* Today the Strange Tales Spotlight falls on R. Kikuo Johnson. Elsewhere on Marvel.com: Preview pages for issue #2 from Johnson, Tony Millionaire, Matt Kindt, and Jonathan Hickman, plus (wait for it) Peter Bagge’s variant Red Hulk cover.
* Kiel Phegley speaks with comics-related legal-issue expert Michael Lovitz about the Kirby copyright reclamation case. So many fundamental misconceptions about the situation are cleared up in this thing that I’m not even going to paraphrase it and risk muddying them up again–just go read it.
* Jog gives two thumbs from two four-fingered hands up to the the Kramers Ergot-ified Bart Simpson’s Treehouse of Horror. He detects a looser editorial grip, or perhaps just a more sympathetic editorial sensibility, on this material than on the comparable Strange Tales project from Marvel, which in turn I’ve been told is loosey-goosier than DC’s Bizarro World. It looks gorgeous and ridiculous, that much I can tell you–the Ben Jones thing is a fucking phenomenon–but not being a Simpsons person at all, I’m not the audience for it.
* Now They’re making a He-Man & the Masters of the Universe movie at Sony/Columbia instead of Warner Bros. I share Rob Bricken’s skepticism about this project given that the template for successful live-action adaptations of ’80s action-figure franchises is Michael Bay’s Transformers and Stephen Sommer’s G.I. Joe. I feel about it the same way I feel about the news that They’re rebooting Fantastic Four with a guy who wrote for Heroes–there’s some gonzo magic in the originals here (not that Lee/Kirby FF is comparable to He-Man, mind you, but you get what I mean) and it’s gonna be dumbed down and smoothed out unless I’m gravely mistaken.
* Writer Jeff Parker talks about the Agents of Atlas/X-Men and Agents of Atlas/Incredible Hercules crossovers. Sounds like the former is one of those mix-up deals, but while I’m pretty skeptical of that set-up for crossovers at this point, I guess that’s built right into the AoA’s M.O. right now: Everyone thinks they’re a criminal empire. Parker’s earned the benefit of the doubt in my book.
* Jason Adams is going to see Paranormal Activity tonight. Would you believe I had passes too but wussed out because of SPX this weekend? Would you also believe I had chances to see The Hurt Locker and Gamer this week but decided to go home and veg out instead? I am such a lousy genre-film fan. Jason, please tell me how it is without spoiling it.
* Matt Maxwell reviews Cloverfield. Contra Matt, for me it’s precisely Cloverfield’s use of a ground-level POV that reinforces the enormity of the monster and the damage it does. It stops look like a model and starts looking like the neighborhood I work in getting leveled.
* Re: reviews—What Tom said. I don’t get the merest fraction of the grief a blog with the Comics Reporter’s reach must get, but the reason I always warn people who send me their work that I can’t guarantee to review everything I read is to spare them any anguish and aggravation if I don’t review it–I’ve told them this sort of thing happens right from the jump–and hopefully spare them the cash if they don’t think it’s worth their while to send it in the first place based on that warning. I genuinely cannot read and review everything I receive or buy or acquire–there’s just too much of it! I’m up front about this because I don’t want struggling creators or publishers to waste money anymore than they do!
And with me in particular, there’s another aspect of the situation worth noting: it’s a rare day indeed where I’ll feel inclined to force myself to read and review a book I suspect I’ll find unappealing–I’m not getting paid for this, life’s too short, there are too many comics I like that deserve the attention, I just prefer to read things I enjoy over things I don’t, etc etc etc. So at least occasionally (not all the time, people who’ve sent me books I haven’t reviewed! but occasionally), not reviewing everything I’m sent is doing the sender a favor, unless they’re of the “all publicity is good publicity” school of thought. (An unaccredited school if you ask me!)
* Lately on his blog, Andrew Sullivan’s been debating various atheists and scientists on pain, suffering, and theodicy. His sparring partner today, Evolutionblog’s Jason Rosenhouse, brings us our quote of the day:
If you treat theology as a game in which you begin with the assumption of an all-loving, all-powerful God and then devise such arguments as you can to respond to seemingly contrary data, then you can come up with theoretically possible replies to the problem of evil. The trouble is that all such explanations must compete with the atheist alternative. If the universe seems completely indifferent to human needs and wants that is because it is. If our bodies can fall prey to all manner of crippling, awful diseases it is because evolution is a messy process that did not have us in mind.
If all of this suffering, pain and death seems so pointless that is because it is.
Have a nice night everybody!
But…I like models…
Old Toho monsters…/swoon!
WOW. I never knew you weren’t a Simpsons fan! Funny what kinds of things just never come up. Any particular reason?
No, no reason, it’s just a big world and you can’t watch everything.
That’s interesting because I know we’re in a roughly similar demographic and I think I just assume everyone within ten years of me either way has some fond memories of the Simpsons based on at least the show’s earliest years when it was (unbelievable now, but true) a transgressive social phenomenon. Kids today who grow up with it as basically a cornerstone of American media and culture have no clue how revolutionary it once seemed, and trying to explain it would likely make me seem very, very old.
I reviewed it without spoilers for ya, Sean. It’s def. one to see, but I’d say temper your expectations for a fun jumpy movie and not something that shakes you to your core. This is no Blair Witch.