diflucan 2 doses

Wait, What? Ep. 17.1: The “Superhero Movies and Hal Jordan Having Sex” podcast

Jeff Lester


Okay, so we tried for shorter–not that anyone explicitly told us to go short!–and this is the first of several installments that should be hitting your SavageCriticplex this week.  In this installment, Graeme and I talk about Netflix Watch Instantly, Iron Man 2, and the recent footage of Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern.

Oh yes, and that guy right up there.  We end up in a pretty strange place and I’d like to say that place is Sean Connery in a red diaper but it’s not.  No, no, Zardoz is discussed at the beginning; it gets much weirder by the end.

Wait, What? Ep. 17.1: The “Superhero Movies and Hal Jordan Having Sex” podcast

We hope you enjoy and thanks for listening!

20 Responses to “ Wait, What? Ep. 17.1: The “Superhero Movies and Hal Jordan Having Sex” podcast ”

  1. The Itunes version doesn’t seem to be there – it appears there, but won’t download or stream from the store.

    It doesn’t appear to be available on this site either!

    You teases!

  2. Aghhhh.

    Thank you so much for pointing that out, Ben. I screwed up what was pointing to what in a kinda stupid/subtle way.

    It should be fixed now…in both locations!

  3. First there was Zardoz then there came Supply Teacher Zardoz! Yup! I am all about the Zardoz. I believe Zardoz = Jack Kirby’s Imagination gone Pubic.

    I will endeavour even harder than usual to find the time to bathe my ears in your verbal glories. I thank you in advance for your efforts. Zardoz!

  4. John: “I believe Zardoz = Jack Kirby’s Imagination gone Pubic” is pretty much Jeff’s theory about the movie.

  5. Interestingly, I think Zardoz is like Kirby turned inside-out: it gets to a place of utterly pleasing craziness through very conscious application of its themes.

    That doesn’t mean, however, that a Kirby adaptation, like his 2001 take, wouldn’t be brain-blowingly awesome. I kinda drool just thinking about it….

  6. I’ve been trying to listen to the podcast on the site and through Itunes – nothing seems to be working.

  7. Matt: I was able to get the site version work on just now through my work browser, and I was able to access it through Itunes on my iPhone.

    It’s possible if you tried accessing it before I fixed the link–about eight hours ago–there’s a problem with the webpage that you can clear by refreshing the page or clearing your history cache. There may be a similar thing with Itunes, I can’t say. If that doesn’t work, I say wait a day and see if Itunes updates on its own.

    Either way, my apologies and thanks for letting me know!

    (Anyone else still having troubles, btw?)

  8. I got this cast thing working from the site so I hope that means it’s all a-ok, Mr. Lester.

    Like Mr. McMillan I watched Zardoz on Channel 4 in the Long Long Ago. Currently I have Excalibur on the SKY+ device and I am keeping it on there. I reckon you could watch Excalibur and then read Kirby’s Demon #1 with no really jarring disconnect. Hmm, I see, Mr. Lester, Kirby-inside-out that’s a far more elegant summation. Jack Kirby’s Zardoz? Mr. Lester you just blew my tiny mind.

    I’m totally weird on Comic Book Movies. I’m just not that bothered mostly. It seems as long as the audience sees Iron Man or whoever flying they’ll forgive all manner of faults with the film itself. For me unless it’s a real attempt to capture (and enhance)some of the comics medium’s unique qualities via the extra capabilities of moving pictures these films just seem to be standard action movies with a comic character plugged in. So I rate Batman(1966), Sin City and The Spirit higher than stuff like Iron Man or The Dark Knight. True, this means people taunt me in the street but that’s because they know I am totally right.

    I too love Hal Jordan: Insurance Adjuster. It’s just loveably rubbish. I enjoyed the artists/sexiness talk (in a purely cerebral way, natch)and I will send my therapist’s bill to you both.I think we all know that Gil Kane jazz comics would have to be stored in a lead container beneath the surface of the moon so potent and virile would they be. Relatedley I just read a Ditko/Stanton reprint and I have to say Ditko doing fetish comics is pretty much the anti-sex equation.

    Thanks for all the chatter, gentlemen.

  9. I think I probably saw the same transmission of Zardoz as Graeme and John K, and would agree with the later about it being a “Kirby” film. The image that always remained in my head was the punishment handed out to one of the immortals where they aged his right hand side to an that of an 80 year old, and kept his left hand side as 20-odd.

    As to the sex life of the 60’s superhero artist…

    Any o-shot from Gil Kane, as well as being the most dynamic ever drawn, would also have to have the patented up the nostril perspective shot he liked to draw faces in. And sharp sixties suits.

    But really the ultimate sex scene by an 60’s artist would be drawn by Steranko: Kirby dynamism meets 60’s psychedelia. Complete with Dali-esque melting household objects.

    There’s certainly room for an artist (who would have to be far better than I) to create a blog and draw the every day in the style of the more dynamic sixties artist: could you imagine a full on Kirby illustration of someone doing something as simple as filling up a kettle? You can just imagine the foreshortened arms holding the kettle, and the exclamation marks coming from the tap.

    Or, to tie it back in with the podcast, Gil Kane would draw the most dramatic call of nature scene known to man…

  10. I know I’m probably alone in this, but I find Frank Robbins’ ’70s comics work pretty damn sexy. All that noir lighting, and the women all with lush figures and lips. And the crazy eyes, which is probably a fetish of mine, I’m afraid.

    Were he to draw a graphic sex scene, you KNOW it would have the man hunched over the woman in some rundown tenement room–or a castle–with their arms and legs akimbo and possibly in some ballet stance. And half the time they would actually be in the air from the exertion. Damn it, it would be beautiful.

    John K: while I wouldn’t call Ditko’s art the anti-sex equation, I think fetish work is exactly right for him, as everyone he draws gives off a superfreak vibe. There’s something very, very dirty just under the surface of his characters that you could tell just by looking at them. (Which was always the appeal of his Clea for me, but maybe I’m the freak.) I don’t know if Ayn Rand would approve, though.

  11. Heck yeah, A.L. Baroza! Frank Robbins’ delivers the dames. Homina homina! He would also have put sweat in that scene. So much sweat in fact the participants would have appeared to have been melting from the heat of their gravity defying and awkwardly postured passion.

    Carey’s comment propmpted me to think about the artists back when men wore hats (and then generalising based on no concrete evidence);it seems pretty clear that all of them ,those that could actually draw proficiently at least,were pretty great at depicting women; the clothes, shoes, hair, body language the whole kitty kat kit’n’kaboodle in fact.

    I think this reflects the fact that as young males they had a very healthy interest in the ladies and also that due to primitive technology they had to draw from life. Nowadays when you can just trace over a photo from Glands’n’Gussets…well I think something gets lost in translation making it less erotic rather than more. If eroticism is about suggestion anyway. I’m trying to refer to the whole from-life/involved aspect touched on in the podcast not just randomly chittering on about eroticism which I now realise to my chagrin that no one mentioned. Sorry.

  12. Also, yeah, Mr. Baroza I’ll go along with your Ditko take. Fetish work is probably (perhaps objectively -ho!)just right for Ditko but Ditko fetish work is not right for me. After reading Ditko as a kid there’s just something about seeing his style in a fetish context that is too surprising…too revelatory…anyway, not for me. But I am English and we are ever such terrible prudes – pray remove your hand from my leg, sir!

    I don’t have that problem with Gil Kane’s work because it was pretty clear to me at even a teen-age that his art was loaded with a very, um, positive attitude towards sexuality. The very best thing, to my mind, about Kane’s stuff is that it is quite even handed. His men are just as lithe and sensual as his women are but in differing ways.
    Oddly, when Mr. Kane erred on the side of excessive objectification it was mostly in his depiction of the male.

    Having never thought about this before I now find I think Gil Kane drew the sexiest drawings ever. And you are correct in thinking I am probably not including Mr.Kane’s Rex The Wonder Dog comics in that statement.

  13. John K: heh, yeah, LOTS of sweat. And the men would have that Elvis-ian lip snarl on their O-faces. Hell, probably the women, too.

    Pre-superhero artists of Robbins’ generation knew how to draw clothing, period–they didn’t spend their formative years drawing spandex mannequins.

  14. I could not disagree with you more about “Iron Man 2.” I thought it was a terrific film. Better than the first one. Faster, funnier, more interesting. It’s like you guys were watching a completely different movie.

  15. “It’s like you guys were watching a completely different movie.”

    That’s what I think every time someone says it’s a good film.
    They act like they saw a film with lots of action, a structured plot, and characters.
    I saw a slow moving film with two action scenes, no structure, characters being moved around like chess pieces (by a drunken chess master), and plot turns so ridiculous, Gardner Fox would’ve declared they made no sense.

    But hey, if you enjoy a film where a characters father has hidden the map to a new element inside their plans for a theme park, then enjoy it!

  16. Three action scenes– but only one that was any good. The race track was pretty decent, if you could get past the fact that the main character got bored midway through an unrelated scene and just sort of wandered over to the action set piece. I found that kind of fun and charming, in a stupid kind of way, but… it wasn’t exactly the highpoint of the summer. But the action itself was pretty good, at least.

    The other two (Rhodes v. Stark and the finale)… Maybe Rhodes v. Stark had moments but it was harder to get past how badly motivated that scene was, how it didn’t work on a character level– at that point the “everyone acts like an idiot the entire time” aspect of the movie had become too noticeable. And the finale– all goodwill had evaporated by that point, even if it hadn’t just been a boring videogame cartoon…

    But the original movie didn’t have too, too much action either, really– I can only think of about three action scenes there too (Stark v. his kidnappers, Iron Man v. village terrorist people, Iron Man v. Jeffrey Lebowski or El Duderino if you’re not into the whole brevity thing)…

  17. I didn’t count the drunken fight at the party – didn’t they throw two punches and then Don Cheadle just flew off in the armor?
    (Odd that they ever even bothered with the Senate hearings if the military had no problem stealing from one corporation, to then give the weapons to another corporation.
    Even odder that the evil science dude had that armor for sale at the big thingy show – he was going to sell the military machines they had stolen for him?
    I didn’t understand that guy at all – he was a slimey nerd at the start, and then by the end he’s dancing across a stage and being much cooler than Tony?)

    I liked the race track scene – mainly because of the Whips and the armor in the suitcase – and the final action scene was alright, but yeah, I’d ran out of goodwill by that point, and set about wondering why police/military were taking orders from Pepper Potts, and why no one told the director to stop injecting himself into the action scenes.
    (But as he hosts a show which consists of him and other celebrities having dinner and whinging about how hard their lives are, in between telling each other how much they like each others work, I guess there was no chance of that.)

    Oddly, I really liked the first film – it didn’t have that much action, but that’s okay in an origin movie, it’s just I expect the follow up film to be a bit more balls to the wall.
    Maybe if 2 went with a stronger plot structure, like the first one – and didn’t stop the story for 40mins to bring in Nick Fury and set up the avengers movie – the lack of action wouldn’t have been so noticeable.

    But as it was – I went to see a film where the trailer is entirely made up of shots of a guy flying around in metal armor, and instead got a film filled with people talking, and none of the talking made any real sense.

  18. Hey Jeff & Graeme, the original Multiple Warheads story hasn’t been reprinted from the porno mag it originally ran in, as far as I know, but Brandon Graham actually put it up online a year or two back.

  19. […] with… stuff. With jokes, with plot, with luscious, sexy art (Seriously; I made a comment on a Wait, What? episode about the sexiness of Graham’s art, and someone posted a link to Graham’s porn […]

  20. I actually saw Jon F’s fight in Iron Man 2 as Jon Favreau fan service more than Happy Hogan fan service, because I’m a bigger fan of JF than Happy.

    The problem with using Kyle Rayner as the last Lantern in a movie is that the Corp is INCREDIBLE. There are plenty of Super-hero/Sci-fi/Fantasy movies about the one last hope, not that many about universe spanning organizations with members that are squirrels or superintelligent shades of the color blue.

    If they don’t dick around with the Corp and really give you a sense of how vast and amazing it is, we could have an eye-opener on the level of the first LotR film.

Leave a Reply

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.