There seems to be a lot of controversy floating around the web comics universe lately and I’m wondering where it’s all coming from.
This morning I was greeted with a message in my in box from Mambo the Breakdancing Clown. If you don’t know him, he’s the guy who draws Super Stick Figure Crime Fighters. Apparently he got his knickers in a twist for being banned from Top Web Comics for violating the terms of use.
The body of the e-mail was basically a call to arms and to rebel against TWC and its fascist ways. While I agree with Mambo that we can do without TWC, he was going at it entirely the wrong way. TWC has a right to disassociate itself with content it finds offensive.
The whole episode got me thinking about the TWC in general and I found it indicative of the problem I have with vote sites in general. If you’ve been visiting the site at all in the last 3 weeks, you would know that I had links up for TWC and was fishing for votes. I later took them down after coming to the realization that these votes don’t mean a damn thing.
Web comics like all art are entirely subjective. What I may find funny, others may not. To try and put a label on it saying “this is good, this isn’t” seems silly and a waste of time. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: If Theater Hopper fails to catch on, it’s my fault for not putting out material of quality or doing the marketing legwork to spread the word. Putting that burden on the audience by whoring for votes just seems really low class to me. I can only hope Mambo comes to the same conclusion. For the record, he later retracted his e-mail saying it was something he put together in the heat of the moment.
In other ridiculous feuds, Zach over at No Pants Tuesday picked a fight with a certain Euro-centric gaming comic. I don’t know how much of my personal feeling I should inject into this commentary. Zach is a friend of the site, so it’s kind of hard not to side with him.
What’s lame, I think is the defense Little Gamers puts up. Basically, they’re saying, “You can’t take a joke” which is fine when you put it in context to the subjectivity I was talking about earlier.
But they latched onto the bit that Zach was complaining about their bashing Americans. That’s not what I took from it. It looked to me like he was complaining more in the overall disappointment the strip had become for him – stale jokes, and what not – and that’s his prerogative. But LG took the criticism, flipped it on its head and politicized it. In my opinion, they got defensive over the wrong thing.
I guess it makes me think twice when they say Americans deserve to be made fun of because we’re violent, gun-toting freaks and then they turn around like a rabid dog lunging at a Slim Jim at the slightest provocation. That’s like me saying it’s okay to make fun of the Sweeds because they’re not worth anything more than cheese, clocks, chocolate and neutrality. It paints them with a pretty wide brush.
I’m probably only adding fuel to the fire, but for chrissakes, people! They’re only comics – you know? Funny pictures with words and all? Lighten up!
Related Posts ¬
Apr 1, 2009 | TOP WEB COMICS |
Sep 28, 2004 | PUBLICITY STUNT |
Jun 25, 2009 | 10 NOMINATIONS |
Looks like we’ve got another war of words brewing in the magical land of the Web Comic Kingdom.
Mitch over at Nothing Nice to Say took a swipe at Movie Comics concerning a dispute over votes at Top Web Comics.
Do you see what I’m talking about with this voting crap, people?! It breeds nothing but dissent among the ranks! It’s not like anyone gets free cookies when they’re voted number one. Loosen up!
I can’t say he was justified, but if I were to pick sides, I’d step in line with Mitch. He’s a friend of the site and give me good linkage.
In the interest of diplomacy within strips of similar genre, I’ll keep my personal feelings regarding Movie Comics to myself. But isn’t it suspicious that there are no banners on their links page for either this site or Movie Punks? Just thinking out loud…
Related Posts ¬
Jul 23, 2003 | GUESS WHO’S BACK? |
Jul 30, 2004 | READING MATERIAL |
Mar 8, 2006 | THE CONTROVERSY |
Again at a loss for a good incentive sketch idea, I decided to depict myself as another well-known muckraker, Geraldo Rivera! Click here to see the image (and dig that crazy reference to UHF as well!)
I found myself at a crossroads with today’s comic. Even though a lot of people are talking about it, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 could be perceived as damaged goods for a web site that traffics in making people laugh with funny pictures. Without even seeing it, we’ve been made aware that the film is unapologetically ANTI George W. Bush and this is something that can dramatically split an audience.
But on the other hand, NOT tackling a film that has generated so much advance buzz would just be sloppy content management on my part. Why should I deny what’s current in the culture because of a little controversy? Ultimately, I think I reached a fairly inventive solution in regard to discussing the film without directly mentioning it’s politics or its bias.
Even if I had to break every law regarding The 4th Wall to do it! 😉
Now before anyone gets their knickers in a twist and thinks that maybe what I’m saying in the third panel are my personal politics… well, I’m here to tell you that’s not the point of this comic strip.
Things will become more clear after Friday (this is a two-part strip) that what I am choosing to lampoon is not the movie, the conservatives, the liberals or the independents. Instead what I’m gunning for is the response to works like Moore’s and what it says about America as a whole.
I’m sure you’ve read reports about conservative groups sending e-mails to the C.E.O.s of large movie chains petitioning them to ban Fahrenheit 9/11 from their theaters. Whatever your politics are, I find it decidedly UN-American to censor another artist’s work – no matter HOW strongly you disagree with it.
Sure, picket the theaters. Hand out pamphlets denouncing Michael Moore as a one-man liberal propaganda machine. There’s nothing against free speech or the freedom to assemble going on there.
But outright censorship – trying to prevent art from reaching the masses, denying them the right to choose FOR THEMSELVES if this is material they wish to expose themselves to – is just plain wrong. As an artist myself, I take particular notice when stories like these break because who is to say I won’t be next if you happen to disagree with something I say?
In any case, I plan on watching Moore’s film when it comes out this Friday. And like all of Moore’s work, I intend to take it with a grain of salt. When I get home, I plan on taking the information I’ve gathered and researching it myself to get a balanced perspective on the issues.
And IF ANYTHING ELSE, that is the beauty of Moore’s chest-thumping. He gets people THINKING. And in an election year where 50% of the populace chooses not to express their given right to have their voice heard, a little extra thought tossed into the political arena is never a bad thing.
:: steps off soapbox ::
If you have comments about today’s comic, please leave them in the THorum (Rational discourse ONLY, please!) and expect a follow-up comic on Friday.
I know emotions have been running high for some of you, so to diffuse some of the controversy, I decided to offer a very humorous incentive sketch. I won’t spoil the surprise, so vote for Theater Hopper at buzzComix and have a cheap laugh on me.
So here it is. Part 2 of my little reaction piece to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. I have to admit there wasn’t as much backlash to Wednesday’s comic as I thought there would be. I don’t know what that says about you the audience or me the creator, but there you have it.
Really the comics of the last two days don’t have anything to do with Moore’s movie. They weren’t a collaboration of his political or a statement against President Bush.
My issue is censorship. Whether it be artists censoring themselves in fear of reprisal or suffering the judgement of others in a society that professes free speech as its highest virtue.
Wednesday’s comic saw me stepping into my own imaginary universe as some kind of overlord, informing the audience that we wouldn’t touch the controversy with a 10 foot pole. The joke was that I was censoring myself.
Of course, this gets thrown out the window when I call President Bush a doodie head.
Today’s comic is about the reaction to commentary such as that. My free speech is countered by another’s free speech and my characters get caught in the crossfire. Attempting to express their frustration, I alter what Cami was going to say in panel three. Censorship again.
At the end of the day, it serves no purpose to try and prevent what one person wants to express. Whether it’s Moore, myself, or a fictional character. No one has ever adopted the concept of free speech and democracy by having it forced down their throats. No one will adopt another persons idea of what is appropriate and what is not if they aren’t already looking for that answer.
I understand that you guys primarily come to the site for a cheap laugh before going about your day and you probably don’t need my opinions cluttering things up. But every once in a while, I want to make you laugh AND make you think. If I can do that, then I know I’m not some hack out here trying to perform some slight of hand to make you think I have talent. It’s no different than my commentary about the MPAA a while ago. And for those of you who don’t think it’s my place to mix politics and art, where were your criticism when I was taking Jack Valenti down a few pegs?
Ultimately, there is a nexus where art, politics, commerce and opinion intersect. And every so often my work drifts into the middle of it. If you like it, great. If not, well… content decisions around here is like Iowa weather. You don’t like it? Wait 10 minutes. It’ll get better.
Stay tuned to the comic next week for a whole new story arc profiling the biggest summer blockbuster of the year – the upcoming Spider Man 2! I’m looking forward to it! I hope you are, too!
Considering all the controversy of last weeks’ Fahrenheit 9/11 strips, I thought I would share the information that Michael Moore’s movie broke box office records for a documentary’s opening weekend.
Fahrenheit 9/11 took in $21.9 million this weekend making it the number one movie in the country.
Now for my two cents:
Cami and I saw the movie this weekend in Ames, which is about an hour away from Des Moines. It’s also home to Iowa State University, so you know there was a lot of liberal college students in attendance.
We would have seen the movie in town, but the only theater that was showing the movie was the same one we had all the trouble with when we went to see Lost In Translation. Sorry, but it’s one of many establishments I won’t grace with my business anymore. CompUSA, I’m looking your way, too!
Anyhow, from a pure movie-making perspective, I think Moore told a very engrossing tale about the Bush administration. Funny, shocking, sad… ultimately you left the theater with plenty of food for thought. This is never a bad thing.
A lot of the facts that Moore severed up I already knew. But he packages them in a way that serves the most impact. Watching the movie defiantly leaves and impression.
There were parts of the movie that were a little overwrought and you can tell where Moore’s ego gets in the way. Blind-siding Senators and asking them to sign up their kids for service in the armed forces is a little shady. So was his parading of a mother who’s son died in the conflict.
Don’t get me wrong. I am sorry for her loss and thank her family for their sacrifice, but it felt emotionally cloying and a little more than manipulated.
Is everything Moore says in the movie 100% truth? No. He’s defiantly pushing his own agenda. But if anything, it’s prompted me to ask more questions and do more of my own research – which is also a good thing.
I think if anyone is walking into this movie expecting the unfiltered truth to be spoon-fed to them, then they’re walking into the theater with the wrong idea. Because it’s no better than to accept what Moore says at face value any more than what the current administration tries to get you to believe.
Bottom line: Regardless of your politics, everyone should see this movie. It’s too important and too timely to ignore.
Related Posts ¬
Apr 7, 2008 | CLARIFICATION |
I don’t know if you guys are aware of the minor controversy that sprang up between Penny Arcade and buzzComix regarding PA’s charity effort Child’s Play, but basically Gabe took some members of the community to task for some rather disparaging remarks they made. Some had the audacity to suggest that Gabe and Tycho developed Child’s Play as a way of raising their own profile and that their motives weren’t completely altruistic.
What’s important about this story is that Gabe actually linked to the thread in the buzzComix forum where these comments were being made. (the link has since been taken down from the PA main page)
Kind of as a half goof/half publicity stunt, I decided to hop into the middle of the fray to promote Theater Hopper and placed a link for people to click. PA’s fan base is legendary. I knew they would swoop into action immediately after Gabe pointed out people bad mouthing them. So, I decided to capitalize on it a little. If nothing else, I thought I could insert a little ironic levity into what would assuredly become a lot of self-important bickering.
I’m mentioning this because astonishing, my plan seems to have worked! I’ve gotten a few e-mails from people saying they read my post and decided to give Theater Hopper a try.
I just want to say to those of you who came from Penny Arcade by-proxy and found yourself here, WELCOME! I hope you enjoy the comic. We have over 325 comics in our archive, so I’m sure you’ll find something you’ll like. If you’re looking for an introduction to the cast, you can find it here. And if you like online communities give our THorum a try! We have lots of really cool people in there and we’ve managed to stay relatively drama-free for the last year or so.
Y’know, the Internet is a pretty crazy place to live and do business, but I wouldn’t have it any other way!
Related Posts ¬
Jun 25, 2009 | 10 NOMINATIONS |
Dec 4, 2003 | I HATE TO TROUBLE YOU |
Mar 23, 2005 | MEET MR. HAPPY! |
Aug 23, 2002 | CONTROVERSY |
I made a promise to come in and talk about the controversy over Crash upsetting Brokeback Mountain for the Best Picture Oscar.
But I gotta be truthful: I’m not as upset about it as I was before.
I haven’t seen Crash, so I can’t vouch for it’s worthiness or unworthiness. But at the time when Jack Nicholson read the name of the winning film from that card, I was shocked. To me, Brokeback seemed like the more culturally relevant film. Just in terms of the awareness it brought to homosexual relationships as fully realized partnerships. Not a gimmick. Not a flamboyant supporting plot device. But just as rich and detailed as any straight love story.
I’ve heard from some people that Brokeback wouldn’t have gotten the same amount of attention if it weren’t about gay cowboys. There might be some truth to that, but I don’t think so. I think audiences are interested in well-crafted stories regardless of the main character’s sexual orientation. To me, the fact that Brokeback was about a gay couple was secondary. It’s about cowardace and not standing up for the most important things in life. It’s about caving to self-imposed and societal expectations and not having the strength to question them. You could swap out two gay characters with two straight ones and it wouldn’t have changed the overall theme of the movie – That love is hard-earned and not for the weak. The characters could be a Muslim and a Jew, a black man and a white woman or your next door neighbors. The whole "gay issue" is a non-point to me.
That said, and presuming that both Brokeback and Crash are equally well-made films (represented by their equal share of earned Oscars in technical categories), at one point I questioned if there was perhaps some kind of bias against Brokeback because Academy voters couldn’t see past the "gay issue."
I think Crash may have also had a "home-field" advantage in and of that it is a movie set and filmed in L.A. and that’s where 80% of the voting block resides. Also considering the location of the shoot was probably a touch point for voters considering that most productions are being farmed out to Canada, Australia and Prague to cut costs. Filming in their own backyard was something the voters wanted to reward perhaps as a means to encourage production to stay in Tinsletown.
But overall, you have to question if perhaps the homosexual aspect of the film was not something voters wanted to appear to endorse. It was tackled at the top of the show that Hollywood was out of touch with mainstream America. A win for Brokeback would have been a strong confirmation of that point to those critics. Why give them more ammunition?
Jeffery Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere made an interesting point about the whole thing. I quote,
It’s food for thought.
I shared that thought for a while, but I think it’s since worked it’s way out of my system. Friday’s comic will reflect that and, I think, from there we can all move forward.
Related Posts ¬
Feb 26, 2012 | 84TH ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS LIVE BLOG |
GUEST STRIP – EDDIE BOWLEY
May 22nd, 2006 | by Tom- Comics »
- Comics »
- Guest Strip
(14 votes, average: 5.21 out of 10)
Today’s guest strip comes to us from a very clever chap from across the pond – Eddie Bowley, the creator of Edd Egg. I don’t want to spoil too much of what Eddie is doing here, but I strongly encourage you to go to the effort of "decoding" his guest strip. It not only tackles the "controversy" surrounding The Da Vinci Code in a very clever way, but it also makes me wish I had thought of the joke first!
Eddie did an excellent job of capturing Tom’s stentorian sermons, so I was doubly impressed by the effectiveness of this comic. I just love reading the comics from people who really seem to "get" the characters. It makes me feel like when I’m writing them, things are less random. People understand who they are – their likes and dislikes.
Or, as Eddie’s comic implies, perhaps Eddie is a genius and my attempts at character development are highly transparent to him!
In either case, be sure to check out Edd Egg and come back here on Wednesday for more guest strip goodness!
Side note: There is a good chance that Cami and I are in Cannes, France as you read this. Part of our vacation tour takes us to Nice, France and we found out that Cannes is only a half hour to an hour away. So we’re going to try and get a train ticket to Cannes and wander around for the day. The film festival is going on right now, so if we see any celebrities, we’ll take pictures and post them here. We’re hoping to get into one of the movies playing at the festival for bragging rights. But I don’t know how likely that is! So what, really? We’ll be in Cannes during the festival! That’s a big score for a movie buff such as myself!
At any rate, thanks for checking in with us! See you here on Wednesday!
Sometimes you just want to pitch one straight up the middle, you know?
Of course, now upon inspection, I might have pulled out this gag to sell it a little more. The delivery of this one… it just feels like a “what’s in the news?” late night kind of thing.
The Golden Compass comes out on Friday and I couldn’t be more bored with the idea. Gordon saw a sneak preview of it last Saturday, so we talked about it a little bit on Monday night’s Triple Feature. I was dead serious when I confessed that I thought The Golden Compass was the sequel to The Chronicles of Narnia. Can you blame me? Winter scenes, witches, talking animals. A little too similar for me, I guess. But what can I say? I’m a dullard. I don’t read “books” – whatever those are.
Curiously, unlike Narnia which rankled some atheists for it’s detection of Aslan the Lion as a Jesus-like figure for leading a land out of sin. Now her comes it’s spiritual (pardon the pun) brethren in The Golden Compass and the shoe is now on the other food. Religious groups claim the film promotes atheism because the books written by Phillip Pullman depicts organized religion as evil. Pullman himself has made comments in the past describing himself as an atheist and deliberately “…trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”
For me, personally, religion fits nowhere into the equation of either Narnia or Compass. I’m not overtly religious in my own life, so I view the conflict from an outsider’s perspective. Looking at it from a distance, I ask myself, “Aren’t these pretty heavy themes for children’s fantasy?”
Granted, most fairy tales have bleak and violent conclusions. So it’ s not as though children can’t process the weight of good and evil in a literary allegory. But why does everything have to be politicized to such a degree?
I think I have some more thoughts swirling around in my brain on this one, but I might hold off until Friday to set them loose. They might get me in trouble. We’ll see.
Until then, thanks for stopping by the site. See you again real soon!
I caught this story about Katherine Heigl complaining about her role in Knocked Up in the latest issue of Vanity Fair earlier in the week and it’s really been bugging me.
Entertainment Weekly would have you believe that Heigl should be commended for speaking her mind and ignoring “publicist-scripted hooey” in her interview with the magazine. But there is a difference between being honest and being disrespectful.
Not being a woman, I can’t speak with any authority as to Heigl’s claim that Knocked Up is sexist. But as a man, I think there is enough to take umbrage in the depiction of my gender as slothful, stoned, ambitionless tubs of lard. In fact, I would be willing to wager that Knocked Up is more sexist in it’s stereotypes against men than it is against women. It would be one thing if the movie had Heigl’s character walking around barefoot and cooking Seth Rogen’s character dinner in every third scene. But that’s not the case. I think they treat her character with great respect. She’s a responsible professional. She has strong family bonds. And she has dimension of character! She’s responsible, but has a one night stand. She drives her niece’s to school but she gets hormonal like a normal pregnant woman would. If you want sexist, look at the punchline of today’s comic. Now THAT’S sexist!
Things get more disgusting when you start to follow the money. Apparently after the success of Knocked Up and her Emmy win for Grey’s Anatomy, her asking price for the upcoming 27 Dresses with James Marsden went up from $300,000 to $6 million.
The simple fact of the matter is if you didn’t watch Grey’s Anatomy, you didn’t know who Katherine Heigl was. Knocked Up put her on the map. Maybe she didn’t like her character or the movie. Fine. But be a little bit magnanimous about where it got you. Because now you look ungrateful.
I think Heigl’s comments against Knocked Up are going to go down in history as one of the most sublime Hollywood foot-in-mouth moments. Considering how well writer/director Judd Apatow treats his stable of actors, there’s no telling where that relationship could have taken her. What’s the incentive to work with her ever again after this?
Apparently Apatow took the high road when questioned about Heigl’s comments at the recent GQ Men of the Year party in Hollywood this week:
“I don’t think the movie’s sexist, I think there are characters in the movie who are sexist,” clarified writer/director Judd Apatow, who hasn’t spoken with Heigl about her comments. “Apparently Vanity Fair needs to sell some magazines. They’ve got to turn up the controversy. I’m sure when they get you talking for hours and hours, a couple lines taken out of context seem more interesting than they really are.”
That’s a fairly diplomatic response. But Rogen’s response to the same line of questioning is a little more revealing:
“We won A Women’s Image Network Award; I picked it up myself,” he reminded, adding, “I don’t really talk to Katie.”
Does that mean she’s off his Christmas list? “Yeah, exactly. Oh yeah, like she was on it before.”
Rogen has a pretty sarcastic sense of humor, but that still comes off kind of harsh. You get the sense from his comments that they’ve already left her behind.
I look at this mess and the whole time I’m reminded of the reportedly contentious relationship between Kevin Smith and Linda Fiorentino on the set of Dogma. Listen to the Dogma DVD commentary track to get the scoop straight from Smith. Or read this news item from 2000 at TVGuide.com. My point is, has anyone heard from Linda Fiorentino since Dogma?
Her page over at IMDB.com lists four credits since Dogma, all in 2000 and then nothing. Maybe it’s a coincidence. But for someone who starred in Men In Black and Dogma at the end of the 90’s, she seemed poised to make it big in the next few years. Then… nothing.
Apatow probably pulls more clout than Smith did during his Dogma days. But all Smith had to do was be vocal about how difficult Fiorentino was on-set before she stopped turning up in movies. Apatow doesn’t have to say word-one. Heigl is doing it for him. Still, if she’s burning bridges with someone comparable to Smith, could Katherine Heigl be the next Linda Fiorentino? Time will tell, I suppose.
I guess, for me, what’s most disappointing about Heigl’s comments is that it subtracts from a movie I really enjoyed this year. I liked Knocked Up… a lot. I bought the Special Unrated Edition on DVD so I could get MORE Knocked Up content. Now if I watch that movie, I’m going to be looking at Heigl, thinking about her comments and stewing about how ungrateful she is.
Think of it another way. Have you ever been to a concert where maybe the band is just starting to break through? They’ve got some big hit single and they’re tired of playing it? They kind of mope through the song because they feel obligated to, but you can tell their heart’s not into it? They make you feel like an idiot for liking their song! That’s what I feel like after reading Heigl’s comments.
Granted, there is a lot of stuff going on in Knocked Up that I like that has nothing to do with Heigl’s character. I’m sure I can enjoy those parts. But her involvement is pretty much central to the motivations of the character. So I’ll always be aware of her on the periphery, sulking, bitching about sexism (yet comfortable selling out her principles for a hit movie) and it’s just going to taint the entire experience.
Incidentally, if you wanted to look at her Maxim photo shoot where you can see more of her “principles” on display, you can find it here.
That concludes my rant. Have a great weekend, everyone!