Does "Wonder Woman" restore DC's sense of cinematic wonder?

"Wonder Woman" faced an enormous task: save the DCEU and do justice for the most iconic female superhero ever in her first major motion picture. 

For me personally, the film was tasked with saving my jaded view of the modern DC movies because of criminal mistreatment of Superman and three huge misses. My feelings on “Man of Steel” and “Batman v. Superman” are well-documented, and “Suicide Squad” is mostly a mess, though more watchable that the previous two. 

I've honestly never left a Marvel movie disappointed. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is one of my favorite movies of all-time and I've never wanted anything more than to feel the same way about DC movies (especially Superman). As the hype and positive reviews of "Wonder Woman" started rolling in, I went from cautious optimism to eager anticipation. Could WB finally do right by me?  

My "Batman v. Superman" review

True fact about me: I often wax poetic about Superman, Captain America and Green Arrow - three of my favorite characters in comics and all of literature - but I've been a lifelong fan of Wonder Woman. As a male growing up in the 80s and 90s, I always had plenty of exposure to Superman and Batman, but Wonder Woman was the first female superhero I ever knew and I've never viewed her as anything but equal to Superman and Batman. So in one aspect, it's gratifying or me to finally see her on the big screen in her own film, but I also have a daughter who loves Wonder Woman - and when she's a little older I can't wait to share this movie with her (and my two boys, for that matter). 

Wonder Woman's origin is an incredibly complex story to tackle. I say this because there is so much rich mythology behind it and it has been defined and redefined countless times over the years. The basics always remain the same, but interpretations vary. Just in the past three years there have been multiple Wonder Woman origin stories, each with it's own unique spin and style.  

For the film, the character-defining run by George Perez is probably the most influential of them all, and this is without a doubt the first place where the story succeeds.  

I will say on the outset, there ARE a lot of parallels to "Captain America: The First Avenger" and they all work, frankly. The first Cap movie is a film that grows finer and more timeless with age, and "Wonder Woman" will likely be the same. "The First Avenger" also has a special place in my heart for a number of reasons, and I won't compare them because when you break them down, despite their parallels, they are two different types of film. 

Okay, I'm not going to get too wordy here, so I'll break the film down in the way I do my reviews. Three categories: The Yay!, The Meh and The Nope. 

The Yay! 

Story: The story works. The plot, for the most part, is tight and focuses on the emotional weight of war, good vs. evil and the genuine desire to do good in the world. Most importantly though, it's a straight-up Wonder Woman story. It's not bogged down by an over-arching storyline, it doesn't try to reinvent the wheel, it just gives you the story of Diana of Themyscira. I think much of this goes to the fact that this is Wonder Woman's first solo film, but also credit to screenwriter Allan Heinberg - a writer who is familiar with Diana. Heinberg wrote Wonder Woman comics in the years before the New 52, specifically following Infinite Crisis, and his run focused heavily on Diana's humanity. 

Gal Gadot: She makes for a great Wonder Woman. What’s interesting is I felt she owned it more in “Batman v. Superman” than she did here. Regardless, Gadot's performance is multi-dimensional and she captures Diana's fierceness, her compassion, her grace and even her naivety. I'm not quite ready to put her in the Christopher Reeve category - the one that says Reeve IS Superman, Chris Evans IS Captain America, and in my book, Tyler Hoechlin IS Superman - but Gadot is without a doubt defining Wonder Woman for a generation. 

Amazons: I love Connie Nielsen. I think she's one of the most underrated actresses of all-time and she absolutely commands the screen as Hippolyta. She feels like the queen. Also, Robin Wright really shines as a true badass. I loved the look and feel of the Amazons and Themyscira. It felt Mediterranean, it felt like a diverse community and I only wish there were more. 

Diana’s humanity: As I mentioned, the film is a fairly by the numbers Wonder Woman story. The film embraces her story and who she is and pushes forward. This is where “Wonder Woman” succeeds where “Man of Steel” and “Batman v. Superman” ultimately failed. The heroes of the DC Universe are often referred to as gods. Yes, they possess that level of power but it's rare that they ever acknowledge that themselves. In "Wonder Woman," we have frankly the perfect portrayal of the DC superhero. Diana doesn't consider herself a god and when held up to Steve Trevor for example, her humanity and altruism fuels her compassion and her will to fight. Contrast that to "Man of Steel" where Superman is anything but inspiring, and Wonder Woman gives us the DCEU's first real look at what DC Comics is all about. 

World War I: Wonder Woman is a product of the Golden Age boom of patriotic heroes that emerged during World War II, but the choice to go with World War I in the film was both unique and fit the story better. It also opens the opportunity to explore World War II in a sequel. But in this particular instance, especially with the emphasis on chemical warfare and the “war to end all wars,” the setting of The Great War was prudent. 

Chris Pine: Chris Pine is great, right? He’s just a charming son of a gun in every role he takes on. It’s no different here as Steve Trevor. 

Said Taghmoui, Ewen Bremner and Eugene Brace Rock: Overlooked in a lot of reviews and analysis, the trio of Said Taghmoui, Ewen Bremner and Eugene Brace Rock as the three soliders who join up with Diana and Trevor add to the overall humanity of the film. They are fleshed out just enough for you to really appreciate them, and they are pivotal to the arc of the film. They really stand out and complement Pine and Gadot quite well.

Ares: When Ares dons his armor and is truly revealed, it was one of my favorite moments of the film. Why? Because the way he formed the armor was awesome and it was pretty faithful to the comic. I actually thought the build-up to Ares’ true reveal was handled well and he was presented as a truly credible villain.  

Campy villains: Before we get Ares, we get Dr. Poison and General Ludendorff. I love the inclusion of Dr. Poison because she’s an OG Wonder Woman villain (Sensation Comics #2, 1942) and her role in the overall plot is not forced, nor is it diminished in the end. The same goes for Ludendorff. He’s an ambitious general who refuses to lose the war. These characters are undoubtedly evil, but in a stark departure from previous entries in the DCEU, there was a level of camp to these characters. Specifically, there’s a moment where they both share a maniacal laugh while executing an evil plan and I loved it. It’s also interesting when you take the greater plotline of Ares influence over the war. 

The final battle: I see some criticism placing this in the same category as other superhero final battles, but I generally never really have a problem with them. I certainly didn’t here as Ares’ depiction won me over and there’s so much growth taking place in the final battle for Diana. We learn a lot about her character, the way that love inspires her and the emotional weight of sacrifice.  

DC is about hope and optimism: This is a story about the horrors of war and the power of love. This is the story about the good in humanity as evil triumphs. This is a film that inspires. That is what DC Comics is all about, and that is what has been sorely missing since "Man of Steel." 

A story about powerful women: Maybe this isn't my place to say, but "Wonder Woman" truly is a film that is strongly feminist and I loved every second of it. I've been surrounded by strong, independent women my entire life (I'm also married to one), and I've never viewed women as anything but equal. I loved the depiction of the Amazons and of Wonder Woman's strength and independence and I hope it inspires women and girls to grab a sword and shield and tear down the patriarchy. Seriously, men that complain about this film and it's message are pathetic. 

Snyder’s influences are downplayed: Zack Snyder has a story credit here which makes sense. And while there some fairly obvious influences, this is very much a Patty Jenkins film. While I think Snyder does create some breathtaking visuals and can craft an epic action scene, I am not a fan of his overall directing.  

Humor: There are some charming and genuinely funny moments throughout the film. This is a very welcome change from the much-debated WB/DC mandate of no humor.

"Wonder Woman" stands free of the DCEU: This is perhaps the most important and significant point. "Wonder Woman" can be viewed as a standalone film. There's an obvious connection to the greater universe, but it's done in a way that you really just need to know who Bruce Wayne is (shh, he's Batman). This is a film that will become timeless the way "Captain America: The First Avenger" has. I honestly hope that this is the way WB does DC movies from now on - standalone films that are only loosely connected to the broader universe. 

The Meh 

Ares: There was one aspect of Ares that was a bit lacking, his alter-ego. There was just enough to make the twist memorable, but he could have been a bit more fleshed out in terms of motivation.  

A bad edit: There’s one really bad edit that had me doing a double take. This is me being a nitpicky film student, but I bring it up because in Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” there’s an edit that completely takes me out of the movie. The one in "Wonder Woman" is not as bad, but it’s a head scratcher. During Ares reveal, Wonder Woman doesn’t have her sword, it’s on a roof above her. The film cuts to Pine and then back to Wonder Woman/Ares, just as Wonder Woman has apparently jumped down from the roof with the sword, but Ares is still just standing there. It’s a bit of a bizarre cut, but she had to get that sword back. 

Etta Candy – I’m putting Etta in “The Meh” only because I felt like there wasn’t enough with her. She was fun, the actress was fine, and though she did provide some needed comic relief, I just wish she were used a bit more. 

The Nope 

Slow-motion: There’s overuse, and then there’s overkill. Wonder Woman hits overkill territory really early in terms of using slow-motion for action scenes. At one point, I uttered an audible “enough” and we were only about twenty minutes into the movie. After the first fight scene, it’s not as utilized but It’s fair to say it was used way too much, which is a shame because some of the moments are genuinely awesome.

  

When the end credits began, I was left processing the film. After the three previous DCEU installments and having never been let down by a Marvel movie, I was being hyper-critical. Now more than 24 hours removed, the film has resonated with me and I can definitively say I loved it. It's the best DC movie in modern times, and it's up there with the best superhero movies of all-time.  

Does "Wonder Woman" save the DCEU? Honestly, not really. However, I would argue that the with film being able to stand on it's own and ability to be viewed free of previous DCEU films, it redefines and provides a new blueprint I hope WB embraces. 

8.5/10 

Through the darkness... Hope: The fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way

I've been off the blog for a while. There are a couple reasons for this. I've mentioned before, if you know me personally, you know I am politically active and the election results hit hard. Further than that, everything that's been happening since then - for someone who studies and writes espionage for fun - has been insane. That being said, the election actually threw Patriot-1 Book Two into hiatus... because whatever happens, the world has changed and I kind of want the book to reflect that. I've also started a new book with a new character that is more a response to the rise in hate crimes and America's always troubling past with racism and hatred. I've also been trying to organize some projects for 2017, including The Atomic Thunderbolt. I've been prepping a post about the post-election haze and where my writing is taking me, but then I saw something this morning that gave me hope.

It's a really small thing, it might seem trivial or trite, but when I saw it... for the first time since the election I felt relief. It may only be momentary... it may just be meaningless... but for me personally it was something.

If you know me, if you read this blog, you know Superman means a great deal to me. I've written extensively about Superman, what he means, stands for, his portrayal and more. In 2011, DC Comics launched the New 52 - a line-wide reboot. It was a polarizing move and to me, Superman became almost unrecognizable. It was an attempt to make him edgier and more conflicted but it moved away from what made him great.

Then there was Man of Steel... oh, there was Man of Steel, which in my opinion did a great deal of damage to not only the character, but the overall brand. That continued with Batman v. Superman. Those two films, though it sort of seems pointless now, divided pop culture and fandom like nothing I've ever seen.

However, in 2015 and 2016, I started to notice a shift. In the comics Superman started to seem more like Superman and eventually, DC Rebirth was announced. This would see the return of a more classic Superman from before the New 52 and the ultimate demise of the New 52 Superman.

All of this means nothing to non-comic readers, but DC Rebirth has been a rousing success and the Superman books have been widely acclaimed. It's classic Superman in just about every sense. He's humble, he stands for the moral good... he's the altruistic hero we all know and love.

When DC launched the New 52, they redesigned Superman's costume. The red trunks on the outside were gone and the costume became armor - I always hated the armor aspect. Since then, there have been a number of new designs... Man of Steel... Injustice... even Rebirth... they all brought iterations of the classic outfit, but none of them felt definitive.

And then he appeared on the CW's Supergirl. When the first pictures leaked, it looked like Superman. Tyler Hoechlin looked the part. The suit was the best post-New 52, no red trunks version I had seen. All classic elements with a red belt with yellow accents. It looked like Superman. Then the two-part episode aired and Hoechlin was immediately the best live-action version of the Man of Steel since Christopher Reeve - I would argue better. I wrote about how much I loved his performance.

Fittingly, that was my last blog post before and since the election. Between getting bogged down at work, trying to figure out my own projects and being completely enthralled by the Tom Clancy novel playing out in the news, I just haven't been here for the blog.

But that changed this morning. For a brief moment, I forgot everything. I forgot about the uncertainty of the real world. I forgot about my frustrations of where we are as Americans and as humans at this point in our existence. I opened up my social media feed and there it was.

DC Comics announced they were once again shifting course with Superman, by all analysis restoring a true classic version of the character and they were changing the costume back to essentially the classic outfit without the red trunks.

I am in love with the costume. It echoes the Supergirl look, but it also, for the first time since 2011, feels like Superman in true comic form. The one aspect of the Rebirth costume I wasn't a huge fan of was the blue boots. Coincidentally, last night I tweeted how much better the Rebirth costume looked with red boots as portrayed in Justice League/Power Rangers.

But it was this image, a simple drawing of a classic Superman in what I can describe as a definitive modern costume.... it just made me feel a moment of hope. This image just screams Superman. It reminds me of what he represents both in fiction and in real life... an ideal to strive towards.

As Americans we are flawed, we are imperfect, we are a country and a nation that flows against the river of tribal human nature, but America as an idea... that's worth preserving, that's worth fighting for. I saw this iconic image of this fictional character and I was reminded of what we can be not only as Americans, but as human beings.

During President Obama's farewell address, I was reminded of a famous Superman quote: "You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun."

We face a time of great uncertainty. A literal espionage war is unfolding in front of our eyes, people are losing hope as healthcare is gutted instead of improved upon or replaced, people are concerned about their rights and their well-being and there are some - many - worried that this is the end of liberal democracy in America, and we're seeing the rise of authoritarianism and fascism. Some have likened the man to Lex Luthor - which I find insulting to Lex - or a super-villain.

When I came back to reality after seeing this image of Superman, I thought to myself that while yes the world is changing and there's a great deal of uncertainty... we can still strive for that ideal and we must stand and fight for three simple things:

Truth, Justice and The American Way.

Superman returns

When it was announced that Superman would actually appear in a recurring guest role on "Supergirl," fans rejoiced. After all, the first season of "Sueprgirl" offered a hopeful and wondrous view of the DC Universe and fans knew that it's move to the CW would elevate the nature of the show. Additionally, throwing the Man of Steel into the mix led to hopes that this version of Superman would be in-line with a more classic depiction of the character. 

Tyler Hoechlin's casting was announced and the first images were revealed. Of course, there was some kind of criticism to the first look of Hoechlin as Superman (which I addressed here: What makes him Super?), but most of the response was positive. I actually really liked the costume and I think it's the best post-red trunks on the outside version. I also think it should be the main outfit of the Superman brand, even with the shoulder things... which I think would make sense to keep and make the cape retractable as some have suggested.

My expectations for Hoechlin were high. After all, the Greg Berlanti-led DC shows have done a great deal of justice to the characters they steward. "Arrow" gives us a very Mike Grell-inspired Green Arrow, "Flash" presents a definitive Scarlett Speedster with plenty of Mark Waid and Geoff Johns inspirations and "Legends of Tomorrow" accurately represents the ensemble portrayed with necessary updates and "fits" for the CW-universe. "Supergirl" is no different, presenting a Girl of Steel drawing heavily from the Sterling Gates and Jamal Igle run. So yes, as someone who is not a fan of the DC Cinematic Universe and pretty much despises that portrayal of Superman, my expectations were astronomical.

About a week before the show aired, the first clip of Superman in action was released. There was Tyler Hoechlin as Clark Kent, completely OWNING the role. Then he transformed into Superman and joined Supergirl to save the crashing spaceship. After viewing this clip, to say my expectations shot into the next galaxy would be an understatement.

Love it or hate it, "Man of Steel" and "Batman v. Superman" did more to divide DC fandom and overall damage to the Superman brand than anything. That is of course an argument I've had many times and have addressed over and over, so I won't do it here. However, my main point has always been that when Superman divides, it's a gross misrepresentation of the character. I didn't see that division in the early images and clip featuring Hoechlin as Superman.

My feelings on the "Man of Steel" Superman are well-documented on this space and I don't really need to revisit them here. But for the purposes of my point here, "Man of Steel" presented a dour, brooding and cynical view of the world and Superman that's doesn't fall in line with who the character is or what he represents. I also reject the idea that "Man of Steel" presented a "more realistic" vision of Superman in the real-world, and I'll get to that in a minute. 

Now the question ultimately is: "Did Tyler Hoechlin's portrayal of Superman live up to expectations?" I say with great confidence, he exceeded my expectations.

In my previous Superman post, What makes him Super? I noted that when it comes to Superman, it's all about how the actor carries himself, it's all about presence. Hoechlin carried himself the way the Man of Steel should. He was confident, relaxed and optimistic. He also showed a bit of this edgier side through his passive aggressive interactions with J'onn. That's the way I've always known Superman.

I'm going to address what seems to be the main criticism off the bat... because from what I've seen, this depiction of Superman is pretty much beloved by the majority. A counter-point I've seen brought up is this, "In 'Man of Steel' he was literally Superman for a few days, in 'Supergirl' he's been Superman for 12 years." Okay, this is the typical argument that "Man of Steel" fans use to justify the insane destruction and collateral damage of "Man of Steel."

My counter-point to this is simple: It's not just his powers that make him Superman, it was also his upbringing by two good people. Clark Kent was Superman long before he wore the cape, "Man of Steel" portrays that too, but they do it in a way that makes it seem like a burden to Clark. There's also the gross misrepresentation of his parents in "Man of Steel," namely Pa Kent who'd rather let some schoolkids die than have his son reveal his powers.

So how would the world really respond to Superman? Fear? Yes, of course, but how Superman ultimately reveals himself is a completely different story. In "Man of Steel," we're treated to a brooding, secretive Clark Kent who only becomes Superman because he's forced into that situation. In almost every other depiction of a mainstream Superman, he chooses to become the Man of Steel and immediately lets his actions speak for himself. That's the vibe you get from the Hoechlin Superman. He's been around for years, sure, but he's portrayed as someone the world trusts, but let's say his reveal came through very visible actions of doing good and helping others, I do think the world would react positively. Now, based on the trailers for the upcoming episodes of "Supergirl," not everyone takes kindly to the Kryptonian visitors.

The "Supergirl" version of Superman was very quick to separate himself from the movies. Hoechlin's Clark Kent was perfect. He was mild-mannered and more quirky than outright clumsy. Off the bat we're presented with the Clark Kent everyone knows, he's earnest and says things like "lickety-split." He's also a damn good journalist and it's believable he can hold his own with the one and only Lois Lane (with whom he's in a relationship).

This Superman is also removed from "Man of Steel" by directly referencing moments from "Superman: The Movie" as part of his past. It's definitely not intended to say "this is the Ricard Donner/Christopher Reeve Superman," but like Cat Grant's new assistant, Miss Tessmacher, it's mostly just a playful nod. However, by the time the episode was finished, we had seen the best live-action Superman since Christopher Reeve.

Hoechlin was fantastic. This Superman was not a brooding god-like person unsure of his place in the world. This was a humble, confident man who can do incredible things and used those abilities for the good of humanity without the need to take credit. This was evident after Superman and Supergirl save the spaceship and greet the onlooking family (with a smile) and then at the DEO headquarters. Superman flies into the DEO headquarters, looking almost nervous and instead of acting like he's a god above everyone, he works the crowd, shakes hands and thanks the DEO agents for all their work. That was it for me. I was head over heels for this Superman.

It was more than that though, too. Grant Morrison had this great epiphany about Superman: "The most powerful man alive wouldn't be tortured but instead would be the friendliest, most relaxed person you ever saw."

That's exactly who Superman is. That's exactly the character Hoechlin (and Reeve before him) portrays.

There's also some intrigue. He and Martian Manhunter are at odds because of the DEO's insistence of stockpiling Kryptonite. We get to see a bit of Superman's temper and the tension between he and J'onn provides a subplot with darker undertones. There's an edge to this depiction, but he doesn't let it cloud his judgement. Of course, the two find common ground and resolve their differences and no mention of "Martha" was needed!

There was worry Superman would overshadow Supergirl, but he doesn't. And his presence in the show plays into the exact premise of it: Supergirl is trying to find her place in the world out of Superman's shadow and discover her own family, while balancing the needs of her real family. This is where Superman fits into Supergirl's story, but hot damn I want a 13-episode Superman series starring Hoechlin.

But truth be told, the moment that secured this depiction of Superman as being near-perfect (as near perfect as 45 minutes can get you) was after he saves a family from of one the killer drones. He turns to the boy in the family he saved and winks. This is a nod to almost every depiction of Superman since the beginning of time. There was also a moment where Superman holds a building up and prevents it from toppling over, to me this moment was a pretty direct nod to the Fleischer cartoons.

The classic Superman returned to live-action on the season 2 premiere of "Supergirl." For the most part, he's been praised and accepted, not deeply dividing the way "Man of Steel" has been. IGN pointed out that this is the first time since "Lois & Clark" that the classic Superman has been depicted in live-action. I have to agree with that. Brandon Routh played a Superman that was kind of depressing at points and Tom Welling never really played Superman.

It's also important to note that WB and DC Entertainment are indeed in the midst of resetting the Superman brand. Regardless of how you feel, the brand was damaged by both "Man of Steel" and the New 52 by presenting darker and sulking Man of Steel. DC Comics has re-introduced the classic Superman (completely killing off the New 52 version) and Superman's involvement and how he is presented following his resurrection in the "Justice League" film remains to be seen.

Still, the fact remains that WB and DC are returning to a classic Superman. Trying to reshape the character to something he wasn't just hasn't paid dividends.

Superman can be altruistic, he can be earnest, optimistic and kind. He's supposed to be. "Man of Steel" made him the product of a dark and cynical world, but that's one of the many places they got the character wrong. Superman is who brings light to the darker, cynical world with a wink, a smile and using his abilities to help everyone he can, no questions asked. Given today's social and political climate... this is exactly what we need in one of the biggest pop culture icons in history.

Quick story to share. My twins (boy and girl) are almost 4. My youngest boy is 2. They know superheroes and what not and the day after the show aired, I showed them that scene of Superman and Supergirl saving the spaceship. We started with Clark, all three asking who he was. My answer was "oh I don't know!" My boy twin (a die hard Batman fan as far as 4 year olds go) lit up with a smile and yelled "That's Superman!" When Clark ripped off his shirt, revealed the "S" and took off. My girl twin (who loves Wonder Woman and Supergirl) cheered as Supergirl flew out the window. My youngest let out an amazed "Where they going, Daddy?"

When they cut to the spaceship, the twins were wrought wondering how they would land. "Maybe Supergirl will catch it" my daughter said... moments later "She caught it!" When Superman flew in, all three yelled "There's Superman!"

We watched the whole scene, all three watching with wonder and amazement. My daughter then went to my wife to recount what she just witnessed and my boy twin looked at me and said "I like Superman" before saying "I like Batman too."

I was beaming with tears flooding my eyes, the look of pure joy on my kids' faces. This is why the portrayal of these characters and what they stand for is incredibly important. They are America's mythos.

Tyler Hoechlin portrayed the classic Superman we all know and love. His portrayal of the Man of Steel is in the same league as Christopher Reeve. Sure, it's only been two episodes, but every chord was struck perfectly. This is the Superman we aren't supposed to relate to, it's the Big Blue Boy Scout that makes us roll our eyes, but is the embodiment of the ideal to strive towards.

Hey there! If you enjoy my posts and my take on Superman and other superheroes, please consider supporting my latest comics project on Kickstarter where I'm reviving a golden age one-hit wonder: The Atomic Thunderbolt.

The Nature of the Pop Culture Convention

There’s been some discussion regarding an article in The Hollywood Reporter about the amount of money TV stars can and have been making at conventions. At first glance, you might read it and say “wow, what a racket!,” but as a comic creator who’s been doing cons for the better half of a decade, this kind of story isn’t news to me. In fact, most comic creators will tell you that we already knew that celebrities make a decent amount of money at cons. It's really not that big a deal.

Still a lot of creators and commentators have been debating the article, so I thought I'd add a little perspective from the standpoint of a small press/independent creator. With that said, I felt compelled to do this post for a couple of reasons.

I've previously detailed the reality of my status of an independent creator here: The Reality of Indie Comics,  so I'll try not to rehash too much.

There are a couple of things about that article that I felt were lacking - one of them being the state of the con business in general. There are a lot of conventions. I mean, it's at the point where it's almost over-saturated. It's still lucrative for many, but I've always felt when you get the point where cosplayers are considered guests, we've got a real problem.

To really understand conventions and the abundance of comic conventions, you first have to break them down into categories. I'll do my best to run down the way many of my creator friends classify them.

There are the big pop-culture cons: San Diego and New York, and to a lesser extent, WonderCon, Emerald City and MegaCon. There are big comic-centric shows/traditional comic cons: Baltimore, HeroesCon, Long Beach and Boston, among others. Regional shows are moderate sized: East Coast Comic Con, Vermont, GraniteCon (these examples are primarily to give you a size idea). And small shows are the one run at the library or local gym.

Comic creators will attend and sell their wares at a variety of these shows throughout any given year. Sometimes they do well, sometimes not so much.

The big pop-culture shows are huge gambles for people like me and we will likely not recoup costs... but they are a hell of a lot of fun and that experience is worth it.

Creators will frequent the other types of shows, but as I mentioned in my previous post, it can be tough to cover table cost, hotel, food and transport when you are just an independent creator and not a “guest." A "guest" is typically someone with more of a reputation or history in comics (or media) and will often have a table or accommodations comp-ed.

What shows do creators typically shy away from?

What some have colorfully adopted as "star fucker" shows. These are typically conventions that have "Wizard World" in front of them. Now, this is not to disparage any celebrities, creators or fans who attend these cons, not at all. But comics and creators - especially independent and small press - are an afterthought at these shows. There are some exceptions for sure, but Wizard World is more focused on the celebrity and PR stunt market that I’m not going to spend $250 on a table to compete with the cast of The Walking Dead or Ryan Lochte for a sale. 

Don't get me wrong, kudos to Wizard for cornering that market. They’ve also made it much easier for fans to get an autograph, photo or both from their favorite stars. If fans are willing to pay for a little facetime with their favorite star and the celebrities pocket some good change while doing it — good for them. Additionally, if it does help subsidize their earnings because of any residual cuts as THR suggests, I can’t imagine anyone wouldn’t try to take advantage.

Also consider this for a second. These celebrities are human. Often times, they are working insane schedules during the week, especially on TV shows, and the weekends may be their only reprieve. They also may not be paid as much as you think on their shows or movies. A common misconception about Hollywood jobs is that everyone is just raking in millions of dollars. That's far from the truth. So at the very least, you've got to give them credit for making themselves accessible.

It's interesting to see the article make mention of some of the Wizard shows and other conventions struggling to make a profit, while having potentially lucrative results for celebrities. As I mentioned, there are an over-abundance of these conventions. Between overhead, trying to get artists/vendors/creators to gamble on high table costs multiple times throughout the year and trying to draw in attendees who possibly just attended a show is tough. I'm not surprised some of these shows struggle. On top of that, a lot of celebrities and other guests will likely get a guarantee and will have travel, lodging and other expenses covered (that's normal for these things). So yeah, it should surprise no one that the results are less profitable for organizers, more so for guests.

Now, with my description of Wizard World shows, you might think I’d put Heroes & Villains in that category too. I don't.

I remember the first advertisements for Heroes & Villains. They made it very clear that it wasn't a "comic convention," it was more of a meet and greet show. They actually did something kind of brilliant. They took Wizard's formula, cut the pork and made it celebrity-centric. There are of course vendors and what have you, but the attraction isn't pop culture, it's the stars. That colorful term used for Wizard World doesn't apply because Heroes & Villains doesn't try to pretend to be something it's ultimately not.

 

I actually feel that the article did a disservice to Heroes & Villains - and while this is speculation - I think that might be why Stephen Amell was less than thrilled about the article.

Oddly enough, I've yet to attend a Heroes & Villains show mostly because a giant blizzard and a scheduling conflict, respectively, kept me from the two that have been held in New Jersey. But I know enough about them to be able to confidently describe what sets them apart. Back to that blizzard in a minute.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've met Amell a few times. It's also no secret if Patriot-1 ever got optioned for a movie, he'd be my first choice. He's a nice guy and he's really driven to - basically - do cool stuff. Whether its business ventures, charity T-shirt campaigns, his impressive social media presence or wrestling in a match at SummerSlam – Amell has built a solid brand that breaks from the mold of many of the pre-conceived norms of a television star.

So judging by his reaction to the article – he did a Facebook Live video wearing one of his charity T-shirts – it was easy to tell that he was bothered by the idea that he and other TV stars had taken over the celebrity con-circuit purely for monetary gain.

The reason I would counter that notion has everything to do with that blizzard in 2015 that canceled one day of the first New Jersey Heroes & Villains Fan Fest. I was supposed to go for a work thing, but the blizzard was coming in hard and I would have absolutely been stranded an hour from home in New Jersey for at least a day. Much to my wife's relief, the cancellation of the first day left me snowed in at home with the kids.

However, I followed the event on social media throughout the blizzard day. Amell, John Barrowman, Katrina Law and the other stars attending the show not only made themselves accessible to the fans that were also stranded, but they provided live updates on the show's status as well as interacted with fans making the best of their situation.

It was an interesting situation to see unfold. When you look at coverage of these Heroes & Villains events, they have all sorts of activities to go along with the signings and photo ops. Even though I've admittedly been unable to attend, I get the sense that there is less a convention feel and more of a community-like feel to the show and that's something unique. Baltimore and Boston comic-cons often have that feel.

This is important because The Hollywood Reporter article doesn't make mention of this. It doesn't mention how accessible these celebrities are willing to be at a show like Heroes & Villains. Instead it focuses heavily on the profit margins as opposed the brand-building and genuine appreciation for fans. With that in mind, it's easy to see how the "inside baseball" rundown in THR could upset someone like Amell, who is actively working to build Heroes & Villains as a more friendly, accessible and welcoming show that feels more like a big fandom family than a typical Wizard World.

I can’t speak to the idea that Amell is irking traditional booking agents by wanting to control his part of his operations, but as a guy who decided to just go ahead and start my own comic publisher to make my comics, it makes business sense. If it makes financial sense for someone to take control of their own business ventures and destiny – while at the same time building a viable brand – why the hell wouldn’t you? That’s just simple, smart business and it allows him to manage his own brand which is something I admire.

 

The article also makes mention of stars like Mark Hamill who support a California law requiring a certificate of authenticity for autographs. This too is nothing new to comic creators and fans. At most comic cons, if a fan wants to get a certain key issue signed and graded, often times there will be a CGC (comics grading service) witness to verify the certificate of authenticity. I’ve also seen artists charge a small autograph fee for issues they have done that could end up on eBay or CGC’ed. It’s an understandable practice if an autograph-seeker intends to turn a profit.

Next year, Heroes & Villains: New Jersey will most likely run against New York Comic Con. On the surface, this may be a fool’s errand and a few years ago, it would be. But the con landscape has changed, and I’m actually really interested to see how Heroes & Villains does across the river from the biggest comic con in the country. I personally think they will do fine, and perhaps perform even better than normal with NYCC in town.

As a comic creator, it's easier to determine Heroes & Villains isn't a space for what I do right now, but they don't pretend that it is as opposed to Wizard.

If nothing else, that article in The Hollywood Reporter just leaves out a lot of details about fandom, the con business and the accessibility of the celebrities in favor of trying to shock people with the amount of money they make. If a person is willing to pay a few bucks for an autograph, photo and some facetime with a celebrity and the celebrity is willing to meet that demand in a manageable way, that’s their prerogative, after all, that’s supply and demand economics.