The plan is to use the freedom that my own hosting gives me to add some cool features that I’ve been eyeing, so stay tuned.

Which brings me to the main reasons for this post. First, if the DNS changes over when I happen to be tied up elsewhere (like work or sleep), we may experience some short downtime. I have everything but the final details taken care of, so downtime should be minimal to nonexistent. Second, I’m pretty sure that the Feedburner feed will follow us to the new server with no issues. Even if there are issues, Feedburner is the one that I’ll be fixing, so that’s the one you should be subscribed to.

Finally, I’m going out of town for about a week from Christmas until January 3rd. My online time will be minimal and I suspect that most of my internet time will be spent tweaking the site. I apologize in advance for the minimal content, I’ll get back to a prolific posting schedule ASAP.

Thanks for your time and support, and I hope you all have a happy holiday!

If you’re not subscribed to the feed, why the heck not?!!

Subscribe, damn you!

Thank you, please drive through.

Desperado Publishing will release Issue 3 on January 3rd, 2008 and, judging from the trouble that I’ve had finding a copy of Issue 2, I think it’s in your best interests that you ask your local comics retailer to order a copy for you.

Issue 1: AUG07 3547
Issue 2: SEPT07 3555
Issue 3: OCT07 3436
Issue 4: NOV07 3493

tag: comics, Desperado Publishing, Jason Ho, Joshua Williamson, Necessary Evil, villainy, webcomic, villains

Enjoy it, I’m off to do the same.

tag: A Taste For The Theatrical, The Dark Knight, Trailer, Batman, Joker

That said, for those of you for whom catching it on IMAX simply is not an option, here is the six-minute prologue for The Dark Knight (the new Batman sequel), courtesy of Just PressPlay.net. I suggest you watch it quickly before it gets pulled.

In related news, A Taste For the Theatrical remains dormant as of this writing.

Edit: It’s Live!

tag: A Taste For the Theatrical, Batman, IMAX, Joker, Prologue, The Dark Knight

And my GAWD, was the prologue awesome! The summaries that have been posted all over teh intranets are accurate, but they still don’t do justice to the actual experience of seeing it all play out on the big screen. Heath Ledger makes an excellent Joker, casting aside the camp for a total maniacal cackling psychotic…freak.

I wish I could share this prologue with you all, but I don’t know that even viewing it on a computer monitor would really do it justice. If you have the opportunity, I have to recommend in the strongest possible terms that you check it out.

After the prologue, I figured my next hour and a half would be all downhill and it was, to a point. I mean, nothing could quite match the prologue on the awesomeness scale, but I Am Legend is actually a surprisingly good movie. I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve never read Richard Matheson’s book, so I can’t really say how faithful this movie was to Matheson’s original vision, but I have seen several of the film adaptations and I have to say that this was definitely the best that I’ve seen.

I’d recommend seeing I Am Legend even without the added benefit of the prologue, but when you combine them, I am forced to demand that you see this if at all possible.

Now please excuse me while I pass out from all the awesomeness and grief that I have to wait until June to see the rest of The Dark Knight.

tag: batman, I Am Legend, , IMAX, Joker, Prologue, The Dark Knight

It’s a crappy video that someone shot on their camera phone, but it’s clear enough to hear the voices and make out what’s going on.

Watch it fast, I expect it to be pulled any second!

Until I figure out how to embed this video or get it downloaded and hosted on my own server (or it gets yanked), here’s the link.

Update!! There’s a new viral site, A Taste For the Theatrical, just launched.

There are notes to “Watch This Space!” and “Sunday – It’s what you have been waiting for! Sure, you can see it on display, but beginning this Sunday, you can take it home for your very own“, implying that the trailer will be released for general consumption this Sunday.

Keep your eyes open, and you’ll know more as soon as I do!

Edit: It’s Live!

For now, I’m off to the Imax!!

tag: Joker, Taste for the Theatrical, The Dark Knight, Trailer, Why So Serious

I tell you this to explain why none of the titles in this post came out this week. In fact, I don’t think any of them even came out in the same week as another. I’m trying to do better, I swear.

On to the reviews! As always, there may be minor spoilers. If you have not read the issue and want to come into it without any foreknowledge of plot whatsoever, skip this until you’ve read the comic.

First of all, 52 Aftermath – Crime Bible: 5 Lessons of Blood really needs to shorten their title. I’m already sick of typing it all out, I’m slightly offended as a consumer that they’re trying to manipulate me into buying this based on the 52 name, and I’m offended as a fan of Greg Rucka, The Question, and Renee Montoya that DC thinks they need to manipulate fans to sell this title. It’s a good book with a good main character and they should let it stand on its own merits. I’ve heard a rumor that this is not just called The Question because DC has reservations about having a homosexual main character in a series, and that just offends me as a human being.

Now that I’m done with my soapbox, the lesson of issue #2 is “Lust”. Renee tries to infiltrate a “convent” disguised as a Washington DC brothel and run by Crime Bible adherents. Apparently, the “nuns” try to recruit powerful DC figures into the Crime Bible faith through the lesson of lust. During her investigation, Renee is nearly seduced by one of the women of the cloth, so to speak.

I’m still a fairly big fan of this series, though I can certainly understand some criticisms of not really knowing where Rucka is going with this. This issue seems to help in that regard, several subtle clues given throughout the issue, and one statement made by the monk of stone at the end, make me think that they know exactly who Renee is and what she thinks she’s doing and reinforce my belief that Renee is unknowingly being taught each of the Five Lessons of Blood, in the hopes that she will become an adherent of the Crime Bible.

Rucka does mystery and subtle intrigue quite well, and he is an excellent fit for this book. I hope to see him write more Question stories in the future, even without an exclusive DC contract.

I moved Uncanny X-men #493 to the top of my stack to keep up to date with Messiah Complex (I got it this past Tuesday, I’m not sure why I didn’t wait until the next day and just get this week’s stuff too. That would have made too much sense, I suppose) and because I feel like I shafted y’all a bit in my recap earlier this week. Unfortunately – or fortunately, depending on your perspective – I’ve decide to still shaft y’all a bit; I’m not going to do a play-by-play, since I figure there may be some of y’all who are as far behind as I am and would like to read the issue first. I will still give you my impressions, though.

This… was not the strongest chapter of the event. It’s still better than the last New X-Men chapter, but it’s probably weaker than all the others. It just did not do much for me. The art was still gorgeous, there was nothing wrong with the writing per se, but… I don’t know, there wasn’t much to move the plot forward, other than the introduction of the X-Force, “we all gonna cutchoo” team.

I can understand Cyclops reasoning in going after Cable, to a point. I get that if you know nothing, it’s best to plan for the worst, but when has Cable ever played for the other team when it comes to the X-Men and what’s right? He’s not a traitor and I think sending a team to take the baby by any means necessary, including killing Cyclops’s son, is a bit rash. But then, as Cyclops said, these are desperate times and there may not be room for half-ass actions, so it does fit into the story, it just rubs me the wrong way a bit.

Of course, this issue could be absolute crap and I’d still be sticking around, and this issue was NOT crap. Second weakest chapter out of a bunch this strong is still pretty good.

I’ve been waiting for Northlanders for what feels like almost a year, so I was excited to see it finally came out. Now that I’ve read the first issue, I’m…intrigued.

I was a bit iffy on Davide Gianfelice’s art at first, it seemed a bit grainy, but the more I looked at it the more I liked it to the point that I now feel like it fits the feel of this book perfectly. Brian Wood’s writing is strong and – as far as I can tell – historically accurate regarding the Varangians and Norsemen of the era, with the exception of their mode of speech. I was definitely struck by the fact that the characters in this book are almost all unlikable people, but I doubt Vikings were very pleasant people.

It’s always hard to tell how much I’ll enjoy a book just from the first, setup issue, so I have no idea how long I’ll be sticking with this series, but I’m definitely interested enough to pick up issue 2.

Now, for the comic I was fairly certain I would hate, All Star Batman and Robin #8…

My god, I actually loved this issue; it was easily my favorite of the bunch! The Joker was definitely my favorite character, especially with his opening monologue and musings on love (in his own special way) but even Bats was excellent in this issue! There was none of the “Goddamned Batman”, but more of a softening of his character, particularly towards Dick Grayson. There was none of the posturing and puffing of the chest, only some grudging affection towards Grayson and some musing on his assuming a father-figure role.

There were even some amusing moments when Batman’s talking to himself caused him to question his sanity and his disdain for the mental prowess of Green Lantern (who is a bit of a twit in the All Star universe.) We even got to see the debut of Robin’s costume, with a twist on the original origin.

This issue left me with an impression that Frank Miller is painting a picture of Batman slowly evolving from a violent, twisted vigilante, to a humanized crime-fighter who serves as a father figure to a young man who has been through similar circumstances as him, which makes me accept the “Goddamned Batman” as an understandable starting point.

I just might have to reevaluate my opinion of Frank Miller as long past his prime, he could be doing something very excellent with this book. Now if it only came out on time….

Also, I’ve been thinking that my reviews are a bit too much of a lovefest, I only review what I like. I’ve been considering the stuff I haven’t liked as not even worth mentioning, but I’ll try to start posting a bit about those comics and why I don’t like them, to save you the money, if nothing else.

As always, comments, suggestions, criticisms, and concurrences are ALWAYS welcome!

tag: Comics, DC, Marvel, Vertigo, Question, Renee Montoya, Crime Bible, 5 Lessons of Blood, Greg Rucka, X-Men, Messiah Complex, Cyclops, Cable, X-Force, Ed Brubaker, Northlanders, Brian Wood, Davide Gianfelice, All Star Batman and Robin, Batman, Robin, Joker, Dick Grayson, Green Lantern, Frank Miller, Review

This is what I have so far:

They need to have a fairly even balance of power, or way to counteract each other’s power.

This is why, not matter how many times Reed Richards scares off Galactus or talks him into leaving, the Fantastic Four and Galactus aren’t considered “rivals”. If Galactus so chooses, he could eat each and every one of them like candy.

Human Torch? Hot fry.

Mr. Fantastic? Gummy worm.

The Thing? Jawbreaker.

Invisible Woman? I… I got nothing. But trust me, she’d go down smooth as the mountain streams.

As a matter of fact, this is why Galactus has no real rivals. This rule is also why it’s so hard to have a real rival to Superman and consequently why I’m not much of a fan of Supes. He’s a great guy, but there’s no real dramatic tension for me.

The one real, consistent rival I can think of for Superman is Lex Luthor. His cunning, ruthlessness, and intelligence allows him to give Superman a run for his money, which satisfies this requirement, but there is another reason that this rivalry is so great, and to me this is THE rule…

The opposing forces are, for the most part, defined by their conflict.

Without Superman, Lex Luthor would be just another Donald Trump. Rich, famous, but not nearly as driven as he is by his need to bring Superman down. That drive is what has made Lex great and possibly THE leader of the criminal element of the DCU. Without Lex Luthor, would there be nearly as much corruption and strife for Superman to fight against, especially in Metropolis? In his constant battle to maintain “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” against Luthor’s grabs for power, Superman has been defined as THE defender of “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”.

Batman and Joker are another example of this. Batman is the grim, serious defender of Gotham city. Joker is the psychopathic, always laughing mass-murderer of Gotham City. Joker is defined by his need to break Batman, to prove that all it takes is one bad day to make you just like him. Joker represents the worst of the crime that Batman has dedicated his life to ending. In some continuities, Joker MADE Batman. In some other continuities, Batman MADE Joker. There are very few characters as intertwined as these two. Joker is so obsessed with Batman that he has killed those who planned to kill Batman, believing that honor to be his alone. Joker realizes how much he needs Batman, but does Batman realize how much he needs Joker?

All the great rivalries fit this rule. Wolverine despised Sabertooth because he represented what Wolverine fights becoming; Sabertooth constantly came after Wolverine to remind him what he “really” is. Kingpin represents the crime and corruption that Daredevil must clean up off of the streets of Hell’s Kitchen. Spiderman and Green Goblin are essential to most of each other’s defining moments. The major tragedies of Peter Parker’s life, other than the deaths of his parental figures, are because of Norman Osborn. All Norman Osborn ever wanted from Peter Parker was for him to look at Osborn as a father figure. Thor and Loki’s conflict has raged for ages – can you really think of one without the other? Professor X and Magneto are two sides of a coin – they don’t hate each other, they only wish the other shared their dream. And if either joined the other permanently they just might be unstoppable. But both are defined by their respective versions of “the dream” and thus by their conflict.

Speaking of two sides of a coin, possibly the most interesting rivalry/conflict in comics to me is between two characters that really do hate each other – The Hulk and Bruce Banner. Both are defined by their loathing and wish to be free of the other. They would each kill the other if there was any way to do it. The short time that Banner gave into Hulk’s rage against the Illuminati is the exception to this, obviously, but for the majority of their history, each has striven to be rid of the other. Theirs is the ultimate story of self-loathing and this is why I love The Hulk.

Okay, so in the end I only came up with two real rules for a good rivalry:

There must be an equal distribution of power or reasonable way for each to counteract the other; otherwise it’s not a rivalry but more like a Chihuahua barking at a Rottweiler

And they each must be, to a large part, defined by their conflict or it’s just a good fight, not a rivalry.

Do you have something to add? Do you have some more essentials for a decent rivalry, or a reason that mine don’t fit?

What are your favorite rivalries?

Do you think Mike Haynes will ever let me be his nemesis?

Comment away!

Also, if you’re not reading Panels of Awesome, you should be!

tag: Comics, Rivalries, Battles, Comic Books, Nemesis, Nemeses, Mike Haynes, Panels of Awesome, Hulk, Bruce Banner, Batman, Joker, Fantastic Four, Galactus, Superman, Lex Luthor, Professor X, Magneto, Wolverine, Sabertooth

When I posted a Youtube video the other day and jokingly called it a preview of the Red Hulk showing up in the upcoming Edward Norton movie, I laughed and thought it was a rather obvious joke, but there was this niggling voice in the back of my head that kept asking “what if someone didn’t realize it was a joke and took you seriously – why would they ever trust you again when they realized you were full of it?”. I obviously silenced that voice since the entry is still there and I still think that it is quite obviously a joke, but I’ve still been holding a debate with myself about the subject, just on principle.

When I came across an article on IESB.net today entitled “Interview With The Cold Blooded Killer Kane” just now, it started up the debate all over again for me. This article is presented as completely legit, the only clue you may have that it’s not completely legit is the wording at the bottom thanking Eidos for permission to reprint the “interview”, the computer-rendered “photos” accompanying the article, and a familiarity with Eidos Interactive’s recent releases, specifically Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. The only reason I picked up on it was my recent research into the rumored firing of a Gamespot editor being fired over a bad review he gave Kane & Lynch, which gave me enough knowledge to recognize both the name “Kane” and the term “The Seven”.

That rumor actually gives some context to this debate in my head. Apparently, Eidos is putting a lot into the launch of this game and is willing to go to great lengths to make sure that it is not only hyped, but gets good press, which is their right. My problem is, how far should journalists and journalistic institutions (for the sake of this argument, I’m including pretty much anyone who reports on this stuff) allow advertisers’ money to influence their content. I’m all for making money, I’d love to be making more of it, but should I be willing to let an advertiser dictate what I write, how I write it, or who I employ? Even more so, should I be willing to put fake news articles into my “publication” for this advertiser? Is this responsible of me? Am I sacrificing my integrity for a quick buck?

I realize that this is most likely a kickoff to a viral campaign for Eidos, and you should know by now that I’m all for those, but from now on, how do I know whether IESB’s articles are legitimate news items or something totally fake written by an advertiser? How can I not have a shadow of a doubt in the back of my head about everything IESB says? How far are they willing to go to make a buck?

What do you think, am I just overthinking this whole thing?

tag: Journalistic Ethics, Journalism, Ethics, Advertising, Responsibility