New Collection of Comic Back Issues to be Released September 14
Includes dozens of comic back issues of X-Men, Wolverine, Star Wars, Dracula, Batman, Spider-man, Superman, ...
Read The Story
No Better Alien Comic than the Original
By Dan BrownThere have been many comics based on the Alien film franchise, but there is none better than the original Alien: The Illustrated Story.Gorgeously and creepily drawn by legendary artist Walt Simonson and written by steady hand Archie Goodwin, no less an authority than Frank Miller said “it might just be the only successful movie adaptation ever done in comics.”Originally published by Heavy Metal, the book was re-issued by Titan Books in 2012 and is worth hunting down in the runup to the release of the latest chapter in the franchise, Alien: Romulus, landing in theatres on August 16.The Illustrated Story adapts the 1979 Ridley Scott film. I was 11 years old when that movie was released, so I couldn’t see it in theatres. This comic was one of the ways – along with the novelization and fan magazines – I came to understand what the fuss was about. Keep in mind, at the time there were stories of people going to see Alien and throwing up in the theatre because of the unsettling gore. Older kids told me Alien gave them weird dreams.Unlike other film adaptations, such as Marvel’s ongoing Star Wars title, Simonson was not legally prevented from drawing the characters as they looked on screen. So that level of detail adds to the comic’s impact.In addition, it was clear Simsonson and Goodwin had actually seen a cut of Alien before they attempted their adaptation. But the highest compliment I can pay the creative team is how they took what worked from the movie and translated it into terms that worked for a comic.For example, in the scene where the Nostromo crew cut into the face-hugger in the sick bay, Simonson uses a long, vertical panel to show how the creature’s acid blood drips through the different levels of the doomed vessel.Simsonon’s rough lines were also perfect for capturing the gritty feeling of Scott’s motion picture. When the adult extraterrestrial finally appears, it towers over the individual crew members as it attacks – a licence taken with the visuals from the film, where it appears only in glimpses until the end of the story.There’s also judicious use of splash pages, like the full-page panel that shows the chest-burster violently emerging from Kane’s body. It gets the point across: There was blood everywhere.Even better, in select panels Simsonon frames them with the same blend of organic and mechanical elements that Scott used to create such a creepy atmosphere on the big screen.You may be wondering, since the creators involved were both veteran Marvel hands, why was this book published by the adult Heavy Metal? After all, in the 1970s Marvel wasn’t shy about using the latest fad to boost the company’s sales. Why not try to jump on the Alien bandwagon?I’m guessing Stan Lee and company were afraid to come out with a comic that was so bloody and had adult language. In 1999 I interviewed Harry Dean Stanton, the actor who played Brett, and he told me Scott wanted his actors to sound like “space truckers,” not noble PG Jedi Knights with their “outer-space attitude.”For diehard Alien fans, there’s also a moment near the end of The Illustrated Story I have not seen discussed anywhere in supplementary books or commentary tracks.As Ripley runs toward the lifeboat, she encounters the xenomorph sitting in a hallway. It has wrapped itself up into its own body, kind of like how a cat sleeps in a ball, except it’s almost a perfect cube. Ripley watches in horror as it slowly unfolds into its regular form. Was this a scene from an earlier cut of the movie Simonson and Goodwin got to see? I have never seen it addressed anywhere else in Alien lore (although there is a deleted scene of Dallas and Brett suspended in an Alien cocoon begging Ripley to mercy-kill them, which she does with her flamethrower).Even though it’s set in the future, to read this adaptation is also to be transported into the past, specifically the 1970s. Diehard Alien fans will know that in the original film, the crew’s employer is only referred to as “the company.” This was later modified in sequels to be the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. But by having it as an unnamed entity, the film plays on the anti-corporate sentiment that was in the air back then in many 1970s paranoid thrillers. Alien did the unlikely. It took a cliched plot – hapless spaceship crew must respond to distress signal, then is slowly picked off by star beast that is actually a guy in a rubber suit, with audience never knowing who the next victim will be – and created something fresh out of those hackneyed elements.Alien: The Illustrated Story is also an unlikely success by virtue of being the comic version of a landmark film that is not only a faithful adaptation, but worth reading for its own sake as well.Oh, and for the record, it appears Marvel may have learned its lesson: There will be Alien: Romulus prequel one-shot coming out October 24 that depicts the events that set the plot of the new sequel in motion. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 31 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly graphic-novel group.
Wolverine, Roy Thomas and the Fight to Control Comics History
By Dan Brown Comic fans are a peaceful bunch. Just don’t slight the achievements of their favourite creators – they will take you down. This fact was brought home once again when Roy Thomas – who was named editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics when Stan Lee ascended to the publisher’s office of the venerable company in 1972 – was granted official co-creator status of the character Wolverine ahead of the release of the third Deadpool movie. A lot of fans are pissed. They don’t like how Thomas has been granted retroactive credit (but not cash) for having a hand in creating their favourite Canadian mutant. I’m not here to defend or advocate on behalf of Thomas, who was famously lampooned by Jack “King” Kirby not as Lee’s house boy, but his “Houseroy.” Instead, I want to ask a more basic question. I may not get around to actually answering it. Why does it matter? If you know a little bit about comics history, the Roy foofaraw won’t be news to you. You’ll already know these kinds of battles within fandom are common.Since the creation of mainstream comics was historically a team pursuit – requiring an artist, writer, inker, colourist, letterer, editor and sometimes others – different groups of fans like to go to bat for their favourite creators, saying their guy or gal played a bigger part than the credits from individual issues would indicate. The war between Kirby’s supporters and Lee partisans, for example, rages on even though both men are dead (Kirby passed in1994, Lee in 2018). In the eyes of the King’s proponents, he was the real genius behind superheroes like the Fantastic Four, Thor and Black Panther. Lee’s real contribution, they argue, was staying alive longer and being brash and shameless enough to steal the credit that was due his partner. Even though the credits on back issues may attribute only the pencil work to Kirby, these devoted admirers will go to great lengths – quoting old interviews, scouring archival sources, recruiting still-living contemporaries to share their memories – to back up their claims. Now, I understand why this matters to a creator and his or her family – it’s a question of money and copyright. To a self-effacing artist such as Kirby, it was also a matter of pride. But why the hell would fans care, especially decades later?Why does it matter if Roy Thomas helped come up with Wolverine or not? Let’s face it: The average Wolverine fan in 2024 doesn’t even read comics; when they think of Wolverine, they think of Hugh Jackman, not any artist or scribe who was snubbed in the past. The modern fan knows Logan primarily as a movie and video-game character. They enjoy his violent adventures untroubled by thoughts of whatever might or might not have happened or been said in the Marvel bullpen decades ago. It’s not like the fans were personally ripped off by Thomas. And the truth is, only the creators themselves know the truth. You and I weren’t in the room, and at this point neither Kirby nor Lee can give us their accounts from beyond the grave. An optimist might say, “Even if we disagree on who did what, we all agree that we love comics, right? Can’t we just focus on that?” Nope. For the diehard Jack Kirby or Stan Lee or Roy Thomas fan, it’s not enough. Their version of the creation story must prevail. The object of their devotion must be acknowledged as the rightful originator, and thus be redeemed. What’s at stake here, on a larger level, is how history is written. In this case, it’s the history of comic books. True believers get so worked up if their version of events is not the one that ultimately gets lodged in the history books. There’s much virtual pouting and yelling when they don’t get their way. If you want to use public-relations terminology, their raison d’etre is to “control the narrative.” Oh, and if you’re wondering where I stand on any of this: I’ve written many columns in my career praising Jack Kirby as a powerful visionary, but not a one about Stan Lee. And I think if Roy Thomas had played a major role in making Wolverine the character so many of us love today, we’d already have heard about his contribution by now. If it were true his role was essential, it would be impossible to deny at this late date. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 31 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly graphic-novel group.
At Comic-Con, it was Back To The Future
By Dan Brown Some thoughts about two pieces of news emerging out of San Diego at Comic-Con International last week: *Actor Robert Downey Jr. is returning to Marvel movies. This time, however, he will be playing a villain – Doctor Doom – in a pair of Avengers sequels set for release in 2026 and 2027. RDJ is well-known in a comics context for playing Iron Man from 2008 until 2019, when his character died – a battlefield casualty in the effort to defeat Thanos. How, or even if, Marvel will explain why the same person who played Tony Stark is now the vaguely Eastern European Doom is anybody’s guess, although the multiverse concept gives the producers any number of plot devices to employ. The question that popped into my head when the news broke was: Why would they hire Downey when Doom – as depicted in comics like The Fantastic Four – has a mask welded to his face? Unlike in the Iron Man movies, they won’t be able to show Downey’s head inside the new metal suit, yet presumably they want maximum screen time for the mountain of cash they’re about to pay him. Fan reaction has been mixed. No surprise there. The naysayers complain that bringing Downey in at this point is a sign of a studio in retreat, going back to a talent associated with the glory days of its superhero movies. (I was surprised to learn Cillian Murphy, recently seen in Oppenheimer, is the Doom of choice for a large segment of Marvel fandom.) Fans of RDJ just want more of the magnetic performer, any way they can get him.“New mask, same task,” Downey said when he strode the stage in San Diego. I thought he was a brilliant choice to play Stark, but that was because I had hoped Marvel would adapt the Demon in a Bottle storyline faithfully: Get an addict to play an addict. Then they glossed over that part of Iron Man’s backstory in 2010’s Iron Man 2. Downey has a major acting challenge ahead of him, including making moviegoers forget how recent motion pictures and shows from Marvel were setting up Kang the Conqueror to be the next big baddie on the scene, until actor Jonathan Majors ran into legal trouble. Meanwhile, at the distinguished competition . . . *DC’s new logo is a familiar one. The comic company known for such superheroes as Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman announced in San Diego it will be returning to the same logo it used from 1977 to 2005 on its products. Called the “bullet,” it features a circular design with four stars similar to a compass. It was originally designed by Milton Glaser, who also originated the “I Love NY” logo. “Definitely for me, and many generations of fans, that particular logo defined DC in its heyday,” DC boss Jim Lee said, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter.“I remember during the renaissance of DC in the 1980s, with Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, The Shadow coming out, that was the DC logo. In the minds of many fans, that is the mark that defined the DC brand. It’s exciting to bring it back.” The old logo is also associated with such high points from DC’s history as the George Perez/Marv Wolfman years on The New Teen Titans, Alan Moore’s tenure on Swamp Thing, and the 1989 Batman film. It’s also linked to Crisis on Infinite Earths, the miniseries that relaunched the DC Universe. The company is now about to attempt the same feat with its stable of movies, wiping the slate clean again. Not to overstate it, but a logo is an important part of branding, as demonstrated by the fact DC has had three different ones since 2005, none of which really stuck. DC is hoping to reconnect with a certain vintage of fan: people like me who were devotees of their characters in the 1980s And how are these two bits of news connected? Both comic companies, in their own way, are going back to the future. Are they smart moves? That’s up to comic fans like you to decide. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 31 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly graphic-novel group.
Gabrielle Drolet’s Rats are the Barbenheimer of My Summer
By Dan Brown Montreal cartoonist Gabrielle Drolet is on holiday. And I’m loving every minute of her European vacation. If you’re a fan of online cartoonists, you may already know Drolet’s work. I found her on Twitter (the platform now known as X) and she posts on Instagram, too. Drolet’s comics have also appeared in mainstream outlets like the Globe and Mail and the New Yorker. She has a simple, expressive style — her work is funny, engaging and thoughtful.Oh yeah, she also likes to draw rats. A lot. At the end of June, Drolet posted that she was heading to the Continent to visit such destinations as Croatia, Hungary, Italy, and Slovenia.. “Leaving Canada for the first time in six years to lie on beaches around Europe,” she tweeted, adding she would be posting periodic cartoon updates. Her short narratives, typically no longer than one page, have been a highlight of my summer. She does them on the fly, often posting a comic that documents that day’s sightseeing. (Full disclosure: Drolet worked several years ago at the Western Gazette, where I mentor young journalists as my day job, although I’ve never met her in real life. And I hope very much to acquire some of her original work.) The young cartoonist is travelling in Europe with a group of friends. In a recent cartoon from Hungary, one of her companions asked the others to take a look at a tick bite on his back that had grown itchy. He turns his back so they can see the wound. They stand there gaping. “I’m calling our health insurance,” says one member of the group. “I”m texting a photo to my doctor girlfriend,” says another. “I’m making a cartoon,” Drolet’s rat self chirps cheerily as she documents the episode. That’s right – her preferred way of depicting herself in the autobiographical comics is as a rat wearing glasses. She draws her friends as turtles, cats, dogs, geese, you name it. Part of the joke is having animals say things humans are hesitant to express. In a Budapest nightclub, for instance, Drolet’s rat boogies with a friendly bunny. Finally, she broaches a delicate topic. “Hey . . . are you gay?” the rat asks. “I don’t know. Maybe!” responds her dancing partner. “I don’t know what to make of that!” “Me neither!” They then go their separate ways. Maybe the truth is I can’t fully explain why the anthropomorphizing is so droll. All I may be able to do is describe my reaction. These cartoons make me laugh and think, which is the highest compliment I can pay any artist. In a comic context, the question about substituting animals for people is always: What is gained? Why bother switching out people for animals that might be their pets? In the 2019 graphic novel Off Season, for instance, veteran graphic novelist James Sturm told the story of one couple’s disintegration amid the rise of Donald Trump on the political scene. In my view, there was absolutely no reason to make the human cast of that book into canines who stand upright and wear clothes. It added nothing. With Drolet, the change makes her characters more innocent. Their emotions, by some strange cartoon alchemy, become more relatable. The over-arching theme of her art – making her way in the world as a young adult – comes through so clearly. One recent cartoon shows how Drolet dresses for travel: linen dress, baseball hat, fanny pack, SPF 50 everywhere. “God, I look like such a tourist,” she says to herself. “Then again, I AM a tourist.”Somehow, those lines are funnier when coming from a human-sized rodent. A few weeks ago, I wrote a column in this space wondering what the Barbenheimer of summer 2024 will be – the cultural event that everyone is talking about and remembers years from now. Maybe when Deadpool & Wolverine lands in theatres at the end of this week that question will be answered for most people. But not me. The Barbenheimer of my summer – the one thing that is getting me more excited than anything else – is the story of one rat’s adventures in Europe. Would it be too much to ask for a comics publisher to collect all of these images and publish them in a graphic-novel format? Drawn & Quarterly, I’m looking at you. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 31 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly graphic-novel group.
Deadpool & Wolverine Isn’t a Sure Bet
The superhero combo may not be able to win over movie goers according to Dan Brown. He explains how movie trends, ratings, and more won't help the studio in this week's column,
Read The Story
