Month: January 2004

The conclusion to the storyline regarding the madness of Captain Marvel…or isssss it?

Whad’ja think?

PAD

The beginning of a new story arc. Whad’ja think?

PAD

A *lot* of people have asked me what I thought about Axel Alonso’s comment in a “Wizard” interview in which he said:

“Stan Lee probably had feelings about Peter David’s version of the Hulk. Peter is all too vocal about what he thinks of Bruce Jones’ version.”

A lot of people see that as a slam. Personally, I don’t. I think it’s a little vague since I’m not sure what “all too” means. People kept asking me, and I finally read enough of them to form an opinion and responded. I guess whatever the “just vocal enough” limit would be, I exceeded it. Oh well. However, for what it’s worth, the times I saw Stan (and when we lunched together) he had nothing but nice things to say about what I was doing on the series. Of course, maybe he was just being polite, since Stan is, and was, a gentleman about such things. But I like to think he was sincere. He is, after all, The Man.

PAD

Went into the city today to the Marvel offices. Met with Andy Schmidt to discuss future plans for “Captain Marvel” beyond issue #25…not just the stories themselves, but also ways of promoting them. I have fairly demented notions and we’re waiting to see if we get them approved. Should know within a few days.

Also had a lengthy meeting with Joe Q. to discuss storylines and directions for one of the two major projects I have in the hopper for Marvel. This one in particular ideally will launch late summer of this year. Should be able to discuss it in a month or so.

Sorry to be so secretive, but I just think there’s going to be a hëll of a reaction when the projects are revealed, and I want to coordinate everything with Marvel’s promotions people.

PAD

So the Supreme Court has refused to take on the McFarlane/Tony Twist case, and it’s being kicked back to the lower courts where it’s to be retried.

Despite the amicus briefs submitted by a flotilla of recognizable Hollywood names, this is not a First Amendment case. This is, and always has been, a Todd’s-Being-A-Ðìçk case.

Years ago, when I was looking into the notion of suing someone for libel, my lawyer said that–in this great country of ours–you can say practically anything about someone as long as you stop short of characterizing him as committing criminal acts. So what did Todd do? In “Spawn,” he named a criminal enforcer “Tony Twist” and openly copped to naming him after hockey player Tony Twist. (Un)surprisingly enough, the hockey player didn’t cotton to having his name appropriated by a criminal character.

My lack of sympathy for Todd in this has zero to do with our history (or his charming stunt of naming two members of the KKK “Peter and John” after Byrne and myself in another “Spawn.”) If Todd had created a hockey character named Tommy Twitch who started pounding on other players in the first two seconds of a game, and Tony Twist sued, I’d be 100% on Todd’s side. Fair use, parody, satire. Or if he’d had Tony Twist skate onto panel, wave, someone says “Hey, Tony!” and he skates off and Twist sued, again I’d be saying, “C’mon, the guy should be flattered. No harm was intended.” If Todd weren’t a hockey fan, never heard of Tony Twist (I know I hadn’t before this), and it was pure coincidence, I’d support him.

But that’s not what happened. Todd thought it would be funny to name a criminal after a real person–a criminal who also showed up in the HBO “Spawn” animated series, exposing the characterization to millions of viewers. Here’s the problem with doing something funny: There’s always people who are going to think it’s NOT funny. I should know: I’m the guy who was accused of being anti-Semitic because I named some evil aliens in a Trek novel after the objects on a sedar plate.

Tony Twist didn’t think it was funny to be characterized as a criminal. Big surprise. So he sued Todd. Big surprise. Okay, actually, in this litigious society of ours, it’s NOT a big surprise. So Todd should not have been surprised when it happened. Which means that, if he’d given it a scintilla of thought, he wouldn’t have done it. But he didn’t give it any thought, or if he did, he went ahead anyway. Why? Same reason he jerked Neil Gaiman around: Because he’s being a dìçk. And because he figures he can (and should) be able to get away with it…not because he has a First Amendment right to do so, but because he’s the Toddster.

I thought at the time, and still do think, that the jury’s initial monetary award to Twist was ludicrous. But what’s even more ludicrous is the notion of Todd embarking on yet another court go-around when he could be spending his time on more important things, like not drawing comics.

PAD

When I first got involved with the internet nearly twenty years ago, and the presence of pros was a rarity, my showing up was seen by many fans as an unwanted intrusion. My being there, it was stated, would have a chilling effect. Many were only comfortable discussing a creator’s work behind his back, and were truly upset with the idea of a creator responding.

In many ways, that hasn’t changed. The exchange of ideas and concerns is still only to be one way: Fans to creators. If fans insult creators, that’s SOP; if creators insult fans, Oh my God, so-and-so was mean to me, where does he get off? Fans are perfectly entitled to crab about anything and everything that bothers them: Story, characterization, page count, characters who were killed off twenty years ago, a pro looked at them sideways at a convention…anything. On the other hand, if a pro expresses concerns directly pertaining to the business of comics…wotta jerk. Unless, of course, he or she is one of those pros who has an unerring knack of phrasing things just right or saying what people want to hear. Would that I were one of those.

Continue Reading “Rough Trades” →

So Kath was watching a football game this evening. I’ve no interest in football whatsoever. Kath has talked me into watching the Superbowl every year, basically by bribing me with nifty refreshments and pointing out that the commercials are fun. Football itself, though, I don’t care.

And yet when she told me that she was watching the Panthers vs. the Rams, I quickly and accurately predicted that the Panthers would be victorious. How? My reasoning was as follows: The Panthers have the clear advantage because they have the teeth and claws and can move very quickly. The Rams, while they have formidable horns, simply can’t stand up to it.

That’s how I always do it. For instance, if the Titans are in a game, I usually figure they have the best shot because they’re so dámņëd big. They’re Titans, for God’s sake. Yes, Giants might have a chance against them, but Titans are far bigger. The only place where it becomes problematic is if the Titans are going up against a bird team, such as the Eagles or the Falcons. If the Eagle or Falcons can manage to peck or claw the Titans’ eyes out–and pehraps even eat out their livers–then the Titans would be blinded and the Eagles or Falcons have a good chance.

As for the Packers, I just don’t see it. Bunch of guys with suitcases. Doesn’t seem that threatening. Unless they’re playing, say, the Jets. If they overload the cargo hold of the Jets with their suitcases, they could possibly slow them down enough to win.

PAD