There’s only one thing I can say, and that thing is…
You are currently browsing the archives for October, 2008
from Adventures of Rex the Wonder Dog #12 (Nov/Dec 1953)
The rare Beaked Chimpanzee of West Africa.
I’m not denying the fun to be had in these short “Detective Chimp” stories, and I realize that Infantino himself said these were among his favorite comics work…but, seriously, that chimpanzee caricature crosses the line from “cartoony exaggeration” to “horrific freak of nature.”
from Adventures of Rex the Wonder Dog #18 (Nov/Dec 1954)
by John Broome & Carmine Infantino
The graphic nature of this post may not be suitable for all readers.*
So I was going through some comics, as, you know, I tend to find myself doing more often than not, and I happened upon one of these:
That’s an issue of Secret Weapons #11 (Aug 1994), which came sealed inside a manila envelope to prevent spoiling the surprise on the cover. Presumably it’s the reveal of new team members, though looking at the actual cover, I’m at a loss as to what characters those might be. In fact, I’m not sure why they went with the envelope at all, since I’m assuming that it was no surprise at the time that the team was getting new members, and the way the cover was designed, enough of the characters were obscured to perhaps spark some interest in who they were.
Well, okay, I do know why they went with the manila envelope…it’s a cover gimmick that made the book stand out on the stands, and this particular gimmick is one that stands out from the usual foil/die-cut/hologram covers you’d generally get.
Not that it helped, much…as I recall, it didn’t really fly off the shelves. In fact, I’m not sure it sold more than your typical issue of Secret Weapons usually did.
But it did remind me of another time Valiant Comics did the “obscuring the cover” trick, this time with Eternal Warrior #35 (Jul 1995), which had this warning sleeve over the regular cover:
Of course, what was actually on the cover was not nearly as bad as the warning made it sound:
…though I suppose the image of a severed arm may be seen as shocking and horrible to all those people who didn’t already see a bloodied severed arm in, oh, say, the original Star Wars movie:
…in other words, “virtually nobody.”** Again, it was much ado about nothing — just a gimmick to get someone to pick it up and look to see what the “graphic nature of this cover” actually entailed. (And it’s interesting to note that the warning wrapper doesn’t have “Eternal Warrior” anywhere on it.) But at this point in time, during the post-crash lull of the comics industry, anything that would get a potential customer to pick your book up off of a comic rack, thus bringing it one step closer to an actual purchase, was fair game. Most people, upon seeing what was actually on the cover, just sorta went “yeah, whatever,” and put it back…but I’m sure at least one or two people who picked up the comic to give it a little look-see kept it in their buy pile.
And of course, this too reminded me of other comics that have had the wraparound protective covering, but in these cases with a little more reason than Eternal Warrior had. Like this series from Slave Labor:
…an adult comic where most of the early issues came with a “plain brown wrapper,” a second cover that replaced (or partially censored) the image on the real cover. I thought this wasn’t a bad gimmick, with the “plain brown wrapper” element giving it sort of a self-aware bit of humor to the porn proceedings within. Not that the very title itself isn’t self-aware humor all by itself…er, so to speak.
There were other adult comics with double covers, like Howard Chaykin’s Black Kiss (though those tended to be cover-covering inserts in the polybags, rather than true double covers), and this infamous example:
If you want to see what was actually under that wrapper, I suggest you hie yourself hither to UGcomix.info and look it up, since it’s…pretty out there, and maybe a bit much for my more-or-less general audiences (well, maybe 13+) site. But trust me, it’s filthy, and NSFW if you do plan on looking for it. And it was apparently popular, too, since we have in our possession both a first printing (pictured above) and a fifth printing with a $2 cover price.
By the way, the UGcomix site itself may have a NSFW ad or two on the front page…but it’s really a great resource for underground comix information. You may even see a scan or two that I contributed over there.
* Shameless, I know.
** Okay, I’m sure someone out there is probably totally disgusted by seeing severed arms, and…okay, I don’t mean to disregard your opinion. But, in general, by normal standards in action/adventure entertainment, this particular image is not one that most people are going to have an issue with. I think. …I’m going to get e-mails from “People Against Severed Arms in Movies and Comics,” aren’t I?
BEHOLD.
MIGHTY MUGGS GALACTUS
For some reason I have a thing for Galactus toys. Don’t have them all (though I set aside one of the above at the shop for future purchase). Some of you may remember Superhero Squad Galactus, which I purchased last year when I was allegedly seeking Christmas presents for other people…and in the process irritating pal Dorian because he’d bought me the same Galactus for my Christmas gift. Whoops!
I also have the 1995 Galactus figure
And there are others (like a “Cosmic Powered Galactus” from 1998, that I can find listed here and there, but no decent sized pics). And this doesn’t count the statues, the busts, the one big figure you had to assemble from pieces spread out over several Marvel Legends figures, and the Heroclix figure/play accessory.
So, in conclusion, I’m not a total sucker for Galactus merchadise…but I’ll certainly give it all a look when it comes out.
In the name of all that is good and holy, let this be the end of it: Batman and Robin comment commentary, Part Two.
Well, you knew it was coming, so let’s get it over with: more follow-up on the feedback to this “liveblogging” of Batman and Robin.
As noted previously in the comments, director Joel Schumacher was the target of some derision in an episode of the animated Batman series…you can see the brief scene in question right here. Pal Dorian notes
“That scene has always struck me as needlessly mean-spirited, and just over the line into outright homophobia.”
And yeah, it’s a bit over the top. You know, if it weren’t for the kid rubbing the pink feathered boa all over himself, the scene might have been fine as a swipe at Schumacher. But having him posing with the boa makes the scene read like “oh, and Schumacher is totally gay, too…let’s laugh at that!” It’s pretty crass.
Matt adds
“…The gay-bashing in that scene was totally uncalled for, especially because it tarnishes what is otherwise one of the best episodes in the animated series.”
What he said. It’s just this ugly little thing in the middle of some clever adaptations of Batman stories and styles, and it sticks out like a sore thumb.
“I’m still a little surprised this film hasn’t become more popular with fans of bad films. Is it possible that it crosses the line from so-bad-it’s-good into so-bad-it’s-simply-unwatchable?”
Well, there was one fella I pointed out yesterday who enjoyed the film strictly for its comedic value. And I suspect there are more than a few people who’ll watch the film just for the sheer ridiculous slow-down-for-the-car-wreck feel of it.
CW asks, slightly off the B&R topic:
“Thirty-two responses? Mike, is that a record for your blog? I don’t ever remember seeing that many before, but I could be wrong.”
Oh, no, I’ve had several posts with far more than that. But I don’t tend to get a whole lot of comments, usually. Not like my internet chum Chris who can post “I farted,” and immediately get, like, 60 responses. Of course, some of those comments will be “why didn’t you sneeze instead” or “I liked your old farts better” or “why do you hate Strangers in Paradise,” so there you go.
Ah, insular humor for fellow webloggers. The snake is eating its own tail, friends. Let’s move on.
Rob says
“There is one thing that made Batman and Robin wonderful. It killed the comic movie franchise for a couple of years and made Hollywood take a long and serious look about how comic movies should NOT be made.”
There’s certainly something to that…Batman and Robin pushed things about as far as they can go, re: goofiness and “camp,” and by and large, everyone said “no, thank you, sirs” and rejected the film. So having reached the goofy ceiling, there’s nowhere to go but down. At least, that’s what we can hope.
Suedenim writes
“I actually think Schwarzenegger gets something of a bum rap for this movie… if only because I can’t imagine *anyone* doing much with the abominable material they give his character.”
Yeah…that’s why I’m willing to give Clooney a pass, too. There’s only so much you can do with what you’re given. But they did have their moments…after Arnie and Clooney have their final confrontation, with Batman simply talking to him…as I said previously, that was a reasonably solid scene from both actors aside from Arnie’s terrible “take two of these” line read. But Uma…she was trying to do “over-the-top sexy cartoon vamp,” and only succeeded in making me wish that almost anything else was on my sceen at those moments.
Jay V is trying to kill me:
“Mr Freeze lines that didn’t make it into the movie.
‘I’m hungry, lets have some chili.’
‘I’m freezed to meet you.’
‘You might say Batman and I are polar opposites.’
‘Don’t like the temperature in my hideout? Are you some sort of brrrly-man?’
“I’m freezed to meet you.” Oh, Jay.
And now, because things aren’t confusing enough…a couple of comments on comments for my post about comments.
First up is M.A., who says three things
“A) By posting on comments and allowing further comments on that post, you’ve proven that Batman and Robin is a perpetual blogging engine.”
Oh, God, let’s hope not.
“B) I think we can all agree that the third film, which introduced Robin, should have had the Batman and Robin title, while the fourth should have been Batman 4ever.”
That does seem like a bit of a missed opportunity. I remember people wondering about the “Forever” name (“for the 3rd film? Really?”) at the time the third film came out.
“C) The theater I saw it in was packed, and remained so. The movie didn’t make over 100 million (1997) dollars from elves, you know.”
…to which he adds that he isn’t arguing the movie’s good, just that it wasn’t entirely the unpopular flop people remember. And that’s a fair point…Batman still had enough draw to get people’s butts in seats, and it does amuse me slightly that so many people actually sat through this film. And depresses me that so many of them would likely never read a comic. Or certainly won’t after seeing this film.
Aqualad Knox strikes again:
“When we were in the theater watching Batman and Robin,my friends and I alternated between cringing in embarrassment and guffawing at the ineptitude up there on the screen.”
And that’s the other thing, perhaps tying into why, as Tim above wondered, this film didn’t become some classic of bad cinema. Perhaps the cringe quotient was just too high to allow for an enjoyable “bad movie” experience. That “burning shame” feeling for viewers on behalf of the film doesn’t sound like too much fun to me!
And finally, because I gotta stop at some point, Mercury727 has this to say:
“Comments on a blog post devoted to comments, how meta!”
Not the first time this sort of thing has happened here, and likely not the last time. BLOGGING EATS ITSELF.
Mike finally gets around to responding to your Batman and Robin comments: Part One.
“Oh, God, part one?” Yeah, I know, sorry…I got a late start on this post, since I’ve been busy working on a new webpage for the store, and…boy, you folks really did have a lot to say! And apparently I have a lot to say back to you.
Well, let me get cracking on the first half of the comments from that Batman and Robin post:
Aqualad Knox has a couple of comments:
“I liked that Robin’s costume looked like Nightwing’s from the comic.”
And yeah, it wasn’t a terrible costume, all things considered…and by “all things” I mean “rubber molded nipples.” Which reminds me…I seem to remember that, when Robin got a new costume in the comics (finally got rid of the short pants, etc.), it was at the urging of director Tim Burton so that he’d have something a little more usable for film. However, a quick Googling turned up an excerpt from a 1991 comics magazine reprinted at the bottom of this page, where then Bat-editor Denny O’Neil reveals:
“‘I don’t know if it [the costume] was influenced [by the movie’s],’ says O’Neil, “but that probably played some part in the designer’s thinking. We got about 15 different designs, and we, I swear, Scout’s honor, liked this one the best. We sent them out to [Batman director] Tim Burton, and this was the one he liked best.’
Anyway, that’s a bit of a tangent. Let’s get back to Aqualad Knox:
“TNT shows this movie CONSTANTLY, Mike, in case you feel the need for further study”
The broadcast rights to this film must have been cheap, cheap, cheap.
Paperghost (who by the way runs a great computer security blog which you should visit) had this to say:
“I also love the fact that the bat credit card says ‘Thru: FOREVER’ on it.”
That got mentioned a lot when I told friends that I endured this film. It is a cute callback to Batman Forever, that damned “ka-ching!” noise aside, though the very idea of giving a masked vigilante a credit card made out with his code name does raise more questions than is answered (as Rich noted later in the comments).
“is that a recommendation for others to see the film? I still haven’t seen it, so since you didn’t seem to do yourself r=the bodily harm you anticipated…”
Well…if you haven’t seen it yet, and you’ve not nothing else better to do with your time, and you realize going in that what you’re going to see may be considered, at best, a failed experiment…go ahead. It’s interesting to watch keeping in mind that what was attempted here was a live-action cartoon, a garish over-the-top reimagining of the four-color origins of the character, in the context of an updated “camp” parody inspired by the ’60s TV show. It doesn’t come close, of course, but watching it from that angle at least gives you something to contemplate among the “cold” puns.
“I have to disagree with you a bit on how those sets [look]. Everything looked polystyrene and neon to me.”
Fair enough. I liked the bright colors, myself…you know, there’s no real way to say that without making me sound, um, “tetched.” MIKE LIKE BRIGHT COLORS.
Just Some Guy also recommends to Roger
“you’ve got to see it just to be able to complain about it knowledgeably. It’s like reading All-Star Batman and Robin. :P”
Sir…sir. One reads All-Star Batman and Robin to revel in its beauty. One should only complain that it’s not weekly.
“George Clooney, on the other hand, has been justifiably in mortal torment about B&R since it was released. The shaaaammmmeeee!”
I honestly didn’t think Clooney was that bad…some of his line reads seemed a little…underwhelming, but mostly the poor guy was just saddled with uninspiring material. I think he’s as much a victim as the rest of us. Well, not as much…I’m assuming he was paid for the part.
Loren points us in the direction of an article he wrote examining the similarities between Batman and Robin and its predecessor Batman Forever.
The Phantom-Longbox longboxed
“Poison Ivy couldn’t have been LESS sexy in this if she tried.”
Yeah…if you have Uma Thurman, playing Poison Ivy, and you somehow manage to make it not sexy, you’ve done something horribly wrong. Thurman’s waaaaaay over-the-top forced sexiness just made it less sexy. So unappealing.
“I salute you for your bravery just so you could have content for you blog.”
I’m not so sure that’s so much bravery as it is outright foolishness combined with my obsessive need to post every day. But thanks!
Rich lists his problems with the cast, which got me thinking…you know, I don’t really have a problem with any of the casting. You probably could have put together a…well, good may be too strong a word…how ’bout “not so embarrassing” of a film. Yes, even with Arnie as Mr. Freeze. If they got everyone to crank down the performances a notch or twenty, and set fire to that original script, and…well, okay, maybe you’d still have a lousy film.
“i saw in the film in the theater, and as it unspooled i started sinking further and further into my seat. i kept telling myself ‘it’ll get better’ in that desperate Homer Simpson voice.
“but when Bats whipped out the Bat Credit Card, i thought ‘they could bring out the entire Justice League after this and the movie would still suck.'”
I can only imagine what it was like to see this in the theatre. It’s all well and good to look back at the flick now and try to analyze it and give it some context, etc, but paying your six or seven bucks or whatever it was at the time, and sitting there in the theatre actually watching the damned thing on a large screen with a crowd (“a crowd?” — yeah, I know, but go with me here)…that must have been a little bit like hell. As I was watching, as certain scenes went by, I would think “I wonder how people in an audience setting reacted to this?” Poorly, I’m guessing.
I liked Dave W.‘s way of dealing with this film:
“You know, I saw this one in the theaters on opening day and I loved it. Not because it was any good, but because it was so bad it was hilarious. My buddies and I laughed throughout the movie, laughed for a few hours at the waffle house after the movie, and laughed all the way home. So worth every penny.”
Now that’s a good way to deal with this film!
Dave also asks
“Dunno if they fixed it on DVD, but there’s one fight scene in the middle there where Robin gets dragged underwater by a vine. In the middle of the sequence there’s a brief shot of him trying to resurface only to get dragged under – but all they did was run the footage of him finally re-emerging and then reverse it really fast. It was so cheesy and completely obvious that we can’t believe they let that one slip through.”
I caught that, too, so it’s still on the DVD…should have noted it in my “liveblogging,” but as you saw, I had no shortage of things to write about!
“I usually love silly Batman stuff like the 60’s show and Bat-Mite, but this stuff just makes my brain scream in pain.”
Me, too…but there’s a line between “silly and fun” and “stupid and insulting” that this film crossed.
“I remember not too long after this came out reading an interview with Mike Nelson from MST3K and he referred to it as not only the worst movie ever, but the worst thing ever.”
I wonder if he revised his opinion after seeing Eragon.
Bully, the Little Stuffed Bull, stuffs
“…It’s very funny to see how humorously disparaging Clooney is about it. He knows he was in a turkey and he gleefully admits it.”
Like I said, I don’t hold Clooney entirely responsible…but I’m glad he has a sense of humor about it. Good on him!
“What, all that commentary, and not a single mention of when Clooney Batman does the whole ‘Fred Flintstone Sliding Down the Bronto’s Neck, Back and Tail at the Beginning of the Flintstones’ thing?”
I was still trying to get into the film at this point…I think I may have just been overwhelmed. I wasn’t ready for what I was experiencing!
Jon also says
“I mean, when I saw that, I knew the movie was just going to get progressively worse and worse… heck, that was the reason I waited to see ‘Batman Begins’ until long after it had been out on DVD, because I just didn’t trust Warner’s with their DC franchises any longer”
I noted on this site a few years back that when the Batman Begins trailer came onscreen at the theatre, the audience I was with groaned a bit…that Batman and Robin cast a long shadow.
HydrogenGuy admits
“I’m a little embarrassed to admit I laughed uproariously at the Bat Visa, though.”
Oh, HydrogenGuy, it’s like I don’t even know you anymore.
Disdain for the previous Bat-film, Batman Forever, pops up a few times in the comments, such as from Joshua here and from The Mutt. I remember liking it just fine for what it was, but I haven’t seen it since it was in the theatres. Maybe I should give it another go…hey, that’s another blog post! (EVERYONE READING THIS: “Noooooooooooo!”) I do remember being struck by the novelty of the film not spending a whole lot of time on Two-Face’s origin. (“Here’s some footage of Harvey Dent getting acid in his face. Okay, everyone caught up? Good.”)
“…That overacting reporter woman is Bob Kane’s wife, so that’s how that happened.”
And she probably made more money from Batman than Bill Finger ever did.
And Nik sticks it to me but good:
“Sterling, you totally ripped off my post from last week! J’accuse!”
I swear, I didn’t! I’ve been meaning to do this for months, honest!
Here’s the link where Nik discusses his successful avoidance of this fourth Bat-film.
Okay, and that’s enough for now. I’ll continue with Part Two…in the future!
Yeah, I know you can’t wait.
Things brought up at Agent B-4’s quarterly performance review.
from Giant-Size Creatures #1 (July 1974)
by Tony Isabella, Don Perlin & Vince Colletta
Why do I have these?
For some reason, I have a full set of Crime and Punishment, one of Eclipse Comics’ many “educational” trading card sets published in the wake of the publicity surrounding their True Crime card set, featuring serial killers and lawbreakers and lawmen and the like.
I’ve no idea why I have this set. This wasn’t one of Eclipse’s prepackaged factory sets…it was sold in wax packs, and I’m pretty sure, even during my brief trading card collecting phase, I didn’t have enough of a need to learn more about Patty Hearst or Charles Manson to go through the trouble of assembling this set.
I think I may have been given these, but I’m not 100% sure.
WHY?
In doing a little Googling around about this set, I found a couple interesting things:
First, I found someone on the eBay trying to sell just one of the Manson cards from the set.
Second, I found this court decision involving Eclipse Comics’ fight against an ordinance targeting their crime cards. Makes for interesting reading, particularly the bits about the pro-ordinance folks having to admit that they actually had no support for their claims that the cards were connected to any instances of juvenile delinquency.
In which I say I’m not going to write a post, but then I do so anyway.
Just a couple of items I want to note, as I’ve been under the weather and don’t really have a real post in me at the moment. I think I’m allergic to Batman and Robin.
- Speaking of Batman and Robin, I do plan on writing some extended responses to your comments from yesterday’s post. A lot of you had some interesting things to say, and I’m looking forward to discussing this in further detail when I’m a little more up to it. (And that sound you hear is thousands of blog readers crying out “NOOOO! NO MORE BATMAN AND ROBIN!”)
- Another brief commercial announcement: I’m finally listing more things on the eBay, so if you see anything there you’d like, feel free to help a pal out.
- Found out from Mr. Spurgeon that the Opus comic strip is ending after a five year run. That’s too bad…I did love Bloom County and Outland, and while Opus was a bit too much “can’t go home again,” I had enough affection for the character to enjoy seeing him back in the funny papers.
- You know what’s weird? Coming across an explicit reference to the Vietnam War in the latest Complete Peanuts reprint volume from Fantagraphics (1969-1970), in a daily I’m almost certain I’ve never seen before. Specifically, the strip involved Snoopy giving a (televised!) speech at the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm (yeah, I know, just go with it), when a riot breaks out over protesters upset about…well, let’s let Linus tell you, from the July 10th, 1970 strip:
“According to the paper, the riot was about war dogs…apparently there’s been some trouble about dogs being sent to Vietnam, and then not getting back…”
WOW. That’s pretty heavy, even for a strip that doesn’t tend to shy away from the darker aspects of life.
- A couple of other things about that latest Peanuts volume: first, there’s another strip I don’t think I’ve seen before, involving an “Age of Aquarius” joke. Topical “popular culture” humor isn’t necessarily uncommon in Peanuts, but it always seems a little jarring to me, somehow.
Also, on the back cover, some of the book’s contents are described, including:
“…The revelation that Snoopy’s little bird companion is named…Woodstock!”
DUDE, HOW ‘BOUT A “SPOILER ALERT,” PLEASE!
(Yes, I’m kidding. And talk about “topical popular culture humor,” with a character named Woodstock!)
