Might as Well Talk About Iron Man

You know, I sort of wish I hadn't liked Iron Man so much. Then I'd be able to say something different from what I see everywhere on the net and hear in conversation. But you see, it's all true. Everything good you've heard about this movie is 100% right on. The acting is great, the effects are well done and still special effects (not overdone), and the plot reduces the character to his most essential elements and works from there.
A big reason many of us die-hard comics fans were so (rightfully) excited is because Jon Favreau, the director is... well, one of us. He's been looking to do a Marvel movie for around ten years now if you believe the rumors, and he finally got his shot and quite a bit of budget to do it with. It's actually a joke among my friends and I that scripts for movies more in line with the Spider-Man and X-Men (read: Wolverine) films, but Favreau rejected them on the grounds that they'd have made crappy comics.
And really, that's why Iron Man rocked so hard. It really felt like a good adaptation of a comic, even without being one. And the Iron Monger suit was like watching a steel-plated Hulk; bulky yet graceful... nice.

Webcomic Highlight: Dresden Codak

Dresden Codak does not work like other comics, or even other webcomics. It's in it's own little universe filled with theoretical science, high minded philosophy, and silly slapstick humor. In a big way, it's impossible to summarize, since before the current storyline, there was no emphasis on storylines, only concepts. So this Highlight is a quick hit because I don't know if I can do it justice. The writing is charming and intelligent, the art is attractive and expressive, the science is fun, and you really feel like you have a budding writer evolving as you read.
Another good reason to go read it now is the fact that the archives are short. It's been around for a while, but Codak himself is a student, and so there are often delays between comics; sometimes updates are a month apart. So keep it bookmarked, and check it every so often. It's a reading experience you won't regret.

http://dresdencodak.com/

Movie Trailer Madness: The Dark Knight

Now, it should be no surprise that I'm excited about the next Batman movie. While this time around Nolan doesn't have a comic to pull from (Begins was basically Year One: the backstory heavy edition), he is making some parallels to other films (he's referenced Heat as an inspiration in interviews). The fact that he said that brings up what I feel is an interesting point. Is it that different to make a superhero movie compared to any other kind? Now of course, with Batman, you can address the logical problems of superheroism by explaining his gadgets, but what about someone with powers, specifically ones that would not work in the real world? Could you base a Flash movie on some other film with no fantastic qualities? I'm not sure. Then again, I suppose it depends on the skill of the director and the quality of the script, not the conventions of the genre. What people expect is less important than delivering them a quality story.
Alright; I promised a trailer, so here it is. It's actually a brand new one, from some viral marketing event. The quality is iffy (I suspect camera phone), but the stuff's all there, and it's good.

Understanding Comics, part 2

Okay, so I've been thinking, reading, and listening to what some of my compatriots have to say about Understanding. And while I'm not going to place McCloud up on a pedestal, I'm also not looking to write off everything he says either. I honestly doubt that it's possible to write a comprehensive theory relating to any media without being pretentious in one way or another. The very act of thinking about art in general terms like this assumes that the thinker can ultimately understand that art completely.
However, it's not the philosophy present in Understanding that ever captured my attention at all. It was the frank, solid examination of things like shape, color, and time in comics that kept me reading, and here, I was hard pressed to find any pretension. The conclusions might be different from what others might have come to, but all in all he's just talking about comics in a scholarly light.
Honestly, from what I've heard about the man and his encounters, it seems like McCloud is simply taking his own theory too seriously. While much of the point of Understanding was for the purpose of taking comics seriously, McCloud apparently has trouble with the idea that not everyone will agree with his theories and concepts wholeheartedly. It's kind of like a large-scale internet forum; there's some good ideas here, but it's too close to everyone's hearts for them to discuss it dispassionately.

Understanding Comics, Part One

I've read Understanding before, years ago, and I was astounded. Not because of what McCloud says in it, but rather because I'd found it in my high school library. My shock was profound; Gilford High, bastion of suburban "normality" and regimented schooling, had this epic dissertation on comics. Of course, they didn't have any actual comics along with it so I could examine them in this new light, which raises some serious questions. Why is it that a text on comics is respectable enough for the library, but not the comics it discusses, when the text itself is told as a comic? I can only guess that the answer is something that would probably depress and infuriate me.
Regardless, I've enjoyed this chance to revisit the text that helped me into my current phase as a comics reader. McCloud's work examines comics by means of storytelling, art, and psychology, with their connection to the work of "sequential art" is the overhead concept which only needs refreshing every so often.
However, while I was entranced by the book when I first picked it up, this time I found I knew enough about the craft to occasionally yearn for more specificity than McCloud gives. As I begin to give serious thought to writing actual scripts and submitting them to companies, I find that Understanding is less about what it takes to create comics, and more about what comics are once they've been created. Then again, perhaps this generality is akin to McCloud's point about icons being more applicable; maybe he's sacrificed specificity to reach the widest possible audience.