Greets 'mate,

I dunno mang, this doesn't smell good to me.

Seems to me in one fell thwipt Marvel's image has 180'd from streetpunk (Marvel's image) to familyfare (Disney's)

and overnight comicbook streetcred just switched from DisneyMarvel to WarnerD.C

Also on the down side seems to me this means fewer Marvel film adaptations, because Disney will want to manage Marvel film productions. Marvel had Fox; Sony; Universal; Lionsgate and of course Marvel itself all making films for them, to name a few.  They could shop around. I'll wager soon there'll only be Disney making Marvel films.

I can see Disney making good hyper-popular mainstream Marvel movies, but I just can't see Disney doing anything else (longterm) other than attempting to smooth out all the rough edges on Marvel comics.

And it's the rough edges, that I freakin like about Marvel.

We'll see, on the plus side, this does open the door to another comic book company taking over Marvel's previous position.

This could be the time for the rise of Image.

or perhaps a Marvel employee, will bolt and take some folks with them and start up a new comic book company.

Might not be a bad idea, because Marvel just graduated and I think that the top "streetcred" comicbook position is now once again available.

*gaze left* *gaze right* Hmmmmmmmmmm(n) saaay, this doesn't look like the Church of Vagina. 

I think I took a wrong turn someplace.

Still, while I'm in here, it takes big testicles (or one hell of a persecution complex - Ed) to hit a genre site to talk about religion.

Welcome Big Testicled One.

AISI the Bible can be wielded for good as well as for misguided-good as well as for evil.

If You/they use the Bible to promote good, then I say more power to You/them.

If they use it to specifically attack homosexuals, then I say that sort needs to piss off back to the troll caves.  That sort is probably the #1 reason that organized religion is being rejected by many people.  Because there's a HUGE conflict there. 

And it is this:

(everyone's gay? - Ed)

You can stop helping me Ed.

Nein, it's because Jesus loves, PARTICULARLY the downtrodden, the weak, and the poor.

More to the point, his legacy, imo the greatest most enduring part of his legacy, was to breed EMPATHY AND COMPASSION for others, one can't expect that anyone that looks at the story of Jesus life will come out ..condemning others. 

or perhaps some can, but most people will not see that reflected in Jesus life.

More to the point, condemnation of others is the _anti-thesis_ of the story of Jesus life. 

His life was about teaching, about healing, about compassion and empathy,  his death was about forgiveness.

The point is that whatever slant any branch of Christianity has tried to prism Jesus life through _the people_ have come to their own idea of who Jesus is and what he represents.  And chiefly people see him as the figure for empathy and compassion.

Contrast that with how some people wield the Bible, and I think we can see the source of the disconnect and the growing chasm between people and organized religion.

ie. In the same key sentence that The Bible goes after homosexuality, it goes after adultery and greed and a slew of other items.  It's not highlighted -above- the others, it's only a -part- of a list.

It's the vocal _Bible-Thumping_  Condemnationalists, that highlight it above the other items the Bible attempts to discourage. It's the vocal-condemners that cross-connect it with other pages of the Bible, to attempt to further raise its status above the other items in the list. 

And yet it's _the other items_ in the list, that MOST people engage in. Regularly.

I'm not a psychologist but perhaps that's because most of humanity is greedy and/or banging their neighbors ox and coveting their wife? (or vice versa - Ed) so perhaps the bible-thumpers won't go after them (and all the others mentioned in the list) with equal condemnation, because that'd be going after the MAJORITY of people, and that'd be HARD (not to mention dangerous - Ed).

And so instead they pull out homosexuality from the list, raise it, highlight it and gun for them.

Why? perhaps because they're the minority; they're perceived to be an easy target. 

Also, traditionally it doesn't take too much work to get the majority to stomp on the minority. Historically, the majority will throttle the minority if given half a chance. We've had to create magna-carta's, constitutions, laws and civil rights world-wide to protect the minority from the majority.

Now back to Jesus Christ, who has come to represent empathy and compassion for others.

And they want to use Jesus by proxy to attack homosexuals?

I believe that's where you have the source of the disconnect.

I think the solution is to take a cue from Jesus, and ..leave ..the ..judging ..to ..God.

Not that I'm saying this applies to you - because I haven't seen what you've specifically said about or against homosexuals, other than your opening admission that you have used anti-homosexuality examples from the Bible - but rather to say that where-applicable it strikes me that the irony is ((THIS)):

if a homosexual and an ardent-homosexual-condemner were to face the God of the Bible, it's the _homosexual-condemner_ that attempted to judge the homosexual in God's name that would face (the larger of - Ed) God's wraths.

if for no other reason than because he repeatedly outright tells you he's a jealous God and will kick your ballsack into your esophagus if you attempt to speak for him.

Judging others in his name is a big no-no. The God of the Bible hates that MORE than almost anything else.

ie. even if it is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, NONE of the Bible's Top 10 list

(he means the 10 commandments -Ed)

..talk about homosexuality, while 50% of them WARN about attempting to usurp his authoritaaaay.

I wouls say that's a pretty clear indication which the God of the Bible gets pissed off at more.

I think it'd be rather fitting, if the extremists that mis-use the bible to condemn homosexuals in God's name, wind up being the one's getting their posteriors handed to them by the very same God.

Though in their defence, I s'pose they could finally admit they'd never actually read the Bible.

Nicely said.

Two Trek quotes come to mind:

"Don't mince words Bones, tell us what you really think."

&

"If there is to be a brave new world our (Star Trek -Ed) generation is going to have the hardest time living in it."

Although they mindnumbingly denied the term throughout production (if there's one thing I've learned it's that you cannot trust anything JJ Abrams and co say, they lie like dogs) ..this is indeed a _reboot_ of Star Trek, starting with TOS.

AISI, we had the ST Universe, the ST Mirror-Universe and now we have the ST Cracked-Mirror universe. 

Where some things look distorted and some things look the same.

Effectively, the Star Trek mythology is starting from scratch (in an alternate time-line - Ed).

If viewed through cynical retina, it might have been deliberately designed to circumvent the perceived-albatros of previously-established ST continuity.

(read: they were lazy and didn't feel like doing any cross-referencing homework - Ed)

possibly more likely though, it was born of a meeting of Directorial/Writing hubris cum Studio-perceived-necessity:

ie. designed to allow Star Trek to re-launch from scratch, so that it may be geared for a new generation.

For my part, I remember the original TOS fans HATED TNG at its launch, with a passion, it wasn't until TNG's _third_ season, that TOS fans finally came on board. 

Fandom claimed it had gotten better (and that was true) but it wasn't the only reason it took 3 seasons for TNG to begin to be accepted by ST fandom, there was also an inherent negative knee-jerk reaction to a new Star Trek.  A feeling that it would be some superficial ratings geared abomination that would inevitably disgrace the legacy.

TNG would go on to become a ratings AND critical phenomenon, lightening caught in a bottle twice, nigh on as respected as the original TOS.

So, here we are at the launch of a new Star Trek, again, and the TalkingHeads Byrne negative re-action in hardcore Trekdom is the same as it ever was, same as it ever was, and not without juste concern.

After-all, there is precedent for bad Trek, but in my view, there's only really been 1 truly horrid meritless Trek.

Only 1 that I have been unable to re-visit, and don't care to ever see again; only 1 that I hold animosity towards, for dragging me into new episodes every week, taking all my good will, and all my enthusiasm and all the momentum that *I* (as a Star Trek fan) largely supplied, and _draining_ me of every ounce of it by the time the episode was over.

and it's the same series that I predicted would exist, in a comment years earlier.  Where I'd offhandedly sputtered, "the way things are going with the formularization of Star Trek, how long before cute'n'cuddly Scott Bakula will wind up Captain of the Enterprise?".

(actually as I recall it, you made a little StarTrekFutureFormula ryhme, that went something like  "1..2 boobies hit the floor, 3..4 Captain Scott Bakula is at the bridge door" - Ed)

Yes, I fucking HATE Enterprise. As much for taking a one-liner offhand joke I'd made in passing and turning it into a whole fucking Star Trek series, as for the time and good-will that it squandered.

But in my view, that was the ONLY truly horrid Star Trek. Out of *scribble* *scribble* *erase* carry the 42 ..five incarnations.

(there are critical arguments one could lodge against DS9 and Voyager. The former too "dark" for Star Trek, the latter, too TNG'esque. But over-all I think they were _good_ StarTreks that each had their shining moments. While comparatively I'd classify TOS and TNG as _great_ StarTreks)

Overall mostly a proud legacy, marred severely only by the "don't you know who my Daddy Is" Prat commanded Enterprise. Seriously this manchild made a habit out of charging into situations like a fuming and/or sulking git, and engaged in activities like breeding a sentient life form only to murder him for his parts to save his friend.

I'd mutiny and throw him in the brig during her maiden launch, for violating everything StarTrek is meant to stand for.

Right, rant over.

Back to the present, and Star Trek is released as a summer movie. This does not bode well.

For the last 10 or so years, summer-movies have been getting steadily worse, some of the most vapid shit ever committed to digital celuloid is pulling in some of the biggest bags of greenbacks ever seen. 

You might even pick them up on video; you plug em in, you tune out half-way through or fast-forward to the gratuitous music-video action sequence and softcore T'nA and you NEVER watch these movies again. 

If you're smart, you throw them out, and smash em with a sledgehammer to save some vagrant from the embarassment of having to be seen toting them into a pawn shop.

if you can't bring yourself to throw them out, you hang your head in shame whenever you look at your video collection and a little piece of you dies every time you spot them disgracing your otherwise fine collection.

Most summer movies of late, are abominational supershit that make their money playing off of nostalgia and temporary hype.

So I was worried too, but considering how bad it could have been, Star Trek scores some credit in my books for not being as dilapidated-outhouse-filthy-excrement as the rest of the summer blockbuster fare.

_At this point_ AISI StarTrek is a hybrid that could go either way.

It sought to bring in a larger audience, but at the same time it's not a completely superficial summer movie formula-fiasco; most importantly (to moi) it's not soul-less.  There is some Star Trek in this Star Trek.

It's not even close to being en quality par with the original, but Star Trek has been surprisingly mostly blessed. As far as its television incarnations go (keeping in mind that he excommunicates and disavows the existence of "Enterprise" -Ed) even at its worse, in my view Star Trek has been mostly better than 99% of what else has been on television at the time.

Likewise, this Star Trek movie was better than 99% of what else was on during the summer.

Time will tell which direction it will ultimately take, and the cynic (read: realist - Ed) *cough* in me doesn't hold out much hope. 100% superficial vapid dunderheaded excrement now rules the summer (putting the B.O in B.O -Ed) but for now, I'm willing to give the new Trek a chance.

The King is Dead, Long Live The King.

AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA entoosiasm .. entoosiasm. 

We laugh because it's funny, and we laugh because it's true.

Never happens to me of course. 

Oh no, I never scored 2 hot femmes at a concert, who followed me and my friends homeward bound, clinging to my every word.

Until, paying too much attention to the femme, and not enough to my immediate surroundings, I suddenly found myself stuck in the spinning doors, mid freakin spin. 

Complete dead stop. 

Silence.

And then, on cue, my best friend at the time let out an ear-piercing uncontrollable non-stop laugh.

And the two girls buggered off.

No, those moments never happen to moi. Oh no, not I.

Anyway, I agree, I certainly don't mean to diminish Meyer's style (or lack of).  I come to praise her.

The content is there, she tells a complete story, for moi her noteworthy forte' is in `----the flow---, it is  non-restrictive, you rarely need to go back and re-read a paragraph because of clunky wordsmanship or the like; when I say "no digestion required" I mean it as a compliment, I find it pleasantly surprising, because the content is ALSO there, it's just that it's writ without un-necessarily flowery verbiage, and it's well paced.

I think if you were to deconstruct her writing ebb'n'flow and her pacing and her content-placing, you'd have a winning formula in -any- literary genre.

The only question I would have would be whether she did this on purpose or not. 

If it were done with careful deliberation, with the intent of removing any element which inhibits flow, then I think it's quite an accomplishment.

In either case, I find it refreshing and enjoyable.

(whatever happened to that friend anyway, the one that laughed his butt off when you got stuck in the spinning doors? - Ed)

He can breath ok so long as nobody unplugs him.

entoosiam .. entoosiam.

As I said over in Chad's article, slightly ironic that one of the few guys on here that displays any interest in femme centered genre work (see Starlight's defense of Twilight) is the same one that is targeted in an article that happens to be about femme-centric genre work.

Course, we do bring this shite upon ourselves.

Sometimes we spend too much time smashing traditional boundaries, waxing creative, or just playing around, we forget we need to balance that out with a respect for the article author's intellect (where applicable -Ed) ..too.

(also helps to occasionally toss in a reply that represents your own intellects - where applicable - Ed)

Yes, largely because some of these twonks have the memory of a goldfish, and may forget that you have an intellect (where applicable - Ed)

Anyway, I haven't gotten away with it Starlight, because I consider myself guilty of this too, of late.

(you don't say - Ed)

Yes, note to self, we must remember, one attempted intelligent discourse oriented reply-to-Author-in-kind-comment to every five lascivious vagina comments.

(it's a start - Ed)

[Pathud]

*tilt head* *insert 45 degree footshake hello*

Your planet, Welcome!

And yet TWILIGHT is written by a female, for females, while the majority of males piss all over it.

I don't know if that Twilight urination applies to you Chad, but I can tell you the dismissal of Starlight as a one-dimensional frat party LCD bloke is off-base considering he has been one of the main champions for just about the ONLY female centered genre work discussed here at Mania.

(outside of your recent column - and a couple writ on anime, kudos for the article btw Chad)

And Starlight has (allegedly -Ed) had to pull teeth to get Jarrod to even post about Twilight. :)

My point being, genre fandom is and comic-books are, as you say, largely male dominated.

Yet ironically the bloke that you are if understandably pissed at over his initial comment (ostensibly for derailing the discussion) that same bloke doesn't just defend but he UNDERSTANDS femme centric genre work more than MOST males do.

I say this based on discussions with Starlight in our blogs.

I say this because he "gets" Twilight. He understands AND accepts the female perspective it presents. More than most.

Is he a creative lunatic who gets carried away on occasion? yes, don't most creatives? Wasn't Warren Ellis himself criticized for it? what with his "offensive" frat-boy like colourful-metaphor infused verbiage.

I too might also be dismissively classified as a frat party bloke, particularly if some of my comments were taken in isolation and highlighted (Vagina - Ed) but I also actively try to understand genre work from an analytical perspective, you know when I'm sane anyway, and in particular I try to understand femme-centric genre work.

I've blogged about my attempt to immerse myself in femme-centric stimuli (lit, television, music, et cetera) in order to attempt to better understand the fairer sex.

It is the very reason I have had Starlight's back on Twilight (which I'm reading on his recommendation) and am enjoying it largely because I find it to contain an _honest_ female perspective.

For my personal edification, an honest female representation is currently preferable, a "good" role model has its value too of course, but it is not necessarily elucidating when what you are questing for is "raw truth", if you see my meaning.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm(n) "good female role models" vs "honest female role models" in genre work? that might be an interesting comparison.

Anyway, good article, I don't think that a comic-book need necessarily be writ by a woman, to well represent women, but I do think the writer must first understand women _from a female perspective_ to write about women in a compelling fashion.

That's my take.

Starlight --) You're a disturbing disturbing man. 

Works for me!

re: Twilight

I believe that all sides of the Twilight debate are correct in their own subjective way.

If I haven't convinced you of the majora merits of going against the Y chromosome Twilight-bashing wave, I would just like to expostulate this for your consideration..

*puff on bubble pipe*

*WHAM* *WHAM* *WHAM*

re: True Blood.

Gotta love any series that opens with Bill Maher chairing a sociopolitical debate with a representative of contemporary nosferatu society.

Also, True Blood = Rogue Poundcake.

Win, EpicWin.

You're gonna pay for that visual, Starlight.

oh right, I did forget to include the rampant nudity, it was an oversight which shall now be rectified.

And what better example of the thinking-man's (pervie -Ed) game, than this.

Punch here for TheThinkingManGame. (WARNING! NSFW -Ed)