The Gates Ombudsman: April 8, 2008.

Ombudsman,-header

Yeah, I know I just made two other posts. But this one is going to be a catch all for all the other, smaller new items I want to rant about. It could be a long one. And all over the place.

ITEM!!! I will be attending the New York Comic Con: I know, I know. I have been critical of the NYCC in the past. But it is practically in my back yard and it is quickly becoming a place where my comic loving friends from NEPA and I can meet up.

I will only be going on Friday, however, for those of you who will accept that as a protest. A wedding and Kids in the Hall tickets interfere with me making a weekend out of it.

They are making changes to some of the issues I had with the convention. Not necessarily the changes I think they should make, but at least they are addressing the problems. When I got my ticket, the letter, instead of saying I could proceed directly to the show floor like last year's did, at least alerts me that there will be a line. Why there needs to be a line is beyond me, but at least now I know. Not that knowing does me any good, because I can't get there early, like they recommend, because I have class that day. Of course, if I had a VIP badge, which costs $400, I could get directly in. This is quite a bit more expensive than Wizard's baseline VIP package, and you get far less swag for it.

They also addressed the issue of not everybody getting a chance at an autograph with their special guests (last year, all the ticket were handed out a good 8 hours ahead of schedule due to demand). Their solution? Charge for it! $200 for Mike Mignola and Grant Morrison, $350 for a VIP party with Stan Lee, $500 for a party with Neil Gaiman. The proceeds for the last one go to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, a worthy cause, but the rest I guess the money goes to NYCC. I guess there could be a better way, but at least this give the people who want Grant Morrison's autograph but can't camp out overnight a chance at meeting him.

ITEM! Bill Richardson creates divisive act, calls for unity: I was going to give this one it's own post, but decided against it. I will say this: if you are a man who kept his name in the political spotlight through mentioning his friendship with the Clintons--even going so far as to speak to Anderson Cooper for 10 minutes about watching the Super Bowl with Bill Clinton--then you go and give your Superdelegates to his wife's opponent, you, sir, are a hypocrite and are in no position to ask for unity. And the fact you gave them to Obama after your state voted for Clinton is even worse. Worse yet is the fact that you stated that the Governors should give their Superdelegates to whoever their states votes for makes you the king of all hypocrites. Sure, he might have been just following his own beliefs, but lets just see if he lands a place on Obama's ticket somewhere.

ITEM!! Firefly might be coming out with a special edition of the complete TV series: If I thought for a second that buying this might get another season or movie out of the cast and crew, I'd buy it. But it reeks of the powers that be trying to wring a little more dough out of their fevorent fan base. I mean, really. Will there be enough new stuff on this edition that I have to buy it? If so, why not put it on the first edition in the first place. It's not like you seriously thought it would be this popular at the time, was it?

ITEM!!! Comic Book Resources updates it's look: I don't like it. The old way might not have been fancy, but at least you knew that the left side had news, the right had columns, and the new ones were at the top.

ITEM!! Comics Should Be Good starts its 100 Greatest Creative Team Runs countdown!: The idea is to list the Top 100 creative teams or creators who worked on a book for an extended period of time. Clicking above will take you to 100 to 91, clicking here will take you to 90 to 86.

ITEM!!! Entertainment Weekly runs down the 20 Worst Comic Book Movies: Their definition of "comic book" is a bit stretched. I'm not certain, but I don't believe Brenda Starr ever was a comic book. But, regardless, it is fodder for conversations at your local comic shop.  

ITEM!!! Kids on the Block to reunite: I'm with Joel McHale. I doubt the apocalypse is ever going to arrive. I mean, if this isn't a sign, then nothing is.

ITEM!! Set pictures from The Spirit released: You know, the more I see of this movie, the less I want to see.

ITEM!!! Uwe Boll will stop making movies if they gets 1,000,000 signatures on a petition asking him to stop: Finally! A cause everybody can get behind!

ITEM!!! Fraction and Brubaker off of Iron Fist, Johns and Katz off of Booster Gold, Ellis off of Thunderbolts: My reactions, in order:1) Noooooooooooooooo!!!!! (Swierczynski is, really, no replacement), 2) Noooooooooo!!! (If DC really wanted to give fans a treat, they'd have Jurgens take over the writing as well. 3) Wait a minute? Marvel is still publishing Thunderbolts? (No, seriously, are they still publishing Thunderbolts?)

ITEM!!!: Marvel fan is a contestant on Deal or No Deal: Spoiler alert: The guy opens a million on the first case. The banker reveals himself to be Mephisto and offers to put the million back in play if the guy gives up his marriage.

ITEM!!! New Guiding Lines columns published: There's a link to all of them.

ITEM!!! Also, my article on the Geppi Entertainment Museum is posted: Click above for the link to that.

The Gates Ombudsman: 2/19/08

• 

  Ombudsman,-header

• A New Guiding Line Column is up: This week, I cover Spirit #14, Cable and Deadpool #50, Superman/Batman #46, Zorro #1, Perhapanauts Annual #1, Jenna Jameson's Shadow Hunter #1, The Umbrella Academy: Apocalypse Suite #6, Immortal Iron Fist: Orson Randall and the Green Mist of Death, Loaded Bible 3: Communion, and Aspen Showcase: Grace #1.
• Lindsay Lohan appears nude in New York magazine: Yeah, just before all you horndogs click that link, just remember that just a few short years ago she looked like this:
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Lindsay_lohan
• Gambit cast in Wolverine movie: Because, you know, Marvel really really wants to put him in a movie, Who cares if he really doesn't fit. And Liev Schreiber is playing Sabretooth? Really?
• New Guardians of the Galaxy series could be good: But it's not really the Guardians of the Galaxy. I hope you know that.
• Brave and the Bold to be DC's next cartoon: YES!!!!
• MENSA chairman picks the 10 smartest shows of all time: I think Mad About You is only on the list just so angry people will blog about it. I mean, Star Trek was way smarter than Mad About You.
• USA Today covers the Red Hulk: And the Red Hulk is news, why?
• New York magazine advises people to send hair to ABC in order to save "Cavemen": This and the Lindsay Lohan thing means that New York Magazine must have suffered a greivous head injury. Did they move April Fool's to February?

 

The Gates Ombudsman, Wednesday, February 6th, 2008: The catching up edition.

 

Ombudsman,-header

Back at my old Friendster blog, I used to do a semi-regular news review on a quasi-daily basis called The Gates Ombudsman. Since it has been a while since I've blogged, I decided to bring back the format to catch up on things I've missed. But now, we have a snazzy, yet amateurish header for it. Yay!

• Where have I been?: College is a drag on my time. Between classes, homework and reading assignments, I barely have time to write what I am supposed to write, let alone blog.
• Pop Candy starts "A Crash Course in Comics":  Whitney Matheson is a writer for USA Today and a pop culture maven. Think a female version of me, only cuter. And more alternative. Anyway, she has decided to treat her readers the a crash comics course. This first of the four part weekly course hit today, and she gives us 25 essential graphic novels. Can't really argue with the list, although it favors the shoe-gazing, indie books a bit much, but a lot of the agreed essential books are their.
• Another of my Guiding Line colums have been published: Usually, I post this in a separate post, but tonight I am trying to be economical. This week, I cover Scud, the Disposable Assassin #21, Uncanny X-Men #495, Halloween: Nightdance #1, Abe Sapien: The Drowning #1, ClanDestine #1, Midnighter #16 and Marvel Illustrated: Moby Dick #1. Check it out.
• Heath Ledger died of an accidental overdose: He died of a fatal cocktail of a bunch of prescription meds. I wonder if People Magazine is going to a cover story apologizing for the cover story in their February 4th edition in which they make a point to include quotes from "friends" of Heath Ledger saying that he was a rampant partier and depressed over his breakup with Michele Williams. Because that article implied that Ledger was either A) A reckless druggie or B) Suicidal. Now that both those are ruled out, People Magazine should do the right thing and set the record straight. They won't but they should.
• Super Tuesday does not settle the election: I don't know if this is because we have so many good candidates or because all the candidates are kinda, eh? For the record, I voted for Hillary. Heath care is very important to me, and I believe she is stronger on that issue. I do appreciate that parking was on a preimium at the polling place. I am also glad to be living in New York instead of Pennsylvania. Because, usually by the time the primaries reached PA, the race was over.
• Elisabeth Hasselbeck has a "baby blog": The term "gag me with a spoon" is so outdated, but it really sums up what I'm feeling about this perfectly.
• Shaquille O'Neal is traded to the Phoenix Suns: In related news, Shaquille O'Neal is still playing basketball, apparently.
• My second favorite team wins the Super Bowl: I have two favorite NFL football teams. This causes me to be teased mercilessly by my friends. But I came into loving the Pittsburgh Steelers on my own, and love the New York Giants because they were my father's favorite team. It was a bonding experience for us both. I rooted for the Giants with him, and he would root for the Steelers with me. Now that he's passed away, 10 years gone now, I still root for the Giants. Don't get me wrong, there is a hierarchy, Steelers are first, Giants are second. But I am happy that my two favorite teams have won the SuperBowl within three years. And Giants had to beat the Perfect Patriots and the hated Cowboys to do so.
• However, the Super Bowl commercials were lackluster: Yeah, the ads, which some years are the best part of the game, were kind of blah. Especially disappointing were the Bud Light ads. Usually they are solid comedy. Instead they were kind of lame. My favorite had to be the soda commercials. The "Wkae Up" ad was made with Chris Kattan's appearance at the end, who doesn't love to see Justin Timberlake's crotch rammed into a post, and I love that Charlie Brown wins the Coke bottle in the end.
• The Writer's Strike might be over: Yee haw! I just hope the writers didn't give up too much.
• The early release of the 3rd season of SNL depresses me:  You know, when one and two came out in December, I got them immediately after for Christmas. Now number 3 will be released in April? I'm sure another one will be coming in December. Getting one $60 box set for X-Mas was hard enough. Getting two is impossible.

I rant about the Wonder Woman Playboy cover.

Playboy-February-2008

It took me a while to get around to this But the issue is still on the stands so I guess this rant is still timely. Here are some points I have about it.

• At least it gave the fanboys a controversy to take their minds off of One More Day.
• As for the risque-ness of the cover, I think the Demi Moore bodypaint cover from Vanity Fair back in 1992 is far racier. Yes, the paint is all over her body, but she is facing the reader. It's much dirtier. In my opinion anyway.
• As for the will DC sue argument, well, the painted on costume is not exactly the Wonder Woman costume. But they do say that the model is supposed to be Wonder Woman. I'd think if they were going to sue, the process would have been started already.
• If there is any feminist who reads comics that is up in arms about this, they are starting at the wrong place. Perhaps if WW didn't wear hot pants in the first place, Playboy wouldn't put her on the cover. There is plenty of sexism in comics themselves. Clean that up before you start tackling this.
• I think Valerie makes a pretty good point.  
• When it comes down to it, which is more damaging to the character, its readers and female comic fans in general: this cover, or the recent "Holy Hot Flash, Batman" Newsweek article? I vote for the latter. Playboy has never been a bastion of political correctness. Certainly you don't expect them to go out of their way caring about what women think. Newsweek is a national news magazine. It is supposed to be serious, intelligent and open to all readers. Again, I agree with Valerie that the article was more detrimental than helpful to the cause of women in comics. From the article title to the emphasizing the sexyness of the character to not acknowledging that female comic creators are not just a recent thing, the article diminishes the role of women in comics.  

Entertainment Weekly ticks me off...Again!

EW 081007

Yes, I know how this one-sided war with EW makes me look. It makes me look like a petulant child, stamping my feet and holding my breath, screaming over and over "I am not a geek!"

I really should let this go. Basically, EW bringing out the word "geek" every time it covers comic books or the San Diego Comic-Con is really minor. Inconsequential, really.

But the fact that they do it over and over again really irks me. I get the feeling that they are doing it on purpose just to piss me off.

The August 10th issue is another example. The issue features a four page article on the convention, advertised with a colorful blurb on the cover.

This should make me happy. A major weekly mainstream magazine devoting that much space to Comic-Con means that it and comics in general have become more legitimate. (And also is in line with my thoughts that next year, Comic-Con will grace EW's cover).

But EW seems to have a distainful look on comics, their readers and the fact that they are forced to cover things like Comic-Con. This might just seem like crazy talk. But this issue gives me evidence to back this up. All involving, you guessed it, the word geek.

The first issuance of the word geek comes in the opening tagline. "Join EW on Four Days of Geek-tastic Gorging as Hollywood's Heavyweights Decend on San Diego to Court Their Fanboy Fan Base". Yes, besides the excessive use of alliteration, one of my least favorite literary techniques, the bastardize "geek" to become an adjective. Groan.

But the worse case of this comes on the opposite page. Here is the pull quote as it appears in EW:

 

EW snyder pull quote

Wait a minute? Did Zack Snyder just call me a geek? EW sure does make it look like he did! But here is the actuall quote, taken from the text immediately to the left of the big, red lettered, pull quote (I circled it to help you out):

 

EW actual Snyder quote

Notice a difference? A word missing perhaps? The "looking for the good in all people" Bill is trying to convince the pessimistic Bill that "So-called" was just left out as a composing issue. A way to make the pull quote line up on the page better. The pessimistic Bill thinks they had to do it on purpose. Removing one phrase changes the whole meaning of the text. Instead of it being "You may call them losers, but they wield power in the entertainment industry", it became "These Losers? They wield power in the entertainment industry. Can you believe that? Crazy!"

At the very least, it borders on shoddy journalism. Snyder didn't say what it seems he said in the pull quote. It is a textbook case of what he said being taken out of context and spun. All by having one phrase plucked out.

Of course, it doesn't stop there. Anytime you see a regular fan, they are wearing a costume. Okay, that's not true. The guy wearing the goofy Ghost Rider costume has about 50 normal looking fans behind him. I guess EW thought that the costume was so lame that it would counter act the visual evidence that all comic fans are not costume wearing weirdos.

Entertainment Weekly ticks me off...Again!

EW 081007

Yes, I know how this one-sided war with EW makes me look. It makes me look like a petulant child, stamping my feet and holding my breath, screaming over and over "I am not a geek!"

I really should let this go. Basically, EW bringing out the word "geek" every time it covers comic books or the San Diego Comic-Con is really minor. Inconsequential, really.

But the fact that they do it over and over again really irks me. I get the feeling that they are doing it on purpose just to piss me off.

The August 10th issue is another example. The issue features a four page article on the convention, advertised with a colorful blurb on the cover.

This should make me happy. A major weekly mainstream magazine devoting that much space to Comic-Con means that it and comics in general have become more legitimate. (And also is in line with my thoughts that next year, Comic-Con will grace EW's cover).

But EW seems to have a distainful look on comics, their readers and the fact that they are forced to cover things like Comic-Con. This might just seem like crazy talk. But this issue gives me evidence to back this up. All involving, you guessed it, the word geek.

The first issuance of the word geek comes in the opening tagline. "Join EW on Four Days of Geek-tastic Gorging as Hollywood's Heavyweights Decend on San Diego to Court Their Fanboy Fan Base". Yes, besides the excessive use of alliteration, one of my least favorite literary techniques, the bastardize "geek" to become an adjective. Groan.

But the worse case of this comes on the opposite page. Here is the pull quote as it appears in EW:

 

EW snyder pull quote

Wait a minute? Did Zack Snyder just call me a geek? EW sure does make it look like he did! But here is the actuall quote, taken from the text immediately to the left of the big, red lettered, pull quote (I circled it to help you out):

 

EW actual Snyder quote

Notice a difference? A word missing perhaps? The "looking for the good in all people" Bill is trying to convince the pessimistic Bill that "So-called" was just left out as a composing issue. A way to make the pull quote line up on the page better. The pessimistic Bill thinks they had to do it on purpose. Removing one phrase changes the whole meaning of the text. Instead of it being "You may call them losers, but they wield power in the entertainment industry", it became "These Losers? They wield power in the entertainment industry. Can you believe that? Crazy!"

At the very least, it borders on shoddy journalism. Snyder didn't say what it seems he said in the pull quote. It is a textbook case of what he said being taken out of context and spun. All by having one phrase plucked out.

Of course, it doesn't stop there. Anytime you see a regular fan, they are wearing a costume. Okay, that's not true. The guy wearing the goofy Ghost Rider costume has about 50 normal looking fans behind him. I guess EW thought that the costume was so lame that it would counter act the visual evidence that all comic fans are not costume wearing weirdos.

SDCC'07: Mark Verheiden agrees with me.

This is the first in a line of commentary about this years San Diego Comic Con. I'll be writing snarky comments about all the news releases coming out of the con.

This quote comes from the DC: Crossing Over panel. Mark Verheiden was speaking on a panel about people from other medium writing for comics:

"Verheiden did have one gripe, though. "It still irritates me when they refer to this as the nerd con," he said. "This is the mainstream con. I hope Entertainment Weekly never uses that phrase ...""

You know my feelings on this if you read this post.

Good going Mark!

Entertainment Weekly ticks me off...

Ew simpsons cover

The latest issue of Entertainment Weekly really ticked me off. No, not because it had four variant covers. I have a subscription, so the variant cover thing didn't really affect me that much.

No, it's the coverage of the forthcoming San Diego Comic-Con that did it.

It started with the title "Geek Revival". EW has been covering Comic-Con for several years now and has alway found a way to work the word "geek" into its articles somewhere.

Geek is a word, like certain other epithets, that I could refer to myself as one and it would be fine, I could refer to my like minded friends as such and it would be okay, but if the uninitiated says it, it is insulting and offensive.

The repeated use of the word by EW when it covers Comic-Con and other comic related news items strikes me that they think covering Comic-Con is beneath them. That they would wish anything but to associated with those freaky, costume wearing weirdos who like comics, anime and sci-fi.

But then, I rethought. Maybe I was being too harsh. EW does give comics a lot of page space. As a matter of fact, the Books section in this very issue leds off with a full page review of comic writer Warren Ellis' new novel.

But then, I read the first paragraph:

"Cannes has Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the Croisette. Sundance has Robert Redford on the slopes. And Comic-Con? It's got Klingons in Renaissance costumes running around downtown San Diego."

 This is especially annoying when the list, later in the article, that Clive Owen, Jessica Alba, Edward Norton and Judd Apatow will be there. Sure, those guys aren't Bradgelina-type famous or as legendary as Redford, but they are nothing to sneeze at either. Yes, there will be Klingons and Stormtroopers. But there are some freaky people at Cannes too. Usually, they are brought over by Troma or Porn companies, but still. The point EW was trying to make is that Cannes and Sundance are classy and cool, Comic-Con is dorky and silly.

Let's talk about the title of the print article, by looking up the meaning of the word "revival" as it appears on Encarta.

re·viv·al [ ri vv'l ] (plural re·viv·als)

noun

Definition:

1. renewal of interest: a renewal of interest in something that results in its becoming popular once more

2. new production: a new production of a play or opera that has not been performed recently

3. process of reviving somebody: the process of bringing somebody back to life, consciousness, or full strength

4. recovery: the recovering of life, consciousness, or full strength

5. religion renewed religious interest: a new interest in religion, or the reawakening of such interest

6. christianity evangelical Christian meeting: a meeting or a series of meetings of evangelical Christians intended to awaken religious fervor in those who attend

7. law reestablishing of legal validity: the renewal of the validity of a contract or the effect of a judicial decision

Now, I don't know which definition EW is working under. Some might say number 6, which doesn't really apply but kinda sorta fits. But the tagline to the print article leads me to believe that it means definition number one:

"EW scopes out Comic-Con, the convention that's suddenly bringing Hollywood to its knees."

Suddenly? Suddenly? You've been covering the convention in one form or another for at least 5 years? What is the statute of limitations on the word "suddenly"? It's got to be under five years.

Pop culture has been taken over by the "geeks" for years and years. They haven't gone away and come back. And it doesn't need to awaken any sort of fervor.  They have been responsible for the movie success of Kevin Smith and Judd Apatow, the popularity of sci-fi and superhero fare in the movies and TV and made Harry Potter a worldwide phenomenon.

Don't believe me? Look at this year's spate of movie releases. You have Transformers for the toy "geeks", Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider, 300, and Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer for comic "geeks", Shrek the Third and Ratatouille for the Animation "geeks" and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix for the Harry Potter "geeks". And so on and so on. This year could be the biggest grossing year in the history of movies, thanks mainly to "geek" films.

But EW is trying to make it seem like it just happened and it is just a temporary stage. The latter might be true, but the previous isn't.

They quote Brad Meltzer, who shall now be referred to as the self-hating geek, to put a negative spin on it:

''It's the golden age of geekdom,'' says frequent Comic-Con conventioneer Brad Meltzer, a novelist and comics writer. ''Hollywood has figured out the location of the supergeek clubhouse. They've jimmied the locks, moved in, and spruced the place up. And we're sort of sadly and pathetically okay with it, because they bring lots of hot actresses and nice film clips.''

On the surface, that seems to be some strained wit and fairly innocuous. But what is Meltzer really saying? He's saying that Hollywood is the dominant form of art and comic fans are submissive and at the whim of Hollywood bigwigs. When, really, it's closer to the other way around. Hollywood is coming to Comic-Con because of the power genre fans have to make or break a movie. Therefore, Hollywood is coming to the "supergeek clubhouse" humbly and submissively, presenting offerings that they hope the genre fans will like and enjoy and tell their friends about.

While EW seems clueless to this, Hollywood producers and directors are not:

"''We premiered a special trailer we had prepared,'' says director Zack Snyder. ''The crowd demanded that we reshow it — three times. After Comic-Con, 300 changed its place in the collective consciousness and in geekdom in general.'' Says Murphy, ''You go to Comic-Con, tell a roomful of fans what your movie is going to be, and you end up not only reaching them but 500 Internet reporters as well.'' Adds a studio exec, ''I'd much rather spend money on Comic-Con than on a splashy premiere the day before my movie opens.''"

EW seems to think that San Diego Comic-Con is a small fringe of geeks and is amazed that Hollywood will kowtow to it. But Comic-Con is a small microcasm representing a real, large and valid sub-culture. One that EW will one day be forced to respect. After all, their coverage has grown from a small blurb to a one page article to two pages leading off the "News and Notes" section. In a few years, the Comic-Con will probably be a cover story in a few years. But EW will probably still call us geeks.  

To read the article online, click here. 

Radar Magazine ticks me off

Radar%20and%20Lilo%5D-thumb

I mentioned in an earlier post that I once filled out a survey online and as a reward I got a bunch of free subscriptions. One of the subscriptions I got was to Radar Magazine. It was supposed to be a "take no prisoners" look at politics and entertainment. I had picked up the first issue at the newsstand and sort of liked it but felt there was something off about it. The most recent issue showed me what it was--not letting facts get in the way of writing inflammatory stories.

I don't know if you can read the cover to the left. If you could, and you know me, you could probably guess what blurb caught my eye. In case you couldn't read it, here's the blurb that caught my ire: "Sony's Spider Bite, The Sequel That Ate $500,000,000!".

So, right there, right on the cover, Radar is saying that Spider-Man 3 cost half a billion dollars to make.

Now, all the published reports I've seen on various publications and websites state that the production budget was $258 million. Not chump change at all, but almost half of what Radar is claiming. Where's the difference coming from?

First of all, Radar is claiming that the actual production budget was $350 million. The other $150 million of their total comes from "marketing and promotion". People have been adding "marketing and promotion" to the budgets of films for ages and I don't think it's fair. Is there a movie out there that is not marketed or promoted? With a studio like Sony, they probably had a whole marketing and promotions department which handles those tasks for all of it's movies. Sure, some movies might have more money devoted to advertising than others, but that money is probably taken from a separate budget.

And in Spidey 3's case, most of the promotion and marketing comes from companies that paid to license the character--Wal-Mart ("Spidey's back and he's at Wal-Mart), Burger King and Activison for their Spider-Man 3 video game. These corporations aren't just providing free advertising to Sony, they are actually paying to essentially market and promote the film.  

So that leaves us with a budget of $350 million, $100 million more than what the studio claims. Now, where does Radar come up with this amount? Top secret Sony ledger sheets? No! Through the claims of "industry insiders".

Now, you'd think that Radar would try to back these numbers up. Maybe interview various special effects houses and see how much they would charge and stuff like that. No, again. They again use rumor and conjecture to prove their point. They mentioned a set which cost "at least a couple of million dollars to construct" that Sam Raimi was unable to finish shooting the scene that took place there before he had to shoot in NYC. The set, according to Radar was "razed" and had to be rebuilt. This leads one to believe that a studio and a director, knowing that they had to use the set again in the future, tore down the old set and had to have a new one built from scratch. Hmmm, I don't think so. Sure, it might have had to been taken down, but it was most likely reconstructed instead of totally rebulilt.

The most laughable claim by Radar for their budget is that the movie was partially shot in New York City. Granted, NYC is one of the most expensive places to shoot a movie. I'll give them that. However, EVERY SPIDER-MAN MOVIE WAS SHOT IN NYC!!! Is Radar trying to say that the shot MORE scenes in NYC for this movie than the last two? Maybe they shot in ritzier neighborhoods? Because just the fact the movie was shot in NYC was not enough reason for Radar's inflated claims.

They also say that there were a lot of scenes shot for the movie that did not make it into the final film. Obviously the writer of the article has never seen any "Special Edition" DVD. Every one of those, heck every DVD, has a bunch of "deleted scenes" on them. This is nothing new.

Another reason Radar gives is that the film went over schedule. In addition to the expense that causes, it also means that the studio had to pay extra for "rush work from effect houses" who were also working on a whole bunch of other CGI heavy summer movies.

These are all pretty flimsy reasons for the $100 million discrepancy. Especially when most of the scenarios they cite are pretty much common in Hollywood. They just don't convince me of their point, which, if they are going to mention it on their cover, they really should have.

Even in the article, they admit that the movie, even with their bloated production cost will still end up making money. And, on this point at least, they are right. The worldwide gross of the movie is $621 million dollars--after only two weeks! So, even if it cost $500 milion, the movie made more in profit than some other movies make in their entire theatrical run. Kinda defeats the purpose of an article the evils of an inflated Hollywood budget, doesn't it?  

Things that annoy me, Vol 1: When companies try to get me to pay twice for something.

Hi,

Did I lose you guys with the two consecutive weeks of American Idol posts? I promise that won't happen again. Let me try to get you back with ranting about something that irks me.

I don't like it when people try to get me to pay twice for the same thing. Here are some examples:

Deluxe CD's: Beyonce has just released a "Deluxe" version of her B'Day CD which i believe features videos and a new duet with Shakira. Now, if you've been holding off on buying the CD, this is good for you. However, if you are a rabid Beyonce fan, you probably already bought the CD and now you you have to buy it again just to get this song. Because you will have to have that song.

So far, I think this is only the second time this has happened (I believe Usher did it a year or two back) but it's got to stop. But it's not as bad as when...

Bands put out more than one "Greatest Hits" CD: Now, I'm not talking about Elton John, Red Hot Chili Peppers or Billy Joel. If your career is vast enough that you can fill up two or more Greatest Hits collections with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SONGS ON EACH ONE, then more power to you.

But take,for instance, Van Halen. In 1996 they came out with "The Best of Van Halen, Volume 1". Only 17 songs. No Janie's Crying, no Hot for Teacher. But, at the time, I thought that might be coming in a volume 2. It wasn't. Instead, in 2004, we get a two disc set that includes all of the hits from the first disc (minus the originals they did with David Lee Roth for that compilation) plus all the other songs that should have been included the first time around. So, again, fans who bought the first Greatest Hits had to but this double disc to get all the songs they missed.

And VH isn't the only one. Rick Springfield has about 5 greatest hits CD's. Bruce Springsteen has a Greatest hits and a three disc "Essential" set, even my beloved R.E.M. got the act, with a compilation last year that covered a lot of the same ground that their 1987 album Eponymus. Each time this happens the new CD has one or two different songs to make rabid fans pick up the disc.

Special Deluxe Edition Anniversary DVD's: This is how it happens. They release the DVD of a movie. Then, a year later, a version with bells and whistles. Then, some time later, another edition with even more bells and whistles. Then several years later, they come out with an anniversary edition with even more bells and whistles. Why don't they put all the bells and whistles on the first DVD? Because then people wouldn't buy five copies of the same movie on DVD.

Magazines with "special collectors edition covers": Variant covers used to be just a problem with comic books. Now magazines (and sometimes books) feature them as well. I think they do this for two reasons. For people who have to collect every issue of the magazine and to fool the not-so-observant into buying the same magazine twice. It's not so bad when it's like the most recent Entertainment Weekly where they had the three stars of the Harry Potter films on the variant covers. If you told someone to pick up the EW with the Harry Potter star on it, you'd most likely get only one issue. However, the most recent Comics Buyers Guide has two covers, one with "300" on it, one with Spider-Man. Luckily, I get mine through subscription, so I know I got this month's issue. But that could fool people who buy it on the newsstand, say, if they bought the 300 one and several weeks later came in and bought the Spider-Man one thinking it was next months issue.

 

Why do companies do this? To make as much money as they can. Why am I so annoyed by this? Because  I am the sucker who falls for this over and over. I have both VH CD's, both R.E.M. CD's and three different versions of Reservoir Dogs on DVD. I can't help myself. I am a completeist.  

What does everyone else think?

Bill 

 

The strange case of Giant Magazine.

This blog entry is just me working something out that is bothering me in my mind. I make no promises about it being funny, intelligent or interesting. You are warned.

 

Giant v1

I started reading Giant Magazine with the first issue (the one you see on my left). As I have mentioned before, I love magazines. And if there is one that even remotely seems like it might have one tiny article in it that interests me, I'll pick it up.

I picked up this issue when I was still dating my wife. I bought it at Hudson News in the Port Authority Bus Station as a result of a desperate attempt to find reading material for the bus ride home. I had never heard of Giant before but that didn't surprise me. The Hudson News kiosks must have every magazine ever made in the entire world in them. Stopping by them for me is like being a kid in the candy store. And discovering an old magazine for the first time was not new to me.

Since the cover featured Jack Black, and actor who I like, and promised an article about Star Wars, a movie I love, and a pictorial of Christina Ricci, who I sure like to look at, I decided to pick this up.

Little did I know that I was picking up the very first issue of the title--ever.

As a magazine, I kind of liked it. It straddled the line when it came to men's magazines. It wasn't as highbrow or pretentious as Esquire and GQ could be, yet it wasn't as fratboy-ish as Maxim, Stuff and FHM sometimes are. It was kind of, "here are some fun articles, with a little cheesecake on the side".

 

Giant v2

After that, I decided to buy it when ever I came across it on the newsstands. I even bought the one with Owen Wilson on the cover, and I can't stand Owen Wilson. And I must say I was consistently entertained.

After three issues, the magazine changed it's format slightly. The cover became devoted to the hot actress du jour who had the pictorial in the magazine--Mischa Barton (Right), Jennifer Love Hewitt, Denise Richards, etc.

This troubled me a bit. I'm sure it changed it's cover format to compete more directly with Maxim. But, to me, it was a bad decison. It was almost like admitting defeat. "Hey, we have given up trying to strike the middle ground between Esquire and Maxim. We're now going to become Maxim's slightly more sophisticated younger brother."

 

Little that I know that I should have been happy it was just a slight change. The content stayed pretty much the same, only the cover content ( and logo, let's not forget about the logo) was majorly different.

It was during this incarnation that I started subscribing to Giant. I know, I know. I just said that the change troubled me. But, after I bought a pair of tickets for a show, I filled out a survey about Ticketmaster (or whoever I bought the tickets from). As a "gift" for doing the survey, they offered me a free years subscription to 4 magazines of my choosing (only $2 for handling!!!). Again, as a magazine junkie, this was like getting free (or rather, $2) crack. Giant was one of the magazines listed, so I decided to pick it up.

 

Giantmag v3

So, the sexy-actress-of-the-month cover spanned about 9 covers (with, to be fair, two covers with Zach Braff and Jon Heder on the cover), until the issue to the right arrived at my doorstep. Giant had become an "Urban" magazine (its descrpition, not mine).

Now, I am not a huge  fan of hip-hop or urban culture. Needles to say, I wouldn't buy this on the newsstand. So it was a shock to see this in my mailbox.  

I am of many minds about this change. I admire Giant's tenacity in its attempt to find a foothold in the market (although the urban market is possibly more crowded than the "men's magazine" market, so good luck.) But I am sad that it had to change. It was just finding its identity when it changed, and it was, at least in my opinion, a good read.

I wonder if any other subscribers felt the same way. It was just a drastic change. Were they like me and decide to let their subscription run out just to give the magazine a chance? Or did they just cancel outright? Did the powers that be at Giant take this into consideration when they made the change? Did they figure they'd pick up enough new readers to more than make up for the ones they lost? And were they correct in that assumption?

See, this is how weird I am. I devote this much thought to a magazine.

Bill  

I'm in a bit of a tussle over at Newsarama.

Mad Magazine is relevant again, at least at the Newsarama boards. Read more here.

Magazine Graveyard: Cracked and Premiere

Here's a secret about me that few people know--I am addicted to magazines. I can't really give you a reason why, but I do like them alot. I get about 15 delivered to my house by subscription and pick up a lot more at the newsstand. Yes, I realize that it is a sickness but since it is hurting no one, I'll let it be.

 

There are signs that magazines are a dying art form. Circulation is down and several magazines have closed up shop. Today, I'd like to talk about two of them, Cracked and Premiere.

Now when I talk about Cracked, I'm not talking about the Mad alternative that looked like this:

 

Cracked

That one left our plane of existence several years ago. Personally, I always liked Cracked better than Mad. It had John Severin doing the art on it (he did the cover on the left) and Severin is one of the true masters in comic style art. There. I've said. No way I can take it back now. 

 

No, the name Cracked was bought out by a new owner and a new magazine was relaunched last year. Gone was the aspiration to be like Mad magazine. It was replaced by a new mission statement: To be a National Lampoon-style comedy mag for the Maxim generation.

 

That mission statement alone explains why the magazine was not long for this world. Let me break it down for you:

1. The  Maxim generation and witty, National Lampoon satire don't really mix all that well.

2. Maxim has it's fair share of comedy, so the Maxim generation would go there for their humor.

3. The new Cracked just wasn't all that funny.

Crackedtomcover

First off, each of the three issues of this revamp featured photoshopped covers like the one on the right. Those of you who know me know how I feel about photoshopped covers.

 

Second, the humor wasn't witty at all. It was mean and in bad taste. The editors thought this was enough. After all, you can be mean and in bad taste and be funny. But the three are not mutually exclusive. In other words, just being mean and in bad taste does not make it funny.

 

I bought each of the three issues of the revamp and didn't laugh at all. And I have a cheap and easy sense of humor.

 

The best part of the magazine were the interviews and articles about the comedic process. They actually spoke with people who were funny, like Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and tried to get inside their brain. But it was trying to be a comedic magazine and not a magazine about comedy, so it didn't give that much attention to what it was best at.

 

While I don't mourn Cracked V.2's passing, I do have to say that Premiere's going under hit me kind of hard. It was one of my favorite magazines that I fell out of steady reading of. I picked up the recent issue with Tobey McGuire on it and said to myself "I should really subscribe to this magazine." Too late now.

 

 

 

Premiere 1099

I did have a subscription once. Back in the late 80's-early 90s. I really like they way they gave us a mix of behind the scenes Hollywood with your typical publicity machine writing. I guess I was in the minority.

 

If I think about it, I probably could trace my love of movie magazines back to my mother. She grew up in the era of Photoplay and all those magazines. Now, are there any movie magazines left?

 

So there you go. Two magazines--one long running, one short, leaving print form in the same week. Both will still continue in their online versions. Perhaps that's the wave of the future:no more print magazines, only online. I hope not. It's hard to curl up with a laptop to read before you go to sleep at night.

Bill