The Week In Geek 12/10/14

So, this week's midseason finale to The Flash kicked several levels of ass. The fight between Barry and Reverse Flash...who is TOTALLY Dr. Wells (sorry if that's a spoiler but if you haven't figured that out by now...)....was pretty incredible looking for primetime network television. I've been hearing a lot of complaints about Iris West's character, but I'm sorry....I love a pretty brown girl as the leading lady in an interracial relationship. By the way, I don't seem to remember all that complaining when Lana Lang was the leading lady in Smallville and that was maybe one of the worst shows in nerd history. Just saying. At this point, the complaints that "it's so CW" just have to stop. We (I'm speaking to my generation in particular) have to learn to get used to the fact that comic culture HAS to attract younger viewers to survive. I mentioned this in an article a while back, but fans have to get better about sharing. Otherwise, we end up looking like insiders and troll. Just ask the Gamergate trolls.

My reviews for the week are up and available on Black Nerd Problems for your viewing pleasure. This week, I took a look at:

Thor: I am more convinced than ever that the new lady Thor is actually, Roz Solomon, Odinson's SHIELD girlfriend. That's why she was so desperate to get the hammer back before she turned back into Someone That Roxxon Would Recognize (from the Last Days of Midgard story). Anyway, I do appreciate that the hammer kinda offer tutorials in how to be Thor like Green Lantern's ring. Other than that, there's not much else to say. Jason Aaron is going to be remembered as one of the premier names when they talk about Thor in the 2010s.

Avengers/X-Men: Axis- Okay, this week was slightly better for Axis but not by much. I know Deadpool is supposed to something of a hood ornament to uptick your sales a little bit, but it just didn't work out here. Spider-Man, as usual, was something of a boon to the story and Scarlet Witch looked great and all, but this plot is so rough. It literally pains me to review it.

Batman Eternal: The funny thing is that the whole Jason Bard plotline hanging over the book has basically made plot "A World Without Jim Gordon", furthering DC's initiative to make Commissioner Gordon into a nigh-superhero. I've said this before, but aside from Batman, he's the only other thing saving Gotham from descending into Hell. This is, in part, why I'm so disappointed that the Gotham tv series sucks so bad.

When Creator Credit Matters

I'm going to regret this, but I get approached in public with questions and topic pitches enough that I'm taking them as serious requests to discuss here in the blog.

So, a coworker and I were talking comics and Rob Liefeld's name came up. My coworker asked, as many people (including myself) do, how he keeps getting work. I corrected him by saying that, in fairness, he only keeps getting work with DC because they're the main ones that keep banking on him against all odds (If you need proof, ALL of his New 52 books failed within 8 issues at the beginning of the reboot). As far as Marvel goes, he doesn't do much for them anymore but then again, he doesn't really have to when he keeps beating his chest about how he created Cable and Deadpool.

So, this left my coworker wondering: Does laying claim to being "the creator of..." really hold a lot of weight in comics? And it's a good question. After all, the praise fans shower comic creators with doesn't necessarily translate in every industry the same way. Just ask 90% of game developers.

Honestly, depending on who you ask in the comic industry itself, you might even get mixed answers there, too.

So I contacted DC about the mistaken "created by" credit on Vibe. Helpfully, they're removing the "created by" credit entirely.
— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) February 22, 2013

(Before I go on, let me take this moment to say that in terms of compensation and publishers' treatment of their talent, creator credit should ALWAYS matter and that DC treatment of Gerry Conway in this case is indefensible. There's just no two ways about it. However, what we're discussing the semantics of how much it should/shouldn't matter from a reader's perspective.)

Now, my coworker isn't necessarily a die-hard comic reader, but from the outside looking in, his question is completely valid. After all, let's say I create a character that ends up having some minimal success if any at all. Someone else like Scott Snyder comes along, completely retools every aspect of my character and suddenly, it's a huge success and a household name. Do I still get lay claim to being the pioneer in this situation?

Answer: Sure, but not really. In other words, if my character ends up being a cartoon, do I have the right to have my name under the creator credits? Absolutely. Without question. Unless, of course, the studio decides to say something like "based on story written by Scott Snyder" so they can directly credit the mind behind the version people actually liked.

For the ideal situation, let's take Spider-Man. Even in uninitiated circles, you'd have to go pretty far and wide to find someone who didn't know that Stan Lee created Spider-Man. No matter who else writes him and receives tons of well deserved praise for their take on the character (Dan Slott, JMS, Brian Bendis), Stan Lee is the heart and soul of Spider-Man. Why, you ask? Because no matter what changes they made to him or what different avenues, they take him down (give him Spider Cancer, magic totem powers, give his life to kill Norman Osborn, Doctor Spiderpus, selling his marriage to Satan, whatever), all of those stories usually wrap with Spider-Man, perhaps a little wiser and worn for the experience, going back to factory settings. As in "how Stan Lee intended him."

You can even repeat this with Superman. Yeah, we all know he's had a few breaks from the norm

Now, let's plug Rob Liefeld in this formula. Liefeld will forever be tied to Cable and Deadpool mainly because he himself will never let us forget that he created Cable and Deadpool. But as many hands as Deadpool has been in, can we really say that the character as we know him now (basically, the Daffy Duck of Marvel Comics) compared to his first appearances in X-Force and New Mutants really what Liefeld seemed to have in mind? I don't know because I'm not actually in Rob Liefeld's mind, but it sure doesn't seem like it. In fact, speaking of X-Force, another one of Liefeld's brain children, if you look at the line up, their purpose, really anything about them....does the X-Force most people know X-Force to be look anything like the one Liefeld started us off with? Probably not.

So all in all, does being "the creator of..." really matter? Answer: It depends. (Unless you're Rob Liefeld, in which case, not really)

Is Harley Quinn The New Deadpool?

So, the Suicide Squad recently got rebooted AGAIN. At this point, I think it's hot on the Legion of Superheroes' heels for "most times canceled by DC Comics." In fact, I'm pretty sure they're both at least one more cancellation away from a free Firehouse sub. I was really ready to give it a chance and decide on it myself except 1). I think I'm getting to the age where I don't have to test out every single thing that shows up out of curiosity (I still haven't seen Battleship because I KNOW it's trash) and 2). I've never seen a book that was voted off the island so unanimously. I mean, I haven't seen or heard a single positive thing about Suicide Squad this time around. And now, it's got me wondering: What is it that DC is getting SO wrong about the Suicide Squad? Honestly, the team seems to get generally positive responses in their appearances on Justice League Unlimited and, recently, Arrow. But the book never catches fire for very long.

It so happened that, as I was contemplating this, I ran into one of my readers (Yes, on occasion, I do indeed run into people who read the blog and engage them about what they've read) who'd noticed the same thing I had that the book just can't seem to get lightning to strike for some reason. Now, both of us are stumped on the franchise in general, but he had an idea about this incarnation in particular: Harley Quinn. I don't read as much DC as he does to have noticed it, but hypothesized that Harley Quinn is slowly becoming the new Deadpool. And he kinda had a point. I remember reading issue zero of her solo series and most of it was basically her breaking the fourth wall interacting with the readers and the writers, very similar to Deadpool's knowledge that he's a comic character in a fictional world. In DC's need to give her an identity aside from being the Joker's girl Friday (since Joker has been intentionally absent), she's become sort of a gag character. On one hand, if this is a mandated plot on DC's part, there is a chance it's not going to fly because the problem with DC's mandated plots is that they usually feel like mandated plots. It's as there are a bunch of old white men sitting in a boardroom listening to an intern talk about way to increase their humor quotient by 35 percent (Because let's face it, DC is the GOP to Marvel's Democrats).

On the other hand, DC could use some levity. I've remarked before that the problem with the New 52 from the start has been that it's not nearly as fun as it could be. Lobo used to be their joke character, but in keeping with the whole "the New 52 is because because it's all hardcore" thing, they've taken Lobo and allowed him to win enough pokebattles to evolve into Chris Cornell, so he's out of the "fun" column.

He just looks like he's saying,
"Lobo will sex you now."

So, in truth, there's the possibility that Harley Quinn COULD be DC's answer to Deadpool as long as they remember to value the character for actual gags and over just being there. The problem with Deadpool is that Marvel rarely uses him for actual jokes anymore. His just being on the cover of a book he has nothing to do with or appearing in the the book to break the fourth wall is joke enough for the writers even when Deadpool isn't actually doing anything funny. From what little I've read (and I invite any of you who've read more of her stuff to fill me in a bit more), it seems like she could go this route if left unchecked and, in turn, become unfunny really quickly.


They also have to put a cap on oversexualizing her. The amazing thing about Deadpool is that he is (or has the potential to be when he's not Marvel one trick pony gag) a hilarious character despite a rather depressing backstory. (Granted, Spider-Man is pretty funny despite a laundry list of horrible shit happening to him, but you can always fall back on the idea that he's laughing to keep from crying or pissing his pants that he's fighting a guy who throws exploding jack-o-lanterns. Deadpool is laughing because he's just plain crazy.) DC caught a lot of bullshit because of a fan art contest a while back where you had to draw Harley Quinn dying in these horrible ways. Never mind that DC was making light of suicide at one of the worst possible times of this generation to make fun of suicide. That's a whole other post. The problem was the context. Usually, you can get away with this shit when it's done under the "crazy" umbrella, but it wasn't. The main context was that Quinn is a ditzy blonde who giggles and squeals and doesn't know much better (although, the Bruce Timm version from Batman: The Animated Series was a big contribution to that, but that's also another post). Play up the crazy and it might work out, but we all know how horrible DC is with gender politics.

Is Harley Quinn becoming the new Deadpool? Not yet, but she could be. Then again, I could be wrong.