Two major comic-related movie trailers were released this week, although the movies aren’t due this blockbuster season. But it’s almost San Diego, so they have to work the geek circuit timing to get the buzz. (It’s a flaw of the culture, to always be focused on the next big thing, spend too long anticipating it, and then invariably be disappointed because nothing could live up to the expectations.)

The Spirit

The Spirit is due at Christmas, and the second trailer focuses on the many women in the movie. Shame that the art style and content reminds me SO much of Sin City — it makes Frank Miller look like a one-trick pony, and it has little to do with the Eisner comics I’ve read.

The Spirit looks like a drip, which makes it ludicrous that all these over-sexed females are throwing themselves at him. I don’t need to see the Octopus — he was scary because he was unseen — especially with black mascara running down his face. The whole thing reminds me of Sky Captain, and not in a good way.

Watchmen

Watchmen is coming out next March, for some reason, and based on this, they’re pitching it as another big superhero movie instead of the meta-commentary that made the book unique. I’m not really interested. Especially since the eventual DVD sounds like the thing to wait for, with the different layers of content.

They’ve also put out a motion comic, which means light animation to make the comic interesting to the visual audience. Which is creative if not totally faithful.

I know, I’m a downer. Are you looking forward to either of these films? What am I missing?

The latest entry in the Archie Americana series of reprint volumes by decade is Best of the Sixties Book 2.

Archie Americana:
Best of the Sixties Book 2
Buy this book

The previous volume focused strongly on trends. This one takes the opposite approach. For that reason, the cover is extremely misleading — there are no hippies in this book. In fact, with two exceptions, all of the stories date from 1960-1964. There’s also one from 1965, where Archie uses peace slogans to duck a warring Betty and Veronica, and one weird one from 1968 that could have been told in any decade. The gang notice a line running through their panels in a story where they’re aware that they’re comic characters.

Many of the stories are better reads than those that focus only on showing a fad, so I’m not complaining about the selection. It’s just that this book is so different from its predecessor… except in one way: there still aren’t any creator credits, although there’s a whole masthead of Archie company employees listed. That’s a huge oversight. I’ve always wondered who’s responsible for the art style demonstrated in most of these tales, and now I still don’t know. (Again, it’s very different from that reflected on the cover. I’m told that it’s likely Harry Lucey.)

Don’t get me wrong, the clothes still reflect the era, and some of the pieces focus on elements like bubble/flip hairstyles (although exaggerated from actual styles of the era) or beatniks. But many of these stories, with updated wardrobe, wouldn’t be out of place in today’s issues; they’re surprisingly timeless for a book pushing a particular decade.

I’m not going to the San Diego Con — I rarely do, because it takes me the better part of a decade to save up my strength for the crowds and the overwhelming amount of things to do and see. But if I was, I’d go to the Pro/Fan Trivia Contest just out of nostalgia. It’s scheduled for Sunday, July 27, at 2:30.

Friend Hal isn’t going, either, but he has a favor to ask. He’s the question wrangler, gathering the questions so neither team knows them. And he needs some good ones, if you have any ideas.

Don’t post them here! Email him with them, according to the guidelines below, before Friday, July 25. Any contribution is greatly appreciated. And if you go, have fun!

This year’s San Diego Pro/Fan Trivia will have Len Wein, Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, and Robert Skir going up against Tom Galloway, Terence Chua, David Oakes, and John Sardegna, with the questions being asked by Peter David. We’re looking for people to write questions for it, with this year’s theme being “Young Heroes”. Specifically, we’re looking for questions about characters college-aged or below, from stories published from 1956-1986 (essentially the Silver Age and Pre-Crisis). For example, Superboy, Supergirl, the Legion of Super-Heroes, Robin, Teen Titans, Spider-Man, Human Torch, the original X-Men and Kitty Pryde, etc.

There are two types of questions in the match, toss-ups and bonuses. You should mark your questions with what type you think they are. Toss-ups can only be answered by individuals, while the full team can consult on the latter. The latter can thus (and should) be both harder and perhaps a bit more complex in terms of a correct answer. In general, questions requiring more than one answer (”Name seven of the villains who appeared in the story about Reed and Sue’s wedding”) should be bonuses, not toss-ups.

Questions should not ask for issue numbers (they can be included in the question, but try for more descriptive set-ups than just “Who was the villain in Forbush-Man #3?”) or creators. We’re interested in story content. Also, unless it was fairly memorable, please don’t write questions on the order of “In Superboy #158, Lex Luthor revealed a particular fondness for what Martian dessert?” where this was never mentioned again outside of that one panel. Finally, if possible, try to add a bit of style to the questions, so they’re not of very basic forms like “What’s the Top’s real name?” “Who fought Forbush-Man in Forbush-Man #1?”, etc.

Review by KC Carlson and Ed Sizemore

[A note from KC: When Johanna asked me to review the new Batman: Gotham Knight animated DVD, it didn’t take me long to realize that I was in over my head. Although the history of American animation is kind of a hobby of mine, I have only a very limited scope of what is going on in the rapidly growing world of anime. Sadly, except for the end credits of the DVD, the talented directors and animation studios that are such a huge part of this video are not mentioned at all on the packaging, nor in the publicity material that was included with this release. Instead, focus falls on the screenwriters, many of whom have comic or cartoon connections, and the voice talent.

Batman: Gotham Knight
Buy this DVD

Knowing that the dedicated manga and anime followers of Comics Worth Reading expect us to do more than a cursory review of this important project, I quickly turned to our resident anime expert, Ed Sizemore, to help me with information regarding that portion of the DVD. Ed, being Ed, went above and beyond the call of duty and wrote a full-blown review, which appears here in its entirety. Check back with me at the end for notes on the American creators, additional credits, and information on the DVD extras. Now, here’s Ed.]

Similar to The Animatrix, which expanded the world of the Matrix films through Japanese animation, Batman: Gotham Knight allows anime companies to visually reinterpret Batman. DC comics has hired four of the leading anime studios to animate six stories penned by current and past Batman writers. The idea is for them to use the template created in Batman Begins as a reference for what Gotham looks like and what characters they can incorporate in their stories. The events of these six stories are supposed to take place between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t know why this cracks me up so much… have you ever heard of Phooey Duck, Donald’s fourth nephew? He’s another one of those comic accidents, like Wonder Girl. (I like it when people playfully try to fill in gaps like that, instead of getting bent out of shape about them. It’s creative.)

KC wants to go see The Dark Knight soon, before we hear too much about it. I’m not really interested — I can’t see clips without thinking how tragic it was to lose Heath Ledger — but everyone expects me to see it, and I want to keep him company. (We’ll see Mamma Mia! first, though.)

Batman Begins
Buy this DVD

I mention this only to explain why I finally watched Batman Begins — it was necessary homework.

It was pretty much what I expected. Fight scenes and attempts to make this pulp story meaningful with men training in Tibet and facing their fears in macho ways, all structured with fast cutting and smoke. I like many of the actors, but they seem overwhelmed by the massive sets and the inevitability of the requirements of their roles. And it’s a shame Katie Holmes’ acting career peaked when she was 15.

I was fascinated by how long it took for the movie to introduce either the Bruce Wayne playboy character or Batman. Almost an hour went by without establishing the basics. Maybe it’s a fair assumption on the moviemakers’ part that absolutely everyone who saw this already knew why we were watching the kid flashbacks and the near-ninja ice-pond swordfight and the Year One panel recreations.

Since the story’s so familiar, the question becomes how well it’s done. This is certainly a big-budget movie, and it shows. There’s a lot to watch on the screen, but for me, I was rarely emotionally involved. The only part I really liked was the underground “conveniently useful prototype technology lab” and the way Morgan Freeman ran it. And Wayne’s excuses, too. “Now I’m going spelunking.”

I was really glad I saw Iron Man before this, because it made for interesting comparisons. Both are about too-rich men building supersuits to fill a void in their lives. Instead of being fun to watch and someone you’d want to know, though, Christian Bale’s Batman strikes me as vaguely slimy, menacing, someone to sidle away from without alarming him, as demonstrated in the party scene. (Oh, and the car is dumb. Especially how he parks it.)

Batman got me back into comics the second time (the third was what stuck), back around the time of Batman Returns. I think now, though, that he’s not a character I have much resonance with. People say they like him because he’s someone anyone could be, a human who made himself better, but at this point, he’s a superhuman who pretends to be achievable. You may like to envision yourself as him, but you’re really going to be one of the faceless crowd made mad.

Between the effects and the forced exposition and the sad attempts at catchphrases and the mechanical portrayals of elements we already know, the story is all brain and brawn. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a *bad* movie… It’s very faithful to the comics (the good ones). It just doesn’t have much heart. It’s great for the fans, not so much for a general audience. If you don’t know the comics, the character types can seem pretty two-dimensional. And I don’t think it’s very re-watchable. But what do I know … it took me three years to get around to it!

Review by KC Carlson

I’d been initially warned away from Secret Invasion by a number of friends, but a recent stack of really bad DCs put me off most of their titles for a while, so I was looking for something else to read. It was time to check up on what’s going on in the Avengers-related titles (my nostalgic favorite long-running Marvel title), plus I was actually excited by the return of Nick Fury (in person) to the Marvel Universe (my nostalgic favorite long-running Marvel character). And while on vacation in Wisconsin, I finally cracked open my Avengers Assemble hardcovers (reprinting the near-classic Busiek/Perez run in a very pleasing eye-friendly size!) and really got into re-reading that great run. So I was raring to dive into a big yok of new Avengers goodness. Hopefully…
Find out what KC thought of Secret Invasion after the jump

Paul Sizer introduces Wedding DJ Bingo in his BPM strip, complete with downloadable cards!