Wednesday, July 18, 2012

episode 016: con crud

in this episode joey and alec dive into both the good and bad of the recently released news out of san diego comic con 2012 including all the newly announced books from image comics and their place in the industry at the moment, the new sandman series from neil gaiman and jh williams III, michael deforge getting published by picturebox, zack soto's study group website, the new monkeybrain digital publishing initiative, terry moore moving into novel writing, kevin eastman finally drawing the tmnt again, a series of rants (j. michael straczynski, and robert kirkman fans beware), + a look back at david lapham's silverfish and jeff lemire's lost dogs and much more.

music by metric


1 comment:

  1. Caught a tweet from Peter Rios about the Chemical Box some weeks back, and I've been slowly backtracking through the episodes. I've been enjoying them and thought about leaving comments before, but obviously have not. With this episode, I figured I should drop you two a line.

    In a general sense, I love the back and forth with you two. It's similar to the "Wait, What?" podcast - a fun, conversational tone that engages me, almost like I'm listening in on a couple guys at the comic shop. (too bad my LCS is a haven of scum and villainy, but at least they order a lot of indy comics)

    Despite the fact that you may not remember exactly what you said, here are some thoughts on this episode, in particular:

    - on Gaiman returning to Sandman: This is one of my all-time favorite series. So having Gaiman writing a new story - one of the many he mentioned in multiple interviews but never got to - is great. And having JH Williams, III on art just makes it better. Would I have liked him to take some sort of stand re: Before Watchmen? Sure, though it could be said he is taking a stand by writing a character that, despite not being owned by him, has been a "hands-off" character for DC, which is laudable (or deviously smart) on the part of Warners, et al. Also, I think it's like you said in the podcast, this deal could have been inked before BW was announced. And it should be noted that Gaiman took his stand (a stand) when he and Jamie Delano chose not to follow Rick Veitch on Swamp Thing after the issue #88 debacle.

    - Joe's Comics: JMS built up a shitload of good will with me thanks to Babylon 5. And I was lucky enough to only read his good comic work (Spider-Man until JRJr left, Thor, Supreme Power before it left the Max imprint, Brave and the Bold), so I wasn't poisoned by Superman walking across the country. But his remarks with regard to Before Watchmen have insured I won't be buying any more of Joe's Comics. #$%k him! (I use the symbols cuz it's a comics podcast, after all)

    - Silverfish: I wish this would have just been an issue (or maybe even a two-issue tale) in Stray Bullets. I love that series too, and I agree, Silverfish felt too long and padded out, when I read it years ago.

    - as to my thoughts on the other Before Watchmen creators: Eh. I wish they would have taken a stand, but it's kind of like John Cusack, for me, doing big budget, crappy action flicks so that he can supplement the low-budget personal ones. Of course, I haven't seen anything with him for ages, so maybe it's all crap now. But that's my analogy - if I can date myself.
    Anyway, they gotta make money. It won't necessarily turn me off from getting something they do down the line, but it will make me think twice before picking it up.

    - the reassessment of works like Sandman and Watchmen:
    Basically, I see this as people unwilling to put in the effort when reading (that can mean they don't read actively or they don't want to bother putting these stories into their proper historical context) or others who are trying to sound smart and figure an easy way to do that is counter the accepted critical assessment of a work. Either way, they're wrong (for the record, I can be an opinionated bastard). That's why I finally started my own analysis/annotation of Watchmen, in order to provide the proper context of why so many critics expound on this book. If you're interested, it's at

    Thanks for the podcast. Looking forward to future eps (though I still have 15 to backtrack through), and keep up the good work.

    take care,