I have absolutely no affiliation with this guy or his site, he just has the best reviewing style I've ever heard. Enjoy.
You're welcome.
-Kanderson
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
From One Extreme to the Other
First of all, I ask you all to read this.
As I've stated in my very recent WonderCon blog, I am a fan of Kevin Smith, but I've been less enchanted with his recent filmic output. That all being said, I'm always prepared to give Mr. Smith the benefit of the doubt and usually side with him. This argument, however, I not only totally disagree with, but it actually has angered me to the point where I needed to blog while at work.
The function of film criticism is to provide an educated evaluation of a film product on either an entertainment or culturally relevant level, sometimes both, while giving a nod to the proficiency by which the film is executed, technically or otherwise. I have always been a firm believer in the profession of film criticism as viable in and of itself. Some of my favorite DVD audio commentaries are by critics providing an intellectual and historical context for the film. Listening to Roger Ebert discuss "Citizen Kane," Stephen Prince dissect "The Seven Samurai," or especially Sir Christopher Frayling speaking in minute detail on the films of Sergio Leone, was not only interesting and entertaining but greatly enhanced my enjoyment of those films in subsequent viewing.
Ever since I started watching films as art and not just entertainment, I've turned to film critics for analysis on a deeper level. Not every movie, but many of them, the ones I wanted to know more about. This is the part of Kevin Smith's argument that might have the most validity. Mindless movies don't really need to judged through the same microscope as ones trying to make a point or are particularly stunning. But I've read plenty of reviews of "stupid" movies that actually say things like "It doesn't break new ground but it's enjoyable," which is the first thing a film should do. If it doesn't educate or amaze, it should at least entertain.
Kevin Smith is upset that the same criticism used for the weighty movies was used on his film "Cop Out," saying it wasn't "Schindler's List." Obviously not, that's ridiculous. No one went to see "Cop Out" and thought it was going to be anything like "Schindler's List," but it still needs to fulfill one of the those three tenets I mentioned: educate, amaze, or entertain. "Cop Out," if you're to believe the critics, didn't really do any of them, the third being the most important, but should those critics be barred from sharing their opinions because it's just a movie called "Cop Out." If so, it's up to the studio or filmmaker to inform us that the movie is not good enough to warrant proper criticism. Until filmmakers start going on record to say they've made a stupid movie but we should go see it anyway, it's up to the critical community to do so.
Smith also makes the point that if critics aren't going to pay to see the films, they shouldn't be allowed to give their opinion on it and affect the box office returns. He says 500 random Twitter followers should be given the same opportunity and that their opinions are just as valid. I submit there is a world of difference between an opinion and an EDUCATED opinion. In a perfect world, everyone would have the same level of film knowledge or ignorance as everyone else and their opinions would hold the same amount of water. Only in math and science can we use the "all things being equal" scenario and not in real life. People come from different backgrounds and experiences that temper their views of everything, film included. Personally, I'd rather hear what educated film experts think than someone who watches "The Hills" and "Jersey Shore." If the movie caters to that crowd, then chances are they don't listen to or read reviews anyway.
To my mind this all comes down to Kevin Smith not taking rejection of any kind well and being overly sensitive. A bad review isn't always a personal attack on the filmmaker, in fact usually it isn't. Critics were very divided on Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island," but no one who gave it a bad review said anything about Scorsese either as a man or as a renowned director. If Smith is as proud of "Cop Out" as he claims, and it indeed was the highest grossing film he's ever made, then it shouldn't matter that the film only received a 19% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, right? Smith has famously had a love-hate relationship with critics over the years, but that hasn't stopped him from giving bad reviews himself publicly of both Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia," and Woody Allen's film, "Scoop," the latter a guest hosting stint for Roger Ebert on "At the Movies" a few years ago. He might have paid for those movies, granted, but he's still giving a public review based on his years of filmmaking and watching experience.
In 2008, "Zach and Miri Make a Porno," was poised to be Smith's highest grossing film and was getting mixed but largely favorable reviews. It ended up with a 65% rating on RT, garnering it a "Fresh" certificate, and was getting very good buzz from studio people. Then the movie came out and was indeed his most financially successful film of all time, though not as much as he and people around him were hoping. Some might call that a success, but Kevin Smith didn't. I listened to an entire episode of SModcast, the podcast Smith does with his friend and frequent producer Scott Mosier, where he spent the entire time lamenting how awful it was that the film didn't perform better and basically how he fell into a deep depression because of it. So what makes this guy happy? He's up in arms when critics don't like his movie but the public at-large does, and when the critics mostly like it, and indeed a lot of non-critics do too, he's depressed because it didn't make AS MUCH money as he wanted. Disappointment is a natural reaction, but to expect a critical and monetary hit every time out is not only naive, it's unrealistic. For the record, I spent the money, being a fan, and I didn't like it. So my opinion on this should therefore be more valid than all the critics who saw it for free and praised it.
I really like Kevin Smith and will continue to do so, but all of this serves to show that he's been surrounded by fans for far too long. If all he wants is for people in his community to have an opinion on the work he does, then he shouldn't be working in Hollywood.
Smith finishes his rant by saying:
It's not the job of the film critic to have the filmmaker's best interests at heart. That's why they just comment on movies and not advise careers. It's their job to have the movie-going community's best interest at heart and take their expertise and put forth a concise reading of the film and offer a recommendation or a warning. Only that. It's up to the viewer or reader to decide if that review has changed their mind, good or bad, about the movie and make the choice based on that. And speaking as one of the youngsters 10-15 years his junior who don't know nearly as much about film as he does, I can say that it's us who were and in many cases still are his biggest fans and want to see Smith's output go back to the edginess and realism that his early films had.
So I'll finish by saying this to Kevin Smith: You are always going to be one of the fathers of my love of film and I will follow your career until it ends, but if you don't want critics to give negative reviews, stop spending all your time on Twitter and make a good movie again.
You're welcome.
-Kanderson
As I've stated in my very recent WonderCon blog, I am a fan of Kevin Smith, but I've been less enchanted with his recent filmic output. That all being said, I'm always prepared to give Mr. Smith the benefit of the doubt and usually side with him. This argument, however, I not only totally disagree with, but it actually has angered me to the point where I needed to blog while at work.
The function of film criticism is to provide an educated evaluation of a film product on either an entertainment or culturally relevant level, sometimes both, while giving a nod to the proficiency by which the film is executed, technically or otherwise. I have always been a firm believer in the profession of film criticism as viable in and of itself. Some of my favorite DVD audio commentaries are by critics providing an intellectual and historical context for the film. Listening to Roger Ebert discuss "Citizen Kane," Stephen Prince dissect "The Seven Samurai," or especially Sir Christopher Frayling speaking in minute detail on the films of Sergio Leone, was not only interesting and entertaining but greatly enhanced my enjoyment of those films in subsequent viewing.
Ever since I started watching films as art and not just entertainment, I've turned to film critics for analysis on a deeper level. Not every movie, but many of them, the ones I wanted to know more about. This is the part of Kevin Smith's argument that might have the most validity. Mindless movies don't really need to judged through the same microscope as ones trying to make a point or are particularly stunning. But I've read plenty of reviews of "stupid" movies that actually say things like "It doesn't break new ground but it's enjoyable," which is the first thing a film should do. If it doesn't educate or amaze, it should at least entertain.
Kevin Smith is upset that the same criticism used for the weighty movies was used on his film "Cop Out," saying it wasn't "Schindler's List." Obviously not, that's ridiculous. No one went to see "Cop Out" and thought it was going to be anything like "Schindler's List," but it still needs to fulfill one of the those three tenets I mentioned: educate, amaze, or entertain. "Cop Out," if you're to believe the critics, didn't really do any of them, the third being the most important, but should those critics be barred from sharing their opinions because it's just a movie called "Cop Out." If so, it's up to the studio or filmmaker to inform us that the movie is not good enough to warrant proper criticism. Until filmmakers start going on record to say they've made a stupid movie but we should go see it anyway, it's up to the critical community to do so.
Smith also makes the point that if critics aren't going to pay to see the films, they shouldn't be allowed to give their opinion on it and affect the box office returns. He says 500 random Twitter followers should be given the same opportunity and that their opinions are just as valid. I submit there is a world of difference between an opinion and an EDUCATED opinion. In a perfect world, everyone would have the same level of film knowledge or ignorance as everyone else and their opinions would hold the same amount of water. Only in math and science can we use the "all things being equal" scenario and not in real life. People come from different backgrounds and experiences that temper their views of everything, film included. Personally, I'd rather hear what educated film experts think than someone who watches "The Hills" and "Jersey Shore." If the movie caters to that crowd, then chances are they don't listen to or read reviews anyway.
To my mind this all comes down to Kevin Smith not taking rejection of any kind well and being overly sensitive. A bad review isn't always a personal attack on the filmmaker, in fact usually it isn't. Critics were very divided on Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island," but no one who gave it a bad review said anything about Scorsese either as a man or as a renowned director. If Smith is as proud of "Cop Out" as he claims, and it indeed was the highest grossing film he's ever made, then it shouldn't matter that the film only received a 19% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, right? Smith has famously had a love-hate relationship with critics over the years, but that hasn't stopped him from giving bad reviews himself publicly of both Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia," and Woody Allen's film, "Scoop," the latter a guest hosting stint for Roger Ebert on "At the Movies" a few years ago. He might have paid for those movies, granted, but he's still giving a public review based on his years of filmmaking and watching experience.
In 2008, "Zach and Miri Make a Porno," was poised to be Smith's highest grossing film and was getting mixed but largely favorable reviews. It ended up with a 65% rating on RT, garnering it a "Fresh" certificate, and was getting very good buzz from studio people. Then the movie came out and was indeed his most financially successful film of all time, though not as much as he and people around him were hoping. Some might call that a success, but Kevin Smith didn't. I listened to an entire episode of SModcast, the podcast Smith does with his friend and frequent producer Scott Mosier, where he spent the entire time lamenting how awful it was that the film didn't perform better and basically how he fell into a deep depression because of it. So what makes this guy happy? He's up in arms when critics don't like his movie but the public at-large does, and when the critics mostly like it, and indeed a lot of non-critics do too, he's depressed because it didn't make AS MUCH money as he wanted. Disappointment is a natural reaction, but to expect a critical and monetary hit every time out is not only naive, it's unrealistic. For the record, I spent the money, being a fan, and I didn't like it. So my opinion on this should therefore be more valid than all the critics who saw it for free and praised it.
I really like Kevin Smith and will continue to do so, but all of this serves to show that he's been surrounded by fans for far too long. If all he wants is for people in his community to have an opinion on the work he does, then he shouldn't be working in Hollywood.
Smith finishes his rant by saying:
Just my observation based on 15yrs of doing this and a decision to change the way I approach it from now on. Not trying to burn it all down; I just feel, from now on, I'll be going another way. The people who're criticizing me the loudest are easily 10, 15 yrs my junior with less experience writing about film than I have making 'em.
I've got longevity on my side now. I've been doing this since 93: so 17 years. I'm a veteran of the film biz. And as a veteran - not just some spectator with an opinion - I think I know what's better for me & my career than total strangers whose Google-able history proves they've NEVER had my best interests at heart. So I'm gonna listen to THOSE people? Nyet. Listening to me, not them, has gotten me THIS far.
It's not the job of the film critic to have the filmmaker's best interests at heart. That's why they just comment on movies and not advise careers. It's their job to have the movie-going community's best interest at heart and take their expertise and put forth a concise reading of the film and offer a recommendation or a warning. Only that. It's up to the viewer or reader to decide if that review has changed their mind, good or bad, about the movie and make the choice based on that. And speaking as one of the youngsters 10-15 years his junior who don't know nearly as much about film as he does, I can say that it's us who were and in many cases still are his biggest fans and want to see Smith's output go back to the edginess and realism that his early films had.
So I'll finish by saying this to Kevin Smith: You are always going to be one of the fathers of my love of film and I will follow your career until it ends, but if you don't want critics to give negative reviews, stop spending all your time on Twitter and make a good movie again.
You're welcome.
-Kanderson
Monday, April 5, 2010
Con Crazy
WonderCon, like its big brother Comic-Con, is an interesting sort of beast. Nerds of all ages, races, faiths, sexual orientations, and perversions flock to these events in hopes of catching a glimpse of someone who represents the thing they idolize, but also to congregate with others like them. It’s definitely a place where everyone gets along based solely on solidarity. San Diego Comic-Con is enormous and there are lots and lots of movies, tv shows, and video games trying to entice their target audience to buy into it; basically a big trade show. WonderCon, on the other hand, is only really really big and the bulk of the floor is made up of comic book sellers or publishers, with the other media represented only marginally. This Con really hones in on die-hard fans and weeds out a lot of the riff-raff.
Saturday was a full day of walking the exhibition floor. It was about half the size of the one in San Diego, but I would say it was more focused. Comic-Con is a massive explosion of pop culture and promotional material while WonderCon is a bit of promo but is mostly independently owned comic book and merchandise sellers. Which is great and all, but if you aren’t in the market for action figures, t-shirts, or vintage comics, it’s only so interesting. Still, there were plenty of odd little artist and craftsman booths to occupy my brain. What really make these conventions great are the panel discussions.
As I already mentioned, the Kevin Smith Q&A was a great treat, but just as inspiring to me was a panel I attended Saturday morning with eight of DC Comics’ top writers. As someone who aspires to write for a living, I’m always eager to hear other writers talk about their process. I’m also a huge DC fan, so to hear the people who write the books I read is pretty fantastic. The big problem you run into with any Q&A or panel is crazy or stupid people asking crazy or stupid questions. Since most people who’d go to WonderCon are familiar with this, the questions tended to be respectful and topical, if leaning toward the fanatic side. At Comic-Con, the questions were a mix bag of good ones, awful ones, and “Security.”
Which brings me to the nature of fandom. A great many people who go to these conventions are die-hard fans of one thing and they show it by dressing up and outwardly deriding fans of other things. This makes no sense to me. I don’t like Star Trek, but I’d never make fun of somebody for liking Star Trek because I know full well it’s no less nerdy than half the crap I like. Yet to overhear some conversations, it’s like the Jets and the Sharks, but if those gangs were in totally different cities. I wore a Flash t-shirt on Saturday which is about as close as I come to dressing up in costume, but there were people with full-on, professionally made outfits that look like they could easily be put in a movie.
Stormtroopers and bounty hunters from “Star Wars” were big this year, as were Justice League people, but I also saw a guy dressed like Bumblebee from “Transformers” in a fully articulate plastic shell that for a second I thought was a remote controlled robot. And these people, called “CosPlayers” don’t just wear the clothing, they embody the characters they represent in every way, which is somewhat off-putting. And also there’s the matter of being, *ahem* suited to wearing the costume. For every Super Girl or Wonder Woman who were knockouts, there were three others that were TKO’d, if you pardon the bad analogy. But, for having the guts to wear them in the first place, I must applaud them.
Saturday night I wanted to see the screening of the new episode of Doctor Who (not surprising) and in order to get good seats, we decided to go in to the room two panels early. The first we heard was for “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” cartoon series, which I’d never seen. The panel began by showing the 1979 theatrical trailer for “The Empire Strikes Back” as this is the 30th anniversary of its release. That was pretty amazing and made me miss that movie, which I sold last year. Then that feeling slowly went away when the rest of the panel consisted of talking about the cartoon series which was heavily steeped in the prequels, which if you don’t know are the worst things ever created by human beings. But there were people in the room who lived and died Star Wars even in spite of the crap. I got bored.
That was followed by the DC panel for Brightest Day, the immediate follow up to the excellent Blackest Night which just ended last week. The panel basically consisted of introducing the writers and artists of the main book and ancillary titles and then having the audience ask questions that couldn’t be answered for fear of spoiling anything. I’ll probably read these books because I read the previous ones, but it’d be nice if they didn’t have to make so many of them. I can’t afford it.
Now, I am a fan of Green Lantern and the DC books, but it was clear that a good many people in the room were Doctor Who fans waiting for the screening and not enjoying the DC panel one little bit. I overheard them griping about how stupid the panel was and making little rude comments about the things being discussed. This makes zero sense to me. Why hate on something other people like just because it isn’t the same thing you like? I could get on my soapbox now and spend five pages lambasting people in this country for their intolerance and their “Us vs. Them” attitude about everything and how it actually hurts the fabric of our nation when individuality comes in the form of exclusion and hatred, but I won’t do that. I’ll just say it doesn’t make sense, ESPECIALLY in this case. Doctor Who is an alien who flies through space with a human and makes things safe for all the planets of the universe; Green Lantern is a human who flies around space with aliens and makes things safe for all the planets in the universe. Why the hate? They aren’t told in the same way, surely, but they are definitely kindred.
I won’t go too into detail about the actual Doctor Who episode given that it doesn’t hit screens here in the U.S. until April 17th, but I’ll just say that it was fantastic. The new actors and head writer are setting up a great new series of adventures and it looks great.
For my blog entries, I usually like to end with a conclusion paragraph to tie everything up and put a little bow on it, but as I’ve been working on this far longer than I should because I’m deliriously tired, I’m not going to do that. Sufficed to say, I had a good time, the convention was fun but different than Comic-Con, and fans express their love and unlove of things in strange and excessive ways. Not articulate, but accurate.
You’re not as welcome as you usually are.
-Kanderson
Saturday was a full day of walking the exhibition floor. It was about half the size of the one in San Diego, but I would say it was more focused. Comic-Con is a massive explosion of pop culture and promotional material while WonderCon is a bit of promo but is mostly independently owned comic book and merchandise sellers. Which is great and all, but if you aren’t in the market for action figures, t-shirts, or vintage comics, it’s only so interesting. Still, there were plenty of odd little artist and craftsman booths to occupy my brain. What really make these conventions great are the panel discussions.
As I already mentioned, the Kevin Smith Q&A was a great treat, but just as inspiring to me was a panel I attended Saturday morning with eight of DC Comics’ top writers. As someone who aspires to write for a living, I’m always eager to hear other writers talk about their process. I’m also a huge DC fan, so to hear the people who write the books I read is pretty fantastic. The big problem you run into with any Q&A or panel is crazy or stupid people asking crazy or stupid questions. Since most people who’d go to WonderCon are familiar with this, the questions tended to be respectful and topical, if leaning toward the fanatic side. At Comic-Con, the questions were a mix bag of good ones, awful ones, and “Security.”
Which brings me to the nature of fandom. A great many people who go to these conventions are die-hard fans of one thing and they show it by dressing up and outwardly deriding fans of other things. This makes no sense to me. I don’t like Star Trek, but I’d never make fun of somebody for liking Star Trek because I know full well it’s no less nerdy than half the crap I like. Yet to overhear some conversations, it’s like the Jets and the Sharks, but if those gangs were in totally different cities. I wore a Flash t-shirt on Saturday which is about as close as I come to dressing up in costume, but there were people with full-on, professionally made outfits that look like they could easily be put in a movie.
Stormtroopers and bounty hunters from “Star Wars” were big this year, as were Justice League people, but I also saw a guy dressed like Bumblebee from “Transformers” in a fully articulate plastic shell that for a second I thought was a remote controlled robot. And these people, called “CosPlayers” don’t just wear the clothing, they embody the characters they represent in every way, which is somewhat off-putting. And also there’s the matter of being, *ahem* suited to wearing the costume. For every Super Girl or Wonder Woman who were knockouts, there were three others that were TKO’d, if you pardon the bad analogy. But, for having the guts to wear them in the first place, I must applaud them.
Saturday night I wanted to see the screening of the new episode of Doctor Who (not surprising) and in order to get good seats, we decided to go in to the room two panels early. The first we heard was for “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” cartoon series, which I’d never seen. The panel began by showing the 1979 theatrical trailer for “The Empire Strikes Back” as this is the 30th anniversary of its release. That was pretty amazing and made me miss that movie, which I sold last year. Then that feeling slowly went away when the rest of the panel consisted of talking about the cartoon series which was heavily steeped in the prequels, which if you don’t know are the worst things ever created by human beings. But there were people in the room who lived and died Star Wars even in spite of the crap. I got bored.
That was followed by the DC panel for Brightest Day, the immediate follow up to the excellent Blackest Night which just ended last week. The panel basically consisted of introducing the writers and artists of the main book and ancillary titles and then having the audience ask questions that couldn’t be answered for fear of spoiling anything. I’ll probably read these books because I read the previous ones, but it’d be nice if they didn’t have to make so many of them. I can’t afford it.
Now, I am a fan of Green Lantern and the DC books, but it was clear that a good many people in the room were Doctor Who fans waiting for the screening and not enjoying the DC panel one little bit. I overheard them griping about how stupid the panel was and making little rude comments about the things being discussed. This makes zero sense to me. Why hate on something other people like just because it isn’t the same thing you like? I could get on my soapbox now and spend five pages lambasting people in this country for their intolerance and their “Us vs. Them” attitude about everything and how it actually hurts the fabric of our nation when individuality comes in the form of exclusion and hatred, but I won’t do that. I’ll just say it doesn’t make sense, ESPECIALLY in this case. Doctor Who is an alien who flies through space with a human and makes things safe for all the planets of the universe; Green Lantern is a human who flies around space with aliens and makes things safe for all the planets in the universe. Why the hate? They aren’t told in the same way, surely, but they are definitely kindred.
I won’t go too into detail about the actual Doctor Who episode given that it doesn’t hit screens here in the U.S. until April 17th, but I’ll just say that it was fantastic. The new actors and head writer are setting up a great new series of adventures and it looks great.
For my blog entries, I usually like to end with a conclusion paragraph to tie everything up and put a little bow on it, but as I’ve been working on this far longer than I should because I’m deliriously tired, I’m not going to do that. Sufficed to say, I had a good time, the convention was fun but different than Comic-Con, and fans express their love and unlove of things in strange and excessive ways. Not articulate, but accurate.
You’re not as welcome as you usually are.
-Kanderson
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Wonder Con: Day1
After a horrendous LAX experience, and I guess we all need at least 3, my WonderConning was off to a rocky start. That could be a blog unto itself, but as none of it was particularly nerdy, I’ll refrain.
By time we finally arrived at the convention hall it was nigh on 4:00pm and the prospect of a wasted day looked sadly like an inevitability, however there was a Kevin Smith Q&A at 6:00 and I thought if anything can put me right, an evening with Kev could.
After arriving in the ballroom very early, we were treated with episodes of “V,” “Fringe,” and “Human Target,” which were dumb, weird, and better than expected, respectively. Then we had a wait, our fiftieth since arriving at the airport at 7:00am. The tiredness was creeping toward the “pass-out-or-break-down” stage, when a guy came out to introduce “the man himself,” Kevin Smith. I saw Kevin Smith last summer at San Diego ComiCon from about the 200th row and while he was funny and I enjoyed myself, I wasn’t terribly moved by him. This time we were sat about 10 rows from the front and in fact he was directly in front of me the whole time.
Kevin Smith is one of the three filmmakers that directly influenced me during my impressionable late-teens and without him, I surely wouldn’t have gone into movie writing, let along blog-writing. Without putting too much emphasis on it, “Clerks” is the reason I wrote my first script, which sucked incidentally. I heavily immersed myself in Smith’s “Askewniverse” and quoted those films with my equally irritating college friends ad nauseum.
Still, in recent years, I’ve grown apart from Smith’s work as a filmmaker. As of last Thursday, I’ve sold all of his dvds, save “Clerks” itself. I’d moved on in my movie tastes, off of the likes of Kevin Smith and onto Stanley Kubrick. I wasn’t the emo 18 year old anymore. His films represented a specific time in my life and for the most part don’t hold the same feelings they once did.
Even though I had moved on from the man’s film work, I was and am still an avid fan of him as a personality. For the passed 111 episodes, I have listed to SModcast, which is a hilarious conversation Kevin has with one of his friends, usually his longtime producer, Scott Mosier. SModcast is often ridiculous and always entertaining, and it’s patently obvious that Kevin enjoyed SModcasting as much as I enjoy listening. He’d become less of a filmmaker in my eyes and more a commentator of popular culture. Was I selling the man short?
Friday night’s Q&A was definitely illuminating for me. Amid the usual kids asking dumb questions and Kevin responding with a barrage of lewd comments and stories, someone asked him out of all the many things he does (write, direct, edit, etc.) he enjoys the most. Kevin’s response was a bit of a shock. He said very simply that making movies doesn’t hold the same power over him as it once did, that now he enjoys interacting with people, via Q & As, Tweeting (or Twittering, I never know what the proper verb is) and especially SModcast. He enjoys the continual conversation with people those outlets provide for him. It’s the immediacy he craves.
He said that while he still loves film and enjoys making it, “it’s not religion anymore.” He also said that he looks at his film “Zach and Miri Make a Porno,” and it seems inauthentic to him. It was made by a guy who didn’t entirely believe what he was saying. All of this is very clear to me, as I wasn’t so much a fan of “Zach and Miri.” It felt forced. He made his name by making stories of foul-mouthed working class heroes, but couldn’t accurately depict that anymore. And that made me sad initially. One of my heroes didn’t speak to me anymore. But he felt the same way about it.
To hear this type of honesty coming out of a filmmaker is refreshing. Kevin Smith has always been overly forthcoming with details of his sex life or bowel movements (a story he told at the end of the night involved both having a two hour shit and trying to have sex with his wife for the first time high) but I’d never heard him be that frank about his career or where it’s headed. This is a man who thoroughly enjoys his life and what he’s doing. He’s at a point where people come in droves to hear him speak and listen to and read his every thought willingly and filmmaking is just another outlet.
There’s always going to be a new crop of young, whiny kids who discover “Clerks” or “Chasing Amy,” get inspired, and become Kevin Smith fans, and that will ensure that he’ll be relevant for years and years to come, which is really all he wanted in the first place. I can only hope to be so lucky.
You’re welcome.
-Kanderson
By time we finally arrived at the convention hall it was nigh on 4:00pm and the prospect of a wasted day looked sadly like an inevitability, however there was a Kevin Smith Q&A at 6:00 and I thought if anything can put me right, an evening with Kev could.
After arriving in the ballroom very early, we were treated with episodes of “V,” “Fringe,” and “Human Target,” which were dumb, weird, and better than expected, respectively. Then we had a wait, our fiftieth since arriving at the airport at 7:00am. The tiredness was creeping toward the “pass-out-or-break-down” stage, when a guy came out to introduce “the man himself,” Kevin Smith. I saw Kevin Smith last summer at San Diego ComiCon from about the 200th row and while he was funny and I enjoyed myself, I wasn’t terribly moved by him. This time we were sat about 10 rows from the front and in fact he was directly in front of me the whole time.
Kevin Smith is one of the three filmmakers that directly influenced me during my impressionable late-teens and without him, I surely wouldn’t have gone into movie writing, let along blog-writing. Without putting too much emphasis on it, “Clerks” is the reason I wrote my first script, which sucked incidentally. I heavily immersed myself in Smith’s “Askewniverse” and quoted those films with my equally irritating college friends ad nauseum.
Still, in recent years, I’ve grown apart from Smith’s work as a filmmaker. As of last Thursday, I’ve sold all of his dvds, save “Clerks” itself. I’d moved on in my movie tastes, off of the likes of Kevin Smith and onto Stanley Kubrick. I wasn’t the emo 18 year old anymore. His films represented a specific time in my life and for the most part don’t hold the same feelings they once did.
Even though I had moved on from the man’s film work, I was and am still an avid fan of him as a personality. For the passed 111 episodes, I have listed to SModcast, which is a hilarious conversation Kevin has with one of his friends, usually his longtime producer, Scott Mosier. SModcast is often ridiculous and always entertaining, and it’s patently obvious that Kevin enjoyed SModcasting as much as I enjoy listening. He’d become less of a filmmaker in my eyes and more a commentator of popular culture. Was I selling the man short?
Friday night’s Q&A was definitely illuminating for me. Amid the usual kids asking dumb questions and Kevin responding with a barrage of lewd comments and stories, someone asked him out of all the many things he does (write, direct, edit, etc.) he enjoys the most. Kevin’s response was a bit of a shock. He said very simply that making movies doesn’t hold the same power over him as it once did, that now he enjoys interacting with people, via Q & As, Tweeting (or Twittering, I never know what the proper verb is) and especially SModcast. He enjoys the continual conversation with people those outlets provide for him. It’s the immediacy he craves.
He said that while he still loves film and enjoys making it, “it’s not religion anymore.” He also said that he looks at his film “Zach and Miri Make a Porno,” and it seems inauthentic to him. It was made by a guy who didn’t entirely believe what he was saying. All of this is very clear to me, as I wasn’t so much a fan of “Zach and Miri.” It felt forced. He made his name by making stories of foul-mouthed working class heroes, but couldn’t accurately depict that anymore. And that made me sad initially. One of my heroes didn’t speak to me anymore. But he felt the same way about it.
To hear this type of honesty coming out of a filmmaker is refreshing. Kevin Smith has always been overly forthcoming with details of his sex life or bowel movements (a story he told at the end of the night involved both having a two hour shit and trying to have sex with his wife for the first time high) but I’d never heard him be that frank about his career or where it’s headed. This is a man who thoroughly enjoys his life and what he’s doing. He’s at a point where people come in droves to hear him speak and listen to and read his every thought willingly and filmmaking is just another outlet.
There’s always going to be a new crop of young, whiny kids who discover “Clerks” or “Chasing Amy,” get inspired, and become Kevin Smith fans, and that will ensure that he’ll be relevant for years and years to come, which is really all he wanted in the first place. I can only hope to be so lucky.
You’re welcome.
-Kanderson
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Top 6: Sidekicks
The hero gets the girl, kills the baddie, and saves the day. So what? The sidekick gets the best lines. Every hero or heroine worth his or her salt has a best friend who stands next to them through thick and thin and does his/her best to make them look good. Flatly put, these are the top 6 best friends anyone could have in a life or death situation.
VI - SILENT BOB
Jay is annoying, ignorant, sexist, morally reprehensible, and never shuts up. That's why it's such a boon to find a guy who is the exact opposite of that and still wants to hang out. Spanning six films, a cartoon series, a brace of comic books, and merchandise everywhere, Jay and Silent Bob have had more than their fair share of adventures. They've fought demons, run from security guards, sabotaged convenience stores, and of course sold copious amounts of marijuana. While Jay spends the entire story swearing like a sailor and making lewd comments, Silent Bob remains quiet and supportive until he pipes up to drop some philosophy on one of the many hapless heroes. Played by writer/director Kevin Smith, Silent Bob was originally supposed to be completely mute, but last minute had to deliver a line meant for Jay that Jason Mewes couldn't get right. Thus began a spate of him speaking the moral of the story. Only in a Kevin Smith movie would a guy named SILENT Bob still talk quite a bit.
V - KATO
Lets be honest: Robin is lame. Batman can do just as well, if not better, without Robin around. But the Green Hornet would get his masquerading ass kicked if not for the prowess of his faithful butler/chauffeur/life saver Kato. He didn't say a whole heap, but Kato was a master of Kung Fu and would regularly show up in the nick of time to save GH from some nefarious criminal plot. And you know why he was so cool? He was played by Bruce friggin' Lee! Before he Entered the Dragon, Bruce Lee played second fiddle to Van Williams (who?) as the eponymous hero, but really Kato was the reason people watched the program. In fact, in Lee's native Hong Kong, the show was marketed as "The Kato Show." What I'm saying is, if Kato has your back, you could basically talk shit to Chuck Norris.
IV - ED
When taking on slow-moving zombies, it might not seem smart to bring along a loud, fat guy who's always making things difficult for you, but one wonders how far Shaun would have gotten without Ed by his side. He knows more than anyone about the zed word, fire arms, car driving, hog lumps, and molotov cocktails. That type of knowledge is indispensable. One of the many themes that run through the film is that of friendship and loyalty, and Ed is at all times characterized by the lapdog-like way he hangs at Shaun's side, as evidenced by blindly joining the Mexican standoff in the pub toward the end of the film. Conversely, Shaun is always defending Ed to the others who call him "dead weight" or "a fucking idiot." I can think of no sadder moment in any movie than Ed dying only to be replaced by odd glee when we find out that even in undeath, Ed remains Shaun's favorite Player 2.
III - DR. JOHN WATSON
Every crime-solving, cocaine-addicted, violin-playing, half-insane genius needs a level-headed live-in physician. I think it was a law in Victorian England. As good intellectual sidekicks should do, Dr. Watson question Holmes and allowed him to come up with his best deductions, the ordinary man against the brilliant, emotionally-detached analytical machine. Watson was a smart and capable man in his own right, but it was his work assisting Holmes that brought about the best in both men. Without him, the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson," would just be "Elementary, my dear," which is kind of condescending.
II - CHEWBACCA
Falling into the same category as Kato, Chewbacca acted as the insurance policy for Han Solo's smart-ass mouth. Designed by George Lucas to act as a sentient dog, Chewie was the muscle Han needed to take on whoever needed on-taking in their smuggling activity. It didn't hurt that he could rip people's arms out of their socket and fix anything mechanical in the galaxy. It's also very convenient that Chewie can understand humans and Han can understand Wookie while never learning how to speak the other's language. Chewie was willing to be tortured, sold into slavery, and face possibly being eaten by a sinkhole with teeth to save his buddy's life, which is about as loyal as loyal can be, you know. Walking carpet or not, Chewbacca is the best co-pilot a scruffy looking nerf herder could hope to find.
I - SANCHO PANZA
Going all the way back to the beginning for this one. Don Quixote's squire is considered by many to be the first official sidekick in literary history. Nothing more than a poor neighbor of the wacky knight, Sancho rode with Quixote during his most famous adventures, like fighting windmills, astride his noble donkey. Portrayed as quite dimwitted, Sancho represented the Spanish everyman who would comment on the state of the country and Europe in general while off on his master's imagined quests. When Don Quixote is finally disenchanted and realizes his quest was meaningless, falling into a deep despair, Sancho is the one to try to revive his sense of wonder, saying he would gladly become a pastoral shepherd again, thus becoming "Quixotized" himself. Knowing absolutely nothing but still doing what's right by his friend and master and influencing sidekicks the world over puts Sancho Panza at the top of this list.
Next week's Top 6 will surely have something to do with WonderCon which I am going to in San Francisco this weekend. Hope to see you there. What sidekicks did I omit? Tell me in the comments below.
You're welcome.
-Kanderson
VI - SILENT BOB
Jay is annoying, ignorant, sexist, morally reprehensible, and never shuts up. That's why it's such a boon to find a guy who is the exact opposite of that and still wants to hang out. Spanning six films, a cartoon series, a brace of comic books, and merchandise everywhere, Jay and Silent Bob have had more than their fair share of adventures. They've fought demons, run from security guards, sabotaged convenience stores, and of course sold copious amounts of marijuana. While Jay spends the entire story swearing like a sailor and making lewd comments, Silent Bob remains quiet and supportive until he pipes up to drop some philosophy on one of the many hapless heroes. Played by writer/director Kevin Smith, Silent Bob was originally supposed to be completely mute, but last minute had to deliver a line meant for Jay that Jason Mewes couldn't get right. Thus began a spate of him speaking the moral of the story. Only in a Kevin Smith movie would a guy named SILENT Bob still talk quite a bit.
V - KATO
Lets be honest: Robin is lame. Batman can do just as well, if not better, without Robin around. But the Green Hornet would get his masquerading ass kicked if not for the prowess of his faithful butler/chauffeur/life saver Kato. He didn't say a whole heap, but Kato was a master of Kung Fu and would regularly show up in the nick of time to save GH from some nefarious criminal plot. And you know why he was so cool? He was played by Bruce friggin' Lee! Before he Entered the Dragon, Bruce Lee played second fiddle to Van Williams (who?) as the eponymous hero, but really Kato was the reason people watched the program. In fact, in Lee's native Hong Kong, the show was marketed as "The Kato Show." What I'm saying is, if Kato has your back, you could basically talk shit to Chuck Norris.
IV - ED
When taking on slow-moving zombies, it might not seem smart to bring along a loud, fat guy who's always making things difficult for you, but one wonders how far Shaun would have gotten without Ed by his side. He knows more than anyone about the zed word, fire arms, car driving, hog lumps, and molotov cocktails. That type of knowledge is indispensable. One of the many themes that run through the film is that of friendship and loyalty, and Ed is at all times characterized by the lapdog-like way he hangs at Shaun's side, as evidenced by blindly joining the Mexican standoff in the pub toward the end of the film. Conversely, Shaun is always defending Ed to the others who call him "dead weight" or "a fucking idiot." I can think of no sadder moment in any movie than Ed dying only to be replaced by odd glee when we find out that even in undeath, Ed remains Shaun's favorite Player 2.
III - DR. JOHN WATSON
Every crime-solving, cocaine-addicted, violin-playing, half-insane genius needs a level-headed live-in physician. I think it was a law in Victorian England. As good intellectual sidekicks should do, Dr. Watson question Holmes and allowed him to come up with his best deductions, the ordinary man against the brilliant, emotionally-detached analytical machine. Watson was a smart and capable man in his own right, but it was his work assisting Holmes that brought about the best in both men. Without him, the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson," would just be "Elementary, my dear," which is kind of condescending.
II - CHEWBACCA
Falling into the same category as Kato, Chewbacca acted as the insurance policy for Han Solo's smart-ass mouth. Designed by George Lucas to act as a sentient dog, Chewie was the muscle Han needed to take on whoever needed on-taking in their smuggling activity. It didn't hurt that he could rip people's arms out of their socket and fix anything mechanical in the galaxy. It's also very convenient that Chewie can understand humans and Han can understand Wookie while never learning how to speak the other's language. Chewie was willing to be tortured, sold into slavery, and face possibly being eaten by a sinkhole with teeth to save his buddy's life, which is about as loyal as loyal can be, you know. Walking carpet or not, Chewbacca is the best co-pilot a scruffy looking nerf herder could hope to find.
I - SANCHO PANZA
Going all the way back to the beginning for this one. Don Quixote's squire is considered by many to be the first official sidekick in literary history. Nothing more than a poor neighbor of the wacky knight, Sancho rode with Quixote during his most famous adventures, like fighting windmills, astride his noble donkey. Portrayed as quite dimwitted, Sancho represented the Spanish everyman who would comment on the state of the country and Europe in general while off on his master's imagined quests. When Don Quixote is finally disenchanted and realizes his quest was meaningless, falling into a deep despair, Sancho is the one to try to revive his sense of wonder, saying he would gladly become a pastoral shepherd again, thus becoming "Quixotized" himself. Knowing absolutely nothing but still doing what's right by his friend and master and influencing sidekicks the world over puts Sancho Panza at the top of this list.
Next week's Top 6 will surely have something to do with WonderCon which I am going to in San Francisco this weekend. Hope to see you there. What sidekicks did I omit? Tell me in the comments below.
You're welcome.
-Kanderson
Doctor Who: The Peter Davison Years
That didn't take long, now did it? After combing through the seven years of Tom Baker, I found it rather a breeze to traverse the three seasons of "Doctor Who" with Peter Davison, 1982-1984. Unlike Tom Baker, I had seen a fair amount of Peter Davison's "Who" prior to starting the chronological journey and consider him one of my favorites straight through to the end. Before delving into the episodes, here's a little backstory.
John Nathan-Turner took over as producer in 1981 and would drastically revamp the series to become more in touch with the new decade, changes that would remain until the show's cancellation in 1989. Nathan-Turner was a young, first time producer with a great many ideas for the direction the show should go, including filling the show with young companions and steering away from the silliness the series had reached in the Douglas Adams days in favor of hard science-fiction. These decisions put him at odds right away with the established Baker and it was decided that the show's 18th season would be the last for the Fourth Doctor.
Another decision that put Nathan-Turner apart from his predecessors was not to cast another unknown in the part of The Doctor as Tom Baker had been and instead he cast Peter Davison who was currently a regular on three other series (the product of such short seasons in Britain) in the role. Davison was the youngest Doctor to date at just 29 when he took over and some worried his age and good looks might distract from the already well-established character.
In order to fight against these trepidations, John Nathan-Turner loaded the last few Tom Baker stories with new regular companions as holdovers to take the audience into the new era. Among them were Adric, a mathematics whiz kid, Nyssa, orphaned scientific genius, and Tegan, a mouthy Australian flight attendant. The precedent was set early in the show's history, as the First Doctor began his travels with three companions, though after so many years of one regular sidekick, the writers had to work to give each character their due and often come across as one dimensional. In the three seasons, the Doctor saw six different companions, later including devious alien Turlough, a robot called Kamelion, and finally a young American girl named Peri Brown. It is this era of the show that is often cited as "The Crowded TARDIS."
During the Davison era, the show saw a reinvigoration in the fans as well, with ratings returning to upwards of 7 million viewers and even reaching the 10 million point for some of the 19th season episodes. Despite its success, Davison had made his decision to do only three seasons on the advice of Second Doctor Patrick Troughton. Both Jon Pertwee (5 seasons) and Tom Baker (7 seasons) found it difficult to be separated from the role and get non-Doctorish work. Troughton before them had only appeared in three seasons and had almost immediately returned to steady work as a character actor. So the Fifth Doctor's time was limited to three seasons, and while there are fewer standout stories than in Baker's time, Davison's stories held together as a continuing saga and his performance was much more accessible and grounded, and to my mind more likable.
There are definitely five great stories in the Davison bunch which I will discuss now. The first is 1982's penultimate adventure "Earthshock." This serial saw the Doctor and his crew land in a cave in Earth's future only to be accused of murdering a team of scientists by some military types. Who really murdered the scientists turns out to be old foes the Cybermen, who are basically people enslaved to become large monstrous robots. The Cybermen are secretly operating out of the scientists' own freighter orbiting the planet. The original plan was disrupt a peace accord between the Earth's dignitaries, but eventually they decide to just crash the nuclear freighter into the Earth itself, destroying all life on it. The Cybermen are excellent villains and display a deviousness in this story not seen before. This story is also notable as it saw the death of a regular cast member, Adric played by Matthew Waterhouse. While an annoying character, no one likes to see a good guy blow up.
.jpg)
The next one for you is "Enlightenment" from the series' 20th season. It is the end of the three-story arc known as "The Black Guardian Trilogy" in which the evil Black Guardian tries to force new companion Turlough (Mark Strickson) to kill the Doctor for foiling his plans some years ago (see: The Key to Time). This is easily the best of the three, in which the TARDIS lands under mysterious circumstances aboard an Edwardian sailing ship, apparently in the middle of some kind of race. The ship's officers are definitely a little off and the crew have no idea when they boarded or when or where the race began. We eventually find out that this ship is not in the water at all, but is a space ship designed to perfectly mirror its historical counterpart by strange beings called Eternals. The race, between ships from all different historical periods, is for "enlightenment," though exactly what that is is not known. This offers some of the best sets and costumes of the whole of Davison's era and the idea of sailing through space plays very well.
Thirdly we have "The Five Doctors" which was a 90-minute special that took place between seasons to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the show. Much like the tenth anniversary special, "The Three Doctors," "The Five Doctors" saw all the previous incarnations of the Doctor working together to stop a great evil. Someone or something is pulling the Doctor's various selves out of their respective timelines and into a strange land where they must reach a massive tower or be destroyed, rewriting history and ending the whole show right there. Obviously they weren't about to let that happen. Tom Baker refused to take part in the special as he had only recently left the program and was still very proprietorial of the part, so his appearance was limited to footage from an unfinished story from season 17. Also unable to appear was First Doctor William Hartnell as he died in 1975, so for the purposes of the special, the original version of the character was played by Richard Hurndall, who did an okay job considering. Second Doctor Patrick Troughton and Third Doctor Jon Pertwee did appear along with some companions from each of the eras, as did villains The Master, The Cybermen, and a Dalek for good measure. While the storyline doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it is great to see so many versions of the character all in one place. This story will always hold a special place for me as it was the first Classic Who I had ever watched.
Speaking of Daleks, we have 1984's excellent "Resurrection of the Daleks," which has the Doctor, Tegan, and Turlough getting trapped in a time corridor only to be spat out on present-day Earth. The nature of the time corridor turns out to be caused by the oldest of foes, the Daleks, who are kidnapping people in authority positions around the world and replacing them with clones who will do their bidding. Also reappearing is the Dalek's creator Davros, who is thawed out of suspended animation to replenish the dwindling population of the mechanical mutant species. Davros and the Dalek Emperor do not see eye to eye and are soon at odds with each other over who should rule. This was a surprisingly dark story that saw something like 43 onscreen deaths, not including Daleks. After "Destiny of the Daleks" from Douglas Adams' season as script editor, which was stupid and ridiculous, it's nice to see a return to form for the pepperpots. This also was the last appearance of Tegan (Janet Fielding) who was the Doctor's longest-running companion. She doesn't die though, so don't worry.
The last and absolute hands-down best story from the Peter Davison age was in fact his final story. By the time "The Caves of Androzani" was being filmed in 1984, it was already well-established that Davison would be leaving, so John Nathan-Turner decided to make the changeover as easy as possible, again, by having the Doctor lose his companions, first Tegan in the aforementioned "Resurrection of the Daleks" and then Turlough in the following story, "Planet of Fire." In the latter story, which I have not seen as it isn't released yet, the Doctor picks up a young American girl named Peri Brown, played by English actress Nicola Bryant, to be the upcoming Sixth Doctor's regular consort. It's the fact that he barely knows his new companion that makes the story all the more fantastic.
The Doctor and Peri land on the rocky, cavernous planet of Androzani Minor, which serves as a mining planet for the people of the twin planet of Androzani Major. What is being mined is the strange elixir called spectrox which gives the drinker an unnaturally long and youthful life. As you might expect, such a drug is in very high demand and is therefore the most expensive thing in the universe. After venturing into a cave to explore, Peri falls into a strange webby hive thing which the Doctor then touches to get her free. They develop rashes and blisters where they touched the stuff, which they find out is the first symptom of spectrox toxemia, a disease contracted from touching raw spectrox. The only cure for this is the milk of a rare bat which lives in the caves (not kidding), otherwise they will die.
Before they can even attempt to retrieve it, they become embroiled in a war with three rival factions: the military under employment of cruel businessman Morgus who owns all the spectrox mines, androids controlled by the mysterious masked Sharaz Jek who has commandeered a stockpile of spectrox for ransom, and a group of ruthless mercenaries lead by Stotz, who are playing on both sides. Jek has a score to settle with Morgus who caused his disfiguration. He kidnaps the lovely young Peri, who is dying of toxemia, and the Doctor is taken aboard the mercs' ship for questioning by Morgus. The Doctor, despite slowly dying himself, escapes his shackles and crashes the ship back into Androzani Minor, saying "I owe it to my friend to try to save her." This is Davison's Doctor to a T. He might not even know the person that well, but he would risk everything to see that no harm comes to them, no matter the odds. From the first, to his very last, the Fifth Doctor is the selfless hero. "The Caves of Androzani" stands as one of the best written, directed, and certainly acted stories in all of "Doctor Who." Davison himself has said several times that if he got more scripts like "Caves," he might have stayed on for a fourth season. In 2009, after the 200th story of the show was broadcast, a poll was held for fans to rank all the stories, and "The Caves of Androzani" came in at No. 1, beating out the much loved David Tennant episode "Blink."
And that's what I know about the reign of Peter Davison. I will soon (after a trip to San Francisco for WonderCon) be starting the stories of Sixth Doctor Colin Baker. I have never seen a single Sixth Doctor story and I've heard the quality starts to go downhill during this time, but I will see for myself.
You're welcome.
-Kanderson
Monday, March 22, 2010
Top 6: Stupid Superheroes
All of the Top 6s up to this point have been movie related, so I thought I'd give a nod to comics. Nowadays, every comic under the sun is being turned into a major motion picture, but over the long and varied history of the medium, there have been plenty of additions that should never have a movie made of them ever. EVER. Here you have the top 6 lamest superheroes of all time.
VI - THE RED BEE
Appearing in the 1940s in "Hit Comics #1" the Red Bee was basically your powerless vigilante type character. However instead of wearing a cool costume like Batman or the Shadow, the Red Bee opted for a red pirate shirt with pink puffy sleeves and red and yellow striped tights. Truly frightening only to epileptic villains. However, what made the Red Bee especially lame wasn't just his gaudy, vomitous costume, but the fact that he fought crime with the aid of a single trained bee. That's right, friends. A trained bumble bee named Michael that lived in a compartment in the Red Bee's belt buckle. Seriously, I'm not joking. A friggin' trained bumble bee... named Michael! Not even a swarm, just one. So unless the Red Bee's villains were deathly allergic to the combined sight of creatures that shouldn't physically be able to fly and grown men dressing like color blind buccaneers, he wasn't much good.
V - MATTER EATER LAD
The name Matter Eater Lad does not roll off the tongue very easily and certainly doesn't strike fear into many a villain's heart. In the 1960s the writers at DC comics were always looking for new and strange powers for their quickly growing cast of teenage futuristic heroes. However, though it seemed like they'd hit their all time low with Bouncing Boy, it turned out they could sink even lower with Matter Eater Lad. As you might have guessed, Matter Eater Lad's power was the ability to eat through any substance. So if you locked your keys in your car, instead of calling a locksmith, you could just have Matter Eater Lad devour the door handle. Matter Eater Lad wasn't into cannibalism, though, so he never actually chowed down on any bad guys, completely missing what could have been a useful power.
IV - DOGWELDER
Dogwelder was a character from Garth Ennis' "Hitman" series. Dogwelder was part of a superhero team known as Section Eight which was a band of these crazy guys that fought crime in rather inane ways. Dogwelder was a name that really stuck out to me, and like most of these on the list, that's where the bulk of the ridiculousness comes from. He's this madman in a silver welder's outfit that basically just goes around welding stray dogs to villains' faces. That's it. That's how he fought crime. Welding dogs to people. It certainly wouldn't be fun to be on the receiving end of that. You try to rob a bank and you end up with a Lhasa Apso welded to your face, yapping for eternity. It's really just more an irritation than a fighting style and relies too heavily on the cooperation of the weldee.
III - ARM FALL OFF BOY
Just like "Texas Chain Saw Massacre," you know exactly what you're getting with this guy. Arm Fall Off Boy is an oddity all his own because although he only made one appearance in a comic book ever (Secret Origins #46 [1989]), his appearance was so memorable that he has a cult following to this day. Arm Fall Off Boy made an apperance at a Legion of Superheroes recruitment drive where he displayed his "astounding" power to some of the more legitimate heroes. His power? To detach his left arm from his body and use it as a club. Arm Fall Off Boy was surprised when the Legion let him know that his talents weren't quite right for their organization, though I can't imagine why. A better super hero would have been Arm Made Of Razor Blades Guy or Arm That Doubles As A Thing That Kills People Fellow. Or even just Guy With Two Fully Functioning Arms Capable Of Wielding Big Giant Swords.
II - THE WHIZZER
One of Marvel's earliest superhero creations, The Whizzer's powers have nothing to do with peeing, despite what his costume might suggest. Like many Marvel superhero characters, The Whizzer was a rip off of a DC character, The Flash in this case, and as such, he was super fast. How did he get that way, you ask? Well let's see what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:
I - ZAN from THE WONDER TWINS
If you hop in the way-back machine and think of the amazingly awesome cartoon "Superfriends," you'll probably remember the two-tone purple clad Half-Asian duo The Wonder Twins with their Beatles hairdos and blue monkey in a cape, Gleek. You might also remember that when the Twins put their rings together and said "Wonder Twin powers ACTIVATE," they could transform into stuff. Jayna could become any animal of her choosing. Quite a good power. What did brother Zan have? The ability to turn into anything water-based. How exactly do those two powers go together? You'd get all kinds of adventures where Jayna would turn into a bear or a lion or something and Zan would turn into a puddle or... yeah, that's it, just a puddle. Although, to his credit, he could turn into a refreshing glass of Kool Aid AND the ice cubes with which to cool it. Nevermind, he isn't useless at all.
And there you have it, friends. Remember these guys the next time you think about mocking Aquaman.
You're welcome.
-Kanderson
VI - THE RED BEE
Appearing in the 1940s in "Hit Comics #1" the Red Bee was basically your powerless vigilante type character. However instead of wearing a cool costume like Batman or the Shadow, the Red Bee opted for a red pirate shirt with pink puffy sleeves and red and yellow striped tights. Truly frightening only to epileptic villains. However, what made the Red Bee especially lame wasn't just his gaudy, vomitous costume, but the fact that he fought crime with the aid of a single trained bee. That's right, friends. A trained bumble bee named Michael that lived in a compartment in the Red Bee's belt buckle. Seriously, I'm not joking. A friggin' trained bumble bee... named Michael! Not even a swarm, just one. So unless the Red Bee's villains were deathly allergic to the combined sight of creatures that shouldn't physically be able to fly and grown men dressing like color blind buccaneers, he wasn't much good.
V - MATTER EATER LAD
The name Matter Eater Lad does not roll off the tongue very easily and certainly doesn't strike fear into many a villain's heart. In the 1960s the writers at DC comics were always looking for new and strange powers for their quickly growing cast of teenage futuristic heroes. However, though it seemed like they'd hit their all time low with Bouncing Boy, it turned out they could sink even lower with Matter Eater Lad. As you might have guessed, Matter Eater Lad's power was the ability to eat through any substance. So if you locked your keys in your car, instead of calling a locksmith, you could just have Matter Eater Lad devour the door handle. Matter Eater Lad wasn't into cannibalism, though, so he never actually chowed down on any bad guys, completely missing what could have been a useful power.
IV - DOGWELDER
Dogwelder was a character from Garth Ennis' "Hitman" series. Dogwelder was part of a superhero team known as Section Eight which was a band of these crazy guys that fought crime in rather inane ways. Dogwelder was a name that really stuck out to me, and like most of these on the list, that's where the bulk of the ridiculousness comes from. He's this madman in a silver welder's outfit that basically just goes around welding stray dogs to villains' faces. That's it. That's how he fought crime. Welding dogs to people. It certainly wouldn't be fun to be on the receiving end of that. You try to rob a bank and you end up with a Lhasa Apso welded to your face, yapping for eternity. It's really just more an irritation than a fighting style and relies too heavily on the cooperation of the weldee.
III - ARM FALL OFF BOY
Just like "Texas Chain Saw Massacre," you know exactly what you're getting with this guy. Arm Fall Off Boy is an oddity all his own because although he only made one appearance in a comic book ever (Secret Origins #46 [1989]), his appearance was so memorable that he has a cult following to this day. Arm Fall Off Boy made an apperance at a Legion of Superheroes recruitment drive where he displayed his "astounding" power to some of the more legitimate heroes. His power? To detach his left arm from his body and use it as a club. Arm Fall Off Boy was surprised when the Legion let him know that his talents weren't quite right for their organization, though I can't imagine why. A better super hero would have been Arm Made Of Razor Blades Guy or Arm That Doubles As A Thing That Kills People Fellow. Or even just Guy With Two Fully Functioning Arms Capable Of Wielding Big Giant Swords.
II - THE WHIZZER
One of Marvel's earliest superhero creations, The Whizzer's powers have nothing to do with peeing, despite what his costume might suggest. Like many Marvel superhero characters, The Whizzer was a rip off of a DC character, The Flash in this case, and as such, he was super fast. How did he get that way, you ask? Well let's see what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:
The origin of the Golden Age character begins while Robert Frank is on a trip to Africa with his father, Dr. Emil Frank, where Robert is bitten by a cobra. Dr. Frank saves Robert by a transfusion of mongoose blood, and soon discovers that he has developed super-speed.That's actually real. Mongoose blood. Apparently in the '40s it wasn't such a big deal to put a completely different species' DNA into your system, mongoosian AIDS be damned.
I - ZAN from THE WONDER TWINS
If you hop in the way-back machine and think of the amazingly awesome cartoon "Superfriends," you'll probably remember the two-tone purple clad Half-Asian duo The Wonder Twins with their Beatles hairdos and blue monkey in a cape, Gleek. You might also remember that when the Twins put their rings together and said "Wonder Twin powers ACTIVATE," they could transform into stuff. Jayna could become any animal of her choosing. Quite a good power. What did brother Zan have? The ability to turn into anything water-based. How exactly do those two powers go together? You'd get all kinds of adventures where Jayna would turn into a bear or a lion or something and Zan would turn into a puddle or... yeah, that's it, just a puddle. Although, to his credit, he could turn into a refreshing glass of Kool Aid AND the ice cubes with which to cool it. Nevermind, he isn't useless at all.
And there you have it, friends. Remember these guys the next time you think about mocking Aquaman.
You're welcome.
-Kanderson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
