I FEEL LIKE RANTING

If the genre films of 2004 could be summed up in one word, it’s “potential".

Last night I bought the AVP: Aliens vs. Predator dvd over Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow simply because it was cheaper. I saw the movie in theaters and walked away disappointed. Here was a great concept, Aliens and Predators fighting it out, but most of the movie was set-up, exploring the human characters. Probably the most disappointing aspect was the clearly subjective view of the conflict. Simply put, the Aliens won. Now, you're probably thinking I'm "geeking out" here, but you're wrong. When dealing with two franchises that have fallen off the boards and you want to revitalize them by bringing them together, what's better? To favor one or the other? No. It's favoring neither and being as objective as possible. Why? Because the people seeing the movie are Aliens fans, Predator fans, or both. By favoring one, you slam the other, and walk away with only one salvageable franchise. What’s even more infuriating is Anderson (the director) makes you suffer through a quarter of the movie before the first fight and it’s the equivalent of Buster Douglas vs. Mike Tyson, with the Alien sitting on a killed Predator while you wonder, “How the hell did that happen?” That was the second Predator to get snake eye’d. The first didn’t even see the Alien coming before he got speared in the back. And the third, this was the biggest slap in the face, who was the coolest, is the dumbest because he takes off his mask, allowing a face hugger to impregnate him.

As a fan of both genres, I didn’t want to see only one triumph, I wanted to see each prove their superiority within certain regards and leave the theater wanting more of both. But as a business man, hoping to have my own franchise, I was dumbfounded by how Fox could allow the more viable franchise, Predator, to be tarnished in the eyes of fandom. Who would I want to see a Predator movie now? First they get beat by Arnold, who in the 80's should have just changed his name to Achilles. But then Danny Glover woops Predator ass.

Danny Glover?

That was 1990, it's taken fourteen years for the Preds to get a credible adversary, and when they do, they get their asses handed to them. They are the Elmer Fudds of space.

R.I.P. Predators.

But this isn’t the first time this has happened, remember Underworld?

Vampires vs. werewolves, that was the big draw, but in the end, we got leather clad gunslingers fighting werecats. The “Romeo and Juliet” love story was substantially downplayed so much, that if not for a shared kiss, you wouldn’t get the point at all. The “clash of titans” we all wanted to see was nothing more than “werewolves” getting their asses shot off. And the title, “Underworld” referred to the tunnels where the Lycans hid, and not to the world itself.

Bill Hicks said that all people in marketing should commit suicide because they are a true evil. Didn’t really understand why, until I was suckered into seeing these movies. Both of them had great concepts, but I keep feeling like the studios were too scared to go all in. I imagine Fox and Sony only willing to dip their toes in the water instead of cannonball. But that’s the name of the game nowadays, franchise potential, everything in genre cinema is a test, no one has any faith. They have no guts, but want the glory.

On the other side, there are those who do have faith, and fail miserably. Example, Van Helsing…what a crap movie. This movie was so bad, I couldn’t believe it, so I had to see it for myself and I was horrified to discover that world of mouth was right.

How do you fuck this up?

Van Helsing is a monster hunter. You have access to Universal’s Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man, the “Holy Trinity” of movie monsters. Why couldn’t Sommers have simply done a movie about Van Helsing killing Dracula, why wasn’t that enough? It was enough that he revamped Helsing. It was enough that this new interpretation was young, monster hunting badass with no memories. In fact, since he worked for the Vatican and we all know how manipulative those bastards were in the “dark days”, he could have squashed the amnesia part and made the guy a repented killer who’s earning his salvation by killing monsters for the church. That’s what I would have done. But no, let’s get WAY complicated, and elude to his possible angelic origins, a mysterious history with Dracula, and find a piss poor way to connect all the Universal monsters to one another so they can all be at the same place, at the same time.

And what kind of motive was that for Dracula? Having Frankenstein build the monster to provide the energy necessary for Vlad to give life to his kids.

WHAT?

When did Drac being a bloodsucking fiend, lusting after his lost love and jumping the bones of anyone who looks like her become passé?

What about the franchise potential? How no one at Universal said anything against Sommers using ALL the “Drac Pack” in one movie instead of spreading them out in sequels is beyond me.

Still, Underworld 2 is coming later this year, and Van Helsing is dead and buried (as far as we know), which means people prefer Kate Beckinsale with a butchy attitude and short hair, instead of a butchy attitude and long curls.

One genre tragedy I was really upset about was Chronicles of Riddick.

I liked Pitch Black, and more, I like the idea of taking a small horror movie and creating something bigger from it, in a totally different direction. The production value was top notch and the story was the newest thing I’d seen in a long time. Like Star Wars is classified a “space opera”, you could call Riddick a “sword & sorcery in space”. The special effects were great, the acting wasn’t Oscar worthy, but it did the job, I was immersed in the world and those characters. All tied with an open ending that shocked and winked at you at the same time.

So, why did it flop?

Fuck if I know, but I blame Vin.

I love Vin, and he could be a great character actor. He has charm and charisma, plus that voice can take him a long way, more than his muscular physique. Look what sounding like Jack Nicholson did for Christian Slater. But he brought the movie down with negative to no hype machine behind the picture. Before Riddick, Vin’s last movies were A Man Apart in 2003 that followed Knockaround Guys in 2002, and neither of them was stellar. I liked Knockaround Guys, but the “machine” let it flounder. While A Man Apart’s only draw was some woman’s (a dancer) ass during the first twenty minutes of the film. Anyone who was up on current Hollywood events knew he turned down sequels to Fast and the Furious and XXX, and I think that pissed the fans off. Imagine how much better Riddick may have done with the success of 2 Fast, 2Furious hyping Vin’s name.

When the only thing you have to show for your participation in a movie is a Spike TV video game award, something’s gone horribly wrong.

Amidst all this I keep wondering why I’m dying to play the Hollywood game. Even if I write the next big thing, someone will fuck it up. Whether it’s the director who wants to use “his own vision” instead doing the job he’s hired to do, bring mine to life, or simply build upon it….

That brings up something that Steven Johnson recently said that pissed me off. It was about the Ghost Rider movie and how, despite Goyer doing two drafts that he felt were worthy of production, that the vision was his own, closer to the comic, and more of a Western. Okay, let’s talk track records…

Goyer Highlights - Dark City, Blade 1 and 2, Freddy vs. Jason, and Batman Begins.

Johnson Highlights – Simon Birch, Jack Frost, The Replacement, and Daredevil.

And whose script would genre fans rather see on film?

Back to my closing –

Or a producer, studio executive, or actor who wants to “take it in another direction”, odds are I won’t see my work on the screen. So why do it?

Well, I imagine it’s the same reason women still work in porn. Despite the drugs, the bad smell on the set, catching HIV, dealing with criminals, spending time with sexual perverts (the fans) on the regular basis, and making choices like having 101 strange penises up your ass vs. obscurity, lost in porn compilations. The bottom line is, you get paid more in one day than most get in a year for getting fucked. You may not cum, but it doesn’t require you to, and that’s better than being a nine to five desk jockey any day.

JPG.

PEELING THE ONION

One of the hardest things for a writer to accept has to be knowing nothing he or she does is original; it's all been done before.

Literally, EVERYTHING has been done.

Every writer has that moment when they think up a story that is the pinnacle of their talent. It's amazing, incredible; if they do this, it'll set the world ablaze. And then, a newsbyte comes out about a story just like it. Or worse yet, they show a friend their synopsis and they tell you it reminds them of something else.

I have a friend who does that ALL the time. I'll show him a synopsis and he'll tell me he likes it, but it's cliché. And when I ask why, he picks the most elementary thing, like a car chase in an action scene or a hardboiled detective in a murder mystery.

I used to crash hard whenever that happened to me. I can imagine it's like finding out your woman fakes her orgasm, you're shattered. But you learn there are only so many stories you can tell, and the ones that are legendary follow a formula that has existed before the written word.

The biggest thing I took from reading Campbell and McKee was the point of creation, it isn't about doing something original, but approaching an existing idea from a different angle that hasn't been explored. And if it has, then take the approach and explore that (I could say it's like an onion, but that would be "cliché" of me).

When you create something new, people will think it's original, because very few audiences ever really remember anything, and it’ll stimulate them differently. But, when stories repeat, each less satisfying than the other, the audience does feel a loss, or depletion, on some level. Several times have I walked out of a movie with a re-run theme and approach feeling so unsatisfied that I drown myself in dvd's as soon as I get home. Or, I feel compelled to stop in at a store and buy something new to fill the emptiness of my experience. I never knew why I'd feel that way until I read STORY (by Robert McKee).

Now, I still find myself dealing with the disappointment of "stolen" ideas, it's easier to deal with, but it still hurts. Take for instance the new movie Constantine, starring Keanu Reeves.

I'm a big Keanu fan, I think the man has serious chops that people don't credit him for, partly because people look at him and think he's less than serious about his craft. But, that's the magic, those actors that are easy going about acting are the most dedicated. They do their job, and they do it well. They don't throw it in your face about how much research they did, or how they prepared for a role. The magic comes from not knowing how the trick works. It's said he (and Tom Cruise) portray the same characters with no variety. But guess what people, that' s an example of how conformable we are, nobody is different, everyone is or tries to be the same. Because different is dangerous in our world. Too often are different people deemed crazy, or put on an unattainable perch we'll never reach. Your either Bill Gates, who’s a recluse, or Malcolm X, and he's dead.

So, I'm a big fan and looking forward to the movie, so like any geek, I'm on the website (http://constantinemovie.warnerbros.com/) and reading the synopsis when I discover that their take on the comic character is very similar to one of my own. In this movie, Constantine is a man who can see hybrid angel and demons on earth and this ability drives him to attempt suicide. He survives obviously, but then uses his abilities to help others in hopes of finding "salvation", whatever that means (I think it's death; if you can't kill yourself, get someone else to do it for you).

My first thought was, "FUCK!"

My second was, "Goddamn Motherfuckers!"

I had about ten other similar responses before something occurred to me, if the Hollywood fuck machine can shit out a character similar to mine, then my character wasn't all that special. That caused me to re-think him, and I'm happier now than before. He's still the same character, the changes were minute, but enough to make him different for the genre. That makes him new, and, dare I say, original.

If every writer freaked out whenever someone had a similar idea and started over, nothing would get done. And if a writer were actually able to come up with an original character, I honestly question if anyone would identify with him or her. Like people, it's the tiny stuff that makes something new, while the majority is just like everything else, and those small details make it original in it's own right.

I took an art class in high school, one day that sticks in my mind was an assignment where we had to write our names in some symbolic manner. One of my classmates, and friend at the time, was an anime geek, so he was using anime characters in his piece that he drew from pictures in a Newtype magazine. Another student, prick that he was, made a big deal out of it, saying that he was copying and that was stealing. But our teacher thought differently, "No one can copy art. What he's doing is inherently his, because he's putting himself into it. The most important ingredient in art is you, and that can't be duplicated."

Lesson learned.

JPG.

PS… Later, we all found out our teacher once dated Jim Morrison when we saw her on Inside Edition.

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!

I'm sleepy as all hell.

Last night I was up to 2am watching Stephen King's RIDING THE BULLET and I'm pissed because it wasn't worth the trouble. I'm one of those writers who respects Mr. King for all of his many accomplishments, but ponder why he is held as such an amazing writer. I don't deny his skills; I'm still trying to master the art of horror fiction, and the sheer weight of his work is phenomenal. But, all of his stories are the same. When you break them all down, they all revolve around some kind of monster. And I don't mean "monster" like Clive Barker, but 50's sci-fi. His characterization skills are where he excels, and that's what I try to learn from, but the pay-off to his books are always a let down because of the hokey monster climaxes. Keep in mind that I'm talking about his straightforward horror tales, not Shawshank, The Dark Tower, or any of his other books that walk a fine line between genres.

The strength of King is, despite the corny ending you know is coming, you still read (or watch) him. So I watched Riding the Bullet, totally captivated by the story of this 60's college student who attempts suicide, and while hitchhiking to visit his sick mother, is plagued by these bizarre occurrences. And of course, David Arquette shows up during the last thirty minutes as the hokey monster of the story, the undead a.k.a zombie.

But, King did what he always sets out to do, he got me to sit down for two hours, and when I should have been sleeping, I was up, watching his story unfold. I guess that is the testament of a true master.

Lesson learned.

Another Japanese movie is being remade, and this one stars Mark Wahlberg and Leo DiCaprio entitled "Departed". I must ask, "Why does Hollywood remake movies that were already made?"

(I can understand remaking classics, even though they’re timeless, that’s why they’re classics. But I can get with the argument, shrug my shoulders and say, “If you want, go right ahead.” After all, who wants to watch the original Chainsaw, when you can stare at Jessica Biel for 90minutes?)

The Ring, The Grudge, The Vanishing, La Femme Nikita - why remake movies that have already proven themselves successful? Point of No Return was not as good as La Femme Nikita, and the original sell more as rentals or straight buys than their American counterparts. Blockbusters are selling out of Ringu, while it's "imposter" sits untouched. Hasn't Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon proven that Chinese and Japanese movies can come here subtitled and make big bucks? Wasn't the same proven with Hard Boiled, A Better Tomorrow, The Killer, and Rumble in the Bronx? I really get pissed when I read about foreign movies being remade; I see it as an ego thing on our part, or on Hollywood's. We're elitist, and unless a known Hollywood big shot is in the film, we won't even give it a proper arena for display. If I remember correctly, it was Hard Target that led to John Woo's American recognition. A movie starring JOHN CLAUDE VAN DAMME for Christ's sake! John Woo has directed movies since 1975, and he needs to work with John Claude to get any American attention.

That pisses me off.

And, if these movies are successful, little to no attention is given to the original film. Sure, you get a small credit, and any critic worth their salt opens the review with that information, but that's it. Unless you get off your ass and look for it, the original movie, writers, and directors are pushed aside for the Americans, and what the fuck makes us so special? Hey, I'm as blue-blooded as anyone, and our history in film is responsible for some of these great foreign films, but the mighty have fallen. Uranus is dead, and another pantheon is rising from the demise.

The same goes for animation, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, some incredible things are being done overseas that we know nothing about because we're too programmed to watching talking animals and molested fairytales from a mouse whose eating us out of house and home. And those that do make it here and gain some notice? Well, they suffer the same fate as our choice in movies, over saturation of a "sure thing", sex and violence. All we know (or care about) in Japanese anime is demon fucking and robot fighting, so that's all we get. Meanwhile, incredible movies like Angel's Egg, Ghosts of Steel (which does have robots in it), and Windaria (which had a small American release on VHS) will never get a piece of the limelight. But what do you expect when we shun even our American animators who try to mature the genre? Titan AE and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within are examples of that. Never mind that one had an epic story on par with Battlestar Galactica, and the other was so technologically advanced it gave us a Ben Affleck who can act, neither had a big musical number, so we couldn’t get with it and they flopped. Americans don't want to see animation made for them, but animation that remind them of what it was to be a kid again. Nothing wrong with that, unless it stagnates an entire industry! While those animes that do make it here, are lost in the subculture, giving oversexed fan boys and rebels something more to exclude them from the rest of society.

I was never a big C.S. Lewis fan. I tried reading the Narnia Chronicles, just couldn't get into it. But you bet your ass I'll be the first in line for the movie. Why? Four letters: W.E.T.A.

Am I the only one who thinks I.L.M. has reigned far too long, finally being kicked off by the underdog no one thought could do it? Whenever I see a movie they've (I.L.M.) worked on, I see a fat king on a throne that's overconfident. Then, I'll see some small film, or a huge production, like LOTR, and get blown away by some new company that came out of nowhere. It's a sad day when you can recognize a company's work by its ineffective attempts at suspending your disbelief. I was looking at the Star Wars trilogy over the weekend and the first three movies look more real than the prequels. And when they spoke of how Lucas wanted the "lived in" look for his sci-fi epic, I noticed that the new movies go against that. Isn't it funny how, the more a computer can imitate life, the less we believe it? I don't think people hate Jar Jar because he was stupid, I think they hate him because he was obvious. He was so unreal it was annoying to watch. The same thing could have happened to Gollum in LOTR, but didn't. Why? Well, there's the skill involved, Jar Jar was so badly done, we saw nothing, but a machination from scene 1 and Gollum, looked more real. But, there's more...
From the get go, you knew Andy Serkis was Gollum. From the get go, you knew how they did Gollum, using Andy in every way possible, even having him act out the scenes and computer capture on the set. From the beginning, you knew that behind Gollum was a man, an actor, named Andy Serkis.

Who was Jar Jar Binks?

Point made.

So, all this negativity, what am I looking forward too?

Batman Begins - Three reasons, Christian Bale, David Goyer, and Chris Nolan. I loved Tim Burton's movie (I'm one of the few that do) and I love Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne. But it's a new time, and we need a Batman for a new generation. In the 90's it was cool to be fucked in the head. It was in the music (hence the grunge rock phase) and you saw it on television, depression and fractured psyches was the thing. Now, we need a hero who's strong, and sure of himself, who's so moved by passion and force of will that he'll do anything to avenge his parents and safeguard everyone else…

Hmmm, and how did Bush Jr. win again?

Sin City - Robert Rodriguez is the draw here, the man (like Quentin) can do no wrong. Bruce Willis, Clive Owen, and Frank Miller are just the icing on a big ass cake.

Cursed - Give me a break; it's the first decent werewolf movie we've had since 1994. Of course I want to see it. Plus, it’s Wes.

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith - The lightsaber duels are the only reason I'll give this a try. But you know what they say, “Twice burned…”

War of the Worlds - Tom Cruise is the man!

Fantastic Four - I have to, or I'll get my comic geek membership revoked.

And Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe - As before, WETA!

JPG.

BURN, BABY!

Many of my friends have joined the new craze of burning music onto cd-rom's and, maybe I've hit that point of being "too old" to understand, but I just don't see the attraction. Being married, my social life is pretty much nonexistent, so I live vicariously through my friends, and I've recently learned that they actually have "burn parties" where people gather to socialize while burning each other’s music.

The whole bootleg movement confuses me. I see the short-term appeal of buying dvd's and videos, I've done to myself from time to time. When you love a movie, watching a crappy $7 black-market copy is better than paying $20 each time you want to see it. But some people actually keep that copy over buying the official version once released. Why? Pay the $17 - $20, get the movie, plus supplementals, and toss the black-market version (or keep it so when friends ask to borrow the movie, you give’em the bootleg).

Same goes for music, why would I want a burned cd over the official release? Sure, it's cheaper (if not flat out free), but there's more to a cd than just the music. There's the cover art, the interiors that could include the song lyrics; some bands are putting videos and bonus stuff on their cd, you don't get that on a burned copy. And what about the joy of having "it", the real thing, not a copy, not a dupe, but the actual album, cd, or tape?

I wonder if this is our only available form of rebellion now. Time has proven itself a revolution; things always come back around again disguised as something else. What happened once will happen again some time or other. Is this our 60's rebellion taking a new shape? Instead of attacking the powers with arguments of morality and humanism, we hit them where it really hurts, their profit margins.

But how quickly things occur the second time around. Took a while for the hippies of the 60's to become the baby boomers and corporate elite of the 80's. But it didn't take as long for Napstar to go legit did it?

But the thought of this endless cycle is more serious than a generation's rebellion against the "Powers". There are some pretty bad things that no one wants to see again. Like both World Wars for example, that there were two proves that there could be a third on the way. And now that AIDS has become passé, how long before the next epidemic hits us?

How long will it take for our species to learn how to live on this planet? We still operate in ignorance of our world and life in general. Whether it's the repetition of time or the sheer power of nature, we approach everything like children with no thought or concept of repercussion. Whatever you put in this world comes back; it's a cliché because it happens. But we never think it'll happen to us. I read reports from witnesses of the tsunami where people saw the monster wave coming at them, but did nothing to get away from it. Instead they stared at it, either in amazement or thinking it would subside before reaching the shore. With the passing of the millennium, prophecies unfulfilled, and the soothsayers proven hoaxes, our sense of immortality has been renewed. It's reflective in our entertainment, the things that were "hand's off” have become fair game. More stories about God and religion, using them as fictional characters are becoming more prevalent. I'm not complaining, I'm probably the biggest blasphemer there is, but where people used to be shocked, now there just curious.

No point here, just rambling until I find a good ending...

I remember being a kid, coming up during the Cold War, the biggest fear we had was a nuclear war. When the war ended, nothing was left to be afraid of but God and the apocalypse. Sure, some nut could get a nuke and go boom in a mall or something, but a nuclear explosion isn't as intimidating as a nuclear holocaust. Yeah, there was (or is) AIDS, but back then it was billed as the "gay disease", it took time before it was seen otherwise. And even that period of public awareness is shifting back to an "other people" thing. "That kind of thing happens to other people" seem to be the recent thought pattern when it comes to sex diseases. Again, a revolution, it began with ignorance, then prejudice, awareness, and back to ignorance.

No ending here, so I’ll just stop.

JPG.

VOODOO SEX MAGIC

Pop quiz, Hotshot:

Your wife has a fever, aching muscles, congestion, and headache - everything that makes up a good cold. You have two kids, both screaming their heads off; you're house is a wreck from celebrating a birthday, and it's your job to clean the house, rein in the kids, and tend to your ailing wife who would normally deal with the madness.

What do you do?

WHAT DO YOU DO?

Answer: Fuck her.

There is a cure for the common cold and it's sex. Hey, I'm not trying to be "in your face", I leave that to my betters. But, it has happened to me on more than one occasion that sex can make a woman who's physically ill feel better. My wife before sex: sick in bed. After sex: on her feet and doing her “I’m Every Women” thing. Notice I wrote "women", not men. Doesn't work that way for us, guys. Having sex when we’re sick usually makes us sicker. I think it has something to do with the differences in a man's climax and a woman's orgasm. Sure, there’s the biology of it, but I’m hinting at something deeper. One loses strength while the other gains power. That's how I see it. Men eject, but women "absorb". I asked my wife to describe it, she said it's an "explosion" that starts in one specific area and then spreads out across her entire body. Put that together with various depictions in Japanese animes, and we can safely assume it’s similar for most women. But for men, it’s a sudden rush, or I prefer to think of it as a pulling. As if (for lack of a better description) my soul were being yanked from me. The noises we make are also different, granted my only reference for this are porn and personal experience, but women mostly sound “lifted”, like being taken to a higher place, while men sound like they’ve been punched in the stomach. Or worse yet, devolving to a lower state. Kind of makes me feel cheated. Like the focus of so many manly pursuits pales in comparison to a female's "little death". What must it feel like? This elusive "thing" that only some women can easily enjoy, while others have to search for it like the Holy Grail. Something that they can lose, that evolves, and is controlled more from emotional and mental stimuli than physical? Makes me want one myself.

I've never seen a woman have an ugly orgasm. Men do, we look stupid when we climax. Take the most handsome man, photograph him in the midst of his passion and you'll see Tom Cruise turn to Don Knotts pretty damn quick. But women of all shapes and sizes always look radiant towards, during, and after the fact. Why would we refer to that a "little death" when it looks and sounds like the opposite? Ever listen to a woman's orgasm and the cry of a newborn child back to back? They sound pretty damn similar.

I keep thinking about sex magic - that's something I'd do, but thanks to HBO and Real Sex, I have this imagery of being surrounded by old white couples who are just looking to get off in the weirdest way possible. Why is it that the instructors never participate? Isn't that like a mathematician who uses a calculator while teaching students the process? Oh sure, you think they know what they're talking about, but how do you really? Makes you wonder where the thrill is for them, the teaching, the watching, or just the money?

There was this chick on Howard Stern yesterday promoting her "exotic events" (sex parties) in NYC and I'd seen her before on Real Sex. Both then and yesterday, she mentioned how she hosts, but never participates. Isn't that odd to anyone but me? It's nothing new because porn starlets say how they love sex when we all know they’re screwed mentally. But, if your job is to have sex parties, that just feels different. If my job were to produce rave parties, my fat ass would be a dancing machine, because I’m the promoter. If I'm not having fun and dancing, then why should anyone else? I'd drink, take X, and do whatever else they do because that's part of my job.

I've come to my own conclusion that these people are voyeurs who like watching people have sex instead of having it themselves. And dig this, they expect couples to come to their homes or whatever to have sex publicly, but their sex lives remain behind closed doors. Hey, it's a great job if you can get it. People pay you hundreds of dollars to teach them how to have sex. Things that, if they opened a book, they could learn on their own, and you get to watch people having sex all day...

Even if it is old people sex.

JPG.

ORIGINAL GRAPHIC NOVELS vs. PERIODICALS

I've spilled my guts once today already for Silver Bullet Comics' forum "Panelology" on the subject of OGN's vs. the regular comic monthilies. You can surf over to check it out, http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com. It's a great site for comic geeks everywhere.

So, instead of forcing more blood from a healing wound, I decided to just copy my comments here.

Enjoy.

OGN vs. Periodicals -

I agree with The Panelists that OGN's won't eliminate or overrun the monthlies, and I think that looking at the "argument" from a consumer and fan concern is incorrect.The periodicals have proven their value and staying power against all other forms of comic publication via the internet, cd-rom, and dvd's. The bottom line is, for self-publishers, it's more financially feasible to produce an OGN.

I think every comic book creator would rather do a series; it's guaranteed self-employment, continuous profit, and a childhood dream. But, not every creator can come up with a Superman or Batman off the top of his or her heads. And, even if they could, would the fans give it the time of day? Comic fans are more aware now, more than ever, of their compulsions. To buy issue #1 means they'll buy issue #100. They commit themselves to those titles, and when a book's cancelled, it's like their wives or husbands just walked out the door. The publisher's all too indifferent notices of cancellation might as well begin with "Dear John..."

Another angle on this subject is, it's becoming more common, a new rule, to break into this industry as a writer, it's best to publish a book on your own. If that were you, why would you do a series? No, you'd go the OGN route as an advertisement of yourself and your skills. If you make any money from it, that's icing, but the main goal is to get your name out there.So I think OGN's are seen more as a tool, and not in the same manner as the periodicals that you could consider ritualistic enjoyment. The reason for OGN’s are strictly a business decision, the sole purpose is marketing and advertising, to get the word out on a title or this industry through channels outside the direct market, or to consumers within the market who haven't been won over. You give them a hit, hook'em, then get'em to come back month after month for more.

The only way, and it's a nice thought, that OGN's could replace monthlies, is if they were made into collectibles. I think Marvel is (or was) on the right track with their TPB's, including supplemental material in the hard covers. That makes them more than just a reprint, makes them more than just a comic collection, and almost enough to be collectible, but not enough obviously.

I would like to see OGN’s become the norm, for one reason only – because I’m tired of buying comic boxes. And you can’t stack comics; they always fall over if they get too high. The room being eaten up by boxes and comic stacks could be devoted to a couple of nice shelves where I could present my collection in a decent manner. Showing your comic collection is on par with revealing your porn stash. This industry is still immature at best, no matter how many movies hit the screens.

The prevalence of the flimsy monthly mags is just a representation of us. As long as we remain immature in our tastes and mentality, publishers will continue presenting them in an outdated fashion. Even small digests for science fiction fans come with a hard spine, you can stand them upright and present them like any other book. We say that comics are as good as books, but then we present them in a subordinate way. As long as we continue to be and/or see ourselves as the fat guy with the Subway t-shirt with mustard stains trailing down to our two sizes too small jeans, one hand holding a stack of “flimsies” and the other in our pants, this industry, a very lucrative one that has made millionaires, will continue being ignored from all but the Hollywood molesters who fill San Diego like N.A.M.B.L.A. fieldtrips to Taiwan.

Doctors and Lawyers read comics.
Celebrities read comics.
Scientists read comics.
Comics have won the Pulitzer.

Comics are serious literature. Lets present them as such.

JPG.

GOING HUNTING

To say, “I love Hunter S. Thompson” is like saying, “I love Jesus” because that’s who he is to me.

In the mid to late 90’s, I learned what my decision to be a writer really meant. Before then, I had this insane notion that I was destined to become a writer because there was nothing else I was even marginally good at. In high school I failed miserably, and wouldn’t have graduated except for my friends pleading with my religion teacher not to hold me back. Before that, my dreams of becoming an actor were crushed when I realized I would never look like Tom Cruise, nor do I have the “go get’em” attitude it requires. I thought of directing, but four more years of school made me slam that door shut. And photography just isn’t as exciting when you’re learning about it in community college.

I was twenty when it dawned on me that creating comics was an actual job that people are paid to do. Before that, I’d never given two-shits about the credits of a comic book, and the only comic writer I knew by name was Chris Claremont because he wrote the X-Men, a book I collected non-stop for seven or eight years to that point. I became convinced that I had this innate ability to write since I had been doing it uncontrollably for as long as I could remember, with no incentive other than my own enjoyment. Well, that’s not entirely true, in 6th grade and high school, I wrote poetry to attract girls. But other than that, I only did it for myself, to live out my own fantasies from movies and television. For a fat, hairy, socially unacceptable black man, writing was the only way I could even come close to any of my dreams of being a success in the entertainment industry, so I jumped on it.

But I did so thinking that I already had the talent, I didn’t need to develop it because I was born with it. How else would you explain an English flunky writing poetry and short stories that people would rave over? I was the next big thing waiting for someone to just give my work their attention so I could gain fortune and glory. I didn’t read; I was a writer who hated to read. I hated people, I was a loner, an introvert, a hermit, but I wanted to be a writer. And this continued for years…

And what still amazes me to this day is that no one stopped me. No one said, “Hey, you can’t be a writer and not read or hate being around people, it just won’t work.” And I hang around some pretty intelligent people, 4.0 types, who just let me go on my ignorant way. Until 1995, when, during a conversation with a comic book salesman, I mentioned my dream of writing comics, and he asked me what books I read. I began listing all the comics I collected, and he became more specific, “No, what BOOKS do you read?”

“I don’t like to read.” I said. I still remember his face, it went blank, that kind of blankness you get when you see something that couldn’t possibly exist. But there it is, right in front of you, and all you can do is stare at it.

To make a long blog short, (and I haven’t even gotten to my point yet) that salesman became Merlin to my Arthur. Once he hammered my head with the fact that I couldn’t be a writer without reading, he began introducing me to all kinds of books I never would have picked up on my own. My entire list of literally tastes began with him, and that’s how I was introduced to Hunter S. Thompson.

There was a comic book written by Warren Ellis entitled Transmetropolitan, and it's protagonist was a journalist named Spider Jerusalem. It wasn’t the “normal” comic, no superheroes, aliens, or capes and cowls, so I never gave it much thought. Not until Merlin started talking to me about it and all the wacky stuff going on inside. I was a rebel among rebels back then, or I tried to be, so anything against the grain I wanted to try. This book was definitely that, so I bought a few copies.

“Up a goddamn mountain.” That was the first line of the first issue and I was hooked from there. Merlin and I talked for hours about the book and Spider Jerusalem, about what had been transpiring in the series and where it was going. But nothing could have prepared me to learn that the main character was based on an actual person, Hunter S. Thompson.

I rushed out to grab Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and read it in two days. Then the movie came out, Merlin and I saw it with our wives on opening day. The theater was small and only about 20-30 people had bought tickets for that showing. We watched as person after person, couple after couple, walked out of the theater. The book still fresh in my head, I knew the movie was pretty damn accurate so they couldn’t have been upset about any differences. No, Merlin and I theorized that those 20 or 30 viewers came to see Johnny Depp and were rudely awakened to see him balding, wearing huge sunglasses, and acting crazier than shit while giving social commentary about post 60’s America.

I was in heaven.

To be a rebel among rebels, an outcast among the subculture addicts that are the outcasts of society. There was the icon of art fag cinema on the screen, being more manly than he had been in his last critically acclaimed roles, and his normal fans couldn’t take it. But I could, and so could Merlin, and our wives who are schizoids in their own right. We all sat and laughed, not at the film, but those weak eyed, paper stomached “rebels” who couldn’t take the hit.

It was beautiful.

So, that was my intro to Thompson, and I’ve loved him ever since. He’s a writer’s Jesus (finally, to my point) because he goes against what we thought journalist should be, even today. A rebel against the rebellious, straight-laced journalists who talk so fast and complicated it takes 24hrs to digest what you heard the night before. But Hunter, man he brings it, but what really trips me out about his writing, is that no matter what the topic should be, its about something else. You get full reading Hunter; a column fills you like a good chapter from Steven King. And you get it, all of it, not dumbed down, just real, to the point, and all over the place at the same time. He could write about the election, but you’re also reading about some drug adventure with a .357 magnum; he keeps you reading and finds a way to tie it all together, so you care. That’s the BIG thing, you begin to care about this country, through him, through his adventures, because only in a country as fucked up as this one, could a man have that kind of life, live through it, and turn it into a marketable career, revealing publicly what we see others get arrested for on COPS. You care about that election, but for the “simple” reasons, because it’s a symbol, or a symptom, of some bigger tragedy.

I want to be that kind of writer. I want to have that kind of life, but it's hard to do when you’re a father two and a husband with a nine to five. And I don’t have half the balls a .357 magnum will give you, letting walk into situations that would cost your life or become a best seller.

But I can dream.

And I can try following in the master’s footsteps until I find my own path, which I think I’m beginning to do.

Merlin once told me, “You love fucked up characters.” And I do, I love taking society’s lepers and forcing the readers to accept them. Because I’ve never been accepted, even when I follow the rules, I’m an outsider. My skin color alone make me one whether I like it or not. Being a comic book writer takes it up a notch. Being a comic book writer working at a hospital takes it to another level.

But anyway, I love fucked-up characters, I love Hunter S. Thompson, and someday, years from now (but sooner), I hope someone will say my name in the same breath as his. And name me as his disciple who started a religion that will twist and fuck with people’s minds years and years from now.

That would be too cool for words.

JPG.

FIRST BLOG OF THE NEW YEAR

I’m bored…and I have no idea why.

How is it that a person can have so much going on, and still feel like they’re doing nothing?

Everything’s in development…

My 9-5 job at the hospital.

My first graphic novel.

My children.

My marriage.

2005 will be a big year for me in many ways. My wife and I will celebrate our 10th wedding anniversary. My son will have his first birthday, and my daughter is gearing up for her 5th. My book will get done and I can begin promoting it on the net like gangbusters. And one of my closest friends is getting married, with me as his best man.

So why do I feel…blah?

Maybe I’m feeling some trepidation about all these things happening?

Anything can still go wrong with the book, it’s moving pretty slow, slower than I thought it would. Whether it's a success is up in the air, putting my hopes for a second book in limbo.

Excited as I am to be a best man, I’m always afraid of standing in front of large crowds, and I’ll be in a kilt to boot. Then there’s the bachelor party…

I have to prepare for my wedding anniversary and try to make it as memorable as it should be, that will cost money. My wife and I are getting matching tattoos, that will cost money to design, get inked, and the healing process can be a bitch.

For my daughter’s birthday I might as well just hand her my paycheck because that’s how much it’ll cost me.

And as for my job, I have no idea what the “powers” are planning, and that ALWAYS makes me nervous.

Then there’s the fear of this year being the one that breaks me, takes my home, hurts my family, and generally just fucks me over so bad I’m living in a cardboard box by December.

New years are never happy for me. I miss the old year. I miss the feel of it, the security. By June, I know what the year is about, what it has in store for me. 2004 fit like new pajamas, it was warm and soothing, I felt powerful and protected against the cold. I started strong and things went upwards from there.

Now may be my time to come down...hard.

I’m gonna miss 2004.

2005 has me scared shitless.

JPG.

PS…R.I.P. Will Eisner – 2005, you’re a motherfucker.