Fake Art Adams? Try Fake Mike Choi!

As Rich Johnston reported over on Lying in the Gutters, Jeff Henzel had been going around pretending to be Art Adams. Or, more likely, "Jeff Henzel" was passing off work by other artists as Art Adams. See, Rich's research basically indicates that "Jeff Henzel" is "Joshua Hoopes", the man who had been having artists across the world provide him with artwork that he'd then sell to comic book companies that thought he was the artist, rather than a middleman.

If you're a writer trying to break in and find it difficult to find a collaborator who will take a 50/50 split rather than upfront cash, this is one of the reasons why.

Rich noted that it was entirely likely that "Jeff/Josh" would turn up elsewhere trying to swindle more people.

Well, he didn't have to turn up again...he already has a different artist's work that he's trying to pass off as his own to get gigs.

Mike Choi

Apparently, "Sleepbringer" on the Digital Webbing message boards posted looking for an artist and heard from "Jeff". He gave a link to his "online portfolio". Pretty familiar looking, eh? Lot of Mike Choi stuff there.

Now, mind you, the contact probably happened before Rich's latest coverage where he let "Jeff" know the jig was up and that the world would know. But it was quite possibly sent after "Jeff" figured out who Rich really was.

This is a guy that, after being pretty much a well known swindler as "Josh Hoopes", still gave out the name for payments to be sent to. It is entirely possible this guy is going to keep using the "Jeff Henzel" name awhile longer. I certainly have no doubt he'll try to pass off work again, unless it becomes about as well known as the Mike Choi'sFake Art Adams fiasco.

Mike Choi Rants On The Kurtz/Criticism

Mike Choi picked up the conversation about the dismissal of all critics by Scott Kurtz.

I don't think the following really addresses the issue at hand, though:

Part 2:

After looking at the Saw V trailer, I found this on wikipedia:

Saw was a financial success. Shot on a meager budget of about US$1.2 million, it earned over $55 million at the box office in the U.S. alone and $102,917,772 worldwide.[1] Critical responses were mixed. It earned a 46% rating from Rotten Tomatoes, and a 29% rating from the most esteemed professional critics, qualifying it as "rotten."

Through 4 movies in the fanchise, the movies have an average of 32% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (with a 14.5% rating from the Cream of the Crop reviewers), but have garnered a total of over a half billion dollars ($555,063,218) worldwide.

I think sometimes, one is presented with a mutually exclusive decision of pleasing critics, or giving fans what they want.

I know what I'd do.

You see, Scott Kurtz said:

Recently, I called Mike Krahulik to compliment him on a new coloring technique he had used on a recent Penny-Arcade strip. I opened my phone conversation with the following statement: “Mike, Ignore all emails about the new coloring. It’s awesome. Pursue it.” But it was too late. He had already read all the mail and had been sufficiently discouraged enough to just drop the matter. “That’s what I get for trying to innovate.” he said to me.

He was joking, but there was some truth to his statement.

And that’s why there is no chapter in our book on when to accept that, sometimes, the critic is right.

Those e-mails and messages were from Krahulik's "consumers". So the Kurtz argument isn't against taking criticism because the critics are a good barometer for what will be popular, but, instead, argues for the art and craft being above any sort of critical input.

So, while I get that the critic can't account for the public's bad taste or it's ability to check their brains at the door, that isn't exactly the angle that Scott seems to be taking.

Now, if Scott's stance was like Mike's, I'd be able to appreciate it. But, then again, it kinda defeats the purpose: isn't popularity a bit of a critical response? Consumers demonstrate their opinions with their dollars.

His first part of the blog, though, poses a question to critics:

However, I will pose this: Why do critics do what they do? What is their impetus to sit down and write a critique on something? I've heard many answers to what critics do and what purpose criticism serves, but what is the reason that they take it upon themselves to fulfill that function, without solicitation or compensation?

I think many people do things without compensation with the hopes that they can turn it into something they are paid to do.

But that's a dodge. What leads people to want to do it to begin with? Hmm. You know, sadly, I think my answer includes a bit of ego.

Originally, I never thought about doing reviews. I only occasionally got caught up in message board discussions about stuff, which constitutes some form of criticism. But I guess it's just about being passionate about the medium.

I wouldn't have tried popping up my opinions for public view, if not for Troy Brownfield inviting me to be part of Best Shots. I felt honored by it, because I enjoyed the work of the team and was a regular reader of all things Newsarama. To be asked to be part of the widely read Best Shots column on the uber-popular Newsarama? Hell yes. Why turn it down? So I guess I was initially solicited.

When I started reviewing on Newsarama, I made a concerted effort to try to get advance copies of smaller books so I could get reviews up the Monday before release to help. I tried to get copies of smaller press books in hopes of reviewing something that could use the attention.

I think part of why I've continued (which I still consider myself as doing, despite a large break in covering comics) was to compensate for the sense of loss I felt after leaving the team. Sticking to some sort of routine of reviewing comic books helped cushion the blow. But part of it was hoping that people might still be interested in my opinion (which is the ego part).

So, I'd guess my drive for reviewing works would be a whole lot of passion for the medium mixed with a dash of ego.

Mike Choi Rants: Giving People Something To Gossip Since...July 28th, 2008?

I'm surprised Rich Johnston didn't have something on this in Lying in the Gutters this week

Women in Marvel panel. Doesn't help that of the ten women up there, I knew that four of them were absolute cunts (and I fucking love 'em.) Good job, girls. I'd love to be a judge the next time you guys have a bake-off! (Seriously, anyone who thinks that all women think one way or the other, are male-sympathizers or male-bashers, needed to come to this panel. I'd like to think that we're hopefully adjusting ourselves to an equilibrium of how we treat the sexes. I think apologists are just as bad as the bashers, honestly, and that people should just treat everyone equally, and I think so did most of the people on the panel.) I didn't like one person though (whose name shall be withheld), only because she took Sonia's name card at the beginning and put hers in her spot, leaving Sonia to move to the end. That's a dick move.

God help me, I wanna know. I'd offer to buy Mike several rounds at the next con, but I know he has more integrity than that. ;)

For Those That Bitch & Moan About Late Comics...

Over on his blog, Mike Choi talks about the drawbacks of being an artist. After mentioning how taking a traditional vacation is pretty much impossible, he shares the following:

But it's all good. I've worked on the last five Thanksgivings. However, something opened my eyes slightly today to the idea that something might be wrong in my prioritizing when work is involved.

I woke up at 2 pm, after four hours of sleep. I had two voicemail messages. the first was from the VP of editorial at Marvel, and the second was from my mom, who told me that my uncle had died. I called Marvel back first.

The funeral is this Wednesday, and the book is due Thursday (for me). I won't be calling my editors for an extension, because a) I know I won't get it, because issue 500 NEEDS to be on time understandably, b) measures have been taken to avoid lateness already, measures I wish hadn't been taken but were absolutely necessary, and c) so help me, if Nick called me right now and said, we'll make the books late so you can have an extension, or we can get someone to fill-in for you, I would turn him down.

I hope you join me in sending your thoughts and prayers along to Mike and the rest of the Choi family.

Mike Choi: Voice Of Reason

Mike Choi comes with the logic that most fanboys always want to ignore when arguing against Wizard's practices (linked above).

Now, I'm all for being giddy about Wizard possibly going the way of the dinosaur if you project them selling their property as a sign of the end (with all sympathy to those that would be out of a job, naturally). But you can't blame Wizard for producing a magazine that people buy. It's like knocking Marvel for putting Wolverine in so many books when so many keep buying anything he shows up in (as Choi pointed out) or knocking DC for having so many books featuring Batman & Superman.

I said I'd be giddy for them to go, though, and that's definitely true. It's part the hope that whoever fills the void will be more like Comic Foundry (who Choi praises even in his defense of Wizard) and part because the fallout from Wizard disappearing would be damned interesting to observe.

• Where would the Big Two turn for print coverage of their events and major properties?
• Would CBR or Newsarama attempt to come out with a print publication?
• Would there even be an attempt to fill the void or would coverage just get that much more focus online?

I know I'll stay tuned to see how it all shakes out.

I Owe Mike Choi An Apology

He's right, I'm wrong: his thoughts about recognizing internet comic fan communities are legit.

I'm of the mind that David Mack tried to get away with a copyright violation pawned off as an original cover, regardless of how nice a guy he is. But for crying out loud, do you all have to continue to yell at the top of your lungs about this and insult any creators that seem to not want to be rabid pitbulls on the issue?

Random Comic Book Thoughts

• Daniel Patrick Cassidy better be in the process of being returned to his stuck-in-a-suit, weirdness magnet beginnings. Otherwise, a comic book crime has been committed in Shadowpact. I had my own idea of how to accomplish this back in the day, over on the Newsarama boards.
  
• In discussing with some friends what villains we think could support their own series (ala Doom 2099 or Empire), we all seemed to agree that Black Adam could sustain a series (based on that wonderful mini). The dream writer team (as dual writers seems to be all the rage), would be Tomasi and Fraction. But the surprise concept brought up was Red Skull. At first, it was thought he couldn't pull off a series. I countered that, if there ever was a time, it was now. Someone challenged that he'd need a foil, to which I answered that you'd simply have to go with someone trying to bring his organization down from within, possibly taking on a legacy name. Keep Bru on to write his diabolical Skull, bring on Fraction to bring some of his Casanova craziness to the foil. I'd really love to see Marvel try something like that.
  
• Mike Choi (who was swell enough to stop by and comment on a blog I did about one of his blogs) posted an amazing...wait for it...blog about the David Mack situation. Or is it about the Mack situation? You decide. But I think he put a huge chunk of himself into that whole discussion. It's always amazing to me when comic book professionals put themselves out there like that, showing their emotional vulnerability in such a quiet and humanizing way. It's part of why the Word Balloon Bendis tapes softened me a lot on Marvel.
  
• I really wonder how many of the readers who are here for spoilers will stick around when the well runs dry? It's not keeping me up at night, but I'd be lying if I said curiosity wasn't getting the better of me.
  
• I'm glad that I've been able to run a few other people in the WGBGB feature, though I admit Mike's inclusion was a stretch. I knew there'd be a reasonable explanation or clarification, but I thought it'd make for good conversation, nonetheless.
  

WGBGB: Mike Choi

Mike Choi had the following to say on his Blogger account recently:

Why I don't allow comments on this blog

"I sure hope this isn't a Marvel marketing ploy, if it is I will

be DONE with anything marvel. I will go over to DC and their shitty characters and boring books. (Green Lantern is the exception) you hear that Joey Q, you fucking hack." (editor's note: quote taken from a Marvel_b0y blog comment)

When people and their audience are anonymous, there's no incentive to think about the content, plausibility, or credibility of what you're about to say. THIS is why the internet comic fan community feel like they're not being paid attention to. Because you can't.

No, it isn't that he doesn't allow comments. No, it isn't about his reason for not allowing comments.

It's dismissing the whole of internet comic book fandom by the way a relatively small percentage of the whole wield their anonymity like a weapon.

Marvel Comics put out survey forms in some of their comic books a few months ago (and what a colossal mistake that was, IMO). Other than assuredly having made a purpose of some sort, you could not have any certainty that the results weren't manipulated enough to render the data invalid.

As long as comic book companies give no other form of feedback (besides sales to retailers) for their target audience, you HAVE to attempt to find some formula for reading and reacting to the internet comic fan community. It might be a smart idea if the larger companies came up with a registration process that at least confirmed home address (can't login until you've received your PIN on a postcard, possibly) so that they have a way to hear the signal through the noise.

Oh...regardless of whether he still wants to make love to me...I do feel it necessary to point out one of his best blogs. The man draws a purty picture and is a heckuva storyteller, too.