With this online art community, we have a unique opportunity to connect with our kindred. We must avail ourselves of this experience, for it may never come again.

All righty, then...

I don't see a lotta movies in a given year, at least not in the theaters. I tend to yearn for the event films, the ones that remind me of the best cinematic spectacles of my youth. And so, I prefer to wait for the big escapist fare. But I also find that I'm a "tough crowd," and a skepti-cynic. I'm jaded by the endless parade of digitally-overdependent McMovies that are hopelessly deficient in the story department. I'm not one to switch my brain off for the sake of entertainment. I can't see myself shuffling through a long queue of theater-goers, leaving my name-labeled brain in a communal water tank outside so I can cheer, clap, and salivate at the screen images like a George Luca$ ZombieGeek.

Not me, pal. As pricey as the experience has become, they gotta come strong to get my love. Tighten up that storyline, nail down those performances, polish up those special effects, and make that music SING! LOL! And never, ever pander. Only then might we have a classic on our hands.... maybe.

So! First up, without any spoilers...

- SPEED RACER

Well... Adapting cartoons is just as tricky as anything else, really. But added to this is finding a point for adapting it in the first place. Why make a live-action film out of an animated property??? Animation inherently has the advantage over live-action, allowing a storyteller to do things with characters and situations that real people can never do. Additionally, audiences are more receptive to suspending their disbelief with animation, and there's an innate charm in this connection. Nevertheless, the dubious trend to translate cartoons to live-action continues (The Flintstones. Sccoby-Doo. UnderDog. ...UnderDog???!!!)

The challenge for the filmmaker is whether to properly filter the animated property, taking full advantage of whatever the live-action format affords, or to remain slavishly faithful. So far, in my opinion, being slavishly faithful has yielded very mixed results. Robin Williams as POPEYE was an ambitious failure that chiefly succeeded in re-asking the question-- Why?
But you run the risk of alienating the target audience, kids, as well as the built-in audience, the loyal fanbase, if you deviate too much from the familiar material. Darned if ya do, and darned if ya don't.

Personally, I think it's a pointless exercise, other than pure commercialism. True, a filmmaker may be a fan, too, and the cartoon translation may be a love letter to a fond childhood friend. The cross-pollination of the various formats certainly makes for an interesting footnote in the annals of pop culture history.

I'll just say that SPEED RACER is a fine flick for younger kids with A.D.D., saturated with candy-colors and zippy action that adheres to a physical logic all its own. And the nostalgia buffs that dearly loved the old cartoon show will find something here to embrace as well, just as the Wachowski Brothers apparently did.
Go, Speed Racer, go.

Next...

- IRON MAN

BIG hype for this one.
Meh.

It was okay. I give it a mild "thumbs up," mainly on the strength of Downey's performance, which was as exceptional as expected. But there weren't really any overwhelming "geek-out" goosebump moments for me. I wasn't injured or insulted by it. But I also didn't feel as if I could fly out of the theater, as I have with other films of this superhero genre.

A single screening, and wait for DVD. But, of course, your mileage may vary.

***ADDENDUM***

SEMI-SPOILER! Only close one eye. LOL!

-- Umm... I WILL say that I find it a bit irksome that a cliché has developed with these big-budget superhero-fests from Hollywood. Invariably, the derring do-gooder has some climactic scene whereby his mask/cowl/helmet is ripped off, shredded, or jettisoned, revealing his "secret" identity, if only to the ill-fated baddie, the loyal buddy, or the fawning lovey. It's now a habitual convention.

Do you think this is the filmmaker's way of upping the tension, having our hero exposed and vulnerable? A cool story point?

Or is it merely a clever device that sacrifices the mystique of the super-dude, but extends the illusion that the over-priced actor is indeed inside the costume? Obviously, we don't buy for an instant that this is always true, with the utilization of stuntmen, body doubles, and still-flimsy digital trickery. But is this an effort to justify a bloated salary with more face-time? I can see how this may be necessitated with characters that have their mugs totally obscured, like Spidey and Iron Man. And an actor acts best with his/her peepers properly peeled. But even Batman and Zorro have done this.

Thoughts?

- To Be Continued...

With this online art community, we have a unique opportunity to connect with our kindred. We must avail ourselves of this experience, for it may never come again.

Recently, with my own episode, and now with that of my good friend, BroHawk, the issue of art plagiarism and our reaction to it here on DA has come to the fore. Of particular note are the comments of those individuals who venture beyond initial skepticism to either express their apathy, or their misplaced sympathy for the offenders. They decry the venomous wrath of the offended parties, and the "harshness" with which the guilty are dealt with by both the victimized artists, and their loyal supporters. Yes, I said "guilty."

Okay. Here's my "two cents" worth of opinion, and bear in mind, with today's US economy, it ain't worth much. LOL!

EVERYone who joins this site is made well aware of the rules and legalities, and is given full opportunity to decline membership. Deviant Art, its dubious name notwithstanding, offers an online community for creative individuals and their appreciators, as well as a venue for creative works, original, and otherwise credited.

Now, the PURPOSE of posting creative works in this public venue, logically, is to showcase one's abilities, take advantage of possible business opportunities, and garner public opinion. The positives of that public opinion may arrive in the form of constructive criticism and advice on improvement, as well as in appreciative kudos (all too often, not too eloquently expressed. LOL!). As artists, most of us have egos that have become inflated due to our ability to do what few others on the planet can. With the proper balance and perspective, this is normal, acceptable, and conducive to development. Some of us need our egos stroked a little more than the rest of us. However, not all are as talented or skillful as others, and an unfair and unethical "boost" is sought to still attain that coveted attention, validation, and praise, even though it may be undeserved. It becomes a prize yearned for at any cost, including the despicable appropriation of another artist's identity through his/her original* work, or the equivalent thereof.

*It should be noted that "original" work does not necessarily exclude representation of a copyrighted property, per se. Work based on established material is still deemed original intrinsically when it is that artist's individual interpretation of the material.

Some here on DA may have ideas which they cannot effectively express, given their level of ability. And yet, to acquire that oh-so-desirable positive feedback, they stoop to plagiarism, sometimes through very elaborate means, enough to fool all but the most discerning eye. Perhaps they've compromised some part of themselves and their character just for a digital "pat on the back."

"Awesome, dude!"
"Sweet designs, Johnny! You're the coolest!"
"Wow! I wish I could draw good like you draw so good! So jealous! High FIVE! Keep it up!"

And here things take a turn for the worse once the plagiarist compounds the error, taking bows, and crediting no one but him or herself.

"Thanks a lot, man! Yeah, I'm pretty proud of how this one turned out. I worked hard on it, and I'm so glad you guys are diggin' it, too!"

Praise. Accolades. A heady drink.
But with all positives, you also invite the negatives, especially in a PUBLIC forum. One cannot POST online here and logically expect otherwise. It's a different matter to swipe another artist's work for private edification. Posting HERE means you're presenting the work as your OWN, unless otherwise indicated. It means you're putting yourself OUT THERE, in whatever guise you assume. Therefore, as public as your adulation may be, so should your disgrace be also.

It's a matter of respect for all those who truly deserve to be here, and those who work so hard to put part of themselves into their form of creative expression. Influences and inspiration are different considerations entirely. Please don't get it confused. Identity theft is identity theft. It means mayhem regardless of the method or medium. And the impostor who beguiles a crowd should be justifiably vilified by that crowd once the mask is made to slip. A private note to preserve their "dignity" is not required or warranted at this point, and is purely subject to the discretion of the offended party. Furthermore, there remains the overall benefit of a public example, beyond the personal vindication. All should be made to know that this behavior is simply not tolerable. No matter how rampant the transgression, turning a blind eye, or dismissing it as flattery fails to address the problem. Vigilance must remain constant, and retribution must remain consistent, and swift. To neglect this is to allow our community to become needlessly polluted, corrupted.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is that good men do nothing."

Honest mistakes do occur. In my case, an instance like this came to light, and it was my personal choice to offer pardon.
Nevertheless, it stands to reason that ANYone posting art here publicly of ANY sort should be cognizant of the posted rules, be possessed of a broader sense of ethics and responsibility, and be considerate of their fellow creatives.

Otherwise, like the Good Book says, they must be prepared to "receive unto themselves the full recompense for their error."

Love and Respect to ALL.

I'm done.

With this online art community, we have a unique opportunity to connect with our kindred. We must avail ourselves of this experience, for it may never come again.

*** This is an update to the previous journal entry describing an unfortunate recent event. I have been contacted by Mr. Rawlins, and we have resolved the issue of The Iron Giant. For any and all who are interested, the exchange went as follows:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Rawlins:

May I just say how typical it is of people to hang someone before they've had a chance to explain themselves and it's usually the people it has nothing to do with. Jerome sent me a note explaining his issues in a calm and amicable manner. Then the losers who have nothing to do with it and just like to rant (Empty vessels make the most noise!) act like a pack of wolves and tear you to shreds before you can even explain.

I hope the matter between myself and Jerome has been resolved. This was a simple oversight on my part and I shall be more careful where I source images from in the future.

Below is the message I sent to Jerome.

Hi - Wow, looks like I've really upset you and a lot of others.
I really am so very sorry.

I have honestly never seen your image in all my life until today.

I found an image on google image search at the time of doing this. It was just the giant no background and he had been rendered to look more like bender from Futurama.

It appears that someone had already stolen your work and used it on their own fansite. I took that image and traced the basic shape in corel draw and then added the form and textures in Photoshop. I always credit any images used from DA and any that have given inspiration.

The reason so many of my works don't have credits is that a lot of the images come from google etc... and my own photographs.

I'm sorry if this has caused you any bother. The image has been removed and I'll be more careful in future but like I said before I have honestly never seen your image untill today. If I had I would only have been to pleased to credit you.

I only post images here for a bit of fun not to make a living. I only made the Iron Man available as a print at the request of another member and it has only made that one sale.

I hope you can overlook this oversight on my part.

Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Moore:

I accept your explanation, and I accept your apology. It apparently was an unfortunate misunderstanding, and I regret the dust-up. Obviously, you can understand where I was coming from, all things considered. I cannot say that my response lacked justification. However, I do apologize for losing my temper, and I apologize on behalf of others who vented their empathetic frustration in your direction. I love them all.

But my bristling, and the protective counter-attack of my friends is only symptomatic of frustration brought on by a most unfortunate reality here on the site, and elsewhere throughout the web: an all-pervasive insidiousness, and cowardly insincerity. Our own identities are the most important things we each possess, and they must not be compromised, ever. When we all stand together to expose and combat such travesty, we celebrate our own individuality, so precious and dear.

You say it was an oversight. Good enough.

I consider the matter closed. You are MR. Rawlins, not Chris, today. I condemned you publicly, and so I shall publicly exonerate you.

You have paid respect, and it now returns to you.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to all who rallied to my side in this matter. It's in times of adversity that you discover who is really in your corner after all. It's a humbling thing. Thank you.
A happy ending this time.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Peace.
JKM

With this online art community, we have a unique opportunity to connect with our kindred. We must avail ourselves of this experience, for it may never come again.

Today I discovered someone on the site who has RIPPED OFF an image of mine featuring THE IRON GIANT. I'm aware that this sort of thing happens all the time. The world is rife with people of disreputable character, and this site is no exception. It's a real shame when our creative community is infected by this brand of parasite.

This is the image in question, which I created as a professional assignment for Warner Bros:
[link]

And here is what the PLAGIARIST did with it:
[link]

I was not credited, nor was Warner Bros. And this person has made the swiped image available for print. This is illegal, and I am reporting it to site administration, and to Warner Bros legal department.
The offending party is CHRIS RAWLINS, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has done this sort of thing before with other artists. Be advised.

I hope this will serve as a lesson to any others who so blatantly demonstrate their gall, and stupidity.

With this online art community, we have a unique opportunity to connect with our kindred. We must avail ourselves of this experience, for it may never come again.

All righty, then...
The news is out, and here's my latest rant, culled from another comment exchange I shared with the one, the only, the aMAZing Spiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiderrrrrr-Guiiiiiiile!!! *That was in the voice of Bruce Campbell, from the first Spider-Man movie.*

It has to do with the new Captain America. But of course, with me there's always spillover, and nothing is safe. Commenceth el Rant-eth!!!

**********************************************************************************

Bucky Barnes with a gat, no less.
I wonder how long it will be before Joke Quesada has to reverse this misstep, and resurrect Steve Rogers. Or perhaps somebody else will.

And this brand of identity swap isn't even original, recalling how Wally West assumed the Flash mantle after the demise of Barry Allen.

Obviously, it's all in an effort to keep things fresh, reinventing old characters for new readerships.
However, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Bucky Barnes. Feh.

I'm not a big fan of transforming iconic characters into legacies. Each individual's purpose in donning that particular superhero costume is specifically personal, borne from uniquely personal experience and motivation. I think it's perverse to have someone else become Batman, never having suffered the same ordeal Bruce Wayne did. Bruce Wayne IS Batman. For someone else, someone new, to carry on in his guise after him is disgusting. There can only be ONE.
Yes, I hated Batman Beyond, but more for how it drastically over-stretched the premise. That was a pure sellout by Bruce Timm.

Having said this, I do believe there are some characters that are constructed to feasibly be legacies. Green Lantern actually starts out as one, becoming a member of an already vast, intergalactic community. Still, nobody should specifically supplant Hal Jordan. Reinvent the character completely. There's room for it here, even though, again, every attempt DC has made has sucked Oan weenie. LOL!

Additionally, Iron Man can still work as a generational character, since the armor continues to evolve, is impersonal, and Tony Stark lacked the personal impetus that Bruce Wayne, Bruce Banner, Clark Kent, Peter Parker, and others gained their identity from.

If you revamp Captain America, have the balls to completely redesign him. It's obscene for "Bucky" to don the same uniform in some psycho-pathetic tribute. Carry on by boldly taking up the fight, assuming your own brave new visage and image, instead of masquerading as someone else and appropriating his credibility, esteem, and authoritative intimidation. Bucky hasn't earned ANY of this. Adapt his ideals, not his identity. But typically, they'll use this opportunity to unveil a darker, grimmer, grittier Captain America, and blame it on the state of the world. An amateurish cop out. Like Superman, Captain America is supposed to be an incorruptible symbol, bringing light to darkness, shining like an optimistically "white-bread" beacon through any adversity. Wonder Woman also works best this way. That's their effective dynamic.

It's okay to preserve the sentimentality of Cap's famous shield, installing it as a "sacred talisman," to be solemnly passed on to successors. But the Super Soldier serum was originally supposed to be a one-time only godmaker. Any writers who could not work stories within this stricture, simply weren't being creative enough. In fact, this restriction opens more dramatically interesting possibilities, instilling a more compelling vulnerability.

I may post this rant in my Journal. LOL!
Let everybody take a whack at me.