The Mirthful Man Behind the Mystery Men
By Dan Brown It was August 6, 1999, when Mystery Men was released in movie theatres. As a superhero parody, I believe it stands the test of time all these years – and superhero movies – later. The idea of celebrating a motion picture’s 27th anniversary may seem absurd because journalists are supposed to write stories on the big anniversaries of a film’s debut, like the 10th, the 25th, the 50th – not a nonsensical one like No. 27. But if there’s one person who would appreciate the randomness of a 27th anniversary column, it’s the guy who created the Mystery Men, Bob Burden. I’ll be absolutely candid up front: I can’t, in a column like this, possibly do justice to Burden’s eccentric sense of humour – either in his comics, or in real life. His wit is so sardonic it approaches the poetic. I’ve interviewed him only once, when I was an arts writer at the National Post and did an explainer on the Mystery Men – the B-list comic characters who inspired the movie. “My life goes between total undisciplined mayhem and the discipline of a surgeon having his brow wiped as he’s in the 11th hour of a very touchy operation,” he told me over the phone from Atlanta. Maybe you recall Mystery Men. If not, let me refresh your memory: It stars a group of working-class schmoes who aren’t ready for the superhero big time. They don’t belong in the MCU or the DCU or any other respectable universe. They include the Bowler (Janeane Garofalo), who tosses a mystical bowling bowl with her father’s skull embedded in it. The Shoveler (William H. Macy) is armed with King Arthur’s shovel. The Spleen (Paul Reubens) has only one power: Being able to generate really toxic farts. And Mr. Furious (Ben Stiler) is able to get . . . really angry. They were a direct contrast to glamorous characters who had made the transition to the big screen by the late 1990s, like Batman and Superman. My favourite of the lot was their mentor, the Sphinx, who spoke in aphorisms like: * “He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.” * “When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack.” * “When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you.” * “You must be like wolf pack, not six pack.” Burden co-wrote the Mystery Men script, infusing the dialogue with his skewed humour. As funny as the picture still is, though, it doesn’t compare to the comics. There are only four issues of the title (which is officially Mysterymen, not Mystery Men, like the movie title). If you really want to understand his characters, and Burden’s ironic view of the world, it’s worth your while to hunt them down. In fact, the very best way to experience Burden’s storytelling is to find the title where the the less-than-super team originally debuted, Flaming Carrot Comics. Burden created Flaming Carrot long before the Mystery Men. That’s where they first appeared, then were spun off from the Carrot’s adventures and seized upon by Hollywood. As the name suggests, Flaming Carrot is a crackpot superhero with a huge carrot mask that has a flame on top. He became simple-minded after his brain was damaged from reading 5,000 comics in one sitting, which means his solution to most situations is to shoot everyone in sight. In their first adventure together, Flaming Carrot teams up with the Mystery Men to fight an army of Nazi boots cloned from the feet of Hitler. I asked Burden where he got the idea for a hero disguised by a giant carrot mask: “It was probably the dumbest idea anybody’s ever come up with for a comic character, so I said, ‘Let’s run with it.’” I was also curious back then about how much of his own personality comes through in Flaming Carrot. “That’s something that a lot of people ask, and I would ask, ‘How much of Flaming Carrot is potentially in all of us?’ I think we all need to go wandering with no direction some day on a sunny afternoon like a baby with his diaper falling off.” That, my friends is Bob Burden in a nutshell. If you dig square superheroes like the Avengers or the Justice League, Mystery Men won’t be your cup of tea. But if you’re in the mood for taking a walk off the beaten path, check them out! Let me know in the comments if you’ve seen Mystery Men. Do you agree it stands up as a spoof of the superhero genre? Is there one you think is better? Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly Graphic-Novel Group book club.
POP-CULTURE COLUMN: Friendships in Pop Culture
By Dan Brown I think the world of my friends. So it won’t surprise you to learn there are many pop-culture friendships I love. Harry and Sally. R2-D2 and C-3PO. Holmes and Watson. Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy. Falstaff and Prince Hal. What can I say? I get so excited seeing friendship expressed on the screen or page. I love hearing the merits of a friendship vocalized with sincerity in a pop song. There’s something so beautiful about friendship – two or more people who aren’t related, coming together out of common interests or shared circumstances. Whether it’s the Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants, the Golden Girls, or Rick Blaine and piano player Sam, I take an unreasonable amount of joy from depictions of friends enjoying each other’s company. Maybe that’s why my favourite movie of all time is Dazed and Confused, which follows a bunch of different friend groups on the last day of school in 1976 in small-town Texas. It was about a million years ago (long before streaming) that director Quentin Tarantino revealed in an interview whenever he was in an unfamiliar city, he would find a video store and rent Dazed and Confused. It made him feel less lonely, he explained. Me, too. Whenever I read old Peanuts collections and I find a cartoon in which Snoopy calls Woodstock “little friend,” I end up crying. Snoopy doesn’t even understand his bird buddy most of the time but loves him just the same! As I’m often telling my wife, they have one of the most beautiful friendships in human history. And the friends don’t necessarily have to be unrelated. Lorelai Gilmore and her daughter Rory are best friends in spite of their shared blood. There are generations of women who dig their closer-than-close relationship, watching and re-watching The Gilmore Girls even years after the series went off network TV. Like every other dude, I have a special appreciation for male friendships. Probably the gold standard in that regard is the film version of M*A*S*H, which revolves around a bond forged in a nightmare situation – the Korean War. Hawkeye and Trapper John are kindred spirits who help each other stay sane under the most trying circumstances humans can experience. Nor will it surprise you to know some of my favourite tunes celebrate friendships, like You’ve Got a Friend, Thank You For Being a Friend (a soundalike became the theme to Golden Girls!), She’s My Best Friend, and Waiting on a Friend. I must have written the lyrics to Lou Reed’s My Friend George in every classmate’s yearbook at the end of Grade 13. Naturally, one of my favourite Bible verses comes from the Book of John: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” I loved how the supposedly blasphemous motion picture The Last Temptation of Christ showed Harvey Keitel’s Judas didn’t want to betray Christ, his close friend, but was almost forced to do his part to fulfill God’s plan. All these examples sustain me. They inspire me. And they make me love and appreciate my small circle all the more. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly Graphic-Novel Group book club.
A New Magazine for Comic Fans
GRAPHIC-NOVEL COLUMN: A New Magazine for Comic Fans By Dan Brown COMICS! The Magazine is not a comic. It is a magazine that covers the comic industry and the people who make comics. It is put together by folks who clearly love comics, and want to give avid readers more reasons to love comics. It’s even the size of a comic book. I’ve read two issues so far (Issue No. 6 goes on sale August 5), and what I can tell you is, if you are a superhero fan, you will learn something from reading COMICS! The Magazine. Arguably the hottest mainstream offering in 2026 is DC’s Absolute Batman. So it made perfect sense for the magazine’s creative team to put the pin-headed vigilante on the cover of Issue No. 1. Inside, there was a Q-and-A with the folks who put Absolute Batman together. Now, Q-and-A’s are usually journalistically suspect, but this one was six pages long! In other words, it was the first and last word about the launch of Absolute Batman. I mean, they even interviewed the dude who letters the breakout hit from DC! That is what I would call exhaustive coverage. There’s also news, reviews, profiles, top picks, and power rankings. I would love to see the monthly do more reported articles, I hope that’s in store. COMICS! The Magazine’s editor-in-chief is writer/editor Joseph Keatinge. London’s own Brian Garside is the publication’s digital director. And if you are a young fan who is new to the idea of a print publication covering the comics industry, that first issue also includes a timeline of previous efforts, such as The Comics Journal, which published 276 issues from 1997 to 2013. Writer Jim Rugg calls Comics Journal “probably the only magazine worthy of the word ‘journalism’ on this list,” which stretches back to the 1960s. “The importance of fanzines in comic-book history cannot be overstated,” Rugg adds. In other words, news coverage gives comics as an art form legitimacy. That’s the void COMICS! is trying to fill. A serious industry deserves serious commentary. And Rob Salkowitz (Forbes) and Heidi MacDonald (The Beat), as amazing as their online work is, can’t do it all on their own. There’s no point in a magazine or blog being critical for the sake of being critical, but someone has to tell the truth. And then there are the serendipitous surprises. In the debut issue, the Mail Bag letters column contained a series of “ letters” from Canadian creator Chip Zdarsky. The exchange ends with Zdarsky writing his last message from jail. It was a mildly amusing joke. Then, four issues later, the Mail Bag was given over to an actual convict who sent in an actual letter in response to Zdarksy. Jaymz 13754295 detailed how reading comics works on the inside, so to speak. It was an eye-opening correspondence. Have you checked out COMICS! The Magazine? What is your go-to news source for information about your favourite publishers and characters? Let me know in the comments! Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly Graphic-Novel Group book club.
POP-CULTURE COLUMN: The Inequality of the TV Renaissance
POP-CULTURE COLUMN: The Inequality of the TV Renaissance By Dan Brown I don’t know why fortune smiles on some old TV shows, and lets the rest go free. Why have a new generation of viewers warmed to the likes of Friends, Gilmore Girls, and The West Wing via streaming, while such shows as That ’70s Show, Northern Exposure, and Seinfeld enjoy no such renaissance? I don’t know the answers. That’s why this column is more of an observation than an argument. I work with young people in both my day jobs, and I can’t tell you how shocked I was when one of them asked me something along the lines of, “Have you heard of a sitcom called Friends? I’ve watched all 10 seasons and it’s my new favourite show!” Other productions they enjoy watching include The Office, New Girl, and even Breaking Bad. Keep in mind, the folks I work with were children when some of these shows originally aired on network TV. The phenomenon of kids watching old productions isn’t new, of course. When I was a tyke growing up in the 1970s, I couldn’t avoid reruns of duds such as Gilligan’s Island, which had stopped airing before I was born in 1968. In a universe of limited channels, it was just what was on. The difference is young people today are seeking out Friends and its ilk on their own, they aren’t being force-fed the same old slop over and over, like my generation was. Thanks to streaming services such as Netflix, today’s viewing audience has a virtually unlimited library of content from previous decades at their fingertips. According to different studies, as much as 60 per cent of their viewing time is spent watching comedies and dramas from the past (that is, when they’re not on TikTok). But why do they gravitate toward certain offerings, but not others?Have they heard or read that Friends, for example, was really popular in its day? Were their parents or older siblings fans of Gilmore Girls? Streaming companies have an endless hunger for content, so it could be a case of the younger generation watches whatever is available, and whatever is being promoted. That might explain why no twentysomething has come to me and said, “I love The Drew Carey Show! It’s so great.” After all, there are 233 episodes of that thing! Even a huge hit such as Seinfeld gets no love now. Viewer's couldn't care less about House, as well, even though it once had a diehard following. It’s enough to make me believe the old saw about television is actually true. In the Before Times, the theory that explained why a telecast was popular went like this: Viewers made a show popular because they enjoyed spending time with its characters at the same time every week, thus those characters were regular visitors in the collective living room. Perhaps in our crazy post-postmodern world, hanging out at Cheers with Sam, Diane and the rest of the gang is the ultimate comfort food. Do you have any theories that would explain why certain shows transcend their era, yet others have no success at doing so? I would love to read them in the comments! Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly Graphic-Novel Group book club.
More Jokes About Absolute Batman Would Help
By Dan Brown Mad About DC is a new one-shot comic that parodies DC Comics and characters in the style of a Mad Magazine issue. It’s the brainchild of ubiquitous comic writer and artist Chip Zdarsky (DC owns Mad, which makes the collaboration possible). When Zdarsky and his contributors aim quips at themselves, this comic is at its funniest. When they aim them at DC characters and long-standing comic traditions, they are funny, but not quite as much. When they make comic fans their target, they aren’t funny at all. But I guess it must feel edgy to bite the hand that feeds you. In his opening letter from the editor, the Canadian creator calls himself a “comic-book auteur,” a winking way to indicate he knows he’s not too cool for school. How disrespected are those in the comic industry? People are excited to meet Zdarsky since they assume he writes superhero movies for a living. They’re stunned to find out comic books employ actual writers, he tells the reader.. Only one publication is lower on the prestige ladder, and that’s Mad Magazine. Hence this special edition, which features parody stories about well-known DC characters like Superman, as well as such lesser lights as Matter-Eater Lad. Most of the chapters run a page long, the longest stretches to three. The one that made me laugh out loud was a parody of Wonder Woman penned by Joanne Starer with art by Joe Quinones. This creative team poses such eternal questions as, if Wonder Woman has bracelets that deflect flying bullets, why doesn’t she have an entire costume made of the same material? Is there really any reason for her bathing suit-style outfit? “We’re trying to sell comics here,” the Amazing Amazon explains. There’s also a nod to the fact the heroine doesn’t really attract compelling villains: “Great Hera, grant me the strength to find a more popular rogues gallery!” The same piece has the Dark Knight himself suggesting she stock up on sidekicks because “They expire quickly,” a reference to DC killing off one of Batman’s many Robins, Jason Todd, back in 1988. In one panel in an earlier story, Mad mascot Alfred E. Neuman wears a “New New 52” button, demonstrating the publisher isn’t afraid to laugh at its own habit of perpetually rebooting the DC universe. A Kelly Sue DeConnick contribution contains descriptions of the different kinds of comic enthusiasts, like the “Near-Mint Collector.” He’s the fan who is healing his “inner child with first printings and original art.” Or, the “Mint-Condition Fan” who lives to hear someone say, “Sure, Dad, I’ll read those with you.” My feeling is Zdarsky should have shed sections like this, and expanded the Skottie Young-drawn gag about Absolute Batman: “ABSOLUTE is ABSOLUTELY crushing the entire industry in the sales department and you know what they say, WHEN IN DOUBT, ABSOLUTE IT OUT!” The accompanying illustration shows Absolute Batman, only the Caped Crusader’s pinhead is replaced by Neuman’s face wedged into the cowl. But here’s an idea. Instead of DC poking fun at itself, why not do a crossover that involves their biggest competitor? That way, Marvel creators could make jokes about DC’s stable of characters, and the DC roster of talent could take a run at the likes of Wolverine, Spidey, and Deadpool. Readers would be the winners, since this switch would surely inspire some savage comedy. Who knows – someone might even be brave enough to make a joke about how Stan Lee didn’t contribute much to all those characters he worked on with artists like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. Note: Mad About DC (comic-sized) is not to be confused with Mad Spoofs Superheroes (magazine-sized), a treasury edition of Mad parodies on store shelves now. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly Graphic-Novel Group book club.
POP-CULTURE COLUMN: Beware the Movie Marketed On the Strength Of Its Low Budget
By Dan Brown A movie’s ultra-low budget is not a good enough reason, on its own, to see it. It’s a legitimate reason for the entertainment press to talk about the movie — because in 2026, a low-budget, microbudget, or no-budget film that takes the box office by storm is a novelty. The latest examples of the Hollywood media buzzing over films with minuscule production costs both happened this spring. May 15 saw the release of the horror movie Obsession. Made for about US $750,000, Obsession has grossed more than $427 million worldwide. Two weeks later, the horror film Backrooms – budgeted at roughly US $10 million – debuted in cinemas. To date, it has made over $365 million globally. These two films have prompted hundreds of headlines along the lines of: * “How ‘Obsession’ became an unprecedented box office horror hit – and one of the year’s most profitable movies” (Variety) * “Backrooms and Obsession: How two low-budget horror films caused a Hollywood earthquake” (BBC) * “‘Wildly unpredictable’ low-budget horror hit fans are flocking to the cinema to see” (Yahoo) * “Small-budget horror is the winning ticket these days” (Darden Report) If you know one thing about these horror hits, it’s that they were cheap to make. What you don’t know from reading the blanket coverage is whether they’re actually worth the trouble of schlepping your butt to the local multiplex, then buying a ticket. Despite all the column inches, the minutes of airtime, the bandwidth, we don’t know if they’re any good. Readers with long memories have seen this movie before. When it came out in 1993, it was called El Mariachi. That Mexploitation flick’s remarkably low budget isn’t in the first sentence of the film’s Wikipedia page, but the fourth: “The US $7,225 production was originally intended for the Mexican home-video market, but executives at Columbia Pictures liked the film and bought the American distribution rights.” As I recall, every time the picture appeared in the media back then, some talking head would inevitably mention, “Did you know Robert Rodgriguez made that thing for $7,000?” The focus of the coverage wasn’t on whether it was worth seeing, but rather the fact that a guy had made a whole feature for such a scant amount. It happened again five years later, when The Blair Witch Project received the attention of journalists and industry experts who fixated on its original production budget of US $35,000. Imagine that! (Midbudget movies don’t garner much press attention because, by definition, they aren’t newsworthy.) Now, it’s true Hollywood filmmaking has always been a battle between art and commerce. No question. But in the commotion surrounding these low-budget oddities, the art part gets left out. It’s all about the business aspect. And it’s still happening. That’s why I’m always cautious when its low budget is the first thing I learn via the web, newspaper or TV about a soon-to-release motion picture. It’s true, in the hands of an imaginative director, less of a budget can mean more of a movie. I do believe that. However, those cases are rare. And you wanna know a secret? I don’t care about a film’s production cost, be it low or high. It doesn’t enter into my film-watching experience. At all. After all, no one walked out of the theatre in 1994 after seeing Clerks (which cost Kevin Smith a mere $28,000 to make), and said, “I hated that movie, but I’m just glad they didn’t spend a ton of cash on it.” Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly Graphic-Novel Group book club.
