Sadly, I’m busy as hell this week and there are tons of wonderful comics coming out. Air #12, Batman Streets of Gotham #3 (with Manhunter backup, the real reason I buy it) Doktor Sleepless #13, Hellblazer #258, Wolverine Weapon X #4 AND Brian Azzarello’s inaugural Vertigo Crime OGN and a new James Jean art book! Oh, and the first Unknown Soldier trade. Seriously, I don’t think I have the time or the money for all the good books coming out this week.

But, y’know, just in case, let me know what I’m missing, as always. I’ve heard good things about We Kill Monsters…

Yeah, that’s not true at all, actually, but it neatly sums up the type of attitude I regularly hear and see in the comics world and the literature about comics–if by literature you mean articles and blog posts written 9 to 1 by men.

Anyway, Jennifer de Guzman wrote a post several months back that I just stumbled upon via this post on Amazon Princess (which I found via When Fangirls Attack), and it articulates something that I’ve never really thought about before, but makes perfect sense.

As I wrote in my reply, I am kind of astounded that some men don’t see why physical empowerment would clearly be attractive for women. I think it’s intriguing to note that women often like the hot women who kick ass as much, if not more, than men do. Here’s what I think is behind that: As women, we are nearly constantly aware of physical threats. And those threats often are of being violated sexually. When I used to go to campus for night classes and people warned me to “be careful,” what they are saying was, essentially, “avoid getting raped.”

Now, what if, what if, as a woman, you could walk around, be sexually attractive and not have to feel threatened? What if all the rage you feel about women being victimized and brutalized could be channeled into pure, righteous ass-kicking? And, because you’re a woman, you could possibly do that ass-kicking without being seen as a testosterone Steven-Seagal-esque meathead. Ass-kicking fantasies for men are more about proving and retaining power, I think. For women, they’re about finding and asserting power when they’re not expected to have any.

This resonated with me on so many levels. I’ve taken kickboxing, krav maga and muay thai at different times in my life, and they always did make me feel more confident and yes, sexier, but I’ve always attributed that to feeling healthier and stronger. Maybe I thought a bit about the idea that I might be able to kick someone’s ass if they harassed me as a component, but only in a very general sense.

Yet Guzman’s point is that a superheroine can be sexy and because she can kick someone’s ass, she doesn’t have to apologize or fear for herself. There’s no need for the tradeoff–sexy woman needs powerful man–because she is both. Her sexuality is no longer something to be feared, but something she is free to display if she wants to without worry of repercussions.

In media for so many years, female characters were simple projections of what men wanted to see. Still, women gravitated toward certain characters, and as more women create comics (and movies and TV series and and and) we argued that yes, we do want superheroines. And maybe we do want them to be pretty.

Also, perhaps this explains why I was never one of those who was really bothered by superheroine costumes. Sure they’re unrealistic. But could they also be a gleeful middle finger to everyone who wants to tell a little girl that what she’s wearing is “inappropriate” or that bad things will happen to her if she dresses in a way that attracts male attention?

(Of course, we could debate about the rather narrow view of what is “sexy” that is still put forth by superheroines, but that’s another post.)

Via When Fangirls Attack, which curates all the great women-and-gender related comics posts out there on the web so I don’t have to, I find this piece on “Marvel Bromance,” or now, apparently “Marvel Super Hero Team-Up.”

I wasn’t aware that there had even been a planned “Marvel Bromance,” which just shows you that I have entirely too much work to do in my life that doesn’t revolve around comics. Because you know I would’ve been all over that, right?

The evolution of the “bromance” out of the “buddy movie” has been interesting to me because it’s deliberately skated across that line of homoerotic tension that buddy movies always shied away from. In comics, the grand pairing of “buddies” was always Batman and his series of Robins, and since Robin was usually a good bit younger than Bruce Wayne, you really want to stay on the right side of that line with those books.

But the “bromance” is still ironic, not genuine. The movies are comedies; the stories loaded with snark and jokes about sharing feelings far more often than actually sharing feelings (when the kids in Superbad say “I love you” to one another they immediately have to pretend it didn’t happen). And so, as Chris Butcher noted, was Marvel’s solicit copy for the trade.

If This Be Bromance–! Marvel’s greatest buddies take the spotlight in this one-of-a-kind collection, and it’s male bonding like you’ve never seen — as Cable and Deadpool swap stories, Wonder Man and the Beast share a plane ride, Spidey and the Human Torch battle back-to-back, Wolverine makes a bet with Nightcrawler, Black Panther and Everett Ross lay their feelings on the line…and the Warriors Three set sail for fun! Plus: Captain America and the Falcon, Iron Man and Jim Rhodes, and more! Be here as Marvel says, “I love you, man!”

However, apparently “Bromance” was too–what, edgy? didn’t get enough attention? any ideas? It’s been changed to the too-long and unmemorable “Marvel Super Hero Team-Up,” which is so bland that it almost seems it must be a euphemism for something.

While “Bromance” might have been silly, it was at least an acknowledgment of the changing rules of same-gender friendships in the wider pop culture. More accurately, since the trade would be a reprint of classic stories, it would have been an acknowledgment that male friendships have always been more complex than a secret handshake or a gruff “Thanks.” Now it’s just another super hero team-up.

I’m not fighting for justice,
I am not fighting for freedom
I am fighting for my life
and another day in the world here

I just do what I’ve been told
We’re just the gravel on the road
And only the lucky ones come home
on the day after tomorrow

-Tom Waits, “Day After Tomorrow”

My Twitter-length review just wasn’t enough. This one, however, contains spoilers, so click below at your own risk.

(more…)

I’ve missed writing reviews but don’t quite have it in me to write a long review of everything I bought this week. Instead, I bring you exactly Twitter-length comic reviews. (Be thankful they’re not in haiku. I might still do that someday.)

Hellboy: The Wild Hunt #5: Worth the wait, yet now I have to dig through piles of comics to remind myself what was going on. Still love Hellboy vs. Irish Myth, though.

DMZ #44: No Future: Ryan Kelly drew Zee! Also, the most haunting DMZ story in a while — deviations from the main story are often more compelling than Matty is.

The Unwritten #4: Shift to twisted Hitchcockian suspense-horror comic here. And killer line: “Stories that hit the world like bombs.” My favorite new series?

It’s Thursday. I have had too much caffeine and haven’t bought my comics for the week yet. Have some links.

Boondock Saints comics? Hell yes.

Becky Cloonan’s ongoing webcomic-saga of her “feud” with Amy Reeder Hadley just keeps getting funnier.

Warren Ellis thinks you should buy this print from Laurenn McCubbin. I think you should buy it for me.

One of my favorite political bloggers, Spencer Ackerman, is now the star of a comic book. Where the heck is MY comic book, people?

Jonathan Lethem on the “Squandered promise of science fiction.”

Joshua Dysart’s Unknown Soldier is featured in the New York Times today.

Unknown Soldier is unflinching in its depiction of violence, and that comes across even more strongly in the collected edition, without the monthly break between issues. One particularly horrific scene deals with the disfigurement of the title character: an inner voice navigates him through the violence, but when he reaches his breaking point, he hacks at himself to try to silence it. That gruesome episode came from Mr. Dysart’s imagination; some details he learned from his trip, he said, were too awful for the comic.

[snip]

“I witnessed people at the lowest point of their lives, and I came back and turned it into an action-packed war comic,” he said. “We try our best not to be exploitative, but in my heart I don’t know if this is the right way to do it.”

I’m a fan of Unknown Soldier; I think Dysart’s efforts to bring attention to an area of the world through comics are worthy and I appreciate his own conflict about whether he’s doing the right thing. It’s nice to see the comic getting this kind of recognition.

On the advice of several New Yorkers, I bought my comics at Bergen Street Comics in Brooklyn last week, and I think I’ve found my new comic shop. Located in a great area of Brooklyn, small but well laid out and neat, with the new books easy to find and the owners pleasant and helpful, it’s my kind of place.

Since I’ve found people I like giving money to, why not give them more of it, right? Since there’s a new Fables trade this week, plus DMZ #44 and the long-awaited Hellboy: The Wild Hunt #5, I know I’ll be shelling out a few bucks this week. As usual, I turn to you, readers: what am I missing?

I waited to write this until this piece went up, and now I can’t even particularly remember why.

Regular readers here may know that I’m not much of a superhero comics reader, but that I’ve been branching out lately. When I was asked if I wanted to talk to Kieron Gillen and Steven Sanders about their new series, I jumped at the chance even though it required me to binge on Joss Whedon’s Astonishing X-Men so I had some clue of what I was talking about.

If you’ve read the comics, or are mildly aware of my love for Whedon’s work, you can probably guess what my reaction was to Whedon’s vision of the X-Men. Yep, I loved it. Intensely. Mostly, I loved Whedon’s Kitty Pryde.

As I’ve mentioned, I didn’t exactly grow up on comics, but I have a distinct memory of the X-Men cartoon and seeing this little brunette girl who looked kinda like me, who wasn’t all badass like the rest of the characters but could walk through walls (and didn’t I feel at times like I wanted to just sink through a floor and escape my life?). So Whedon, who likes to take those normal girls and make them extra-special, really did a great job with Kitty, contrasting her with the super-sexy and conniving Emma Frost and using her powers to save the world when all the offensive skills in the universe couldn’t have done so.

Of course the end made me sniffle a lot, but it also made me think about superheroes differently. I’ve always seen them as creations designed to allow people like me to transcend their normal lives; to become larger than life. I’ve never read books or comics simply because I identified with the characters (though I certainly have my share–Megan in Local being a prime example).

Yet the appeal of the X-Men has always been that they’re freaks; the world doesn’t understand them. As blogger Renegade Evolution noted:

The X-Men have the misfortune of being born different into a very intolerant world. They are mutants. Outcasts. Feared. Hated. Seen as dangerous…when for the most part, they just want to live and be left to it like everyone else. Hummm…imagine that? And it is odd, in my geekdome and time spent hanging out with other comic nerds, I have noted that a lot of people who are big into the X-Men are also somehow…well…different. Non-traditional.

Is it so weird, then, that of all the various reasons, and after all the explosions and action in Whedon’s Astonishing X-Men, that I love it because I see myself in Kitty?

No, not from me this time. Just in case you can’t get enough Twilight and comics blogging, the fine folks at Comicopia have started a blog just for Twilight and comics–both the upcoming manga and Stephenie Meyer comic, and recommendations for comics that Twilight fans might like.

In the wake of all the disputes around SDCC and fangirls, it’s nice to see someone picking up the ball and making an active effort to get Twilight fans to be more involved with comics. There’s a ridiculous amount of people out there reading Meyer’s books, and if more of them were buying comics and coming into comic shops for merch, it would be a nice boost for the industry, whatever you think of the books (and by now you should know how I feel about ‘em).

A friend forwarded me this article on Slate on the new vampire phenomenon, and pointed out a piece of it that I haven’t thought much about: the new sexy vampires don’t actually drink blood. Or if they do, they don’t kill.

Yet, like many people who acquire mega-celebrity, the vampire has developed an eating disorder. Read the books. Watch the movies. You’ll see vampires who manage nightclubs, build computer databases, work as private investigators, go to prep school, lobby Congress, chat with humans, live near humans, have sex with humans, and pine over humans, but the one thing you won’t see them do is suck the blood of humans.

Grady Hendrix snarks on a lot of the most popular vampires of recent pop culture, starting with Anne Rice and moving on to the one that many of my peers grew up crushing on: Angel, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Faced with the impact of his diet on humans, Angel accepts a yucky, cruelty-free substitute, then endlessly lectures other vampires about their moral failings because they don’t do the same. He’s not a vampire—he’s a vegan.

I’ve more than once made the comparison of Angel to Edward Cullen in Twilight, but I hadn’t thought about the spiral this way: as one spinning from less and less consumption of human blood. (There are, of course, occasional recurrences of the bloodthirsty, evil vampires like those of 30 Days of Night, but I digress.)

But Hendrix doesn’t seem to actually be that up on the details of Buffy. Witness:

At least Angel, Anita Blake’s vampires, Sookie Stackhouse, and most of the rest of them have a lot of sex.

Well, I haven’t gotten around to Anita Blake or into True Blood yet, but I know my Buffy, and Angel didn’t have a lot of sex–because if and when he did, he lost his soul and turned evil. People love to compare Buffy to Twilight, but the fact is that Angel and Edward Cullen indeed have a lot in common. They can’t get it on with their human lady-loves, because something BAAAD could happen. They don’t drink blood, because they have consciences.

The whole story of both Angel and Edward Cullen, in other words, is that of the monster tamed by the woman he loves. The just-bad-enough boy who’s really a sweetheart on the inside. Sure, Buffy kicks Angel to the curb (after running him through with a sword) but soon enough she’s taken up with a new vampire–this one with a chip in his brain so he can’t, er, drink human blood.

I don’t agree with Hendrix’s faux concern for the way kids might be receiving mixed messages from their media, because I tend to read media for clues about the way we’re already heading, not look at it as something that shapes us. Pop culture as a symptom. So what does it signify to me that out of millions of books, I see more women (yes, grown women) on the subway reading Twilight books than anything else? After all, we’re adults. We’re not adolescent girls having our perception of men shaped by some sensitive emo-boy vampire. We already know that relationships are messy and fraught with danger.

True Blood is next on my Netflix list, so until then, I really can’t comment on the symbolism there, but this piece has set me thinking in yet another way about what it might be that we get from these defanged monsters. If you take away the blood drinking and sleeping in coffins (which neither Angel nor Edward do), what do you have but a boyfriend who never grows old?

No, my linkblogging posts don’t come on any particular day, they just tend to appear when I’ve gathered enough links that I like but don’t really have enough to say about to warrant their own posts. In case you were wondering. Now, onward!

At The Nation (full disclosure: I’m currently a Nation intern), Melissa Harris-Lacewell talks about the conservative campaign to paint President Obama as the Joker, and does an excellent job teasing out some interesting political parallels with The Dark Knight film.

Via When Fangirls Attack, a post on close female friendships in comics. How many female “buddy” or “bromance” pairings can you think of?

A comparison of Marvel Divas and Gotham City Sirens, also via When Fangirls Attack.

Johanna Draper Carlson looks at Huntress: Year One.

From Splash Page, Charlyne Yi of Paper Heart and Knocked Up is doing a comic with Oni Press. Insert random blather about how Yi is actually a geek here, right? Well, because she’s not Megan Fox (read, sexy girl everyone slobbers over) this hasn’t gotten that much attention, but it makes me happy: Charlyne Yi is funny, and from what I’ve seen of Paper Heart, is actually creative as well.

Jezebel looks at my favorite superheroine from childhood: She-Ra.

Finally, Defamer wants to know how gay Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes is going to be. Apparently word leaked out that there was going to be some sexual tension between the leads (Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr.), which was enough to send Michael Medved into a panic. Apparently there’s nothing to offend Medved in the screenplay, at least, and so he can go back to doing what he does best–which certainly isn’t knowing what women would like to see in a film. Or at least, this woman.

Leave me alone, it’s late and I’m sleepy but it occurred to me that I hadn’t posted my books for this week. I’m still geeked for Greek Street, though it’s only issue #2, and I’ll be picking up North 40 #2 as well, even though tentacle monsters aren’t usually my thing.

Also, of course, there’s The Boys, and there’s another of these Warren Ellis Avatar novellas, this time something that I’m really into, Frankenstein’s Womb. OK, the title’s rather gross, but I love the original Frankenstein and I’m a sucker for what I suppose could be called literary origin stories, or stories about the writers of famous works that speculate on how they came to be.

So, my dears, as usual, it’s time for you to tell me what I’m missing…

We’ve been over the booth babe controversy enough, and so I’m not going to rehash that here. However, I was struck by one paragraph in this LA Times piece, by Tod Goldberg, on Comic-Con:

It was the zombie issue that brought forth the sociologist in me. Countless women covered in knife wounds and in advanced stages of decomposition happily posed with men (and boys … lots and lots of boys). The booth for “The Blood Factory” — Danny DeVito’s home of short splatter films … which is to say, films with lots of sex and lots of knife wounds, often concurrently — featured two smiling and bloodied hotties wielding chainsaws who posed and vamped for children of all ages. The sexualization of violence was not something I was prepared for even knowing well how undead vampires have become romance heroes in print and film. Sex was certainly in play without violence too — apparently selling any kind of video game is easier if there’s a vacant-eyed woman wearing a Wonder Woman costume in the booth — and in a way it’s nothing new for these kinds of gatherings since even Renaissance fairs use women as objects, but usually those women aren’t covered in open wounds. I’m no prude per se, but it was nonetheless odd to see young boys getting their cheeks pecked by buxom undead women. Maybe not as odd as the gentleman dressed like Bob’s Big Boy, burger and all, but odd no less.

I would say that what he’s critiquing here is not the sexualization of violence–anyone who’s seen Kill Bill or, well, any action movie, could tell you that sex and violence go hand in hand–but the way women are almost always cast as the victims of that violence. In other words, it’s not that there’s violence and sexy women mixing; it’s that those women are dressed as victims of violence and yet are cheerily posing for pictures with men and young boys. It’s the normalization of women-as-victim of violence that is kinda creepy.

That said, I like female monsters, even the undead variety, in my monster movies. Zombies and vampires, after all, keep coming despite the horrible things done to them. That’s what makes them scary, and in vampires’ case, sexy. The monsters are powerful because they are dead and yet they live.

Goldberg juxtaposes women wielding chainsaws (presumably, the blood they are covered in would be someone else’s) with women covered in (fake) wounds here without question, where in fact they’re two very different things, and I would go even further and say that it does matter whether the women covered in wounds are zombies or simply victims.

This goes to the heart of my disgust with “torture porn” films like Saw and Hostel but love for vampires, zombies, and other freaky monsters. Monsters are subversive, uncanny: they violate boundaries. Torture porn movies do nothing but show us splashy violence, the worst of humanity, and quite often reinforce gender roles: male attacker, female victim. A wounded woman who fights back is entirely different than one who is simply a victim, and a wounded woman who comes back as a monster might be the stuff of worst nightmares.

I found this excellent New York Times Magazine piece on little girls and superheroes the other day, and then had a couple of people email it to me as well. Unsurprising, perhaps, as women and comics is well-known as my beat here and elsewhere, and my fascination certainly extends to little girls and the way they’re socialized.

The author writes from her own perspective: her little girl has graduated from Disney Princesses to Wonder Woman, and she’s thrilled. Like me, she finds Wonder Woman’s costume far less problematic than the gender-specific roles Disney princesses forced her daughter into, and she examines the unique lessons that the superheroine can provide for girls growing up in the current culture: where there are plenty of powerful female role models and yet their media portrayals always seem vexed in ways that their male counterparts’ are not.

In the end, that is the true drama of the superhero: the ordinary Joe who discovers that he has a marvelous gift, something that sets him apart from everyone else, simultaneously elevating and at least potentially isolating him, forcing a series of moral choices about the nature of might and goodness. It’s a story writ large about coming to grips with power: accepting it, demanding it, wielding it wisely. Those themes are rarely explored in the fantasy culture of little girls, yet given how problematic power remains for adult women — in both fact and fiction — perhaps they should be. Consider the connotation of Superwoman, who is more harried than hectic, not something I’d want for myself or for my girl. What’s more, Superwoman is subject to a unique form of kryptonite: the threat of being called a bad mother. Besides, who would want to be referred to as the Woman of Steel?

Little girls do like to feel powerful; in my days working in a nonprofit with elementary-school kids, I remember trying to spot the line where the confident, happy, energetic little girls began to be sullen, nervous adolescents, while their male classmates didn’t seem to cross any such line. I certainly can’t give all the credit for that to superheroes and other fantasy-fictional role models, yet I would love to see a world where these little girls are raised with more visions of female power that isn’t pathologized, in both the real world and in the media by which they are surrounded.

It should be shocking to absolutely no one that a huge part of my love for Alien is the character of Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver. I once had a college professor say that the only truly feminist movie she could think of was the original Ridley Scott Alien.

Scott’s history of directing movies with badass women (Thelma & Louise and G.I. Jane among them) got its start with Ripley, and it makes me happy to hear that Scott will be returning to helm an Alien prequel, even if we’re unlikely to see Ripley in it: I have faith that we’ll get some other good, complex female characters.

The first Alien movie is so good precisely because you don’t see Ripley coming as the last woman standing. She’s not your typical horror movie Final Girl. She’s abrasive, effortlessly competent and undersexualized–until the final scene, where she’s let down her guard literally and symbolically, and has to fight the alien with none of her defenses. Each character you get attached to is killed off and you realize, slowly, that Ripley is your hero.

Then, of course, you got her for several more films. But the original horror of Alien can be brought back in a prequel because once again, you won’t know who your hero is. Since Ripley first met the Alien in the original film, even if we catch a glimpse of young Ripley she won’t be our lead, and instead there will be a new cast to deal with new horrors.

I also can’t wait for a Scott-helmed Alien movie with 2009-style special effects. If you watch the bonus features on the original Alien DVD, you’ll learn interesting facts like the alien inside the egg was actually Scott’s own rubber-gloved hands. And since the movie claims one of the most truly horrifying moments I’ve seen in cinema, still–the moment where the alien bursts out of Kane’s chest and skitters off down the hall–with those rudimentary effects, imagine what disgusting moments Scott can create with high-end CGI?

Again, though, the first movie is terrifying because you don’t know what’s going to happen. When the alien erupts out of the insides of a human character you’ve grown to like, in a vicious horror of pregnancy gone wrong (untopped til Breaking Dawn, but I’m so not going there right now), you realize that even bodies are not safe, and this is capitalized upon when you find out that Ash is a robot. A prequel will have a lot to do to top the thrills of a long franchise like Alien, but I’m betting Ridley Scott is the director who can live up to the early films.

And since I started off with a tribute to Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, how about some ideas for a badass heroine for a new Alien age? Entertainment Weekly suggested Ellen Page, but I’m not feeling her. My vote for now goes to Lucy Liu or Eliza Dushku, but I can be persuaded…

Regular readers here know I love Joelle Jones’ art. You’ll also probably know I love Joss Whedon. So Joelle Jones character sketches for Dr. Horrible comics? WIN.

You can get Phonogram vs. The Fans, the limited-edition Phonogram fanzine that I wrote about here, on Etsy for the low, low price of $5. You want this.

Gail Simone, good and pissed about the EA Games “booth babes” debacle.

Racialicious has a review from the first Asian American Comic Con.

Johanna Draper Carlson talks Girlamatic, which I’d somehow missed out on, so read what she has to say.

One of my favorite bloggers, Renegade Evolution, talks about girls and gaming: “Hey baby, why all the aggro?”

Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan have a cool Op-Ed in the New York Times about “why we need vampires.” Lately I’ve been doing a good bit of thinking about why vampire stories seem to appeal to a teen girl demographic in particular, so this fit right in.

And via BUST, Johnny Depp is set to play a vampire in yet another Tim Burton-helmed picture, Dark Shadows.

Stephenie Meyer, author of Twilight, is set to test the theory that fans are really just out for the hot boys at Comic-Con–she’s going to star in her own Female Force comic. (Can I mention yet again that the name “female force” creeps me out? Referring to women as “females” sounds so animalistic to me…)

Finally, on that note, an interview with Francesca Lia Block on her new vampire young adult novel, Pretty Dead. Since one of the things I’m interested in is why the vampire romance always seems to be older male vampire and young mortal girl (Angel/Buffy, Edward/Bella, etc.) I’m especially intrigued with Block’s book since it reverses that dynamic.

If you’ll excuse me, I think I’m off to watch Angel…

How did I not know about this site already? Since the financial crisis blew up in my face, I’ve been giving myself a crash course in economics. I listen to NPR’s Planet Money podcast regularly, and wade through wonky articles by people far smarter than me about subjects that I used to avoid like the plague. Fiscal policy is no longer a phrase that makes me run for the hills, but instead makes me dig in and want to learn more. (Yes, I’m a nerd. Shut up.)

And so when the venerable Ana Marie Cox tweeted about Ecocomics, I was shocked that I hadn’t discovered this blog yet. Combining, yes, economics and comics blogging with a healthy dose of snark, Ecocomics may be my new favorite blog.

Sample post titles: What are the Recession Proof Industries in Comic Books?

1) Purple pants manufacturers. The Hulk will always need them. And for the Hulk, 1 pair equals 1 use. He is a market unto himself.

[snip]

Silk Cuts. John Constantine’s personal brand of tobacco will never go out of business.

There’s also a post about health care in the Marvel universe, and one about the economics of Incognito’s flying car. You know you want to know. Come on. Join me in combining two forms of epic geekery…

(psst. they’re also on Twitter.)

Yesterday, Summit Entertainment took another step to piss off fangirls nationwide. They announced that Bryce Dallas Howard (best known to comic fans as Spider-Man 3’s Gwen Stacy, or perhaps as Ron Howard’s daughter) would be replacing Rachelle Lefevre as Victoria, the one of the series’ baddest vampires, for Eclipse, the third movie in the series. Since Summit already sped on to make New Moon and Eclipse without Catherine Hardwicke, the director of the first film, I wasn’t too surprised that the reason given was “scheduling conflicts.”

Now, though, Lefevre’s statement seems to imply that there was something else behind her bump:

“I was stunned by Summit’s decision to recast the role of Victoria for Eclipse. I was fully committed to the Twilight saga, and to the portrayal of Victoria. I turned down several other film opportunities and, in accordance with my contractual rights, accepted only roles that would involve very short shooting schedules. My commitment to Barney’s Version is only ten days. Summit picked up my option for Eclipse. Although the production schedule for Eclipse is over three months long, Summit said they had a conflict during those ten days and would not accommodate me. Given the length of filming for Eclipse, never did I fathom I would lose the role over a 10 day overlap. I was happy with my contract with Summit and was fully prepared to continue to honor it. Summit chose simply to recast the part. I am greatly saddened that I will not get to complete my portrayal of Victoria for the Twilight audience. This is a story, a theatrical journey and a character that I truly love and about which I am very passionate. I will be forever grateful to the fan support and loyalty I’ve received since being cast for this role, and I am hurt deeply by Summit’s surprising decision to move on without me. I wish the cast and crew of Eclipse only the very best.“

Twilight is hardly Shakespeare, and I don’t have a problem with movies being a commercial product per se, but I don’t like the rush to capitalize on the success of the first film making subsequent ones suffer. This seems to be less of a scheduling conflict on Lefevre’s part and more of a calculated decision by the studio–is Howard that much more bankable a name than someone who’s already built the part through two films and will thus have fan loyalty?

Judging from her brief screen time in the first film, it certainly wasn’t Lefevre’s acting or looks that hurt her–who can forget the last shot of her walking down the stairs, shaking her mane of hair loose with a look on her face that needs no words to tell us that Bella is in deep trouble? The directors stuck with Taylor Lautner as Jacob Black despite obvious physical differences between him and his character–several inches in height, for a start–so why dump Lefevre just in time for the movie where she gets her biggest scene?

Update: Thursday 7/30 1245 Eastern: The Plot thickens. Over on SciFiWire, they have an interesting rebuttal from Summit, claiming, well, that it’s all her fault to begin with.

Here’s Summit’s reply:

Ms. Lefevre’s representatives were advised as early as April that THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE was expected to start shooting in early August.If Ms. Lefevre was, as she describes “passionate,” about being part of THE TWILIGHT SAGA, we feel that she and her representatives would have included us in her decision to work on another film that would conflict with the shooting schedule of THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE.

It was not until July 20th that Summit was first informed of Ms. Lefevre’s commitment to BARNEY’S VERSION, a commitment we have since been advised she accepted in early June. Summit had acted in good faith that she would be available to fulfill her obligations both in terms of rehearsals and shooting availability for THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE. We feel that her choice to withhold her scheduling conflict information from us can be viewed as a lack of cooperative spirit which affected the entire production.

Furthermore Ms. Lefevre took a role in the other film that places her in Europe during the required rehearsal time, and at least ten days of THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE’s principal photography. This period is essential for both rehearsal time with the cast, and for filming at key locations that are only available during the initial part of production.

Contrary to Ms. Lefevre’s statement, it is simply untrue that the Studio dismissed her over a ten day overlap. It is not about a ten day overlap, but instead about the fact that THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE is an ensemble production that has to accommodate the schedules of numerous actors while respecting the established creative vision of the filmmaker and most importantly the story.

If all that is factual, Summit may actually have a case for being “right” this time.

First off, this Saturday I’ll be headed for this:

If you’re in New York, you too should check it out.

You don’t have to be in NY to read NYC Graphic Novelists’ profile on A.D.: New Orleans After the Deluge creator Josh Neufeld. And if you haven’t read A.D. yet, um, it’s free and on the Web. Read it.

Finally, for iGoogle users, you can now get a constantly-updated iGoogle theme with the best of Oni Press’s creators’ work. Currently, it includes the work of Chris Mitten (Wasteland), Chynna Clugston (Blue Monday), Chris Schweizer (The Crogan Adventures), Lars Brown (North World), & Brandon Graham (Multiple Warheads). You know you want it.