Yes, Comic. Singular. Oh, there was a magazine or two and I did get a trade paperback but there was but one item that most people would actually refer to as a 'comic'. Thankfully it was enjoyable.
The Amazing Spider-Man Annual #36 contains a story that managed to move forward some subplots as well as set a few up. While it does tell a specific story, there's a lot left open and unresolved for those already-announced-future-stories to fill in.
Peter is in Boston for a party of Aunt May's. He gets to meet a number of relatives on his aunt's side of the family for the first time and he ends up having a moment that I'm familiar with experiencing, one that I will refer to as 'ah crap, that attractive lady is related to me'. Lots of entertainment going on until Peter gets attacked by a super-villain of sorts. Not 'Spidey goes to stop a criminal', not 'Peter sees a crime in progress and changes into his costume to stop it', Peter gets attacked because he's Peter, not because he might be Spidey's 'friend' or anything like that. The guy sees Peter, goes 'That guy! I hate that guy!' and attacks. This confuses Peter and finding out the truth of the matter doesn't make it any better: this guy wasn't looking for Peter, he was looking for Ben Reilly, Peter's dead clone.
It's been ages since that period of Spidey's history was dealt with in the main Spidey book. Now there's a story coming about Ben's history and a mini-series that will tell the 'original' version of the Clone Saga. Combining this with the current 'X-Men Forever' series that is supposed to tell Chris Clarmont's plans for the X Books in the early 90s, as if he hadn't left the titles then, it seems like Marvel's trying to reclaim the 90s, as if to 'fix' things left broken.
Or they just like the 'What If?' idea but know it can't support a regular book anymore so they're just playing about with stories because, why not?
Before I get too distracted I liked the art for the Annual as well. It was provided by Pat Olliffe, who's art is one part Sal Buscema, one part realistic, and one part cartoony. I've long liked his art. I like his art so much that it's been enough to talk me into buying DC books and that's not all that easy.
All in all, it was fun. Nothing too deep, and some foreshadowing of tales to come. Good deal.
11 July 2009
09 July 2009
Remember Before I Forget
Eric and I kinda motivated each other to go to Job Camp 2 today. To sum it up, it's a meeting of individuals in a somewhat structured form in an effort to provide some direction and encouragement for their job search. As he'd both gotten a bit 'meh' from lack of response, we figured we needed a recharge.
Entertainingly but not surprisingly, Eric had the momentum to get my momentum going but didn't have enough momentum to get there before me. It was located at an establishment that neither of us are particularly familiar with in general. I checked in, wandered about a bit, read the booklet, and went to settle in.
Of course, that's when Eric called. I worked my way through the loud crowd and spoke to him. He was outside and confused as to how to get to where I was. I explained that I'd parked in the parking structure, gone up the stairs to level four, and walked across the 'skyway' to the level of the building with the Camp, as per the instructions the Camp had given us via email. As I spoke, I'd made my way back to the skyway area.
Eric had parked in a lot and was outside, staring up at a 'bridge'. I took two steps to the left in order to stand by the window. As I looked down, Eric looked up at me. We laughed and waved at each other. As I was clearly visible, I gestured as I spoke, making my directions quite clear. He was upstairs in a flash.
We found it amusing.
Entertainingly but not surprisingly, Eric had the momentum to get my momentum going but didn't have enough momentum to get there before me. It was located at an establishment that neither of us are particularly familiar with in general. I checked in, wandered about a bit, read the booklet, and went to settle in.
Of course, that's when Eric called. I worked my way through the loud crowd and spoke to him. He was outside and confused as to how to get to where I was. I explained that I'd parked in the parking structure, gone up the stairs to level four, and walked across the 'skyway' to the level of the building with the Camp, as per the instructions the Camp had given us via email. As I spoke, I'd made my way back to the skyway area.
Eric had parked in a lot and was outside, staring up at a 'bridge'. I took two steps to the left in order to stand by the window. As I looked down, Eric looked up at me. We laughed and waved at each other. As I was clearly visible, I gestured as I spoke, making my directions quite clear. He was upstairs in a flash.
We found it amusing.
07 July 2009
Welcome to the House of Fun
This might be a bumpy ride than normal. I just started pondering this and I'm not sure I've got this thought worked out yet.
What is fun? I know, that's much like asking 'what is funny?' and trying to explain it scientifically. It's not possible, its not interesting, and its not funny. Certainly there is a 'fun' reaction to things and, in most people, this reaction seems to fade with age, perhaps due to the responsibilities of life, perhaps due to cumulative experiences, or perhaps due to the fact that 'eliminating' fun is considered part of growing up. Whatever. If I keep the question too open at this stage, I'm writing a book and that's not the goal here. Not at this point anyway.
For the sake of creating a more focused discussion, we will agree that geeks have fun with whatever they are geeky about, remembering how we've defined 'geek' in the past. When exposed to their subject of interest, the geek, no matter the age of the subject, has a chemical reaction occur in their brain that creates a feeling of enjoyment that is considered to be 'fun'. It's not that this segment of the population is the only one that can experience fun from the subject of interest, but, largely, the geek has become a geek for that subject of interest because of the 'fun' reaction within them. For example, not everyone that attends a baseball game is a baseball geek, but baseball geeks are more likely to attend a baseball game or to be drawn to a baseball game. Squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Or something like that.
Let's focus the discussion further. Movies. There are people that attend movies for the sake of going, people that expect certain things from the movies they see, people that just enjoy the night out, etc. The audience for any given movie is likely to be a mix of people there for many different reasons. Most will have differing reactions to what they see and hear. Based on my general geek friends, I'm going to generalize people into three basic groups, knowing that people can move from one group to another.
Positive: this group is out for the movie to show them a good time. They will focus on what they enjoyed in the film. Plot holes or mistakes caused by editing may concern them but they will often consider 'filling the gap' to be their job. It's not that this group is not critical, that they blindly enjoy everything they see, or that they are easily entertained, they feel that the filmmakers were trying to entertain them and it's their job to be entertained so they try to fill that role.
Neutral: this group tends to flip between positive and negative regularly based on the subject matter of the film so it's not easy to anticipate their reaction to a film. They may react very positively to one film and very negatively to another. They may respect a positive reaction to a movie they didn't enjoy or a negative reaction to a movie they did enjoy. They are more likely to not have an extreme reaction to a film, being able to enjoy it without professing love or hate. Not wanting to demand the return of money and time is considered more acceptable to them. This group tries to enjoy what the filmmakers provide them but know that, sometimes, things don't come together in the right way to make something they'll enjoy but maybe someone else will enjoy it and that's okay.
Negative: this group tends to be more demanding of the entertainment placed in front of them. They are considered 'negative' only because they often have a more negative reaction to movies. It's not that they necessarily WANT to hate the movie in question, but that some part of it was just so bad to them that they can't help but focus on that as opposed to the parts of the movie that were good to them. Perhaps its a plot hole, or many plot holes, perhaps its one of the cast that doesn't quite 'fit', perhaps its a special effect that doesn't go off correctly. Perhaps it's just not unique enough, feeling very generic. They will often have a list of reasons why they feel the way they do about the movie in question. They may expect a movie to have some sort of message, even if hidden. This group can't understand why more movies can't come together and be 'right' in the ways that their favorite movies are 'right'.
There are more extreme versions of all of these categories. There are positives that just love everything blindly. There are neutrals that get dragged to a lot of movies that aren't in their areas of interest. There are negatives that can't explain why a movie sucked but insist that it did. There are certainly some variations in these basic levels, some details left unexpressed, but, looking at many of my friends, this is what I see as those default areas.
The positives feel that the negatives can't have fun at the movies, or don't understand that some movies are just there to be uncomplicated fun, 'popcorn movies'. The negatives feel that the positives are too forgiving, or too blind, to see the problems in the film and why they are problems. Then there's usually some sort of yelling about foreign films and subtitles.
They are, of course, all right. It's just their reaction to the movie and there's nothing necessarily wrong with a reaction. Everyone has an opinion and has a right to it. There's a lot of factors that build into that reaction.
Expectation. What did the trailer make the movie look like? Were all the funny bits in the trailer to make it look like more of a comedy than it was? Did it look like an action film but was a satire? Sometimes you expect one thing and get another. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes not. 'I didn't think it would be as funny as it was!' 'The trailer made it look like it was going to be a big action movie but it got all talky and dark at the end.' 'I expected zombies. There were no zombies. Boo!' Often, the lower the expectation, the easier it is to enjoy the product involved.
Source material. Is there any? This can often feed into expectation. Is it based on a book? TV show? Comic Book? A remake of an earlier movie? How familiar are you with the source material? Not at all? A little? Mostly? A lot? How faithful do you expect the filmmakers to be to the source material? How faithful did the filmmakers say they'd be to the source material? Positives are more likely to go with the flow of the movie version, even if very familiar with the original source material, judging the filmed version on its own merits as it's an adaptation. Negatives are more likely to expect the filmed version to be like the source material as what's the point of adapting something and tossing out most of the elements of the original?
Mood going into the theater. Rough day? Grouchy? Have to get up early tomorrow? It might be harder for the movie to win you over. Chipper? Feeling comfortable after a good meal? You're more likely to enjoy what you see.
A consider myself a neutral and mood is important to me. A bad mood that's dispelled by a movie usually gets a positive reaction from me. It must have been good to get me out of that mood, right? The converse is also true. That movie must have been pretty bad to wreck such a good mood.
If this makes no sense or feels incomplete, well, I warned you. Just remember that the title of the blog only promises rambling. I need to eat lunch now anyway.
What is fun? I know, that's much like asking 'what is funny?' and trying to explain it scientifically. It's not possible, its not interesting, and its not funny. Certainly there is a 'fun' reaction to things and, in most people, this reaction seems to fade with age, perhaps due to the responsibilities of life, perhaps due to cumulative experiences, or perhaps due to the fact that 'eliminating' fun is considered part of growing up. Whatever. If I keep the question too open at this stage, I'm writing a book and that's not the goal here. Not at this point anyway.
For the sake of creating a more focused discussion, we will agree that geeks have fun with whatever they are geeky about, remembering how we've defined 'geek' in the past. When exposed to their subject of interest, the geek, no matter the age of the subject, has a chemical reaction occur in their brain that creates a feeling of enjoyment that is considered to be 'fun'. It's not that this segment of the population is the only one that can experience fun from the subject of interest, but, largely, the geek has become a geek for that subject of interest because of the 'fun' reaction within them. For example, not everyone that attends a baseball game is a baseball geek, but baseball geeks are more likely to attend a baseball game or to be drawn to a baseball game. Squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Or something like that.
Let's focus the discussion further. Movies. There are people that attend movies for the sake of going, people that expect certain things from the movies they see, people that just enjoy the night out, etc. The audience for any given movie is likely to be a mix of people there for many different reasons. Most will have differing reactions to what they see and hear. Based on my general geek friends, I'm going to generalize people into three basic groups, knowing that people can move from one group to another.
Positive: this group is out for the movie to show them a good time. They will focus on what they enjoyed in the film. Plot holes or mistakes caused by editing may concern them but they will often consider 'filling the gap' to be their job. It's not that this group is not critical, that they blindly enjoy everything they see, or that they are easily entertained, they feel that the filmmakers were trying to entertain them and it's their job to be entertained so they try to fill that role.
Neutral: this group tends to flip between positive and negative regularly based on the subject matter of the film so it's not easy to anticipate their reaction to a film. They may react very positively to one film and very negatively to another. They may respect a positive reaction to a movie they didn't enjoy or a negative reaction to a movie they did enjoy. They are more likely to not have an extreme reaction to a film, being able to enjoy it without professing love or hate. Not wanting to demand the return of money and time is considered more acceptable to them. This group tries to enjoy what the filmmakers provide them but know that, sometimes, things don't come together in the right way to make something they'll enjoy but maybe someone else will enjoy it and that's okay.
Negative: this group tends to be more demanding of the entertainment placed in front of them. They are considered 'negative' only because they often have a more negative reaction to movies. It's not that they necessarily WANT to hate the movie in question, but that some part of it was just so bad to them that they can't help but focus on that as opposed to the parts of the movie that were good to them. Perhaps its a plot hole, or many plot holes, perhaps its one of the cast that doesn't quite 'fit', perhaps its a special effect that doesn't go off correctly. Perhaps it's just not unique enough, feeling very generic. They will often have a list of reasons why they feel the way they do about the movie in question. They may expect a movie to have some sort of message, even if hidden. This group can't understand why more movies can't come together and be 'right' in the ways that their favorite movies are 'right'.
There are more extreme versions of all of these categories. There are positives that just love everything blindly. There are neutrals that get dragged to a lot of movies that aren't in their areas of interest. There are negatives that can't explain why a movie sucked but insist that it did. There are certainly some variations in these basic levels, some details left unexpressed, but, looking at many of my friends, this is what I see as those default areas.
The positives feel that the negatives can't have fun at the movies, or don't understand that some movies are just there to be uncomplicated fun, 'popcorn movies'. The negatives feel that the positives are too forgiving, or too blind, to see the problems in the film and why they are problems. Then there's usually some sort of yelling about foreign films and subtitles.
They are, of course, all right. It's just their reaction to the movie and there's nothing necessarily wrong with a reaction. Everyone has an opinion and has a right to it. There's a lot of factors that build into that reaction.
Expectation. What did the trailer make the movie look like? Were all the funny bits in the trailer to make it look like more of a comedy than it was? Did it look like an action film but was a satire? Sometimes you expect one thing and get another. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes not. 'I didn't think it would be as funny as it was!' 'The trailer made it look like it was going to be a big action movie but it got all talky and dark at the end.' 'I expected zombies. There were no zombies. Boo!' Often, the lower the expectation, the easier it is to enjoy the product involved.
Source material. Is there any? This can often feed into expectation. Is it based on a book? TV show? Comic Book? A remake of an earlier movie? How familiar are you with the source material? Not at all? A little? Mostly? A lot? How faithful do you expect the filmmakers to be to the source material? How faithful did the filmmakers say they'd be to the source material? Positives are more likely to go with the flow of the movie version, even if very familiar with the original source material, judging the filmed version on its own merits as it's an adaptation. Negatives are more likely to expect the filmed version to be like the source material as what's the point of adapting something and tossing out most of the elements of the original?
Mood going into the theater. Rough day? Grouchy? Have to get up early tomorrow? It might be harder for the movie to win you over. Chipper? Feeling comfortable after a good meal? You're more likely to enjoy what you see.
A consider myself a neutral and mood is important to me. A bad mood that's dispelled by a movie usually gets a positive reaction from me. It must have been good to get me out of that mood, right? The converse is also true. That movie must have been pretty bad to wreck such a good mood.
If this makes no sense or feels incomplete, well, I warned you. Just remember that the title of the blog only promises rambling. I need to eat lunch now anyway.
06 July 2009
Not that anyone will care
I rearranged about half of my DVD collection today. The bulk of the collection is held on two large bookshelves with a number on the majority of a smaller bookshelf, some on two even smaller shelves, and a number tucked away in a cabinet. The primary shelf had become mostly television shows of British origin so I cleared away the movies from the other shelves and made it an all-TV case. Most of the movies went to the shelves where the TV shows were from but a number went into the cabinet. The other primary shelf unit was rearranged a bit, with the few VHS tapes still on it removed. Some movies buried in the medium sized shelving unit were 'promoted' to this unit to make them more accessible, primary amongst these the George A. Romero films. All the shelves involved were re-sorted in order to add in movies that had been obtained since the last big shuffle or had been removed and never properly returned to their place.
The upside to this is that I've got some better access to the stuff I watch the most. In general, I watch more of my TV DVDs than my movies, so having them a bit closer and altogether is handy.
On the downside, my shelves are pretty full. 'Luckily' I haven't been buying many DVDs of late so I'm less likely to completely overflow them anytime soon.
Now I just need to watch a few more of them. I still have a number that are still in the wrapper. Silly me.
The upside to this is that I've got some better access to the stuff I watch the most. In general, I watch more of my TV DVDs than my movies, so having them a bit closer and altogether is handy.
On the downside, my shelves are pretty full. 'Luckily' I haven't been buying many DVDs of late so I'm less likely to completely overflow them anytime soon.
Now I just need to watch a few more of them. I still have a number that are still in the wrapper. Silly me.
05 July 2009
A Few Thoughts on Comics from this week
I really enjoyed 'Captain America: Reborn' but lucked out in that I found a number of books I really enjoyed this week. This is rare. I generally enjoy most of what I buy every week but rarely really enjoy more than a book or two.
Fantastic Four #568 is part three of four of the 'Masters of Doom' storyline. Having dealt with Latveria, said Masters come to punish the Fantastic Four. Much of this surrounds putting Reed Richards through some torturous ethical situations. Reed's answer? 'There's always another way, and we're going to teach you.' Reed is awesome. This story is great. I did have some concerns when Millar and Hitch came to take over the book. I was concerned it was going to get all 'Ultimate' freaky but it's been largely awesome.
The Simpsons Super Spectacular #9 completes the three-part 'Radioactive Man Event' storyline. The three issues make up a three-act Simpsons episode of sorts. The first issue set up the basis of the story: a big change is coming to the Radioactive Man comics and the hype gets people interested. Act/Issue two builds the hype and the situation. Act/Issue three delivers the big change. While the story has built up that hype in comics never seems to pay off, the 'non-hype' of this story pays off big. It's funny, it's Simpson-y, and it gets to make a comment about comics in general. It largely becomes a love-hate letter to comics, mocking all the things we love about comics and love to hate about comics while we still read them. Well, those of us who do read them anyway. These were great. If you like watching the Simpsons on television, you should give the Simpsons Comics a try.
Muppet Robin Hood #2 introduces a few more characters to the story while building the Robin Hood/Maid Marian relationship. Fozzie Bear appears as Friar Tuck. Link Hogthrob appears as Prince John's primary knight. And Prince John? Johnny Fiama! And Sal! Woo-hoo! Some of my favorite characters from Muppets Tonight! Uncle Deadly appears as one of Prince John's monsters. Once again, the 'actors' in the book react with the knowledge that they're doing a 'performance'. Wonderful stuff.
As wonderful as Muppet Robin Hood is, the Muppet Show Comic Book is that much more wonderful. Issue #4 featured Miss Piggy's story. It's mostly about her fear of losing Kermit and her anger issues. :) This issue features a panel that made me laugh out loud, lean back and laugh out loud, lean over the comic again, see the panel again and start laughing all over again. That is beautiful. On another note, the Talking Houses sketch returns! More Pigs in Space! Vet's Hospital! Sweet moments, funny moments, laugh out loud moments. I love this book! As they're releasing the Muppet Show series in four issue installments, no doubt to release each as a trade paperback with its own title, there will soon be a collection of four issues to be bought. Getting this is highly recommended by me. For whatever that's worth.
Fantastic Four #568 is part three of four of the 'Masters of Doom' storyline. Having dealt with Latveria, said Masters come to punish the Fantastic Four. Much of this surrounds putting Reed Richards through some torturous ethical situations. Reed's answer? 'There's always another way, and we're going to teach you.' Reed is awesome. This story is great. I did have some concerns when Millar and Hitch came to take over the book. I was concerned it was going to get all 'Ultimate' freaky but it's been largely awesome.
The Simpsons Super Spectacular #9 completes the three-part 'Radioactive Man Event' storyline. The three issues make up a three-act Simpsons episode of sorts. The first issue set up the basis of the story: a big change is coming to the Radioactive Man comics and the hype gets people interested. Act/Issue two builds the hype and the situation. Act/Issue three delivers the big change. While the story has built up that hype in comics never seems to pay off, the 'non-hype' of this story pays off big. It's funny, it's Simpson-y, and it gets to make a comment about comics in general. It largely becomes a love-hate letter to comics, mocking all the things we love about comics and love to hate about comics while we still read them. Well, those of us who do read them anyway. These were great. If you like watching the Simpsons on television, you should give the Simpsons Comics a try.
Muppet Robin Hood #2 introduces a few more characters to the story while building the Robin Hood/Maid Marian relationship. Fozzie Bear appears as Friar Tuck. Link Hogthrob appears as Prince John's primary knight. And Prince John? Johnny Fiama! And Sal! Woo-hoo! Some of my favorite characters from Muppets Tonight! Uncle Deadly appears as one of Prince John's monsters. Once again, the 'actors' in the book react with the knowledge that they're doing a 'performance'. Wonderful stuff.
As wonderful as Muppet Robin Hood is, the Muppet Show Comic Book is that much more wonderful. Issue #4 featured Miss Piggy's story. It's mostly about her fear of losing Kermit and her anger issues. :) This issue features a panel that made me laugh out loud, lean back and laugh out loud, lean over the comic again, see the panel again and start laughing all over again. That is beautiful. On another note, the Talking Houses sketch returns! More Pigs in Space! Vet's Hospital! Sweet moments, funny moments, laugh out loud moments. I love this book! As they're releasing the Muppet Show series in four issue installments, no doubt to release each as a trade paperback with its own title, there will soon be a collection of four issues to be bought. Getting this is highly recommended by me. For whatever that's worth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)