Monday, July 30, 2012

Need Geek-Friendly Wall Coverings?

Posters on sale over at (20% off). Didn't expect to see a selection of comic book ones, but, when I did, I figured I'd share the info.

Justice League - 52
Justice League -...
34 in. x 22 in.
Buy This at

Personally, I don't have a spot at home to start throwing these sorts of posters up, as I have no mancave and our spare room is set up for the mothers to visit. So I'll likely be grabbing something more like this:

Starry Night, c. 1889
Starry Night, c....
Vincent van Gogh
Buy This at

But more power to those of you that can let your geek flag wave. Oh...and all of the above have affiliate links in them. If you're against that sort of thing, just type into your browser. ;)

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Another Misappropriation of Crowd-Funding

How often does this happen?

Nick Lopez (the "project director) is trying to solicit $4500 to do a graphic novel "what if" where Mace Windu survives and teaches Luke, instead of Obi Wan, I gather.

That strike anyone else as...I dunno...problematic?

$4500 seems like more than the simple cost of materials for a graphic novel, unless it is much larger than your average GN.

In addition to that, some of the rewards are 11x17 posters from his Etsy store. Like this one:

Sure seems like a screen grab from Empire that is just run through a filter, no?

I believe he's well aware of the violation his work effects, as I found the following on the FB page for this project:

When confronted with the appearance of this project, Nick Lopez responded with the following:

Actually, as the project video states, creating a comic book is very costly. Some could cost $100 to $300 per page. Our story is a 4 part series. Each of the 4 chapters is at least 15 pages in length. At the very least each page will cost up to $80 to make. So if you do the math... $80 x (15 pages x 4 chapters)... it comes out to about $4800. So that's the minimum cost of producing this project.
As I said in response, I don't think boards and tools add up to $80/page, so that still leaves someone profiting off this project. It doesn't matter if it is just that he's paying someone else to draw it and then soliciting people to advance purchase the work (as the minimum "donation" gets the first two chapters of the project (which makes you wonder what happens with the third and fourth)), as it still is a violation of the Lucas rights.

Somehow, I doubt this is the only fan project that winds up trying to bend or ignore the law when it comes to crowd-funding. Anyone else have examples?

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

UPDATE: How NOT To Demonstrate Accountability

Original Story July 16, 2012 8:52pm EDT:

Over on BleedingCool, a freelancer made a pretty big mistake covering the Firefly 10th Anniversary Reunion Press Conference.

Kate Kotler reported that Joss Whedon made a serious statement about continuing the franchise by doing a reboot.

I have been unable to find a single soul other than Ms. Kotler who thought this was the case. Her own editor, Brendon Connelly, originally ran it correctly as an article stating that Whedon had a snarky/sarcastic response about doing it. But she pushed on (allegedly with the support of Rich Johnston) to report her version.

That version stood up as an article for three days, as Brendon allowed her the opportunity to back it up.

During this time, she claimed she was in active communication with Debbie Myers (of The Science Channel) in her attempts to confirm it. The three days ended with the indication being that she was not once in touch with her beyond being directed to schedule an appointment with her assistance as the press conference broke up.

She blamed her equipment, saying her recorder broke down, when video and audio of the whole thing was available online within nine (9) hours of her article posting. She had over two (2) full days to see that how she recalled events happening (she says her notes eventually didn't fit what was recorded as happening, demonstrating sloppiness) was incorrect.

In the end, when she finally admitted her mistake 72 hours later, she said the following:

I strongly believe that the mark of character is the ability for an individual to stand up and honestly admit when they are wrong and have made a mistake. That is what I am here to do today.

I thought that took the cake. But then I saw the following exchange on Twitter:

Seriously? She objects (and continues to object when people call her on it) to having her own Twitter account tagged to her work, wanting the heat for her mistake (and that was hardly heat there) to go to the BleedingCool account, instead.

"I understand you're mad about the article, but could you make sure to blame the people I wrote the inaccurate article for instead? Kthnx!"

That about sums up the whole crazy ride.

UPDATE July 17, 2012 9:28pm EDT: Oh Lord, she gets even more ridiculous.

I feel a little like that there are a lot of people who were just waiting to take shots at me, when/if I was caught in a situation where I fucked up.

Being spectacularly wrong and refusing to acknowledge it for three days happened because people were rooting for it and waiting for it. She's running from the "innerwebs" to avoid seeing people take shots at her for her mistake, which is probably about the only reasonable response I've seen from her. Of course, until she actually takes an honest and sincere bit of responsibility for her error, I'd rather she have to take her lumps, but avoiding her "bad press" is generally a health approach.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Hypocrisy Sparkles (or "Hypocrisy & Stances on Creators' Rights")

So, news came out that JMS is partnering with Image Comics.

You know...the same JMS that Eric Stephenson, Image Comics publisher, railed against after the writer put both feet in his mouth when he chose to defend Before Watchmen in saying:

"Did Alan Moore get a crummy contract? Yes. So has everyone at this table. Worse was Siegal and Shuster. Worse was a lot of people."
Making that statement was going far beyond just participating in the project, as well as being patently ridiculous. It is, also, diametrically opposed to Stephenson's stand on the project and the larger issue of creators' rights.

So, shouldn't Stephenson then politely rebuffed the approach of the writer looking for a home for his own projects? Wouldn't that have been the principled stand to take?

Well, I thought that prior to going to Stephenson's blog to look up his response to JMS's idiocy. Which is when I found him piggybacking on Joe Keatinge's announced Thanos mini to push Keatinge's current and Jim Starlin's previous Image work, without once touching on the fact that Starlin indicates he created Thanos before being contracted for it and is not properly compensated for the character's continued use in comics or any other media.

Why no position on Marvel's continued use of a character without properly compensating the creator (never mind changing the character without the creator's approval)? It was a different time? Other creators have been screwed over far worse? Or, perhaps, was the public reaction more about seizing on the moment to turn it into marketing for your company?

I'd really like to know.