episodes down and they just weren't as much fun to watch.
On the other hand, Chuck was picked up for a final 13 episodes. I'm a little surprised at this. The writing for the 4th season seemed a little off. The premise of the show - Chuck gaining knowledge or martial arts skills from flashes was largely forgotten and he has become too capable in his role as a spy. The whole season centered on Chuck's mother who spent years in deep cover working for a criminal named Volkoff. It was not a strong enough storyline to sustain itself across an entire season. They should have had more non-Volkoff/non-mother episodes.
Chuck's ratings were not very good, either. It says a lot about the state of NBC that it carries shows that have fewer viewers than some of Syfy's offerings.
This show shows the signs of network tampering. The first season featured fast-paced action with a lot of humor. Stories were told in non-linear fashion. An episode would open on Chance in a tight fix then alternate scenes between advancing the plot and showing how he got there in the first place. The comedy Grounded For Life did the same thing its first season then switched to normal linear plots.
I'm betting that someone at Fox decided that Human Target was too hard to watch and needed to switch to linear stories and add some women to the cast. The second season lost a lot of its light humor in favor of more character interaction. It slowed the episodes down and they just weren't as much fun to watch.
On the other hand, Chuck was picked up for a final 13 episodes. I'm a little surprised at this. The writing for the 4th season seemed a little off. The premise of the show - Chuck gaining knowledge or martial arts skills from flashes was largely forgotten and he has become too capable in his role as a spy. The whole season centered on Chuck's mother who spent years in deep cover working for a criminal named Volkoff. It was not a strong enough storyline to sustain itself across an entire season. They should have had more non-Volkoff/non-mother episodes.
Chuck's ratings were not very good, either. It says a lot about the state of NBC that it carries shows that have fewer viewers than some of Syfy's offerings.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
More on Superman's Citizenship
Action 900, the issue where Superman tells the President's national security adviser that he plans on renouncing his citizenship, was a sell-out. The moral ramifications remain.
Superman's reason for doing this was that he is too big to be confined to one nation's politics. He put it in terms about how small and interconnected the world is but the meaning is the same - he is bigger and more important than the US.
Before I go any further I should point out that Superman is not actually a citizen. He is a alias. Clark Kent is the one with the citizenship (courtesy of a forged birth certificate). The Silver Age Superman was known to have a secret identity but the world accommodated the caped version by treating him as a separate entity. It also solved the current problem rather neatly. Instead of renouncing his citizenship, Superman was given citizenship in every member nation of the UN. He was also deputized by all of these nations.
That is where the Silver Age Superman was different from today's model. The Silver Age one was a policeman. He stayed out of politics. He might show some favoritism about where he enforced the law, centering on Metropolis, but he was neutral otherwise.
If we are going to have a near-omnipotent protector, this is what I would prefer.
Think about how much trouble Superman could cause if he started exceeding this mandate. In Action #900, he supported a freedom protest in Iran. What if the government of Iran fell and the country collapsed into sectarian violence? It happens all the time when a government falls. Look at Yugoslavia or Somalia. Egypt is in some danger on this happening. 500 years ago, Machiavelli wrote about how revolutions always make things worse.
What if Superman took a more direct hand? It took the US army three weeks to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Superman could have done it in a fraction of that time. But what then? It took hundreds of thousands of troops and years to stabilize the country after Saddam's government fell. What would be his responsibility after overthrowing a dictator? Superman cannot be everywhere. Would he be up to this challenge?
As a newly-minted citizen of the world, how much does Superman share that world's values? Most of the third world practices some form of slavery. Homosexuality is banned in large parts of the world. Uganda is considering legislation that mandates the death penalty for HIV-positive gays under certain circumstances. Is Superman planning on enforcing Western values? What if he sees a woman driving a car in Saudi Arabia? Western values say that this is good. Saudi law says that it is wrong. What would Superman do?
A few years ago a Spanish judge claimed jurisdiction over the world on human rights violations and ordered the arrest of President Bush and other members of the US government. Would Superman enforce this judge's orders? Or will he give himself similar standing to judge and enforce human rights?
The Silver Age Superman never had to struggle with any of these questions because of the limits he put on his activities. Once you start inserting yourself into international events everything becomes a moral issue.
I admit that I am not in the target audience for these books, anyway. I haven't been a regular Superman reader since the 1960s. I followed the John Byrne reboot for a while but eventually got tired of it. This was a Superman but not my Superman. I feel the same way about this event. My Superman would never judge himself too big for US citizenship.
Superman's reason for doing this was that he is too big to be confined to one nation's politics. He put it in terms about how small and interconnected the world is but the meaning is the same - he is bigger and more important than the US.
Before I go any further I should point out that Superman is not actually a citizen. He is a alias. Clark Kent is the one with the citizenship (courtesy of a forged birth certificate). The Silver Age Superman was known to have a secret identity but the world accommodated the caped version by treating him as a separate entity. It also solved the current problem rather neatly. Instead of renouncing his citizenship, Superman was given citizenship in every member nation of the UN. He was also deputized by all of these nations.
That is where the Silver Age Superman was different from today's model. The Silver Age one was a policeman. He stayed out of politics. He might show some favoritism about where he enforced the law, centering on Metropolis, but he was neutral otherwise.
If we are going to have a near-omnipotent protector, this is what I would prefer.
Think about how much trouble Superman could cause if he started exceeding this mandate. In Action #900, he supported a freedom protest in Iran. What if the government of Iran fell and the country collapsed into sectarian violence? It happens all the time when a government falls. Look at Yugoslavia or Somalia. Egypt is in some danger on this happening. 500 years ago, Machiavelli wrote about how revolutions always make things worse.
What if Superman took a more direct hand? It took the US army three weeks to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Superman could have done it in a fraction of that time. But what then? It took hundreds of thousands of troops and years to stabilize the country after Saddam's government fell. What would be his responsibility after overthrowing a dictator? Superman cannot be everywhere. Would he be up to this challenge?
As a newly-minted citizen of the world, how much does Superman share that world's values? Most of the third world practices some form of slavery. Homosexuality is banned in large parts of the world. Uganda is considering legislation that mandates the death penalty for HIV-positive gays under certain circumstances. Is Superman planning on enforcing Western values? What if he sees a woman driving a car in Saudi Arabia? Western values say that this is good. Saudi law says that it is wrong. What would Superman do?
A few years ago a Spanish judge claimed jurisdiction over the world on human rights violations and ordered the arrest of President Bush and other members of the US government. Would Superman enforce this judge's orders? Or will he give himself similar standing to judge and enforce human rights?
The Silver Age Superman never had to struggle with any of these questions because of the limits he put on his activities. Once you start inserting yourself into international events everything becomes a moral issue.
I admit that I am not in the target audience for these books, anyway. I haven't been a regular Superman reader since the 1960s. I followed the John Byrne reboot for a while but eventually got tired of it. This was a Superman but not my Superman. I feel the same way about this event. My Superman would never judge himself too big for US citizenship.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Thor
I was worried about this movie. Director Kenneth Branagh has made some overblown movies. Publicity photos were not encouraging. Asgard looked too sci-fi. Still, I sent on opening weekend.
Surprise! The movie is really good.
Minor spoiler alert.
At its heart, the movie has the same plot as Iron Man. We start with some people in a car. There is an accident followed by a flashback showing us that our hero is an arrogant jerk. We are brought back to the present where the hero has a life-changing experience. Eventually he recovers and fights the real enemy who was someone he trusted.
With both movies, the action scenes are great but the main character is vital. He has to be likable enough to carry the movie. Iron Man was so much fun because you just liked watching Tony Stark. It didn't matter if he was testing a new suit of armor or crashing a party. If the central character isn't interesting then the movie becomes an exercise in marking time until the climax.
Fortunately, Chris Hemsworth's Thor is interesting enough to carry the movie. He isn't as captivating as Tony Stark but his relationship with Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her crew makes up for it.
The movie's interpretation of Loki is interesting. For decades the comic book version has simply been evil. In the movie he is a lot more complicated, especially after he learns that he is adopted.
There are some rough spots. The movie has a much larger cast than Iron Man. It includes Thor, Odin, Loki, Jane Foster and her two assistants, the Warriors Three, Sif, Heimdall, Frigga, Laufey the King of the Frost Giants, and Agent Coulson. That's a lot of people to introduce. The Warriors Three, Sif, and Heimdal all get introductions that are too short. Also, why the Warriors Three and Sif? Why not the Warriors Four? In the comic Book Sif was Thor's on-again/off-again love interest. In the movie she is just another warrior (she did have this role in some limited-series "young Thor" books).
High points - the sweeping vistas of Asgard are directly inspired by Jack Kirby's art.
Disappointments - the Rainbow Bridge is not a rainbow, it is a bunch of colored pieces of quartz. Volstagg should be a foot taller and 100 pounds heavier. He looks too much like a (very tall) dwarf from LotR.
Surprise! The movie is really good.
Minor spoiler alert.
At its heart, the movie has the same plot as Iron Man. We start with some people in a car. There is an accident followed by a flashback showing us that our hero is an arrogant jerk. We are brought back to the present where the hero has a life-changing experience. Eventually he recovers and fights the real enemy who was someone he trusted.
With both movies, the action scenes are great but the main character is vital. He has to be likable enough to carry the movie. Iron Man was so much fun because you just liked watching Tony Stark. It didn't matter if he was testing a new suit of armor or crashing a party. If the central character isn't interesting then the movie becomes an exercise in marking time until the climax.
Fortunately, Chris Hemsworth's Thor is interesting enough to carry the movie. He isn't as captivating as Tony Stark but his relationship with Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her crew makes up for it.
The movie's interpretation of Loki is interesting. For decades the comic book version has simply been evil. In the movie he is a lot more complicated, especially after he learns that he is adopted.
There are some rough spots. The movie has a much larger cast than Iron Man. It includes Thor, Odin, Loki, Jane Foster and her two assistants, the Warriors Three, Sif, Heimdall, Frigga, Laufey the King of the Frost Giants, and Agent Coulson. That's a lot of people to introduce. The Warriors Three, Sif, and Heimdal all get introductions that are too short. Also, why the Warriors Three and Sif? Why not the Warriors Four? In the comic Book Sif was Thor's on-again/off-again love interest. In the movie she is just another warrior (she did have this role in some limited-series "young Thor" books).
High points - the sweeping vistas of Asgard are directly inspired by Jack Kirby's art.
Disappointments - the Rainbow Bridge is not a rainbow, it is a bunch of colored pieces of quartz. Volstagg should be a foot taller and 100 pounds heavier. He looks too much like a (very tall) dwarf from LotR.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Looking Back at Thor
One of the first Marvel comics I looked at was Journey Into Mystery #93 staring the Mighty Thor. I remember seeing a group of comics by some off-brand company (not DC). A guy with long hair and a red cape attacked some tanks. I remember thinking, 'He talks about his hammer too much,' and stopped looking before the feature villain, the Radioactive Man, even appeared. A few months later I read X-Men #3 (featuring the Blob) and was hooked on Marvel comics. Being an instant X-Men fan, I just had to buy Journey Into Mystery (Thor) #109 which featured Magneto with sort of a cameo by the X-Men. I missed the next issue but started buying it regularly with #111. When Thor met the Destroyer the following year I thought that it was one of the most exciting cliff-hangers ever. I also picked up enough back issues and reprints to fill in my knowledge of the character.
Looking back, I started reading Thor just as the character really came into his own. The first several issues were clumsy. The story often revolved around Thor turning into Don Blake without his hammer and having to retrieve it before wrapping things up fast. The supporting cast consisted of Blake's nurse, Jane Foster and the strip was only given 13 pages so stories had to be streamlined.
The big change came when Jack Kirby became the regular artist and co-plotter. A whole new element was added - Asgard. Don Blake's life never got any more interesting but Thor's relatives, friends, and enemies were slowly introduced giving the strip a fairly large cast. This is also when the character moved from being about a regular guy who could become a superhero to being about a god who could disguise himself as a human. Jane Foster was written out of the comic in #136. Finally in issue #159 Thor finds out that Blake was nothing more than a construct to teach Thor humility. After that revelation, Don Blake pretty much ceased appearing unless needed for his medical knowledge.
The team of Lee and Kirby continued until Kirby left in 1970. The great Neil Adams took over for two issues followed by John Buscema., The quality of the comic continued until Stan Lee left around 1971. He still wrote a couple of issues after that but Gerry Conway became the regular writer. As time passed, the stories seemed to be going through the motions rather than capturing new glory. This was a general problem in comics at the time as a new generation of creators struggled to find their voice.
Marvel went through a set of revolving editors in the 1970s with the result that few comics had a regular creative team. Thor saw stories written by Conway, Roy Thomas and Len Wein and art by John and Sal Buscema, Rich Buckler, and Walt Simonson. Somewhere in there Jane Foster returned and merged with the goddess Sif. For a while Jane and Sif could switch places like Thor and Don Blake. One memorable plotline involved a false Ragnarok.
Jack Kirby returned to Marvel briefly in the late 1970s, creating some ultra-powerful characters called the Eternals. The book lasted less than a year but many of the plot threads moved on to Thor. Most of the stories over a two year period combined the Eternals and ancient Norse myths into a single plotline.
Quality continued to decline in the early 1980s. The comic was on the verge of cancellation when it was turned over to Walt Simonson as writer/artist. Overnight Simonson revived the character, making Thor cool for the first time in a decade. I reread some of his stories last week and they hold up very well.
Simonson began his run by introducing Beta Ray Bill, an alien demon-horse thing who was judged worthy of Thor's powers. Eventually he was given his own hammer. The spell that let Thor change into Don Blake is transferred to Bill allowing him to transform back to the humanoid he was before being re-engineered into the protector for his people.
Thor returned to Earth and took up the identity of Sigurd Jarlson, a construction worker so that he could be closer to humanity. Simonson did the art for two years between issues #337 and #353. After that Sal Buscema took over the art with Simonson continuing to write and doing around half the art. Along the way Thor's face is scarred and he grows a beard. The death goddess Hel curses him with fragile bones and he has to wear armor to support his broken limbs. The whole thing came to a climax in Thor #382 which marked Simonson's departure from the comic.
Tom DeFalco and Ron Frenz took over and the quality of the book began another decline. An architect named Eric Masterson was introduced and merged with Thor replacing Don Blake as Thor's mortal identity.
In the late 1990s the big thing was reviving sales by replacing a hero. This was done at one point or another with Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Captain America, Spider-Man, and Iron Man. Thor's turn came after he "killed" Loki (he got better). Thor's identity was submerged and Eric Masterson became the new Thor in 1991 in issue #433. In issue #440 they introduced the Thor Corps - Eric Masterson's Thor, a Thor from the future, and Beta Ray Bill (Beta Ray Thor). The real Thor finally returned in issue #457 and Masterson was spun off as Thunderstrike with an enchanted mace.
After his return Thor went crazy and fought most of the other cosmic heroes in a mammoth cross-over.
At the end of this Thor got a new costume and Roy Thomas took over writing. I remember hating this period.
Warren Ellis wrote memorable four issue run reviving the character once again and starting a long affair with the Enchantress. Bill Messner-Leob took over as the regular writer. Thor lost his powers, shirt, and helmet. He worked as a free-lance hero with the also-powerless Enchantress handling the billing. He got his powers back just in time for the Onslaught plotline. This was a cross-continuity event where all of the major non-mutant heroes vanished to another world and were presumed dead. Thor's last regular issues was #502, printed in 1996. It was a nice send-off as Thor and a second Thor (leftover from a Roy Thomas plotline from 1979) prepared for one final fight to the death. It was only marred by a brand-new costume which just looked strange.
Thor was replaced with the Lost Asgardians for a year. Somehow various Asgardians had been transported to Earth and given human identities. It was really nothing more than a way of marking time.
The whole thing led to a massive reboot of the Marvel universe. Old plotlines and dangling plot threads were ignored and the various characters started with fresh creative teams and #1 issues. Thor was joined (again) with an emergency medical technician named Jake Olsen.
Dan Jurgens was the writer and the quality stayed fairly high. After around fifty regular issues the book got into really interesting territory - what if the gods took a more active role in humanity's affairs? Odin died and people started praying directly to Thor. Starting in issue #68, the comic jumped 17 years then 200 years into the future. Thor and the Asgardians have conquered the world and turned it into a paradise ruled over by Thor (who lost an eye, an arm and his hammer along the way), the Enchantress, and Loki. It eventually turns out that to be a hollow paradise and Thor uses his power to turn back time and undo most of the events. This is followed by a six-part version of Ragnarok and the cancellation of the comic.
Thor was revived again, three years later in 2007. The series has been separated into different story arcs which are easy to package as graphic novels. The first was is about the revival of the gods and their new home, floating above a small town in Oklahoma. The second arc was about the machinations of Loki and Doctor Doom, leading up to the Siege event. The Siege of Asgard itself was a major cross-continuity event involving nearly everyone in the Marvel Universe. That was followed with Thor's attempts to save the Asgardian dead.
All of these have been strong stories, especially the first set written by Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski. They are best read as graphic novels instead of individual issues.
So there we are - nearly 40 years of Thor. Long stretches of creativity punctuated by longer stretches of mediocrity.
Looking back, I started reading Thor just as the character really came into his own. The first several issues were clumsy. The story often revolved around Thor turning into Don Blake without his hammer and having to retrieve it before wrapping things up fast. The supporting cast consisted of Blake's nurse, Jane Foster and the strip was only given 13 pages so stories had to be streamlined.
The big change came when Jack Kirby became the regular artist and co-plotter. A whole new element was added - Asgard. Don Blake's life never got any more interesting but Thor's relatives, friends, and enemies were slowly introduced giving the strip a fairly large cast. This is also when the character moved from being about a regular guy who could become a superhero to being about a god who could disguise himself as a human. Jane Foster was written out of the comic in #136. Finally in issue #159 Thor finds out that Blake was nothing more than a construct to teach Thor humility. After that revelation, Don Blake pretty much ceased appearing unless needed for his medical knowledge.
The team of Lee and Kirby continued until Kirby left in 1970. The great Neil Adams took over for two issues followed by John Buscema., The quality of the comic continued until Stan Lee left around 1971. He still wrote a couple of issues after that but Gerry Conway became the regular writer. As time passed, the stories seemed to be going through the motions rather than capturing new glory. This was a general problem in comics at the time as a new generation of creators struggled to find their voice.
Marvel went through a set of revolving editors in the 1970s with the result that few comics had a regular creative team. Thor saw stories written by Conway, Roy Thomas and Len Wein and art by John and Sal Buscema, Rich Buckler, and Walt Simonson. Somewhere in there Jane Foster returned and merged with the goddess Sif. For a while Jane and Sif could switch places like Thor and Don Blake. One memorable plotline involved a false Ragnarok.
Jack Kirby returned to Marvel briefly in the late 1970s, creating some ultra-powerful characters called the Eternals. The book lasted less than a year but many of the plot threads moved on to Thor. Most of the stories over a two year period combined the Eternals and ancient Norse myths into a single plotline.
Quality continued to decline in the early 1980s. The comic was on the verge of cancellation when it was turned over to Walt Simonson as writer/artist. Overnight Simonson revived the character, making Thor cool for the first time in a decade. I reread some of his stories last week and they hold up very well.
Simonson began his run by introducing Beta Ray Bill, an alien demon-horse thing who was judged worthy of Thor's powers. Eventually he was given his own hammer. The spell that let Thor change into Don Blake is transferred to Bill allowing him to transform back to the humanoid he was before being re-engineered into the protector for his people.
Thor returned to Earth and took up the identity of Sigurd Jarlson, a construction worker so that he could be closer to humanity. Simonson did the art for two years between issues #337 and #353. After that Sal Buscema took over the art with Simonson continuing to write and doing around half the art. Along the way Thor's face is scarred and he grows a beard. The death goddess Hel curses him with fragile bones and he has to wear armor to support his broken limbs. The whole thing came to a climax in Thor #382 which marked Simonson's departure from the comic.
Tom DeFalco and Ron Frenz took over and the quality of the book began another decline. An architect named Eric Masterson was introduced and merged with Thor replacing Don Blake as Thor's mortal identity.
In the late 1990s the big thing was reviving sales by replacing a hero. This was done at one point or another with Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Captain America, Spider-Man, and Iron Man. Thor's turn came after he "killed" Loki (he got better). Thor's identity was submerged and Eric Masterson became the new Thor in 1991 in issue #433. In issue #440 they introduced the Thor Corps - Eric Masterson's Thor, a Thor from the future, and Beta Ray Bill (Beta Ray Thor). The real Thor finally returned in issue #457 and Masterson was spun off as Thunderstrike with an enchanted mace.
After his return Thor went crazy and fought most of the other cosmic heroes in a mammoth cross-over.
At the end of this Thor got a new costume and Roy Thomas took over writing. I remember hating this period.
Warren Ellis wrote memorable four issue run reviving the character once again and starting a long affair with the Enchantress. Bill Messner-Leob took over as the regular writer. Thor lost his powers, shirt, and helmet. He worked as a free-lance hero with the also-powerless Enchantress handling the billing. He got his powers back just in time for the Onslaught plotline. This was a cross-continuity event where all of the major non-mutant heroes vanished to another world and were presumed dead. Thor's last regular issues was #502, printed in 1996. It was a nice send-off as Thor and a second Thor (leftover from a Roy Thomas plotline from 1979) prepared for one final fight to the death. It was only marred by a brand-new costume which just looked strange.
Thor was replaced with the Lost Asgardians for a year. Somehow various Asgardians had been transported to Earth and given human identities. It was really nothing more than a way of marking time.
The whole thing led to a massive reboot of the Marvel universe. Old plotlines and dangling plot threads were ignored and the various characters started with fresh creative teams and #1 issues. Thor was joined (again) with an emergency medical technician named Jake Olsen.
Dan Jurgens was the writer and the quality stayed fairly high. After around fifty regular issues the book got into really interesting territory - what if the gods took a more active role in humanity's affairs? Odin died and people started praying directly to Thor. Starting in issue #68, the comic jumped 17 years then 200 years into the future. Thor and the Asgardians have conquered the world and turned it into a paradise ruled over by Thor (who lost an eye, an arm and his hammer along the way), the Enchantress, and Loki. It eventually turns out that to be a hollow paradise and Thor uses his power to turn back time and undo most of the events. This is followed by a six-part version of Ragnarok and the cancellation of the comic.
Thor was revived again, three years later in 2007. The series has been separated into different story arcs which are easy to package as graphic novels. The first was is about the revival of the gods and their new home, floating above a small town in Oklahoma. The second arc was about the machinations of Loki and Doctor Doom, leading up to the Siege event. The Siege of Asgard itself was a major cross-continuity event involving nearly everyone in the Marvel Universe. That was followed with Thor's attempts to save the Asgardian dead.
All of these have been strong stories, especially the first set written by Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski. They are best read as graphic novels instead of individual issues.
So there we are - nearly 40 years of Thor. Long stretches of creativity punctuated by longer stretches of mediocrity.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Should Superman be a free agent?
In Action 900, Superman informs the national security adviser that he plans to renounce his American citizenship. He decided to take this action after catching flack from the administration for supporting pro-democracy protests in Iran. In a bit of cross-over from the real world, the Obama administration was roundly criticized for not supporting the Iranian protesters. Even though his action was on his own initiative, Superman's support was taken as a sign of US policy.
This is a tricky question. It openly rejects the idea of "Truth, justice and the American Way" following the last movie, "Truth, justice, and all that." The American way is no longer good enough for this citizen of the world. But where to go from there?
This question has real-world parallels. As I write this, former President Carter is engaged in negotiations in Korea. Granted he cannot move mountains but his stature as former president his presence implies official authority. Similarly, Jesse Jackson has engaged in private negotiations with foreign governments.
Since Superman is going to inform the UN, presumably he plans on submitting himself to UN control. Will this be the General Assembly or the Security Council? The General Assembly includes Iran, Libya, Syria, and Liberia. Does Superman really plan on limiting himself to actions that this assembly sanctions? The Security Council is little better. Both Russia and China are permanent members who practice human rights abuse. Russia tends to support Iran and would certainly have vetoed and actions against its government by Superman.
In fact, nearly every nation in the UN would be leery of letting Superman support the overthrow of a recognized government. the reason that NATO is acting in Libya is that the UN refused to become involved (Russia again). This underscores the problem that the governments of the world do not necessarily represent the peoples of the world. Most of the 3rd world is ruled by corrupt governments. Superman could find himself supporting dictators rather than upholding liberty.
What if Superman gave up all citizenship and asked the UN to just trust him to do the right thing? In the movie Superman 4 The Quest for Peace, Superman decided on his own that the world needed nuclear disarmament. Personally, I found that scary. Superman is not infallible. What if he decided on his own that nuclear power was bad and took it upon himself to destroy all nuclear reactors? That would cut off power to millions. It is the arbitrariness that is scary. We would have to hope that a free-agent Superman would do the right thing but the "right thing" is often a complex subject. Where would he draw the line? Personally I find the idea of someone with unlimited power and no accountability to be scary. Personally, I prefer omnipotent beings to be responsible to elected leaders even ones I didn't vote for.
The easiest thing is to avoid policy issues altogether. That is what Superman traditionally did. If you limit yourself to defending the Earth, preventing natural disasters, and upholding the law (mainly in Metropolis) then no one will complain. But he went beyond that which is what brought us to this point. This is probably an issue that comic books should avoid.
In some ways this is just DC catching up with issues Marvel confronted decades ago. Their heroes have been accountable to their governments or treated as outlaws. Truly free agents like the Silver Surfer were treated as menaces.
One final question - what happens to Clark Kent? It seems hypocritical for Superman to renounce his citizenship but then get it back by putting on a pair of glasses and combing is hair differently.
This is a tricky question. It openly rejects the idea of "Truth, justice and the American Way" following the last movie, "Truth, justice, and all that." The American way is no longer good enough for this citizen of the world. But where to go from there?
This question has real-world parallels. As I write this, former President Carter is engaged in negotiations in Korea. Granted he cannot move mountains but his stature as former president his presence implies official authority. Similarly, Jesse Jackson has engaged in private negotiations with foreign governments.
Since Superman is going to inform the UN, presumably he plans on submitting himself to UN control. Will this be the General Assembly or the Security Council? The General Assembly includes Iran, Libya, Syria, and Liberia. Does Superman really plan on limiting himself to actions that this assembly sanctions? The Security Council is little better. Both Russia and China are permanent members who practice human rights abuse. Russia tends to support Iran and would certainly have vetoed and actions against its government by Superman.
In fact, nearly every nation in the UN would be leery of letting Superman support the overthrow of a recognized government. the reason that NATO is acting in Libya is that the UN refused to become involved (Russia again). This underscores the problem that the governments of the world do not necessarily represent the peoples of the world. Most of the 3rd world is ruled by corrupt governments. Superman could find himself supporting dictators rather than upholding liberty.
What if Superman gave up all citizenship and asked the UN to just trust him to do the right thing? In the movie Superman 4 The Quest for Peace, Superman decided on his own that the world needed nuclear disarmament. Personally, I found that scary. Superman is not infallible. What if he decided on his own that nuclear power was bad and took it upon himself to destroy all nuclear reactors? That would cut off power to millions. It is the arbitrariness that is scary. We would have to hope that a free-agent Superman would do the right thing but the "right thing" is often a complex subject. Where would he draw the line? Personally I find the idea of someone with unlimited power and no accountability to be scary. Personally, I prefer omnipotent beings to be responsible to elected leaders even ones I didn't vote for.
The easiest thing is to avoid policy issues altogether. That is what Superman traditionally did. If you limit yourself to defending the Earth, preventing natural disasters, and upholding the law (mainly in Metropolis) then no one will complain. But he went beyond that which is what brought us to this point. This is probably an issue that comic books should avoid.
In some ways this is just DC catching up with issues Marvel confronted decades ago. Their heroes have been accountable to their governments or treated as outlaws. Truly free agents like the Silver Surfer were treated as menaces.
One final question - what happens to Clark Kent? It seems hypocritical for Superman to renounce his citizenship but then get it back by putting on a pair of glasses and combing is hair differently.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Wonder Woman
Wonder Woman is returning to TV in a new series being filmed for NBC. Superheroes have had a mixed reception on TV. Clark Kent has had a long run in his "no tights, no flights" Smallville. Heroes lasted four seasons. On the other hand, The Cape and No Ordinary Family have seen declining ratings and neither is likely to be renewed. The Bionic Woman started strong but may have set a record for audience loss.
Wonder Woman has already had some controversy. When the character was unveiled, everyone hated her new costume. Instead of blue shorts spangled with white stars, she had long blue pants and matching boots. Some people thought that the network was trying to downplay the patriotic angle. Others simply hated the vinyl look. NBC seems to have listened. Pictures taken during shooting show that her pants are a different material with a row of yellow stars down the sides and red boots. They also changed the cut so the crotch is not so tight.
Wonder Woman is one of DC's big three characters - the only three to remain in continuous publication from the Golden Age to the Silver Age. That said, she is the least of them. By the 1960s Superman and Batman each appeared in multiple comics. Wonder Woman only had the one and it was struggling by the late 1960s.
For a time DC reworked the character completely. The Amazons left our dimension. Dianna Prince stayed behind, losing her powers. She bought a "mod" boutique ("mod" was slag for the youth-oriented fashions in the 60s) and took on a second job as an undercover agent under the tutelage of a character named I Ching. That phase didn't last very long. The Amazons returned and Wonder Woman regained her powers.
There was an attempt at updating Wonder Woman for TV in the mid-1970s. This version was blond and wore a different outfit. Her bracelets were full of gimmicks. She didn't seem to have any special powers. At one point the villain asked how she got there so fast. She replied, "I have an invisible airplane." That line was the main thing proving that the producers of the movie even knew who Wonder Woman was. The pilot was boring and the fans hated this version. It made the list of 100 dumbest events in television.
They tried again with the famous Linda Carter version. This one kept the Wonder Woman mythos intact. It was set during World War II. Parts of it bordered on camp, especially the pilot, but it was played straight and the characters' earnestness played well against the war. Ratings were fairly good but the expense of doing a costume show kept ABC from renewing it. CBS picked the show up and moved it into the present (1977) where it ran for two more years.
Wonder Woman also became a feminist icon during the 1970s. A collection of Golden Age stories was published with an introduction by feminist leader Gloria Steinem stressing Wonder Woman's independence from men. This aspect was also central to the comic when it was rebooted in the 1980s by George Perez.
Wonder Woman has already had some controversy. When the character was unveiled, everyone hated her new costume. Instead of blue shorts spangled with white stars, she had long blue pants and matching boots. Some people thought that the network was trying to downplay the patriotic angle. Others simply hated the vinyl look. NBC seems to have listened. Pictures taken during shooting show that her pants are a different material with a row of yellow stars down the sides and red boots. They also changed the cut so the crotch is not so tight.
Wonder Woman is one of DC's big three characters - the only three to remain in continuous publication from the Golden Age to the Silver Age. That said, she is the least of them. By the 1960s Superman and Batman each appeared in multiple comics. Wonder Woman only had the one and it was struggling by the late 1960s.
For a time DC reworked the character completely. The Amazons left our dimension. Dianna Prince stayed behind, losing her powers. She bought a "mod" boutique ("mod" was slag for the youth-oriented fashions in the 60s) and took on a second job as an undercover agent under the tutelage of a character named I Ching. That phase didn't last very long. The Amazons returned and Wonder Woman regained her powers.
There was an attempt at updating Wonder Woman for TV in the mid-1970s. This version was blond and wore a different outfit. Her bracelets were full of gimmicks. She didn't seem to have any special powers. At one point the villain asked how she got there so fast. She replied, "I have an invisible airplane." That line was the main thing proving that the producers of the movie even knew who Wonder Woman was. The pilot was boring and the fans hated this version. It made the list of 100 dumbest events in television.
They tried again with the famous Linda Carter version. This one kept the Wonder Woman mythos intact. It was set during World War II. Parts of it bordered on camp, especially the pilot, but it was played straight and the characters' earnestness played well against the war. Ratings were fairly good but the expense of doing a costume show kept ABC from renewing it. CBS picked the show up and moved it into the present (1977) where it ran for two more years.
Wonder Woman also became a feminist icon during the 1970s. A collection of Golden Age stories was published with an introduction by feminist leader Gloria Steinem stressing Wonder Woman's independence from men. This aspect was also central to the comic when it was rebooted in the 1980s by George Perez.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Superman and General Zod
It was announced over the weekend that the new Superman movie, Superman: Man of Steel, will have General Zod as the villain. I'm not sure what to make of this.
The biggest flaw of Superman Returns was the lack of originality. The plot and many of the scenes were remakes of the original Superman movie. The new movie is supposed to be a reboot. The fact that they are recycling villains from Superman II is a bad sign.
On the other hand, Superman II was the best of the Chris Reeve movies. It pushed the envelope beyond anything in the comic books (at the time) with Superman giving up his powers in order to sleep with Lois only to find out that he had to sacrifice his personal happiness for the greater good. It also had the first real fight between super-powered characters.
But, Zod was never a great villain and his presence in the movie was more plot point than anything. He could have easily been replaced with any powerful character. His second-in-command, Ursa, was actually more menacing (and a lot sexier).
The biggest problem with Zod as a character is that he is also from Krypton. While this puts him on an equal footing with Superman, it also dilutes Superman's status. For decades, Superman was at the top of the food chain and the only way that a villain could match him was to come from Krypton or another red sun world. Since then DC has introduced villains such as Darkseid and Mongul who are more powerful than Superman without being from Krypton.
Zod has never been a first-tier villain. I'm sure that the only reason he was included is because he was in Superman II. That is a strike against the new movie since most superhero movies try to use the strongest villains possible.
The biggest flaw of Superman Returns was the lack of originality. The plot and many of the scenes were remakes of the original Superman movie. The new movie is supposed to be a reboot. The fact that they are recycling villains from Superman II is a bad sign.
On the other hand, Superman II was the best of the Chris Reeve movies. It pushed the envelope beyond anything in the comic books (at the time) with Superman giving up his powers in order to sleep with Lois only to find out that he had to sacrifice his personal happiness for the greater good. It also had the first real fight between super-powered characters.
But, Zod was never a great villain and his presence in the movie was more plot point than anything. He could have easily been replaced with any powerful character. His second-in-command, Ursa, was actually more menacing (and a lot sexier).
The biggest problem with Zod as a character is that he is also from Krypton. While this puts him on an equal footing with Superman, it also dilutes Superman's status. For decades, Superman was at the top of the food chain and the only way that a villain could match him was to come from Krypton or another red sun world. Since then DC has introduced villains such as Darkseid and Mongul who are more powerful than Superman without being from Krypton.
Zod has never been a first-tier villain. I'm sure that the only reason he was included is because he was in Superman II. That is a strike against the new movie since most superhero movies try to use the strongest villains possible.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Radiation and the Super Hero
Wired found a 1953 article on radiation and mutation and speculates that this is where all of the superheroes with radioactive origins came from. The article was written and illustrated by people long-associated with Superman comic books - Otto Binder, and Kurt Schaffenberger. Case closed, right? Well, not exactly.
DC was not the company that used radiation to explain everything. That was Marvel under Stan Lee and they didn't start appearing until the 1960s. The Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Spider-Man, and Daredevil as well as several villains received their powers from direct exposure to radiation (or close exposure in Spider-Man's case). In addition to these characters, Professor X explained in X-Men #1 that the amount of radioactive fallout in the air was causing an increase in mutants.
On the other hand, the Parasite is the only DC character I can remember who got his powers from radiation (he opened a container of nuclear waste) and he wasn't created until the mid-1960s by Jim Shooter who was only two years old when the Binder article appeared.
Stan Lee has admitted that he used radiation as a short-cut. He knew that it can cause genetic mutation but didn't know much beyond that.
I think that the 1952 article was only one aspect of the general culture of the 1950s. After all, radiation was also used to explain giant monsters such as the ants in Them! and Godzilla, both appearing years before the Fantastic Four. Also the article shows mutants who look like the common depiction of aliens with enlarged heads and long limbs. These mutations do not look a bit like superheroes. So this is just a cultural footnote rather than the basis for a stable of superheroes.
DC was not the company that used radiation to explain everything. That was Marvel under Stan Lee and they didn't start appearing until the 1960s. The Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Spider-Man, and Daredevil as well as several villains received their powers from direct exposure to radiation (or close exposure in Spider-Man's case). In addition to these characters, Professor X explained in X-Men #1 that the amount of radioactive fallout in the air was causing an increase in mutants.
On the other hand, the Parasite is the only DC character I can remember who got his powers from radiation (he opened a container of nuclear waste) and he wasn't created until the mid-1960s by Jim Shooter who was only two years old when the Binder article appeared.
Stan Lee has admitted that he used radiation as a short-cut. He knew that it can cause genetic mutation but didn't know much beyond that.
I think that the 1952 article was only one aspect of the general culture of the 1950s. After all, radiation was also used to explain giant monsters such as the ants in Them! and Godzilla, both appearing years before the Fantastic Four. Also the article shows mutants who look like the common depiction of aliens with enlarged heads and long limbs. These mutations do not look a bit like superheroes. So this is just a cultural footnote rather than the basis for a stable of superheroes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)