Comic Book Resources

I don’t know. I don’t buy much of what Marvel publishes these days, but I would consider picking up a Morrison/Jiminez New Mutants series. And with Morrison, there’s more of a chance he would confound the 80’s nostalgiasts rather than flatter them.

I think the point Alan Moore might have been trying to make is that he has always wanted League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to have a dsitinctly English sensibility, influenced by past works of English fiction and comics, without the marks of the American super-hero/fantasy genre of comics (a fact he has mentioned in the past). Though it’s hard to tell since I’m reading excerpted quotes, and I’m really not interested in picking up an issue of Wizard for the full interview. And it is Wizard, whose collective interest in the history and legacy of UK comic art may not be very high.

Hawkeye killing Black Widow was a whole lot of awesome… I’m just sayin

“I hardly ever see movies anymore, but I’ll bet freakin’ Transformers was better than 300.”
Believe me, it was.

I’d also say that if you enjoyed Chuck at all, you really should check out Reaper, because Reaper takes everything Chuck does, then does it far better and makes it 10 times less irritating in the process. (Then again, I absolutely hated every second of the Chuck pilot and never watched beyond that.) But seriously, Reaper’s an incredibly entertaining show with a great high concept and a likeable cast.

I definitely think Alan Moore is a bit full of himself. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen’s place in the annals of literary history is something like Best Fanfic Ever. And it *is* very, very good, but still, in *essence* it’s not much different from all those awful “What if the Enterprise fought the Death Star, Battlestar Galactica, and the Smurfs” things. It’s a very clever and well-written approach to a rather silly idea.

That last paragraph is the main reason I had to stop buying Wizard,awhile ago.

For the record, while 300 was far from the best movie of the year, it was better that Transformers.

Bumblebee peed on John Turturro. Worst scene in a movie I’ve seen in a long time.

I’d also say that if you enjoyed Chuck at all, you really should check out Reaper, because Reaper takes everything Chuck does, then does it far better and makes it 10 times less irritating in the process.

See, I’m going to go ahead and go with the total opposite tack here, because Chuck is, with the exception of the horrible Morgan character, almost always entertaining with good actors and a clever ongoing plot that still subdivides down neatly into individual adventure episodes.

Whereas Reaper has Ray Wise’s great performance as the Devil, and… did we mention Ray Wise?

Thank you so much, for reading Wizard so that I don’t have to do so myself. Seriously, every year I see a copy and get that itch do buy it, but it turns out being a waste of money. Instead, I picked up a copy of Garth’s The Zombie from Marvel MAX and saved the rest.

300 and Transformers are equally dumb. But Transformers has giant robots so I say it goes for the win.

Yeah Wildcats doesn’t seem that hard to write. But then again Morrison has been pretty much has had a lot on his plate considering he’s pretty much rewriting the entire DCU.

Not entirely sure what the point of this is, especially every year.

You know what you’re going to find. We know what you’re going to find. We know why Wizard caters to the big two and that fanbase. It is what it is. This doesn’t prove a whole lot.

It DOES probably make you feel better by the end (and probably a whole lot worse too). So I suppose there is that. More power to you there.

WIZARD is only as good as its writers. The good ones have all jumped ship. There are still some good people working there, but for how long? They are few and far between too…

I only saw five minutes of Transformers, but it was enough to let me know that it’s the worst movie of the year. 300 looks like goddamn Kubrick in comparison. We all know the best movie of the year, however, was Hot Fuzz.

I disagree with all of Wizard’s choices, but we knew I would anyway. Lost? Crap. Heroes? More crap. Smallville? Has sucked from day one. The best new show on TV right now is Pushing Daisies, people. C’mon, it’s brilliant. And the best not-new show is… oh… Doctor Who or something. Now that’s a proper nerd show.

Dr. Strange: The Oath was really good, but not the best mini of the year. And most of it came out in 2006, anyway. I buy a lot of mini’s, but I’m not sure who I’d give the prize to.

Greg,
I only disagree with your complaint about Jimenez. I see no problem with creators wanting to write/draw characters they loved growing up,(thats probably one reason they got into comics) especially if those properties actually sold and had a good premise. If those creators want to reinvent the franchise, update it and NOT just reiterate stories from the past (Jeph Loeb) then by all means go ahead. Morrison and Jimenez would probably do a good job, you yourself said that there are no bad characters just poor writers, and we all know that morrison/jimnenez books are great (Invisibles, and New X-Men).
Thats my two cents
-doron

I dunno…complaining about Wizard’s Big Two, only the already-hyped coverage bias is a bit like complaining that E! Online doesn’t pays more attention to Michael Bay and James Cameron than it does to Pedro Almodovar and Todd Solondz.

Bleeg. Me no write gud. The above should read: “E! Online pays more attention to…”

On the one hand, I absolutely agree with a once-annual trashing of a shitty magazine that does absolutely nothing positive for the comics industry. Just once a year, to get it out of your system.

But on the other hand, all I could think while reading this was, “Why’re you picking on the slow kid wearing the helmet? You know he’s not quite right!”

I forget, is the Wizard best-of poll picked by the readers? I remember them having some kind of horrible poll on their website a few months ago or so, but maybe that was for something related to Wizard World Chicago.

Matt D and Jeff: I’m just always curious what they think is “best.” It’s really hard for me to grasp a bunch of people sitting around and seriously thinking some of these things are the “best” of the year. It’s so far from what I think that it’s like they’re speaking another language.

I think what was supposed to be cool about Batman rejecting the ring was that it didn’t give him much of a choice. I’m not sure though, I didn’t actually read it.

Halo 3 best game? Oh that’s original.

And no mentioning of Fables in any of their categories just shows how ignorant they truly are.

But were you honestly surprised by any of these? Sure they say “best,” but they really mean “the things we think our readers want to see in this slot the most.” And that’s pretty much what it’s their job to do.

I grew up and Wizard didn’t. This issue sounds like exactly what the 14-year-old fanboy in me wants. Superheroes! Awesomeness! Babes! Goofy jokes! Don’t waste my time with that indie crap. Give me Hercules busting Thor’s skull open!

It is what it is.

And I think 300 is one of the best films of the year. It’s flaws come from its source material. If you didn’t see it at a theater, you missed an amazing movie-going experience.

Blah blah Marvel, blah blah Wizard…Oh, Reaper! Yeah, that’s one of my top 3 shows right now. Definitely check it out.

So the switch to “Men’s Pop Culture Magazine” means they talk about TV a bunch?

Huh.

I care even less about Wizard now.

I was watching Lost for a while and really liked it, though. I’m glad to hear it’s still on.

Nah. I was bored silly by 300 in the theater. Every frame of the movie was gorgeous, but that was it– and after 90 minutes of that, your eyes just glaze over from the constant barrage.

And Halo 3 was a pretty good game. I’ve played it to death by now.

So you basically hate comics?

“52 was STUPID!”
“Captain America sucks”

What DID you like?

Have to agree with Jeff Holland: “Why’re you picking on the slow kid wearing the helmet? You know he’s not quite right!”

That being said, I am a Wizard reader, with the attitude of someone rubbernecking at a car wreck: the magazine never fails to astound and amaze me with the slavish devotion they have to the Big Two.

Yet where else would I learn that Mark Millar owns the cat from Superman: The Movie? Got to admit I found it pretty hilarious, say what you want about Millar’s cynical and depraved mind.

What I’d like explained is Wizard’s obsession with cataloging gruesome deaths in comics. At least twice this year they had features about the awful things that have happened to people in mainstream comics. DO we really want to revisit what happened to Sue Dibny -AGAIN? Wasn’t it terrible enough the first time, when we saw how shameless DC editors had become?

If Wizard is the “#1 Men’s Pop Culture” magazine (what a godless banner that is), why does the writing seem squarely aimed at hydrocephalic children?

Thanks for your review: very refreshing!

I found 300 to be a highly stylized fight movie; a lot of action scenes without much plot. Still very entertaining and kind of “cool”.

Transformers made me reach for the fast-forward button. In the theater. Michael Bay has done the impossible and made the 1986 animated movie look like a work of genius.

Nice to see the best in the industry are committed to moving comics forward instead of wallowing in 1980s nostalgia!

Wait…you’re shocked that a guy who has spent his life mimicking George Perez shamelessly (and badly) is (gasp!) unoriginal!?!?!

How shocking. Personally, I never saw him as one of the best in the industry, so it’s no surprise to me there.

“If Wizard is the ‘#1 Men’s Pop Culture’ magazine…why does the writing seem squarely aimed at hydrocephalic children?”

Ever read Maxim? That’s why.

And Mike D’s right on in describing 300 as a stylized fight movie.

300 was possibly the most boring experience I’ve had in a movie theater all year. Maybe if I had a bottle of Jack and took a shot every time they did a completely unnecessary slow-motion or fast motion sequence it would have been moderately diverting. As it was, I just felt like I was watching a 90 minute cutscene from a videogame I never got to play.

I’ll take Reaper over Chuck. Reaper is funnier, and I like Sam’s best friend more than Morgan. Reaper has less “emotional” moments, and Ray Wise’s fun performance as the Devil.

I like Pushing Daisies, but the schmaltz overwhelms the cleverness sometimes. Chi McBride steals the show.

For everyone who’s taking shots at the “#1 Men’s Pop Culture Magazine” header, I should point out that it was on one previous issue but not, for example, this one (as you can see from the image at the top of the article). Fixating on that as a point of criticism comes off like criticizing DC for go-go checks or Marvel for their “Pop Art Production” logo.

I think a lot of the love for 300 is that even though it’s typical in the fact that it’s a modern stylized action movie, it’s rare in that it is a movie with alpha males. Everything in movies now is all beta males and manchildren, so the audiences have been starved for alpha males. Look at the modern action heroes: Keanu Reeves in Matrix, Matt Damon in Bourne, Brandon Routh AKA Jason Schwarzmann with muscles in Superman Returns, and the slacker geek rejects from a Kevin Smith movie that we see headlining Chuck and Reaper, two of the worst beta male offenders in recent history. I think 300 was just appealing because it had men that made you aspire to be more manly rather than an action hero that looked like he wrote for the Onion AV club or Rolling Stone.

Addendum: Think about it, the situation is so bad that Hollywood is digging up action hero relics from the 80s to fill the alpha male void like Bruce Willis in Die Hard 4 and Stallone in ROcky Balboa and John Rambo. And the movies are not only generating enthusiasm but making good money. Think about that. 300 is actually not a typical movie but a rare gem, simply for the nature of its protaganists (mainly that they don’t look like they work as video store clerks)

I’ll be you’ve really got something against Seth Rogan, don’t you, T?

Doug - the designation “#1 Men’s Pop Culture Magazine” is on the alternate cover of this month’s Wizard, featuring Gerard Butler. I don’t know if they’re going to stick with it or use it on alternate covers or what.

“They have a short interview with the God of All Comics…”

“God of All Comics?” I thought Osamu Tezuka died in the 80’s.

Seriously though, I liked Wizard back in the mid-90’s; back when they were sarcastic and actually tried to put a focus on lesser-known books. Their Top 10 lists were pretty funny too. ^_^

Now it’s like seeing Ozzy Osbourne turned into a reality-TV star: funny yet somehow pathetic.

At least 300 fulfilled its premise.

For a movie about giant robots fighting each other, Transfromers didn’t have many scenes of giant robots fighting each other.

I’ll be you’ve really got something against Seth Rogan, don’t you, T?

Honestly, I’m just sick of the whole slacker-geek aesthetic or slackercore or whatever they’re calling it these days. Everything is so catered to the effete 18-34 year old big city male gadget-loving geek that it’s gotten incredible dull. The whole genre peaked with either Napoleon Dynamite or Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back. And to have it infiltrate action genre is even more annoying, which is why I have no interest in Chuck or Reaper. But I do think that is why 300 really resonated with so many people, because the men in it weren’t dumb slobs or slacker geeks with untucked shirts or displaced sitcom characters or fighting metrosexuals. They were old-school male archetypes.

Think about it, the situation is so bad that Hollywood is digging up action hero relics from the 80s to fill the alpha male void like Bruce Willis in Die Hard 4 and Stallone in ROcky Balboa and John Rambo. And the movies are not only generating enthusiasm but making good money.

John Rambo hasn’t made any money yet though, has it?

(and from what i’ve seen, the trailer has generated more chuckles than enthusiasm)

i don’t know whether it’s fair to call Bruce Willis an “action hero relic” either, because although the Die Hard series had been on hiatus for a while, Bruce has remained around, still being Bruce Willis.

While I agree with your sentiments about Wizard, you and I must have two very different tastes for comics. The Sinestro Corps has completely blown me away so far, and Booster Gold is probably my second favorite monthly title right now, behind Captain America. But to each their own I guess.

John Rambo hasn’t made any money yet though, has it?

(and from what i’ve seen, the trailer has generated more chuckles than enthusiasm)

i don’t know whether it’s fair to call Bruce Willis an “action hero relic” either, because although the Die Hard series had been on hiatus for a while, Bruce has remained around, still being Bruce Willis.

But the point is, the fact that they are even being seriously entertained as action hero headlines at their ages in big screen productions is a sign of how bad it is for alpha male action heroes. There simply aren’t any new actors being produced in that mold. All of the younger actors (as in 40s and younger) who could reasonably pull it off tend to be British like Jason Statham, Clive Owen, the guy who played Juggernaut and Daniel Craig. Even NY Times did an article about this last year. Hollywood has overdosed on one demographic: the 18-34 year old hip, irony loving, pop culture reference devouring, big city dwelling, Starbucks swilling, effete college student/graduate, leaving a void in any other type of male actor or fans of anything else.

Anyway, my point is that people who criticize 300 for being videogamish or low on plot or not intellectual or cliched action movie are criticizing it for the wrong reasons, as plot, innovative filmmaking, nuance and intellectual stimulation are neither what the filmmakers were going for nor the reason for its appeal. It’s appeal comes from the fact that it smartly fills a void in the market, and the makers of the film, knowingly or unwittingly, took advantage of that void.

“Best Video Game: Halo 3.”

Seriously, Wizard? I dug Halo 3 as much as the next guy, but it was by no means the best game of the year.

Call of Duty 4? Super Mario Galaxy? Mass Effect? BioShock? All of those were superior to Halo 3 in terms of game play and competent story-telling. Hell, I might even go as far as to say Assassin’s Creed was better than Halo 3.

-M

But the point is, the fact that they are even being seriously entertained as action hero headlines at their ages in big screen productions is a sign of how bad it is for alpha male action heroes.

i don’t know if i can buy that.

i mean, i thought that your original statement that the appeal of 300 was its alpha male characters was interesting and rang of some truth. but it’s the second part of the argument (”this is a sign of how bad it is/slackercore is out of control”) that i think requires a major leap of faith.

Rocky Balboa did well–much better than was expected–because it was the return of a beloved character and an iconic actor who hasn’t done too much of note in recent years. but it didn’t exactly set the box office on fire per se. its success was based more on the 20-year cyclical, nostalgic nature of American pop culture.

John Rambo on the other hand… maybe i’m out of the loop, but i haven’t seen too many people excited about it. i have heard plenty of titters about the graphic beheading in the trailer, the exploding arrows, how bloated Sly looks and why Rambo has botox in his face.

the true test of whether America just has the need for a hero like Sly rather than the nostalgia for one would be if he starred in a brand-new, unsentimental, franchise-free action picture that blew up the box office.

you know that’s fairly unlikely to happen.

but the most important question is: what IS the percentage of action films that are spearheaded by slackers and manchildren? is it really that out of control?

i don’t think so. (despite his babyface, i don’t think Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne is necessarily non-beta either, unless you’re defining “alpha” based on pec size)

and why didn’t the public go crazy for John Cena’s movie? why did Vin Diesel fall out of favor as an action hero (besides the fact that he kinda sucked, i guess)?

Anyway, my point is that people who criticize 300 for being videogamish or low on plot or not intellectual or cliched action movie are criticizing it for the wrong reasons, as plot, innovative filmmaking, nuance and intellectual stimulation are neither what the filmmakers were going for nor the reason for its appeal. It’s appeal comes from the fact that it smartly fills a void in the market, and the makers of the film, knowingly or unwittingly, took advantage of that void.

surely that doesn’t render it immune to criticism for those reasons, though, does it?

the fact that there was a void and something filled it… does that make it “good”?

Best video game? Madden Football. Every year. Period.

But then I don’t paly video games except for Madden. And whatever I can load into MAME.

It only took me a year ot two early on to completely ignore Wizard. Their price guide is what did it for me. They had Wetworks #1 at $10, 2+ at $5, and none of them had made it to the stores yet. They were shamelessly felating Image at that time, as well as trying to shift the back issue prices of whatever they thought was going to be hot. 15-18 years later, I’m still not sorry I stopped reading it.

I was using “stylized fight movie” as a positive, if that helps matters.

And as a city-dwelling effete college-coffee-drinkin’…uh, hipster-core, irony-liking, late-20’s guy, I’ve found that I can enjoy movies/TV featuring both alpha and beta males in a variety of situations.

Reaper’s terrible. So is Chuck. They’re both super-formulaic, and filled to the brim with cheese.

I never saw 300, but I can’t imagine it was worse than Transformers. My understanding, from talking to people who saw 300, is that they were both stupid and senseless, but in 300, you could see tell characters apart and understand what they were doing in the action scenes. Unlike Transformers.

Phil Jimenez got his chance to work with Grant Morrison and he flushed it down the toilet with stiff figures and awkward design. Keep him the hell away.

As long as Wizard’s being published, it’s worth being criticized. Good on you, Burgas.

Twenty years of alpha-male action movies got us shit like Under Siege and Under Siege 2. (Sorry, that was the only thing I could think of that was worse than Under Siege.) We don’t need any more banal Reaganite wet dream flicks. (Although that didn’t stop them from putting out Live Free or Die Hard this year, a film that was probably a better and more successful alpha male action flick than 300.)

And, loathe as I am to admit knowing this, Keanu Reeves was doing the action movie bit when alpha males were still in. Ever see Point Break or Speed?

So you basically hate comics?

Excuse me, but it seems to me that you’re confusing superhero comics with ALL comics. Come back when you turn 16.

“52 was STUPID!”
“Captain America sucks”

What DID you like?

If you read the article, he lets you know. He mentions Optic Nerve, The Umbrella Academy, and Casanova, among others.

Also, I don’t belive he said anything disparaging about Captain America. You’re being really defensive. And although 52 was stupid, I only saw Burgas trash Countdown. You need to take a breath before you post.

Or just not.

i don’t think so. (despite his babyface, i don’t think Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne is necessarily non-beta either, unless you’re defining “alpha” based on pec size)

I don’t think the ROLE of Bourne is beta, but I do think the fact that Damon is the best choice they had to fill the role is very telling. In the 60s and 70s a Steve McQueen type would have done that role.

i don’t think so. (despite his babyface, i don’t think Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne is necessarily non-beta either, unless you’re defining “alpha” based on pec size)

First, it looked like a total B-movie to me. Second, I don’t think being big is enough. To me, bobdybuilders that tan, shave and tweeze and spend hours in the gym doing curls in the mirror can be just as prettyboyish and narcissistic as a metrosexual, just with bigger muscles. Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, Sean Connery, Steve McQueen…none of those guys were ever that huge, but they had an old-school way about them that we don’t really see today.

the fact that there was a void and something filled it… does that make it “good”?

I define good the way Roger Ebert does: does the film accomplish what it set out to do and satisfy the audience it was intended for, without just empty pandering or pure cliche? I think 300 accomplishes that. I don’t think its fair to judge movies by standards they weren’t even aiming for. 300 has many flaws, don’t get me wrong, but the makers of it hit the target they were aiming for and did it well. It wasn’t intended to be culturally sensitive, cynical of authority and the military, critical of traditional machismo, pro-feminist, historically accurate or any of that. So criticizing it on those grounds is a waste of time to me.

Wizard is really bringing out an ugly side to people here. I don’t know if it’s safe to bring it up again if we’re all to remain friends.

Yet where else would I learn that Mark Millar owns the cat from Superman: The Movie? Got to admit I found it pretty hilarious, say what you want about Millar’s cynical and depraved mind.

I’d argue that Millar’s not cynical and depraved, but rather a basically cheery idealist who tries painfully hard to write the sorts of cynical dialogue and shock moments that the current comics market demands.

I don’t get cynicism out of his plots, which are basically idealism trying desperately to express itself in the vernacular of cynicism. Unfortunately, the mismatch of marketably cynical and apathetic tone with idealistic and often reductive political tubthumping in his work has gotten us to the point of things like Civil War #7 being intended as a happy ending where the right side wins and Captain America’s surrender heals the rift in the superhero community. Thank god Marve;l readers’ve got Warren Ellis and Dan Slott (!) to point out exactly why that’s ill-conceived crap every month in their spinoff books.

Dammit, Burgas! Now I can’t stop talking about overhyped Marvel shite. Wizard is clearly a bad influence even when it’s being thoroughly slated.

Oh, and T.? Beta males aren’t the opposites of alpha males; they’re the top challenger in the pack or tribe that’s next in line to BE alpha male, usually constantly and aggressively trying to make it happen. You’re going for something a few letters later in the Greek alphabet, I think.

Twenty years of alpha-male action movies got us shit like Under Siege and Under Siege 2. (Sorry, that was the only thing I could think of that was worse than Under Siege.) We don’t need any more banal Reaganite wet dream flicks. (Although that didn’t stop them from putting out Live Free or Die Hard this year, a film that was probably a better and more successful alpha male action flick than 300.)

There’s bad movies in every genre. Bad beta male action films also led to CHuck and Reaper. You admit traditional alpha male films can still be good since you cite Die Hard 4 as being decent. And 20 years of alpha male action led to Bullitt, Enter the Dragon, Clint Eastwood man with no name trilogy, Rocky I-IV and a bunch of other great crowd pleasers. It may not appeal to us on an intellectual level, and it may burn us geeks up to admit to it, but that aesthetic appeals to people on a very basic, primal evolutionary level. That’s why hot women will say they like nice smart guys but go out and bang macho assholes and guys will flock to sporting events and make athletes obnoxiously rich. And 300’s appeal is that it taps into that basic testosterone appeal when most of Hollywood for some reason has abandoned it. So to bash it for lack of nuance or enlightenment is pointless in my opinion because it’s the very lack of those things that helped make it successful. It’s the antiWhedon/antiSmith/antiApatow movie.

Greg,

The fact that you waded into the latest Wizard magazine…earns you my undying respect.

It takes guts.

That’s all I gotta say.

[…] I feel dirty … 2007 edition! […]

I didn’t say Die Hard 4 was decent. I said it was “probably better” than 300. Considering 300 wasn’t that good, it’s not intended as an endorsement.

And I was measuring the 20 years of alpha male action movies starting with the original Die Hard. All the movies you cite predate that.

On another topic, Anita Blake is nowhere near mainstream. It’s porn for goths.

But I always think it’s kind of odd that you would consistently buy a magazine that simply tells you what you already believe. All Wizard does is validate the beliefs of those who buy it. Do you need to spend money for that?

Plenty of Christians do that sort of thing every week.

Plenty of Christians do that sort of thing every week.

Get off your high horse, EVERYONE does that, not just Wizard readers or Christians, and you and I are no different. For example, where is a Grant Morrison fan more likely to go to read a review on Grant Morrison, the DC Message Boards or here where the rest of the acolytes are?

And I was measuring the 20 years of alpha male action movies starting with the original Die Hard. All the movies you cite predate that.

I’m including action movies from the very beginning. I don’t consider alpha male action to have just started in the 80s, although that was probably their peak.

Thanks for doing this, Greg. Sometimes I feel bad about criticizing Wizard when I haven’t read it in years, but updates like these let me know it’s still worthless shit, and I feel better.

Best mini of the year? Modok’s 11! Last last chapter just killed me! Wow, that was some fun stuff there.

I don’t think the ROLE of Bourne is beta, but I do think the fact that Damon is the best choice they had to fill the role is very telling. In the 60s and 70s a Steve McQueen type would have done that role.

true enough… but norms of masculine beauty and carriage have always been dynamic. in the 1970s, people were mourning the loss of “real” men like John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, George Raft. it’s true that they don’t make them like Steve McQueen anymore, but it’s unrealistic to expect them to.

plus, i don’t think Damon was the “best choice” in that there was just a dearth of traditional squarejaw types, but i think he was the “best choice” because The Bourne films deliberate sought to circumvent many of the tropes of the action genre… right down to the relatively realistic way it was shot, and the documentary-style editing.

To me, bobdybuilders that tan, shave and tweeze and spend hours in the gym doing curls in the mirror can be just as prettyboyish and narcissistic as a metrosexual, just with bigger muscles.

that sounds like most of the men in 300, doesn’t it?

in some ways i feel like 300 is a parody of that kind of old-school maculinity. there’s a certain exhilaration that comes with the sheer wall-to-wall dudeness of it, but at the same time, there’s something slightly ridiculous and over-the-top about it. kinda like the Chippendales, y’know?

and not surprisingly, it has a large gay following.

i don’t know if the public is really crying out for these kind of alpha male characters *played straight*, because if they were, Mark Wahlberg’s movies, Vin Diesel’s movies, John Cena, The Rock and guys like that would be a lot bigger than they are.

Get off your high horse, EVERYONE does that, not just Wizard readers or Christians, and you and I are no different. For example, where is a Grant Morrison fan more likely to go to read a review on Grant Morrison, the DC Message Boards or here where the rest of the acolytes are?

First off, that’s an unfair question. I don’t go to the DC message boards at all, because of the median intelligence level. I read reviews from lots of different places, including ones that aren’t loaded with Morrison fans. Newsarama, for example. Not to mention the fact that I get into PLENTY of arguments on this site, whether it’s about Morrison or not, so I’m clearly not here to have my ego massaged.

And no, not everyone does that. Some people don’t pay money to listen to someone tell them they’re right. You don’t know shit about me, T, or what I do in my life, so you’re in no position to tell me what I’m like. Maybe you’re no different. Don’t drag me down with you.

I had a feeling this would get ugly …

Anyone care to stop before it gets uglier? I doubt if T. was claiming that everyone pays money to have their beliefs validated, Dan, and I would guess that most Christians don’t either. Sure, churches ask for donations, but it’s not like they throw you out if you don’t contribute (okay, maybe some do, but those aren’t very good churches). I think what he meant was that we tend to hang around with people who validate us. You may be different, but I don’t think it’s that crazy to say we’re going to seek out people who like the same things as we do. I enjoy being challenged by others, but if someone is, say, a Nazi, I don’t think I’m going to hang out with them. I will gravitate toward people who, in essence, validate my beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Maybe T. was making a different point. When the money aspect gets involved, that’s where it becomes something different. From what I know about T., I doubt if he spends money on things that simply tell him what he already knows, and I’d like to think I don’t either. That’s what baffles me about Wizard readers. But his basic argument doesn’t strike me as too inflammatory, unless I’m reading it wrong.

Not to mention the fact that I get into PLENTY of arguments on this site, whether it’s about Morrison or not, so I’m clearly not here to have my ego massaged.

Not to mention that, for a place supposedly full of acolytes, there’s not exactly a dearth of people whining and crying about Morrison at every opportunity.

Not to mention that, for a place supposedly full of acolytes, there’s not exactly a dearth of people whining and crying about Morrison at every opportunity.

Well, to be fair, that’s mostly the commenters.

It is not a coincidence that almost all the contributors to this here blog enjoy them some Morrison.

Hatcher has a note from his doctor.

Actually, I was referring to Joe Rice. Everyone’s heard the stories about him campaigning for Judd Winick to take over All-Star Superman. Eeeeverybody.

Secret’s out, Joe. You MAY just have t’pack yer bags and leave town.

Best New TV Show: Reaper. I DVRed the pilot and never watched it, so I have no idea if it’s any good or not. As for new shows, Chuck and Dirty Sexy Money aren’t bad, but I don’t think they would be the “best.

If we’re limiting this to the major networks, then I’d definitely give Pushing Daisies the title. It’s not only the most endearing show on television, it’s also the best looking. The cinematography, set design, and costume design are all immaculate.

If we’re including cable, then it’s all about Mad Men, which has perfectly captured and encapsulated the spirit of the 60s. It’s an unflinching look at an ad agency that’s full of casual sex, casual sexism, secret pasts, uncertain futures, and smoking. The cast is stellar across the board, as well, with Jon Hamm and Christina Hendricks standing out particularly.

If we’re talking all of television, though, not much can touch Showtime’s Californication, which holds the distinction of finally letting David Duchovny play a slick, witty, uncensored bastard. And, he plays it with aplomb. The show also features Evan Handler, a suicide girl, and Pamela Adlon (the voice of Bobby Hill). In a threesome. That goes horribly wrong. Plus, there’s punching while climaxing, blackmail, the perils of writer’s block, painting-stealing, dog-stealing, script-stealing, angy-sad blogging, a generous dose of sardonic humor, and more than the fair share of outrageous situations. Good times, good times.

As for the others mentioned, Reaper and Chuck do both rely heavily on formula, and both are starting to wear thin. Chuck had a recent spike in quality, which coincided with Rachel Bilson’s spunky guest shot, but that show really needs to be half an hour. There’s rarely enough plot to stretch across a full hour, leaving entirely too much room for the Buy More/Morgan subplots. Morgan has to be the most obnoxious character introduced this season. Reaper fairs far better in the friend department. Sock has had quite a few genuinely funny moments (although they’ve lessened substantially since the laugh-out-loud pilot), and Ben is finally coming to his own as something other than the damsel-in-distress fill-in. I do like that both shows eschew the classic “hero saves girl” setup, but Reaper’s Andi is left out of all the fun simply because she’s “the girl,” and Chuck just flips the paradigm so that he’s the one constantly in need of rescue. Also to Chuck’s detriment is the criminal underuse of Adam Baldwin. That’s flat-out unforgivable, man.

Dirty Sexy Money is pure soapy fun, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Zoe McLellan is trapped in a rather thankless role as Nick’s wife, Lisa, but they can’t all be winners. Someone has to ensure all the scenery isn’t chewed.