Friday, December 02, 2016 

There may never be a sequel to Roger Rabbit...because of his wife?

Robert Zemeckis says there'll probably never be a sequel to his notable 1988 combination of live action and animation, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but not because Bob Hoskins is now deceased. Rather, it might have what to do with the anthropomorph's sexy wife, even though they don't seem to like the husband either:
Even though the script exists, the director thinks it’s exceedingly unlikely it will ever be shot, since Disney owns the rights to it, and “the current corporate Disney culture has no interest in Roger, and they certainly don’t like Jessica at all.”
We can only guess why. She's drawn too voluptuously for their tastes. And this is probably nothing new either. After the original movie, there were a handful of cartoon features produced starring Roger (one installment was titled "Tummy Trouble"), but afterwards, all the buzz collapsed and Disney Corp. never made any attempt to capitalize on it in the years following, even though it was produced through the Touchstone studio affiliate, and wasn't intended as mere children's stuff, but a film for older viewers. In today's SJW-infected climate, the biggest problem is that tasteful presentations of heterosexuality are considered abominable. Yet homosexuality is allowed, no matter how distasteful that is by contrast. The most galling thing is that the SJWs actually agree with Frederic Wertham in the worst selective ways possible. Quite a few of the commenters to this article on Yahoo seem to understand what's going on, and one said:
Another said:
Now if Jessica was a Tranny, they would be all about it.
Being aware of their MO today, yeah, they probably would. Another quoted a notable line from the mouth of the cartoon lady in the film:
"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way" - love Jessica Rabbit
The sheer irony is that today's Disney executives take both dim views. Another said:
Cuz Disney is a bunch of gay blades.
Certainly today. And another noted:
Hires millions of scantily clad teenagers to parade, dance, and sing. Doesn't like a voluptuous cartoon character.
Now that's a weird double-standard, right? And again, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is supposed to be aimed at older audiences, not tots.

To be fair, a sequel to Roger Rabbit would probably fail in any event because it's been nearly 3 decades since it was produced, and not many people may care about it now, even if they liked it the first time around. And there's no telling if the script Zemeckis wrote is as entertaining either. But to refuse one simply because they think Jessica Rabbit is toxic - and consider the anthropomorphic star of the show equally crappy - is idiotic and far from a good business model.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, December 01, 2016 

The timing couldn't be worse for Bobby Drake to get a solo book

Marvel's going out of their way to milk Brian Bendis's retconning Iceman sexual orientation to homosexual with a new starring series for him. And here's one of the most biased articles about it:
Although he’s one of the original X-Men created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, Iceman was seen until recently as the X-Man who had changed the least since his first appearance. Over the decades, Bobby’s four other “O5” teammates saw their share of evolution. The Beast mutated into a blue and furry creature, Jean Grey became the godlike Phoenix, Angel became the razor-winged Archangel of Death, and Cyclops became a militant political leader. All the while, Iceman pretty much just stayed “that jokey dude who could make stuff out of ice.” But, as was revealed last year in Uncanny X-Men #600, it turns out Iceman had been hiding the fact that he was gay.
Uh, pardon me, what's that? Mistake number one: if it was never established before, they cannot say it was "revealed" that Iceman was gay. It was only retconned/altered to suit the SJW mindset in the past year or so. There's a difference, and they fail to recognize that.
I recently got the chance to chat with series writer Sina Grace and series editor Daniel Ketchum about Iceman finally earning the spotlight, and what to expect from his first ever ongoing series.

LGBT comics fans had long suspected that Bobby Drake was gay, based on evidence from years of X-Men stories. In fact, editor Daniel Ketchum confirmed that these years of fan theories played heavily into Marvel officially outing Bobby for real. “I wasn’t involved entirely in the story at that point,” Ketchum said. “But [former X-Men writer] Brian Michael Bendis was very wise to identify that all those threads that existed. We’re not in the business of pulling something out of nowhere and slapping it on to a character so he fits some quota, or for the sake of telling some story. This had to come from somewhere, and it did. And now wonderful talents like [series writer] Sina Grace get to take that storyline and move it forward.”
It's getting even more hilarious now. "Suspected"? Iceman is an imaginary character, just like Superman, and to put it that way merely perpetuates a lie. It's more a case of entitled "fans" wanting a particular character to have attributes they deem fit, and look for the easiest targets to exploit and foist their visions upon (hence the "theories" propaganda). All this completely ignores Bobby's affairs with several ladies (even Obsidian from Infinity Inc. was involved with a few), with Polaris being one example, and not just in the pages of X-Men: there was even a story in Amazing Spider-Man 92 from January 1971 where Bobby was seen on the street spending some time with a foxy girl before finding an excuse to send her home while he went to combat Spidey, who was being targeted by a crooked politician using Gwen Stacy as a pawn, and Bobby thought Spidey was hassling Gwen for no good reason. As he got the lady into a cab and ran off, he said, "I hated to do that! 'Specially after it took me weeks to finally get a date with her!" Which is at least half ignored by the interviewers (they admit further down in the article he was in heterosexual relations, but support the new direction anyway) so the new writers' position fits some quota, all for the sake of telling only the vision they see fit. Bendis was not wise at all to go that route; in fact, he was very stupid.
Grace added, “I think the tension of this is what makes this the most interesting and fun project to work on. Because it means that he’s been keeping something not only from his friends and colleagues, but also from himself. And if you even just look at his powers, it’s always just sort of been there, for the entire history of the Marvel universe. And leaning into it makes working on the character and understanding all the decisions he’s made to date that much more fascinating. And what he does with that information moving forward is going to inform not only his personal life, but also how he sees himself as a hero.”
No kidding! That's incredibly dumb to insinuate that the power of cold weather is somehow tied in to homosexuality, and a fictional character cannot keep anything from anyone. On the contrary, a writer can force it on the characters, and insult Kirby's memory with it.

Now, here's where they get to what they think will justify their new "direction":
But just because Bobby Drake is going through this big life change at the moment (an even more profound change when it happens later in life than when you are an adolescent), he’s still going to be the wisecracker we’ve known for years. Ketchum said, “We’re not going to lose sight that Bobby’s always been the comic relief, funny and jokey character. He’s not a ‘Gold Star Gay’ [a gay person who has never had heterosexual relationships]. So we’re going to be seeing a funny moment where he sees one of his exes. I really want Sina to put in the line, ‘So what was I, just your beard?’ There’s going to be an acknowledgement of it, but it’s gonna be played off in the tone that Bobby usually does. But Sina will bring a real authenticity to it.”
Ahem. Bobby, again, is an imaginary character, and was never even conceived as a "gold star gay". If he ends up telling one of his past girlfriends in this new rendition that he's going full time homosexuality, in a way that would make it sound like he'll never have heterosexual relations ever again, there's nothing funny about that, nor is there anything authentic. Let's be clear. There's hundreds of characters throughout superhero universes' history whose depictions were superficial, but that does not make them homosexual, nor does it serve any excuse for turning them that way. If it's really such a big deal, then they should create new cast members and not take steps that could ruin their wider appeal, commercial or otherwise.
As fans know, Iceman has dated Polaris, Opal Tanaka, and most recently, Kitty Pryde; all these relationships just sort of fizzled out, leading many fans to speculate over Bobby’s orientation. “Yeah, this part of his identity is going to effect the people around him, including some of his ex-girlfriends,” Grace said. “Part of the story and the adventures he has moving forward include the space where he does have a very touching interaction with one of the ladies, and we might have some more sprinkled in when it’s organic to the book. But that’s something that everyone can relate to, when you’re holding onto something for a long time, and that decision can have an impact on everyone around him.” (Who that first ex of Bobby’s is remains to be seen, but my money is on Kitty Pryde).
"Fizzled"? Umm, how come Superman's affairs with Lori Lemaris and Lana Lang, Spider-Man's with Betty Brant, and Batman's with Silver St. Cloud and Vicky Vale, can peter out and they can remain heterosexual, but Iceman can't? There's plenty of characters whose affairs with a lover of the opposite sex came to an end, if not forever, and whose sexual orientation was never even remotely questioned, yet somehow Bobby Drake's an exception? I don't see the logic here. They're fully oblivious to Stan Lee's idea that the "illusion of change" is the best way to go about these serial fiction concepts, and new relations can be established while older ones can be renewed later, all for the sake of their "progressive" pandering.

The real reason they're doing this with Iceman, I'd figure, is because he's often been a minor league hero at best, even within the X-Men pages, and so they think it easy to get away with what they may not succeed in doing with Iron Man. It's also the result of the X-Men franchise falling victim to SJWs hijacking certain series for their own narrow interests for many years. All this nonsense dates back at least 2 decades, because that's when Marvel began throwing quality writing out the window and leaving the series in the hands of otherwise terrible writers like Scott Lobdell and Fabian Nicieza. Indeed, scripters like them - certainly the former - were the kind of people who pandered to all the crowd we've since come to know as "social justice warriors" who only cared about themselves and their own narrow visions, and not anyone else's. And I wouldn't be surprised if not all of them even have any interest in buying and reading the upcoming books.

All people like Ketchum and Grace are doing is building on a self-important approach that embarrasses the source material, corrupting it into something it wasn't meant to be.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 30, 2016 

Lynn Johnston oversees a cartooning class

Here's an article on CBC about Lynn Johnston, the Canadian cartoonist who created the For Better or for Worse newspaper strip, who recently went to visit a art class in Whitehorse.


Monday, November 28, 2016 

Waid wrote vicious replies to Trump

Waid's leftism comes to the fore again in a very bad way as he writes replies to president-elect Donald Trump's tweets:

Just today, there was a report about a Somali Islamist in Ohio who carried out a car and knifing attack at the state university. And Waid has the gall to call Trump and only people of his ilk the devils littering society. He doesn't even thank Trump for offering condolences to the victims of the attack.

Waid went on to tell Trump, in reply to his comments on voter fraud:

No? True the Vote would like to differ on that hasty dismissal. To say voter fraud doesn't exist in any way is laughably naive, and does nothing to improve a system that's as vulnerable to corruption as just about any other institute.

And there's Waid again, going by a truly awful MO and continuing to embarrass the medium with his raunchy language.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, November 27, 2016 

Why did BBC remove a video about alleged sexism in comics? Good question

Bleeding Cool said 2 days ago that the BBC had removed a supposed report about sexism in superhero comics:
With the ongoing conversation about sexism and inclusion in comics is relevant today even more than ever, the BBC posted a video titled Redrawing women Tackling sexism in Comics earlier today showing various women speaking of their experiences and thoughts about female superhero characters. Awesome, we thought, let’s go find out more, but as it turns out, within a few hours the video had been removed with a generic note: This video has been removed for editorial reasons.
Knowing how dishonest the BBC can be, I wouldn't be shocked if their report had been as one-sided as is possible for them to be, and any women who said they had no serious issues with babes drawn gorgeous were otherwise excluded from the interviews. If they couldn't be honest about the Gamergate campaign, which even video game producers were supporting, women included, then why should we expect this to be any different? It's possible some sensible minds in the medium protested, much like they initially did when Fredric Wertham tried to publish a real screed in a magazine back in the 1950s, and the Beeb luckily agreed to withdraw it. I hesitate to think just how many decent artists might've wound up defamed by the Beeb, had their alleged "news" been kept around.

And if there's something to comment on here, how come they're so concerned about "redrawing" women but not about rewriting women, as was the case in 2004 with Identity Crisis and Avengers: Disassembled? Thinking about this now, it's become apparent that discussion of artwork's come to serve as the perfect cover for obscuring the more challenging topic of scriptwriting that's potentially bad. If the BBC left that out, that's why their so-called report was best discarded.

Labels: , ,

Friday, November 25, 2016 

MIT looks at panel boxes

MIT Technology Review wrote about how they're studying comic panels with artificial intelligence, but says that their AI machine finds it hard to understand them.


Thursday, November 24, 2016 

She only cared about Marvel's products after they began to "change"?

The Sydney Morning Herald wrote about black "nerd culture", and quoted an actress from The Sapphires who doesn't seem to place much value on old classics:
Tapsell became interested in Marvel as an adult because the franchise was starting to change. "The new Spiderman is now an African-Latino boy, and Miss Marvel is a young Muslim teen from New Jersey who's got Pakistani parents," she says. "It's a great relief to see people who are disenfranchised get to be the hero of their own life."
So let me get this straight. She never cared about the old books written by Stan Lee and other veterans, and only after Joe Quesada, Axel Alonso and company made all these superficial alterations that aren't selling whopping big numbers did she suddenly care. In that case, she was never a fan at all. Anybody who can't give a damn about the older material and enjoy it for what it was in days when writing came with better taste than today's offerings was never a fan at all. As far as I can tell, these kind of presumed readers may not amount to many, if at all, but those that are, this is just the problem with them - they have no love or understanding for anything old, and only care for the books so long as they're tailored to suit their cheap vision, that doesn't place high value on creating new, separate protagonists.
Tapsell is now reading Brian K Vaughan's comic Saga, an intergalactic, interracial love story. She was introduced to it by her Sapphire's co-star Shari Sebbens​, who she says is "a bigger nerd than me".
Well at least she's putting some value in a book where the writer did conceive new characters. But that still doesn't excuse or explain why she's being so selective about classic creations. She even had the following to say about Harry Potter's leading girl student:
As with Gorrie, Hermione was a revelation to Tapsell growing up. "I was disappointed that Hermione was not black in the film because to me I identified with her so much," she says."I've got unruly hair like her … a character like her made me believe that it was OK to 'know' stuff. She loved having her head in books and she loved learning things."

Author Ambelin Kwaymullina​, who describes her Tribe series of young adult books as "Indigenous futurism", identifies as an "indiginerd" rather than a blerd. "There are a lot of harmful stereotypes about Indigenous cultures in speculative fiction," she says. "[They] are often presented as primitive populations to be exterminated, or in need of a white saviour." Cultural appropriation is also "fairly prevalent", says Kwaymullina: just think about Batman and his "batarang" weapon; or Captain Boomerang, who recently appeared on the big screen in Suicide Squad (played by a white person).
Now what is that supposed to mean? Maybe something's wrong with George Harkness exploiting boomerangs for bad intentions, but at least he's presented as a villain. If they think there's a problem there, why not create a good guy from an Aboriginal background who could make good use out of the weapons? As for Batman, if he's using boomerangs, the difference is that he's a good guy, and giving boomerangs a good name. So why the complaints? All I really see here is somebody looking for excuses to be selectively offended, and who's oblivious to how Black Panther didn't need white saviors that badly when he took up his role, and made Wakanda into a technologically profitable African country.

And I can identify with a black protagonist just as well as a white protagonist in a fictional adventure, so I don't think she should be complaining that J.K Rowling and others like her must be considerate of her rather petty demands. The actress has a big chance now to write some stories with black heroes and heroines of her very own, and prove she can conceive an exciting tale to boot. And I'd suggest she try and enjoy old stories from people like Stan Lee, and see how they worked so well in their time before saying she only cared when everything was changed to suit whatever PC vision she deems appropriate.

Labels: , , , , ,

About me

  • I'm Avi Green
  • From Jerusalem, Israel
  • I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.
My profile



  • Fansites I Created

  • Hawkfan
  • The Greatest Thing on Earth!
  • The Outer Observatory
  • Earth's Mightiest Heroines
  • The Co-Stars Primer
  • Comic book websites (open menu)

    Comic book weblogs (open menu)

    Writers and Artists (open menu)

    Miscellanous links (open menu)

    blog search directory blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory Top Blogs Entertainment blogs Entertainment Blogs Entertainment Blogs Entertainment Blogs
    Entertainment blog TopOfBlogs Israel Blogs
    View My Stats Comics blog Blog Directory & Search engine blog directory
eXTReMe Tracker - Free web counter Locations of visitors to this page

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    make money online blogger templates

Older Posts Newer Posts

The Four Color Media Monitor is powered by Blogspot and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Join the Google Adsense program and learn how to make money online.