We’ve had a lot of noteworthy comics come out this week, but one in particular that’s gotten a lot of attention has been Chuck Dixon’s Batman and the Outsiders #1. A particular point of focus involves a specific scene between Batman and Thunder.

Rokk Krinn of Rokk’s Comic Book Revolution liked the issue, especially that scene:

I like how Dixon has Batman handle Thunder’s immature reaction with not being on the mission with the rest of the Outsiders. This move was a bit of commentary on Winick’s Outsiders. Winick’s Outsiders were undisciplined, uncoordinated and generally a mopey mess. Not this current version of the Outsiders. Batman is a stern leader who refuses to accept anyone on his team other than those who can carry out their role on a mission with precision and excellence. All that matters is the team as a whole and the mission at hand. Gone are the days of wallowing in one’s own self interests. Batman will make sure that anyone on his Outsiders will be willing to think of the team first over their own personal desires.

I also like how Batman totally plays Thunder as she outs both herself and Grace as lovers. You have to be one calm, cool and collected person to keep a secret from the Batman. This further demonstrated the difference between Thunder’s impulsive selfish nature with Batman’s cold and calculating personality.

EvilOmar at About Heroes thought the comic was okay but found that scene problematic:

The only big problem I had with the book was the confrontation with Batman and Thunder. Why the hell couldn’t the world’s best detective not be able to tell the difference between good friends and lovers? Come on Bats, I’m sure you’ve had your share of lesbians at those crazy Wayne manor parties.

While the ISB’s Chris Sims didn’t seem to care for it much at all:

Thus, low expectations were had, and brother, low expectations were met. Aside from Julian Lopez’s art (which is actually pretty nice, especially if it was a rush job), this thing ranks a solid mediocre, pushed towards awful thanks to the fact that Metamorpho’s still rolling around in dress pants and what might be the worst attempt at tough-guy dialogue ever, “That is one bad burrito.”

Also, there’s a scene where Batman refers to a lesbian couple as having–and I quote–a “special relationship,” which is exactly the kind of squeamish metaphor that I can picture Batman using under exactly zero circumstances. And that just about sums it up, I think.

So what did you think?

A certain Batman-centered tidbit from Rich Johnston’s Lying in the Gutters column has been making the rounds lately, sparking a lot of conversation.

I’m putting up a cut here for those fans who would prefer to avoid coming in contact with rumors or spoilers. All others, do proceed.

(more…)

So Wizard Magazine’s officially declared itself the “#1 Men’s Pop Culture Magazine!”

In a comment at her livejournal, rachel_edidin explains the problem:

It’s relevant because it’s visible, and because it markets itself as the comics magazine. Also, it owns a huge number of other comics periodicals and many major conventions.

So the fact that it’s now advertising itself as a men’s magazine says a good deal about its attitude toward women in comics and sets the tone for a LOT of affiliated industry coverage and events.

Rob S. finds it hard to care:

So earlier this week a Mildly Amusing Dinosaur of a Comics Magazine has announced (via cover blurb) that it will now be a Mildly Amusing Dinosaur of a “Pop Culture” Magazine for Men. And some fine folks who don’t need that blurb to tell them what they already know–that, blurb or no blurb, it has the sense of humor of a dim Starfleet Academy fratboy–are jawing on and on about it. And I’ve tried to join the conversation a couple of times, but really just can’t get into it.

Because–as Kalinara notes–this book is a Dinosaur. All of its primary functions have gone by the wayside, either through humor and opinion blogs, internet news sites or auction sites like eBay (who needs a price guide?). So it’s left to grope around blindly in the jungle as more specialized mammals scamper out of reach of its tiny, useless arms.

It’s a Dinosaur. It’s closer to being oil than being relevant.

So it’s hard to see what all the fuss is about.*

Cheryl Lynn shares her real source of irritation:

But don’t let me see your reporters at MoCCA (which at this point has evolved into the best damn place to meet cute, smart hipster girls) pretending they’re legitimate comics journalists. What the hell did Wizard have a booth there for if they were only going to bring us gems like Match the Rack? That’s very desirable booth space that could have gone to an independent artist or a news organization that actually gives a damn about something that isn’t WWH, Countdown or tits! And why the hell did Wizard reps approach female fans and ask them to fill out surveys at conventions this summer? Why ask us to participate and then slam the door in our faces? That is so damn irritating. No point in reaching out to women if you don’t have anything to offer. That’s just a waste of time that winds up making everyone cranky. Just stick to making your existing audience happy and the rest of us will go buy Comic Foundry and UVC.

While Ragnell thinks it all makes sense now:

Its not hard to arrive at a working hypothesis here: Sales were falling. They needed a way to bring them up. They could expand beyond comics or try to capture more of the comics-buying community. They explored the option of opening to a wider comics-reading audience and surveyed female convention-goers.

They looked at the results of the surveys and realized they would need to change things they didn’t wish to. Maybe they were just too chickenshit to risk a change, or had no faith that the male audience would be willing to read news and views without round shiny breasts next to every paragraph, or maybe they just didn’t care enough to make the effort.

So what do you think?

Okay, one of the big topics this week seems to be “the Death of the New Gods”. Naturally, almost everyone seems to have something to say about it.

The Occasional Superheroine asserts that it’s hard to dislike the series:

Why? Because it’s Jim Starlin. DC really dodged the bullet on this whole miniseries by getting Starlin to write and draw it. Because it’s like if you put Marv Wolfman & George Perez on Countdown — yeah, it’s another editorially-mandated clusterf**k but how can you dislike it when you’ve got such legendary creators on it? It would be like hating Stan Lee. Which is like hating Comics. There’s some math in there.

If you’re familiar with Starlin’s work with characters like Captain Marvel or Warlock at all, you understand that this guy’s a master of the Cosmic Story — probably right behind Kirby in that regard. So if you get bogged down or confused by metaphysical/galactic sentences like:

“They’d actually taken the Source’s cryptic meanderings and sculpted them into the foundation of a ridiculous little religious fantasy,”

rest assured that it all has some higher spiritual purpose and that God will probably make an appearance in the third act, even if He is in the form of a section of drywall or a Nerf ball with Kirby crackle emanating from it.

Paul S., or Goggle_Kid, is annoyed by the execution:

That said I am supremely displeased with the death of Big Barda. I’m not against the concept of killing off Big Barda in a book titled “The Death of the New Gods,” but good lord could the execution have been any worse? This is quite possibly the least fitting most crap-tastic superhero death scene since poor Steph Brown’ General-hospital esc deathbed scene in Batman: War Games. I mean for god’s sake… she was shot in the chest while putting away groceries. That kind of death scene might have been fitting for a character like Linda Park West or Lana Lang, but Barda sure as hell deserved better than such a stereotypical Superhero wife/girlfriend death.

For starters killing off Barda this early in the game is a patently stupid move as well, Barda is the Jack Kirby Fourth World character for people who don’t care about Jack Kirby’s Fourth World. She is arguably the most popular forth world character, and the most recognizable to younger readers due to her appearances in Birds of Prey and Grant Morrison’s JLA run. People who don’t care the slightest about more obscure Fourth World characters like Mark Moonrider or Metron probably picked this up because they were expecting to see Barda go out in some big cosmic battle scene, not in something that plays like a deleted subplot from Identity Crisis.

Sleestak explains why he’s not upset:

Would I like Barda and pals to remain static and never change? Sure I would. I love them as they are. But even in the current creative climate of fast and loose continuity all characters must evolve or at least have the illusion of growth. There are some amazingly bad and goofy concepts in there and many characters, like Desaad, are criminally misused and weakly portrayed at best. A re-imagining is probably the best way to go about making the Fourth World characters a bit more interesting and contemporary.

So I figure that what is being torn out of the New Gods isn’t so much as their hearts, but the “God Essence” that makes them what they are. The body is merely a shell that is unimportant and can be left behind. Of course, knowing Starlin, the divine spark that is being forcibly recalled from the gods is probably being used as fuel for some ultimate weapon of destruction by a villain or anti-hero. In the end I suspect that all the captured souls will be reformed into an all new pantheon of Gods for DC to play with.

While our own Lisa Fortuner explains why probable impermanence isn’t a comfort:

Maybe its because I’ve seen enough cool female characters killed off then not resurrected as planned (Arisia) or resurrected only to have the death remain in continuity while the resurrection is forgotten (Katma Tui) already that this bugs me. That its a first-issue death that might be undone soon doesn’t really soften this blow.

So what do you think?

New Avengers #35 has been a big topic around blogs this week, particularly the issue’s treatment of the superheroine Tigra. As expected, the reactions are decidedly mixed.

Plok of A Trout in the milk really disliked the issue. (There’s a follow-up here.)

But let me ask you: having read New Avengers #35, do you not want the Hood to be brutally slain?

Yeah. Well, that’s a problem.

Because in mainstream superhero comics, vengeance is typically deferred, turned over to (for want of a better word) God — and I’m not talking about Superman. A skilled writer can make this work beautifully: revenge comes indirect, as poetic justice, boomerang comeuppance, or what-have-you. The reader, begging for the villain’s blood one second before, is satisfied by the tremendous last-minute moral save of the creator…and usually, even has their heroic illusions left somewhat undisturbed into the bargain. The world turns; characters develop.

But I don’t see any way Bendis can pay this off in the future. Not respectably if satisfying; not satisfyingly if respectable. As far as I can see, he’s painted himself into a corner, and there’s no way out.

Cheryl Lynn of Digital Femme Online is not upset. (She’s got a follow-up too.)

(more…)

Obviously the big news this week has to be the Captain America redesign. It’s definitely got a lot of people talking. Chris from 2 Guys Buying Comics doesn’t like it:

Look, the “classic” Cap costume we’re all familiar with is patently ridiculous, over-the-top, and totally awesome.

This thing makes Captain America look like… well frankly it makes him look like U.S. Agent (which, for the uninitiated, is not a good thing).

I’m struggling with the point of all this, since it’s been confirmed that this isn’t Steve Rogers anyway. (Which pushes this even farther into U.S. Agent territory.)

Jeff Wetherington of Athena Guides: Comics appears fairly laid back about the change:

The new Captain America looks like a cross between Cap, the Silver Surfer (oooooh shiny) and Union Jack with all that armament on him. The gun and dagger are not what I think of when I think of Captain America, but I always like Alex Ross’ work and this is no exception. Still, I’m convinced that Marvel will return to the iconic costume when Steve Rogers is finally resurrected.

(more…)

Well, after a tremendously long wait, last week we finally got to see the end of Allan Heinburg’s OYL storyarc, “Who Is Wonder Woman?”

So was it worth it?

Rachelle Goguen of Living Between the Wednesdays enjoyed the issue:

I forget most of the details of the original story on the Heinberg/Dodson run, but I do know that I liked it. And this Annual made me remember why. Heinberg just writes a really fantastic Wonder Woman. And it’s a shame that this story couldn’t have finished on schedule because this issue gives us a really great plot development that probably would have helped with the Picoult storyline a lot.

Heidi Meeley of Comics Fairplay was less enthused though optimistic:

While I have many quibbles with the story itself, I do appreciate the art stylings of the Dodsons. I also feel Allan Heinberg is a talented writer. His intentions were good, but the follow up never gelled into the greatness I had so hoped for. The “Who is Wonder Woman” story was just alright for me.

That being said, I am very eager to see what Gail Simone will do on the book. I am already missing her desperately on Birds of Prey, and think that it will be hard for anyone to follow her there. Simone is extremely gifted with characterization, and from interviews I have read, she is ready to focus on Wonder Woman as a hero to be reckoned with. I am ready for a solid creative team to bring the book back into focus and give Wonder Woman a cohesiveness she has been lacking since Greg Rucka wrote the title.

Brent of About Heroes found it disappointing:

Gee, thanks DC for that lack-luster conclusion to what had been a pretty-good arc. Following Dodson’s part is Gary Franks who goes through the motions and gives us a quick backstory of all the characters in Wonder Woman’s world, Diana, Donna, Cassie, Sarge Steel, and Nemesis. It’s kind of informative, but all of this would have been more helpful in the back of Wonder Woman #1 when I was asking these questions. Gah. This issue is not worth it’s $3.99, so read it in the shop if you want to read the conclusion of a story that started more than a year ago.

Finally, livejournalist nkaray was distinctly unhappy with it:

I have no problem with Diana being powerless as Diana Prince. Just because she doesn’t have her gods given powers doesn’t mean she can’t fight or use her brains (if the writer chooses to actually give her brains, which worries me about some of DC’s writers). Plus, this differentiates her further from Superman and enables a number of new storytelling opportunities if the writer is up to the task. However, the identity of Diana Prince was an idea spawned by Superman, created by Batman, and adopted by Diana. Diana could have EASILY done this all herself by prompting Oracle to create the necessary history for the identity and then used her own contacts (anyone remember Steve Trevor and Etta Candy?) to help her get a job. There was no need for Superman and Batman to be in on this. Now, Circe has removed Diana’s powers in that guise, so this “gift” was also handed to her. Damn, this Wonder Woman is a dumbass. What an inspiration to young girls everywhere. She can’t, and won’t, do anything for herself! While this idea of no powers as Diana P. is a nod to the TV show, and I see what Heinberg was trying to do, it just reeks the way it was executed. Reeks horribly. This took him over a year and a half to write?! Come on.

So what do you think?

Last week, this column covered some reactions to the Black Canary/Green Arrow wedding. Usually I’m not one to extend the same topic two weeks in a row, but there are still some interesting reactions trickling in. Especially since this interview with Judd Winick came out on Newsarama.

Sally is upset by the interview:

But the fact that Mr. Winick’s first thought was to kill off Black Canary just repulses me. It is so wrong. And needless. And stupid. It’s BAD WRITING! And I hate bad writing. So I guess that I’ve just joined the ranks of the “I hate Judd Winick” club. From what I gather, it has a LOT of members.

Shelly, who you may remember from her positive review last week, is annoyed by the interview:

On the face of it, it’s pro-Dinah. It makes it sound as if he wanted to use her, the female character, to move things forward, rather than the guy. That should be a good thing. But his execution, the way Ollie dies, hinders rather than helps the cause. Losing Ollie was one thing; killing him and doing it the way she did, is quite another. If she’d struck a blow to the side of his head and he died, that would’ve been more fitting. But there wouldn’t have been blood that way.

MildredMilton just has a headache:

Now. How do I like them apples? Well. Better, honestly. But they’re still pretty sucky apples. Do you know why? Because “Somebody Dies” is not a story. How do people keep not getting this? A story is a mystery to solve, a problem to overcome, a new character thrown into the mix. It’s not a bunch of guys sitting around a room thinking, “Who can we kill?” It’s not, “supervillains attack the wedding so someone can die at the end,” it’s, “here’s a specific reason and way that supervillains attack the wedding.” It’s not, “people fight below their ability and act out of character, in order for someone to die,” it’s “here is the reason that people act out of character and can’t fight as well as they usually can, and here’s how we resolve it.”

And we also have a few more reactions to the comic itself.

Matthew Peterson generally liked it:

I know that Judd Winick can write Green Arrow in a manner that I enjoy, but I’ve never been 100% sold on his Black Canary. This issue gives me some hope, but still leaves me with areas of concern, especially if we’re going to see Dinah as the vengeful bride, a la ‘Kill Bill.’ Still, there are a couple of dozen beautiful character moments in this issue, a couple of “Hell, Yeahs” (Batman “coming for the fight,” as well as the male stripper sequence) and it’s a pretty enjoyable ride to the altar, with one of the few unequivocally TRUE cover blurbs in recent history (”You Wont’ Believe This Wedding Night!”) All told, we’re looking at a solid 4 out of 5 star rating, with beautiful Amanda Connor art and a nicely done surprise ending that really shook me up…

While Irrational Mad Man specifically counters reviewers who disliked the opening fight:

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I don’t find it unreasonable that BC and GA would use an argument as foreplay, nor do I find it unreasonable that BC would slap GA if angry. This is a woman who is best known for her extraordinary skill in using violence to achieve her ends, and is known to have quite a hot temper. The idea that she would get angry with GA and use some very very low grade violence is not unreasonable, especially since she knows he can take it. Now I wouldn’t expect BC to beat the living hell out of him, or to break his limbs over an argument, but the idea that she would slap him? Not a big deal really.

So what do you think?

Well, Wednesday was the Big Day! Superheroes Green Arrow and Black Canary got themselves hitched in a very eventful issue!

Naturally, reactions were mixed.

(Caution for Spoilers)

(more…)

The questionable fate of Spider-Man’s marriage is hardly a new topic around the blogosphere, looking anywhere over the last few months, you’ll find a lot of people with very strong opinions about the matter. That doesn’t mean, however, that people aren’t saying new interesting things about it.

At his blog, Mike Sterling relates an anecdote and considers his own perspective about Spider-Man’s marriage:

You know, pondering that, I realized that I’ve been selling the funnybooks for about as long as Spider-Man’s marriage has existed. And, in all that time, I don’t think I heard word one from anyone who really did not like the fact that Spider-Man was married. They objected to dumb storylines, they objected to the Spider-Clone story after it dragged on for its sixth or seventh decade, they objected to multi-part storylines that bounced back and forth among the several monthly Spidey titles…but no one objected to Spider-Man having a wife back home. I don’t recall any extensive discussion on the merits, or lack thereof, of said nuptials.

Livejournalist Phillipos Fourty-Two thinks that it’s a swerve:

That was in 1987. Since then we’ve seen Marvel stick the “Peter & MJ are destined to be together” meme in our faces to the point of retcon. And now there isn’t just a newspaper strip to consider. Now there’s Ultimate Spidey, MC2, Marvel Adventures, Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane, & I guess that thing with “cute Doc Ock” that I don’t quite get; plus movies & whatever else.

When Quesada talked about ending the marriage, the best he could come up with is that Pete could now, “have sex, or download porn.” OK, granted, Joe’s a penciler, not a writer, but that’s particularly unconvincing. Has it occurred to anyone that Joe could be pulling our legs to drive up sales?

Blogger Notintheface responds to Phillipos’s post with a bit more pessimism:

I just finished reading Part One of the “One More Day” arc, and it establishes Aunt May early on as the front-runner in the “which woman in Peter Parker’s life is going to die” sweepstakes. In popular fiction, that often means it’s going to be someone else.

So what’s your take?

Sometimes, instead of choosing a standard “hot-topic” I can use this column to showcase a discussion that I personally find funny or interesting and see what you think.

Today’s topic showcases one of the most entertaining elements of fandom, in my opinion: when some geeks start debating passionately and pedantically over the definition and application of a particular term.

First Kevin Church gets the ball rolling explaining why he’s sick of the word “canon”:

No, not the camera manufacturer; my experiences with them have been nothing short of splendid. I’m referring to the fact that many people, especially nerds/geeks(1) of a certain stripe, seem to not realize that entertainment properties are usually driven more by profit and entertainment than for making sure Tab A consistently aligns with Slot B. I hate that. Just be thankful that somebody still thinks enough of that oddball character created by Haney or Kanigher during one of their many Silver Age ether binges to keep doing comics featuring them. (Or, alternately, choose to not read things that you don’t like, but we’ve been over that.)

Ragnell (a.k.a. Our own Lisa Fortuner) explains how she also hates the word for a completely different reason:

I am absolutely mad for “continuity.” I live for retcons. I got into X-Men by the soap-opera-esque cartoon and the Age of Apocalypse crossover and I got into DC Comics with The Return of Barry Allen. What hooked me on comics was tracking down the old story references in those books. I was raised on a strict diet of continuity porn and I’m not about to give it up for anything.

But I hate hearing the word “canon” to refer to it. There’s something about the tone of the word. Canon is too solid. Too concrete. Canon is written in stone. Canon is strict and rigid and religious by nature.

And this time I even get in on the whole deal:

Mostly though, it’s the exact carved in stone thing that I love. Because it’s so inappropriate for comics. I keep imagining these huge ten-commandment like tablets with the facts and events carved in. Then crossed out and re-carved next to it. Entire tablets get smashed.

It’s like that part of History of the World part I where Moses drops the tablet “I bring you these fifteen” *crash* “ten! commandments”

I love the idea that when Emerald Dawn I and II came by entire decades of Green Lantern stone were crossed out and now with the Infinite Crisis, someone had to go to each one and carve “STET” on the top.

So what do you think?

The Supergirl-on-Smallville casting news is once again bouncing about the blogosphere, thanks in part to a new interview with Wizard and a feature in IF Magazine

Reactions naturally have been varied.

Blankie from “It’s Thursday, I’m in Love” is excited:

Anyway, Kara Zor-El is making her debut on the new season of Smallville. Yep, that’s right, the girl who will eventually become Supergirl. And man, did they choose a drop dead gorgeous actress to play her…she looks exactly like one of Michael Turner’s characters jumping off the page into real life!

Rich from Comic By Comic has some criticism for her costume:

Okay, first off let me say that Laura Vandervoort is clearly a ridiculously attractive woman who puts a lot of work into looking good - and she does.

But….

..sweet lord have mercy, that outfit in the top two pics is terrible. I get that they want to emulate modern Kara’s bellyshirt wardrobe, and the hoodie somewhat suggests a short cape but a boobtube? Really? And, at the risk of surrendering all manly points I’ve ever accumlated ever, those boots are just plain ugly (clearly I have been spending too much time in shoe shops with my wife).

The Rational Madman speaks up in support of the costume:

Now naturally the fembots have already started their complaining. Apparently theres something wrong with what shes wearing in these pics. Personally I don’t see nothing wrong with a pretty little girl wearing a belly shirt, but then I aint stark raving bonkers neither. Either way I got a feeling I’m going to be watching smallville this season.

The Occasional Superheroine takes the Wizard interview and translates it for everyone:

“This version of Kara is based on the new relaunched character—the new Supergirl, who appeared in Superman/Batman and in her new series.”

Translation: The producers were given a stack of the “bad girl” Supergirl comics a year or so ago as “research” into what DC was currently doing with her.

The Occasional Superheroine also makes note of an interesting bit of stunt casting.

(Personally I’m really embarrassed that it took me so long to figure out what “Supergirl’s Aunt” meant.)

So what do you think?

Birds of Prey #109 has been something of a hot topic among blogs this week, especially thanks to a certain continuity error that has been keeping a lot of people talking.

First, we have Tony Bedard’s apology located here at Comic Book Resources.

Karen Healey points out a positive aspect to the whole scene:

But on the side of awesome, a DCU character, and Dinah, no less, acknowledges that Ollie was raped by Shado. And she used the specific word “rape” - not “forced him” or “didn’t ask him” - he was raped. Oh, Tony Bedard, I forgive you your glaring continuity error! You’ve fixed a persistent little misandrist/misogynist thorn in my side that went so long unacknowledged I thought no one would ever pull it out.

Starman Matt Morrison points out another odd element to the scene:

Am I the only one who sees a certain level of irony in Barbara Gordon and Dinah Lance - two women who were both, in the late 80s, physically assaulted in a manner which suggested rape - speculating on how a rape victim feels?

SallyP is amused by the Connor-Shado mistake but depressed about certain other events in the issue:

I am depressed that Knockout ends up being murdered by the guy who is going around picking off all of the New Gods. That is a plot that REALLY didn’t need to be examined. Why the desperate need to kill off a bunch of perfectly good Jack Kirby characters? They weren’t hurting anyone. Well, maybe Darkseid was, but that’s his job for heaven’s sake!

So what do you think?

Alan Moore’s Killing Joke has become quite the topic around comic book bloggers/livejournalists lately.

Occasional Superheroine got the ball rolling when she discusses her general disinterest in the portrayal of women in comics.

But it’s not a book written for me. Not for *me.* It doesn’t take the perspective of a woman into account. It doesn’t take into account that some women might be so very disgusted with the book & what happens to Barbara Gordon in it.

Laura Hudson counters with her own perspective:

OK, listen: As a woman and as an adult, I can deal with fictional characters performing reprehensible acts towards women—or towards any human being—that turn my stomach. When they’re used not gratuitously but for a purpose, as I believe they were in The Killing Joke, that’s exactly what they’re supposed to do. That’s because the characters, their actions—they aren’t there to make me feel good. They’re there to tell me a story, to show me something, and it might be beautiful or it might be ugly but either way I get on board and I take the ride.

TonPo thinks the conflict is pointless:

Ms. Superheroine was disgusted by The Killing Joke. Not disgusted but inspired like Ms. Hudson, or myself at age 13. In my opinion, that is reason enough for someone to dislike a particular work of art, regardless of whether I share that reaction or not.

Kate Willært/Digital_Eraser is torn:

I think it’s pretty obvious that his reason at the time for asking to be able to cripple Batgirl was because he wanted to write a story that would have long-term ramifications — something fairly rare in the DC universe — as well as to shock and disgust the reader. The problem being that, nowadays, it disgusts for the wrong reasons — because it was one of the earliest instances in comics of violence against women used to get a reaction out of a male character (the whole theme of the putrid Identity Crisis), a cliche that today is called Women In Refrigerator Syndrome. I’m kind of curious what Moore’s reaction would be if asked how he felt about inspiring this tired cliche…I wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up just one more reason he dislikes the story himself.

So what do you think?

Hi everyone!  “Point/Counterpoint” has undergone a bit of a makeover, including a name change! You’re now looking at “Variations on a Theme.”

It’s not a very clever title, I admit, but it’s not like “Point/Counterpoint in the Blogosphere” was particularly high art, either.

You’ll notice some differences in the approach, I’m sure. But one thing definitely remains the same: I’m always interested in hearing your opinions.

This week’s theme is the upcoming Jenna Jameson project “Shadow Hunter”, which has prompted a lot of fan reaction.

For example, Designated Sidekick is torn:

Yet, at the same time, I want to highlight the fact that Virgin comics takes pains to explain this isn’t a comic with nudity.

Sure, the odds of it being a comic that’s, well, a comic with the usual level of gratuity that’s been pushed in the four colour book market are pretty good. But what interests me is the prospect of a comic produced by Virgin Comics, written by Jenna Jameson, and produced with less gratuitous female flesh per page than mainstream DC / Marvel.

(more…)