Skip to main content

interview with palmiotti and ennis re: punisher

MAXIM ONLINE: Pure Punishment
What’s the best kind of editor to work with?

ENNIS: The ones who aren’t company men. The smart ones have a sort of attitude where they say this place has its good points and bad points, and if you come with me, I’ll keep the idiots off your back. Then there are people who get idealistic and romantic about this stuff, but at the end of the day, they’re using these characters to sell donuts and coffee and burgers and other such shit. So when they’re talking about protecting modern American icons, you do have to look askance at that.
I went into Dunkin Donuts to get my 710-milliliter-more-than-a-fucking-pint of coffee — whoever came up with that is a fucking genius — and I saw a life-size cutout of Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry shilling something called Wolverine’s Redberry Rampage. And I think, There’s my modern American icons being treated with the respect they deserve. [laughs]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tony diTerlizzi and classic D&D monsters

The sixth entry of his series on drawings of classic D&D monsters is up. He's one of my favorite fantasy artists. His work tends toward the charming and cozy, rather than others' focus on machismo or melodrama.
Post a Comment
Read more

sad fate

“Our legendary personalities are evergreen ‘brands’ with the benefit of worldwide recognition,” reads a message on the Richman agency’s website. Guardian UK Article *vomits* Where is the line drawn between “public figure” and “celebrity”? How can a dead person have an agent, particulary where there are no specific works concerned other than a sense of character? It’s one thing to insist that Duck Soup is a work that should be protected (which any more simply means controlled by whomever has the most buX0rs), but shouldn’t personalities and such pass into the public domain as well? ( boingboing : Bill Gates 0wns Einstein, Groucho , Freud, Asimov, Fuller, et al )
Post a Comment
Read more

on sheeps and androids

The movie Blade Runner is very dear to my heart. It is a treatise on the nature of existence expanding on, and perhaps exceeding the reach of the Phillip K. Dick work which inspired it, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Perhaps I have missed out on some greater subtlety of PKD's work, but the point of DADoES pursues the definition of fake, while Blade Runner instead focuses on what is real. Where the replicants in the novel are sociopathic monsters who emulate emotions solely to gain traction against humans who may hunt them, the humans there rely on machines to dictate their own emotions for them. They dial for "energetic determination" or "six-hour self-accusatory depression." As much as the replicants are machines incapable of real emotion, humans are similarly reliant on a machine to simulate emotion for them. In contrast, the movie's central them is spelled out for us in Deckard's apartment, when Rachel is playing the piano. She professe...
Post a Comment
Read more