• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

JMS in Playboy

GKarsEye

Regular
No, he's not the centerfold.

The latest issue of Playboy has an article about how comic books have become mainstream and part of adult entertainment. JMS is quoted a few times. They mention his writing for some comics I never heard of and he talks about how rewarding it was to have his first comic appear on the shelves. He also shares his opinion about the 1989 Batman movie, saying that he thinks Burton really wanted to make a movie about The Joker, not Batman.
 
That's probably mostly because Jack is a great scene-stealer. :cool: And he was the only interesting part in the movie. :eek:
 
What issue number or month is the article in?

IIRC, his earliest comics were a Teen Titans book about Cyborg, a Twilight Zone issue and a Star Trek issue but I don't know which was actually his first.

Jan
 
No, he's not the centerfold.
Whew, thank heavens. I knew they were accepting just about anybody into that rag these days, but sheesh.

The latest issue of Playboy has an article about how comic books have become mainstream and part of adult entertainment. JMS is quoted a few times.
I may have to read it. JMS has written for Amazing Spider-Man and Fantastic Four, two of the oldest titles still in production. One of his Spider-Man storylines raised a few eyebrows among readers, and even garnered a letter-writing campaign (although one has to wonder just what the point of that would BE, exactly). He did an interview a month or two ago explaining why he did the storyline, and how, in the end, he really changed nothing about Spidey's history. He only used it to explore a little bit "outside the box."

JMS is also responsible for Spidey's new costume designed by Tony Stark (Iron Man). Again, eyebrows have been raised, but JMS has made it clear that the costume change isn't necessarily permanent.

I loved the 9/11 issue of Spider-Man. I've read most of the issues he's written, and I really enjoyed his Fantastic Four issues. They're all very JMS-like, in that he takes what we know and then shows us how it looks in a much bigger perspective.

He also shares his opinion about the 1989 Batman movie, saying that he thinks Burton really wanted to make a movie about The Joker, not Batman.
I can see how this would probably be true. Batman isn't the most interesting character in all of comicdom. He's dark, he's angry, he hides his pain, and this is why he literally can't stop doing what he does. There really isn't much more to understand about the guy.

The Joker, on the other hand, is a very dynamic, creative, and most of all unabashedly evil person. He's always been the bad guy who creates toxins to make people laugh themselves to death, or drives around in a car with a big clown face on it, but there are many more layers to his twisted psyche that writers are just now starting to explore.

It's the April issue, with the wrestling chick on the cover.
Who looks nothing in person like she does in this month's Playboy. Playboy's Photoshop minions do so much airbrushing these days, it's ridiculous. She's gorgeous in person, so I dunno why they feel the need to go overboard the way they do. Whatever happened to the old days, where you just used proper lighting? (That goes for a whole lot more than just Playboy these days too...)
 
I think Maxim (and its affiliated publications) is by far the worst culprit of airbrushing. Video game cut scene characters look more realistic than those pictures.
 
EVERYbody does it these days... Playboy, Maxim, People magazine, Cosmo, Men's Fitness, you name it, they do it.

I can understand cleaning up some shadows or lines here & there, but when you literally change the features of a person's face I just have to draw the line. This month's Playboy makes Candace Michelle look almost Japanese, and she's definitely not...
 
That's probably mostly because Jack is a great scene-stealer. :cool:
Jack is probably the king of scene-stealin ...... but we are also talking about Michael Keaton, who has been known to steal more than his share of scenes too.

And he was the only interesting part in the movie. :eek:
I really liked Keaton in that role. He played the combination of both sides of the Bruce Wayne / Batman dichotomy well. Not a lot of actors are as good at flipping back and forth between the amiability almost to the point of goofiness of Wayne's public personna and the rage almost to the point of psychosis that Batman can display.

He is also good at playing the sense of menacing stillness that Batman calls for. Batman has a lot of rage, but it is a very contained, even repressed rage.


The problem was twofold:

1) Batman was both a dark monochrome, and very still; while the Joke was both brightly colored and frenetically moving. Both the bright and the movement tend to draw the eyes of the viewer.

2) That menacing stillnes that I mentioned, to be as effective as possible, needs to be played mostly with the eyes. Keaton can (and has) done that. However, when he was in full Batman regalia the cowl (and matching dark makeup around the eyes) obscured the audiance's view of his eye to an extent. It was hard to actually see those subtleties through the headgear. Jack had prathetics on, but not around his eyes, and he had no need of remaining that subtle in that role.


And back when the first Burton/Keaton Batman film was out, the whole look of the film was also interesting. (At least it was in a theater; I don't think that you get quite the same effect watching it on most people's home video setups.) It was less interesting in later movies, when the look and art direction became kinda "old hat".
 
You know, I can't say Michael Keaton was bad in that movie. I guess I just am drawn toward that which is more flamboyant. :D

And thanks for the reminder:
And back when the first Burton/Keaton Batman film was out, the whole look of the film was also interesting. (At least it was in a theater; I don't think that you get quite the same effect watching it on most people's home video setups.) It was less interesting in later movies, when the look and art direction became kinda "old hat".

You know, I'd completely forgotten that the "look" of that film really was different. And it was subtly effective. It got to be a bit too comic-bookish for me later, though.

Compared to the later Batman films (yuck! :p) it wasn't a bad movie, at all.

Sorry, now I know I'm straying from the JMS in Playboy theme here. :eek:
 
I remember finding those pictures when I went google-image searching for claudia and I was stunned. She is HOT! I am all hetero woman here, but she could turn me. Oh yes she could.
 
Yeah but look at it this way, Claudia has already been there ;)

Well, there's no rule that says she can't be in there twice, is there? :)

Joe

Well, that depends on how she looks now. For example, back in "the day" Carrie Fisher looked somkin' hot in that little number she had on in RotJ. But I'd frankly rather gouge out my eyes then see Carrie in her metal bikini today! :D

Edited:

BTW, sorry for the mental picture :D
 
Well, that depends on how she looks now. For example, back in "the day" Carrie Fisher looked somkin' hot in that little number she had on in RotJ. But I'd frankly rather gouge out my eyes then see Carrie in her metal bikini today!
I don't know why, but I almost prefer the older, boozier, spaced-out Carrie Fisher. Did you see her on Celebrity Poker? I thought she was oing to fall out of her chair.
 
Did you see her on Celebrity Poker? I thought she was going to fall out of her chair.

You just figured she'd be easy if she were toasted, and then you'd be able to say that you'd nailed Princess Lea. But Celebrity Poker certainly has its moments. Some of the hottest TV on basic cable last year came during the final head-to-head competition between Marua (E.R.) Tierney and Lauren (Gilmore Girls) Graham. :)

Regards,

Joe
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top