Category: Columns

Mindy Newell: Jumping In On Doctor Who

The Doctor: “Time is a structure relative to ourselves. Time is the space made by our lives, where we stand together forever. Time and relative dimension in space. It means life… This is the gateway to everything that ever was and ever can be.
Bill: …Can I use the toilet?

“The Pilot,” Doctor Who, Second Series 10, Episode 1

 My daughter Alixandra has wanted to watch Doctor Who but she’s been intimidated by the idea of catching up with 50 years of the show’s history. Hey, who wouldn’t be? I told her to start with “new Who,” with Christopher Eccleston’s as the 9th Doctor, which was “only” 12 years ago (is it really over a decade already?) and that “Rose,” the first episode, would do a great job of hooking her into the basics – although she already sorta knows them, as she remembers me watching the Tom Baker years of Doctor Who when the show aired on Saturday mornings on Channel 13, the New York City PBS station.

She was very young then, not much more than a toddler, so that was a surprise to me – as well as a lesson to grown-ups: be careful what you say around the young ‘uns. Apparently, little pitchers really do have big ears.

I also sent her a list of shows from a website I found, “Desperately Unrehearsed,” which lists every episode from the aforementioned “Rose” to Matt Smith’s dénouement, “The Time of The Doctor,” with a pretty good opinion – at least one I basically agreed with – of what was essential and what was not (along with YMMV).

But I also just sent her a text: “The 10th series premiered Saturday night. It’s called “The Pilot,” and it might be a good place for you to start, as it introduces a new companion and reintroduces the basic ideas.”

She sent me back a “thumbs-up” emoji.

I texted her back a few minutes later, because I forgot to say in the first text: “Plus, Peter Capaldi.”

Fans of Outlander (me, included) are currently suffering from what is known as the “Droughtlander,” – the last episode of Season 2 aired on July 9, 2016, and the series is not returning to Showtime until September – but the wait for Series 10 of Doctor Who has been interminable. The last episode of Series 9 (“Hell Bent”) aired here in the States on December 5, 2015. We did get two Christmas specials, the first run three weeks later on December 25, 2016 (“The Husbands of River Song”) and the second (“The Return of Doctor Mysterio”) a year later.

Outlander is not even giving us that…

But was the wait worth it?

“The Pilot” was not only a singularly great show all by itself, it was also a fantastic kick-off, with past and future colliding – dialogue that was timey-winey-twisted; pictures of a lost wife and granddaughter; sonic screwdrivers from just about every regeneration collected in a jug; and a vault (reminiscent of the Pandorica box) that the Doctor is protecting.

The trailers featuring Pearl Mackie as new companion Bill Potts did not exactly excite me, nor did they do Mackie any justice. The “big” news that Bill is gay. However, and that’s a big however, I was completely charmed by Ms. Mackie and her character by the half-way mark of “The Pilot.” That is way faster than I turned on to Jenna Coleman’s Clara Oswald, Karen Gillian’s Amelia (Amy) Pond, and Arthur Darvill’s Rory Williams. The only companions that equal the speed with which I fell in love with Bill Potts were Elisabeth Sladen’s Sarah Jane Smith (of course!) and Billy Piper’s Rose Tyler.

I wasn’t all that impressed with Matt Lucas’s Nardole previously, not in “The Husbands of River Song” nor in “The Return of Doctor Mysterio.” But in “The Pilot,” Nardole came into his own; he is the bridge between the Doctor and Bill, and the bridge, I think, between the universe of Doctor Who and ours, the “Greek chorus” of the audience, of us.

Stephanie Hyman’s Heather, the girl with the star in her eye, was eerily beautiful, bewitching, chilling, and ultimately heartbreaking. And by the way, Ms. Hyman, kudos to you for playing 90% of your part soaking wet.

I also want to give a shout-out to “The Pilot’s” cinematography, editing, and special effects.

As for Peter Capaldi; well, im-not-so-ho, Mr. Capaldi will become, as he leaves the show behind and moves on with his life, one of those Doctors who will leave an indelible mark upon the character and the 50-year history of Doctor Who. If you must go, Mr. Capaldi, then you must…

But I wish you weren’t.

 

Ed Catto: Our Own Worst Enemy

Much has been written lately about the recent Marvel Retailer Summit and the unfortunate public relations debacle that followed. As you may know, Marvel had arranged to speak with and listen to leading comic shop retailers following a difficult downturn in their comic sales. The fireworks really started in the subsequent ICV2 interview when Marvel’s Senior Vice President of Print, Sales and Marketing, David Gabriel, summarized the retailer conversations, and the reasons behinds the sales slump in an awkward, clumsy fashion that ignited a plethora of heated conversations.

And then United Airlines’ corporate blunder dominated the headlines so outraged fans and consumers could focus their anger towards that brand instead.

But as the pundits reviewed Marvel’s missteps, there were a few topics missing from these conversations and analyses. Maybe these issues were just pushed into the background, but they are important puzzle pieces necessary to understanding Geek Culture’s retail landscape. And by not focusing on these issues, Geek Culture becomes its own worst enemy and just fights itself.

In fact, on John Suintres’ excellent Word Balloon Podcast, last week’s guest, industry expert Rob Salkowitz, talked about how retailers can often feed a false, or skewed, vision of reality to publishers. And as this vision can ultimately hamstring the longer term success of both retailers and publishers, I think it’s important that these trends also be considered:

Card Stores Shaking Off Comics

Attending last month’s GAMA trade show gave me a unique perspective into one particular group of the stores: retailers who are doing well but have walked away from comics.

At this trade show the focus was on games and gaming. Many card and comic shops are blended entities, where Friday Night Magic: The Gathering events are just as important as Wednesday’s New Comics Day. Of course, at a trade show like this there were many retailers whose personal passions lie in card games, and it’s difficult for them to understand comics. On the other hand, the show also hosted many comic retailers who see the potential in card games.

But there was a big contingent of card stores who have walked away from comics. It’s not that their hearts weren’t in it, it’s that they couldn’t figure out how to keep selling a sufficient amount of comics to their fans.

That’s a shame. They have the platform to make it work, they have an account with the distributor and there’s usually a lot of overlap. But for whatever reason, they chose to stop selling comics.

Diversity May Not Need Comics

A more even-handed headline would be “Diversity Doesn’t Only Need Comics, Per Se.” One of the shifts that we’ve been seeing amongst the best comics retailers is less of a percentage of sales from weekly ‘floppy’ comics and a more diversified merchandise mix. And that’s positive and robust for all parties.

It’s not hard to find a huuuuge fan of a particular character (Batman, Deadpool, Harley Quinn, Green Arrow – you name it) who does not read the comics featuring that character. They can probably recite the character’s adventures in the movies or on TV. They might spend hundreds of dollars in character merchandise. They might be wearing apparel that reflects that character or they might even cosplay the character. I know one college student in particular who has Batgirl images on her dorm room wall but is unlikely to ever read Batgirl’s adventures in comics.

The cold hard fact is that it’s unlikely you’ll ever convert this fan into a comic reader. You can convert her or him into a Geek Culture retailer customer, but not a reader. And that is surmountable for the industry.

YA Wants To Join The Party

Some of the hottest comics aren’t published by Marvel or DC – they’re published by Scholastic’s Graphix imprint and by Raina Telgemeier.  And there’s a lot of them. The Young Adult (YA) genre is hot and creating new readers every day.

I stumbled across a prose Black Widow book, Forever Red by Margaret Stohl, at my local library. I’ve always liked the character ever since her reboot in Amazing Spider-Man & Amazing Adventures. (In fact, there’s a Gene Colan-illustrated shower scene that’s seared into every middle-aged comic fanboy’s’ adolescent memory.) And I’m really enjoying the current Black Widow Marvel comic series by Chris Samnee and Mark Waid.

But when I read the book, I soon realized that the entry point for the author, and her readers, was so different than my own. These fans know Natasha Romanoff, the Black Widow, from the movies. She’s been on screen for half a decade and that version is their heroine. Who needs musty old comics? Who needs floppy monthlies as an onramp? I did, but they certainly don’t.

•     •     •     •     •

And that’s the tyranny of it all. So many times the insular industry that is Geek Culture is talking to itself, or even fighting against itself. The experts are knowledgeable and loud, and dominate the conversations in such a way that’s difficult to discern the other voices. It’s tough to hear the lapsed retailers or the comics-character fans who don’t read or the up-and-coming YA crowd that wants to read more. I look forward to when Geek Culture focuses more on pitching bigger tents and focuses less on fighting against itself.

John Ostrander: Sidekicking Around

Holmes and Watson. Lone Ranger and Tonto. Batman and Robin. Lucy and Ethel. Hamlet and Laertes. The list of heroes and their BFFs is long and overall an honorable one… and usually necessary.

A sidekick, at base, is a supporting character and a supporting character’s main function is to bring out aspects of the protagonist. In most cases, the sidekick is there so that the protagonist isn’t constantly monologuing. Granted, Hamlet is a champion monologuist but when Laertes is there he can be engaged in a dialogue. Holmes needs Watson so the reader can see how brilliant the Great Detective is. Whatever his other character traits may be, Watson’s prime one is to be surprised and amazed by Holmes and, in that, Watson represents us, the readers.

There are many different ways of interpreting a sidekick. Watson, for example, can be Nigel Bruce’s bumbling Colonel Blimp character or Jude Law’s testy and acerbic put-upon friend or Martin Freeman’s occasionally explosive but loyal best man. In the Harry Potter films, Ron Weasley, in the first film, is at one point both brave and self-sacrificing. In later films, however, he becomes cowardly and mostly comic relief, very like Nigel’s Bruce’s Watson.

Robin falls into a strange category of the child or teen sidekick. He was originally introduced to lighten up the Dark Knight Detective and, again, to give Batman someone to talk to rather than himself. Robin humanized the Bat. His popularity gave rise to a whole slew of child/teen associates such as Wonder Girl, Kid Flash, Speedy, and Aqualad. Later, these five went from supporting characters to central ones when they formed their own super-team, the Teen Titans (later, just the Titans when they all outgrew their teenage years).

The original Robin, Dick Grayson, later grew out of his shorts and tights to become a full-fledged hero of his own, first as Nightwing and then later, briefly, actually taking Bruce Wayne’s place as Batman before reverting back to Nightwing. There have been other Robins since then, including one – Jason Todd – who was killed by the Joker. Don’t worry; he got better. The role is currently being filled by Bruce’s son, Damian. I believe he died as well at one point but is also now feeling better.

Moral and ethical questions have been raised about the whole idea of the adult hero having child/teen sidekicks. The lifestyle, after all, is inherently violent and rather dangerous. Frederic Wertham, in his suspect 1954 treatise Seduction of the Innocent, postulated Batman and Robin were gay which, given those times, was thought to be profoundly deviant. Wertham was blowing it out his ass but the damage was done at the time. Still, one can see that it was a dangerous life style to include the kids in. The questions remain.

For me, I’ve sometimes identified more with the sidekick than the protagonist. I love Holmes but I’ve always identified more with Watson (except for Nigel Bruce). Batman (and Bruce Wayne) is difficult to like but Dick Grayson (especially in his adult incarnations) is someone with whom I can more easily relate. I think sidekicks are designed that way. They put more human into super-human.

Marc Alan Fishman: Defendit Numerus!

Of the many treasures I’ve collected since making comics, the friendships gained are the most valuable. One such friendship, with writer and artist Jim McClain, stands above and beyond nearly any other – save perhaps only for my frenemy Dan Dougherty (a.k.a. “Beardo”). For those who aren’t in the know, Jim represents literally the best kind person: a selfless, intelligent, driven man whose comic book career comes in between his time as a school teacher, husband, and father. This week, I’m proud to hang up my snark and snarl. Instead, I get to put on my hat of friendship and sharing. Solution Squad by Jim McClain is a gem of a series you’d be smart to jump on.

I’ll spare you the dynamic origin story. Jim wrote it already.

Are you back? Good.

Ask a younger Marc – pre-being-a-dad – how often he might stop at a table promoting a comic book series with math in it, and you’d be met with a litany of chortles and guffaws. For those familiar enough with my Unshaven history, will no doubt recall our first book was edutainment. Our experience selling it was akin to madness. A lot of polite grins. A few high fives. Mike Gold’s approval. But not much else. Suffice it to say, whenever I hear math, I’m quick to denote that I went to art school. That’s usually worth a laugh.

The first-time Jim McClain described his book to me, my snark subsided. Because Jim – an imposing man if you didn’t know him otherwise – exudes the kind of passion I didn’t find myself having until we started selling The Samurnauts. More than just proof-of-concept, Solution Squad is Jim’s professional id made real. The excitement and joy he has in making it bounces off the page.

In 2014, Unshaven Comics and Jim sat close-by in the artist alley at Indy Pop Con in (of course) Indianapolis. Jim politely needed a break from his table to moderate his own panel (as I recall) and asked one of we Unshaven Lads to staff it in his absence. Not wanting to ruin our own chance at sales, I left Kyle and Matt to our table and took up shop at Jim’s li’l corner. I recall the floor being sparse at the time. Guiltily uneducated in his wares, I snuck his first issue into my sweaty palms… and devoured it fully.

Solution Squad is a silver-aged superhero yarn through and through. The dialogue is clear and concise. The illustrations are colorful. The action starts up nearly instantly, and carries scene to scene. But I belie the bigger point; the book slyly teaches math concepts that I – a college graduate who in spite of his jests is actually not half dumb – actually had never learned before. When I put that first issue down, I remember feverishly the first couple who walked past Jim’s table (now manned by moi). I shot out of the chair and waved them down. I hit them with the trademark Unshaven Charm (“Can I tell you about my, err, this…. comic book?”). A polite and sheepish “sure?” later, and I started falling over myself to pitch them. Here’s a brief but accurate paraphrasing of my rambling:

(Please read this at double-speed for effect) “OK, this is Jim McClain’s Solution Squad. I’m not Jim. I’m his friend. He’s teaching, err, talking at a panel right now. OK! Anyways… This is Solution Squad. It’s a team action-adventure where all of the heroes have math-based super powers! (They don’t.) And this book actually teaches you math, but it’s deep in between just a great adventure! Like X-Men or something similar. And I have to tell you folks… like… I am a college graduate… and I learned math from this comic not ten seconds ago!”

I likely didn’t even breathe during the exchange. The couple, eyes glazed, declined to take one home. I was unfazed. I’d wind up pitching like an insane carnie for the next quarter hour until I spotted a middle schooler and her parents coming up the aisle. I’d refined the pitch down to the core concepts, put the book in her hand, and watched her light up. Money was exchanged, and no sooner than she was skipping down the aisle, Jim had returned.

Solution Squad read to me as a book fueled by passion, penned with wit and charm, and delivered the educational backbone without ever feeling like a tacked-on gimmick. Much like my own book, Jim writes material that doesn’t talk down to a single reader. Instead, it tells a solid story, then just happens to tie in middle-school math concepts that carry weight to people of all ages. That it does all of this while remaining an action comic at the forefront is a tightrope walk backwards on a unicycle. Jim confidently rides that unicycle backwards while juggling chainsaws.

Ever since that convention, I’ve held my friendship with Jim in reverence. The journey Jim took to making comics is a harrowing tale I beg you to ask him about when you see him. He is, as we Jews might say, a mensch of the highest order. Over the years he and I have swapped stories, toasted to our successes, and commiserated in our failures. In him, I see an older brother… never far away from razzing me, but not without a knowing smirk. His successes have become my successes – in that seeing Solution Squad grow and become a hard-cover graphic novel has only fueled my continued drive to finish Samurnauts in hopes of being even half as good (and completely devoid of actual learning, I suppose, natch).

Consider my gauntlet thrown to your feet. The Solution Squad need your help. Back the Kickstarter today, and tell Jim I sent you. Money where my mouth is: do it, and I’ll send you a digital copy of Samurnauts: Genesis.

I’d say that adds up to something special. Wouldn’t you? Defendit Numerus!

The Law Is A Ass

Bob Ingersoll: The Law Is A Ass #407

AFTER CHICAGO JUSTICE, I NEED THE FIFTH

Things weren’t looking good. Not for Assistant State’s Attorney Peter Stone. And not for me. Not for Stone, because he was the star of Dick Wolf’s new TV show, Chicago Justice and things never look good for prosecuting attorneys in the first three acts of a Dick Wolf. Not for me, because I was watching Dick Wolf’s new TV show, Chicago Justice.

Stone was prosecuting Dylan Oates for arson and murder. Oates had set fire to a factory being used for a rave, resulting in dozens of injuries and 39 deaths. Oates was a smarmy, spoiled millennial whose condescending sneer alone should have made the jury want to convict him. But the case against Oates was coming in badly thanks to Oates’s high-priced and equally-smarmy defense attorney, Albert Forest. Stone decided he needed to establish a motive to secure a conviction.

Then fate dropped a motive in Stone’s lap. Forest’s response to Stone’s discovery request contained discovery and news articles about the factory. One article claimed pedophiles used the factory’s raves to attract under-aged teens. So, if Oates had been an abused child, then he had a motive; the article triggered memories, so Oates “lost it” and set the fire.

Stone’s boss, State’s Attorney Mark Jefferies, feared this evidence could hand Oates a sympathy defense. Nah. In my experience, juries aren’t simpatico to sympathy defenses. Juries don’t let criminals off because they feel sorry for them, because juries don’t feel sorry for them. Especially criminals who torch a rave, wedge the doors shut so no one could get out, and kill 39 people. Not a case that’s high up on the “Aww-poor-baby” scale.

Jefferies ignored another problem with the motive, there was absolutely no evidence Oates had been sexually abused as a child. Without that, how would Stone connect the purported motive to Oates? That question was rhetorical, by the way, without that proof, there is no, “Here’s how.”

Stone called the reporter who wrote the article. Forest didn’t cross-examine and Stone realized he’d been played like a… No, not a Stradivarius , I don’t want to give either Forest or Stone that much credit. Like a dime store ocarina.

Forest sent the article to Stone accidentally on purpose. He wanted Stone to introduce the article. It laid the foundation for Forest’s sympathy defense without him calling Oates as a witness; thereby waiving subjecting Oates to cross-examination.

Stone knew Forest was a typical Dick Wolf shyster. Why would Stone have trusted anything that Forest “accidentally” dropped into his lap? Only one reason, Stone was an idiot.

But Forest was an idiot, too. His strategy depended on Stone calling the reporter even though using it would have been an unethical misappropriation of Forest’s work product and even though Stone had no proof Oates had been sexually abused. Either reason was enough for Stone not to use the article by itself. Stone had both. So Forest’s strategy depended on Stone being an idiot. Moreover, it was also utterly unnecessary.

After Stone had planted the seed of the sympathy defense, Forest needed to establish the possibility that Oates had been sexually abused as a child. He called Oates’s mother. She testified that when Oates was 5, her brother took Oates fishing and did something to him. After Oates came back, he had changed. He was no longer her sweet boy. She carefully suggested that Oates had been sexually abused without ever actually saying it. Forest didn’t call any other witnesses.

Forest’s defense required two witnesses; the reporter and Oates’s mother. Forest could have established his defense without calling Oates or subjecting him to cross-examination. Forest didn’t need to get Stone to call the reporter with a dirty trick that shouldn’t have worked in the first place. So why did he use his dirty trick? How else could he establish he was a typical Dick Wolf shyster defense attorney, unless he showed he wasn’t shy-ster about using a dirty trick?

By now the show had reached the 40-minute mark. The Dick Wolf play book said it was time for the prosecutor to have a sudden, last-minute epiphany and come up with a strategy that would save the day. Chicago Justice didn’t disappoint; except that the last-minute strategy was so preposterous the fact that the show actually used it was disappointing.

When Forest tried to rest the defense case, Stone said he had the right to cross-examine Oates. Forest argued the Fifth Amendment prevented Stone from forcing Oates to testify against himself. Stone pointed out that on two different occasions during his mother’s testimony, Oates yelled, “You’re lying!” Stone argued, “[Oates] spoke. The jury heard him. That’s testimony. He waived his rights against self-incrimination.” And the judge bought it. She actually ruled, “I’ll probably be reversed on appeal, but I’m going to let you cross-examine him.”

Can I say bullshit here on ComicMix? I don’t think “bullshirt” will quite cut it.

When a defendant testifies, the defendant waives the right against self-incrimination and can be cross-examined. The defendant can’t answer all the questions the defendant wants to answer on direct examination then forbid cross-examination on the questions the defendant doesn’t want to answer by arguing it would violate the right against self-incrimination. So, yes, if Oates had testified, Stone would have been allowed to cross-examine him.

Thing is, Oates didn’t testify.

Testimony occurs when a person is in the witness stand and answers questions under oath. What do judges in TV shows and movies call it when a spectator who is not under oath yells something in court? Right, an outburst. Hell, Oates’s judge even warned Oates about making further outbursts. Oates didn’t testify so he didn’t waive his Fifth Amendment rights.

If Oates had called a prosecution witness a liar, maybe the judge might have called that testimony and allowed cross-examination. After all, the prosecution could argue that it had the right to repair the damage the defendant’s outburst had done to its witness. But I’ve never even seen that happen. Juries don’t give a defendant’s outbursts any credibility. It wasn’t expecting the defendant’s to say, “Yup, that’s how it happened. I’m guilty,” in the first place, so it ignores any shouts of, “You’re lying!” And we didn’t even have that strong an argument for cross-examination.

Oates called a defense witness – a witness whose testimony was supposed to help him – a liar. How was Stone going to argue he had a right to repair the damage, when the defendant’s outburst hurt the defense case not the prosecution’s case?

Last week I said that I didn’t know any judge who would allow a defense attorney to ask why a confession that had been suppressed wasn’t introduced. Well, I’ve met a few more judges since then and I don’t know any that would call a defendant’s outburst testimony and allow him to be cross-examined on it.

I especially don’t know of any judge who would make this ruling after first stating, “I’ll probably be reversed on appeal.” Judges hate being reversed, hate it more than Yosemite Sam hates rabbits.

Being reversed make judges look bad. And causing a trial to be reversed then retried wastes taxpayer’s money; a good way not to be reelected. Judges try not to do things they think might get them reversed and they definitely don’t do things what will “probably” get them reversed.

So, did Stone’s cross-examination trip up Oates so he said or did something that caused the jury to convict him? Or did Stone lose the case? Ah, that would be telling. You wouldn’t want me to be a spoiler, would you?

Still, this was the first episode of Dick Wolf’s new series about a crusading prosecuting attorney. It had already made its star look like an idiot because he fell for a dirty trick. Do you think the show wanted to start out by making its hero look like he was incompetent and a loser?

The Law Is A Ass

Bob Ingersoll: The Law Is A Ass #407

AFTER CHICAGO JUSTICE, I NEED THE FIFTH

Things weren’t looking good. Not for Assistant State’s Attorney Peter Stone. And not for me. Not for Stone, because he was the star of Dick Wolf’s new TV show, Chicago Justice and things never look good for prosecuting attorneys in the first three acts of a Dick Wolf. Not for me, because I was watching Dick Wolf’s new TV show, Chicago Justice.

Stone was prosecuting Dylan Oates for arson and murder. Oates had set fire to a factory being used for a rave, resulting in dozens of injuries and 39 deaths. Oates was a smarmy, spoiled millennial whose condescending sneer alone should have made the jury want to convict him. But the case against Oates was coming in badly thanks to Oates’s high-priced and equally-smarmy defense attorney, Albert Forest. Stone decided he needed to establish a motive to secure a conviction.

Then fate dropped a motive in Stone’s lap. Forest’s response to Stone’s discovery request contained discovery and news articles about the factory. One article claimed pedophiles used the factory’s raves to attract under-aged teens. So, if Oates had been an abused child, then he had a motive; the article triggered memories, so Oates “lost it” and set the fire.

Stone’s boss, State’s Attorney Mark Jefferies, feared this evidence could hand Oates a sympathy defense. Nah. In my experience, juries aren’t simpatico to sympathy defenses. Juries don’t let criminals off because they feel sorry for them, because juries don’t feel sorry for them. Especially criminals who torch a rave, wedge the doors shut so no one could get out, and kill 39 people. Not a case that’s high up on the “Aww-poor-baby” scale.

Jefferies ignored another problem with the motive, there was absolutely no evidence Oates had been sexually abused as a child. Without that, how would Stone connect the purported motive to Oates? That question was rhetorical, by the way, without that proof, there is no, “Here’s how.”

Stone called the reporter who wrote the article. Forest didn’t cross-examine and Stone realized he’d been played like a… No, not a Stradivarius , I don’t want to give either Forest or Stone that much credit. Like a dime store ocarina.

Forest sent the article to Stone accidentally on purpose. He wanted Stone to introduce the article. It laid the foundation for Forest’s sympathy defense without him calling Oates as a witness; thereby waiving subjecting Oates to cross-examination.

Stone knew Forest was a typical Dick Wolf shyster. Why would Stone have trusted anything that Forest “accidentally” dropped into his lap? Only one reason, Stone was an idiot.

But Forest was an idiot, too. His strategy depended on Stone calling the reporter even though using it would have been an unethical misappropriation of Forest’s work product and even though Stone had no proof Oates had been sexually abused. Either reason was enough for Stone not to use the article by itself. Stone had both. So Forest’s strategy depended on Stone being an idiot. Moreover, it was also utterly unnecessary.

After Stone had planted the seed of the sympathy defense, Forest needed to establish the possibility that Oates had been sexually abused as a child. He called Oates’s mother. She testified that when Oates was 5, her brother took Oates fishing and did something to him. After Oates came back, he had changed. He was no longer her sweet boy. She carefully suggested that Oates had been sexually abused without ever actually saying it. Forest didn’t call any other witnesses.

Forest’s defense required two witnesses; the reporter and Oates’s mother. Forest could have established his defense without calling Oates or subjecting him to cross-examination. Forest didn’t need to get Stone to call the reporter with a dirty trick that shouldn’t have worked in the first place. So why did he use his dirty trick? How else could he establish he was a typical Dick Wolf shyster defense attorney, unless he showed he wasn’t shy-ster about using a dirty trick?

By now the show had reached the 40-minute mark. The Dick Wolf play book said it was time for the prosecutor to have a sudden, last-minute epiphany and come up with a strategy that would save the day. Chicago Justice didn’t disappoint; except that the last-minute strategy was so preposterous the fact that the show actually used it was disappointing.

When Forest tried to rest the defense case, Stone said he had the right to cross-examine Oates. Forest argued the Fifth Amendment prevented Stone from forcing Oates to testify against himself. Stone pointed out that on two different occasions during his mother’s testimony, Oates yelled, “You’re lying!” Stone argued, “[Oates] spoke. The jury heard him. That’s testimony. He waived his rights against self-incrimination.” And the judge bought it. She actually ruled, “I’ll probably be reversed on appeal, but I’m going to let you cross-examine him.”

Can I say bullshit here on ComicMix? I don’t think “bullshirt” will quite cut it.

When a defendant testifies, the defendant waives the right against self-incrimination and can be cross-examined. The defendant can’t answer all the questions the defendant wants to answer on direct examination then forbid cross-examination on the questions the defendant doesn’t want to answer by arguing it would violate the right against self-incrimination. So, yes, if Oates had testified, Stone would have been allowed to cross-examine him.

Thing is, Oates didn’t testify.

Testimony occurs when a person is in the witness stand and answers questions under oath. What do judges in TV shows and movies call it when a spectator who is not under oath yells something in court? Right, an outburst. Hell, Oates’s judge even warned Oates about making further outbursts. Oates didn’t testify so he didn’t waive his Fifth Amendment rights.

If Oates had called a prosecution witness a liar, maybe the judge might have called that testimony and allowed cross-examination. After all, the prosecution could argue that it had the right to repair the damage the defendant’s outburst had done to its witness. But I’ve never even seen that happen. Juries don’t give a defendant’s outbursts any credibility. It wasn’t expecting the defendant’s to say, “Yup, that’s how it happened. I’m guilty,” in the first place, so it ignores any shouts of, “You’re lying!” And we didn’t even have that strong an argument for cross-examination.

Oates called a defense witness – a witness whose testimony was supposed to help him – a liar. How was Stone going to argue he had a right to repair the damage, when the defendant’s outburst hurt the defense case not the prosecution’s case?

Last week I said that I didn’t know any judge who would allow a defense attorney to ask why a confession that had been suppressed wasn’t introduced. Well, I’ve met a few more judges since then and I don’t know any that would call a defendant’s outburst testimony and allow him to be cross-examined on it.

I especially don’t know of any judge who would make this ruling after first stating, “I’ll probably be reversed on appeal.” Judges hate being reversed, hate it more than Yosemite Sam hates rabbits.

Being reversed make judges look bad. And causing a trial to be reversed then retried wastes taxpayer’s money; a good way not to be reelected. Judges try not to do things they think might get them reversed and they definitely don’t do things what will “probably” get them reversed.

So, did Stone’s cross-examination trip up Oates so he said or did something that caused the jury to convict him? Or did Stone lose the case? Ah, that would be telling. You wouldn’t want me to be a spoiler, would you?

Still, this was the first episode of Dick Wolf’s new series about a crusading prosecuting attorney. It had already made its star look like an idiot because he fell for a dirty trick. Do you think the show wanted to start out by making its hero look like he was incompetent and a loser?

Martha Thomases: Married. Again. But Not Remarried. Again.

For the last several weeks I’ve been madly reading (and rereading) a huge pile of graphic novels and indie comics sent to me to consider in my capacity as an Eisner Awards judge. Some of these are brilliant and some are just weird (to my eyes), but all of them are at least three months old. Reviewing them here would be lame, because I would be so far behind the curve.

Also, and on another note entirely, there are an awful lot of stories that are skillfully and artfully told but completely uninteresting to me. I don’t know why anyone would want to tell these stories. There are critically acclaimed movies that affect me the same way, and they often win all kinds of awards, so I am clearly missing something.

So let’s talk about something else. Superman and Lois Lane are married again!

More than twenty years ago, I was the publicist at DC who promoted Superman’s wedding. It was really fun. Harry Winston http://www.harrywinston.com/en/engagement-wedding designed the engagement ring. There were the expected number of crude jokes, starting with science-fiction writer Larry Niven’s and working on from there.

The stories after the wedding were very much Superman stories, except now, instead of only talking to Lois at the office, he talked to her at home, too. We saw them waking up in the same bed (which we’d also seen after they got engaged, just like just about every other couple in modern times). We saw them drinking coffee. We saw them juggling work schedules.

I really liked it.

Apparently, a lot of other people didn’t like it. As soon as they could, the powers that be undid the wedding and made Superman single again. They did the same to other characters for fairly specious reasons.

It is a cliché of modern popular entertainment that, in romance, the chase is everything. All the suspense is around “Will they or won’t they?” I get that. It’s one of the fun things about real life, too. Unfortunately, the creative team frequently doesn’t know what happens after. So, inevitably, there is a reboot to make our hero (or heroine) single again.

My survey sample might be skewed, but after listening to men and boys talk over many decades, I have the impression that men are more interested in the chase than women are. A guy want to be a man who can bed a large number of women. A woman wants a man who is good enough in the sack to make her want to return.

In any case, the New 52 Superman wasn’t married and, in fact, carried on an affair with Wonder Woman that I, for one, found cringe-worthy. Apparently, I wasn’t alone, and now Superman and Lois Lane have been ret-conned back to the 1990s.

Except now they have a child.

Leaving aside the biological questions about inter-species hybrids (and I have no idea why I expect a scientific explanation, given that the one of the parents can fly and see through walls), I find this a very engaging storyline. It appeals to the part of me that remains seven years old, the one who reads comic books to imagine having powers for myself. Not only did I want to have super-powers, but I wanted my parents to have them, too.

This is a long and convoluted explanation of why I’m enjoying the new Super Sons comic book. Oh, sure, I have quibbles about Batman having a kid, especially one who fights crime before he reaches puberty. Still, the book is a lot of fun, and it feels like writer Peter Tomasi (whom I have always believed is somehow related to me) and artists Jorge Jimenez and Alejandro Sanchez are enjoying themselves.

If you have any seven year olds in your life (spiritually or in reality), you will want to pick up this series. It’s so good, you’ll want to tie a towel around your neck and jump off the sofa.

Box Office Democracy: Gifted

I feel like I never see movies like Gifted anymore.  Gifted is a smaller movie, almost completely devoid of the spectacle that snobs complain about in modern cinema.  It’s as anonymous a movie as one can get from the director of The Amazing Spider-Man franchise, the star of Captain America and Octavia Spencer.  It’s funny when it wants to be, touching when it tries it’s absolute hardest, and if you’re willing to suspend an ample amount of disbelief there’s a heartwarming message to be found here.

There’s a reasonably famous book on screenwriting called Save the Cat.  It’s a guide to crafting marketable scripts, there’s good advice in there, and it sold a ton of copies.  The title refers to the need to have your main character do something early in the film to get the audience on their side; something like saving a cat.  I’m telling you this because in the first scene of Gifted we are introduced to Fred, the one-eyed cat who was adopted by Frank the protagonist of this film (Chris Evans).  He assures his niece Mary (Mckenna Grace) that while he doesn’t generally like cats, he likes this one.  It’s such a transparent use of this trope that was the title for this wildly successful screenwriting book that this is either an insane coincidence or a stunning lack of self-awareness on the part of the writer. (I know this probably won’t occur to 95% of the viewing audience who have never read any books on how to write a screenplay but it was distracting for me.)

Other than the whole cat bit (which also comes back in the third act for extra emotional stakes but I said I was moving on) the story is suitably interesting.  Mary goes to her first day of school and is clearly a prodigy, and through her being a precocious scamp who is good at math and beating the hell out of children twice her age she gets the attention of her grandmother Evelyn (Lindsay Duncan) who does not like Frank.  A custody battle ensues, and the crux of the film is if Mary should be allowed to have a “normal” life or if she should be pushed to be the mathematical whiz her mother was and that she seems to have the potential to be.  It’s kind of interesting that this film just assumes that mathematical aptitude is some kind of hereditary trait that was passed through three generations.  I could see that an overbearing mother like Evelyn could make her daughter in to a mathematician through constant effort but I’m not sure how Mary, orphaned as a young child and raised by smart but not genius Frank, is on the same level.  I suppose it isn’t exactly the point but it’s a weird universe to assume.

A lot of the movie is tied up in this custody battle and I like a good courtroom scene as much as the next person, but the real joy in the movie is away from all of that.  The scenes with Octavia Spencer as Roberta, the next-door neighbor, and Jenny Slate as Bonnie, Mary’s first grade teacher, are universally the best ones.  Chris Evans is great at trading barbs with his inexplicably British mother but I’d much rather see him having quasi-meaningful conversations with Jenny Slate.  This is the first dramatic role I can remember for Slate, and while she might not be the second coming of Meryl Streep she’s fun and interesting— and most importantly, a breath of fresh air for a part that sometimes feels like it cycles between the same six actresses over and over again.  Octavia Spencer is a delight in everything she does; I don’t feel compelled to sell anyone on her.  Spencer has a small part here, but she talks the most like a real person and that’s worth a lot.

Gifted is a fun movie.  It’s nice to see Evans and Slate playing against type.  It’s a heartwarming story that never twists itself in to being a downer.  I sort of wish that the end result of all of Frank’s handwringing about whether he’s going to screw up Mary’s life was answered by someone telling him that he will definitely screw up and it will definitely be okay because that’s what parenting is.  That isn’t what this movie is though, and it’s okay.  I liked watching Gifted and I would be absolutely thrilled to stumble upon it again on cable on a slow afternoon or on an airplane, it’s the perfect movie for those contexts.

Tweeks: 3 Minute Review Underworld Blood Wars

This week Maddy gives a quick 3-min review of Underworld Blood Wars which is now available on Digital HD from Amazon Video and iTunes and will released on DVD and Blu-ray April 25, 2017.

With the war between lycans and vampires still chugging along, it’s up to death dealer Selene (Kate Beckinsale) to put an end to the conflict. Drawing on a small group of allies, Selene must also fight the lycans new leader, Marius, who wants Selene taken care of, but with the help of the hybrid blood strain, she hopes that she can at least bring peace.

Dennis O’Neil: Invisible!

I was in what must have been a vast desert. I pivoted in the sand and looked in every direction. Nothing but sand – sand and overhead a brutal, merciless sun. Was I lost or stranded? And how did I get here?

“Hi, handsome,” a throaty female voice said from behind my left shoulder, I turned and stared and… sand. An endless vista of shimmering yellow sand.

“You gonna stand there and stare all day?” the voice said, and now I recognized it.

“Aunt Scarlet?” I rasped.

“Bingo.”

“Granny told me that sometimes you turned invisible”

“Whenever I feel like it”

“You’ve come to rescue me?”

“Not really. But as long as I’m in the neighborhood… hop in.”

“Hop in what?”

 “I”ve borrowed Wonder Woman’s invisible plane, silly.”

And here we take our leave of the story above, which shouldn’t disappoint you too much, since it doesn’t have an ending anyway. “Silly” is probably its last word, one you’ll have to admit is appropriate, unless someone decides to continue it. Ask me if I care.

Now ask me why I’m expending bandwidth on a comic strip character who first appeared in the nation’s newspapers in 1940 and ended her run in 1956. Is a last name that’s identical to mine enough? That’s for you guys to argue. We’ll offer a kinda-sorta answer soon. Meanwhile, let’s take a brief look at…invisibility. (Yeah, I did that deliberately. Sue me.)

Invisibility has been a trope in both mythology and fiction for a long time – at least since the Greeks. You doubt? Then Google the Grecian helm (or cap) of invisibility and the brothers Grimm’s tale “The Twelve Dancing Princesses.” In the market for something a bit fresher? Well, there’s H.G. Wells’s The Invisible Man and The Hollow Man, a movie starring Kevin Bacon. Then, in no particular order… a television series, comics’s Sue Storm, The Invisible Girl (later Woman) and… golly, what am I forgetting? Oh, sure. Harry Potter! You may recall that in one of the novels/movies, the boy wizard dons a cloak of invisibility and…I dunno – skulks?

There are more.

But for now, we come to the gent who is arguably the best known (and maybe just the best) invisibiler, The Shadow, of course. He began fighting crime on the radio in the mid-30’s and ended his broadcast career in 1954. While he was active he appeared in virtually every mass medium: radio, film, novels, newspaper strips. On the novels, films and comics, he wasn’t exactly invisible. He used a technique similar to that of Batman and your friendly neighborhood ninja, using dark clothing to blend into the – yes! – shadows.

In the early comic books and on the radio he was really, truly invisible.

He was an approximate contemporary of Scarlet O’Neil’s and if you’ve sampled any of the Shadow reprints, hey, maybe you’ d like to sample some of The Shadow’s comrade in invisibility.

So good news. Your comics retailer should be able to sell you a copy of Invisible Scarlet O’Neil: The Official History of America’s First Female Superheroine. And coming soon: Invisible Scarlet O’Neil Returns, an original graphic novel.

Okay?

Categories

Archives

Everything you need to make great comics!

comicmix-pro-300x69-2

Nucleus X

Bookshop Zaks