§ I guess I need to update this post.
§ What makes this cartoon by Peter Arno perfect? Paul Karasik explains.
When the stars of the convention appeared, they found out that their hotel rooms hadn’t been paid for. They were forced to pay out of their own pockets. As the con progressed, it became apparent that the thousands of attendees needed would not appear. Vendors and venue realized that they were not going to be paid. Shamrock management contacted all the dealers in the hotel and told them that unless the remaining balance was collected by that evening, they would all be thrown out. They passed the hat to keep the doors open and hoped to sell enough to recoup their losses.
§ When did this crappy con happen? 1982. The story of a failed Houston comic-con and a successful new one, Comicpalooza as told by Jeff Rouner. Man, I love these looks back at old timey comics oddballs like Jerry Wilhite.
§ I had this bookmark in my tabs for ages: free Toon Books comics with audio in multiple languages. Help the kids read!
§ Remember John Carter? I know you do. Here’s Taylor Kitsch looking back and talking the never to be seen sequel.
§ CBR’s Brian Cronin watched every episode of The A Team to find out if Mr. T ever actually said ‘I Pity the Fool’. I will not spoil the answer.
§ Jason Youngbluth dropped a line to say that the collected Weapon Brown is available and Tom Brevoort said nice things about it. The story involves a grown up, lethal character sort of like Charlie Brown.
§ Gail Simone will be selling limited edition scripts at this weekend’s Special Edition in NYC.
§ Some people STILL DO NOT GET STARSHIP TROOPERS, nearly twenty years later. We’ll keep fighting and we’ll win.
I really liked John Carter as a film. Why didn’t they just call it WARLORD OF MARS??? That alone would’ve doubled the box office.
@Chris, I believe there had been a failure of a few Mars-focused movies not long before (Mars Needs Moms was one) and so the marketing department didn’t want Mars in the title.
The Starship Troopers article raises the interesting question of whether something can be ironic if it wasn’t intended to be ironic.
I don’t think they’re similar, but Inglorious Basterds did a better job of “having its cake and eating it too” by being both a hilarious send up of war movie conventions while also being a movie where you still got caught up in the story and cared about the characters. But that’s what makes Tarantino Tarantino.