Okay, so I read Whales on Stilts, the first book in what appears to be a series called the Amazing Worlds of MT Anderson, by (wait for it) MT Anderson.  I say "appears to be," because the book is a parody of juvenile fiction series like (very specifically) Goosebumps or Tom Swift.  So regardless, it's going to read like an installment in a series.

 

Anyway, it was okay, but I wasn't completely overwhelmed.  (Friends have been recommending another of his novels, Feed, for a while, and that's probably better.)  I mean, it was funny.  Really funny.  Almost laugh-out-loud funny in places, along the lines of Tom Mason and Dan Danko's Sidekicks series.  But the plot and characters weren't really all that gripping, and as funny as it was, it really felt very Lemony Snicket in terms of writing style.  (Only, you know, more jokes and less of the "Let me tell you a story about a bunch of people who died" thing.)  And despite the cover, designed to look like a worn-out, retro series cover, it didn't really have the same sort of old-school feel.

 

So, as someone who had read the adventures of the Hardy Boys and similar series as a kid, and was expecting a post-modern homage to those sorts of books, I felt a little let down.  Which probably has more to do with my own expectations than any weaknesses on the part of the book.  Which means, if this were an actual review, I'd essentially be saying, "That's not the way I would have done it."  But, since this isn't a review, just my thoughts about reading the book, I can say whatever the heck I want.  And so I have...

 

Speaking of reviews, the next book on my list is Silverfin, the first Young James Bond novel by Charlie Higson.  I'd been looking forward to this, and even bought a copy rather than wait for the library to get it, but it's getting some so-so reviews.  Me, I wanted it because I like James Bond, I liked the Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) TV series that Higson produced, and I like the idea that it's a juvenile period adventure series.  (These books are written as if the original novels took place at the time they were written, in the 50s and 60s, which would place Bond's teen years in the 30s.)  And I'm undaunted by the mixed reviews, because--if it's not apparent at this point--I don't place a lot of stock in them.  Those reviewers won't necessarily be bringing the same things I am to the book, so they'll respond in different ways.  For example, School Library Journal wrote that the Alex Ryder books by Anthony Horowitz are a more exciting series of teen spy novels.  (And I hear lots of good things about those, so I'm going to read the first one of those and see how I like it.)  But the Ryder books are contemporary thrillers, and part of what excites me about the Young Bond ones is the period setting.  So... We'll see.

The Dukes of Hazzard - Yahoo! Movies Exclusive Trailer

Aaaaannnd... it looks like another childhood favorite has made it to the big screen intact. And just when I'm thinking it couldn't possibly look any better, Lynda Carter shows up. I'm so there!

Just finished Scrib, and it's great. Find it and read it.

Otherwise, it was a good weekend for "British Telefantasy That I Like." As posted earlier, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was number one at the box office, beating XXX-2. (Double-triple X?) A friend had told me he had heard this wasn't going to be the case, that Hitchhiker's wasn't going to break $20 million (it did, it seems), so I'm glad to hear it turned out to be otherwise.

Me, I actually managed to haul myself out to the theater to see Hitchhiker's Guide for myself. I mean, this is a story (or set of stories) I have loved since I was a kid. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this was my Lord of the Rings. And I thought it was great. I had read some early reviews that indicated it might be otherwise, but those reviewers were clearly hopped up on the goofballs. The movie felt completely true to the spirit of the original material. I had never really pictured the characters or settings in my head looking quite like they do here, but when I saw them, they felt so completely right, and the tone of the movie is so perfect, I felt completely at home.

Some of the reviews I had read complained that too much was cut from the original radio series or books or TV or whatever, but anyone paying even half attention would notice that Douglas Adams changed things when adapting the radio series into books, and then again into the TV series, and computer game, and whatever. Of course he would have made changes in turning it into a movie. (And I'm not interested in playing the game of what parts of the movie were written by Adams and which parts were by Chicken Run Karey Kirkpatrick. It doesn't really matter, because the script is good all the way through, and Chicken Run is a great movie anyway.) I had read articles and interviews where Adams talked about one of the problems with the movie being his not being interested in telling the same story over again in quite the same way, so it never would have been just like the radio series (which wasn't like the books, which weren't like the TV series).

And, really, the negative reviews which focus on what has been lost in translation ultimately just seem like people whining that their favorite bits have been left out, rather than judgments about whether the story still works. I mean, the audience I saw the movie with laughed at all the jokes just fine, so it's hardly a case of them being gutted. Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of people's favorite bits come from the Guide entries, which are voice-over narration in the radio series and prose asides in the books. Well, voice-overs work great in an audio medium, but less so in a visual medium. (The TV series has plenty of them, but it's so completely cheap, it's really almost radio on TV anyway.) The movie, unsurprisingly, focuses more on big, beautiful images that look great filling the huge screen.

And it does, indeed, look great. As I said, at no point did I find myself thinking that this isn't the way things should look. (My favorite stupid review complaint comes from Douglas Adams freak-nerd MJ Simpson, who complained that the movie had completely changed the appearance of two-headed, three-armed Zaphod Beeblebrox. And, I suppose the freak-nerd has a point, because, as portrayed by Sam Rockwell in the movie, Zaphod does, indeed, look absolutely nothing like he did on the... radio... God.)

In the end, between the Simpson review and SFX Magazine--as well as the freak-nerds who write comics reviews at TheFourthRail.com and the ones who do Doctor Who fan reviews at Outpost Gallifrey--I've created a couple new rules/reasons to discount reviews completely. (As if I needed more.) First, I now place absolutely no value in reviews written by folks who are too close to earlier versions of whatever they're reviewing. (Here, I'm talking about movie or TV revivals, adaptations of anything, or long-running series like comics or whatever.) Those reviews inevitably aren't about the actual movie, or book or whatever. They're about the reviewer's memories of the earlier version or source material, and how the new version compares. Which, you know, means something if I felt exactly the same way about the original version. But, generally, I seem to be a little more flexible in my views, and more willing to accept the new, as long as it creates similar feelings as the old. The reviews seem to be more fixated on details, like specific lines, or the genders of characters, or whatever. So, since I'm almost never coming from the same place as the reviewer... useless.

Then there are the reviews written by folks who are intimately familiar with the material, who proclaim something as being inaccessible to people who aren't. I mean, get over yourself. How would you know? A review is all about your opinion, period, so just speak for yourself. The minute you start doing more than that, shut up. You've run out of things to say.

So the other great British telefantasy event this weekend would be the new episode of Doctor Who: Dalek. Written by award-winning playwright and TV writer--and Doctor Who fan--Robert Shearman, the episode loosely adapts his Big Finish Doctor Who CD, Jubilee. I loved the original, but it's been long enough since I heard it that this episode felt completely fresh.

For those not in the know, the Daleks are the arch-enemies of the Doctor, and probably completely responsible for the show's early success back in 1963/4. They're these mutated creatures inside these armored travel machines which, as Doctor Who Confidential points out, are basically personal tanks that are all the more terrifying because, unlike a full-sized tank, this is a tank that can come into your house and kill you. They're absolutely not human, but because--externally--they're devices, not creatures, they aren't obviously men dressed as monsters.

Having said that, I never really found myself scared by the Daleks in the way I did watching this week's episode. Too often, in the old series (see, now I'm doing it), the Daleks were just mobile guns motivated by hate, a virtually unstoppable army that--unsurprisingly--only the Doctor can defeat. This time, however, we meet a lone Dalek who has been held prisoner for 50 years, the last of its kind. The Dalek is treated as a character, aided tremendously by a fantastic vocal performance by Nick Briggs, and the audience feels sympathy as well as fear. The Doctor, too, isn't simply there to defeat the Dalek. For perhaps the first time, we see how his experiences with the Daleks have affected him. Yes, insisting that the Daleks are bad guys is an obvious response, but this Doctor is absolutely terrified, and that fear colors his reactions in a way we've never seen before. But, having said that, while this episode maps out new emotional territory for the characters and series, it does so in a way that never feels out of place. Fantastic.

Again, watching Doctor Who Confidential, it's clear just how much the new technology available to the production team helps this episode (as well as a generous budget). In the past, the Daleks have always had certain jerky, wobbly quality to them. This would be because the single operator inside the Dalek had to move it around the studio, operate the two front arms, turn the head, and move the eyepiece. And flash the lights in the dome in time with the lines being spoken by another actor. The new Dalek has a remote controlled head, including the eye stalk and lights, so the actor inside the thing only has to move the body around and operate the arms. Another actor operates the head. So this new Dalek moves more smoothly and confidently than any we have ever seen. Additionally, because the lines are being delivered on-set by Briggs, and the head operator can see him, the lights on the head are perfectly synchronized with the speach, for the first time ever. The end result: a Dalek with smooth, confident motion, who truly does seem like an implacable foe.

And then, the end... Not to give too much away, but the idea that I'd be watching an episode of Doctor Who and feel a lump in my throat or a tear in my eye... Okay, not unprecedented in this series: there was the cell phone scene in End of the World, the final scene of the same episode, the Doctor telling Charles Dickens his works would live forever in The Unquiet Dead, and the death of the pig-alien in Aliens of London. But that it would be a Dalek who would make me feel that way? Fantastic!

"Hitchhiker's Guide" Galactic - Yahoo! News: "Don't panic. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was the
biggest movie in the galaxy this weekend.

Despite some so-so
reviews, the sci-fi comedy trip got a thumbs up from moviegoers and
easily topped the weekend box office, debuting with $21.7 million,
thumping the weekend's other top newcomer, the Vin Diesel-less sequel
XXX: State of the Union, which stalled in third place with $13.7
million, per studio estimates Sunday"

So, last night, completely unable to get to sleep, I started reading Scrib, the new book by David Ives. I had loved Monsieur Eek, his first novel, and had no idea he had written another one until this turned up at the library. This one's another humorous historical, a Western this time, and I got through maybe half of it before making another attempt at getting to sleep (which failed, and I ended up reading half the new issue of Doctor Who Magazine instead).

Just wanted to point out that it's not just Star Wars on my reading diet...

So, as I write this, my Dad is in the hospital again, and I'm so upset, I can hardly think. I just came home from visiting him yesterday, and I can scarcely process the news.

It's weird; he's so excited about the new Star Wars movie, it's like he's... well, me, some 28 years ago. In fact, he had such a burning desire to find out what happens in the next movie, he bought the novelization and read it, weeks before the movie is due to come out. (It comes out on my birthday, by the way, and I've already bought my ticket.) He tried so hard to keep from giving any of the story away, but he's so excited and enjoyed it so much, he couldn't help himself. And now I'm excited about it in a way I hadn't been before, because now it's something we can share. (He even joined the Star Wars Fan Club so he could access the Hyperspace parts of the Star Wars web site, and hearing him talk about that, it made me want to do the same thing.)

When I went out, I brought the DVD and videotape of Cartoon Network's Clone Wars cartoon, which he hadn't seen. I wasn't sure if he'd like it; he's not a big cartoon fan, and he's not particularly interested in Star Wars stories beyond what's actually in the movies. But he really seemed to like these ones, and I'm glad we got to watch them together.

He gave me his copy of the novelization to read, after I've seen the movie, but in a strange way, that ended up prompting me to read another Star Wars novel myself, Labyrinth of Evil by James Luceno. I had stopped at Dark Carnival, the sci-fi/fantasy bookstore I worked at in high school, and saw the book there. It's a prequel novel, set right before the new movie, and I thought he might get a kick out of reading it. He hadn't been feeling so good that day, and I thought he might appreciate a get-well present. And it was a book club edition that they were selling for only $12, which was a good price. However, once I got it back to the house and started reading it, I decided I wanted to finish it myself first, before I passed it on to him.

Now, it should be no secret to folks who know me that I don't mind reading books based on TV shows and movies and stuff. However, I've never been particularly interested in the books based on the various Star Wars movies. To me, the original three movies tell a nice, rounded-off story, and I'm not particularly interested in what happened next to Han Solo or Luke Skywalker or Princess Leia. (This, from someone who used to make up Star Wars stories all the time with his action figures. But that was between the movies.) And I'm not too interested in reading the Clone Wars novels that tell the wartime adventures of the characters between the current movies, either. At least, my interest isn't particularly piqued by the descriptions of the novels I've seen. But this one... I think it's because I saw how excited Dad had gotten by reading his new Star Wars book, and I wanted to feel some of the same thing. Only I didn't want to read the story of the new movie, so this was as close as I could get, reading this prelude. And, you know, it wasn't half bad. I'm still not overly interested in reading any of the other books--although maybe slightly more than I had been before--but I had fun with this one.

So, you know, thanks, Dad. Get well soon, okay?

And, to change the subject slightly, I also read this new graphic novel called Four Letter Worlds from Image Comics, an anthology based around four themes: Love, Hate, Fear, and Fate, done by all sorts of my favorite creators. (Folks like Joe Casey, Steve Lieber, Jeff Parker, Scott Morse, Chynna Clugston, Jamie Rich, Andi Watson, J. Torres... Can't be bothered to look up the links, but feel free to Google them if you like.) Not every story was a winner, but enough of them were to justify the purchase. Oh, and Jay Faerber and Steve Rolston's one about noisy neighbors... Complete slice of my life.

Not sure if I'm going to go see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tomorrow or not. May need the excuse to get out and be distracted. We'll see.

Once and Again - Press Release: Once and Again Season 2: "If you thought the idea of Once and Again season 2 actually being released was a dream, then this press release should be the pinch you need; you're not dreaming. Don't forget that this title is already available for purchase, along with season 1. Check out our Release Info page for more information.

Emmy Award Winner Sela Ward and Bill Campbell Star In
ONCE AND AGAIN
SEASON TWO

BURBANK, Calif., April 26, 2005 - Buena Vista Home Entertainment presents ONCE AND AGAIN Season 2, on DVD August 23. From Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz, the creators of the acclaimed TV series 'thirtysomething' and 'My So-Called Life,' ONCE AND AGAIN stars Golden Globe and Emmy Award winner Sela Ward ('The Day After Tomorrow') and Bill Campbell ('Enough,' TV's 'The O.C.') in the acclaimed drama series that follows the relationship of a divorced dad (Campbell) and a separated mother (Ward), and their ties to their extended families. Season 2 features the unforgettable proposal and marriage between the two stars and includes all 22 episodes from the show's second season in a 5-Disc DVD box set. Also included is episode commentary with creators Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz."

Longtime readers of this journal--both of them--will recall how much I loved Once and Again. When they put out the first season on DVD, I was overjoyed, only to have my heart broken (well, sort of) when not further seasons materialized. So, this is great news. Better news would be that the third season is guaranteed, but I'll take what I can get.

Apparently, one of the determining factors for releasing TV series on DVD is they need to appeal to a youthful demographic, because that's who buys TV shows on DVD. Which is why something like The OC gets released almost immediately, while there's still no sign of thirtysomething or JAG, two popular series that aren't "hip" choices for DVD release. Well, here's an idea. Maybe the sort of people who would buy JAG, or thirtysomething or Once and Again would be more likely to buy TV shows on DVD if the shows coming out on DVD were the shows they enjoyed? I mean, isn't this something of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Tru Calling - Best Buy exclusive season 2 set: "Reader Steven Serridge emailed us last night with the news that Best Buy had Tru Calling: Season 2 up for preorder, which was listed as an exclusive to the chain of stores. We tried to get more information from Fox, since Best Buy doesn't list much information, but we came up dry.

Here's what we know: the 6 episode set, which contains an unaired episode, will sell for $29.99. It'll be available on August 2nd. Hopefully we can dig up more information next week."

And while we're on the subject: thank you so much, Fox, for renewing the series for a second season, then truncating that second season to make way for series with better prospects (the almost instantly canceled North Shore and Pointless Pleasant), and then, not even running all the handful of second season episodes you did produce. So, yes, I will be buying this set.

'Jim,' 'Videos' in at ABC; NBC Drops 'Dreams' - Yahoo! News: "Meanwhile, word is that the fate of NBC's 'American Dreams'
has now been sealed, and the period drama, long considered a
long shot for renewal, will not return next season. NBC
declined comment Thursday."

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money; I'm doing community service this week." The cop is happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as "How to improve your business and becoming more successful".

Then a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Republican is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a
dozen Republicans lined up waiting for a free haircut.

Because I firmly believe you can never spend enough money or buy enough crap, I bought an iPod tonight. Sort of an impulse purchase, although with some thought behind it: I have to go home to visit the family next week, and I've got some Big Finish CDs I haven't listened to yet. The little, tiny low-memory MP3 player I had that would plug into my Handspring just doesn't hold enough. So, I got me an iPod. How hip I am! And, instead of listening to ... well, whatever I'd be listening to at home, I get to listen to The Adventures of Luther Arkwright, or the new Doctor Who story. Although, the thrill of listening to new Doctor Who stories on CD has paled considerably, now that we have new Doctor Who stories on TV...

As if the return of Doctor Who wasn't enough, I recently learned of another childhood Brit TV fave revival: Basil Brush. As a kid, during our year in New Zealand, the year that fatefully brought me into contact with Doctor Who, Blakes 7, The Tomorrow People, and Sapphire and Steel--which was so scary I couldn't watch more than the first episode--I remember watching The Basil Brush Show faithfully with my family. It was this sketch comedy show, hosted by a small fox puppet with the personality of Terry-Thomas. It was, I suppose, no Muppet Show, but Basil's pun-riddled, borderline-ribald wit had us all in hysterics. So, upon learning that there had been a revival, naturally, I bought the DVDs to catch up. (Sadly, the original is only available as a one-hour "best of" clips collection, which doesn't really do it justice.)

I've only seen one episode of the new one so far, and I'm not sure how I feel. I enjoyed it, and Basil seems very much the same character that I remember from 25 years ago. But the format has changed from a variety/sketch comedy show to a more standard sitcom setup, with a stable setting and cast of characters. (At least, that seems to be the case.) I still enjoyed it, I still laughed at Basil's jokes, but seeing him in the context of a 23-minute extended story, as just this guy interacting with the other regular characters (except he's, you know, a fox puppet) took some getting used to.

And I wonder whether you could make a variety show/sketch comedy show for kids any more. I can't think of any contemporary examples. Nickelodeon used to have some, like All That and The Amanda Show, starring the lovely Amanda Bynes, now star of the big screen and, well, the smaller screen. Maybe for a new Basil Brush show to exist, these are the changes that had to be made? And this brings us to the latest episode of Doctor Who.

SPOILERS FOR DOCTOR WHO: ALIENS OF LONDON FOLLOW. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.





In a lot of ways, this week's episode, Aliens of London represents the greatest departure from the original series. I mean, there are fans bitching about how the show's 45-minute long episodes lack the depth of plot and character of the original stories. (The original stories were usually told over the course of four 25-minute episodes, and "depth of plot and character" apparently means running around, getting locked up, and escaping multiple times.) For me, who tries not to get hung up on fiddly details, the biggest difference between Old and New Who is that, for the first time ever, the Doctor and his companion are presented as characters. By that, I mean they exist to do more than for the companion to say "Explain the story to me, Doctor," and for the Doctor to save the world. There's a difference between character and personality quirks, and that's a pretty handy example of the difference in what audiences expect from their TV shows between the 1970s (probably the last time Doctor Who was universally acclaimed) and today.

So far, the show has only hinted at the greater depth it has given its characters. In the first episode, tellingly titled Rose, after the new companion, Rose Tyler, we get a picture of her life, including her mother, home life, and boyfriend. This is to be expected; the old series usually made a token attempt at giving a background to the companions, which would be instantly ignored as soon as they went away in the TARDIS. In the second episode, however, the show introduces a device--a modified cell phone--that allows Rose to contact her mother from five billion years in the future. This is the first time I can recall where the companion's lives before meeting the Doctor were actually revisited and factored into the story. It was a touching moment, unlike anything the series had done before, and I loved it.

This week, the Doctor and Rose return to her home. It's only been a few days for Rose since she left, but on Earth, a whole year has passed. And we actually see how her mother has been dealing with the fact that her daughter has been missing without a trace for the past 12 months. Her boyfriend has been a suspect in her disappearance. For the first time ever, we get a--relatively--realistic view of what it might be like for the people who get left behind when the Doctor takes someone with him. In the context of contemporary drama, where the action and adventure stories play out against a backdrop of ongoing character interaction and development, this makes perfect sense. And it's freaked some longtime Doctor Who fans out.

I've read comments that complain about the intrusive nature of the "soap opera" elements in the latest episode. And this, from a Doctor Who critic/fan whose work I enjoy. (Also a heck of a nice guy, and a publisher of some pretty cool books.) And I haven't even bothered reading any of the messages on the forums at Outpost Gallifrey, because the subject headings are off-putting enough. To be honest, I think any fan criticism needs to be taken with this grain of salt: this is easily the most character-oriented episode of Doctor Who ever (or at least to date). As a result, this is the one that may feel to some the least like the show that they remember from anywhere from 15 to 41 years ago. And that's a long time to have loved something, and to find that it's changed... sometimes it's hard. To me, it's still a Doctor Who story, because Doctor Who has never been specifically this or not included that. It's still a show about the Doctor, and he's still fighting monsters, and, for me, at the end of the day, that's what still matters.

And it's still really, really good. I accidentally came across a photo of a pig-headed alien on the official web site, and thought it looked a bit silly. Who would have known that when I actually saw the scene involving the pig-thing, I would almost cry? Again, another first for the show. It's ironic that fans who are somehow under the impression that Doctor Who was ever aimed exclusively at adults, like it was a forerunner to the new Battlestar Galactica or something, accuse the new one of being too childish, because of burping killer trash bins or farting aliens. For my money, this version is the most emotionally mature version of Doctor Who ever.

Sci Fi Wire -- The News Service of the Sci Fi Channel: "SCI FI Reveals New Series

SCI FI Channel announced a slate of new original series for the 2006-07 season, adding projects from luminaries in film, television and literature to its roster of scripted dramas, miniseries and alternative series. The new shows will incorporate the mainstream appeal of fantasy, adventure and alternative reality.

The following scripted series are currently in development:

•An untitled project executive-produced by Academy Award-winning actor/producer Michael Douglas, based on the work of the late author Shirley Jackson (The Haunting of Hill House). Storylines and themes from Jackson's catalog of supernatural short stories will be woven into her real life experiences transitioning from urban mom to small-town matriarch.

•Heroes Anonymous, a live-action series based the comic book created by Scott Gimpel and Bill Morrison which follows a group of 20-something aspiring superheroes who form a support group to help them discover their own identity while carving out their secret identity. The series will be executive-produced by Lawrence Bender (Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction), Kevin Brown (Legend of Earthsea, Roswell) and Karl Schaefer (The Dead Zone). Gimpel and Morrison will write the pilot.

•Those Who Walk in Darkness, a drama based on John Ridley's (Three Kings, Third Watch) best-selling novel of the same name about an expert team of S.W.A.T. police whose primary mission is to hunt down and capture people who genetically possess super powers. John Ridley will write and executive-produce in association with NBC Universal Television Studio."

There are more series listed, but the one that interests me the most is Those who Walk in Darkness. I read the novel, thought it was great, and wanted more. The novel seemed to be setting some things up for a sequel anyway, so it's already tailor-made to be explored as a TV series. Plus, it's incredibly dark and humorless, which makes it a perfect fit with another new SciFi hit series, Battlestar Galactica. (Don't get me wrong; I love the new Galactica, but saying it's dark is like saying my cat, Penelope, is slightly fuzzy and enigmatic.)

Of course, the gutters of Hollywood and Canada are littered with TV series in development for SciFi that never make it to air (wither the proposed TV series spin-off from Chronicles of Riddick/Pitch Black, although that was tied into a failed movie...) so I'm not holding my breath.

Okay, so yesterday, I was disappointed at the news that DC Comics had discontinued its line of graphic novels reprinting strips from 2000AD. Today, I'm in a better mood, because, according to 2000AD Review, Rebellion (the company that publishes 2000AD) will be continuing the books on their own.

However, realizing just how much the possibility of the 2000AD books ending upset me has caused me to think even more about the comics I currently buy. And I don't want to fault DC here... okay, yes I do. This situation with the 2000AD and Humanoids (a French comics publisher distributed in the US by DC, also dropped due to low sales, which, until recently, were not promoted at all by DC) is pretty irritating. DC claims they're ending the deals with Rebellion and Humanoids because the books weren't selling. Well, as I've said, they didn't promote the books at all. I didn't see them reviewed in trade journals (not the ones we get at the library, anyway; obscure journals like Publisher's Weekly and Booklist and Library Journal), I didn't see ads aimed at bookstore stock buyers in those journals... Hell, I didn't even see ads in other DC comics. I mean, call me crazy, but since most of the big-name writers working for DC's Vertigo line got started in 2000AD, perhaps advertising their early works in Vertigo comics might have been a shrewd move? But no, they opted to not tell anyone that they were publishing these books--at the rate of three a month, mind--and then were surprised that sales failed to materialize. And then, instead of trying the bold step of attempting any marketing campaign, they canceled the lines.

(To be fair, I had seen house ads for the Humanoids books lately, but obviously, too little, too late.)

So what this says to me about DC is that despite being better than Marvel (the other big company in the US) at publishing diverse material, they don't actually know how to sell anything besides superhero comics. Which would be fine, if sales figures didn't indicate that the audience for superhero comics is shrinking, and that new readers aren't coming into the market. But what bothers me is that they're not willing to try to figure out how to sell other kinds of comics; they're apparently willing to just continue marketing a specific genre to a shrinking audience.

Well, maybe I've just done too much growing up in the past few years, but I'm no longer interested in superhero comics quite the same way I was, not even a year ago. So I'm pretty much dropping every ongoing DC superhero title I was getting. Not every single one; I've been a fan of Legion of Super-Heroes since I've been reading superhero comics, and it's finally good again, so I'lll keep reading that. Ditto Birds of Prey (huge Black Canary fan). And Gotham Central, the comic about the police department in Batman's home town, is still pretty keen. So is Superman/Batman, but when writer Jeph Loeb leaves the book in seven months, I'm going with him. But every other ongoing DC superhero comic I was getting is pretty much off the list, due in a large part to the fact that they've pissed me off. That, and these are the comics that just aren't exciting me the way they used to. Other comics from other companies seem new, exciting and different, while DC is making a big deal about restoring old characters to their old lives in really bad stories (yes, Green Lantern: Rebirth, I'm talking about you). They aren't telling stories about characters any more, and, more importantly, they don't seem interested in even trying. So, I'm out.

(Of course, there are exceptions. I'll keep getting miniseries from them, because those, by their very nature, are story-oriented, and finite. I'll keep getting stuff from their Wildstorm and Vertigo imprints, because those tend to feature new ideas, or non-superhero ones. And if it lives up to the previous work of the creative team, I'll get the new Supergirl comic, because I like the creators, and I've always liked the character. But that's it.)

Sorry if this is rambling a bit. Got some other stuff going on in my real life that I'm trying to distract myself from.

NEWSARAMA - DC SHEDS 2000AD/REBELLION & HUMANOIDS: "Their absence in the July solicitations was duly noted by the respective fans of the UK and France-based publishers, and DC late today issued an explanation for the missing 200AD/Rebellion and Humanoids solicitations: the publisher has ended its relationships with the European publishers, and will no longer publish their material in North America."

Considering that the 2000AD reprints were some of the comics I most looked forward to each month, this is really disappointing news. But really, you have to wonder just how much better the sales might have been if DC Comics had advertised them. At all. Ever. Even once.

And people wonder why comics sales are down...

Yahoo! News - 'Ronin' Mercenary Drama Headed to Small Screen: "CANNES, France (Hollywood Reporter) - 'Ronin,' John Frankenheimer's 1998 mercenary spy drama, is headed to the small screen as an hourlong TV series under development by Canada's Incendo Prods. and German-based Action Concept.

The series, announced by the two companies at the MIPTV conference on Monday, will follow the adventures of an international team of freelancing agents who take on jobs too hot for regular spies to handle."

I've actually seen the movie, and it's pretty good, but mostly for the really cool, really expensive European car chases. (Between that and the Matt Damon Bourne movies, I've decided it should be illegal to set a car chase in the US.) Can't see them matching that action for the TV series, and without the star power... I have visions of John Woo's Once a Thief, which I loved, but lacked the expensive look and feel of La Femme Nikita...

Boston.com / News / World / Australia/Antarctica / Handler punished for donning camel costume

This would be why I never check luggage when I fly...

Sci Fi Wire -- The News Service of the Sci Fi Channel: "Lost Finale Is Super-Sized

Javier Grillo-Marxuach, a writer and supervising producer on ABC's hit series Lost, told SCI FI Wire that the much-anticipated season finale will clock in at three hours and give fans everything they love about the show. 'In terms of epic storytelling and shocking destiny, you ain't seen nothing yet!' Grillo-Marxuach said in an interview. "

The New York Times > Arts > Television > Directions | Pilot Watch: Desperate Hours: "'Fathom' (NBC): Four characters around the world (including one played by Lake Bell, pictured) encounter a species of beautiful sea creature no one has ever seen. The characters' stories intersect over the course of the series, and viewers find out whether the creatures are nice or mean.


'Threshold' (CBS): Alien life forms land on a naval freighter at sea, but there's no sign of them. So where did they go? And will their friends be joining them? A team of scientists and agents (Carla Gugino, Charles S. Dutton, Brent Spiner) prepare for a possible invasion as they investigate the evil influence the absent E.T.'s appear to exert.


'Invasion' (ABC): Something strange happens in a Florida town during a hurricane. The kind of strange that involves aliens.


'Triangle' (UPN): On their honeymoon in the Caribbean, a young doctor (Ivan Sergei) wakes up to find his wife has disappeared from their yacht. He searches the islands for her, uncovering secrets as he goes.


'Supernatural' (WB): Two brothers whose mother was killed in mysterious circumstances drive around the creepy countryside hunting evil creatures."

Obviously, I'm thrilled that Carla (Sin City/Karen Sisco) Gugino has a new pilot, but my favorite title of these proposed new Lost-a-likes? Supernatural, about two brothers who investigate the... well, the supernatural. (This one comes from McG, the vowelless director of the Charlie's Angels movies who also produces the successful TV series The OC, as well as TV failures Fastlane and The Mountain.

And for the record, I've never been able to get through a whole episode of The OC, I made it five minutes into The Mountain before giving up, and I watched the whole first episode of Fastlane, because it was created by John McNamera, the genius behind Profit, Spy Game, and new fave Eyes. Clearly, with Fastlane he had just plain given up...

Thanks to cable movie channels, I watched Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed last night and Van Helsing this morning. At least, I think that's the order I watched them in; they're really the same movie, as far as I can tell. The one with Sarah Michelle Gellar, I watched last night, and the one with Kate Beckinsale, I watched this morning.

Ah, I make the joke, of course. Truth is, they were both fun. Not movies I would have cared to pay to see in theaters (which I didn't, so that's all right), or even movies I would have gone out of my way to rent, but when they show up on the movie channels, and all I have to do is have the DVR record them (in HD, no less) to watch at my leisure later... Well, that's why I pay for those channels, to be honest. (Well, that, and Deadwood, I guess.)

Van Helsing was probably the lesser of the two, partly because it was over two hours long, partly because my expectations had been raised by Stephen Sommers' earlier movies (the two Mummy movies and Deep Rising), and partly because Scooby-Doo had Linda Cardellini (ER, Freaks & Geeks, The Lot) as Velma. Scooby also had the advantage of deliberately choosing to use classic monsters from the TV show, whereas Van Helsing chose to give us updated versions of the classic Universal monsters. (Not that Universal Studios created Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolfman, but they do own the copyright to the most recognizable versions.) But while the monsters may not have caused the same echoes of nostalgia, the movie was still good popcorn fun. And it had a twist at the very end that I hadn't expected from a movie like this, which caught me off guard.

Having said that, I don't think the world needs a sequel to Van Helsing, so I'm not too crushed that it failed at the box office. And it's not as good a Kate Beckinsale monster movie as Underworld, I think. (Partly because, attractive as she was, the sight of her running around in a lacy bustiere fighting vampires while everyone else in her village is dressed in rags just looked silly. At least everyone else in Underworld was wearing tight leather outfits...) But if, as is rumored, Stephen Sommers' next project is a revival of Flash Gordon, this movie shows it might be fun. Here's hoping...