Bill Maher And The Ruffled Capes of Comic Book Fandom: A Response

On the January 25, 2019 episode of REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER, Bill took off on his "New Rules" segment to double-down on his own reaction to the passing of Stan Lee back in November 2018, by responding to the collective geek culturati and their angry response towards him.  As you might recall, he had made some dismissive statements best summarized as akin to another "Bill," William Shatner, and his infamous skit on SNL where he told a bunch of Star Trek fans in costume to "grow up."  And, as the online geek culture is anything if not predictable, the response to his comments have been sharply critical.  Nobody likes being told that something they like is childish, just as people on the Right politically don't like it when Bill mocks them for supporting the current president.

My purpose of writing this is not to attack Bill Maher or to defend Bill Maher.  My purpose in writing this is to actually look at his entire statement, so we have full context, and respond accordingly with an attempt to see whether he has valid points buried within his mockery or whether he's just going for cheap laughs at the expense of others.

Here's the actual video clip of the 6-minute segment if you want to watch it:

I've transcribed the entire segment below and will put Bill's words in red, like Jesus's words in the Bible (or Superman's trunks if you prefer), to more easily distinguish between his words and mine.

...and finally to every person on social media who's asked me since November, "Bill what do you have to say about Stan Lee?" and every paparazzi outside a restaurant who's still shouting at me "Bill! What about the Stan Lee thing?"

 Okay, your day has come.

 Tonight's editorial is about Stan Lee, who, if you missed it, died in November and a few days later I posted a blog that was in no way an attack on Mr. Lee but took the occasion of his death to express my dismay at people who think comic books are literature and super-hero movies are great cinema and who, in general, are stuck in an everlasting childhood. 

This is an important distinction for him and it should be to all of us.  He was not disrespecting Stan "The Man."  He was, however, intentionally disrespecting adults who read comic books and/or enjoy super-hero movies.  I'm not going to focus in on the irony of his attitude towards super-hero movies given that he was more than willing to take a paycheck for a cameo in one.  That's an immediate goto, apparently, within much of the geek bloggers and commentators, but it has no merit as far as I'm concerned.  Appearing in a super-hero movie, to Bill, would obviously be no different than appearing in any other "kids' movie."  As he makes plain and clear, he sees a hard line distinction between what is children's entertainment and what is adult entertainment.  This is a topic we will return to throughout this article and we will discuss the merits, or lack thereof, when it comes up.

I think there are two key issues that reveal a certain attitude in Bill.  The first is the conflation of the idea of "comic books are literature" as the equivalent of "super-hero movies are great cinema."  The second is the lump sum opinion that people who think like that are "stuck in an everlasting childhood" and the implication that this is a prima facie bad thing.

To the first point, there is certainly an elitist snobbery in his perspective.  And that's not meant as a criticism, necessarily, but an observation that many have made over the years about Bill Maher.  To be fair, this is part of what makes him entertaining as both a comedian and as a political commentator.  He positions himself within a persona of someone who consistently looks down his nose at others with a knowing smirk of superiority.  I believe this is more shtick than something actual about him, but I do not know him personally and cannot say with certainty.  But I do think I'm right.  So, any statement he makes like this has to be taken within the context of his role as a comedian who intentionally dips his toe over the lines of common propriety for reasons of triggering emotional discomfort in those listening.  He also exposes his own willful ignorance about comic books in that he does not know, or does not care to be informed beyond his limited exposure, that comics at this point is a medium of illustrated storytelling that has achieved much more than merely super-heroes beating up bad guys, even if that is what the general public associates it with.  But his unwillingness to even entertain the notion that it might legitimately be something more than what he already believes it to be is the same sort of closed-mindedness that he criticizes in others.


To the second point, that same elitist snobbery informs his derision of a group of people for being, as he puts it, "stuck in an everlasting childhood."  I think I know what he means here.  I think he means that adults who still like super-heroes have never grown up or matured.  There is a germ of something there that is worth someone exploring (not me and certainly not him) as to why, if you are a "grown up," that you would (A) still primarily entertain yourself with the most simplistic narrative form of "good guy vs. bad guy" type of fiction rather than something more nuanced and applicable to the real world, and (B) get so upset by a comedian making fun of you for liking what you like.

Bragging that you're all about the Marvel Universe is like boasting that your mother still pins your mittens to your sleeves.

Yes, this is a joke.  But, it's also a mean-spirited and belittling joke that is especially demeaning when applied to an entire group of people that Bill, by his own admission, does NOT know and does NOT care to know, and does NOT care to learn about.  It's not even a clever joke as it is essentially just another variation of the "lives in your parents' basement" type of joke.  It's swinging at a tee ball rather than actually trying to hit a fast ball.  It's lazy.

You can, if you want, like the exact same things you liked when you were 10 but if you do—you need to grow up.

Bill's elitist, or superior, persona dangles the possibility that you have the RIGHT to like the same things you liked when you were 10, but then he uses that just to smack you across the face with a demand that you "grow up."  The reason that rubs people the wrong way is that no matter who you are, whether an adult or a child, telling someone to "grow up" is about as effective and helpful as telling your significant other to "calm down" in the middle of an argument.   Basically, Bill is just posturing at this point.  He's performing for his audience and the other celebrities on the stage with him, who he feels are fellow intellectuals and will join him in his mockery.

That was the point of my blog. I'm not glad Stan Lee is dead—I'm sad you're alive!

This is arguably a funny one-liner, but the pointed truth within it is that he does not care who Stan was or what Stan did and this is the source of his smugness in this context.  The fact that he doesn't know anything about Stan somehow inexplicably makes him conduct himself as if he is better than those who do.  The reason why this is troublesome is that it is the same basic elitist bigotry that magnifies divisions in our culture rather than the non-judgmental acceptance of an enlightened society.  It is troublesome because, in his ignorance, he's assuming he knows enough about a certain group to make a judgment call even though he's made it clear he does NOT know much at all about the group he is criticizing. And he's taking the moment of his opportunity as a celebrity with a bully pulpit to essentially...bully these people.  This is much like the sort of verbal behavior that is construed as bullying in any other context.

And, by the way, if someone says you're being childish and you react by throwing a tantrum—you're not iron man you're 'iron-y' man.

He is 100% correct here.  A tantrum just proves his point and ends any possibility of broadening his mind. You don't get any further than the South- and North-going Zax if you're just going to hurtle insults back and forth.

Well, let me tell you, people were pissed about this post.

I wasn't even aware that I had ruffled so many capes until I saw that 40,000 Twitter followers unfollowed me like that!

To which I say 'good riddence!'

Follow Yogi Bear!

Yes.  He thinks it's funny to dismiss comic book fans with a reference to Yogi Bear.  So what?  Seems pretty....I don't know....childish?

Director Kevin Smith accused me of taking a shot when no shots are necessary.

Except, again, my shot wasn't at Stan Lee. It was at, you know, grown men who still dress like kids!

Really? Bill's most strident and personal criticism of someone is that they dress like a kid?

First of all, this elitism problem that Bill is exhibiting smacks more about a larger societal problem going on and that is of adults who arbitrarily ascribe notions of maturity to things as insignificant as hair styles and clothing choices.  If we're really aspiring to a society in which we are judged by our character and by the merits of our achievements, then I would expect that the manner in which you dress yourself only matters insofar as you are clean.  If a childish idiot dresses in a suit and tie, but conducts himself like we expect an adult to be, that does not make him any less childish or less of an idiot.  Look at the president as an example of that one.  Clothing is not an indicationof maturity but may be rather a reflection of authenticity or inauthenticity.  If the way you dress is a reflection of, and expression of, who you are inside, then I don't see any problem with the way Kevin Smith dresses or anyone else. And shame on Bill Maher for using his bully pulpit to shame Kevin over something so subjective and silly.  Doing something like that is childish.  Bill needs to grow up, I think.

One commenter said that Stan Lee 'has inspired children to believe in something bigger than them' and then added 'Congrats you're a cunt on the same level that Ann Coulter is a cunt!'

Other people tweeted things like 'I learned about social justice and racial tolerance by reading comic books.'

Okay, but now you have pubic hair—read James Baldwin, read Toni Morrison, read Michael Eric Dyson.

Even a book as dumb as the Bible gets this: 'When I was a child I spoke as a child; I understood as a child; I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things' . . . including my X-Men bedsheets!

Bill keeps hitting this same drum but he's missing the point.  What are the "childish things" that the Bible was speaking to?  I would say the Bible was not speaking about putting away your toys as much as it was speaking about putting away your petty judgments of others, your petulant stubborness, your unwillingness to understand others, your inclination to pick on others who are different than you.   Within that interpretation, I would say the admonition is to Bill to put away his "childish things" and "grow up"—in other words, stop demeaning others simply for enjoying the life they have in the way that they choose to.

Can we stop pretending that the writing in comic books is so good?

Oh please, every super-hero movie is the same thing: a person who doesn't have powers gets them; has to figure out how they work; and then, has to find a glowy thing!Justice League—glowy thing. Iron Man—glowy thing. Spider-Man—glowy thing. Captain America—glowy thing. Glowy thing! Glowy thing! Glowy thing!

Here is a prime example of Bill conflating comic books with super-heroes and with super-hero movies in particular.  They are connected but they are not the same thing.  What he's criticizing here, in the guise of demeaning adults who like movies with super-heroes in them, is the formulaic storytelling of Hollywood and the inability to break from the established format.  This is a totally valid criticism.  But it is a criticism that can be extended to many more genres of films than simply super-hero films.  You know what the "glowy thing" is?  That's what Alfred Hitchcock called the "McGuffin" and it is in nearly every popular movie in history.   This is not a problem found solely within super-hero films.  This is just Bill looking for something to mock, but it's a logical fallacy to isolate one group like this for criticism while ignoring the fact that it is a general problem with an entire industry.

And again there's nothing wrong with a man writing comic books.

There is something wrong with adults thinking they're profound.

The folks at Stan's company, Team Stan, wrote an open letter to me and said "You have a right to your opinion that comics are childish and unsophisticated. Many said the same about Dickens Steinbeck Melville and even Shakespeare."

*pause*

No they didn't!

No! No one ever said that!

No one ever said "King Lear" or "Moby Dick" was childish and unsophisticated.if you ever read a book without pictures you'd know that!

Team Shakespeare should write YOU an open letter!

Yes, Howard the Duck...Hamlet—same diff!

"To thine own self be true" meet "Hulk smash!"Comics are for kids! That's why they sell them next to the 'Pokey Man' cards and not on the aisle with the condoms and the lube!

Okay. Fair point UP to a point.  Yes, the vast amount of super-hero comics are anything BUT "profound."  And, yes, those of us within the geek culture probably should stop pretending that they are.  That's not to say that over the course of decades in which millions of super-hero stories have been told that there have never been any "profound" stories.  But from a generalized standpoint, comic books—super-hero comics particularly—are a hack production churned out within a proven simplistic formula.  Nobody is out there arguing the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew are "profound literature" and we may want to stop expecting everyone else in the world to treat Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN or Grant Morrison's INVISIBLES as "profound literature."

They are certainly very good comics and have merit, but it is a stretch to elevate them beyond the level of some of the best that monthly comic books have produced.

Even those writers who have elevated the super-hero genre are still trapped within the limits of the medium and the culture that surrounds it.  We may occasionally get an exceptionally well-written Batman or Superman story, but to rise to the level of profundity?  Highly unlikely.  What tends to happen is that we project profundity onto our comics as a way of justifying to ourselves their worth as something more than shiny baubles of nostalgia that we cling to.  And I do not say that with any hint of criticism of myself or of anyone else.  But I do think it is a more objectively accurate statement.

 And by that same token, I'm going to say that there are exceedingly few TV shows, books, and films that truly deserve to be labeled as "profound."  Fans like to point to graphic novels like BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS by Frank Miller and WATCHMEN by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons as great examples of super-heroes as literature.   Perhaps they are.  However, I'm going to disagree by saying that in my opinion, between those two, WATCHMEN comes the closest to achieving that designation. It may still miss the mark, though, because its entire conception and execution is intentionally a commentary on the super-hero story form from within the form and for fans of super-heroes who are maturing.  It is a deconstruction of the super-hero genre, but by being integrally a part of that very same genre, it forces itself into that level that does not quite achieve the designation of true literature.

But that's probably for experts in academia to debate.

In terms of comic books that I personally believe are actually profound, there are a few that I own, but I would point you to just one from 2011:  HABIBI by Craig Thompson.  No super-heroes in this Islamic fairy tale but it is as much literature as Shakespeare or Melville.  The blending of words and art are integral to the reading experience and puts the lie to the idea that no comic books can be profound literature.

However, Bill's criticism here smacks of the same sort of thing you hear from adults who can't find any way to muster an interest in an animated film because "it's a cartoon" and "cartoons are for kids."  That's a willfully ignorant point of view.  I cannot stand willful ignorance.

I'm sorry, but if you are an adult playing with super-hero dolls—I'm sorry, I mean 'collectible action figures'—why not go all the way and drive to work on a big wheel?

Cheap shot.  Not worth addressing. As with any cheap shot, it speaks more of the one who says it than the target.

Grown-ups these days, they cling so desperately to their childhood that when they do attempt to act their age they have a special word for it now..."adulting!""Hey world, look at me! I just made my own eye appointment"—hashtag adulting! "Eating vegetables"—adulting! "Today I wiped my own ass! I guess I'm turning into my dad!"

Marriages have been destroyed because the husbands—adult men—can't stop playing video games!

When your wife wants to have sex and you can't come to bed because you're about to level up in Fortnite, don't be surprised when your relationship does this:  GAME OVER!

Another fair point here.

And this is why Bill's commentary and criticism is worth hearing.

We live in a time where a good many of us are explicitly embracing our inner child and the question is whether we have allowed the inner child to take over.  Is this good or bad?

I think that the answer to the problem here is that everyone needs to achieve a balance.  If you do not achieve a balance between your grown-up outside and your inner child then you run the risk of becoming an angry, jaded adult elitist who frowns upon anyone who does not fit your perception of what it means to be an adult OR you wind up being an adult who cannot process and manage those things that adults must handle.

Dr. Stephen Diamon, Ph.D. wrote something that describes Bill Maher and his reaction to folks like Kevin Smith when he wrote: "'Grown-ups' are convinced they have successfully outgrown, jettisoned, and left this child—and its emotional baggage—long behind. But this is far from the truth.

In fact, these so-called grown-ups or adults are unwittingly being constantly influenced or covertly controlled by this unconscious inner child. For many, it is not an adult self directing their lives, but rather an emotionally wounded inner child inhabiting an adult body. A five-year-old running around in a forty-year-old frame. It is a hurt, angry, fearful little boy or girl calling the shots, making adult decisions. A boy or girl being sent out into the world to do a man's or woman's job."

As with most bullies, what the bully is most critical of tends to be what he is jealous of.  Bill comes off here as someone who maybe actually wishes, or needs, to reconnect with his inner child but he is afraid of what others might think—which is sad.

I think most of us recognize the obvious when it comes to the geek fan culture and that is that many of us are obsessive compulsive types and the attachment to these comics, toys, and games is not normal, or rather I should say...normative.  So why do we do it?  Is it that we are simply childish?  Are we unwilling to grow up?

For some of us....yes.

Let's not dance around it.

We all know people like this that use their collecting hobby as an excuse to avoid growing up.  And, unfortunately, these tend to be the loudest and most obnoxious of us.  These are the tantrum throwers.  These are the misogynists who bully female fans and pros online, for one example.  They are grown up babies who never matured and their emotional and intellectual reactions are stunted in childhood.


But for most of us this is not the case.  For Kevin Smith, this is not the case.  Jim Henson once said The most sophisticated people I know—inside they are all children."  I think that's the key here.

For us, Bill, we are adults who take our adulthood seriously but also enjoy life by remembering what it is like to be a child.  When we make a joke online that we are "adulting" we expect that everyone who reads that actually gets the self-aware joke in it—the wistfulness of what was and never will be again.  For any of us to live in the current zeitgeist where a malignant narcissist like Donald Trump is president and "white power" is a thing again and social media attacks without mercy anyone for anything they may have ever said or done without any sense of compassion or allowance for personal growth or evolution—is it any wonder that we find comfort in memories attached to the safer and simpler days of our youth?  There are no adults playing with their dolls.  That's a mischaracterization, a caricature, of the collector culture.

There's much to criticize but if you're going to criticize, Bill, at least have the integrity to learn more about what you're criticizing.

In fact, if you open your mind, you might find that there's quite a bit that is exceptional within this "super-hero" culture than you are aware of.  There is a camaraderie within the best parts that you rarely find elsewhere.  There is wanton LACK of judgment and rather a culture of acceptance.  These are the people who give freely of their time and talents to volunteer at Children's Hospitals, just as one simple example, to bring a smile and a moment of awe and wonder to sick children.  These are people, overall, who read a lot more than just super-hero comics and your blanket insults demean you rather than them.

To sum up, Bill Maher does not know enough about comic books or the culture of comic book fandom for anyone to take his criticisms too seriously.  But if it really riles you up to hear his words, then I would challenge you to ask yourself whether there's a germ of truth, as applied to your own life, behind whatever pissed you off so much.

Socrates wrote "An unexamined life is not worth living."

We should all take a breath and examine our own lives and wherever there is room for improvement, we should take steps to do so.  One of the easiest ways to self-improve is to educate yourself about something before criticizing it.  I would hope Bill could do that rather than reflexively insult and mock those he doesn't understand.

For Those Naysayers Who Thought my FRIEDRICH v. MARVEL Analysis Was Off-Base

Sure didn't take long at all for the FRIEDRICH V. MARVEL ruling to start impacting Comic Convention art.

BotCon 2012 Policy Update Regarding Fan Art - Transformers News - TFW2005

We have received word that artists that booked an artist alley table for BotCon 

2012 are now being told that any fan art that may infringe on Hasbro's intellectual property or trademarks can not be sold at BotCon. This does not affect licensees or Hasbro contractors...

The wording from the BotCon brochure advertised "that you can get single tables to show-and-sell your custom Transformers art for $200", but it would appear that Hasbro has reversed this now resulting in more table cancellations at the Texas convention scheduled for later this month.

Friedrich v. Marvel Ruling -- Corporate Bullying at Its Most Distasteful

https://www.facebook.com/SupportGaryFriedrich

The last couple of days have seen a bit of a firestorm erupt online among the comics community over the ruling in Gary Friedrich Enterprises v. Marvel Enterprises (Friedrich v. Marvel), which I believe was initially publicized on a blog (http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/gary-friedrich-enterprises-llc-et-al-v.html ). Primarily, the uproar has been over the ruling in which the destitute Gary Friedrich must pay the Marvel (a multi-million,if not billion, now that they are a part of Disney) corporation $17,000. This smacks most everyone who hears about it as bully behavior by Marvel against a human being. There are more than plenty of websites out there covering and analyzing the story, but I have also seen a lot of misunderstanding of exactly what is happening here. So, I am going to attempt to pull it all together in as objective, concise, and clear manner as I can and then I will give my concerns and feelings about it.

It took a bit of searching, but I did find a copy online of the docket of the claim transferred from Illinois and filed in the District Court of the Southern District of New York on Valentine's Day 2008 by Friedrich against Marvel at http://www.scribd.com/doc/76730989/Friedrich-v-Marvel-DOCKET-S-D-N-Y . I also found a copy of the 2011 ruling at http://www.iplawalert.com/uploads/file/Friedrich%20v%20Marvel.pdf that details the claims and counterclaims on record. This lets us see the chronological procession of events. Just for the record, Friedrich's original claim against Marvel includes 7 pages listing defendant after defendant. So, we might want to keep in mind that while the case is consolidated under the banner of Marvel Enterprises, it also lists Hasbro, Columbia Pictures, and a slew of others who fell under his claim and, yes, The Walt Disney Company is one of them listed. I mention this just to make it clear that Friedrich did not go up against “Goliath” unwittingly and that when we speak of “Marvel,” we are not just talking about Marvel Comics (although they are the primary one involved in the factual background that determined the outcome).

After a lot of legal back and forth nonsense for 2 years, on December 15, 2010, Marvel filed a counterclaim against Friedrich. So what were the pertinent claims by Friedrich and Marvel's counterclaims? Essentially, Friedrich claimed copyright ownership over the character of “Ghost Rider” and claimed that as the copyright owner that his rights had been infringed by Marvel and the other defendants for their use of the character in movies, toys, video games, etc. It is an important distinction to be noted that he is not claiming ownership of the character in regards to Marvel's use of the character within the comic books and graphic novels. Friedrich acknowledges Marvel as the owner of the copyright to the character in relation to publishing but asserts that when he signed over his rights to Marvel in 1978 that he believed he was retaining the rights to the character in regards to other media. In a sense, it is similar to someone here in Texas selling a plot of land but retaining the mineral rights on that land just in case they find oil on it. Unfortunately, there was no evidence in the text of the agreement signed that made his understanding explicit and thereby, near impossible to prove.

Marvel's counterclaims against Friedrich are based on their assertion that Friedrich's use of the image and name of “Ghost Rider” in marketing himself and selling merchandise is a violation of Marvel's copyright and trademark ownership. They demanded that he account for and pay them for each violation over the years and that is where the $17,000 comes into play. They also claimed Trademark Infringement, False Description, False Representation, and False Designation of Origin.

I find it interesting as well that there was little to no interest in this story back in December of last year when the ruling on Friedrich's claim was entered. It wasn't until this week when the final ruling was entered on Marvel's counterclaim that the proverbial “shit hit the fan” on this issue. So, let's back up a little bit and first lay out what happened in the ruling back in December. In the legal system, there is a little thing called “Summary Judgment”. When one party or the other requests a “Summary Judgment,” what they are hoping will happen is that the presiding trial judge will review the facts of the case before trial and if the judge determines that there is actually no genuine issue in the facts will rule that the party is entitled to a judgment without ever even going to trial. Basically, the judge is saying that going before a jury and having a trial would be a waste of time and money because there's actually nothing to argue about in the claims.

"Back of Check" Contract from the '70s

In this case, both sides asked for “Summary Judgment” on one issue only: the question of ownership of the character. Remember Friedrich was claiming not just ownership but also multiple instances of infringement that hinged upon a ruling in his favor on the question of ownership. If he failed on that issue then the allegations of infringement fall away because how can his rights be infringed if he does not own the character? Unfortunately for Friedrich, that is what happened back in December. The court cited well-settled jurisprudence that taken on its face means Friedrich has no legal claim to ownership of the character. The judge's ruling was based on 2 facts in the record: (1) back in the early 70s, when Friedrich endorsed his payment checks from Marvel for his work on Ghost Rider, there was a simple contract acknowledging the work as a “work-for-hire” on the check that he accepted when he signed; and (2) as a prerequisite to be allowed to freelance again for Marvel, in 1978, Friedrich was required to sign a specific agreement assigning any rights he may have in the property over to Marvel (the text of the agreement was: “SUPPLIER [i.e., Friedrich] expressly grants to MARVEL forever all rights of any kind and nature in and to the Work, the rights to use SUPPLIER’s name in connection therewith and agrees that MARVEL is the sole and exclusive copyright proprietor thereof having all rights of ownership therein.”

So for the first phase of this case, in December of 2011, the court ruled in Summary Judgment that Marvel is the copyright owner of Ghost Rider and not Gary Friedrich. This ruling does not say he is not the creator of the character or limit his ability to market himself as the creator of the character. It is very simply, a definitive declaration that a work-for-hire is a work-for-hire and that means Friedrich does not have a personal stake in the copyright and, therefore, is not legally entitled to money from the films, video games, etc. We can disagree on the morality of whether he is due some level of compensation, but in terms of the law it is settled, just as it was similarly settled when Jack Kirby's heirs tried to claim ownership of pretty much the whole of Marvel's stable in the 1960s and when Marv Wolfman attempted to claim ownership of Blade. The work-for-hire system is well established and near impossible to defeat when it's one little guy against the corporate monster.

But there was that little counterclaim by Marvel still out there and they apparently did not want to dismiss their counterclaim after winning the original claim. So the second phase was completed last week and the final ruling on the counterclaim was entered. What has set the internet on fire was related to Marvel's “stipulations” and the injunctions agreed to by Friedrich. First of all, we need to clear up what a “stipulation” is. A “stipulation” is an agreement made between the parties that is intended to simplify or shorten the litigation. In other words, if one side can agree to “stipulate” to a certain set of facts, then that may shorten or even prevent the case from needing to go to trial.

Secondly, we need to see what Marvel actually “won” here on their counterclaim. Let's look again at what Marvel counterclaimed: (1) Copyright infringement over the sale and distribution of goods depicting Ghost Rider; (2) Trademark Infringement; and (3) False Description, False Representation, and False Designation of Origin. (I'm not quite sure what that third counterclaim is because the court never had to address it because of the stipulation.)

What Marvel and Friedrich did here is come to an agreement to avoid going to trial. Presumably, in light of the fact that Friedrich had lost the original claim, he was strongly urged by his attorney to “settle” or it could turn out to be a much worse financial loss. So, the settlement appears to be this – Marvel agreed to drop the claims of Trademark Infringement, False Description, False Representation, and False Designation of Origin if, and only if, Friedrich consented to some very specific demands from Marvel.

Remember, the court did not order Friedrich to do this, he consented to it on his own because Marvel told him that if he did that they would drop the second and third counterclaims against him. What Friedrich agreed to was to no longer refer to himself as the creator of Ghost Rider. He may not sell or distribute any merchandise (other than signed copies of Marvel's own comic books that he has purchased) with Ghost Rider on it. This will be an ongoing burden for him in marketing himself to conventions and such but not being able to overtly mention Ghost Rider. But I notice in the injunction that Marvel is allowing the possibility of him using the character so long as he obtains a license or permission from them. What a corporate mensch, right?

However, Marvel is not letting go of their first counterclaim for “copyright infringement” and that is where the court accepted the amount of $17,000 as damages owed to Marvel by Friedrich, and they are sticking to their guns even in the face of mounting negativity in the fan press over this ruling.

Briefly, here are my thoughts on it. Friedrich, unfortunately, has been forced into an untenable position by the corporate monster known as Disney/Marvel – I'm not talking legal now, but purely in terms of humanity and morality. The freelance field of the time period in which Friedrich originally created the Ghost Rider character was pretty slimy in terms of business practices. Taking these freelancers who are working their asses off for mere scrapings of a living wage with no retirement and no health insurance and no job security and then requiring them to have to sign these ridiculous contracts on the back of their checks before they can receive payment for work they have already completed is just about as low as it gets. In my view, it is analogous to signing a contract because a bruiser is standing there with a stick ready to break your legs if you don't sign. In a moral world those would be retroactively voided across the board. However, the modern legal field is anything but moral. These vile contracts are consistently upheld by the courts as valid. The 1978 contract that Friedrich signed is also, in my mind, an extortive contract in which they dangled the possibility of future work before him if he would sign away any rights he might have (in other words, they realized they were on shaky ground with the back-of-the-check contracts by then). And now, Marvel is doing it again to him. They have put him in a position where he really has no choice, and even now, he ends up owing thousands of dollars to them which they know perfectly well he cannot pay.

In my opinion, Friedrich is like many writers of his generation, and has been taken advantage of by unscrupulous businesses and business practices for the bulk of his career as a writer. He is not the first and he won't be the last, however, the modern crop of writers is much more knowledgeable about contracts and copyrights so perhaps it will continue to lessen in the field. I find nothing dishonorable in what Friedrich did in filing against Marvel in an attempt to gain some rights of ownership in a character that he did indeed create and which Marvel has profited by hundreds of millions of dollars. That he lost was foreordained by a legal system that is all too often led down predictable paths lined by corporate dollars and high-priced attorneys. That Marvel did not just drop their counterclaims in full against Friedrich is pathetically mean-spirited and a clear attempt by Marvel to “send a message” to any and all out there who might try and mount a similar joust with them over the ownership of other characters.

The long-term effect of this ruling, however, is its effect on the common practice by current and former comic book artists of selling and distributing prints, posters, commissions and other materials with characters who are copyright to Marvel, DC, or other companies. The injunction against Friedrich and the win on Copyright Infringement have set a precedent now of Marvel coming in after the fact and requiring former comic pros to pay them for profits received as a result of product they sold at conventions or created as commissions. I see a future, not so far away, in which artists will have to obtain explicit permission from Marvel or DC each and every time in order to sell, display, or distribute materials with their characters on it. On that day, the comic convention as an organic coupling of fan and creators becomes a thing of the past and all that remains is a publicity circus of corporate control. That's not a legacy to be proud of and Friedrich does not deserve to be ground into the dirt by Marvel for simply deigning to challenge them. It is simply stupefying and debased that he has been forced into the position of having to choose between being sued for who-knows-how-much money and asserting the truth that he created Ghost Rider for Marvel Comics.

If you feel so inclined, you can donate on behalf of Gary Friedrich at http://www.steveniles.com/gary.html

C-O-E-X-I-S-T Comic Book Style!

Click That COEXIST Bumper Sticker

to Order Your Very Own from my CafePress store for $3.99 or 10 for $29.99

A great treat for you to give to your most special Trick-Or-Treaters this year!

Tired of the usual stuff. Sick of the pomposity of the various "COEXIST" Bumper Stickers.

Show the world where the harshest conflicts are fought -- the world of Comic Book Geek-dom. Are you a Marvel zombie? A DC guy? How about a Charlton nut?

Tell the world that it's time for everyone to just get along. 

My COEXIST bumper stickers are perfect for expressing yourself while cruising down the highway or just for posting on the wall, your neighbor's dog, or even you toilet.

• Measures 10" x 3" 
• Printed on 4mil vinyl using water and UV resistant inks - means no fading in the sun or bleeding in the rain. So take THAT faded "Darwin Fish" people!!!

ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN #1 (New) Reviewed

ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN #1
Writer: Brian Michael Bendis
Artist: Sara Pichelli
Publisher: Marvel Comics

“We had to fight.  Boys shouldn't have to fight the way we had to.  You shouldn't have to see half the stuff we did.  You—you learn. You study. And you make the world the way you want it to be, not the way it is.” -- Uncle Aaron

The media blitz over the “New” Spider-Man was something that caught my attention and made me interested in trying out this series.  The thing about “reboots” and “alternate worlds” that appeals to me is that the conceptual rules should be able to be thrown out the window.  When the Ultimate Comics line was first announced, I didn't like it because with the SPIDER-MAN book that kicked it off, there was not much changed in any substantive way as far as I could tell.  In other words, from my point of view, it became a pointless appendage to the other SPIDER-MAN titles.  If Peter Parker is essentially going to be the same person he is in the regular Marvel titles except that he's a little younger, I don't see the justification for the ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN comic book.  At least when THE ULTIMATES #1 was published, I began to get a better sense of Marvel accomplishing what they claimed to be doing with the Ultimate line of titles.  But ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN's appeal continued to elude me throughout the years.   It took them 10 years to get to a point with the ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN title to pique my interest and that was the death of Peter Parker and now the relaunch of the title with a new youngster, Miles Morales, taking up the mantle of Spider-Man in the Ultimate Universe.

Finally, they are taking the bull by the balls and doing something that takes full advantage of the freedom inherent in an “alternate” universe and I am here to read it and fully expecting to enjoy it.

I've read it. Now, let's talk about it for a little bit.

Right off the bat, let me state, Brian Bendis is clearly a talented writer and Sara Pichelli is a good artist and visual storyteller. However, I just have to say I can not seem to muster any appreciation for the way that Bendis structures and paces his stories. I've noted it before with other comics, but I find every Bendis comic I've read to be a ponderous chore to sit through. So, as a general rule, I tend to avoid them. Here, though, I was hoping that there would be an enthusiasm on his part in introducing his new character to the world that would be infectious and pull me in. There are some positive things about the comic, but overall I was underwhelmed and disappointed.

The basic gist of what happens, for those who want the spoilers, is the cover showcases the “new” Spider-Man costume.  You open the comic to a scene from 11 months ago to show how genetically modified spider #42 got loose from its box in Norman Osborn's laboratory.  Jump to current day and, someone I assume from his costume to be, the “Ultimate” Prowler is breaking into a vault at the abandoned Osborn lab to steal money and valuables when spider #42 hitches a ride in his bag.  Jump to Brooklyn and meet middle school student, Miles Morales, who is waiting with his parents to see if his lottery number, 42 (naturally), gets pulled granting him entry into a fancy, schmancy charter school.  I'll let you just take a guess about whether his number got pulled.  Miles heads over to his ne'er-do-well Uncle Aaron's apartment to hang out.  Aaron is apparently also the “Ultimate” Prowler and Miles goes snooping through his goody bag and gets bitten by spider #42, has a seizure, and passes out.  Miles' dad comes over and lays in to Aaron, blaming him for whatever just happened to his son.  Miles runs out of the apartment and then finds himself on the last pages standing outside but his body is, sort of, camouflaging itself against the concrete and graffiti and he looks at himself and says “Whoa.” 

To be continued...

That's it in a nutshell.  It ends rather abruptly.  Almost like you're watching a tv-show or movie and the power goes out right in the middle of it.  It didn't make any structural sense to end it like that and made me immediately go back and count the number of pages because I thought I must have missed something.  Nope.  20 pages of story at $3.99 and cut it off right in the middle of the story.  Now I understand why they wrapped the comic in plastic – so nobody could thumb through it and, y'know, know what they were buying. The rest of the comic was a 9/11 reprint.

That was a burn that makes it highly unlikely I will be picking up the next issue because not enough happened in this comic to make me actually give a damn about Miles Morales.  In AMAZING FANTASY #15, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko pulled in the reader in 11 pages and made them care enough about Peter Parker to justify spinning the character off into his own title and now he is one of the most famous fictional characters in history.  At the laborious Bendis-pace, there's no telling when we might come to care about Miles.

The art by Pichelli, is good for what it is.  Unfortunately, it's that dull, static, storyboard-style storytelling that Bendis seems to demand of his artists and I think this artist has the ability and the talent to really take this story up a notch in terms of drama and excitement if she wasn't so bound by these thick black rectangular borders that are restraining the action.

I'm not hating on it in general.  Conceptually, I think the idea of a poor brilliant Brooklyn kid with an uncle who's a thief with a heart of gold, is a good foundation for building a new twist on the Spider-Man legend.  I didn't care for how it unfolded.  I also thought the manner in which the spider escaped and got to Miles in the first place was especially hackneyed.  I would've liked to have seen some better connection to Peter Parker than an Osborn spider that just happened to sneak out of a box because a scientist was distracted.  I was imagining something more along the lines of a kid a bit older than Miles in this comic perhaps hacking his way into an online folder where Parker had kept an encrypted file with details about his biological transformation, blood details, formula for webbing, etc.  Then watch this kid get to work and break the encryption and yada yada yada, driven by some plot device (family in danger, or something like that) to subject himself to, oh, maybe an untested spider-serum or something.

No such luck.  Instead we get what we got.  Maybe it all reads better in the final trade collection, but as a first issue of an ongoing series it was a nice-looking package but wafer-thin on content and a truncated story.   Definitely not worth $3.99 by any stretch, even with Bendis's HITCHHIKER gag use of the number 42 – the answer to the “Ultimate Question of Life.”  Ha.......ha.

Look for this and other reviews tomorrow @AICN Comics!

MICKEY #1 Coming Soon from the House of Ech

MICKEY #1

Marvel is pleased to present your first look at Mickey! #1! Eisner Award winning writer Greg Rucka and rising-star artist Marco Checchetto set the Disney Universe’s deadliest mouse back out onto the streets! Mickey is locked and loaded for his most violent mission yet as he takes aim on New York City’s newest criminal organization, Warner Bros! Can Disney’s one man war machine mow down the entirety of Warner Bros or will they prove to be too much for Mickey to take on alone? With every clip He empties into the guilty he gets further away from being able to find the mouse he used to be…and he has absolutely no problem with that. Get a view from behind the crosshairs as Disney’s newest Big Shot unleashes his brand of justice, only in Mickey! #1!

Mickey! #1 (JUN110657)
Written by GREG RUCKA
Penciled by MARCO CHECCHETTO
Cover by BRYAN HITCH
Variant Cover by SAL BUSCEMA
Variant Cover by NEAL ADAMS
Blank cover also available
Parental Advisory …$3.99


*Tip o' the hat to Charles K. for concept and writing.

A Review of DAREDEVIL #1 and some Ardden & Atlas Comics...

DAREDEVIL #1

Writer: Mark Waid
Artist: Paolo Rivera
Publisher: Marvel Comics
"Eventually I had to leave the city, my legal practice, my friends. But now I'm home, determined to put it all behind me and start fresh...because it's either that, or succumb to insanity.

Again."-- Matt Murdock

Pardon the pun, but I went into this comic blindly and came out feeling like a kid again. My formative comic-reading years were the Frank Miller years on DAREDEVIL and as far as I was concerned, the story of Matt Murdock came to a pretty definitive close in 1987 with the "Born Again" storyline. I've never held any interest in any run on DD since then. So, that would make it, what? 24 years since I've picked up a DD comic? Just about. I did pick up THE MAN WITHOUT FEAR retelling of his origin by Miller and John Romita, Jr. (loved it) and I did eventually pick up the trade of the Kevin Smith and Joe Quesada story where Karen Page got killed (didn't love it, though the art was pretty good).

So, what happens when someone weaned on the gritty and dark world of the Miller version of DD comes back to try out this relaunch? He finds one of the most enjoyable pure super-hero comics he's read in a long time. Without the need to retcon out the last 20 or 30 years of increasingly horrible events in Matt's life and the utter lack of humor and fun in his exhaustingly depressing existence, Waid embraces it all with great humor and a positive outlook.

Basically, DD is at a point in his life where he either spirals into a suicidal depression or decides that it's not the world that needs to change, but his own outlook on life. Matt Murdock has rediscovered the joy of life and it spills over into an enthusiasm throughout the entire comic and a whimsical approach to his derring-do that has been missing for way too long.

This does not mean that there's no danger or that the comic has slipped into parody zone. What this means is that Matt remembers who he was before his world started falling apart around the time that Elektra reappeared in his life. Yes, he has lost everything, including his secret identity, over the years (over and over) but he has decided to step up his game and start moving forward in control of his life rather than letting circumstances control him.

What this means for the reader is that we feel the enjoyment that Matt is feeling. It is infectious. Rather than being frustrated by those around him trying to continually bring up his DD identity, he instead just relentlessly holds the position that he is not DD and just smiles. The logic here is that really, only a few people "actually" know Matt is DD for sure. The rest of the people have "heard" it or "read" it, but we shouldn't believe everything we read on the Internet and in papers *wink*wink*. To the public, DD doesn't appear to have any special powers, so how in the world could he be...blind? It's a great way for Waid, as writer, to deal with the loss of identity and eventually be able to remove it from the platter of plot complications.

I just really enjoyed everything about it. I loved the creative way that DD prevented the kidnapping at the start of the book. Waid took an otherwise lame villain and turned him into someone who should be almost impossible for DD to defeat. The cleverness and quick-thinking of DD used to be one of charms of the character. It was a thrill to see that in play here. The visual representation of his radar sense was fascinating to see (and read). I particularly loved the "voice-over" monologuing of Matt throughout the book. It helps the reader truly see the world through his "eyes." The visual choices made in this book demonstrated some serious thought and consideration on how to visualize this aspect of the character.

Paolo Rivera does an amazing job, as artist, with this comic. Amazing. Flawless artwork and storytelling from cover to finish. The cover, particularly, is an astounding work of art and sums up DD in a single, smiling, image. The backup story by Waid and artist Marcos Martin was a brilliant piece of work to catch up any new readers on exactly what this "radar sense" actually is and how Matt uses it in his daily life.

I loved the one-page origin recap by Fred Van Lente and Martin. That is the way to do it. Get in; get out. On with the story. Sweet cliffhanger moment too at the end. My highest recommendation for fans of super-hero comics.

Quite Possibly My Favorite Movie Poster EVER!!!!

When Captain America throws his mighty shield,
All those who chose to oppose his shield must yield.
If he’s led to a fight and a duel is due,
Then the red and white and the blue’ll come through
When Captain America throws his mighty shield!

THOR Film Review

THOR
Release Date: May 6, 2011
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Stellan Skarsgard, Jaimie Alexander, Kat Dennings, Ray Stevenson, Josh Dallas, Tadanobu Asano, Idris Elba, Clark Gregg, Colm Feore
Website: http://thor.marvel.com


Official Synopsis: The epic adventure "Thor" spans the Marvel Universe from present day Earth to the realm of Asgard. 

At the center of the story is The Mighty Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior whose reckless actions reignite an ancient war. Thor is cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as punishment. Once here, Thor learns what it takes to be a true hero when the most dangerous villain of his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth. 


This is a movie with a lot to prove.  At least it had a lot to prove to me.  This was the make-it or break-it film for Marvel to prove that the first spectacular IRON MAN film and the fun, and more than decent, INCREDIBLE HULK were not just flukes after the less than spectacular IRON MAN 2 that seemed burdened down by the shoehorning of elements pointing to THE AVENGERS film (scheduled blockbuster for next summer).

THOR is a worthy follow-up and continuation of the new Marvel movie mythology and demonstrates how to integrate those AVENGERS set-up elements without feeling overly tacked on (though there is one notable exception there that I will mention below with a *spoiler*).

But let me digress from the film itself for just a moment.  Let me say that I make a bit of a game out of trying to get into advance screenings for films.  I have gotten pretty experienced at this game and so I knew going in to the summer that THOR was going to be difficult to get in to.  I threw my name into no less than 5 different contests to try and win a pass to a screening.  As of Monday, May 2, since I had not heard anything I figured this time it was a bust.  But I was thrilled to wake up on Tuesday morning to an email notification that I had won passes to THOR for Tuesday night.  Talk about pushing it to the last minute. And, of course, it would have to be at the Regal Metropolitan 14 which is all the way on the south end of Austin (and I'm working way north of Austin).  The nightmare traffic of glorious Austin, Texas, of course, meant I came very close to not getting in.  But I did.  As did this fat, bearded guy in a Hawaiian shirt, sunglasses, and wearing a royal, kingly crown on his head.  He showed up without a pass and I overheard that he didn't have a pass, but I did have a second un-used pass so I offered it up to the guy.  He seemed very grateful.

He also said he spent last night in the drunk tank.

He also said Gov. Rick Perry had been in there with him.

I think he might be crazy.

Only in Austin.

What made my day was the elderly couple who showed up in line right behind me.  Wonderful people.  They said they had not been out to a movie in years but that the wife had heard a radio contest for the 8th caller and she called in and they had passes to see this THOR movie.  They were all dressed up and thrilled to be there.  They said they watched a lady on TV review the movie and she said the movie was one that was "perfect for 13 year-old boys".  And the husband smirked and said then it's just about at his level.  I also listened to them carry on about the Metropolitan.  They didn't even know that theater existed until they won their passes and were amazed to discover there were 14 screens.  Very cute and the look they gave each other when they were handed the 3D glasses was priceless.

The film started promptly at 7:30 and begins with "Astrophysicist" Jane Foster and her cohorts storm-chasing an atmospheric disturbance that ends up with her running into a big blond guy in the middle of the desert.  She wants to know who he is and where he came from.  That's when the movie gets started with Anthony Hopkins' narration as the camera takes us to Asgard to learn who Thor is and how he came to be...there in the way of Jane Foster's car.

Kenneth Branagh's vision and direction is the key to the success of this film and Tom Hiddleston's performance as Loki is the glue that keeps it from lapsing into silliness.  Hiddleston's Loki was far and away the most nuanced and interesting of the characters.  Charismatically dangerous and commands the screen everytime he's on, which is not easy with such a physically overwhelming presence like Chris Hemsworth's mighty and bombastic Thor sharing so many scenes with him.  A great performance in every aspect.

The way Branagh takes the viewer into the other-worldly Asgardian realm is breathtaking.  In fact, I can't use the word breathtaking enough to satisfy myself.  Truly as close to a metaphoric vision of Heaven as I have ever seen on film.  Asgard takes its design cues from Kirby's designs and then runs with them in a way that would surely make the "King" proud.  If it weren't a conflict of interest, I'd start the petition right now for Branagh to adapt the NEW GODS to film right now as a follow-up.  The scope and breadth of vision, the Kirby-esque armor clothing the characters, the form taken for Bifrost (the rainbow bridge), and especially the thought that went into explaining how the "Nine Realms" form the branches of Yggdrasil, the Worlds Tree, was so well-thought out that I'm almost speechless.  Never in my wildest dreams did I expect such a faithful translation of Marvel Comics' version of the Asgardian mythology.

Thor's hammer, the magical "Mjolnir", is especially (and necessarily) perfect.

This is not a stupid movie.  It is a smart one and deftly put together.  The framing of every scene manipulates the drama and moves the story.  Branagh's recurring use of mirrors and reflections is put to good use in a number of instances.  Structurally, the character arc of Thor in this movie is a condensation of what took years in the comics.  Thor as messianic figure experiences a path of redemption that fully works within the film and fully involves Thor's mates "The Warriors Three" and Sif.

And what a joy it is for a comics fan to see Hogun, Fandral, and Volstagg on the movie screen perfectly visualized and inhabited by their respective actors.  I could basically go scene by scene in this movie and pointing out the thrill of seeing something on screen that 20 years ago (heck, even 10) I would have bet good money would never, ever be brought to life on the movie screen.  And that's one of the smartest things about this film.  The way that they interwove so many aspects of what makes Thor a character that has endured for over 40 years now.  It's not just Thor himself, but his world, his loves, his family, and his friends.

The conflict between he and Loki is so well-done.  Thor cannot help but love his brother and believe he sees the good in him.  Likewise, Odin is blinded by his love and devotion to his son that he cannot bring himself to believe he is anything other than a good and honorable son.  What we see play out on screen is a masterful trinity of conflict.  To Loki, Odin appears to favor Thor.  However, the viewer sees it quite differently.  For a reason that unfolds through the story, Odin actually favors Loki with a tenderness and understanding that he does not direct toward Thor.  In fact, Odin is torn by conflicting feelings of pride and disappointment directed at Thor that culminates in righteous and justifiable rage at one point.

There's lots of action, battles, flying, storm-controlling, a bit of romance, humor that hit everytime.  Branagh has a gift for timing and his actors all served him well in that respect.  There are so many heroic characters who are willing to sacrifice themselves for love, friendship, and Asgard.  Even Loki, full of malice and duplicitousness, demonstrates heroic aspects.  Truly it becomes understandable why the ancient Norsemen worshipped them as gods...although there seems to be a paradox in the ages of the characters synching up with the timeframe in which the Norse would have worshipped them.  For example, seems a bit odd to have Thor repeatedly referred to as "just a boy" by Odin and the leader of the Frost Giants, when he would have to be thousands of years old.  But we're not supposed to be thinking about that during the movie, right?

One of the things about both Marvel and DC Comics and their respective universes is that they have these recurring supernatural/cosmic plot devices that can be used to stimulate story ideas.  At DC we have things such as "The Spear of Destiny" and "The Helmet of Fate".  At Marvel we have things like "The Serpent Crown", "The Infinity Gauntlet", "The Cosmic Cube", and "The Casket of Ancient Winters."  Two of them make an appearance in this movie and both made this fan's heart leap a bit.  As the current comic books seem to be leaving this longtime reader behind, the movies based on the comics are filling that loss and restoring that sense of wonder and thrill that I felt when I was a kid discovering these stories for the first time.  Marvel basically exists as film to me now with occasional comic books to supplement, rather than the other way around.  When the movie was over, I wanted more.  And that, of course, is what every filmmaker wants to hear.  On the drive home, I was thinking about what I might like to see in THOR 2 and even THOR 3.  If I were running Marvel Studios?  I would make THOR 2 about Thor and Hercules getting into a tussle, just like those great old Silver Age comics.  Can you just imagine Anthony Hopkins' "Odin" sharing screentime with Brian Blessed as "Jupiter"?  Maybe even a plot involving Pluto and Hela romancing and plotting against each other's pantheon.  Then followup with THOR 3 and go all out with Ragnarok.  It could make for a classic mythological trilogy and they can use the AVENGERS films to do the super-hero thing with the Thor character while they're exploring the mythology in the THOR films.  The imagination is running.

Before I wrap, let me mention those couple of things that might be construed as ...

*SPOILERS*
<
<
<
<
<

Thor's helmet and Hawkeye.  Thor's helmet only appears on him for 1 scene in the beginning.  This makes no logical sense within the structure of the film because all the other Asgardians who wear helmets, including Loki, wear them most of the time if not all of the time.  In fact, Thor never even looks like knows or cares where his helmet is.  From a longtime comic book fan's perspective, not wearing the helmet would be akin to...oh Green Lantern without his mask or Superman without a cape.  While I appreciated the boldness with which Branagh just embraced the cape and design of the Thor outfit, the appearance of the helmet looked a bit forced into the picture just to avoid people complaining.  What is so bothersome about it is...THE HELMET LOOKED GREAT ON HIM!

The other spoiler is the appearance of Clint Barton, otherwise known as "Hawkeye".  In THE AVENGERS, Hawkeye is a super-hero archer.  In THOR, he doesn't appear as "Hawkeye" but as S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Barton who takes aim with his bow and arrow on Thor, in human form, as his target.  The Hawkeye scene is one in which the human Thor breaks into the S.H.I.E.L.D. camp to attempt to recover Mjolnir.  However, this is the one scene in the movie, if you stop for a moment to think about it, that was obviously shoehorned in to tie into THE AVENGERS.  Hawkeye never actually interacts with Thor in anyway and his shots are just him all alone perched above and talking to Agent Coulson on a transmitter.  It works, but was noticeably shoved in after the fact to me.  But the audience cheered when they recognized him.  So, this was either an audience with a working knowledge of the comics....or a bunch of Jeremy Renner fans.

<

<

<
<
<
*End Spoiler*

This was overall a very, very good movie and an exceptionally fun movie.  The pacing is great and things are always moving.  It really never lets up.  Two solid hours of movie fun and I never once looked at my watch.  As opposed to, say, IRON MAN 2 where there were a couple of weak performances, this movie hits all its marks in terms of performances and visuals.

THOR is an excellent way to kick off the summer blockbuster season and set the stage for what is to come.  Just around the corner for Marvel is CAPTAIN AMERICA in July as perfect companion piece for THOR.  And when the two of them meet in THE AVENGERS next year, I expect nothing short of greatness.