Thus Spake Tick Creator Ben Edlund 138
1) copyright issues?
by turbine216
Now that we're all aware of the still-pending copyright issues between
Sony and Fox concerning certain Tick characters and trademarks
("Spoon!"), is there any hope in sight for a resolution that would allow
the use of these copyrights? Or is this a totally dead issue?
Ben:
If the show proceeds, it's not impossible that the wheels of justice will
turn back in our direction. Actually, "Spoon" is not held by the company
that owns the Saturday-morning cartoon rights. The rule is, anything which
appeared in the 12-issue comic book series I did is free from the
constraints of the cartoon contract. This includes Tick, Arthur, Spoon,
and all the heroes and villains in those books. Incidentally, Spoon appeared
first in the 7th issue of the comic, and the thirteenth episode of the
cartoon.
2) Timeslot
by ReadbackMonkey
What evil Fox executive stuck you in such a lethal timeslot? Why didn't
they slot you behind the Simpson's then move you to the lethal Thursday
timeslot?
I had to fight with my girlfriend to watch the show last night since 'Will and Grace' was on.
Ben:
We're part of a large group of shows, all vying for the most favored
programming scraps from Fox's big table. Where we've been placed on the Fox
schedule is both challenging (or if you take a darker view, prohibitive) and
advantageous, at least in that Fox will have lowered expectations for the
Tick in a timeslot ruled by Survivor, Must-See TV, and other stiff
competition. But I can't say that we've been given a red carpet by the
network. So I won't.
3) DVD?
by Count Fecal
When will the cartoon series Tick be available on DVD?
Ben:
I don't know, Count Fecal. I don't know.
4) Hero/Villain Iconography
by kaladorn
Tick, to my mind, is an ideal hero icon for the current generation. He
has good intentions, but isn't too aware of the fine details (well, even
some gross details) of the world around him. He tries hard, and things
tend to work out after a fashion, but usually not as a result of any
particular brilliance on his part. Tick fulfills the iconic image of
style over substance, of good intentions versus understanding, of the
brawn and machismo not directed by a terribly powerful cranium, and of
accidental destruction as a consequence of his good intentions and
bungling execution.
His sidekick Arthur, of course, is more down to earth and aware. He's a bit of a geek (though I have yet so see him hack a kernel) with less-than-stellar social skills. He too seems to fill an iconic image in modern-day society - the nerdy brains-behind the brawn.
When these characters evolved, were they merely an attempt to poke fun at Superhero archetypes, or were they consciously intended to be more "in touch" with and to more closely parallel today's society? Or do you consider such analysis to be far deeper than the subject matter merits? Is the Tick just good humored fun, or is it perceptive art?
Ben:
The Tick is a work in stupid. Just as others may choose clay or stone or
paint, I and my compatriots have chosen stupidity as our medium. But stupid
must be worked and mastered like any other material; during this
experimental stage, the viewer of the work may feel he or she is observing
"perceptiveness" or "art." This is simply an illusion.
Tick and Arthur, as archetypes, are less an intentional reflection of today's society, and more an adaptation of classic comedy teams: Laurel and Hardy, Hope and Crosby, Quixote and Panza. The dynamic -- A big, goofy, charismatic lunatic, unharmable and often unreasonable, paired with a small, rabbity, very sane and very vulnerable guy -- is just another interpretation of those comedy teams where the idea of dominance is expressed and played with.
5) Target Audience
by rnb
Judging from the first episode alone, it seems like the live-action Tick
is automatically shooting for an older audience than the cartoon was
(for perhaps obvious reasons). Arthur getting drunk, The Tick using the
word "bitch," some of Batmanuel's references to Captain Liberty, etc. I
always got the feeling from the cartoon that it was aimed at both adults
and kids, with some jokes perhaps flying over the kids' heads while the
adults would get them (a snake accusing The Tick of not dating much
during a wrestling match in The Tick vs. Proto-Clown comes to mind).
Will the live-action series be aimed more at adults and less at younger
viewers? I'm not really complaining if that is the case, it just seemed
like there was definitely a shift in tone.
Ben:
I did not want The Tick to say "bitch" in the first episode. That I was
not given the power to remove it as I saw fit offers some insight into the
range of my control over this massive undertaking. The mandated presence of
other hands and shared authority in television is inevitable. The show
wouldn't be here without it. But I digress.
The tone was intentionally spiced up a bit, and I was right there with my attempts at sexy talk and jokes and so forth. But the Tick's tonal tolerance (especially a live-action version) is something we had to experiment with. There are episodes that go wildly off the mark where Tick's innocence and the credible warmth of his world are concerned. Just wait, they'll come on your tv and accost you in your living room...
These nine episodes are postcards from the brink of nothingness, giving filtered snapshots of Tick, Arthur, and their universe. We will need more shows to truly nail down what works tonally.
6) The Tick's Language
by quiller
While I'm a big fan of the Tick and enjoyed the show last night, I found
one thing discordant while watching it. The Tick using words like bitch,
and gonads. He has always struck me as having very anachronistic
language. Stuck back in the Father Knows Best days. Spreading his brand
of creamy justice on the toast of the city, sure. Make Evil my Bitch,
doesn't work for him. Borderline profanity might work for some of the
other characters, particularly Bat Manuel, but it seems wrong for the
well intentioned, but naive hero that is the Tick. Is this a direction
they are trying to take the Tick for some reason, or just a matter of
unfamiliarity with the characters that will be ironed out over time?
Ben:
Partly answered in the previous question. Unfamiliarity, yes.
7) The Beginning
by Prof_Dagoski
I wish I still had my first Tick comic. It was a freebie from New
England Comics, announcing that they were going to try publishing their
own comics. I thought it pretty decent, but had to make more strategic
decisions in my collecting habits at the time. Sorry Ben, I just had to
have Akira. Fast forward a few years and suddenly I see the tick
everywhere. So my question is this: Where did you think this comic would
end up way back at issue one? Were you jsut hoping to have some good
stuff in your portfolio by the time you got out of college(or wherever)?
Were you hoping for a moderately successful underground classic? Just
when did you realize that the Tick was a big hit? What happened then in
your life and how did it affect your creation(the comic as well as the
character)?
Ben:
No need to apologize about your preference or spending habits! When I
started doing the first issue of the Tick I was 18 (I had invented him the
year before, in high school). New England Comics hadn't ever published a
comic. We were at the crashing and burning stage of the black-and-white
explosion (the glut of independent low print-run comics spurred to crazed
heights of speculative collectability by the successes of Teen Age Mutant
Ninja Turtles ) and figured we'd probably get to issue three if we were
lucky, then can the book for lack of sales. But that didn't happen.
This thing has been a source of remarkable successes and relatively painless failures. I've lived with Tick for almost sixteen years. Who I am as an adult human is greatly affected by this character and his strange course. And passing as he has through comics, cartoons, and now live action, The Tick has given me access to many of the skills and opportunities I was hoping for in film school. My big blue meal ticket never seems to die!
8) Two questions
by Flounder
Ben, been a huge avid fan of The Tick since issue 1. Still got all my
issues (including my uncut #2) and still read them on occasion. Got
every episode of the cartoon series, still watch them on occasion (and
to introduce my 4 year old boys to The Tick).
Here's my questions...
As the creator / executive producer / high goddess of all that is Tick-y, what would be the one thing you wish to be done with the new live action show? Guest appearances? (BTW, nice shot of you and Barry on the couch) Better special effects? Hot dog cut into a little octopus?
And second, since it appears that characters from the cartoon exclusively will not be appearing due to copyright issues, can you give us a brief list of those that might appear from the comic? Chairface Chippendale? Chainsaw Vigilante? Paul the Samurai? Man Eating Cow?
Thanks for making Thurday night TV watchable again.
Ben:
The most important change would be budgetary. During shooting, it became
necessary to make many concessions, to sometimes drastically change elements
of story because we couldn't afford to shoot the script. This extended to
sets, scenery, special effects both practical and computer-generated,
costumes -- pretty much everything. An increase of 100,000 dollars would
suffice, thank you.
A version of The Terror appears in one episode.
9) Sources of inspiration
by MikeyNg
To me, the Tick was always a satire of his genre. You made fun of
Batman, Wonder Woman, Galactus, etc., etc. My question would be: With
the series moving to live-action TV, would you be satiring other things?
Making fun of Galactus would go over the heads of most your audience.
However, targetting Friends or Survivor would surely hit the spot.
(Survivor especially, given your current time slot.) Where is the comedy
and the storyline going to come from?
Ben:
A lot of the comedy in the Tick stems from translating real life
situations into their superheroic correlaries. Married life becomes the
vocational marriage of superhero and sidekick, for example. For the most
part, parodying specific heroes is "over the heads" of the mainstream
audience. Only those few who've achieved widespread iconic status (Batman,
Superman, The Hulk, etc) are relevant to the masses. Over the course of
these episodes, we play with the judicial system, death, old age, issues of
identity, and more!
10) Creative Control
by CleverNickName
How much creative control do you have, and how much will you maintain,
if the show is a success?
I have firsthand experience with the idiocy of networks, so I'd be very interested to hear how you pitched the idea.
I'd also like you to know that I have been a fan from issue number 1, and used to curse your being in college, and not being able to put out new issues. Paul the Samurai is one of my favorite characters, in any medium, of all time.
Ben:
As I mentioned above, I do not reign supreme. But in general, I was given
enough influence to make things happen, sometimes to steer the show away
from material I disliked, sometimes not. In fairness I should say that were
I capable of writing at a higher speed, I'd have probably been able to
control more. The more you make, the more it's you.
Pitching this was greatly simplified by the enthusiastic presence of Barry Sonnenfeld, who shepherded the show from inception to fruition. His clout, insight, and ability made this thing happen. Having Barry attached to a project makes it less of a pitch and more of a negotiation. People are ready to sign him up!
College was a poor excuse for the irregularity of the Tick comic. The real excuse was my dreamy, immature work ethic, which still has yet to fully bloom.
"A Work In Stupid"! (Score:3, Funny)
As for the TV series, yeah, it's a mixed bag, so far, but maybe the "weirdness magnet" is still pulling ferrous particles of improbability. If Fox will give it a little time to ferment, so will I.
Oh, and lest I forget... SPOON!
Re:Hey You - Buy a Dell Compuer Today !! (Score:1)
OT: How long before the series is cancelled? (Score:1, Interesting)
CleverNickName (Score:3, Interesting)
And I wonder why Wil's other question (also rated 5, BTW) wasn't asked... thought it would've been funny.
Okay, so I'm just trying to burn some Karma.
But before you mod me down, I do want to say one thing:
Why didn't Ben go into more detail about The Tick on DVD? At least a description of why he didn't know... maybe a statement to the effect of "we haven't thought of it" or "We're negotiating that now" or something... the only thing I could find online was The Tick vs. The Common Cold [ussertek.com], but it seemed to be an interactive rendition. There was [animationondvd.com] a petition for it, but its been closed for sometime.
Maybe a quick letter to Fox (what about Sony?) on the subject by interested parties could spurn them on a little more?
Re:Slashdot Paparazzi (Score:1)
Re:CleverNickName (Score:1, Funny)
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that he was just asked a question about his life's work from a guy named "Count Fecal" -- or maybe he really didn't know.
Bummer... :) (Score:3, Interesting)
I am, however, very disappointed that "CleverNickName"'s other question [slashdot.org] didn't get through! Never have I seen a better (in a good way) case of karma whoring / desperate plea for work... :)
Come on Ben, if you're reading this, what about that question of his? Can he get the job?
Re:Bummer... :) (Score:3, Funny)
No way, he'd [wilwheaton.net] just hit on Captain Liberty [imdb.com] and end up getting bitch slapped.
Re:Bummer... :) (Score:1)
Where's American Maid? (Score:1, Insightful)
It would be sad if the name American Maid died a death due to political correctness. It's perfect lameness is a great tease at the stupid naming conventions when writers try to be clever.
Re:Where's American Maid? (Score:2)
Re:Where's American Maid? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where's American Maid? (Score:1)
Not any more than I could do a superhero comic called "Woman Wonder" or "Wondrous Woman," use a red-white-blue theme, and expect no lawyers at my door.
Original books (Score:1)
Re:Original books (Score:2)
Or you can order them from the distributor (New England Comics) [newenglandcomics.com] directly.
Re:Original books (Score:3, Informative)
If you're lucky enough to live in the Boston area, you can walk right into a New England Comics store and they'll have piles of copies, or you can try Newbury Comics (which is more of a music store than a comic store, in spite of the name) which usually has copies of Tick available.
Otherwise, any comic book shop should either have it or be able to get it, or you can of course try Amazon [amazon.com] or New England Comics [newenglandcomics.com] site.
You want to get issues 1-12, either individually (current editions are a couple bucks a piece, older prints can rise quickly) or as anthologies (two of them, probably $25 or so for current editions of both). Later issues and the various spinoffs & colorized versions were generally inferior to the original series, so save them for later if you really get into the first ones.
The main exceptions to that rule of thumb are "Paul the Samurai", which was also written by Ben Edlund (at least the first issue or two -- don't remember if it went anywhere after that) and "Chainsaw Vigilante", which I think was by someone else but was still pretty funny (as a parody of Batman / Punisher type violent dark knight comics). Otherwise, stick to the originals, they're still the best...
Re:Original books (Score:2, Funny)
Heh. Prowling flea markets for a tick.
Re:Original books (Score:1)
Re:Original books (Score:1)
He wrote the three Paul comics in the Limited Series [powertie.org], but he only gets credit for concept in the regular series [powertie.org]. The entire series was written by Clay Griffith and ran ten issues. Clay also wrote the Man-Eating Cow [powertie.org] spinoff and the two of them together shared a common story in Paul #9, #10 and MEC #9, #10.
It was written (and drawn) by Zander Cannon, and only comprised of three issues [powertie.org].
If you want, you can read more about all the comics at Tribute To The Tick [powertie.org]. It's not completely up to date, but it's got all the old stuff and most of the new up to about a year ago.
I wholly suggest that if anyone is looking into diving into the Tick comics, get the original series, and get the Omnibus editions. NEC is wonderful about putting a lot of Tick comics together into one book so you can buy it at a lower price. Plus, they're easier to find, so I've heard...
Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:3, Interesting)
I did not want The Tick to say "bitch" in the first episode. That I was not given the power to remove it as I saw fit offers some insight into the range of my control over this massive undertaking.
It's funny to hear about the networks wanting to make the language more harsh, and the creator wanting to "censor" it. Usually I would think it's the opposite.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
Re: as Marge Simpson said... (Score:1)
- MFN
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're attempting to push their own "edginess" in the face of what they regard as an unfair restriction.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
[OT] Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
If you think advertisers object to nudity, you're wrong. Here in the UK, a significant proportion of the ads on TV are paid for by the same global corporations that pay for US ads, yet the UK doesn't suffer from the same sort of censorship that US TV does. In fact nudity is even used in ads themselves (although not to the same extent or frequency that it is in continental Europe, it has to be said).
Re:[OT] Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2, Informative)
So the networks are controlled by the FCC, cable channels are the ones controlled by the sponcers.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
I prefer the term " Corporate Propagandists
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
I think most of the 'rules' that they have to follow are put in place by the FCC. And, to borrow a statement from Geoarge Carlin, the FCC alone has decided that the 1st Ammendment does not apply to TV or radio.
Granted, however, that many advertisers will pull ads from shows that present things they disagree with - remember when Ellen came out of the closet and Wendy's and a few others pulled their ads from the show?
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
The networks feel hamstrung; HBO and CineMax can cuss all day and night, and show all sorts of body parts, that the networks are constrained from doing.
<rant>
Some would consider the lack of nudity, profanity, and general nastiness as a plus, not a constraint. Why is it that the television producers feel a need to "push the envelope" when it comes to profanity. You could argue that more profanity makes it more realistic, but I would argue that it's a self fulfilling prophesy. The more that people, young and old, see profanity on TV, the more they will assume it to be the norm and adopt it. Maybe it is up to producers to encourage a higher moral standard instead of a lower one.
</rant>
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
Actaully, I would say that in normal conversation, discussion of sexual acts or bowel movements are both a bit too extreme. YMMV, but I have circles of friends that I don't discuss either with, and a much tighter group that I would discuss my sex life and state of my movements with. I wouldn't appreciate walking into someone's house and have them say either: "Yeah, we were just doing the nasty" *or* "Yeah, we were just fucking". Either is in poor taste. Similar to asking a waiter where the restroom is, rather than annoucing to the wait person and the dining table "I need to do a poopie" *or* "I need to take a shit". Both are inappropriate at any time.
Of course, YMMV, your maturity level may vary, and I swear like a sailor and can out shock anyone on this site when I'm at Rocky Horror - but then, that is an appropriate time and place.
--
Evan
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
On one hand you say that profanity is silly, and then you turn around and say that we need to teach our children not to use "words that mean bad things". According to Webster, profane is defined as "serving to debase or defile what is holy" so, by limiting profanity, I am saying that profane things need to be limited on TV. It makes us appear to be a much cruder society than I think, hope, we are.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
What!? How is the meaning in those different? One is pointed at you and one is at me, but the meaning is the same. And, if I'm hearing either one on a TV show, or more importantly, my kid hears it, then they are both equally worng, to my ears, maybe not yours. Some people have more vulgar tastes than others.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and I think that you are in the minority here. But to each his own.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
Again, your reality is flawed
In reality, I presume that you are from one of the coasts, 18-20 and think you know everything. I also presume that you have very few real friends and are a bit of a loner. But that may not be reality.
Stop being clouded by what your mother/priest/rabbi/politican is telling you is wrong and start looking at the world through your own eyes.
Sometimes, you can look through your own eyes and see that your mother/priest/rabbi is actually right for once. Don't assume you know everything.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it is up to producers to encourage a higher moral standard instead of a lower one.
Why should the producers be held accountable for morals? Maybe their morals differ from yours.
If people in this world (more specifically this country, and I mean the US) would take responsibility for themselves rather than spend time throwing the blame at music, TV, movies, Howard Stern and anything else they dont like I think we'd all be better off!
Your argument basically tells producers/networks/whatever that because the content they support/produce/distribute is 'wrong' by some moral standard that they do not have the right excercice their freedom of speech.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
How did you make the leap from "encouraging a higher moral standard" to limiting free speech? All I'm saying is that instead of chasing the almighty buck, maybe creative types should work for a more mature and less vulgar society. Surely you can agree that reducing profanity is a higher moral standard than increasing it, no matter what you think is "right".
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
Because network television has lost a significant share of its audience to cable channels like HBO. When you're constantly seeing shows like The Sopranos and Sex and the City being raved about as the best shows on television and can watch your audience turning to them on your weekly ratings graphs, you naturaly realize that's the competition. You better beat them or you're out of the game.
Network TV producers feel they HAVE to compete with cable channels because they do. The question should be: What is the reason cable is stealing their audience away? Is it because they have more profanity and/or nudity? No. It's because they have better shows (see: "According to Jim", "Becker", "Emeril", need I go on???)
But then, TV producers aren't about making the best shows on TV, they're about making the most money. And profanity/nudity/sex are cheap, easy ways to fake people with short attention spans into thinking their shows are somehow better than they are.
And that's easy money.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
Some would consider the altering of reality, of public discourse, so as to not possibly offend someone... as a little bit profane in itself.
The more that people, young and old, see profanity on TV, the more they will assume it to be the norm and adopt it.
Why would you be concerned w/ my choice of language? with the verbage I use? Really friend, cencorship is bad, m'kay.
Maybe it is up to producers to encourage a higher moral standard instead of a lower one.
What standard, exactly, should the state set?
In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.
-Martin Niemoller
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
We're not talking about editing a live broadcast of news or anything, we're talking about changing the dialog of a giant blue bug. If that's your idea of reality, then we've got bigger problems. I know that most people don't use profanity in every sentence, contrary to what I see on TV.
Why would you be concerned w/ my choice of language? with the verbage I use? Really friend, cencorship is bad, m'kay.
I could care less what you have to say, however, if you are given a public medium, ala a tv station, I expect you to treat me with some respect, as if I have a brain and am not some mindless joybuzzer you can pump for money!
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (1) All I'm saying is, regardless of whether it's within the network's collective right to have more swearing and sex on television, why do they want that? If the answer is just to make more money, then perhaps we need to think twice about where we draw the line. (1) Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) [findlaw.com]
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
Hardly. Sex sells. I was watching Grosse Pointe [imdb.com] the other night, and was surprised to see vibrator based plot at 7:30pm.
I'm not complaining (hey, a post coital Lindsay Sloane [imdb.com] is OK in my book), I was just surprised. And I can't say that I'm not a little disappointed that the Tick couldn't be rather more circumspect and clever. Ah well, early days.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
I think the point was that it's ironic, not that it's implausible.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
I was dismayed when I heard that line. In retrospect however, I find that it's not as much of a problem. This is not the comic and perhaps this Tick came from a slightly different place. Perhaps this is simply a way of allowing the Tick to be updated to todays urban vernacular.
More likely, I'm simply rationalizing a network jackass' attempt to bring the 13 year old boys into the audience by having a character say "bitch".
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
Bart and Homer's language have progressed towards the more profane over the years from "Eat my shorts, man!" to as much as they can possibly get away with.
I recall an alien in one of the Halloween episodes saying "Holy Flurcking Schnit", about as close as they'll ever be able to get.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
and every little "bitch" counts. They ruled out appropriate behavior by The Tick in favor of appeal-to-young-men-with-disposable-income behavior.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
t.
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:2)
Re:Anti-Censorship Censorship? (Score:1)
Take this article [nationalreview.com] for example. Whenever somebody is standing on a pedastal screaming and somebody tells them to shut up, what do they say? They say that their "right to speak" is being violated. Which is usually interpreted as some kind of censorship. It's not.
t.
Live action Tick == bleh (Score:1)
Strangely, I find myself agreeing with the protest to "bitch" - I have no problems with language (or anything at all, for that matter) on TV - but it's just not something the Tick would say.
I for one, would much rather seen another season of the cartoon.
Bitch? Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I can't picture the Tick saying that. It's like Big Bird smacking Elmo around, or like this sweet little South Park interlude:
[mrhatshellhole.com]Fat Abbot: Hey hey hey. What's goin on Rudy?
Rudy: Man, Fat Abbot, you need to lose weight.
Fat Abbot: I lose weight when I feel like it bitch! Shut your bitch ass mouth hoe!
Rudy: Bitch I'll kick yo ass!
Kyle: Whoa dude!
Stan: Sweet!
Fat Abbot: You think you slick you punk ass blasphemous dopefeed bitch. I had my Jimmy waxed 7 times last week. I busta cap in yo nigga ass shit.
Stan: Wow cartoons are getting really dirty.
I'm not pushing any particular agenda here, I nearly choked lauging at Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, but on the other hand, I admire the highly disciplined writing and performances that make Sabrina the Teenage Witch more fun than a barrel full of monkeys, while still 100% kiddie friendly.
Perhaps this was funnier in context, but it's got the ring of lazy writing to it. Roll on the UK release so that I can find out. ;-)
Re:Bitch? Ouch (Score:2)
Same age as Wil Wheaton [wilwheaton.net]. Why, are you looking for friendship, perhaps leading to a romantic involvement? Got pictures? ;-)
Seriously, I'm old enough to be comfortable enjoying content for its inherent quality rather than because it's targetted at my demographic. Sabrina is one of the best written and acted shows out there, in any market. Incidentally, it's very popular in prisons. Go figure.
And let's not forget that we're discussing a superhero show based on a comic book and a cartoon, by the way. ;-)
Re:Bitch? Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
Sabrina's damn funny (Score:1)
I don't know, Count Fecal. I don't know. (Score:2)
Re:I don't know, Count Fecal. I don't know. (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, how about that shadowy figure, CleverNickName [wilwheaton.net]
We could get some washed up 29 year old ex-child actor to play him! I wonder if Corey Haim? [imdb.com] is available. ;-)
Re:I don't know, Count Fecal. I don't know. (Score:1)
Tick vs. CmdrTaco!!!
New Villain... (Score:1)
(maybe for more of a hero type...{grin})
Unfamiliarity? Where's the research? (Score:2, Insightful)
Looking at this new version of The Tick on Fox, you can easily tell that there just wasn't enough research done on the characters, and not enough creative control given to Mr. Edlund. The wide-eyed, child-like facination with JUSTICE, as if it were a shiny bauble, seems gone from the latest interpretation. Patrick Wharburton just doesn't seem to understand that Tick is not a macho squinty-eyed action hero, but an excitable, innocent imbecile who leaps into danger with a mile-wide grin and a giggle. And The Tick doesn't say "bitch", that's for damn sure.
So where's the research? Was there any? If so, what did it consist of? I get a strong feeling that the people who're truly in charge don't fully understand what makes The Tick popular, and it might already be too late. The show just isn't that good, and as much as I would LOVE to love it, I can't.
The disasterously low budget is obvious, too. How many times in this first run of episodes are we going to have to put up with the characters looking out a window or over the rooftops, pointing and screaming "OH MY GOD, LOOK AT THE AMAZING STUFF GOING ON OVER THERE OFF-CAMERA!" And instead of an important special effects sequence, we get to watch BatManuel picking his nose.
I've got to say, I'm upset. I'm really worried about this show. I wanted so badly for it to take off, for it to boost The Tick into the adult mainstream where he could so easily fit in, were he faithfully reproduced and properly interpreted. But, sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. This wonderful chance to bring one of my favorite characters ever to life is being blown by classic TV network ignorance right before my eyes.
Everybody, even Ben Edlund, says "We'll work all the kinks out in later episodes" and I truly hope that gets a chance to happen. I know the early Simpsons episodes were unbearably stupid, but they had the advantage of a nationally recognized symbol in Bart, so they eventually prospered and grew into the amazing institution they are. I can only pray that the same will happen to The Tick; that the show will somehow capitalize on The Tick's current recognition and attract the best, most talented writers, a killer budget, and multiple seasons.
But the point (I think I actually have one in here somewhere) is that NONE of this can happen if the people in charge and the people onscreen don't actually sit down and take some time to understand what characteristics put The Tick where he is now. It obviously hasn't been done correctly, because I like The Tick, and I don't like this. I SO wish that Edlund had the final cut, but barring that, the only thing that can save the show, in my opinion, is a deeper understanding of the character by those who DO have final cut.
Here's hoping.
The nature of The Tick and live action cartoons. (Score:1)
You have made my point. The Tick is Forrest Gump with superpowers. He's a 9 foot tall, 400 pounds of solid muscle 8-year-old. Patrick Warburton couldn't grok that but Townsend Coleman, the guy who gave voice to The Tick in the much superior animated series could. And therein lies the main problem with the series.
You can't do cartoony if you are not doing it as a cartoon. The live-action Tick is working at a distinct disadvantage.
Spoon!
Re:Unfamiliarity? Where's the research? (Score:1)
Re:Unfamiliarity? Where's the research? (Score:1)
See, I liked the "use your imagination here" because us talking about a monstrously large cow who shoots fire out her "teets" is way more funny than actually showing the horrible destruction associated with a monstrously large cow setting fire to the town. It keeps the air light, and fluffy, and doesn't ya' know, bring us down.
With Cherries on Top.
O
The time slot is no problem (Score:1)
Little kid told me,"I used to watch The Tick cartoon show, but now I watch the real Tick."
Tick Show was not Tick I knew in book (Score:2, Insightful)
Now comes the show. We popped popcorn, crowded around the set. I feverishly adjusted the antenna. When did it start on the west coast? When...? Idea ... a neighbor has a dish . . . I drove down her driveway. "Can you tape this for me?" "You want me to tape what?" "I'll pick it up later!" I drive back.
We all cuddle together ready for "The Tick!" Ah such joy awaits.
It starts and the sexual inuendo, language are ripe. What's with what's her names costume . . . This is not for my kids. The fun is somewhere there but is just plain over-shadowed by the smut. This is not a family show. It is not the Tick I grew to know. We won't be watching it.
I guess FOX just can't produce a clean funny show. I ask the author , "What happened to good clean zany?"
Re:Tick Show was not Tick I knew in book (Score:1)
Let's not start an argument about what in The Tick could possibly cause harm to your kids. (Bitch? Really? Bitch?) Instead, I'll just ask why you demand that the show be "family-friendly" by your definition.
Just because you are teaching your kids to fear the bosom doesn't mean the rest of us have to have Miss Liberty's cleavage covered up.
Re:Tick Show was not Tick I knew in book (Score:1)
p.s. - I miss the mask.
Funding the cool stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems like it would be cool to apply free market (or stock market) principles to entertainment. For instance, if they raised money for Tick by selling tiny shares of the profit from the show or something. That way things which are not too widely known but insanely loved by the few could still be funded.
I was originally thinking of it wrt the Lord of the Rings movies. If they cut any corners, I'm going to wish they gave us nerds a chance to make donations.
I guess they always could set up a little corp like a mutual fund for this purpose. Anything like this that I just don't know about? A company like Vanguard could be set up with this as its business model. (maybe stretching it)
Re:Funding the cool stuff (Score:1)
Chortle (Score:2)
Yes...I would imagine so.
Sorry, that just made me chortle. Not laugh, mind you, but chortle - an essential distinction.
Sorry for my stupidity (Score:2)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
You have the audacity to lecture me and the other readers about how we choose to spend our time, claiming we are wasting it, and yet the most creative and respectful thing you can think of to do with YOUR time is to flame us?
Re:Putty? (Score:1)
Archaic english is for dorks (Score:1, Funny)