Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Random bits

A few (likely) unrelated items to relate tonight.

If I had found a way to make it fit my theme of last night's post, I would have said something about Stephen Colbert's "performance" at the White House correspondents dinner. But, it didn't fit the theme and now the story is several days old. In the blogging universe, this means that the event in question is as extinct as a pterodactyl. If I had stuck while the story was hot, I might have had something to say that was relevant and you might have wanted to read it. Such is life.

You can read more about it here anyway.

In slightly more relevant news (though maybe relevant to only a select few), Dr. Actually forwarded this notice to me today at work. It left me breathless, speechless, and slightly nauseous. The potential train wreck that this Star Trek movie could become is (maybe?) approaching the level of Star Trek V: The Crappy Movie that Never Truly Existed. Only and I mean ONLY the presence of J.J. Abrams could make this movie even remotely hopeful. But I don't know . . . I mean, if he gets Jennifer Garner is some green Orion woman outfit, then, well, maybe I'd go see it.

In other movie news--thanks to Entertainment Weekly's Popwatch website, there is a more fleshed out trailer for Superman Returns. I was going to go see this movie anyway (June 30), but it looks even better now. As pointed out, Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor has a manic, zany quality that looks very much like Gene Hackman's version (which is appropriate since it is set in the chronology between Superman II and Superman III.

The point is, it looks good. You can check out the trailer for yourself here. It's worth the download wait.

In a related note, when Sarah watched the trailer with me tonight, she asked me:

"Is Superman like Spider-Man?"

"What do you mean?" I asked.

She replied, "I mean, does she [Lois Lane] always gets into trouble?"

I laughingly replied, "Yes, she does."

I am glad that she has already understood the essential nature of the girl in the superhero comics genre.


lulu said...

Yes--totally useless except as eye-candy and "object-to-be-saved". A great revelation for a little girl!

David said...

Correct Lulu . . . and until women take over the comic book industry and women begin to become the major purchasers of said product, likely to stay the same.

Because men are stupid and ignorant.

It's best that Sarah begins now to understand how stupid men are so that she can understand how best to avoid the most egregiously stupid of the lot.

"Forewarned is forearmed."

David said...

Lest ya'll think comics are irrelevant, read this story.

David said...

Here is a MUCH better link to Stephen Colbert's performance at the press thingy.

lulu said...

Well, as the mother of sons and the wife of a guy, I don't like to think of all men as stupid and ignorant. At times, this is tough. But the argument (probably correct) that "until women take over comics things won't change" is (probably correct) but absolutely infuriating and a little curt, I might add. If there was rampant racism in comixland would we tell people of color that "until you take over and become the main purchasers" don't expect any change? Are we all expected to just let it ride?

As it is, that's a battle I'm just not going to fight. After all, the heroes are usually stereotypical big, strong guys--Spiderman mostly excluded. But to (seemingly, just seemingly!) dismiss it with a consumer-type argument and a blanket statement about stupid males? I don't know about that.

David said...

(Though I probably won't be convincing, here goes . . .)

My comment tone makes it seem that I am approving of woman's depiction in comics. I am, in fact, not a stupid consumer who enjoys seeing women portrayed in this shallow way.

I laughed at Sarah's comment because I thought it funny that she sees the essential nature of how women are stupidly depicted. I didn't take the time right then to go into consumer/social/sexist explanations of WHY women are portrayed as such.

I'll explain things more clearly next time; just quicky, sketchy composition.


lulu said...

That, Burb, is why you are Da Bomb (possible new comic hero??). And that's also why I said "seemingly". I figured I had YOUR gist, but have heard similar things from people who have actually meant it and, I must admit, my ire rose a tad. My comments were more directed at "them" than at you.

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: That's not funny.


Sven Golly said...

Dialectical materialism qua economic determinism: The ideas expressed, contained, or reflected in comix are a function of market forces, ownership of the means of production, and consumer behavior. Therefore the way of change the ideas, etc., is to take over the ownership, production, consumption, etc. (reductionistic response)

How many multi-syllable words does it take to change a lightbulb?