The Week In Geek 9/16/15

This week in Douchebag Theory...Bill Maher has reached a brand new level of douchebaggery not seen before on his show, Real Time. Last night, Jorge Ramos was subjected to possibly one of the fiercest panels of jackasses Maher has ever had in one episode: Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, Presidential Candidate and presumed human George Pataki and MSNBC's resident rabid attack dog, Chris Matthews. On the topic of Ahmed Mohamed, the 14 year Muslim student who was arrested for bringing a clock to school, Cuban recounted a story of talking on the phone with the boy and telling the panel that he sounded apprehensive when asked to recount the events that led to his arrest, claiming his sister was feeding him answers and instructions. First of all, are we really surprised that a 14 year old boy didn't have a press kit and prepared statements in the event that his racist teachers had him carted off for showing off to his engineering teacher. I, myself, have been a performance poet, but at 14 years old, when speaking to people, I had to be told not to stutter and speak clearly almost constantly. It's not that unreasonable that a child might be uncomfortable talking about his evening in baby booking. Furthermore, Cuban himself stated that the boy showed the thing to three other teachers throughout the day who thought it was completely fine before Miss McFreakout decided to "contain the situation." So, now, suddenly the kid is supposed to have a prepared explanation outside of "it's a clock" for the one teacher who lacks a basic grasp of context clues? Bullshit.

Maher claimed that white privilege doesn't factor into the incident, but the fact that he, a rich white male, was attempting to justify detaining a Muslim child essentially "because ISIS", claming that the onus was on him behave within the parameters of his administrators' suspicions....is precisely white privilege. The bomb squad wasn't called, the police didn't report the situation to Homeland and the school wasn't evacuated, so it's safe to assume that outside of "it looks like something someone put together at home", there was no reason to believe that anyone involved had any serious concerns that Ahmed's project was a credible threat. What Maher and his circle jerk of white privilege didn't seem to understand was that, at the end of the day, the possibility of a bomb threat wasn't the issue being handled. A Muslim child was.

This Week In Keeping Hope Alive....It seems that previous reports that production for Pacific Rim 2: Maelstrom were exaggerated. Guillermo Del Toro is still turning in a budget and a script for the film in a matter of weeks, but he's filming another project in between if the studio gives him the greenlight. So, relax, folks. Hopefully, we'll still be canceling the apocalypse next year. 

This Week In Self Promotion....The day has finally arrived. My webcomic, Neverland: The Untold is finally launched as of this past Wednesday. The outpour of support has been overwhelming, humbling and exciting all at the same time. Several hundred views in the first day, 100 likes on the Facebook page....if I didn't know any better, I'd say you people were looking forward to this comic as much as we were looking forward to releasing it. It hasn't even been a week and it's already been an amazing experience. So, if you haven't already checked the website out, please do, leave comments, subscribe to our email updates. We've got a lot of good stuff coming and we're eager to show you what we've been working on. 

My comic reviews for Tokyo Ghost and Star Wars are up and available on Black Nerd Problems for your viewing enjoyment. Feel free to like, comment and share at your leisure. You know the drill.

The Other Side of Representation in Comics

So, earlier this week, I was doing research online for what might turn into a Black Nerd Problems article sometime soon. And anyone who knows me or even follows me on Twitter or Facebook knows that my doing research on the internet equates to my finding a new awful inner layer of the internet that I never knew about before. Fortunately, I didn't quite find that but the past few months put me onto a new degree of naysayer geeks I didn't really know/acknowledge previously.

In this case, it's the New Marvel Defectors (that's not a thing, internet...it's just my term). New Marvel Defectors generally have a problem with the direction the company is taking in being more socially inclusive (more female characters, Black Captain America, Woman Thor, etc). The biggest complaint I hear is that Marvel's approach constitutes as lazy writing and that instead of repurposing existing characters to take up the mantle of an existing white superhero, they should just make new characters.

Now, let me first state that this IS AT LEAST HALF TRUE. Yes, the Big Two SHOULD be developing new characters and, mainly in DC's case, working a little harder to develop existing characters of color and non-binary characters. However, let's not pretend that this isn't something that's actively happening. There's been an all woman squad of X-Men in a series that's run right up until Secret Wars, I believe. Al Ewing had a great run on Mighty Avengers, a book about Luke Cage's Avengers team that consisted mostly of characters of color. All New Hawkeye is basically a buddy hero book that highlights Kate Bishop every bit as much as Clint Barton. And, of course, before that, Matt Fraction's Hawkeye basically splits up to two individual self sustaining stories, one with Barton vs. the Tracksuit Mafia, the other with Kate Bishop vs. Madame Masque. And of course, there's G. Willow Wilson's Ms. Marvel, which is a great look at identity, race and coming of age. The people that think original inclusion isn't happening just aren't looking close enough.

Second of all, even with creating new characters, it still misses part of the point of representation and what we're telling little kids (because sometimes, we forget that kids read this shit, too). I like Superman. I've liked Superman ever since I was a kid. My first example of what it meant to be a superhero was Superman. When I played Justice League with my friends, I wanted to be Superman. Once, a kid told me that I couldn't be Superman because he was white and I was black. I knew everything there was to know about Superman. I knew and lived by (or at least TRIED to live by) his ideals. But the kid boiled it down to mere skin color because that's all he knew. I'm not calling the kid racist, of course. For him, it was a matter of aesthetics although it speaks to so many levels of colorism.

Despite cynicism being trendy nowadays, the superhero is still hugely tied to the latter day mythologies of modern culture for now and for always. They are fables inextricably tied to the values by which we live, the hope we pass down from generation to generation. They link us. Sometimes, they even shape us. When you tell people to create new characters instead of breaking the gender/color boundaries of the existing franchises, you're telling a whole readership of children that no matter how much they look up to Captain America or Thor, being black or a woman or gay or whatever you are....means that Captain America will always be off limits to them on some level. You saying that a white person is allowed to take that character's place (as has been the case with Captain America, Batman, Daredevil that I can think of right off the bat), but never a black person or a woman. You're essentially chastising them for wanting to have the attributes of an awesome character that they really like.

Although some heroes' obstacles and outlooks on the world are undeniably linked and shaped because of their race, superheroes are not just men and women built on race. They're ideals, principles, morals and deeds. Yes, Static is an awesome superhero (who occasionally suffers from being in bad comics) and yes, he could stand to be built upon and really SHOULD be built upon, but Superman is a legend, an icon. As great a character as he is, Static is NOT Superman. Representation isn't just building a new foundation for an institution. It's about changing transcending barriers and rearranging the way we look at the old one.

My comic reviews for Archie and Star Wars are available for your viewing pleasure on Black Nerd Problems. Feel free to like, hate, share, comment at your leisure. You know the drill.

You Know What We Stopped Doing?

We stopped trying to change minds. We live in a more polarized era than ever and that's completely understandable. Think about it. In the digital era, it's that much easier for us to classify one another, make data out of each other. "People that listen to...." and "people who visit 'these' websites". Now, I'm not saying this to make this one of those "google is Big Brother" posts. I say that because computers amplify our ability (and, really, obsession) to classify each other, but it also amplifies our ability to filter out those people.

You've seen it on your social media before. A hot button topic comes along that drives a canyon sized wedge between people. Let's take the stupid ass dress issue for example. You look at this dress and you see one color scheme, right. You look on your timeline and you see a certain minority of people that think the dress is a completely different color scheme, but most people you follow agree with you. You then get so tired of "them" being wrong, you start making posts saying that you're going to delete everyone off of your timeline that thinks the dress is that other color. Sure, now, you've filtered out the odd element and, yeah, you probably have a Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr/whatever you can agree with easier, but you're not the only one to do this. Now we have a whole sect of people off to themselves who will continue to believe that the dress is this certain color and will go on believing it no matter what science is involved in believing one thing or the other (And there is a science involved in seeing the dress one way or the other....and part of it is the way you tilt your goddamned computer screen, but still...). They will make Facebook groups and websites and magazines dedicated to people who think this one way. All of this is in the service of building a fence around themselves, but really, they're just finishing the one that you started. Now, instead of uninformed people (something that YOU can always fix if you want to), we have voluntarily stupid people. And we don't really need anymore stupid people. If you ask me, we're at capacity.

Sidenote: It's important that you understand I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TROLLS. Trolls cannot be saved. Trolls don't want to be saved and they don't want to see anyone else be saved. Please delete the trolls.

We especially do this with celebrities. They say something we construe as racist or sexist or offensive and we write them off and drag them through the town square until they have to issue some public apology. I AM NOT DEFENDING these people, but part of having what you consider "the moral high ground is being able to discern those who misspeak or the "uninformed" from the "trolls". Anyone who has ever watched Girls knows it's pretty silly to be mad at anything Lena Dunham says. So, she said something problematic about black people? I'm convinced Lena Dunham only met her first black person somewhere in the window of "ten minutes ago." Death threats and sexist comments in the comment section of a Buzzfeed article are not educational. Because teaching someone to apologize is not the same thing as teaching them what they did wrong. Ask my parents about 31 years of marriage and this will be one the first things they say.

Now, when a public official...someone asking for the votes of the American people....says something problematic about black people? Sure, I'm mad about that and I'm going to vote accordingly because votes are one form of communication between the American people and their leaders. If you're my governor and I don't like your sentiments towards people with my skin color? I'll show you....by firing you and hiring the guy that spoke to my issues.

Again, if someone in the media or social media offended you, I'm not defending them. I repeat: I AM NOT DEFENDING THEM. But I AM asking if you're addressing them the right way for the good of everyone involved. Are you teaching someone something?

Aaron McGruder Isn't The Problem

I've never met Aaron McGruder, but I suspect he's a kindred spirit: a guy who doesn't really seek to offend, but questions whether he's doing his job well when he hasn't offended anyone. Of course, this is most evident by his crowning achievement, The Boondocks, the satirical saga of two inner city kids sent to live with their grandfather in the suburbs. The show was simply hilarious in its good moments and, in its greatest moments, turned on a floodlight aimed directly at Black America's laundry hamper, usually held steady by Huey Freeman, part Charlie Brown/part Eldridge Cleaver. The resulting feedback was mostly outstanding (except for the final season) but received choice words from the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Tyler Perry.

Sharpton was offended by McGruder's "Return of the King" episode in which Martin Luther King Jr. returned to tell contemporary Black America to get its shit together in an epic dress down that rivals Alec Baldwin's speech in Glengary Glen Ross. Prior to his rant, Toon King had been labeled a traitor, accused of sympathizing with terrorism and even had his cause co-opted by top 20 mainstream radio. Dr. King was in marches that were met with hoses, dogs and violence....so this was a walk in the park when you think about it. Allegedly, he was put off by Fictional King's use of an "N" word my editor won't let me use over at Black Nerd Problems (because advertisers and shit). CartoonThatIsn'tActuallyMartin Luther King used the "N" word 16 times in an episode about the civil rights movement. Django Unchained, a movie about slavery, used the same word exactly 115 times. Oddly enough, there's been no comment from Sharpton.

Then, there was the time Tyler Perry and his disciples fans had a bone to pick with the show about some social commentary made in the show's third season. "Pause" was an episode in which Granddad auditioned for a stage play directed by Winston Jerome, a cross-dressing Perry analog who used Christianity as his own personal cult. Madea was less than pleased.

Since then, The Boondock's final season, sans McGruder, has been met with somewhat dismal reception from an audience who either left with the show's creator or stayed and decided the magic has gone.

And now, there's Black Jesus, a live action Adult Swim series about a slightly ratchet incarnation of Jesus Christ himself, living in Compton. I won't bother giving some detailed review because there's a perfectly good one at BNP already. As far as production quality goes, it's exactly what you would expect from the creators network that brought you Loiter Squad. The primetime satire isn't looking to be high brow humor by any stretch of the imagination. It's moderately funny and blatantly geared towards snatching up the laughter of post grad stoners. It's already garned some criticism of its premise and execution being somehow sacreligious and offensive although reviewers seem to get the joke. But let's be honest here. What's the problem? The obviously religious theme? When examined closely, the show is really more Pineapple Express than Dogma, so that can't be it. The language? The show isn't anymore vulgar than McGruder's previous work.

The Son of God spreading peace and love amongst the masses while his detractors and disbelievers wait in the wings to expedite his failure? Well, that happened in the "source material" so they can't possibly be mad about that. Jesus is also accompanied by friends who help him when they can, some of which don't have his best interest in mind and might occasionally co-opt him for their own purposes? Again, pretty close to the original so that probably isn't the issue. So, really, what's the whining about?

If you ask me (not that anyone did), the problem might be a little closer to home for McGruder's naysayers. Much like Boondocks' version of MLK, Black Jesus is the window, the fresh eyes we're asked to view our world and, specifically, ourselves. McGruder's satire, even in its lightest, punch pulling format, is the stranger on the street that hears your conversation and asks, "Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" MLK was characterized as a man who never asked to be revered, but challenged those around him, black or white, to ascend to their better selves. The only thing truly offensive was the reception. Even then, is it THAT farfetched to think that, a crusader for social justice in the era of internet comment sections might be chastised, ridiculed, ignored and co-opted by mainstream America? In its thin moments of true social commentary (an athiest cop, an ornery landlord, agnostic gangbangers), Black Jesus isn't making fun of the Judeo-Christian faith or its lord and savior. More than anything, it's McGruder's chin check to those he perceives as paying lip service to their beliefs. McGruder uses prominent figures to make a point, but the point made in the end is rarely the result of the figure as much as it is through the figures' followers. Dr. King finally getting fed up, wondering if it was all worth it? Maybe, maybe not. Some of the people who claim to revere him turning everything he stood for into shameless self promotion and buffonery. That sounds about right (I'm looking at you, Jesse Jackson).

In the digital age, when the internet allows humans to view themselves through self-made avatars in place of taking a real look at themselves and calling "shenanigans," if you're mad at a television show for it's depiction of your "resolve"....if you're angrier about the person doing the pointing than you are at what he's pointing at, guess what? Black Jesus isn't the problem. Cartoon Martin Luther King isn't the problem. Aaron McGruder isn't the problem. You are.

It's Just Hair, Folks....

Mighty Avengers is a very special treat and if you're not reading it, you're missing out on some damn good reading with a lineup mostly comprised of heroes of color. If someone had told me I'd be reading a comic that builds on the Blue Marvel's story in such a compelling way, I'd have laughed right in their face. For all the fanwhining about a lack of focus on diversity and gender politics, this title (and some others) is one that breaks a lot of those rules.

One of my personal favorite things about this book (other than Luke Cage) is the addition of Monica Rambeau. Every once in a blue moon, someone finds a decent venue to bring her back and this is probably as good as premise as any. She's one of these characters that has basically had her entire history built upon being "that hero that's quietly been around for years." One major complaint has been Spectrum (as she now calls herself) now appearing with relaxed hair after most of the character's lifespan being her with either a fro or locs. One comment I read even went so far as to say that Marvel had "whitewashed" her (which, by the way, is ABSOLUTELY NOT what whitewashing means).

You know, as a nerd of color, I tend to get excited about and welcome when "our" issues are addressed in comic culture. That's an enormous part of why I signed on to work at Black Nerd Problems. However, there are a couple of issues that get way too much airtime from the Black Blogsphere I prayed would not creep into comics. Chief among them is the "natural hair vs. permed hair" wars. Extreme "natural" ideologues shout down the people who perm their hair and those who perm their chastise the "naturals", believing them to be elitist. This argument is older than many of us realize and, to my great disappointment, isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Now, we're not going to talk about that because I don't have the time or the energy this week to open myself up to yet another brand of trolling. We WILL talk about the merits of attaching such a debate to a fictional character.

Spoiler Alert: There are none.

It's the same problem as I've explained previously about Superman. Once you begin inventing values for a character (which, often times, means you're attaching your own) because they can't speak for themselves unless the writer makes it so, you start internalizing the narrative you've had a hand in creating. And it's a rather flawed narrative. I mean, as far as I can tell (and you're free to correct me if I'm wrong), I've never read a comic in which Monica Rambeau said anything that would leave me to believe she stood on either side of the natural/perm argument or that she even acknowledges it at all. I mean, Luke Cage used to have an afro, he shaved all his hair off and I don't remember there being any backlash about that.

Then again, it's best to not get me started on the strange double standard forced upon women, fictional or otherwise in nerd culture. That's a whole other post

Honestly, I think making Monica/Captain Marvel/Photon/Spectrum's hair was a fiercely bold move on Marvel's part. Because if you want to accurately depict people of color in your medium, you have to capture all sides of the spectrum realistically. Some of us stand fierce to certain hairstyles, some of us use our hair to make statements, some of us just don't give a shit. But like Monica, ALL of us can't, won't, and shouldn't be defined completely by our hair. Because it's just hair.

The Movie Spider Man Problem

So, after writing my review for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I then went out in the internets to read reactions to the film and, as predicted, it proved to be as divisive (if not moreso) than Man of Steel was among nerds. They either a). walked away entertained while totally aware of the film's more glaring issues or b). eager to forget the whole thing ever happened. Both are fair reactions to have. After all, it's every bit as understandable that someone would be taken with Andrew Garfield's performance enough give the rest of the movie a pass as it is that some people won't be able to get past Dubstep Electro and Kinda Green Goblin getting maybe five minutes of fight time.

But the ending put something about the movie franchise as a whole into focus that could possibly be a bit off-putting for some old school Spider-Man loyalists on a subconscious level (I say "subconsciously" because I can't say I've actually ever heard this complaint from anyone watching the movies....just a conjecture) that makes some of the goofy moments that much more goofy. I submit that there's a good chance we might not ever see the kind of Spider-Man story the source material whores want to see.

"Well, damn, Oz! Why the hell not?" Good question. One thing that was more overt in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3 than any other movies is that Spidey is BELOVED in New York City. I mean, there are at least three cinematic instances I can think of where a Spider-Man fight was a public event akin to street dancers on the subway as opposed to what it would REALLY be which is people fleeing in terror, most of them not even knowing what they're running from other things exploding. The first movie showed people flinging trash at the Green Goblin, claiming the webslinger as one of their own. Spider-Man 2 featured a subway car full of people crowd surfing him with his arms like Christ. Spider-Man 3 had a parade in Peter's honor as well as a day named for him.

Anyone who keeps up with the comics could probably see how strange this is. It's pretty much standard operating procedure in the comics that Spider-Man is, at best, tolerated by the status quo. There are moments even when he's saved the day, he doesn't get it 100% right and people hate him for it. Of course, this is in keeping the overall moral of a Spider-Man comic that sometimes it sucks to do the right thing and people might hate you for doing the right thing, but do the right thing anyway because it's right and it beats being a terrible person. In fact, the only time I can remember people adoring him the way they do in the movies is during the Superior Spider-Man when Doctor Octopus Spidey was almost constantly applauded for being an Extinction Level Douchebag (which is part of why 75% of that book was a stupid idea).

There's only two applicable reasons I could fathom for this.

1). Given the fact that Sony exclusively owns the movie rights to Spider-Man means that it exists in a different universe as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That means he and the Avengers don't exist together. In other words, in the New York he occupies, there's no such thing as the Avengers....so he's the only superhero the people have ever seen. So, sure, it might make sense that he'd be something of a rock star.

2). (And this is really the more important thing to pay attention to.) More than ten years later, a post 9/11 Hollywood will always be hesitant...and rightfully so...to depict an apathetic, rude New York that treats its heroes as anything other than heroes. I get that this is a weird criticism, but consider Movie New York over the years.

I apologize in advance, but this is the second time in the life of this blog that I have to explain Ghostbusters II. This is the movie where an evil painting was filling the sewers with slime that made people into hateful jerks while slowly plunging New York into the eighth level of Hell (or Dallas, depending on who you ask). When the Ghostbusters came to the Mayor, making an impassioned plea to take action, this was the result.....


For me, this is pretty much the poster child for how New York was portrayed in television and cinema before some assholes threw a plane at a building and took countless lives, a day that most of us will probably not forget. This happened so close to the first Spider-Man film that they had to go back and delete the Twin Towers from the posters and certain scenes.

Odds are good we'll probably not see a movie anytime soon where a guy saves hundreds of people from a guy throwing exploding jack o' lanterns or a guy made out of sand only to have trash thrown at his head while he's being called a bum.

Because, as cynical as this generation can be, mainstream moviegoers want to see heroes win. (This is probably why Watchmen had such mixed reactions from people. It's hard to sell people a superhero movie that's primarily about failure.) They want them to be loved because, ultimately, they're blank slates for the viewer. They want to be able to paste themselves the point of superheroes is to give us some semblance of hope that doing the right thing can have a semi-happy ending.

Unless, of course, you're Batman. Because Batman doesn't give a fuck if you like him.

Textbook Apology of An Awful Person

Originally Written on My Tumblr Blog.....

I’m sorry that (recipient of horrible thing) was hurt by (horrible thing made to sound completely innocuous) but (selfish ideology that doesn’t apply to recipient) which has led me to feel that in this life (rationale as to why horrible thing has to be done). Besides, (group of people that resemble recipient) only get hurt by these kind of situations because deep down (uneducated if not biased psychological analysis). 

Maybe if they didn’t hate themselves deep down, they might not have (passionate reaction to horrible thing). My life is better because of (selfish ideology) and that’s not a crime. 


I wish more people would see that (selfish ideology) is the way to go but I realize that not everyone (backhanded callback to selfish ideology) like me, so I recognize how (recipient of horrible thing) could be hurt by (horrible thing), so I will do better in the future to not (horrible thing) in the presence of (group that resembles recipient). I ask for their (not forgiveness) and understanding in this matter. Thank you.