"Devil Anse"? Devilance?

   I was watching an episode of "American Pickers" a few nights ago, and pickers Mike and Frank were talking with an historian about authenticating an old document having something to do with the famous feuding Hatfields and McCoys. Then one of them mentioned a name of one of the feuders -- William Hamilton "Devil Anse" Hatfield -- and my ears pricked up.

    You see, one of my favorite Jack Kirby comic book creations -- "The Forever People" -- had ended its original run with a story featuring the titular group of young New Gods fighting a desperate battled to elude one of Darkseid's most feared minions, "Devilance the Pursuer".

    Devilance? Devil Anse?

    The similarity in these two unusual names is striking. Could Jack Kirby have heard of "Devil Anse" Hatfield, and been inspired to create "Devilance", or at least the character's name? I wonder… -- PL

It's the king's birthday!

Just a few minutes ago I was reminded that today is Jack Kirby's birthday… and I know I've used this already in a blog post, but I think it deserves being posted again.

Happy birthday to the king of comics! -- PL

"Smallville" and Jack Kirby

I started watching "Smallville", the TV series about Clark Kent before he became Superman, around the time it debuted… and didn't follow it for long. It's not that I thought it was bad, but I just found it kind of flat. I thought the key role of Lana Lang was horribly miscast, though Tom Welling did a great job as the young and conflicted Clark Kent.

My good friend Rob is a huge fan, though, and has often talked about the show and how much he liked it over the last five or six years. And I have from time to time thought maybe I should ask if I could borrow his DVD season sets, to see if I was missing something. But I never did.

Last week I was in Barnes and Noble checking out the new movie and TV DVD releases, and I noticed that the tenth and final season of "Smallville" had come out. I was immediately drawn to the cover image on the box -- a shot of Clark Kent in his normal civilian clothes, casting a shadow behind him which looked like a man with a cape in a very Supeman-esque pose. I was intrigued, and bought the set, and just tonight finished watching it.

I enjoyed it -- the stories were a little corny in spots, and the relatively low budget of the show kept it from looking as "super" as it could have, and many of the scripts seemed to rehash ideas from one episode to the next… but overall it was fun to watch.

  And there was something unexpected, something that really piqued my interest -- the inclusion of characters and concepts from Jack Kirby's "Fourth World" series that he did during his tenure at DC during the 1970's. Darkseid, Granny Goodness (even the "Female Furies" of Granny's orphanage… sort of… at least there were two recognizable ones, Mad Harriet and Lashina… though I confess I kept hoping for Big Barda to show up), Desaad, Glorious Godfrey… even Orion of the "New Gods" comic was name-checked, and correctly identified as the son of Darkseid.

It was pretty cool! And I was tickled that whoever was writing and producing the show MUST have been a big fan of Kirby's work at DC to try to work these characters into the show in that way. They even brought Darkseid's world, Apokolips, into the season finale… and I have to say the special effects artists did an excellent job of realizing it, blazing fire pits and all.

But it made me start thinking how a dedicated "Forth World" movie or miniseries made with an adequate budget could be amazing. I doubt it will ever happen, but one can dream… -- PL

    P.S. There was one thing that really bugged me, and it's something I have seen in other shows on DVD. I often watch with subtitles turned on, and I can't tell you how many times they wrote "gonna" when a character was supposed to be saying "going to". Now, it's possible that that's the way it was written in the scripts, and it's also possible that it's the way the actors actually said the lines… but it just looks… well… DUMB. 

"Thor"

I saw the new "Thor" movie with my daughter Emily this past Friday, and I have to say, it was pretty good. Not great… but definitely pretty good. Okay, maybe more than pretty good.

But not a LOT more.

As someone whose interest in comics seriously blossomed with his exposure as a teenager to the "Silver Age" of Marvel Comics, of which "The Mighty Thor" (by Jack Kirby and Stan Lee) was a large part, I was looking forward to seeing this big-screen adaptation of one of my favorite Marvel characters. I'd seen the trailers and thought it looked pretty impressive, though I was a bit concerned about some of the details of the adaptation which I'd read about online.

One significant one was the dance that the writers of the movie apparently felt they needed to do to fit the "gods" mythology into the more science-oriented new Marvel movie universe, exemplified by their most successful comic adaptation of recent years, "Iron Man". So instead of being actual mythological/supernatural beings, the gods of Asgard are… uh, aliens, I guess. Or some kind of humanoids with super-scientific weaponry and enhanced abilities… or something. They never get terribly specific.

For me, this was all too reminiscent of the tragic waste of time that was the second "Highlander" movie, which basically ruined the mythology and mystery of the Immortals from the first "Highlander" by revealing that they were all just aliens from the planet Zeist.

Groan.

I really don't see why the gods could not have just been left as gods. Does it REALLY take that much more of a suspension of disbelief to accept actual gods in a universe in which cosmic rays can transform a quartet of explorers into superheroes, and a radioactive spider bite can turn a teenager into a human with spider powers? I think it would have been better left as a mystery -- are these guys real gods, or do they just look and act like gods? What ARE gods, anyway? I think the writers wimped out on this one, which is too bad, as it might have made for some interesting plot bits in later Thor movies as well as the upcoming "Avengers". Can't you just see Tony Stark/Iron Man trying to puzzle out the science/technology/magic behind Mjolnir, Thor's mystic urn metal hammer?

(I shudder to think what they might do to the supernatural adventures of "Dr. Strange", if that character ever gets out of "development hell".)

Anyway, on to "Thor", the movie. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and look forward to seeing it again. The acting was excellent, and the special effects worthy of the concept. I was hoping that the scenes in Asgard would capture some of the delirious splendor of Jack Kirby's vision of that home of the Norse gods, and I was not disappointed. The bed in which Thor's father, Odin, sleeps the fabled "Odinsleep" seems to be directly lifted from the pages of the comics.

I absolutely LOVED the fact that Thor's boon companions from the comics, the "Warriors Three" -- Fandral the Dashing, Hogun the Grim, and Volstagg the Voluminous -- and Thor's future girlfriend, (at least in the comics), the goddess Sif, were included in the movie, and not just as background characters. Although I missed Hogun's trademark horned and furred helmet, those characters were very well-rendered.

Another character I always liked in the comics was Heimdall, the guardian of the fabled Bifrost, the Rainbow Bridge between Asgard and the other realms… and he was well-realized in the movie, with some really neat costuming.

Sadly, I cannot give as high marks to the way Bifrost was depicted, which sort of ended up being something you might describe as "Star Trek's" transporter room if it had been built by a "steampunk" designer. This is another place where allowing the mystical, magical, supernatural nature of Asgard to be just that would have been preferable. It wasn't horrible, mind you -- just kind of pedestrian.

The Destroyer was also realized very well, though it might have helped to know more about what it was and what it could do. Actually, the more I think on it, the more it seems to me that they made the form of the Destroyer too tall and slim -- I prefer the more squat and brutal looking version that Kirby originally drew. But it was still pretty cool to see it in a movie.

One small thing that I got a huge kick out of was that several times, Thor spun his hammer really fast and the filmmakers gave it that "spinning propeller" look that Kirby originated in the comics, a nicely-observed detail. And I was very glad that they allowed Thor to fly as he does in the comics (pulled along by the force of his hammer after it has been spun with great force). It may not make a lot of sense in terms of physics, but it worked in the comics and it works in the movie.

So the movie looked really good. What about the story? Well, that was… okay. It hit a lot of the requisite beats needed to establish Thor and his supporting cast, but it was nothing terribly unique. Perhaps a more interesting tale will come in the sequel.

Actually, there is a message at the end of the movie, a "screen card", which I believe said something like "Thor will return in "The Avengers"", and THAT is something that I am really looking forward to. I hope that they can pull it off, but even if it is a disappointing failure, it will still be amazing to see Thor, Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain America, and Hawkeye sharing big screen time. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Oh, I just remembered two nitpicks I have to mention.

One, Thor's beard. I know that he has been depicted with a beard in many of his comic book adventures in recent years, but I have to say that compared to Kirby's clean-shaven Thor, the bearded Thor always struck me as thuggish. Kirby's version had a more noble, almost innocent, look.

And two, Thor's helmet -- you know, the one with the wings on it? I loved the fact that they showed him with it in one of the first scenes, but then it goes away and I don't think it ever shows up again in the movie. That's unfortunate, in my opinion. The helmet is an important part of Thor's "look".

But I won't say its absence ruined the movie. -- PL

The bitter and the sweet

This is another comment that I thought deserved more than just a response in the "Comments" section. In a comment on my "Step Toads" post, ‪Dane E5R‬ said...

"So, Peter. This has nothing to with your current post, but I've been wondering this since I've been following this blog and seeing how much it appears you seem to be enjoying yourself these days.

Do you still believe that life is, at best, bittersweet?"

The short answer is "Yes, I do."

But I feel that deserves a little clarification. My interpretation of that quote from Jack Kirby's character Darkseid in Kirby's last issue of "Mister Miracle" is not (as some people take it) that life at its absolute best moments is bittersweet, but that life taken as a whole is. In other words, life is a sometimes ragged, sometimes smooth, blend of experiences and emotions ranging from bitter to sweet. And given the nature of human existence, that's the best we can expect.

I am discovering that perhaps the most important thing is how you deal with, how you accept with grace, the bitter parts (the sweet parts are pretty easy to deal with, after all). And even though I am finding much more joy in my life recently (and hope to continue to do so), there is still sadness. But I think I am doing better -- and hope to do better still -- at finding the right balance between the two. -- PL

Blast from the Past #200: "Stupid Heroes" poster art

I think I drew this art to be used as a promotional poster for the "Stupid Heroes" comic I did for Mirage's short-lived "Next" comic book imprint. This series was another of my attempts to emulate Jack Kirby's approach to comics. I'm not sure that it was really successful, but I did have fun with it. Here's the penciled version...



... and the final inked art. Actually, I'm not sure if this was ever used. -- PL