Okay, I’ve just seen The Avengers, Marvel’s and Disney’ latest blockbuster superhero movie, and first I want to state: yes, Jack Kirby does get his name in the credits.
In a half-assed way.
The credit line states: “Based on the comic book by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.”
True enough, as far as it goes. A more honest credit would have read: “The Hulk, S.H.I.E.L.D., The Avengers and Nick Fury created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby; Thor and Loki created by Larry Leiber and Jack Kirby; Black Widow created by Stan Lee, Don Rico, and Don Heck; Captain America created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby.”
(And justice would further be served by the additional line: “Iron Man created by Stan Lee, Larry Leiber, Jack Kirby and Don Heck; Hawkeye and the Black Widow created by Stan Lee and Don Heck.” Don Heck was never a fan-favorite, and has been dead for some years; there’s no constituency for his memory; but his contribution should not be slighted.)
The problem is, as the dominant paradigm now has it, individuals don’t create; only corporations create. And Marvel/Disney would rather slit their entire management’s throats than acknowledge that this fiction, the source of their billions, is based on a lie.
Well, I shan’t continue in my grumpiness — after all, I was hypocrite enough to ignore the boycott of the film initiated by Kirby family supporters such as Steve Bissette.
So how was the movie?
Alan Moore, when asked his opinion of the first Image superhero comics, made an interesting analogy.
He said an old-style superhero comic (say, a Dick Sprang ’50s Batman) could be compared to coca leaf: a mild stimulant. The powerful superhero comics of the seventies, like those drawn by Neal Adams, would be the equivalent of refined cocaine. And the Image comics were the equivalent of crack.
To steal his simile: The Avengers is the crack cocaine of superhero movies. It will stimulate the comics fan into a near-fatal geekasm.
That’s not a criticism, actually; this flick’s an exceptionally well-made distillation of its genre. If you like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing you’ll like, to quote Abraham Lincoln. It hits all the right notes. Superheroes beating the shit out of each other? Check. Cool, sexy super spy? Check. Neat-oh futuristic equipment and weaponry? Check (The rise of the Shield helicarrier from the ocean to the skies invokes genuine awe.) Nasty-ass aliens, supercilious super villain, awesome costumes (Loki finally gets to see action in his bitchin’ horned helmet), tons of death and destruction, and Cap instructing old Greenskin: “Hulk, smash!”? Check, check, check, check and check!
The film isn’t lacking in non-infantile pleasures, either. The dialogue is crisp and witty — although poor Thor and Captain America are handicapped by having to wax solemn or anguished while the rest of the cast are given all the zingers. The best lines go to Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and Tony ‘Iron Man’ Stark (Robert Downey Jr); one scene between the two makes one think more of Noel Coward than of Stan Lee.
(There are plenty of physical laughs, too, mostly coming from the Hulk. After an incredibly snotty divine put-down by Loki, Greenskin educates him with a beat-down that looks like a violent gag from a classic Popeye cartoon.)
Ah, Loki. An adventure tale is only as good as its villain. The classically-trained British Hiddleston plays the part with such relish that one only sees in hindsight the nuances he brings to the character: there is an under-layer of pain and anguish to his posturing. And, true to both the comics Loki and that of Norse mythology, he relies as much on cunning and the psychological manipulation of his foes as upon brute force.
(I won’t tell why, but the funniest line in the film is Loki’s “I’m listening.”)
Downey somewhat unbalances the flick: as some wags put it, a better title would have been ‘Iron Man III, co-starring the Avengers’. Not that I’m complaining — it’s always a delight when he takes the screen, especially when out of armor.
However, Marvel showed great judgment when they chose Joss Whedon to direct. Whedon has extensive experience in comics and feature films, but I’d wager that he was chosen especially for his experience in television series such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where he proved his ability to handle large ensemble casts in fantastic milieus. The script perfectly characterizes every role, far better and more subtly than the comics ever did. It’s a masterpiece of psychological clockwork.
Two of the minor heroes particularly stand out: Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). There are hints of dark, complex, anguished pasts for both of them. I get the feeling Whedon would have been more than happy to have centered the film on these two.
One surprise, on the other hand, is how overshadowed Thor (Chris Hemsworth) emerges. Frankly, he cuts a poor figure compared to the dashing Stark, the brutish Hulk, the glittering Loki. In Thor, he towered; here, his cape looks tatty, and his previous vikingly cool beard makes you think now that he was too rushed to shave that morning.
The fights, the Hulk-smashing, the repartee are all top-notch. In sum, if you want a summer blockbuster where “you can check your brains in at the door”, this is for you.
But we never can do that, can we?
Art by Jack Kirby and Frank Giacoia
The Avengers has special place in my nostalgic pantheon: issue 5 was the very first Marvel comic I’d ever purchased, back in spring 1964, when I was 9 years old. Sure, I was aware of the marketing hook behind it — “Your favorite heroes TOGETHER!”– and didn’t care a whit. Yeah, I’d already seen it with Justice League of America from DC. Loved it there, too.
Looking back, there were troubling aspects to this comic. The Avengers were the élite, and pretty much also the tools of the élite. They were bankrolled by Tony Stark, comics’ epitome of the military-industrial complex; they lived in a mansion on Fifth Avenue in New York — the swankiest address in the world. ( Of the great mansions built there by the “robber baron” capitalists of the 19th century, only the one housing the Frick Collection remains.) They fought commies and aliens and worked with the government. And they were self-selected: the aristocrats of the superhero world.
They resembled nothing so much as an elite private club, like the Yale or Century clubs, floating high above hoi polloi.
The film carries this conceit to the next step, arguably an even more sinister one.
The last half-hour of the movie shows a gigantic battle between the Avengers and an army of extraterrestrial invaders in the streets of Manhattan. And my childish, fannish joy in these shenanigans was overlaid by a feeling of dread — of appallment.
I realized why halfway through: it was the location of this mass destruction that roiled me. A ten-year-old taboo had been shattered, one dating to 9/11. It’s now acceptable once more to depict buildings in New York, and the people inside them, being destroyed.
And this is where my unease was compounded. This iteration of the Avengers wasn’t the old “gentlemen’s club,” obnoxious though that be.
This one was conceived from the start as the auxiliary of a tremendously powerful secret American government defense agency. This élite cadre of superhumans, following the orders of a wise leader, Nick Fury, was there to protect us from unreasoning, fanatic aliens bent on flying into our greatest city and toppling its skyscrapers.
From Space Al-Quaeda.
So that’s my reading of The Avengers. Its subtext, hardly subtly advanced, is the glorification of Homeland Security and of the current security state. Why, even the Hulk, that powerful adolescent fantasy of revolt against authority, meekly goes along with the program. Who are we to gainsay him?
Hmm… maybe I really should’ve checked my brain in at the door. Then again, maybe I did, and just forgot to check it back out…
P.S. I saw this film in Paris, where it was released on April 25; it won’t be in general release in the States until May 5. Such divergences between international release dates are less common than they once were, for two reasons: a) the studios want to discourage piracy, and b) cultural globalisation. It’s only in the past twenty years that France adopted summer as a movie blockbuster season, as it has always been in America: before, summer was given over to b-films and re-releases. (Hey, if you were spending the summer in France, would you want to waste it in a movie theatre watching Hollywood fare?) And gone are the days as recent as 1989, when Warner Brothers had to launch a whole campaign in advance of the Tim Burton movie explaining who Batman was to the French. The crowd I saw Avengers with was wholly familiar with the characters. La coca-colonization culturelle n’est pas morte, helas!
Spoiler alert:
The usual post-credits closer reveals who Loki’s mysterious alien ally is. Yep, it’s Thanos.
Hey Alex, nice to see you here again and thanks for the review…of course I wouldn’t see this or any other putrid superhero bomb anyway, even if Downey is in it, and think the Kirby family might now want to consider suing to have Jack’s name removed from these wretched film versions of his brainchildren. In fact his name increasingly seems tainted by association with the evil corporations that profit so hugely from his efforts. Good point that artists like Don Heck should also be included if blame is to be assigned though. Whether or not his editors used him to advantage, Heck was a fine artist and a good enough inker that he was Jack’s choice to ink his New Gods prototype drawings.
Hey, James. Good point about the Kirby name…yes, Don Heck was a much, much better artist than anyone gave him credit for — including himself.
At one point in the late 70s, John Buscema had a comics school for awhile. One day Heck phoned him and begged to enroll. He was desperate– nobody was giving him work.
Buscema turned him down, and informed him that he was not coming to his school as a student — but as a teacher.
Big John had heart.
A little side note: Jim Starlin isn’t getting a cent for the use of Thanos in the film. He’s not the least bit happy about it, either.
Sort of makes you feel like you should spoil it, I suppose….
I just don’t get the whole, “This creator or that creator didn’t get one cent for this new pop culture iteration that utilizes a character (or characters) they created.”
In virtually every single case, the creator in question created what they created knowing full well that their creations belonged to the company paying them.
In the case of Marvel, with the exception of Lee, Kirby and Ditko, and to a far lesser degree, Lieber and Heck, any creator who came afterwards was doing nothing more than taking a market-proven, fully-formed mythology with a large, established fan base and adding to or tweaking it.
In short, their creative contributions to an existing mythology would likely never have been the least bit successful if they had emerged in a low visibility, independent publishing venue.
As some of you know, I’m a huge comics fanzine buff, and in the pages of the myriad number of comics fanzines published in the 1960s and 1970s, hundreds of comics fans created thousands of interesting and intriguing heroes and villains — virtually ALL of which are obscure and forgotten today.
Marvel provided its second-generation creators, and beyond, a creative playground and vast audience with which to take their characters and explore new ground. But NEVER did it give those second-generation and subsequent creators any hint of ownership, residuals, et al. Creators knew the arrangement, and they freely sought employment under those non-ambiguous conditions: “You write a page, and you get a writer’s page rate. You pencil a page, and you get a penciler’s page rate. Anything you create belongs to the company — no exceptions.”
To be angry 40 years later when one of “your” characters happens to be used again on a big stage by the company that owns it is misplaced anger, in my opinion.
This is where Ditko and I agree 100 percent.
I actually wresled with this, Noah — how much should I spoil? Most HU readers are probably not superhero fans, but some are.
What the hell, I’ll tiptoe around it, but there’s another spoileriffic bit in the story that is perhaps even nore disquieting than the covert endorsement of the Patriot Act.
At one point, our government launches a thermonuclear missile at Manhattan. Iron Man takes control of it and redirects it against the bad guys, who are utterly undone.
The moral? It’s wrong to nuke our own people (duh!), it’s great to nuke our alien bastard enemies.
Nice lesson for the kids who’ll flock to this movie.
Oh, and poor Thor fares even worse than I’d indicated, come to think about it.
He’s the only one of the core superheroes who gets whaled on by the all the others.Iron Man, Cap, Hulk…Thor is their sparring-partner — no, belay that, Thoe is their bitch.
Plus, the poor guy is on Earth for purely family reasons– I’m sure Odin nagged the hell out of him.
Loki’s like the little brother who runs off to join the Crips, and Thor’s the big brother who has to reason him back to the family fold.
Hey, Loki, I know you’re going through a phase, I can dig it, I sympathise, but…ah…you know, Dad’s worried sick…c’mon, he’s an old guy…we just want you home again, all is forgiven…jeez, who are these hoods you hang with? Not that I…
Loki: Fuck off, “bro”.
AB — There is a significant backstory to that alleged plot element that I just can’t share, but suffice to say, if you peel back all of the plot layers, it was not “our government” that ordered the launch, but an organization that answers to a UN-type entity.
I wish I could be more specific, but I can’t.
Gotcha, but remember that S.H.I.E.L.D. isn’t T.H.U.N.D.E.R.
Old-time fans like Russ and I will consult their acronyms diary and grok.
Russ, did you see the movie? I don’t think your explanation holds…if you don’t want to explain in public, you’ve got my Alex Buchet email address!
Russ, Marvel did offer people exposure. But there would have been no exposure, and no company, without the creative talents of lots of people. That’s not just Lee and Kirby, but also everybody who worked for Marvel. No creative talent? No company.
Also…just because you’re stupid and sign a bad deal doesn’t mean you should be exploited. Just because you’re in a weak position in a monopolistic industry and take the best deal you can doesn’t mean you should be exploited. Just because your character happens to be popular while other people’s characters are not doesn’t mean you should be exploited. Just because the ethical and publishing standards of the industry you work for are exploitive doesn’t mean you should be exploited. Treating artists like crap is wrong. No excuses.
The characters you created are characters you created, so why put quotes around it? Marvel and DC are basically giant zombie companies, walking along in a constant state of living death eating and re-eating the brains of the creative talents they devoured years ago. They don’t own anything; they don’t create anything; they just feed and molder. Fuck them and their crappy comics and their slightly-better-but-still-largely-crap movies.
Oh, and re Ditko: just because you’re ideologically committed to the joys of exploitation doesn’t mean you deserve to be exploited.
Ditko is something else.I remember back around 1974, when there was this huge push by ACBA and Neal Adams and just about every artist in comic books for the return of original art, Ditko published an incredibly tortuous article in Joe Brancatelli’s “Inside Comics” that sought to prove that giving back the art was unethical.
“Hey, Mr Ditko, here’s your artwork back.”
“How dare you insult me thus, you collectivist insect!”
To quote Ben Grimm: Sheesh!
According to Kirby and others, he had a handshake deal with Martin Goodman that he would be accorded a piece of the merchandizing action, if only in recognition of the sheer volume of creative input he had on the company. Goodman reneged on those promises. Most everyone involved is dead except Stan Lee who apparently only ever watched out for his own ass and obviously lied on the stand in the recent court case, since his testimony went against most of his previous statements in the matter. The original art issue is another thing entirely, Marvel counted on ignorance of the law to withhold the artists’ property from them. At any rate Marvel’s greed and the absolute definition of legality is one thing, what can be seen as the right thing to do is another. At this point I am not surprised at any depths the companies sink to in their pursuit of money. What amazes and disgusts me is the attitude of fans who disparage the artists and their families—-fans who are essentially corporate suckups, who defend the amoral behavior of Marvel and other corporate slimeballs simply because they’d prefer that their subliterate entertainment isn’t interfered with.
Russ–
Starlin accepts the situation. To the best of my knowledge, he has no intention of filing suit. I doubt he even has a basis for one. I also don’t know of any plans on his part to embark on any kind of public campaign against Marvel. He just won’t work for the company again as long as things remain as they are.
There’s nothing stopping Marvel from issuing bonuses to creators whose work appears in the movies or other licensing. Just because they’re not legally obligated to do it doesn’t mean they can’t or shouldn’t.
BTW the above wasn’t solely directed to Russ, who despite his comments I imagine undertands that it is the human making the comic, not the character depicted that gives comics such value as they have. The companies like to pretend otherwise, but Russ noticed, I am sure, that George Wunder’s Terry and the Pirates was an unappealing shadow of Caniff’s. Even though Stan Lee continued to write Thor and the FF when Kirby stopped drawing them, I lost interest completely. Likewise, Len Wein wrote Swamp Thing after Berni Wrightson moved on–but I moved on as well. I could care less about Walt Simonson’s Thor or John Bryne’s more-feeble regurgitations of Kirby at either big two company. Perhaps Steranko’s SHIELD resonated more than Kirby’s but that’s because Steranko the creative individual did something interesting with a concept that Kirby barely explored at a time when he was being furiously exploited right left and center.
Credit alone is not enough, compensation is due, perhaps most especially in the case of media that could not have been anticpated back in the day. Anyone who can honestly say that they believe that the artists do not deserve some fair consideration out of the billions made from their work is really someone I would not want to know, or have as my audience.
Is the final movie title “The Avengers” or the “Avengers Assemble”? that second option is extremely hokey
While I agree that work-for-hire is work-for-hire, and that the law is the law, it does seem Marvel (and DC) could cut reasonable checks to creators and their estates. It doesn’t have to be a point of the gross or anything like that — it could be a simple usage fee structured as a bonus so as to not prejudice any intellectual property claims.
Hard to see any good argument AGAINST Marvel (i.e., Disney) and DC (i.e. Time Warner) doing exactly that, other than sheer greed.
Re, work for hire; I’m no lawyer in any way shape or form, so I don’t know if this is a legal issue or an ethical one or what. But…calling something work-for-hire in a contract just doesn’t make it work for hire.
If you’re putting substantial individual creative effort into a project, if you’re contribution comes out of your head as an original contribution to the project — if it’s your baby — that’s not work for hire, no matter what the contract says.
I do work for hire projects all the time as a freelance writer. You punch the clock and you deliver the product as asked; that’s that, and no bones about it. I also do work that is not work for hire, and my investment in that is a lot different. Occasionally I’ve signed a contract that says that something I did that was not work for hire was work for hire. I wasn’t in a position to gainsay it, and it wasn’t a huge deal — but I was still being fucked over, and I knew it and resented it.
Basically, I don’t think it’s ethical to define a relationship by contract in a way that’s contrary to how the relationship actually works. Moore and Gibbons created Watchmen using their genius and their creativity; DC editorial did not. If the contract says its work for hire, then the contract is a lie. Contracts often are, is my understanding.
Noah — The only creators who can be accused of signing a “stupid” deal are the ones who were around in the Golden Age — when the business was like the wild, wild west.
By the time folks like Starlin and Cockrum came on board, no one was “stupid” about the possible value of a successful character, and everyone knew about what happened to Siegel and Shuster. I know because I was there. No one I knew had any misconceptions that anything you created for Marvel or DC was going to belong to Marvel and DC. It was this exact reason that in 1975, I seriously considered starting my own comic book company to feature my own characters. It was also why I affixed creator-specific copyright notices on the stuff of everyone who contributed to my fanzine “Maelstrom,” in 1974. I saw, and did not like, how other ‘zine publishers were soliciting the gratis works of creators and then copyrighting the entire package in their name only.
So don’t give me the lame “Oh, they didn’t know any better,” because that just is not true.
Ditto for Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Heck and Lieber. They were certainly not green bumpkins in 1961, and every single one of them knew everything they sold to Goodman at a per page rate belonged to Goodman — end of story.
AB — I did not see the movie yet, and that’s about all I can say.
Is the heroes’ positioning as quasi-militia any creepier than their more usual status as vigilantes and/or plutocrats? At least they’d be nominally accountable as government agents, even if it is only superduperduper-nominal.
Alex, is there a scene — probably near the end — where every one has to use their powers together to overcome the final villain or escape from a death-trap or something? Like, Hulk has to smash, Iron Man has to use his repulsor rays, Cap throw his shield, Thor use his hammer, Hawkeye shoot an arrow and, uh, Black Widow make the brokeback pose? Preferably preceded by some five minute long explanation of why they have to hit the Ultimate Framistat in just such a way so that it sends out negative positrons quantum blah blah blah. My favourite part of that Thor movie was when the big climax revolved around Thor smiting with his hammer.
Noah — If two parties freely enter into an agreement that satisfies the two parties at the time they conclude their transaction, there is no exploitation.
If I bought a Jackson Pollack painting in 1948 for 150 bucks and sold it today for $150 million, would I own Pollack (were he still alive) or his heirs a “bonus” of some sort? No. Because that 150 bucks I spent could have just have easily been a total waste of money had Pollack not become an icon in the art world.
Like Goodman, I was gambling that of all of the generic crap I published with no long-term value, every so often I’d get lucky and publish a gem that was not only profitable, but had real staying power.
I wasn’t talking about Alan Moore — I was talking about Jack Kirby (who I like a lot more than Moore, for what that’s worth.)
If I had been discussing Moore, I would have pointed out that Moore himself distinguishes between characters — like Sodam Yot, Mogo, etc. — that he knew he was creating as work-for-hire and the Watchmen characters. Moore has not argued that he should get a share of the revenue from Blackest Night, even though it’s loosely based on his ideas — he knew he was throwing ideas into a pot for other people to draw from. He had another understanding with regard to Watchmen.
I am in full agreement with Moore — both with regard to his Green Lantern characters and Watchmen.
Noah — I’m going to foot-stomp that if you freely enter into an agreement to provide a product or service, the fact that you (and you alone) decide to put some extra effort into it means nothing. That is totally your decision and the person hiring you is under no obligation to give you another contract, more money, or even to hire you again.
If you want extra money for something that is successful, get it in writing. But if I were the publisher taking all the risks, I wouldn’t sign such a contract unless you were willing to give back some of your money if the project was a total financial disaster. You want the big reward, you either publish it yourself, or YOU take on some of the risk as well.
Otherwise, you agree to my terms and walk away when you are paid on delivery.
John…I know, the Before Watchmen stuff just seems relevant. And yes, I agree with all you said.
Russ, I would say again (foot stomp!) that knowing you’re being exploited doesn’t mean you should be exploited. And a legal contract can’t change the way a creation was actually produced. If the publisher is closely involved in directing what the concept is, how it is to be produced, and what it’s going to look like in the end, it’s work for hire. When I do work for hire, I get very specific outlines, expectations, word counts, goals…just a whole range of specifics about how the project is to be set up. I don’t come up with the concept; I don’t determine what the thing will look like. It’s work for hire.
And when it’s not work for hire, it’s not work for hire. And it doesn’t take a genius to tell the difference. And it doesn’t matter what a contract says about it, at least not in terms of ethics.
RSM — You said that Starlin was “not the least bit happy about” not getting a cent because one of his characters was in the upcoming Avengers movie.
And all I said is, if that’s the case, then I don’t understand at all why.
As far as bonuses go, there are a lot of problems with that. First of all, how much would all of the parties involved feel is “fair.” Second, in something like the Avengers, there are probably 10-15 writers, pencilers and inkers who could argue they had a significant hand in creating some aspect a character or device used in the film.
And all of these bonuses would have to be negotiated in advance, using lawyers for both sides, before one dime was earned at the box office. So, not only does the film company have to upfront all of this money and time, they have to do it not knowing if “The Avengers” will be another “Iron Man,” or another “John Carter.”
In addition, even though they are not contractually obligated to give out bonuses, if they do so out of the goodness of their heart, they are setting a precedent for past projects. In other words, they are themselves up for compensatory lawsuits for films already released, and they are committing themselves to this additional costs for all future films.
Why do all of this self-flagellation? Simply because there are people claiming that it’s “the right thing to do?”
Frankly, in a case like this, I don’t think it is.
Noah — Just because you opt to only do work-for-hire that meets the criteria you find agreeable does not mean that work-for-hire under different circumstances is somehow wrong or unethical.
That’s simply your opinion.
I’ve done work-for-hire where the end product was open-ended and up to me, and work-for-hire that was structured and specific. It doesn’t matter to me as long as know the terms up front. If I don’t like the terms, then I don’t have to take the job.
I just finished a work-for-hire job a couple of days ago, and I put far more work into it than many would have for the same pay — but I didn’t care. I WANTED to put in the extra creativity and extra effort. And I also hope the project is wildly successful.
They should do it because it is in fact the right thing to do. All the hand-waving about logistical difficulties is simply a way of saying that Marvel would make less money if they paid the people who created the characters and concepts that are generating the income. It’s obviously true that if you don’t pay your creative talent, then you, as an entertainment conglomerate, will make more money. If you don’t pay your workers it’s easier to make a profit. Corporations have known this for a long time, which is why they hate unions.
Has there ever been an effort to unionize Marvel or DC creative workers?
I can’t speak for Starlin, but if I were him I would perceive it as a lack of gratitude.
I don’t know that Starlin was all that savvy when he first stuck Thanos into that Iron Man story back in ’72. He was a 22-year-old who was fresh out of the army.
There have been at least a couple of unionization efforts, but they never went anywhere.
I imagine Marvel’s done okay by Starlin over the years.
That said, I stick by my position that some kind of honorarium would be (minimally) classy on Marvel(Disney’s) part and would (maximally) satisfy an ethical obligation. So that’s the right move — and I really don’t think that it would be inappropriate to drop honoraria on 15 various pencilers, writers, etc. Disney can afford it — and Disney would reap rewards down the line for it, too.
I agree. For the most part, Starlin has taken pretty good care of himself. He got pretty savvy in fairly short order. He was the creator most involved in setting up the template contract for Marvel’s Epic publications, and those have a reputation of treating the creators very fairly.
Oh, for cryin’ out loud. Here we go with the management vs. union crap again.
For the record, I was both a manager and a union worker where the labor force was union, and I was both a manager and a non-union worker where the labor force was non-union. There are advantages to union membership and disadvantages.
I’ve got many a story I can relate involving contracts, strikes, work stoppages, OSHA complaints, et cetera, but I have neither the time or inclination to start relating them here.
But I will say this: During my four years in a union (1974-1978), the one frickin’ time I went to my union steward with a grievance against management, he basically told me tough luck — there was nothing he could do about it.
If anything, there is much more tension and friction in a union environment because frequently everything — and I mean everything — is eventually adversarial. And depending on leadership on both sides, both parties can be easy to work with or both can be stupid, greedy bastards.
Aren’t there structural obstacles to unionizing Marvel and DC? There’s a legion of wannabes who’d sell their souls for the chance to be a scab — sorry, strike-breaker — writing Cloak and Dagger or whatever, so M/DC wouldn’t struggle in the short-term to deal with walkouts etc. Not to mention all the apologists who already work for them and would presumably not join a union. Lots of people (“lots” by DM standards, anyway) just want to read comics about Batman or, hard as it is to believe, Rorschach, and they don’t give a fuck about how they make the sausages. The companies might end up screwed in the long-term as they (potentially) gradually hemorrhage readers because of even worse “art” and “writing”, but since when did they show any indication of worrying about the long-term?
I would say there are huge structural obstacles — likely insurmountable in today’s environment.
It’s not as though the product put out by the Big Two is so high-quality and full of integrity as-if that the average reader would notice the dropoff…
I mean, for Christ’s sake, we’re talking about whether Jim Starlin is going to get his fair cut of a hypothetical upcoming movie. Starlin is the man who penned “Infinity Crusade” — a book I hated as an 11-year old for its hackery. He’s not a unique genius — he’s a B+ talent who’s frequently okay with doing C- work.
That doesn’t mean his rare forays into A- work, like the creation of Thanos, shouldn’t be rewarded — they should. But, boy, someone else could’ve written Infinity Crusade with no dropoff. This is actually pretty obvious.
“If anything, there is much more tension and friction in a union environment because frequently everything — and I mean everything — is eventually adversarial”
Places only get unionized if the environment was extremely adversarial to begin with.
I think there are always a lot of difficulties in unionizing any workplace. Unionizing is really, really hard, especially in industries that don’t have a history of it.
The fact that the people working for Marvel and DC are largely talentless hacks is, again, not an excuse for exploiting them (not that you were saying it was.)
Well…
I don’t know that by making an argument against unionization I was making an argument for exploitation — that involves some embedded assumptions I don’t share.
B+? That’s a generous curve you’re grading on, dude.
Noah — Unions had an important role protecting exploited workers in the latter part of the 1800s and early part of the 1900s, when the federal government was small and there were few laws protecting workers rights. However, by the latter part of the 1900s, all of that had changed, and as union membership began to wane, the unions started their push to unionize the public service sector — an effort that continues to this very day.
Think about that for a moment. Unions were once crucial in protecting workers from the exploitation by greedy, profit-hungry corporations, but when the money spigot started to dry up, they jumped over to the public sector where there were no greedy, profit-hungry executives — only hapless taxpayers like you and I. In short, in the past 50 years, unions have largely gone from protectors of the exploited to exploiters themselves.
Oh, bullshit. The economy we’ve got now is way closer to what the robber barons had than probably at any time since then; only difference is that financiers are the oligarchs rather than industrialists.
And why on earth should I trust the government to treat people well exactly? I thought conservatives were all about not trusting the government, yes? Public sector unions have problems like all institutions, but the idea that bureaucratic functionaries can’t treat people like crap just because they are getting taxpayer dollars is ludicrous. You ever talk to a teacher? You know how they’re treated?
Government sucks as much as business does; workers in the public service have as much right to workers outside it to decent pay, decent pensions, decent healthcare and a decent life.
Union membership waned because the law changed and made it harder to unionize, not because the money spigot dried up, whatever that means.
Noah — If you think the work climate today is way closer to the way things were back in the robber baron days, you are either kidding yourself or you just haven’t done any research in that era. Look at the fatality rates of the labor force today compared to the past, and compare the pay rates (don’t forget to include benefits), as adjusted by inflation.
And while you cried “bullshit,” I notice you didn’t rebut my assertion that government is a lot bigger now and there are far more labor laws there there were back in the robber baron days.
Government employees have been treated very well in the past 50 years, and the rise of unions in that sector had less to do with working conditions and more to do with pay raises and benefits than anything else. And, like I said, those raises and benefits increased are not at all tied to any unfair profit-taking by greedy Wall Street fat cats — they are pried from the taxpayer on the sly, or the payments were promised by politicians and officials who knew they would be long gone by the time the vastly overpromised retirement bill would come due. Why do you think so many cities and municipalities are broke? To avoid strikes or political backlash, officials in the past made promises behind closed doors that were impossible to keep.
All of your “decents” are subjective, and all have to be paid for by someone. Now that the IOUs are coming due, who’s going to foot bills that should have started getting funded 20-30 years ago? The money just isn’t there — especially with the amount of debt this country is burdened by.
And your asserting that union membership began drying up because of laws is so off-base it isn’t funny. Union membership started drying up in the late 1970s because, back then, most unions were tied to manufacturing, and our manufacturing base began to dry up as our industrial capability went overseas. Unions had few other places to go besides the public sector for new blood.
“Why do you think so many cities and municipalities are broke?”
Cities and municipalities are broke primarily because (you may have missed it?) we had a massive recession caused by a giant finance industry boondoggle in the housing sector. That was followed by a similarly massive financial industry federal government giveaway, coupled with a political system essentially controlled by a financial industry that rejects the idea of any increase in taxes. Also, we’ve embarked on several really costly wars. Federal aid to states and cities has been slashed at the same time that property taxes have cratered, and raising other taxes is a political impossibility. Ergo; disaster in local government.
And yet. The rich fuck everybody over in a really almost ludicrously egregious manner, and somehow the folks to blame are union workers in the public sector (including police? including firefighters?) who have the unmitigated gall to think that after a lifetime of work they should be able to retire with healthcare benefits and a pension.
My wife actually works reporting on local government finance. If you told her the problem with local government finance was public sector unions, she would laugh at you.
Googled briefly on cause of low union membership. here‘s an economist saying that, yep, it’s primarily because of workplace regulations in the U.S., though industrial base is also an issue.
Here’s a lefty article that points out that labor unions have been declining for longer than you suggest, ever since the passage of Taft-Hartley, etc. He also points though to decline of the manufacturing base, to improvement in labor laws, and demographic changes.
Wikipedia reminds me that it’s Thomas Geoghegan who’s argued that taft-hartley was the primary cause of union decline longterm. I still find that fairly persuasive, though it’s been contested.
Hmmm…largely through my fault we’ve wandered far afield from the topic, haven’t we? I’ll try to stop. Sorry about that.
Jones:
“Alex, is there a scene — probably near the end — where every one has to use their powers together to overcome the final villain or escape from a death-trap or something? Like, Hulk has to smash, Iron Man has to use his repulsor rays, Cap throw his shield, Thor use his hammer, Hawkeye shoot an arrow and, uh, Black Widow make the brokeback pose? Preferably preceded by some five minute long explanation of why they have to hit the Ultimate Framistat in just such a way so that it sends out negative positrons quantum blah blah blah.”
Pretty much, though it’s only Iron Man and the Black Widow who save the day. The other guys are basically brawling.
Russ, wasn’t it you who spent over 20 years as a government employee?
Work-for-hire contracts in comics didn’t come about until after the 1976 revisions of the copyright laws; before, the standard contract was rubber-stamped on the backs of checks. Not only are the latter contracts invalid — a contract cannot be imposed at the moment of payment for work already done — they are easily outdone by savvy artists like Neal Adams, who simply crossed out each line of the contract and initialed it.
The Kirby case is more complex — he signed several contracts beforehand, as I understand it.
Russ, disguising non-work-for-hire as work-for-hire is not just unethical. It’s illegal.
And the companies are two-faced about it. If you do work-for-hire, you are considered to be an employee, with all the rights and obligations that entails. But if an artists points this out to Marvel or DC, they answer: nope, you’re an outside contractor. There’s a class-action suit right there in the making!
BTW, DC has been paying bonuses to creators for decades for outside licensing deals involving company-owned characters. Marvel can easily follow suit.
AB — Yeah, I am very familiar with how government agencies operate and draft budgets, which is why, if I were in charge, I’d reduce the operating budget of every federal agency by five percent across-the-board — and that’s before I open even a single individual agency ledger.
Noah — All the recession and housing bust did was expose a problem that was already deeply seated. Obligated retirement and benefits pools were already greatly underfunded, and the decrease in tax revenue caused by the former simply was the straw (actually more like the log) that broke the camel’s back.
Yeah, I was in a generous mood. I’m sure Starlin’s a swell guy and I have a soft spot for some of his work. Also some of it is terrible. I tried to capture that by providing a spread between his talent and his production.
R. Maheras wrote:
All the recession and housing bust did was expose a problem that was already deeply seated. Obligated retirement and benefits pools were already greatly underfunded, and the decrease in tax revenue caused by the former simply was the straw (actually more like the log) that broke the camel’s back.
So the tax base eroded considerably in the years after Reagan (tax revinue is as low as it’s been in some time, how long exactly depends on who you ask). The underfunding was made up for by the housing bubble, which was facilitated in large measure through under-regulated financing schemes that the Clinton and Bush administrations turned a blind eye to throughout the 90’s and the 00’s.
Then, the sh#*t hits the fan and who gets reamed?
This is, to my eye, a good example of why the whole “you freely signed a contract and got screwed sorry” rejoinder doesn’t work. When you’re at the low end of the socioeconomic totem pole you take what you can get, and you’re always overexposed to risk.
Noah: can you rectify an extremely embarrassing ommission in the post?
After lecturing and fulminating about the ethical obligation to give credit where credit’s due, I realise I completely neglected to credit that Avengers # 5 cover!
Please caption it: ‘Art by Jack Kirby and Frank Giacoia” (in green type pleeeeze)
As for the first illo, I can’t discover its artist…can any of you HUmanoids help?
Some final (yeah, sure) remarks:
I saw it in Real3D. Don’t bother.
I’ll bet doughnuts to dollars that the Black Widow is set for her own movie. With hindsight, she’s by far the most compelling character in the flick…Hawkeye comes a close second.
Poor Thor redux! In his own movie, Thor was a homoerotic Nordic dream. Here, he’s left in the dust by Chris ‘Captain America’ Evans’ unreally perfect physique. Sic transit gloria mundi.
I’m annoyed by the “too cool for school” policy of never naming the characters. Black Widow is, apart from the gloating of a thug in Russian, always called ‘agent Romanoff’, while Hawkeye, apart from some Shield dork calling out ‘Is that the Hawk?’, is always ‘agent Barton’. Iron Man and Captain America aren’t named until the last ten minutes of the film; Nick Fury never is.
Screw this 80’s Moore/Gaiman coyness. Testify, brothers!
PS Noah, can you get someone smart and informed to write about work-for-hire?
Can’t do green, but put the label on.
Nate — The underfunding of pensions and benefits permeates governments at the federal, state and local levels, so low federal tax rates can only be part of the problem.
This same problem happened in Greece, where promises were made for decades with no real plan as to how those promises would be funded.
Last time I looked, something like 75-80 percent of my property taxes go to funding the local schools, which includes pensions and benefits. That’s a huge chunk of my property taxes. But even more irksome is the fact that in the 16 years I’ve owned my home, one of my children attended public school here for three years, and the other child attended school here for seven years. And despite the fact my kids went to public school which I pay for with my property taxes, I still had to outlay an additional 200 dollars per child per year for books — something that, when I attended public school in Chicago during the 1960s and 1970s, was unthinkable! Finally, there are homeowners around me who have no children at all, so they are making a huge outlay of taxes for something they never use.
“Finally, there are homeowners around me who have no children at all, so they are making a huge outlay of taxes for something they never use.”
Argh…promised to stop, but…
Everybody benefits it children are educated. They benefit a lot, even if their kids don’t go to school. Because they live in the community, which relies on having the next generation educated.
I don’t send my kids to public school, but I don’t mind paying taxes for schools. I mind paying taxes to bomb random countries and assassinate people. But that just shows you how screwed up my priorities are, I guess.
What Noah said, & home values go up in neighborhoods with good schools.
I pay for all sorts of things with my taxes that I’d prefer not to pay for (drone strikes, imprisonment for drug possession).
Our social safety net is modest. I’m not denying there’s waste or graft, so yeah, it’s not just low revenue. But we’re hardly living in a welfare state. People die for lack of insurance, in my state you’re going to need to take a drug test to get food stamps (an entitlement for people lucky enough to have a job, but not lucky enough to have a job that pays them enough to eat), etc.
But all that is beside the point of the whole “the creator gets what’s coming to him or her” argument,” which assumes that risk and benefit are somehow level across the board. I suppose you could always refuse to play the game, but then what industry would you get into?
But 75-80 percent of property taxes for schools? I’d bet every one of my Marvel Value Stamps that if you looked at a typical property tax ratio from 40 years ago, education costs would have been a much smaller percentage of the pie. And that extra $200 or more parents now pay for books is actually a “undeclared” tax — because actually adding it to the tax roll would have been politically unacceptable.
I hate political subterfuge — regardless of which party is responsible — and that book fee, which did not exist years ago for public school children, is taxation subterfuge.
That’s my same beef with the new health plan that was rammed down our throats. If the Democrats wanted taxpayers to pay for it, they should have simply raised taxes the conventional way to cover the costs, rather than attempting to skirt any political backlash by coming up with the stupid, and probably unconstitutional, “individual mandate.” It’s a frickin’ tax, so Congress should have simply called it a frickin’ tax and voted for it the way they’re supposed to. Instead, all we get is more political subterfuge.
I suppose it’s better to spend money on fucking endless wars. WTF, I give up. Note to self, don’t ever contribute to discourse about superhero garbage again.
I think we’ve probably beaten the union/tax thing to death at this point…maybe if people still want to talk we could go back to Alex’s review or the Avengers or something slightly more related to the piece?
Woah this comment thread went really far away from the movie.
Anyway here’s my review.
Good review, Alex. I only read it after I had seen the thing. I’ll add that the 3D was crap (I was “forced” to watch it in that version).
Thanks, Suat. Yes, the whole 3D bit seems like an extortionate ripoff.
Some last points.
There’s a Thor/Hulk brawl with the obligatory bit of Hulk trying in vain to lift Mjolnir.
That’s the sort of thing fans expect! I remember how in ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ the whole thing seemed fake and strained until the magic words from Scotty: “I canna’ du it, Cap’n! She’ll blow fah sure!” My brother and I looked at each other and sighed in contentment…
There’s a bit between Hawkeye and Loki that’s a direct play-by-play steal from the bit between Green Arrow and Superman in ‘The Dark Knight Returns’.
Did I say steal? I meant ‘homage’, of course.
Of course.
AB – Just saw “The Avengers” and, as I speculated previously, the council that controls SHIELD is never identified as an American body. As a matter of fact, one of the shadowy members on the far right appears to be Russian and the one on the far left seems to be Asian. In addition, none of the SHIELD throngs appear to wear any US markings on their uniforms at all, and never is the US national command authority (president, secretary of defense, etc.) ever mentioned or consulted. In other words, in the film, SHIELD appears to be run by a shadowy, NATO-like world council entity of some sort.
————————–
R. Maheras says:
…I affixed creator-specific copyright notices on the stuff of everyone who contributed to my fanzine “Maelstrom,” in 1974. I saw, and did not like, how other ‘zine publishers were soliciting the gratis works of creators and then copyrighting the entire package in their name only.
————————-
Kudos to doing “creator-specific copyright notices”; but in defense of the latter group, when zine publishers were “copyrighting the entire package in their name only,” it’s not as if they were claiming copyright over every single individual element that went inside, but rather — as you said — “the entire package.” To prevent others from just Xeroxing big chunks or all of the original zine and sticking a new name in the front, and claiming they did it.
————————–
R. Maheras says:
…if you peel back all of the plot layers, it was not “our government” that ordered the launch, but an organization that answers to a UN-type entity.
…Just saw “The Avengers” and, as I speculated previously, the council that controls SHIELD is never identified as an American body…In other words, in the film, SHIELD appears to be run by a shadowy, NATO-like world council entity of some sort.
————————–
Hm, I’ve been reading about S.H.I.E.L.D. back since its start, but don’t recall exact details about its American versus international composition. Lemme Google:
————————-
S.H.I.E.L.D. is a fictional espionage and secret military law-enforcement agency in the Marvel Comics Universe. Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in Strange Tales #135 (Aug. 1965), it often deals with superhuman threats.
The acronym originally stood for Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage, Law-Enforcement Division. It was changed in 1991 to Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate.
Within the various films set within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the acronym stands for Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division….
Fictional history
S.H.I.E.L.D. was created by Nicholas Joseph Fury after the end of World War II, but Fury abandoned the idea and left the draft that he created for the agency locked away, feeling the U.S. government wouldn’t approve the formation of such an agency. At some unspecified point around this time, however, a United Nations-based international group dusted off the idea without Fury’s knowledge.[citation needed] His recruitment to the post of executive director (the agency’s second) marked his first knowledge of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s existence.
Usually led by Nick Fury as executive director (although he reports to a twelve-member council, whose identities even he does not know), this organization often operates as much as a covert agency as a quasi-military one, initially depicted as affiliated with the United States government. Later, S.H.I.E.L.D. was depicted as under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, with vast technological resources at its disposal, with U.N. General Assembly Resolutions and legislation passed in signatory nations aiding many of their operations.[Amazing Fantasy (vol. 2) #7 (June 2005)] However, S.H.I.E.L.D. has been inconsistently portrayed as under U.S., rather than U.N., control, possibly by writers unaware of the agency’s fictional history. For instance, in Astonishing X-Men #3, Nick Fury explains S.H.I.E.L.D.’s inaction during an incident of genocide by stating that it did not occur on American soil.[Sept. 2004]…
Films
…S.H.I.E.L.D. appears in several films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe:
In the 2008 Iron Man film, the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division is introduced as a U.S. government agency.
———————————
To summarize — for those lazybones who couldn’t be bothered to read the excerpt — it was actually the other way around; S.H.I.E.L.D. started out internationally-controlled, in the new movies becoming a U.S. government agency.
As that name change from Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage, Law-Enforcement Division to Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division gives away.
Damn those “runaway italics”!
Re those “shadowy,” furrin-looking types on the council, could those be non-Waspy Americans? Or a way — with foreign movie-ticket sales hugely important — to downplay the “American-ness” of the S.H.I.E.L.D. council, make it appear more internationally-representative?
Pingback: 5/7: Siete de Mayo | Jake Grubman's blog
This brand new “Wired” article sums up the sticking point regarding DOD support for “The Avengers” pretty well, but what is not mentioned is the other main sticking point behind the sticking point mentioned in the article — i.e., the order the shadowy “world body” council gives SHIELD towards the end of the movie. See the film and you’ll understand what I mean.
Thanks for the tip; looking forward to seeing that!
Oops! Here’s the link to the new “Wired” article I forgot to include in my last post:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/avengers-military/
I just saw it again — this time in 3-D, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually liked it better in 3-D.
In regards to SHIELD and the council, there is absolutely no US markings on any SHIELD equipment or personnel. The council is, indeed, made up of an Asian, an American, a Brit, and a Russian, and it is portrayed as some sort of UN-type world council — not a US council.
Hey, 3-D can be an effective artistic tool, even if it ends up as a gimmick most times. What I’d love to see is the “Battle of Britain” filmed in 3-D; that added dimension would add so much to scenes of aerial combat.
And yesterday afternoon, I’d read the “Rolling Stone” review of the movie — http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-avengers-20120430 — wherein S.H.I.E.L.D. was now said to stand for Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate.
Thanks for the “Wired” link. Personally, I’m dubious about U.S. military resources — at taxpayer expense — being supplied to any movie, no matter how moronic, which just promises to be sufficiently gung-ho. Inefficient advertising, I’d think.
As for S.H.I.E.L.D. being under international control rather an American; why not welcome that development, the better to spread the blame if it makes dumbassed decisions?
Ah, if only we could likewise spread the blame for the countless fiascos of recent decades: “We didn’t want to invade! But, those Liberians in the shadowy Ruling Council made us do it…”
Mike — About the resources being expended — for all but the largest productions, the footprint for filming on an installation is very small (between 1-3 in a film crew), does not significantly impact the mission, and, often, is a moral booster for troops who normally only get media coverage when something bad happens.
The vast majority of filming on installations is by small crews filming one or two days for Discovery Channel, National Geographic, the Military Channel, the Smithsonian Channel, PBS, etc.
For the larger productions like feature films, where the impact is greater, the filmmakers are still blocked off in a finite area (an empty hangar, for example) where they are not in the base’s way and vice versa. The reason for this is simple: The mission goes on despite the presence of a film crew.
The production company also has to pay for support of special requirements it requests that are above and beyond simply filming what the base is doing every day. This includes things like aircraft flying hours, fuel, overtime for DOD civilian employees and military extras (who must be on leave status to participate).
I’m not sure what’s odder — handwringing over whether a fictional spy organization in a blockbuster movie is under international or American control…
…or the unspoken assumption that the activities of the organization would somehow have different moral significance if directed by an international organization.
I can understand seeing the movie and thinking SHIELD’s actions are basically justified and “good.”
I can understand seeing the movie and thinking SHIELD’s actions are basically unjustified, or arguably justified but still creepy.
It is really hard for me to imagine the locus of ultimate authority for those actions making the difference. “Well, the shadowy organization giving orders was INTERNATIONAL, so that makes it okay!” Just seems to make internationality some kind of totem.
“As for S.H.I.E.L.D. being under international control rather an American; why not welcome that development, the better to spread the blame if it makes dumbassed decisions? ”
That’s not how certain Americans think. They’ll consider it propaganda for the imminent UN takeover of this country.
You got it right, Stevens.
What the hey, the movie’s out in the USA, so I might as well drop a spoiler.
At one point in the last 10 minutes, the shady multinational Council that rules SHIELD orders a nuclear missile strike on Manhattan.
Well, you can imagine how this’ll play out among the “black helicopter” paranoid assholes! No wonder Marvel keeps SHIELD’s status ambiguous!
I remember as a wee lad dutifully, every Hallowé’en, going “Trick or treat for U.N.I.C.E.F!”…and how once I knocked on the door of one of those miserable far-rightists who screamed at me about one-worlders and the Zionist Occupying Government (ZOG.)
Lesson learned: never show righties either trust or respect. They only understand violence and abuse.(See: Beck, Glenn; Coulter, Ann.)
“Lesson learned: never show righties either trust or respect. They only understand violence and abuse.(See: Beck, Glenn; Coulter, Ann.)”
Well…that seems maybe extreme. Russ is a conservative, and he’s perfectly capable of having a pleasant conversation.
Probably the real lesson is that creeps are creeps….
I don’t know if Russ would define himself as a conservative? Or as a righty? He’s always cast himself as an independant. Russ?
At any rate, I dissociate conservatives from righties. The latter are actually nowadays far from conservative– they’re radicals.
Still, I remember the lesson of W.S.Gilbert:
“Every boy and every gal
Who comes into the world alive
Is either a little liberal
Or else a small conservative!
Fall-Lall!”
I’m confused by people who are both very anti-U.N. and very anti-Israel.
I think the Venn overlap between those two groups in the United States is vanishingly small. Other than the very radical fringer (white supremacists, mostly) I don’t know who that would be.
Or, more accurately:
“I often think it’s comical–Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive–Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!”
Noah…could I do a Gilbert and Sullivan post someday? Please?
“Paleocons” tend to bitch a lot about both the UN and Israel. I don’t really see any contradiction there.
I’ve been reading Russ’s comments on tcj.com and here for years, and I must say that of every political perspective I’ve ever encountered–liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarchist, social democratic, Maoist, etc.–his has always struck me as by far the most boring. “Hey, sometimes the Democrats are good, and sometimes the Republicans are good. I also like John Anderson and Ross Perot!” ZZZZzzzzzzz…
Ehh.
“Paleocons” bitch about the UN and funding Israel…because they bitch about funding other countries full stop. They don’t tend to believe in a Zionist conspiracy.
There also aren’t many of them.
AB — I’m a conservative compared to Noah, but then again, who isn’t?
Hahaha. Just kidding, Noah!
But I’m really not an ultraconservative.
How many ultraconservatives do you know who would’ve voted for George W. Bush AND Barack Obama in the same election? I did in Illinois during the 2004 election. But Obama disappointed me beacuse he promised after he won election to the U.S. Senate that year that he absolutely, positively would not run for president in 2008, saying that he’d never run for a position he was not qualified for. Ahem, ahem. His words — not mine.
Ha!
I happened to be at the GOP election watch in Chicago in 2004. Half the people there voted for Obama for Senate. They weren’t liberals — but heir other choice, you see, was Alan Keyes (I wasn’t an Illinois voter).
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (Snork!) Huh?! Did someone say something?
Jack — Whatever. It seems to me that voting for one’s party, right or wrong, is much more boring than mixing it up so one’s party (if one is aligned) doesn’t take one for granted — especially if they’re doing a shitty job.
Yeah… Keyes the carpetbagger was like no choice at all. He still managed to get 27 percent of the vote though — all hardcore base, no doubt.
Well, Russ, I suppose… *Yawn* …Excuse me, it’s been a long day. Uh, to address your point, I think you make a… *Yawn* …That is… ZZzzz…
Come on, I’m just kidding.
Not to go down a rathole, but am I the only one who thinks that Tom Hiddleston (aka, Loki) looks a helluva lot like a younger Gary Groth — especially when grinning?
Hiddleston: http://www.openfilm.com/data/img/bph/400/435/000.jpg
Groth:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_61FQGWsqeKI/R1STUbMA6hI/AAAAAAAAAnc/wwIwuuPUfZU/s1600-R/2004gary_groth.jpg