the machine

1. The Road

2. Public Enemies

3. District 9

4. Inglorious Basterds

5. Avatar

6. (500) Days of Summer

7. A Serious Man

8. Up in the Air

9. Coraline

10. Adventureland

I don't get Bruce Wayne coming back, especially this soon. I mean we all know death issues are meaningless, but are there really that many more good Bruce Wayne Batman stories worth telling? The guy has been the dullest character in his own "family" for going on two decades. Bruce Wayne Batman is just so dull as a character compared to absolutely every Gotham hero, why bring him back? Is it really going to spike sales? Maybe very little in the short term, but it also comes at the expense of de-valuing his death and what "classic" stories featuring Bruce Wayne Bats there are. I just don't get bringing him back unless it's in some new form. Bring him back as "Old Man Bruce" or whatever from Batman Beyond or something if you need to bring him back, but there's no reason to bring him back this quickly. Comics companies are seriously dumb.

1. Perry Bible Fellowship- great art, disturbing, original sense of humor, one of the only webcomics that can tell a joke entirely through visuals without 1,000 words on blahety blah blah.

2. Penny Arcade- looking back it wasn't the prettiest comic or the most consistently funny, but Gabe's art is head and shoulders above the average web-comics artist, and Tycho actually knows how to deliver a joke.

3. Dinosaur Comics- how do the same half-dozen images create years of good material? Dinosaur Comics does it through unusually good characterization and clever use of dialogue.

4. Hark, A Vagrant- intelligent, witty, and actually funny? Her drawing has improved a lot, too.

5. Axe Cop- I predict that in a year Axe Cop will be my favorite thing ever. Completely unrestrained storytelling (not surprising for a 5 year old) and excellent art make this the comic everyone needs to

Honorable Mentions:

Slow Wave

The Non-Adventures of Wonderella

PvP

Cats Can't Talk!

Dishonorable Mentions: comics that don't understand how to tell a joke. Comics where characters try to be "random," comics where characters are ciphers to sell clever t-shirts, comics that are unbelievably sexist and draw every male character and every female character exactly the same way, comics that think miscarriage storylines are a good idea.

Kingpin can't be used as Fox still owns the rights to him and Spiderman is a Sony movie

That's why DC made a much better deal with WB as they have all their characters under one roof and crossovers can happen with Marvel their characters are spread out over quite a number of different movie companies

Is it really a "deal" when you are both owned by the same corporate conglomerate? Marvel had the advantage of shopping out the rights to different studios and probably ended up getting more competitive deals than DC, which pretty much has no choice but to work for Warner Bros. since they're all under the same banner.

And yeah, the guy saying Kraven is too boring and Spider-Man is well-liked has clearly never read Kraven's Last Hunt or really anything besides watching a couple of really mediocre films.

The Hulk re-boot went perfectly fine, and its best bits were the first half hour where we saw very little visually boring comic book cliche stuff. If they could do the same with Spider-Man, re-casting and sort of re-setting without taking a goddamn hour to tell his origin story, I don't see the problem. Tobey Maguire was always a pretty bad choice anyway. Too small and not enough presence.

To the people who say that the marine general or the corporate douchebags become cliches, well that's how they were back in the day when they were all about Manifest Destiny. Natives were godless savages that needed to die/be converted, and damned if they were on top of sacred places that had resources in them(the Black Hills for instance, or Mount Rushmore for godsakes.) Because of that we have these cliches.

Yeah, that's a, uh... simplified explanation of things. Besides, if you don't get a Vietnam vibe from the head marine guy, you need to watch more Vietnam movies. But the fact that in history there may have been jerks doesn't really provide an explanation. Simple, stupid characters are fine for cartoons (which, again, Avatar essentially is), but to argue that it's somehow because 19th Century America was like that is just silly. Obviously we're not dealing with an identical situation, since for all intents and purposes the Na'vi are the guileless, mystical spirit-people that we sort of assumed the Indians were until we actually dealt with them.

Also, my understanding is that the great planet mother spirit, whatever she was called, would only keep balance to Pandora, which is why Jake couldn't plan out his attack with the rhinos/flying creatures/etc. They weren't available to his will and call, and only when the great mother spirit realized that he was fighting a losing battle, then did she send out the reinforcements. It wasn't as if he could say "hey, rhino dudes, go fuck some shit up" when he was planning all of it, hence the praying/dramatic tenstion/etc etc.

Animals, even untrainable ones, can be herded. Maybe different rules apply for space-animals.

Saw it yesterday on imax. The visuals were absolutely mind-blowing. Cameron has really re-defined "epic" film-making, and he did it by combining the genre with cartoons. But the depth of field and bright colors are just amazing; it makes Lord of the Rings and King Kong look dated. I wouldn't care if it was the worst story ever it would be worth seeing in theatres for the visuals. Fortunately it's not the worst, it's just mediocre.

And for all that's been said about the story, it's only the last 45 minutes or so that it started to strain under the weight of its cliches. You're drawn into the world as you experience it along with the Jake character (gee, it's like he's your avatar or something). But suddenly the bad guys turn into cartoon villains and the story starts up again, and it's all downhill. If Cameron had an intermission at the 2 Hr mark, I would've just left. If there was a quiz on what happens in the end, I could've just guessed. "Who saves the Na'vi and becomes their leader?" Uhhhh Giovanni Ribisi?

Really my only problem is that every character is a moron. From the corporate drone who's too "duh duh" stupid to recognize the tremendous economic benefits in biological diversity through a freaking network to the mustache-twirling stand-in for the US military in Iraq and Vietnam. But really the biggest moron is Jake: I know he's a marine but did he plan his attack at all? I realize I'm not some messianic chosen one, but it seems like the very first stage of my plan would be rounding up those space-rhinos and getting them to stampede the ground troops. The second stage of my plan would probably involve teaching my air guys how to take down one of the space-helicopters. The third stage of my plan would probably involve not fighting a big dumb climactic battle where I need to be bailed out by the very definition of a deus ex machina.

Oh, one other thing I thought was cool was the battle between Jake's Avatar and a souped up Powerloader from Aliens: sort of a fight between the past and the future of special effects.

It was my first Coen's film and I thought it was really clever. Are most of their films similar to this, in a sense? In which, they're very real, odd and contain lots of dark comedy?

Yes. Every Coen movie, no matter how bleak or strange the subject matter, tends to have at least a few really funny moments. I wouldn't say they're all "real" though, as quite a few of their movies are intentionally set up as a sort of genre-reinterpretation: Miller's Crossing as a gangster movie, Hudsucker Proxy has a Frank Capra post-WWII vibe, Burn After Reading is done as a spy movie. But in all of their movies they really manage to ground the film in its world. It's hard to think of filmmakers working today where the setting is so distinct and important in each project.

Also, if the ending left you confused and/or irritated, there's a lot of that, too.

Cool thread idea. I wrote a full-length script in undergrad and have started a couple since going to law school, unfortunately I don't get a chance to work on them much. I'd love to edit anything that gets put up here.

For those interested in what published screenplays submitted for award consideration look like, check out this site, which has screenplays from some of the best written films of this past year:

http://www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/archives/2009/12/nineteen_screen.html

In no particular order:

Memento

Princess Bride

Lawrence of Arabia

The Big Lebowski

Children of Men

Chinatown

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Toy Story

EF, I was really wary of entering this thread after reading a bunch of knee jerk moral outrage about how Polanski is a dangerous pedophile rapist and Rosemary's Baby was a documentary shot in real time that proves Polanski's connections to satanic rituals. But you are a bastion of reasoned debate!

While I don't think we should ignore the victim's statements no amount of depositions cribbed off some web-site substitute for the fact that no judge and no jury ever convicted Polanski of the crime of rape. If he had pled guilty to rape, France would have extradited him. Because he was convicted with the wishy-washy unlawful sex with a minor, it was discretionary. So all that's been proved is that Polanski had sex with a minor. The then-existing law was so vague and useless that the sentence varied from probation to decades in prison. Today, the MOST the state of California could charge for the crime Polanski was convicted of would be one year.

And the recommended punishment from the sentencing board was probation. You could say "hey, that's only because he's famous," but it's only because he was so famous that the trial judge (who was later removed because of actual prejudice) felt he needed to "send a message" to the press by conducting mock trials and jerking around with this guy's life, promising a light sentence to the defense while telling anyone who'd listen at the local country club (frequented by celebrities) how he was going to throw the book at Polanski. A normal guy would've taken a plea, gotten probation, and not been the subject of a media circus. But then a normal guy probably would not have have been practically accused of the murder of his wife in every dirtsheet in Hollywood 8 years earlier. So when this media circus came around, it was even bigger.

The Judge himself was 58 years old and had a 20 year old girlfriend. How long had he known her? Mia Farrow, star of Polanski's first American hit Rosemary's Baby, was 21 when she married 50 year old Frank Sinatra. How long had they been dating? This was Hollywood in the 60's and 70's. Now I'm not saying that makes what Polanski was accused of okay: it definitely doesn't suddenly make rape acceptable. But too many people are applying today's standards to his conduct.

I think Polanski should stand trial for fleeing and I don't think being a celebrity makes you above the law, but whose interests are being served here? Will anybody be happy with any eventual outcome? The moral outrage bandwagon will be unhappy when he doesn't get life in jail because of one side of the story they read on a web-site, Fox News will whine about how no one in Hollywood has morals, and the media will move on to their next big story about something tragic happening to attractive white people.

In conclusion, you make some great points EF and the discussion here is far better than anywhere else I've talked about this.

Yeah this blog starts off with an interesting premise but then immediately loses sight of anything of value. Futurama was a bad show? Really? Also the blogger doesn't seem to know what a joke for writers IS. He comes close to describing it correctly but every example is not a joke for writers. "Leaves of grass, my ass!" is a joke the writers find far funnier than all but the nerdiest fan would. "Cartoons have writers?" is also not the sort of thing that entertains children, but writers did it a lot. Deconstruction jokes are what he's describing, but they're not even close to the real problem the show had.

Basically the show transitioned into being a cartoon: characters as ciphers whose characteristics changed to fit jokes, an emphasis on bigger plots and completely unconnected first-act setpieces, a decreased reliance on observational humor and an increased reliance on jokes and joke-y plot twists. The pace of the show really changed, too. The older episodes had time for the family to watch TV, laze around, and generally deal with things that everyone is familiar with. Now the show is in a hurry to get from one big crazy plot to the next.

Wow, copyrights extend to specific powers now? I'm amazed DC doesn't sue to shut down Prime, Supreme, the Sentry, and everyone else with Superman's powers. Or what about the Nova Corps being ripped off from Green Lantern or Thanos basically being Darkseid? Or how about Daredevil's clown-themed villain the Jester? Man I should represent DC on this stuff! Unfortunately copyright doesn't work that way: you can't claim to be the exclusive provider of comics where people where underwear over their pants. It's only infringement if you're close enough to create confusion and/or you actively stole somebody else's idea. The big Fawcett v. DC case was a situation where Fawcett had a character with a very similar design and DC had evidence that Fawcett was basically publishing pages of Action Comics with a palette swap; same panels, same lay-outs, same poses. In short, claiming somebody else's ideas as their own. Overreaction aside, yeah, it would be incredibly stupid for all parties involved for DC to not just buy the rights when and if they revert away from DC. Superman is not a valuable copyright to anyone except DC, because it is true that the character's entire history would basically have to be re-started; as it is, he's pretty much the #2 icon in DC's universe. If he turned up at Marvel, he'd just be some new hero with no history and a limited following.

Edit: and oh yeah, we should sue the Squadron Supreme/Supreme Power! Exactly the same powers, I tells ya!

I don't believe this to be true. I don't think that any other episode of the show is anywhere close to being as reprehensible in terms of the ideas about culture that it presents. For me, that's far more important than any narrative or joke-based concerns.

I'd have to think more about the cultural messages in the simpsons trip to Florida because I'm pretty sure there's no way it could have possibly been better than Poochie.

What "trite lesson" are you talking about, and in what way is this "subverted at the end"?

I thought I covered this? You talk about Lisa's speech about giving thanks for consistent quality, subverted by Bart's "what else is on." It's a good ending, especially compared to Homer shooting Marge with a blowgun or various other "screw the audience" jokes that Al Jean seems to enjoy.

I offered some commentary on my blog post regarding the way in which the Roy character could be seen as a "troll" directed towards sections of the fanbase. A popular criticism of the show at the time was that it lacked sensible narrative and/or consistent characterisation. Introducing a character without a back-story (or present-story, I suppose) would obviously serve as a tongue-in-cheek "baiting" of that criticism.

I really don't think that holds water because the commentary was so obvious fans wouldn't be offended. The Armin Tanzarian reveal in season 9 is the sort of thing that offends fans, which according to the commentary is intended (though I doubt that).

If you yourself acknowledge that the behaviour of the fans represented in the episode reflect at most the fanciful obsessionalism of a few at the "extremes", then don't you think that the episode is disingenuous, defensive and panicky, or at least incredibly smug?

No. It's a satire. A composition in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn. I don't want a "respectful" and "evenhanded" debate, because that isn't funny. In this case the vice appears to be obsessive fans.

Like those NERDS at the Q&A session!!!!!! I AM the Comic Book Guy!!!!! Which "details" would these be?

Did you read through what I wrote first or did you divide this up into paragraph chunks for ease of reading? Everything after this paragraph was about how you either ignored or downplayed everything else so you could be SO MAD about what the episode was about (after you removed all the other stuff it was about).

As for the latter, "The Simpsons" writers are happy enough to take lukewarm shots at themselves, sure. But if they were really a self-effacing bunch without major egos or a belief in their own abilities, then how do you explain the whole of the rest of the episode? Why would they be so willing to publicly and sneerily attack those who criticise the show? Why would they (by proxy, of course) insist that "if anything, [the fans] owe [us]?" and to baldly state, through Lisa's mouth at the close, that the show is still in rude health?

Because they sneerily attack the group that even the show's fans hate. Almost everyone on SNPP thought the comments weren't aimed at them, and were glad to see "worst episode ever" fans taken down a peg. Seriously, this episode gave us that catch phrase. I really don't see how you can think this is the bottom of the series beyond your concerns over the message.

A couple of winking gags that -- ho, ho -- us writers enjoy junk food and come homogeneously from privileged backgrounds hardly makes up for the content of the rest of the episode, does it?

Those lousy writers make me madder than a... yak in heat!

As I've said above, I don't think that this is the intent of this element of the show. Or, at best, it's another example of that which I've talked about immediately above -- an attempt to basically brush-off criticism with a "hey ho, I suppose we've made some mistakes but, hey, it's a tough job and we're still the best around so fucking shut it, fatty" attitude.

I just don't get how you see this as a slap at the fans and not a criticism of corporate culture. To me that's just more evidence of finding stuff to be mad at when you've exhausted the stuff you're really mad at.

Also keep in mind this is one of the first and most obvious acknowledgments that the writers were familiar with the fans. Even if there's a few cheap shots, I see this more as a recognition of the fan's importance more than an appeal for the fans to shut up. Again, satire.

I'm tired of this conversation! Let's talk about something else! I'm going home!

I looked up nadir to make sure it meant what I thought it meant. Even if I believe everything you wrote, here and on your blog, it's not the nadir of the show. In addition to not being the lowest point, the fact that at this point the show was still capable of satirizing anything tells me it was still pretty far from the bottom, even if it's actual message can be interpreted by some as insulting to fans. Maybe it was a turning point, but I maintain the real problem didn't even happen until a year or so later.

The episode is obnoxious, misguided and scarily authoritarian. To me, it having "a few nice lines" and a "reasonably well-constructed storyline" (the latter of which I'd dispute to some degree anyway) are vastly less important considerations.

As I said, if you compare it to what was coming out during the worst period of the simpsons, it comes out looking great. Homer ends up exactly where we started and we all learn a trite lesson that gets subverted at the end.

If you're interested, I wrote a long-ish piece on the episode here.

e: As for the idea that the show was "at least as much about" the issue of long-running shows attempting to stay fresh by adding new characters -- there are several scenes which wouldn't be necessary if that were the case. The Q&A session with the I&S fans and the Bart-Comic Book Guy "argument" are the two most obvious. The show ends on a Lisa speech which basically serves to elucidate the writers' views regarding the fanbase-creators relationship. The show was widely interpreted at the time as a commentary upon postings at "The Simpsons" newsgroup pages. I think the intentions are pretty obvious. And, in any case, the content relating to the fan-creator relationship and the politics of artistic production are much more interesting than the (in any case slighter) stuff about long-lived TV shows attempting to stay fresh.

I didn't say you were wrong: I do think there are some pot-shots taken at the very extreme edges of the "fan-dom." But in the same way, what purpose does the character of Roy serve if the episode's sole purpose was to bash fans?

It really just seems like in your article you're just trying to work yourself into a frenzy over details while missing part of the picture. You focus in on Lisa's line about "quality after all these years," ignoring the fact that the episode ends with the television being turned off and Bart saying "what else is on?"

You focus in on the super-nerds that don't present a realistic depiction of simpsons fans (probably because they're ciphers for the images of star trek fans at the time), but look at the writers. From Cohen's "we were eating fried chicken" to the mumbled assent of the writers to the name "Poochie" being good, the writers look like idiots across the board. Maybe not as bad as my personal favorite where Roger Meyers throws a mug at a writer singing "fair Harvard," but singling out the fans treatment as dimwitted losers misses the point that the writers are depicted just as poorly. And the lack of originality is re-enforced by Roy's sudden appearance on the show.

And Roy and Poochie, with their sunglasses, hats, baggy clothes, surfboard, and "funky" attitude are just a series of paradigms (a word dumb people use to sound important) without any real referents: Poochie is cool just because he's linked up to a bunch of stuff people are supposed to find "cool," not because he's actually cool. It's the sort of character that could only be created by somebody in marketing. Speaking of which, this is Lindsey Naegle's first appearance, although her name doesn't come until later. The synergy-encouraging corporate character is pretty much just there to satirize corporate culture.

What you see as an authoritarian attempt to eliminate criticism could just as easily be viewed as a recognition of its fanbase. Back when the Simpsons would actually target an issue (before South Park gained the exclusive rights for that sort of thing), it meant something to be worth being a target. Saying that the characters don't address the real issues and are just vapid nerds ignores one of the central aspects of the show: that nearly everyone in Springfield is a moron. It's worth noting that the writers took existing characters like Homer's college buddies and Comic Book Guy to be the stand-ins for the Itchy and Scratchy fans: they could have launched a mean-spirited straight out attack on new and unknown characters, but connected the story to minor characters the fans would recognize.

I really think the fact that the episode could still be called a "satire" and not just a "cartoon" means that even if there are some warning bells, we're a long way from the bottom of the well.

Drew Carey went from being one of the best comedies on television to unwatchable in about two years. Scrubs should not have come back. Family Guy jumped the shark BEFORE it was canceled in terms of McFarlane's creativity. It just wasn't something with a long shelf-life.

Is Smallville still a show? Shouldn't it just be called "Young Superman" or something by now? The character's got to be about 25 by now.

Ultimately, it seems that -- particularly under Ian Maxtone-Graham -- the show's writers just felt that they could do no wrong. The "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show" episode consists of basically a twenty minute tirade against the show's fanbase, and is one of the absolute nadirs for OFF. The "animated sit-com" feel -- complete with subtle narratives, consistent and nuanced characterisation and big, booming trad gags -- was slowly eliminated in favour of a non-sequiturish "show me the funny" style which perhaps reflected a desire to "keep up with" shows like "South Park" and "Family Guy". A lot of people point to the "Homer's Enemy" episode as a point at which any attempts by the show's writers to glean pathos from situations involving the family were basically exhausted -- Homer, at that point, was an obnoxious jerk who deserved whatever he got.

I'm all for Simpsons bashing, but calling Itchy, Scratchy and Poochie the nadir is missing the mark by a LOT. A twenty minute tirade against the show's fans? Wasn't it at least as much a commentary on the mindset that long-running shows need new characters to stay fresh? Plus, it had a reasonably well-constructed story and didn't end with a series of increasingly stupid non sequiturs. Plus it has at least a few lines that are pretty good. "When are they gonna get to the fireworks factory?!" Try laughing at an episode like Kill the Alligator and Run or Tennis the Menace. I don't think there's a single good episode in season 12. Maybe the one with Sideshow Bob trying to kill Krusty, but it's easily one of the worst Sideshow Bob episodes out there. Mike Scully taking over along with Matt Groening leaving the show and guys like James L. Brooks being long gone meant there really wasn't anybody left who cared about the original goals of the show and we were left with a more joke heavy cartoon instead of a sitcom style show with strong characters. Plus there was a trend to try to write Swartzwelder jokes, but really nobody else on the staff was ever going to be John Swartzwelder. Even Swartzwelder had run out of material after 8 seasons.

Rocky Horror Picture Show would be another. I only watched the first half or so during college and it took probably a year before I watched the entire thing. I never should have. The first half I originally saw was decent, nothing amazing, but the second half was total shit and ruined the entire film. No idea why its such a cult classic for people.

Rocky Horror is not a cult classic because it's "good." I don't know if they do midnight screenings wherever you're at, but that's the only way you should see it.

Requiem for a Dream- D.A. re-made Pi, but this time with drugs!

American History X- Ed Norton takes creative control to add more shots of him posing- a glorified TV Movie that is inexplicably loved by some.

Agreed 100% on the last LOTR movie: I thought it was boring as hell. Wasn't the last book the shortest of the three? How was that movie so damn long?

I liked American Beauty, but it can definitely be hammy.

Alright, so I've just jumped into Peter David's 2005 run with Dennis Calero on X-Factor and WOW am I loving it.

The art is graceful and complementary to the noir feel of David's writing and I really can't understate how much I've enjoyed his storytelling. You can really tell that he has written these characters before. This is a comic I probably never would have checked out if not for Marvel's Online library but boy am I glad I did. I haven't been so pleasantly surprised with a book since I checked out The Irredeemable Ant-man.

Can anyone recommend anything else by David? I am not overly familiar with his work but there are only 34 issues from this run online and I'd love to either check out more of his work-- preferably from the last 9 years. I am not a huge X-Factor buff either. Is it worth checking out their earlier titles? Also, more Madrox = Greatness.

PAD's done a ton of great work; I really think his refusal to play politics and his grating real life persona are the only reasons he's not a major creative force in either Marvel or DC.

X-Factor is really great, and it's the only other place you'll find Madrox, Guido, and Rahne where they're written with the same energy. Plus Lorna and Alex are awesome, too. PAD also had a near decade-long run on the Hulk. He also wrote Future Imperfect, a critically acclaimed Hulk mini-series.

His run on Captain America was also considered the best post-Gruenwald run until Brubaker.

Captain Marvel was a weird, fun comic that built off some of the stuff he did during his Hulk run.

The problem is only X-Factor and Hulk are particularly well-collected. And be warned: the crossovers in the current X-Factor pale in comparison to the crossovers X-Factor had to put up with in the early 90's.

Have you seen a Sommers film? His character is going to be the poor attempt at comic relief, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten a Wayans brother.

I didn't make up the idea. I don't think it's going to be entirely comedy-free but I also don't think he's going to do a wacky voice and be high in every scene, either.

Here's some support:

“It wasn’t about ‘Hey, let it be the me comedy show’,” promised Wayans. “It is G.I. Joe. It’s supposed to be badass action. So you commit to it - and I found the fun in being a badass, for once in my life.”

source: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/04/27/marlo...n-gi-joe-movie/

And more, from the producer:

IESB: Let's go to the most recent announcement that kind of surprised a lot of people. Wallace Weems, Ripcord, played by Marlon Wayans. Tell me that he nailed the audition because it's so out of the box here.

LDB: Well, let's talk about Marlon for a second. A lot of people are fans of his from the comedic point of view obviously for all the right reasons, but what I think everybody forgets about is how damn good he was in Requiem for a Dream as an actor. And, when we were trying to figure out who would be the right element to make this combination work of Duke as the leader and Ripcord as the best friend who sorta gets Duke in trouble all the time and Duke has to bail him out all the time and have fun with him, we needed a guy who's gonna be funny and we needed a guy who was going to be a good actor. And we went to Marlon and said, "We'd love to talk to you." And he's a gigantic GI Joe fan and immediately asked, "is Cobra in it, is Destro in it?" I mean before he even got to read the script he was so much fun to talk to because he understood what it was. So he got it immediately, and when we did the test, you know, we all looked at each other and the studio and there isn't one person who didn't think it was a no-brainer. So, from our point of view, he's playing a military character who's got some real good quips but he's got to be good, he's got to be physical, and I mean Marlon is a strapping guy, he's got good size to him. So, I think the fans will feel, when they see him, that he is playing the solider that they anticipate anyone from the G.I. Joe group to be.

source: http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_c...1&Itemid=99

Tommy from 3rd Rock From The Sun as Cobra Commander. I'm guessing the casting director was either off his or her meds or high on Bolivian marching powder that day. (And from what I've read - haven't seen any actual pics - they've changed the helmet design and its going to look stupid)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is probably the best actor in the film. 3rd Rock was a long time ago.

Beat me to it. He's one of the best young actors in film today; I've seen both Brick and The Lookout and he's wonderful in both of those, and his involvement was the only thing that gave me pause in regards to whether it had hope of being a good movie. But I'm pretty sure he just wanted to make a big blockbuster for once judging from interviews on the subject that he's given.

Thirded. Levitt is an incredible young actor, and I have no doubt that when it comes to acting based on toys, he will be more than acceptable.

Also, I personally dislike Marlon Wayans, but you guys do know he has done serious work before: like the terminally depressing Requiem for a Dream. I doubt he'll be playing his character from Scary Movie.

Still, this looks like it will be either god-awful or hilarious.

I found a gem in Captain Britain and MI13. I picked up the first trade a bit ago but for some reason never read it until this weekend.

Its a great mix of action, humor and all round good storytelling. All the characters are very distinct, in the way wall they all bring something different to the book's cast. I like the mix of British heroes like Cap and Spitfire, and a few under utilized guys like Black Knight. Wisdom's always been random to me, sometimes (most of the time) I've hated his character, and others I loved him. In this book I'm certainly going to love him. Add all the magic stuff, vampires and the fact that its British based... I can't help but love this.

I just the other day ordered the second volume, so hopefully It won't disappoint.

Cornell also wrote the Wisdom MAX series, which I found pretty hilarious. It featured the Skrull Beatles, and that cantankerous old bad-ass "Captain Midlands," a very thin Ultimate Captain America parody. Probably the only guy since Warren Ellis to make Pete Wisdom halfway interesting.

Dark Avengers is really fun, and its pretty much the epicenter of all things Dark Reign. Its Bendis at his best again just like when New Avengers started a few years back (maybe not quite that good) and its clear to me that Bendis is at his best when he's kicking off something new and exciting.

Oof, you're really killing that book with faint praise. Almost as good as the beginning of New Avengers means it's just a shade below "mediocre." I mean, Bendis was obviously selling the first issue and phoning in the trade even back then. What "classic" New Avengers stories are there, anyway? The Collective? The Sentry arc? Breakout? I miss the days when New Avengers had great artwork, but those stories were average at best.

Ugh, Bendis.

I have never liked anything that man has done.

But, but... who could forget his run as with Chuck Austen on Elektra??

Seriously though, his Maleev run with Daredevil is very good, as Bendis sticks to what he knows (crime drama) and makes DD a larger than life figure that rarely appears, so it's a big deal when he does.

I also enjoyed Alias, since it was his own creation (though obviously he wanted Jessica Drew) and felt his dialogue and characterization worked better for a self-professed non-hero like Jones.

But Bendis writes superheroes like he's afraid of the genre: like someone will call him a dorkface if he doesn't give Dr. Strange dialogue about checking hockey scores. His attempts at superhero dialogue are atrocious, and the guy STILL can't lay out an interesting fight.

I liked his stuff well enough 5 years ago, but as a writer he has not developed at all since Marvel hired him.

The Clone Saga. The Spider-Man storyline everybody seems to hate. Well, personally, I didn't, but everybody besides me certainly seem to. I've been re-reading a lot of the Clone Saga comics during the past few days and I suddenly came up with something I simply have to share with you. What if Norman Osborn had returned a lot sooner and what if it had been Norman who had reveal that Ben is, in fact the one, true Peter Parker?

Now in retrospect, this is something I would have liked to see.. May gets sick and the long lost clone Ben Reilly returns to New York. Everything until the Smoke and Mirrors storyline will happen the way it happened in the comic books. But during the Smoke and Mirrors storyline, Jackal will hint that he is actually working for someone else, but manages to escape before the two Spider-Men are able to find out who his employer is. Also, there will be no 3rd Peter Parker. Two Peter Parkers and Kaine are enough. The Death of Aunt May will also remain untouched, as Amazing #400 was breath taking in so many ways. Ben, believing himself to be the clone, does not get the chance to be at his aunt's side when she passes away. This is robbed from him. After May's funeral, Peter is arrested for a murder committed by the first Peter Parker clone, Kaine. Now, instead of switching places with Peter, Ben promises to clear Peter's name, as well as his own, since Peter was convinced that Ben was the one responsible for the murder. Now, the fact that Peter and Ben never switch places gives the readers a good chance to get to know Ben and the writers can give some more personality to him. In the end, Ben makes Kaine admit to the crimes, as he never wanted Peter to end up in jail (Kaine loved Peter like a brother, remember?) So, Peter is out of prison thanks to Ben and the two "brothers" now start to develop something of a friendship.

This is where, instead of the whole Maximum Clonage clusterfuck, the two Spiders would go after the Jackal and his "employer". In the final chapter of the "Revelations" storyline (which would occur a lot sooner than it did in the real saga) Peter and Ben would be blindsided by the mysterious shadowman behind the clone mess. Later, Ben wakes up at the bridge where Gwen Stacy died wearing the original Spider-Man costume and is confronted by the original Green Goblin, Norman Osborn. Osborn would explain how he is still alive and how he orchestrated the clone saga, robbing Peter five years of his life and that Ben is, indeed, the original Peter Parker. Now, storyline wise, it would be effective to just kill off the clone Peter here, but realistically thinking, it would never be accepted by long-time readers so we keep Peter alive. But Norman does explain that the clone can't help Ben here, as the clone's spider powers are now gone. So, it's just Ben and the Goblin. Just like it was in Amazing Spider-Man #122.

Also, Norman would still have a reason to kill MJ's baby, since it was the clone Peter who, in Norman's eyes, killed Harry. So, he has a reason to hate both of them. Sure, there were a lot of folks who would never accept Ben Reilly as the real Spider-Man, but I'm one of those who really liked him. This kind of speculation is pointless, since the story has been buried a long time ago, but I thought I'd share my thoughts.

I loved Ben Reilly Spider-Man, as Peter Parker at that point had pretty much become a loser who went around with an inner monologue of "I am the Spider." But I guess my biggest problem with the whole deal, and even with your attempt to fix it, is why on earth does anyone care about Norman Osborn? His death was one of the only great Green Goblin stories, and had led to better characters like the Hobgoblin and Harry Osborn as the Green Goblin, not to mention setting up one of the most iconic moments in comics with Gwen Stacy's death. Bringing him back cheapened that and relied on a whole lot of nonsensical garbage (the Goblin Files one shot) to explain just why the guy sat on the sidelines for years, watching his son go insane, reform, and die, while he was living it up in Europe.

So they brought Norman back to try to make him a new nemesis for Spidey, and almost immediately they realized nobody liked writing the character and they had nothing for him to do. Just one tremendous deus ex machina to try to end the clone saga.

As much as I don't like Dark Avengers, getting Norman away from Spider-Man has been the first time he's been interesting since he came back to life. Making him head of SHIELD and letting Bendis write his dialogue is moronic, but at least it's different.

"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling: there are rules!" - Walter, the Big Lebowski

"I feel the need... the need for speed." -Maverick, Top Gun

"You know how to whistle, don't you Steve? You put your lips together and blow." -Marie Browning, To Have and Have Not

"Well, nobody's perfect!" -Osgood Fielding, Some Like it Hot

"Take your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty ape!" -George Taylor, Planet of the Apes

"All right! I'm extraordinary! What of it?" -Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia.

Has anyone here read the limited series Books of Doom? I stumbled across it earlier today and it has been an enjoyable exploration of Victor Von Doom and his genesis. It isn't a re-imagining so much as it's an examination of Doom's rise and corruption that fills in a lot of blanks in his origin. I am surprised that it slipped under my radar for so long.

Yeah, after enjoying Cap and Daredevil, when I found out there was a Brubaker Doom mini I needed to have it. It didn't disappoint, it's definitely Doom done right, which isn't something that always happens these days.

I think that is what is so great about Brubaker-- he is such a good throw back writer. He really captures the original voice of a character without making them seem antiquated. If you drop a Kirby creation in his hands it usually works out for the best.

I haven't read any of his Daredevil stuff, when was his run with that?

It started after Bendis' run and is ongoing. Issue 82 is where it started. I've been reading both and I have to say Cap's been a far and away better book, but Bru's run on Daredevil has been solid and it's illustrated by Michael Lark from Gotham Central. It's a quality "crime" book that gets left alone and turns out solid stories. Both books are way better than Bru's run on Uncanny X-Men which by his own admission has been his least favorite to work on.

Also Bucky as Cap has been consistently great, and the series moved on from the Red Skull arc months ago. It's going to suck when Marvel editorial makes Steve come back, as this is the best the comic has been and the best it's been selling in two decades.