A little thing we like to call "foreshadowing"...

9 Batman Knock Offs That Utterly Miss the Point

Batman is Batman and true fans know exactly what I'm talking about. Accept no imitations...except there are several copy cats who just. Don't. Get it. Here are nine of them. And a couple who actually do it right. Except for the whole, "You're still not Batman" thing.

15 Comic Book Icons Pin-Up Style

I'm all for the female form. As I've stated before, I have no problem with seeing hot comic book characters done up all slutty like. Having said that, there are a couple characters I feel should probably be left out of this kind of artform, such as Batgirl and the Power Puff Girls. Some, on the other hand, were absolutely created for this genre. Regardless of your opinion of my opinion, enjoy a fan boy's wet dream.

The 10 Most Expensive Comics

So there's absolutely no surprise what book is No. 1, but there are some issues down the list that definitely raised my eyebrows. If you've got $10M or so, they can all be yours.

Top Marvel vs. DC Battles

 

What are the top Marvel vs. DC Comics battles we'd like to see? And which of those would be totes DARLING if drawn up to look like kids' toys. Here we go.

BOOK REVIEW: Patriot No. 1 by Bleeding Ink Productions

(Patriot issue No. 1 of 4.)

To paraphrase Bruce Wayne's praise of Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, I believe in Jesse Grillo. I believe enough in the work I have seen from him and his comic book production company, Bleeding Ink Productions, that I helped fund Patriot, a four-issue miniseries he marketed on Kickstarter. Obviously, since I was funding a product that had not been completed, I was going on Grillo's past work and the premise of Patriot.

I was not disappointed with the results.

Patriot follows the story of the titular character after he discovers he has but weeks to live after being diagnosed with a brain tumor. He decides it is time to stop simply capturing and imprisoning his enemies only to see them escape and commit the same heinous crimes again and again. He decides it's time to put an end to their murderous activities...permanently. The plan does not go over well with his teen-aged son and is accepted with even less approval from his teammates in the Union of Superheroes.

The book overall is strong, especially from an independent with very little funding. Grillo handles the writing and does it capably. Jeff Slimmons' pencils and inks have a very pulpy feel to them (imagine some of the horror comics from the 40s and 50s) and Melissa Martin Ellis' colors complement the artwork perfectly. Together, it all has a very personal feel, not like many of today's comics, especially from Marvel, that feel as though they are generated by a computer graphics program.

The premise itself is interesting, especially with the "Death of the Family" story arc featuring the Joker currently taking place in the Batman titles. It has been said for years (decades) that Batman's strict adherence to his code of never taking a life has, in fact, cost hundreds if not thousands of lives. By allowing the Joker to live, Batman has indirectly caused the deaths of every victim who has been killed at the hands of the Clown Prince of Crime. The same can be said of Two-Face, the Penguin, et. al., but the Joker is easily the most diabolical and purely evil of Batman's Rogue's Gallery.

Patriot's bailiwick is unique in that his decision to turn to murder is a result of his own impending mortality. We've seen comics such as The Punisher that have been cut and dry from the very beginning: do evil and be killed, period. Patriot, based on the reactions of those around him when he reveals his plan, was very much in the mold of Superman -- a god-like being who chose to simply stop criminals and allow the proper authorities mete out justice. It is a familiar storyline with an added twist that provides the reader with a What Would I Do In That Situation? scenario.

Another unique aspect of the book is the lack of thought balloons and the third-party narrative the vast majority of comics employ. Not using thought balloons is becoming a topic amongst comic creators and fans on social media such as Twitter and while many believe the tried-and-true use of internal monologues should continue, not using them provides a more in-the-moment experience. It provides the reader an opportunity to consider for themselves what the characters could be thinking and what their motivation could be rather than having it spoon-fed to them.

As with any new comic, hero and villain names can be clunky and hard to process and Patriot is guilty of this in certain instances. However, if you take the names of heroes that have been around for decades such as Wonder Woman, Aqua Man, Spider Man, Mr. Fantastic, and the like, the names of the new heroes don't sound as awkward.

The other thing to consider is that Grillo is working mostly alone with a shoestring budget. The bigger the budget, the bigger the staff and the more people to assist with editing and to bounce ideas off of. Considering that Grillo has little name recognition among mainstream comics fans and the aforementioned next-to-nothing budget, Patriot, along with his other titles, should stand out as a triumph of David versus the Goliath of the Disney-owned Marvel and Warner Bros.-owned DC Comics. Grillo has talent and a strong portfolio; brands like Dark Horse, Radical, Vertigo, and others would be well-advised to grab him while his price is still low.

For more information on Bleeding Ink Productions or to check out its line of comics, visit them at their official website.

DC Comics Stays Classy; Fires Gail Simone Via E-Mail

(Concentrated red-haired awesome, Gail Simone. Photo by Luigi Novi)

In a world filled with assholes, douchebags, and scoundrels, DC Comics decided to make a solid run for Dick of the Week by firing Gail Simone. If you don't know who Simone is, run, don't walk, fucking run, to your nearest comic book store and grab any issue of Batgirl produced during the New 52 era. I personally recommend the recently-released Batgirl Annual #1. Got it? Awesome, isn't it? Well-written, well-plotted with characters you really care for and empathize with, right?

Yeah, DC decided to shit-can her. From one of the more popular titles out right now. Via e-mail.

Unless Santa Claus gives an orphan the finger while kicking a puppy, DC could have that Dick of the Week title wrapped up. I'm writing this as a fan and not as a comics insider because 1) I'm a fan, and 2) I'm not a comics insider and as a fan, I think what DC did was bullshit.

(Yeah, she responded to a compliment I gave her, so we're pretty much besties.)

Simone has been at the helm for some of the best, and underrated, comics in recent years for DC, including Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman, and Fury of Firestorm. Her work on Marvel's Deadpool is, in my opinion, the catalyst for making that title one of the most popular in the Marvel Universe. Wade Wilson went from a meh character with corny one-liners to an anti-hero spewing laugh-out-loud comments that were cringe-worthy in their darkness and inappropriateness.

On the flip side of that was Batgirl, a book that has all the bang-pow superhero stuff you could ask for, but also provides a back story worthy of one of the most interesting characters in the DC Universe. Something of a fringe character in the past, Alan Moore's The Killing Joke put her in the limelight when the Joker put a bullet in her spine and paralyzed her. No longer able to be Batgirl, Barbara Gordon became Oracle, the eye in the sky for Batman and the Bat Family as well as the leader of the Birds of Prey, a female group consisting of such super heroines as Black Canary, the Huntress, Lady Blackhawke, and others.

(Don't. Just don't. Be a grown up. Photo by ComicVine.com)

Simone's run on Birds of Prey was very notable in that since it was a comic about women written by a woman, it would be, well, all girly and shit. They would talk about boys and, er, women stuff, and it would be unreadable. Nope. Not even close. In fact, it was reading some of the trade paperbacks of BoP at my local library that convinced me I should give Batgirl a shot when the New 52 kicked off. I already had all the Bat titles plus Justice League in my pull file at my local shop, but after reading Batgirl #1, I was hooked.

So. We have cred with the fanboys in a male-dominated field, a book that is popular in aforementioned field, and a legion of fans who went absolutely batshit (pun intended) on Twitter Sunday when Simone confirmed she had been given her walking papers. Via. Fucking. E-mail.

Sports fans will remember this. Remember when Jimmy Johnson, formerly a championship coach, now an analyst and spokesman for big-dick pills, won his second-straight Super Bowl with the Dallas Cowboys and Jerry Jones, prior to his permanent impersonation of the creepy preacher from Poltergeist 2, fired his ass? This is kinda like that, but different.

It's like that because there's an obvious analogy to be made between the two instances and different because I love what Simone has done with Batgirl and abso-fucking-lutely hate the Dallas Cowboys. I taught my son when he was four years old that the Cowboys set fire to kitten rescues on Christmas Eve. Truth hurts sometimes. I bring up the Jones/Johnson situation because of this: Rumor has it, there was some friction between Simone and her editor. Obviously, I don't know for sure but if the internet says it...

Anyway, the point I'm laboring to make is, if you're successful, you bust your ass to get along. It doesn't matter if you literally fucking hate that person to the point you wish their grandparents would come back to life so you could kill them all over again, you make an effort to get along. Batgirl is a magical title and it's because of the combination of Simone and Ardian Syaf (pencils) making it thus. I'm not saying you should suffer assholes gladly, but if I'm Simone's former editor and she walked by my desk, knocking my coffee cup off my desk daily and giving me wet willies in front of my kids, I'd suck it up a little because you're part of a profitable team and, in the end, that reflects on you. Plus, I'd teabag the shit out of her laptop when she wasn't looking. But I'm passive-aggressive that way.

Monday's news from Simone was much more positive as some of the biggest names in comics, such as Neil Gaiman and Batman's Scott Snyder, coming to her defense on Twitter. The lady herself made several comments, basically saying she's receiving a ton of offers that are actually more lucrative than her gig on Batgirl. She also said she's spoken with the heads of DC and they have told her they are sorry things ended the way they did and there was some miscommunication between the firer and the firee i.e. they shit-canned her without getting their ducks in a row first.

I'd like to say I'm not going to read Batgirl or any DC Comics titles anymore. Based on things I've read, they probably deserve it. While I enjoy the New 52, it was done (allegedly) against the wishes of most of the creative staff and according to a panel I attended with Denny O'Neil, comics are a brutal business no matter where you are with constant power plays between the creative teams, the editors, and the publishers where the biggest losers tend to be the fans. Kind of like this situation, for example.

I'm still going to read DC Comics. And Batgirl. At least for awhile. Simone's final issue is #16 at the end of the "Death of the Family" arc with the Joker and the other Bat titles. Batgirl was special because it was believable. Suspension of disbelief is hard to achieve sometimes, but Simone made it easy. You liked Barbara. You pulled for her. You felt her pain, her confusion, her fears of being put back in that damned chair. Prior to this, the closest I've felt to a character was Kitty Pryde in the X-Men of the 80s when Peter Rasputin told her he didn't love her anymore because of his feelings for Zsaji, the healer he met on Battleworld during the Secret Wars arc. Chris Claremont handled that amazingly and it left a lasting impression on me, both as a comics fan and as a writer. That is what Simone has done with Batgirl.

So Gail, I'm still going to read Batgirl. And other DC Comics. But I'll be thinking of you. Anyone that comes along, no matter how good, will just be a silver medal.

Misleading Facebook Page Not Happy With DC, Marvel re: Teh Gays

(This.)

Last week, 48K And Some Change Moms (er, sorry, meant 1,000,000 Moms) decided the very public beatdown they received at the hands of JC Penny, Ellen DeGeneres, and scores of people who don't give a shit about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, wasn't enough. They have now decided to attack DC Comics and Marvel Comics re: their recent announcements regarding gay characters within their respective universes. DC announced they were going to have a longtime character outed and despite my personal opinion, it appears Earth 2's Green Lantern is their man. On the Marvel side, Northstar, the first mainstream character to come out of the closet (as a member of Alpha Flight in '92, now a member of the X-Men), is marrying Kyle, his longtime partner.

Hilarity could quite possibly ensue.

If the "Christians" who form 1,000,000 Moms (in quotes because the last time I checked, Christians were about love and acceptance and following the example set by one J. Christ, not judgement, hatred, and intolerance), thought Ellen's fans were slavishly devoted, wait until they start running into comic book fans. If you step between a geek and his/her object of affection, you're in a world of fucked, ladies (I keep wanting to steal Loki's line to Black Widow during her interrogation of him during The Avengers, but I'm trying to be the better person and play nice). Gays are the object of scorn, ridicule, and derision. Guess who else fills that description?

(Worst. Protest. Ever.)

We geeks know from being put down and patronized based on what we love. Scouting the message boards and Facebook pages and blogs, I've already seen several, if not most, of those sites are either supporting Marvel's and DC's decisions or just apathetic because the storylines don't affect the titles they themselves read. If you'll look at the Facebook pages of Marvel and DC, you'll see a lot of talk about this topic, mostly from those who are adamantly opposed to those doggone gays with their kissing of other dudes and being all fabulous and whatnot. But if you look really close, you don't see a lot of the anti-gay people actually talking about specifics of the two storylines; they're making general statements such as "If you go through with this, I'll never read another one of your comics again" or "If you go through with this, I'll boycott Warner Bros. (owner of Marvel)/Disney (owner of DC)" or "How can you put out this smut in a publication read by children?"

Keep that last one in mind, I'll get to it in a minute.

What this leads me to believe is that various groups such as the 1M Moms, the American Family Association, The Organization of Christians Determined to Get Rid of Gays Because They Make Us Uncomfortable and We're Jealous of Their Stable Relationships While Our Own Marriages Were Built on Sandy Foundations (OK, I made that last one up. But can you imagine?) sent out desperate e-mails to their membership base telling them to descend upon any and all comic-based Facebook pages, blogs, message boards, et. al., and voice their outrage.

I would like to explain to these individuals why their promises of boycotts and whatnot aren't going to work. Alright, if you're an extreme right-wing homophobe who believes in smaller government except in the case of it's none of your goddamned business, listen up. Remember the Ellen deal? The one with JC Penny? Remember how they were threatened with a boycott if they let that terrible, awful LEZ-BEE-IN Ellen continue to represent them? 'Member that? How'd that work out? Not so good, huh? Well, JC Penny is normally the kind of company that would crumble immediately given that kind of public pressure and the threat of negative publicity. Normally, a company such as that would pay Ellen off, give some horseshit reason why they changed their minds, and the "good Christians" could sleep easy in their bed of righteousness, knowing they kept another one of them queers from, I don't know, making their kids want to wear dresses, cook desserts, and come up with a divine paint scheme for the dining room.

Well that didn't fucking happen, did it?

So on the wrong end of a pretty good ass-whippin', you're going to attack the entertainment industry? You know, the industry that has a LOT of homosexuals within it? Do you honestly think for a nanosecond that Disney and/or Warner Bros. is going to give two shits what some backward-ass, small-minded tit such as yourself thinks about their product? A product you don't even fucking buy to begin with?

Now let's go back to that comment I made earlier about the children who read comics. These aren't your father's or grandfather's comics, folks. Take a good look at the graphic at the very top of this article. The idea of having your child exposed to mind-numbing violence or the complete sexual objectification of women is totes acceptable in your book, but the very idea of two men shown kissing or living happily in a committed relationship is what sends you over the edge? What the fuck is wrong with you? How is one OK and the other isn't?

(Yeah, what he said.)

Here's the down-and-dirty fact behind all of this: it's not that the characters are gay, it's that the characters are gay men. Where was the outcry over Batwoman or any of the other lesbian comic book characters? Where was the outrage 20 fucking years ago when Northstar originally came out? It didn't exist because Northstar came out around the same time DC killed Superman and Northstar was pretty much gay in name only. And as far as the gay women go, they're still created in a manner that provides titillation for men. I mean, c'mon; hot broads dressed in skin-tight spandex making out? Guys literally pay to see that shit online. But the idea of two men (MEN, dammit) kissing or acting in any manner that is believed to be anything other than masculine is an absolute anathema to these people.

The best part of all this is the absolute hypocrisy employed by those who are against gay marriage in general. I posted a pic here the other day that was awesome in its hilarity. The same passage of the Bible that says two men together are gross and not cool is also the same one that says no tattoos. Oh, but there's more. Leviticus also says women can't leave the house without their heads covered or that a woman who loses her virginity prior to marriage is fucked, both literally and figuratively, in the eyes of the Almighty. So how many of those 1,000,000 Moms were pure as the driven snow when they said "I do"? How many of them are dressed in accordance with the Bible when they leave the house every day? How many of these pious, nosy, can't-keep-their-noses-out-of-places-that-dont'-fucking-concern-them women have a cute little tattoo somewhere on the temple God is loaning them until they're called home?

And let me explain something else (I was raised Baptist, kids; I can preach ALL day long, canIgetanamen?), in the eyes of God, a sin is a sin is a sin. What that means is that the sin you're protesting against doesn't make the sins you commit OK. For example: the fact you're against homosexuality doesn't mean it's OK to drive 15 miles over the speed limit every day because the Bible states that you must follow the laws of man (Romans 13:1-2). Laying with a man as you would a woman, according to the Old Testament, is wrong, but you know what else is wrong?

• Wearing clothes made of more than one fabric.
• Shaving or getting a haircut (I personally love this one since the people who gave me shit at church when I was a teen about my long hair had scalp-bearing crewcuts. See you in Hell, assholes).
• Growing a variety of crops in your field instead of just one.
• Marital infidelity.

If you care to read more, click HERE.  But shit, Kurt, I hear you saying...those things are HARD. Or just out-and-out fucking ridiculous. The stoning queers thing is so much easier. Besides, that's Old Testament stuff. It's the NEW Testament that matters.

"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." John 14:15 (New Testament). Pretty sure that means ALL of them, not just the ones that are easy. And if you read HERE, there is a case to be made that the New Testament describes same-sex relationships and is pretty OK with it. Finally, and this is the big one, Jesus loved us ALL. Not just the folks who were right all the time and rubbed it in everyone's face; He loved the sinners, the gamblers, the whores, etc., too. In fact, he gave the latter a little more attention because he felt like they needed it.

So for all of you hate-filled "Christians" who want to attack DC and Marvel or worse, attack the homosexuals in reality who have enough shit to deal with because of people like you, maybe you need to read your Bible, especially the teachings of the Son of God, a little closer. I may be wrong in my support of marriage equality and the acceptance of homosexuals as fellow children of God, but I'd rather err on the side of love rather than be "right" in subscribing to judgement, hatred, and intolerance.

Will DC Make Tim Drake Comics' Newest Gay Character?

(Tim Drake, the third Robin, seen here in his current identity as Red Robin. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

Homosexual heroes in the world of comics is nothing new. Neil Gaiman has incorporated gay characters in his books, Northstar of Alpha Flight "came out" in 1992 (although basically in name only since his sexuality was never really mentioned), and Bunker of the New 52's Teen Titans, Karma of the New Mutants and many others have been openly homosexual in the pages of our favorite comics. There have been some very strong and award-winning stories featuring gay characters in mainstream comics, such as X-Force mainstays Shatterstar and Rictor, and there have been absolutely fucking brutal stereotypes that should be erased from existence, such as the reboot of The Rawhide Kid.

As I was reading through my Twitter feeds this morning, I saw DC Women Kicking Ass posting about the possibility of former Robin/current Red Robin (Yummmmmm!) coming out as a homosexual. Current co-publisher of DC Comics Dan Didio has stated in the past in an interview with the gay-oriented magazine The Advocate that DC would not "turn" an existing character gay, but would create an all-new character, like the Teen Titans' Bunker, that gay fans could identify with from the beginning.

However, Didio and DC has apparently done an about face. According to an interview with Bleeding Cool, he said they are about to re-introduce an existing character who will become the company's most prominent gay character. The ladies at DC Women Kicking Ass publicly considered the possibility of Drake coming out of the closet and they have spent the remainder of the day discussing/debating the topic with the droves of people who have commented on the original post.

The Rictor/Shatterstar storyline earned a GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book, despite Rob Liefield, the creator of the characters, saying he would reboot the characters if he ever had the chance (way to keep an open mind, dickhole. Go back to drawing big-titted heroines and leave making the world a better place to others) and Drake being "outed" would be just as big, if not bigger given his affiliation with Batman, arguably DC's (and possibly all of comics') most popular character.

Therein lies the problem.

The relationship between Batman and Robin has been questioned as far back as the two have been partners (crime-fighting partners, assholes; you know what I was talking about). Dick Grayson was the Robin most folks have identified as being Batman's, ahem, Boy Wonder if you catch my drift (NOW you can be a pervert). Grayson went on to become Nightwing, a great hero in his own right. Jason Todd followed and was thought to have been killed by the Joker and later resurfaced as Red Hood. Drake became the third Robin and, later, Bruce Wayne's adopted son, so I don't think there has been any serious belief that Batman and Drake have ever been anything other than a crimefighting duo and that's all.

However, Drake being introduced to the world as a gay character, despite all the positives, would create a very serious distraction. Grant Morrison recently stating he believed Batman was gay certainly can't help DC's decision, if Drake is truly the character they're planning to out. Tim being a homosexual would do little more in the mainstream than refuel all the "Batman and Robin are gay" comments and jokes. It would be a hit for the late-night comics, it would turn into fodder for the homophobes and idiots who know nothing of the comics or the storylines. DC has garnered a ton of positive press for its relaunch of the New 52 and I'm not sure they want to run the risk of tarnishing that by dealing with the jackasses who would turn a great decision into a cheap line of dick jokes.

The sad thing is, Drake really would be a perfect character for the storyline. He's an extremely interesting, three dimensional character who has been popular since his debut more than 20 years ago. During the Batman/Bane storyline, he became one of the strongest characters at DC. He's young and identifiable with teen readers and with his being an orphan and then adopted, he already has appeal to those who have struggled through their adolescence. Making him gay would see Tim Drake as a hero who would give hope to real-life teens and young adults struggling with their sexuality, especially now in a political landscape that seemingly wants gays to have the same social standing as blacks in America throughout the 19th and 20th century and Jews during the Third Reich.

It's important that there be a character, even if it's not Tim Drake, to be held up as a role model and a gay hero that doesn't just confirm all the effeminate, swishy stereotypes (again, see The Rawhide Kid). Seeing a gay hero on the pages of a mainstream comic can not only provide gay youth with inspiration and assurance that they are not "living in sin" or "making a lifestyle choice" or bad people, it can provide education to those that believe those aforementioned comments.

I applaud DC for making this decision and I really hope that it's Tim and I thank DC Women Kicking Ass for creating this debate.

For more information on gays throughout comic history, check out this Wikipedia entry.

Please, GI Joe Sequel, Don't Suck

(This, honestly, is the only reason I watched the first movie. Don't you judge me. Photo from Google Images)

I was a huge fan of the GI Joe comics back in the day. I even watched the cartoons because knowing is half the battle and I had the toys (Zartan was the fucking BOMB, yo!). I had it all.

I know the Marvel Comics product was meant only as a vehicle for Hasbro to sell toys, just like the Transformers cartoons and their truly God-awful line of comics. But somewhere along the line, Larry Hama turned the book into a truly great comic. As a veteran, I can look back and see there are some pretty glaring flaws, like enlisted servicemembers flying F-16s, etc., but as with any comic, there has to be a certain suspension of disbelief. The one-liners were strong, the character development was superb, and people got their asses KILLED.

For me, the comic became a must-purchase at issue 12, the beginning of the Sierra Gordo plotline that dug into Snake Eyes' background and ended with the deaths of some of the major players, including General Flag, Kwinn the Eskimo, and Dr. Venom. What followed that? Issue 21, considered by many as one of the strongest single-issue storylines of that era, and not just in that comic, but industry wide. The story didn't have a single word and introduced the world to Storm Shadow, the conflicted ninja bodyguard of Cobra Commander and a man with a mysterious tie to Snake Eyes.

So the comic was becoming critically-acclaimed, the cartoon growing more awful by the minute (but created some awesome YouTube memes), and toy sales began to taper off. The '80s turned into the '90s, GI Joe: A Real American Hero was eventually canceled and life moved on. Much later, the comics were rebooted with an edgier writing style that made the book even better and Hollywood, seemingly bereft of any original ideas, decided to turn it into a huge summer blockbuster movie...

...that sucked donkey nuts.

Yes, the stylized violence was there. Yes, the hot-as-fuck Baroness was one of the main characters because, thanks to hipsters, chicks with glasses have never been hotter and when she's a cold-as-ice, gun-toting badass? Please. The one-liners were there, the gadgets were there, so what was missing?

The soul of the comic. At no point in the first movie did you ever give a fuck about any of the Joes. Hell, I was ROOTING for some of them to take a bullet to the temple.  It seemed the movie only existed as a reason to create some very cool, very misleading trailers, giving viewers and old-school fans like me a reason to bust a nut. Nut not busted, it took me three tries to actually sit through the entire movie. And I tried. Sweet baby Jebus, I tried. Much like Phantom Menace, I wanted this movie to be good. But it wasn't. It just wasn't.

But there is possible redemption. GI Joe: Retaliation could be sweet. Dwayne Johnson (finally dropping "The Rock" even though he's returned to wrestling part-time, but whatever) and Bruce Willis are starring and this could finally be the movie that makes Johnson a true action star and not just a good-looking guy who apparently will say yes to whatever his agent puts in front of him. Willis' name being tied to the project automatically gives it some credibility and, based on the trailers, there seems to be some chemistry between the two. Having said that, I'm not getting fucked over again by a well-produced commercial. But dammit, I WANT this movie to work. I want to forget the piece of shit that was the first one and I want the sequel to be the great film the first one should've been. I mean, Zartan kills most of the Joes and the remaining Joes band together to avenge them? Oh, HELLZ yes.

But again, the first one had some great promise but was one of a long line of movies whose best lines and scenes were used in the trailer. Please, Stephen Sommers, please don't let us down. I so hope you did some research and understood why the comics were good and why the first movie sucked it like a back-alley whore desperately in need of smokes. I'm not watching it in the theater. I'm just not. Unless I get a free screening. I'm a whore for free screenings. So again, wearing my heart on my sleeve, I want my childhood back and I want it back in the form of a big-budgeted movie based on one of my favorite comics.

Is that so much to ask?

Does A Sweet Rack Have A Place In Comics?

(Photo from Google Images)

I like boobs.

As a heterosexual male, I find boobs, breasts, mammaries, tits, jugs, bewbies, et. al., to be just doggone awesome. Can't help it. Having said that, I'm also something of a misogynist. I intensely dislike stupid women. This may have come from working at various bars or making the mistake of going to college in my thirties when one is more acutely aware of stupidity. Let me make myself clear, I don't hate women; I despise stupid women. And stupid men, for that matter. But we're focusing on the ladies this time around.

Prior to my marriage to a wonderful woman, I always felt I wasn't playing hard to get, I was playing hard to want. I was the last person my friends wanted as a wing man in a "target-rich environment" (Thanks, Top Gun!). Quick story: I was living in Jacksonville, Fla., and a friend of mine and I were at a local club. I had zero interest in cruising for chicks and I was sober. I was more out of place than a man named L'Kwan Goldberg at a Klan rally. My friend was about to seal the deal with a young lady and her friend was with me in my car. All I had to do was keep her entertained for 15 minutes while my buddy and his target of choice slipped away.

I tried. God knows, I really tried. After listening to her blather on and on, she asked me to play some music. I showed her the CDs that were in my collection and she began flipping through them, saying "Crap" or "Never heard of them" after each CD. When she reached Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, she said, and I quote "Who is this? It looks like he plays elevator music."

The gist of my next remark was "I don't think this is going to work. You probably need to get out of my car and find your friend." As I was told by my friend later, what I actually said was more like "You're fucking retarded and since I don't have a gun on hand to kill either you or myself, you need to get the fuck out." I would say it's a mixture of the two. Nah, fuck it. It's probably 90 percent the latter.

Anyway, the point I'm making is, I would never treat a woman like that who didn't deserve it. I love my wife and my daughters and I treat them with the utmost respect. I've worked with and for women who continue to be some of my best friends and colleagues. The fact I love the female form, preferably as scantily-clad as possible, doesn't make me a bad person; it makes me a heterosexual male.

Now, look at the pic posted above. The well-endowed lass is a super heroine in the DC Universe called Power Girl. She's a cousin of Superman. The uncomfortable-looking young lady is Supe's other cousin, Supergirl. According to a lot of female comics' fans and literary critics, Power Girl represents everything that is sexist and wrong about comics.

They're mostly right.

Kelly Thompson of ComicBookResources.com wrote a great article today on the consistent sexism in comics. I read it and felt compelled to write something about it from a male point of view. I'm not going to say for a second that I don't enjoy seeing hot chicks in skin-tight latex/spandex/whatever in comics. I've been reading comics for more than 30 years and the buxom ladies, good or evil, has always been a mainstay. On this very blog recently, I penned a post asking readers whom was hotter: Batgirl or Catwoman. It was probably a bit (a lot) on the sexist side, but if you are one of the four people who read it (Thanks Mom!), you'll see my choice was Batgirl/Barbara Gordon. I chose her because she is pretty, smart, and doesn't have to show off her taters to get shit done. She'll out think you, then whip your ass. I dig that.

With the release of the New 52, there has seemingly been more criticism regarding the appropriateness of women's attire in comics. I am of the belief that folks thought since it's 2011 (when the DC-wide relaunch took place), the need for nearly-naked female super heroes is at an end. Now, does that mean ALL hot women are going to disappear from comics? Hell no! I do think, however, most people, guys included, thought we were beyond this as the standard bearer for powerful women:

(Look at how smart I am. Photo from Google Images)

I have always had a problem with Emma Frost, the White Queen (seen in her Sunday best above), especially when she became the headmistress at Xavier's School. I understood she was supposed to represent the femme fatale and whatnot, but who dresses like that outside a titty bar? Seriously? Especially as the head of a highly-reputable school. Yeah, I know, who has telepathic powers? There is a certain suspension of disbelief when reading comics but there has always been a link between the lack of clothes and the increase in super powers re: women in comics. Psylocke is a great example. When she was first introduced, she was a very quiet, demure Brit who was a powerful telepath, yet depicted as somewhat frail. When the X-Men went through the Siege Perilous, she came out the other side in the employ of Mandarin as a kick-ass (and barely-clothed) ninja assassin.

Was there a need to shed her clothes? I've never seen male ninjas showing off their junk while battling whomever it is ninjas battle. The argument has always been that women dress that way to distract men during a fight. I don't buy it. It's because back in the day, the biggest audience for comics were young boys suffering through puberty. If your old man's porn stash wasn't available, you could always take a close look at what was behind Wonder Woman's, ahem, wings, and do it to it.

That is no longer the case and hasn't been for awhile. Almost all comics are aimed at an older audience, but that audience is still predominantly male, especially now with the prominence of the internet and the infamous Rule 34. Even the comics that are purportedly aimed at women, such as Wonder Woman and Catwoman (New 52), are unrealistic at best, softcore porn at worst. I enjoy reading Batgirl because it's a well-written comic about a strong central character, not because she's wearing an outfit showing off her tits. In the Marvel Universe, I was always a big fan of Jean Grey and Kitty Pryde. Both were strong characters and neither were displayed in an overtly sexual manner. For the most part.

The portrayal of women in comics is due mostly to the stereotype of the comics nerd; a fat, thirty-something white male living in his mother's basement, reading comics in one hand and beating his schlong like it owed him money to internet porn with the other. Yes, those people exist, but they do not define the genre of comic book fans. And yes, if you're pushing 40 like I am and still reading comics, you've probably seen some of the fan-originated pics of everyone from Power Girl to Alice In Wonderland done up in a Rule 34 fantasy. Probably been titillated by it as well. No harm, that. Well, no harm in it if you haven't punished your dong more than ten times a day for a month or so to said images.

Finally, given that the majority of comic book readers are heterosexual males, there isn't going to be a huge push to have the clothes put back on. I will say, though, if comic book artists began covering the girls, I don't believe there would be any blowback. At all. Readers of comics read for the stories primarily. S'truth. Some characters do need to be drawn the way they are; Catwoman SHOULD look like a biker slut. Black Canary, the Huntress, Wonder Woman, etc., should NOT. Seriously. Catwoman is a thief and can/does use sex as a weapon. The latter group of women are natural badasses and do not need to use sex. They have super powers. They don't need The Window of Titties (Yes, Power Girl, I'm talking to you).

The entertaining side of this argument is the half-hearted defense some guys give. They claim that MEN are objectified in comics. These are probably the same guys who ask every February why there is no White History Month. Male heroes are drawn extremely well in comics, but that, again, addresses the male fantasy. No fat guy imagines himself as a super hero; he imagine himself as Thor and Thor is built well. Ask my wife. She was damned near hypnotized by him in the movie. And I'm sure there have been women who have read a comic, have seen a male character shirtless and thought, "Yeah. I'll have me some of that."

(Can't you please just see me as a man? Now if you'll excuse me, I have to wash this shirt on my abs. Photo from Google Images)

I'm sure I'm going to get some uber-male comment either on this post or via DM/PM that I must be a fag or I'm pandering to women. I'm neither, although I do find myself looking at that pic of Thor in a decidedly uncomfortable manner. The fact is just because you're suspending disbelief enough to consider meta-powered humans/aliens existing in the "real" world doesn't mean the females in said world need to all be Amazonian Victoria's Secret models who lust after nerds and desire your geek seed. I'm not a prude by any standards, but it just seems ridiculous in the age we live in, our comic book women are still aimed at a group of readers who are in the minority. Titties and ass in comics should be an insult to the writers because that tells me the artist doesn't think the writer is strong enough to carry a story without some eye candy. Based on what I've read of the New 52 and most of the comics I've read over the years, that's not the case. At all.

Just remember: It's always sexier to conceal than to reveal. Besides, if you want to see Power Girl's knockers, there's always Rule 34.