Fiendish Observational Comedian

Bullet Points on the DC Relaunch

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 05:52:00 +0000

DC Comics recently announced that it will be relaunching its entire line. This will apparently involve fifty-two first issues, which will be released day-and-date down both the traditional direct market and the new digital sales channels. This is huge news in the comic industry. In accordance with Section 52, Article 5 of the blogger code I am going to chip in my thoughts to avoid having my license revoked:

This strikes me as an entirely necessary step. The comic industry has losing wallet share to substitutes (e.g. video games, movies) for a long while. It has depended upon an aging core audience being able to spend progressively more on its product. The Great Recession has driven a hole through that strategy.
So far, this appears to be a revolution in the placement of comics wrapped inside a tweak to the product itself. The direct market has been the lone outlet for periodical comics and the primary outlet for collected comics for decades. Those retailers have built their businesses upon loyal customers that arrive every Wednesday (or shortly thereafter) for their new batch of comics. From a placement perspective, giving those readers the option of buying digitally is as close to Cortez burning the ships as one can imagine.
DC had already made half of their big price move by "drawing the line at $2.99". As audiences have shrank with creators actually expecting to make a living at their profession, comic prices have dramatically risen. Adjusted for inflation, the $2.99 price point is a 100% increase over the average cost of DC Comic during the post-Crisis era. However, it is also 25% under their direct competition.
Their second big price move came with the decision to drop the price of digital editions to $1.99 at 30-days. That price puts a month old digital copy very close to on line with a print edition in the pre- direct market era when adjusted for inflation. Retailers are being incentivized by unwinding the other other half of the contract that is at the core of comic business and making most of their launch titles returnable.
On the promotional side, fifty-two first issues is a hugely ambitious promotional campaign. In terms of real stakes, it might be the most ambitious in comic history. It has generated a terrific amount of buzz leading up to the relaunch. The story has been carried well outside the industry specific media and into mainstream outlets, like USA Today. DC is also doing traditional promotional efforts, like variant covers, for the direct market.
Given how ambitious (and even revolutionary) the rest of the marketing plan that DC has unveiled is, the product side is shocking. The fifteen titles (or 28% of the total) announced so far are remarkably pedestrian:

Justice League: This is marquee title and is as close to a surefire hit as one can imagine. It is written by DC Creative Head Geoff Johns and drawn by co-Publisher Jim Lee. Both have risen to their current perches by being enormously successful creators. The title will star the biggest names in the DC pantheon. It is hard to imagine anyone who cares about superhero comics skipping this title. Therefore, it is a nearly perfect keystone.
Wonder Woman: DC is re-launching one of its biggest properties with the excellent creative team of Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang. This is the one title that is clearly disruptive. Azzarello is primarily known for his gritty crime fiction. His previous collaboration with Chiang was the decidedly quirky Doctor 13: Architecture and Morality. This title feels potentially disruptive, which is a quality that is sorely lacking in the other titles.
Fury of Firestorm: Firestorm is a long-time A-minus lister for DC. The premise has supported a couple of modestly successful mid-list titles. It is a reasonable bet for a revival. The creative team consists of the always savvy Gail Simone, her political opposite Ethan Van Sciver and up-and-coming artist Yildiray Cinar. It should be entertaining, but it does not feel revolutionary. The origin is getting a minor tweak, but the premise appears to be little changed.
Aquaman: DC Creative Head, Geoff Johns, continues his relaunch of the least popular member of the Super-Friends with frequent collaborator Ivan Reis. This title essentially spins out of the year long Brightest Day event, which featured Aquaman as a member of its ensemble. It is a reasonably safe bet as these things go, but is hardly outside-the-box.
Flash: Continuing the recent relaunch by DC Creative Head, Geoff Johns, without his direct participation. Instead, artist Francis Manapul will take over co-scripting chores. So far, this is barely noteworthy. The challenge is that the current version of The Flash has been a bit of a flop and has lost nearly half its audience in its first year. Essentially staying the course while removing the major commercial draw is a bit of a gamble, but hardly revolutionary.
Green Lantern: Currently, the Green Lantern franchise is the cash cow of the DC line. The relaunch will feature four (4) Green Lantern family titles. Three of which will be continuing with exactly the same creative teams. This includes the flagship Green Lantern title written by Geoff Johns and drawn by Doug Mahnke.
JT Krul is scripting two titles. One is a Green Arrow series that he has already working on, but with a tweaked origin and art by long-time DC veteran Dan Jurgens. The second is revised Captain Atom with Freddie Williams II and a revised status quo to mirror the legendary graphic novel Watchmen. Krul is writer of the widely derided Justice League: Rise and Fall. He has also wrote some underwhelming cross-over comics. However, DC continues to treat him as an up-and-comer. Entrusting him with relaunching Green Arrow is non-trivial, since Oliver Queen is right on the cusp between the A and B lists of DC heroes. With the right creative team, the title can be a top seller. Without the right elements and it sinks like a stone.
Mister Terrific: A long-term B-lister that is getting a crack at the A-list. The creative team is comprised of up-and-comers Eric Wallace and Roger Robinson. If it takes, then the DC A-list will get a little less white.
Justice League International: One time JLI scribe Dan Jurgens returns to a slightly re-tooled line-up. This title is to be drawn by Aaron Lopresti, who just completed the JLI: Generation Lost maxi-series.
Savage Hawkman: Poor Hawkman has a long, long history of almost working as a leading man (or more frequently as half of leading duo with his wife). There have noble attempts featuring the work of comic book titans. None of them have quite worked. Sadly, neither of creators involved casts as long a shadow as the folks who have come before. Their basic approach to the material seems solid, since the archeology aspect is one of the more interesting pieces of Hawkman. Maybe the fifth time will be the charm.
DC Universe Presents: This is an anthology series that is going to launch with a Deadman story by Paul Jenkins and Bernard Chang.

All told seven of the fifteen titles announced so far will have minimal changes creatively. Also, 100% of these titles fall solidly in the superhero genre that has dominated the recent output from DC. The vast majority of the titles feature white male protagonists. Maybe that ratios will shift as the rest of the titles are announced, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion.
Nearly every creator announced in the first wave of titles was working on a DC superhero title prior to the relaunch. In many cases, they were working on exactly the same title and generally in the same capacity.

This roster of properties and creators is significantly less interesting and ambitious than the folks DC put together for Wednesday Comics in 2009. It seems as though DC Comics is making a very strong statement that virtually everything has been wrong with its business with the lone exception of the creative direction of its titles. Maybe that is the case, but it seems unlikely.

I genuinely hope that DC is holding back its coolest announcements until the date draws a bit closer.

Welcome to the Lakers, Mike Brown

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Thu, 26 May 2011 05:22:00 +0000

Mike Brown at MSG, originally uploaded by Tony Shi..

My buddy Brian suggested that post my thoughts on Mike Brown as the new coach of the Lakers.

My first reaction is that it is a solid, uninspiring hire.

The Lakers big problem this season was on defense. They could not get stops when they fell behind to good teams, nor could they protect big leads. That meant the older players logged bigger minutes than they should. It also enabled Dallas to carve them up with the likes of JJ Barrea.

Whatever his flaws, Mike Brown is a great defensive coach. He got LeBron to commit on defense and led the league on that side of the ball with dubious personnel.

His offensive sets were terrible, but for the time being I am assuming the Lakers will keep the Triangle. It fits the personnel and Phil's assistants are not retiring. Heck, Luke Walton could run the offense.

The big question is whether Brown can get Kobe's respect. That is very much an open question. The Buss Family has made it clear that no one runs the Lakers but them. If Kobe starts ripping the organization in the media on a .500 team, then things might get very interesting.

I doubt that it will come to that. With the same offense and an improved defense, the Lakers are legit contenders for another year or maybe two. That is especially true if there is a lock-out, which favors veteran teams in my mind.

My hunch is that the next move is to clean up the locker room a bit. The Lakers have a few guys that are on the roster because of Phil Jackson's Zen Master mystique. I would say Ron Artest should not be house shopping ...

Blogging Called This Week ...

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 16 May 2010 16:21:00 +0000

... due to new baby. Check back next week.

A Qualified Defense of Regressive Story-Telling

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 09 May 2010 13:00:00 +0000

Chris Simms wrote a long and interesting piece at Comics Alliance that contains a piece of conventional about superhero writing with which I strongly disagree:

In a lot of ways, it's an unavoidable aspect of the way comics work, in that most creators started out as (and presumably still are) fans first. And for fans, the One True Version of any given character is the one that made the biggest impact on them when they were growing up, be it Cary Bates' Flash or Adam West's Batman, and by and large, the fan mentality doesn't lend itself to innovation. Instead, it prompts the same desire that leads to fan-fiction: They want to play with their favorite toys, and if the universe they're working with doesn't allow that, then it's the universe that has to change, not them.

First a disclaimer, I am a pathetic excuse for a comic fan. My interest in the medium has waxed and waned enormously over the years. I have attended exactly one convention and that was 29 years ago. My experience with creators is limited at best. There are major series that I missed entirely because they were published during a period that I was not reading comics at all. As a result, I would not presume to speak for the attitude of the typical fan, or the motivations of any creator. Maybe Simms is giving an accurate description of comic book culture and maybe he is not. I have no idea.

What I disagree with is the notion that the only motivation for rewinding the status quo of a character or (especially) a franchise to a prior state is nostalgia, or the desire to market to it.

Nearly every superhero has what I called Dream Logic. It is the main-spring of any good superhero comic, since it is what connects them to us. I may not know what it is like to fly, but I know what it is like to be so filled with joy that I feel like my feet are not touching the ground. I may not know what it is like to be invisible, but I know what it feels like to be unimportant. R.E.M. wrote a wonderful song about the feeling of having super-senses.

The thing is, those are feelings that are connected to specific characters at specific points in their lives. That renders whole idea that a superhero identity is a legacy that can be passed down from one character to the next intrinsically flawed. Some legacies can be passed along because the emotions that drive the property are transferable from one person to the next. Others are not. As a result, a well-written and well-drawn series like the ALL-NEW ATOM can feel oddly devoid of real stakes. I admired its craft, but it never made me feel the way the much less polished and sophisticated Silver Age Atom stories made me feel.

Elements of a Superhero

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 02 May 2010 15:14:00 +0000

Brooklyn Superhero Supply - Storefront - 3, originally uploaded by Josh Clark.

Superheroes are a bit of a bastard genre. It has elements of sci-fi, fantasy, crime, horror, westerns and even romance. Most of the major superheroes were created in one of two big creative explosions in the middle of the 20th century. Their creators were working quickly in a low prestige profession. As a result, they mashed up existing elements of popular culture to create their characters. In that regard, they were (at minimum) a half century ahead of their time.

However, it has not remained a mash-up. Superheroes have become a genre of their own. Here is what I think defines it:

Transformation: The superhero does not start as themselves. Superman begins as a helpless baby. Batman begins as a child in an alley. Spider-Man was nerdy teenager. Every one undergoes a transformation from what they were into what they are. That is why the superhero is such a distinctly American creation. Like Jay Gatsby, they have been required to invent themselves to a large degree. The central transformation is expressed dual (although not always secret) identity of the superhero.
Dream logic: The superhero does not obey the conventional laws of physics. Rather, they are operate as what James Kakalios dubbed "miracle exceptions" to those laws. However, those miraculous abilities are not distributed at random, rather they are granted using the symbolism of the unconscious mind. Therefore, a free-spirited person like Johnny Storm is able to fly, a workaholic like Reed Richards is literally stretched and Sue Storm, the woman to whom he pays too little attention, can become invisible.
Parallelism: The best supervillains are external expressions of conflicts within the protagonist(s). The hero has what is often a prosaic problem in their daily life that is heightened by the arrival of the bad guy. Superman is a guy who feels so obligated to the whole world so much that it strains his ability to sustain personal relationships. His number one bad guy is a failed friendship. The X-Men fight to protect a world that fears and hates them. Their number one bad guy is a terrorist seeking revenge on those that hate them. The Fantastic Four came about because Reed Richards arrogantly endangered the life of his family in the pursuit of his scientific goals. Their number one bad guy is Victor Von Doom. 'Nuff Said.

In my post on The Atom, I stated that his solo title failed partly because Gardner Fox and Gil Kane did not fully build out the elements of the superhero in the title. My benchmark for success as a premise is sixty consecutive issues. The Atom managed 45, which is a very cusp-y number. There was plainly both something there and something missing. That makes The Atom a good candidate for a case study, I am going to step through the elements that I have laid out to determine what was missing.

Let's begin at the beginning. In Showcase #34, we get the Origin of the Atom. It is a solid, concise origin with a solid character-based motivation. However, does Ray Palmer really transform? Frankly, it is hard to say, because the reader sees very little of the pre-Atom Palmer. He is a grad student that is experiencing failure in both his romantic and professional life.

More successful superhero narratives will use a helper figure to highlight the change. Good examples of this figure are Alfred in Batman, Pete Ross and Chloe Sullivan on SMALLVILLE, Pepper Potts in the IRON MAN movie and the Scoobies on BUFFY, THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. The Atom has Jean Loring occupy both the role of love interest and the helper. This is problematic, since her romantic rejection of him is the core impulse behind his transformation.

Gardner Fox and Gil Kane were extremely good at the use of Dream Logic in their stories. The introduction of Jason Woodrue in The Atom #1 was as purely surrealistic as any comic that I have ever read. However, they were not consistent enough to make Ivy Town a specific place. Contrast Ivy Town with places like Dick Sprang's Gotham City, or Steve Ditko's New York City.

The problem, I think, is that Fox did not give Kane any recurring settings to anchor his Ivy Town. Batman has Wayne Manor, the Batcave and the headquarters of the G.C.P.D. from those locales has emerged our sense of what Gotham is as a place. Superman has the Daily Planet, the Kent Farm and the Fortress of Solitude. The Fantastic Four have their Baxter Building. Dr. Strange has his Sanctum Sanctorum. Nick Fury has his Helicarrier. These places are objective correlatives for the protagonist. When Batman moves from Wayne Manor above to the Batcave below, his attitude has shifted. The reader does not need to be told, because they can see the difference in the setting. There are no specific places within the world of The Atom to signify an internal emotional shift in our hero. In that regard, The Atom strip was overly realistic in its use of place.

Finally, we come to the subject of parallelism. This is an easy thing to overdo, but it is essential to have expressed in the rogues gallery of a superhero. None of The Atom's main antagonists mirrored his romantic, sexual or professional anxieties. None of them acted out in such a way that suggested how a person of weaker character would respond to those anxieties. That provides far too limited stakes for any of his antagonists to become anything like an arch-nemesis.

A (Minor) Commitment

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:04:00 +0000

I like blogging.

You would guess that based upon my post count over the last year, but it is something that I enjoy. The problem is that I have an extremely busy life that is not slowing down. As a result, what I can blog about well is limited. I cannot keep up with the flow of games during a seasons, nor stay on top of the news in coherent way. That makes my efforts on that front both frustrating and ineffective. It is a formula for a bad blog.

What I can do is carve out time here and there to generate something with a little bit of substance. I can read older stuff and write more thought out pieces. I can watch older stuff and do the same. Those have been my favorite blog posts of my own. So, that is where this blog is headed.

However, experience has shown me that shown me that a schedule is pretty critical both for the writer and the audience. That means a commitment to getting something up at a regular interval. So, this is going to be a weekly blog from this point forward. There might be one post, or several, but they will all go up on Sunday. Fair enough?

So, what is the deal with The Atom?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:13:00 +0000

The Atom and Hawkman, originally uploaded by Perry G.

So, DC Comics is re-launching the Silver Age version of The Atom. This struck me as a good time to read the Showcase Presents: The Atom, Vol. 1 and share my thoughts.

Ray Palmer was the second version of The Atom. He was created in 1961 by Gardner Fox and Gil Kane. He maintained a solo for the duration of the Silver Age, but was forced to share co-billing with Hawkman toward to end of his run. By the time I began reading DC Comics, Ray Palmer was a bit like a Vegas headliner of same era. He clearly had been a very big deal at one time, but I was far too young to have experienced that personally. In that regard, Ray Palmer is the Tom Jones of the superhero set.

Unlike Marvel stories of the same era, Silver Age DC comics tended to tell circular stories. Each issue (or individual story within an issue) starts and ends with same basic status quo. As a result, The Atom features an extremely simple set-up. Palmer is a young physics professor at an Ivy League college. He has discovered a method to shrink himself nearly infinitely, while controlling his mass separately. His girlfriend, Jean Loring, is a junior associate at a criminal defense law firm. She will not agree to marry him until she has established her career. Considering The Atom was created immediately prior to wide availability of the birth control pill and the resultant sexual revolution, it is pretty safe to assume that a pair of young professionals, like Ray and Jean, were having a pretty chaste courtship. An unwanted pregnancy essentially derail her promising career.

In other words, The Atom became a superhero to get laid.

The typical Atom story can be seen from the first post-Showcase issue. Palmer and Loring are on a date. He is pressing her to marry him. She is distracted by a case. He uses his double identity to solve the case. She gives him just enough encouragement to prevent them from breaking up. This is theme from which there are variations over the course of volume.

Superhero comics of this era operate with a sort of dream logic. Things do not always make scientific sense, but the subtext can work well enough to make the story plausible for a reader that is willing to go along with it. That makes metaphors and relationships critical. On that level, this basic set-up coheres together nicely. Shrinking is a good symbol for feelings unimportance. Both principles are very early in their careers. Jean Loring wins her first case in an early issue and Ray Palmer is struggling to make his name as a scientist. Additionally, our hero is consistently being rejected by his girlfriend. It makes sense on a certain level that he can shrink into near nothingness. To his credit, Gardener Fox experiments with this. Early supporting cast members include another couple that is actually in the process of getting married. However, Stan Lee was still in the process of inventing B-plots that moved from issue-to-issue at Marvel. Those early supporting characters disappeared quickly and took most of the subtext of the title with them.

Where Fox and Kane excelled was in moving the main plot along quickly through a series of wildly imaginative ideas. The Atom is surprisingly dynamic with its protagonist launching himself from whatever was available in pursuit of criminals. That energetic physical courage calls to mind the early years of Spider-Man. Year later, Gil Kane would switch publishers and draw the Webhead himself. These issues were an early indication of why that was a good fit.

Jean Loring took a major heel turn in later years, but she is entirely likable here. It is clear that she is a promising lawyer. Her careerist ambitions would be wholly unremarkable today, but it was ahead of its time in the early sixties. She is not overly enamored with Ray Palmer, but she is a full partner in the action. Modern comics seem almost to have taken a step backward in that regard.

So, why didn't The Atom last beyond the end of the Silver Age as a solo act?

First, the central conceit of Ray and Jean's relationship became dated. Men and women related to each other vastly differently in 1970 than they did in 1961. Young, college educated types were choosing between two competing counter-cultures and not simply joining a consensus culture. Ray being the type of guy who "chose to wait" until marriage made him incompatible with a proto-feminist like Jean. That is big problem when the recurring supporting cast consists of one person. Jean and Ray got married, but the relationship was troubled and subsequent revivals dumped the relationship entirely.

Second, The Atom never developed a decent set of bad guys. Gardner Fox worked in a sort of Twilight Zone meets Scooby-Doo style. Something seemingly supernatural would happen. Our hero would investigate and it would typically turn out to have a pseudo-scientific explanation. The genie wasn't really a genie, but a tiny alien under the influence of a mind control ray. This was a decent method for producing a goofy one-off story, but it is not a formula for generate recurring antagonists. The Atom's rogues gallery consist entirely of c-listers, like Chronos, The Floronic Man and The Bug-Eyed Bandit. These are exactly the sort of over-the-top Silver Age baddies that have been roundly mocked since the Batman T.V. series.

Finally, Fox and Kane never manage to build out the various trappings of a superhero. What those are and why they are important is a topic for another post.

Kuroda to the DL

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:59:00 +0000

Spring Training- Day 4, originally uploaded by mrs. bennettar.

Uh oh: (h/t Blue Heaven)

Dodgers pitcher Hiroki Kuroda has been placed on the 15-day disabled list with a strained left oblique muscle, and Eric Stults will be recalled from Triple-A Albuquerque to start Saturday for the Dodgers against the Diamondbacks.

The Dodgers are perilously thin in the starting rotation. The '08 Dodgers got starts from 10 different pitchers, but only four pitched a 100 innings. The top five starters accounted for 54.9% of the innings pitched by the staff. This was already low. In contrast, the '08 Phillies got 60.4%, the '08 Brewers got 58.8% and the '08 Cubs got 57.7% of their innings from their top five starters respectively. Departed pitchers Derek Lowe and Brad Penny contributed 305 of 795 innings pitched by the '08 rotation. The Ole Snakeskin boots saw fit replace those 305 with Randy Wolf, who has averaged 116 innings per season over the last three years. The balance was to come from an increased workload on Chad Billingsley and Clayton Kershaw, who are already on the '09 Verducci Rule list.

In other words, the rotation was a dicey proposition from the outset. Any extended injury to Kuroda is potential disaster.

Lucky #13...

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:18:00 +0000

Ned Colletti and a fan, originally uploaded by paulflori.

Fangraphs just reviewed the state of the Dodgers and I agree with every word. Here is the conclusion:

Given their talent base and their market, there’s no reason the Dodgers shouldn’t dominate the NL West. That they don’t is mostly poor management, and while the team has been able to overcome a series of bad moves, they won’t be able to forever. Colletti is either going to have to improve as a GM or get replaced. Thankfully, the young talent on the roster should keep the team afloat while they figure out how to get the front office in order, and with a better management team in place, the potential for a top tier franchise is in place. Until they tap into that potential, though, they rate as just a bit above average.

My Thoughts on the "Watchmen"

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:18:00 +0000

Watchmen PM Photoshoot, originally uploaded by starsprinkles.

So, I saw "Watchmen". I think that it is important to get the obvious problem out of the way first.

The comic has had such a devoted fan-base for so long that any adaptation was going to get mixed reviews. It has been (ahem) borrowed from extensively by everything from "The Incredibles" to "Heroes". The comic is so influential that the audience has seen a lot of the gags and big plot twists elsewhere. What was shocking and fresh a couple decades ago is now pretty standard genre fare. There is very little the Zack Snyder could have done about that. The other thing that Snyder is not responsible for is the extent to which history has over-taken the book. The story that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons created in the '80s was very prescient. For better and worse, a lot their ideas came to pass. Plug-in cars are barely a novelty and the idea that a horrific terrorist attack on New York City might produce a brief moment of global unity is now history.

These factors add up to make the plot of "Watchmen" feel a bit like a super-sized episode of "Cold Case". This is hardly the end of the world, but it does make all the people who said that it was unadaptable (or required a 12-hour mini-series) seem a bit silly. David Hayter managed to get all the key plot points into a movie that ran less than three hours. It turns out that at least from a plot perspective, it is not nearly as dense as it seemed. However, the virtues of strict fidelity to the source material is often over-estimated by comic fans.

Good movies create a mood and draw their audience into it for a couple hours. While great movies encourage the audience to think about why they are feeling what they are feeling. Conversely, the inclusion of anything from that takes the audience out of that mood transforms a good movie into a bad one very quickly. This required the excision of a lot of meta-commentary by Moore and Gibbons about comics as a medium, but its loss is not very sharply felt. The plot and the characters work perfectly fine without it.

The more legitimate concern is that the loss of layers might adversely effect the core themes.
"Watchmen" is about power, in particular sexual and political power. Each of the central characters is defined either by power they have, power they lack, or both. Dr. Manhattan is nearly omnipotent, but he cannot control his personal relationships. Rorschach can pummel the faintly pathetic criminals of the piece into submission, but he lacks the political power that he craves. The Comedian has political influence, but lacks personal connections.

By and large, Moore gives his super people what they think they want. Often, the consequences are not what they expect, but they do tend to achieve their individual goals. However, Moore has surrounded them with normal people, who are largely powerless to effect their individual fates. There is the news stand guy and his nemesis. There is the prison psychiatrist and his wife. There is the lesbian cabbie. There are the two detectives. Each is sketched quickly, but memorably in the comic. Their fates matter to the reader and their powerlessness comments on the main action. Most of this content has been excised from the film to its detriment.

It is a shame, because status and power is a major theme in nearly every major work by Alan Moore. Yet, it never seems to make it into the Hollywood adaptations. "V for Vendetta" deals extensively with the psychological effects of being powerless in a totalitarian state. The plot of "From Hell" is driven by the relative power of the various characters within the Victorian class structure. Both "Swamp Thing" and "Miracleman" have characters whose perceptions change as their power relationships with the world around them shift. Snyder has no better feel for the power relationships that interest Moore than the Hughes Brothers or James McTeigue did.

Bring Pedro Home

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:12:00 +0000

Pedro Martinez, originally uploaded by Bestman Productions.

Ordinarily, I am a big advocate of the Dodgers saving a few bucks, but Pedro Martinez is a unique case. The fifteen seasons since Fred Claire dealt Ramon's kid brother to the Expos have been brutal. Therefore, word that he has gotten old enough for the current regime is a breath of fresh air:

Although manager Joe Torre said the Dodgers have yet to speak to Martinez's representatives, general manager Ned Colletti acknowledged potential interest in Martinez in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
"He's someone we're curious about,'' Colletti told the paper.

Pedro projects to start maybe 14 games and throw about 100 innings. His $5 million asking price does seem a bit stiff for that level of production. However, the prospect of removing the hex from the franchise is easily worth it.

Since they traded Pedro, the Dodgers have had three owners, six general managers and seven field managers. In the fifteen years before trading Pedro, the Dodgers had one owner, two general managers and one field manager. In the fifteen years before trading Pedro, the Dodgers won their division five times, appeared in the World Series three times and won two championships. In the fifteen years since trading Pedro, the Dodgers have won their division three times and have advanced to the NLDS a grand total of once.

The Lex Luthor bailout

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:40:00 +0000

"Lex Luthor Bailout" with Jon Hamm - watch more funny videos

Manny Returns

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:54:00 +0000

Manny Ramirez - Dodgers, originally uploaded by sxgmedia.

Adios, Chris Mihm

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:59:00 +0000

Chris Mihm, originally uploaded by Vaguely Artistic.

Mike Bresnahan is reporting that the Lakers have dumped back-up Center Chris Mihm on the Grizzlies to save some luxury tax dollars:

The Lakers took another bite out of their bench, sending Chris Mihm to the Memphis Grizzlies for a very conditional second-round draft pick in 2013, a move that saves the team another $2.5 million in luxury taxes.

Lakers Coach Phil Jackson said he hoped Mihm could find more minutes in Memphis and alluded to the need to decrease in-house tax ramifications.

I always liked Mihm. Like Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones, he one of those rare Lakers who played their best on teams that were going nowhere. Those guys always have a warm spot in my heart.

It is a sign of the times that Mihm was dispatched to save $2.5 million in luxury tax dollars. He certainly didn't help matter by getting punchy with DJ Mbenga in practice. Mbenga gives the Lakers similar productivity for about a third the money. If one of them had to go, then it was not going to be Mbenga.

Back to the Future

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:26:00 +0000

Rose & Lasorda 1985, originally uploaded by hunter...

It is amazing what a couple small changes make.

Brandon Isleib of Hardball Times has applied the modern divisional alignment and unbalanced schedule to estimate play-off teams for the 1982-93 seasons (h/t 3DoC). The results are pretty interesting in that I would have rather seen these seasons than the actual ones:

The Dodgers acquire three additional NL West titles during the Tommy Lasorda era in '82, '90 and '91.
The '82 Dodgers were the last to feature my boyhood hero, Steve Garvey, and the first to feature face of the Dodgers in the '80s, Steve Sax. In other words, it was a bridge between two eras. That season would have been the middle year of three straight Division Titles, while swapping one generation of players for the next.
In contrast, the '90 Dodgers were a mess. The second best hitter on that team was the fragile Kal Daniels. A broken down Kirk Gibson was patrolling Center Field. However, a young Ramon Martinez managed to win 2o games with Mike Scioscia behind the plate. That would have been just enough to narrowly edge a Giants team that had gone to the World Series a year earlier.
The '91 Dodgers were the first to feature Darryl Strawberry. It was the last season before his addictions started to take its toll on Straw. The rotation was awesome with Ramon, Tim Belcher, Mike Morgan and the Bulldog. The first round would have matched the Dodgers with the first of the great Atlanta Braves teams.
The other N.L. play-off bracket would have been a good vs. evil contest pitting Tony Gwynn and the Padres against Barry Bonds and the Pirates.

Welcome O-Dawg

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:49:00 +0000

Orlando Hudson Adrian Gonzalez, originally uploaded by SD Dirk.

Apparently, Orlando Hudson is now a Dodger :

Reporting from Phoenix -- Orlando Hudson, a three-time Gold Glove second baseman, has agreed to terms with the Dodgers on a one-year contract, according to baseball sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deal is pending a physical.

Dodgers General Manager Ned Colletti declined to confirm or deny that an agreement had been reached. Hudson's agent, Greg Genske, didn't return a phone message.

If Uncle Ned has actually pulled this off, then it is actually a pretty good move. Hudson may no longer be a Gold Glover, but he is a huge upgrade over Jeff Kent. According to UZR, Hudson cost the D'Backs 6.2 runs with his glove in '08, while Kent cost the Dodgers 12.9 runs. That is a swing of over a game. '08 was easily the career worst for Hudson, who saved 18.7 per season on his career. That is a potential swing of six games on defense.

Oh, and he is an upgrade on the offensive end as well. Hudson produced a .305/.367/.450, when compared to Kent and his .280/.327/.418. This is a clear upgrade over what the Dodgers were getting at that position last season.

The problem is that this move blocks Blake DeWitt. DeWitt was slotted for Second Base because the Dodgers decided to move him off Third to allow them to keep The Human Statue. That returns us to the central concern: what exactly is the plan here?

If the Dodgers want to win by being good defensive team, then why did they let their two of their top three pitchers leave and replace them with a single journeyman?

Conversely, if the Dodgers want to win by scoring a bunch of runs, then why is the best Right-Handed bat of his Generation still waiting around?

If the Dodgers want to build around youth, then why block one of their better young guys in favor of a 35-year-old with a career OPS+ of 105?

Conversely, if the Dodgers want to be Steinbrenner-esque team of proven veterans, then why were they not bidding on every pitcher in the market?

Update 1:

The S.O.S.G. think this might be a move designed to provide a fig leaf to cover Manny's exit.

Update 2:

Kensai at F.N.C. breaks down the math on the O-Dog vs. DeWitt and it almost makes me hope the S.O.S.G. guys are right.

Update 3:

Keith Law sketches out the concerns regarding losing a draft pick for Hudson.

The Problem with the Conservative Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:38:00 +0000

Kenmore movie theater, Flatbush, Brooklyn, originally uploaded by Betty Blade.

The National Review recently published a list that of what it dubs the "25 Best Conservative Movies" (ht- Hilzoy). If want to know why the GOP is in the political wilderness, then you would be hard-pressed to find a better primer. You see, in several cases the films selected hold viewpoints that strongly oppose one another and each point of view is described as being a strong contrast with Liberalism. For a movement that makes frequent claims to being based upon unchanging verities, there seems to be scant consensus as to what those might be.

Consider:

2. The Incredibles (2004): ... A family of superheroes — Mr. Incredible, his wife Elastigirl, and their children — are living an anonymous life in the suburbs, thanks to a society that doesn’t appreciate their unique talents. Then it comes to need them. In one scene, son Dash, a super-speedy runner, wants to try out for track. Mom claims it wouldn’t be fair. “Dad says our powers make us special!” Dash objects. “Everyone is special,” Mom demurs, to which Dash mutters, “Which means nobody is.”

Compared to:

20. Gattaca (1997): In this science-fiction drama, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) can’t become an astronaut because he’s genetically unenhanced. So he purchases the identity of a disabled athlete (Jude Law), with calamitous results. The movie is a cautionary tale about the progressive fantasy of a eugenically correct world ...

In "Gattaca", the disabled athlete became that way after attempting suicide driven (in large part) by the guilt caused by doing what Dash proposes to do in "The Incredibles". In fact, the entire point of "Gattaca" is that privileges derived from birth are corrosive to society. "The Incredibles" argues that society should not get in the way of people with innate gifts. There is some truth in both positions, but that is not the point being made by the folks at NRO.

The list is full of equally bizarre pairings. There is a film that celebrates the traditions of the educated elite in "Metropolitan" and a film that mocks the actual ideas of those same people in "Forest Gump". There is a film that argues that invasion of privacy to deter terrorism is regrettable, but essential in "The Dark Knight". There is also a film that argues that invasion of privacy to deter terrorism is tantamount to fascism in "Brazil".

The only "value" that is consistent throughout is the embrace of war and the firm rejection of the perspective of "the enemy". This sadly consistent with recent statements by Rush Limbaugh that he would rather see our economy in ruins than Barack Obama proved right.

Adam Dunn to the Nationals

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:40:00 +0000

Adam Dunn swings, originally uploaded by Chris Creamer.

Damn. Buster Olney is reporting that my preferred solution in Left Field is headed to our Nation's Capital:

The deal is worth $20 million, ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney is reporting. It could be announced as early as Thursday, according to multiple reports.
Dunn, 29, hit .236 with 40 home runs and 100 RBIs with the Arizona Diamondbacks and Cincinnati Reds last season.

All things being equal, it would be great to have Manny. That said, his contract demands are brutal when compared to other power-hitting corner outfielders. While it is clear that a motivated Manny Ramirez is better than Adam Dunn, he is also eight years older and wants five times as much money. That seems excessive when you compare them head-to-head.

Dunn in 2008 hit .236/.386/.513 for an OPS+ of 129.
Manny in 2008 hit .332/.430/.601 for an OPS+ of 164.

Manny might well be twice as valuable as Dunn is, but he certainly is not five times as valuable. Suddenly, the opening offer of two-years at $45 million seems pretty reasonable.

Tommy isn't a big fan of the science

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:48:00 +0000

Hardly a shock, but anything Tommy Lasorda makes me laugh.

Lakers dump Radmanovic

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:42:00 +0000

DSC00920.JPG, originally uploaded by Bridget Samuels.

A few months ago, I was staying what was apparently the Laker team hotel in New Orleans. The lobby was crawling with Laker players and coaches. I happened to sit down at lunch at a table next to Lamar Odom, Luke Walton, Jordan Farmar and Vladimir Radmanovic. The conversation was remarkably dense basketball speak. It seemed that Odom and Walton were trying to instruct Farmar on the principles of the Triangle Offense. Meanwhile, Radmanovic seemed to be wearing his headphones.

That is about as good a summary of the Vlad Radmanovic era with the Lakers as any. His head just never seemed to be in the game. The guy was as lights-out a shooter as you could imagine, but he just seemed to drift around until someone passed him the ball. The offense flowed noticeably more poorly when he was on the floor and his defense was scarcely his calling card. He was also the worst Laker when paired with Kobe Bryant.

That said, Radmanovic is assuredly a better player than the guy for whom he was traded. He is +91 on the season, which contrasts favorably with Adam Morrison who is a -88 by the same metric. So, why are the Lakers trading a for an inferior player? Here is my reasoning:

As FB+G points out, there is a clear financial reason. Saving $13 million in luxury tax is not a trivial thing.
It also clears up the rotations at the 3. Walton starts and stabilizes the offense with his passing. Trevor Ariza is the defensive ace, forcing turn-overs and pushing the pace. When the Lakers need shooting, Kobe moves to Small Forward and Sasha Vujacic plays in the back court.
Morrison is an expiring contract in '09 when half the NBA is looking to clear cap space. It is hard to say what that might be worth in trade a year from now.
Finally, Morrison is a better fit for the Lakers with Andrew Bynum injured. With Bynum out, Pau Gasol is the starting center and Odom returns to the starting line-up at Power Forward. Bynum, Odom and Gasol have split all but 31 minutes at those two positions for the Lakers this season. To keep Gasol and Odom fresh for the play-offs, someone needs to absorb a big percentage of Bynum's 29 minutes per game for the next eight weeks. Radmanovic was horrible at the 4 with a -10.5 net points per 48 minutes (or -6.3 per 29 minutes) at the position, while that is where Morrison has played best with only a -5.5 by the same metric (or -3.3 per 29 minutes).

Simply put, Morrison is both cheaper and better at doing what the Lakers currently need than Radmanovic. This appears to be an extremely shrewd deal by Mitch.

A Fraud

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:26:00 +0000

A Fraud, originally uploaded by SoxyLady.

This does it.

Alex Rodriguez is officially the most disappointing baseball player of his generation and maybe ever. A-Rod started his career in a nearly ideal situation. The '95 Mariners were the first division winner in team history. Seattle is an above average pro sports town. A good team in a good town with a blank slate is about the best possible spot to forge a Hall of Fame career. If he had put up 3,000+ hits and 500+ HRs in Mariners uniform, then he would have been the face of that franchise decades after he retired. The team was good enough during his tenure that a few deep runs in the post-season were nearly assured. Guys like Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken and Mike Schmidt occupy a uniquely beloved place in the hearts of baseball fans, because there isn't any debate about what cap they should wear in the Hall-of-Fame.

However, A-Rod did not want that.

At first, it seemed like A-Rod would do what Barry Bonds did and play for the team he rooted for as a boy. Had that happened, it is very likely that A-Rod would have acquired the same "hometown hero" status that Bonds enjoys in the bay area. Every fan base in baseball might have hated A-Rod, but they would have cheered him in Queens. It would not have been a bad outcome and it seemed inevitable until his contract demands turned off the Mets. At that point, A-Rod a major mistake and accepted a monster contract from the Texas Rangers.

It is hard to judge A-Rod too harshly for that error. I think that most people would have a very hard time turning down a quarter of a billion dollars in exchange for doing something didn't really hurt anything other than your reputation. That said, A-Rod would forever be tainted by signing that deal. It was not just the money, since no one ever talks about all the dollars Manny Ramirez took from Boston that same year. Rather, it was that the '00 Rangers were a bad, aging team that had little hope of immediate improvement. There is no way to look at that deal and no believe that A-Rod went to Dallas exclusively for the money. After that decision, Alex Rodriguez would never be a beloved figure. The best he could hope for is respected.

Well, that and absurdly rich.

The next decision that A-Rod made pushed respect a lot further away, since being traded to the '04 Yankees placed him on a dynasty in its decline phase. No matter what the individual merits of a player, it is really hard to respect guys that turn up during the decline phase. I think less of Gary Payton and Karl Malone for their time with the Lakers. No one speaks of Barry Switzer nearly as fondly as they do Jimmy Johnson. It stinks to be the high-profile new guy on a team that just stopped being great. That trade moved the upside for A-Rod from "respected" to "under-rated". Maybe he could have expected a Hank Aaron type finale in which the gaudy career statistics finally force everyone to admit that he was a great player after all.

The steroids taint removes that faint hope.

Dodgers looking to add a below average pitcher

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:42:00 +0000

Handing over the ball, originally uploaded by C.Fredrickson Photography.

I am sorry that this blog is rapidly moving in a "Dodgers only" direction, but the moves the Azul are making are really ... interesting. This week, the Dodger blogosphere is lightly buzzing that Snakeskin Boots is looking to acquire one of three below average starters to replace the departed Derek Lowe and Brad Penny:

The Los Angeles Dodgers have intensified conversations with the agents for free-agent starters Randy Wolf, Jon Garland and Braden Looper, with the hope of signing one of them in the next few days, according to sources who have spoken with members of their front office.

Fire Ned Colletti did an excellent analysis of the distinctions Randy Wolf, Jon Garland and Braden Looper. Each is likely a back of the rotation starter. I can buy the argument that someone like Randy Wolf could give the Dodgers more than Penny did last season. However, the 2008 season was by far the worst campaign by Penny in the last five seasons. Wolf is also looking for a lot more money than the one-year, $7.2 million (subtracting his buy-out) that Penny was owed. Wolf (or Garland, or Looper) might be an upgrade over the '08 edition of Penny, but they are likely to be more expensive as well.

I am not arguing the decision to let Penny go. That move was pretty clearly made for off-the-field reasons. What I am questioning why the Dodgers are shoring up the back end of their rotation with a huge hole is at the front. The entire free agent market is deeply unsettled and there are better pitchers available. According to Buster Olney, some might be genuine bargains:

Think about that: In 2008, Sheets made 31 starts, threw 198 1/3 innings, posted an ERA of 3.09 while pitching in Milwaukee's bandbox, held opposing hitters to a .390 slugging percentage, started for the National League in the All-Star Game, struck out 158 while walking just 47 -- and in an industry that provided a $48 million deal for an innings-eater like Silva just 13 months ago, Sheets might be looking at a deal for less than half of that.
There will be days of regret for some teams in 2009, borne out of the low-cost winter market -- days when club executives will look back at the low-dollar deals being made now and wonder: Why didn't we do that? There will be teams that will be trading prospects for starting pitchers to fill holes in their rotations.

The Texas Rangers are considering a two-year, $16 million deal for Ben Sheets, who posted an ERA+ of 139 last season and a career mark of 116. He is injury prone, but has posted more innings than Randy Wolf in each of the last three seasons. Wolf had an ERA+ of 93 last season and a nearly perfectly average career mark of 101. By any measure, Sheets is a better starter and yet they are asking for pretty similar dollars per year. It is perplexing that the Dodgers are not in the Ben Sheets market, but are taking a hard look at Wolf.

Oliver Perez was my preferred option, since he has some upside left. However, teams are not signing Type A free agents from other teams, so the odds are that Perez winds up back with the Mets. Of the remaining guys, it looks like Garland is the best. It is just weird to see the Dodgers pinching pennies in an off-season that has seen them shave $40 million in payroll with real bargains available.

If you don't think that I am geeked about this...

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:04:00 +0000

Guess Who Filed for Arbitration?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:39:00 +0000

Jason Repko, originally uploaded by fitect.

So far, this Dodger off-season has been all about watching useful players like Derek Lowe depart while Frank, Jamie and Crazy Uncle Ned try to scrounge up enough loose change to bring back Manny Ramirez. The whole thing has become depressing.

Well, today we got some comic relief:

Jonathan Broxton, Andre Ethier, Russell Martin and Jason Repko of the Dodgers filed, as did Maicer Izturis, Mike Napoli, Darren Oliver, Robb Quinlan and Ervin Santana of the Angels.

For faithful readers who do not know the arbitration process, the team and the player's agent each pick a one-year salary number that they believe is fair. Then, they have a little trial before an arbitrator, who picks one of the two numbers based on what they consider to be fair market value for the player. Well, how on Earth are they going to value Jason Repko?

Based upon the market value of his Wins Created, Repko should have paid the Dodgers for the chance to play in two of his three healthy big league seasons. That would include last season, when he would have owed the Dodgers $200k. On the other hand, Repko generated a line of .167/.250/.222 for an OPS+ of 26. He is better than adequate defensively at all three outfield spots and has never made a trade demand. That compares to Andruw Jones line of .158/.256/.249 for an OPS+ of 34. Mr. Jones left his Gold Glove in Atlanta and finally earned his release today. All this earned him $14.7 million. Repko could argue that he gave the Dodgers 76% of Jones productivity, so he is worth $11.2 million.

The arbitration process is one of the most absurd in the entire sports business. Teams are required to tell a third-party how crappy they think one of their own players is. It really deserves the Dodgers to walk in and ask for a refund, while Repko asks for $11 million. Remember, the arbitrator has to pick one of the two numbers submitted.

Wow... That is one "Dark Knight"

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Hacker) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:00:00 +0000

dark_knight_ver7, originally uploaded by iamJas.

Ok. This is extremely late, but I am ready to review "The Dark Knight" in time for its DVD release. It took me two viewings and a few months to really process it, which is the sign of great movie.

Faithful readers are familiar with my basic theory of comic-to-film adaptations, however it is probably helpful to re-state. Good superhero comics (in contrast with graphic novels) are about one and only one thing. Well done film adaptations are able identify that one thing, keep the parts that are useful in telling that type of story and not worry to much about the rest. For example, Superman is about love in the Freudian sense. It is the same terrain explored by Alfred Hitchcock in films like "Vertigo". The difference is style and tone.

Batman is about grief. His origin and fondness for black clothing are kind of big clues in that regard. Grant Morrison compared him to Christ harrowing Hell. If that is true, then it is only in the sense that his Rouges Gallery function as outer mirrors his inner grief. The best Batman villains can be plotted into the Kubler-Ross model. Mr. Freeze is pretty obviously denial, but so is Ra's al Gaul with his Lazarus Pit. The Riddler is pretty obviously bargaining, while The Penguin was depression personified in "Batman Returns" at least. Poison Ivy derives from the anger of a spurned lover. Catwoman seems to speak to acceptance to the extent that she enjoys her nature. All of them are 'stuck' in a stage that reflects the inner conflicts of Bruce Wayne.

Well, The Joker is the exception, because he is the thing itself. Within the Batman Universe, the Joker is the Angel of Death. He is literally capable killing anyone at anytime for any reason. It is perfectly random and, therefore, terrifying. A story about Batman encountering the Joker is about a man consumed by grief confronting death.

When Tim Burton was doing Batman movies, he borrowed heavily from the Universal Horror Films that dealt with similar themes. Batman and his antagonists were depicted as monsters living outside of society. The violence was highly stylized and confrontations are more than a little talky. Chris Nolan is referencing a very different tradition: the Crime Thriller of the 1970s. While those films were equal to the Universal Horror Cycle in terms of moral ambiguity, they were also much less stylized and vastly bloodier. It takes nerve to borrow riffs from '70s Crime Drama in the service of a super-hero movie, since several of those film sit on the top shelf of American cinema. It requires that the audience take Batman, the Joker and (ultimately) Two-Face as seriously they once did the Mafia.

In theory, this should work provided Nolan keeps the core of the Batman character intact. You should be able to make a good Batman (or Superman, or Spider-Man, or whomever) film using any genre that you like provided that very simple kernel remains intact. Standing Burton's "Batman" next to Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is about the best proof that I have seen of this theory. Both films work extremely well on their own terms.

Nolan has made a great crime thriller with lots of twists and turns. Properly using the mechanics of a thriller, The Joker is the McGuffin that our protagonist is chasing after. The audience is so focused on the legitimately frightening variation on the Joker created by the late Heath Ledger created that we believe Bruce Wayne and James Gordon are missing essential things in the world around him. This, in turn, sets a third act plot twist that is too good to spoil for folks that aren't familiar with the comics.

Nolan delivered a wickedly entertaining thriller that uses the core concept from the comics to add depth and weight. That may very well be a first. The result is one of the bleakest mainstream films that I can remember seeing, but also one of the best.