Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Thus Spake Tick Creator Ben Edlund 138

Posted by Roblimo from the resisting-the-temptation-to-create-a-"spoon"-dept. dept.
So the night after the live action Tick debuted on Fox, we rounded up 10 questions and sent them off to Ben Edlund, the Tick's original creator. Here are his answers. And you can download your official Tick poster (pdf format) here.

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Thus Spake Tick Creator Ben Edlund More

Thus Spake Tick Creator Ben Edlund

Comments Filter:

  • "A Work In Stupid"! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Halloween Jack ( 182035 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @11:10AM (#2619279) Homepage
    I can't claim to have the first printing of the Tick comic, nor even a complete run, but it's still a high point of the 80s comics scene for me. Edlund's explanation of the unlikely success of "Superman"'s secret identity--that his chums at the Daily Whatever are half humoring him and half scared shitless of him--still sticks out as being more logical and satisfying than anything that Frank Miller has ever written. Oh, and it's damn funny, too.

    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!

  • OT: How long before the series is cancelled? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I mean, seriously, I like the show a lot, but I don't have a high confidence that it has enough ooomph to last more than 6-7 episodes on a major network like fox.

  • CleverNickName (Score:3, Interesting)

    by merlin_jim ( 302773 ) <James DOT McCrac ... ratapult DOT com> on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @11:24AM (#2619385)
    I wonder if Ben realizes he has just been interviewed by Wil Wheaton?

    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?

  • Bummer... :) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by babbage ( 61057 ) <cdeversNO@SPAMcis.usouthal.edu> on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @11:27AM (#2619398) Homepage Journal
    I'm slightly disappointed that my comment [slashdot.org] didn't make it (first time I'd ever had a top rated interview question, but oh well... :).

    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?

  • Why did they change the name to Captain Liberty? (Or was CL another character?)

    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.
  • I've never been much into comic books, but if The Tick books are half as funny as the shows then I'd love to read them. Are they online anywhere or am I going to have to wait until I stumble across them at a flea market?
    • You can still find them at your friendly neighborhood comic store, though the real gems are the first 12 issues, not the later runs with different writers / artists.

      Or you can order them from the distributor (New England Comics) [newenglandcomics.com] directly.

    • Re:Original books (Score:3, Informative)

      by babbage ( 61057 )
      No need to prowl the flea markets just yet -- the comics seem to be in perpetual reprint mode, and have been for most of the 90s.

      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...

      • No need to prowl the flea markets just yet

        Heh. Prowling flea markets for a tick.

      • 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)

        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.

        "Chainsaw Vigilante", which I think was by someone else but was still pretty funny

        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)

    by aozilla ( 133143 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @11:45AM (#2619511) Homepage

    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.

    • Yeah, but Fox is the network that made its name breaking the rules. A few years ago there was a debate over whether executions should be televised. The best comment out of that was that if Fox had the chance, executions would be televised not only live, but in the nude.
    • 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.

      They're attempting to push their own "edginess" in the face of what they regard as an unfair restriction.
      • I think the networks are hardly unfairly restricted. They have every right to go out and start a pay channel with all the nudity in the world. As long as they offer Free TV with advertising being their source of revenue they are going to have to follow the rules set forth essentially by the advertisors.
        • As long as they offer Free TV with advertising being their source of revenue they are going to have to follow the rules set forth essentially by the advertisors.

          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).

          • The UK also doesn't have quite the population of ultra-conservative, religous fanatics that we have here in the US. Advertisers don't care about nudity one way or the other but they do care if a large percentage of their customer base starts boycotting.
        • Well the "networks" that send their signals through the air are controlled by the FCC. But "cable" channels, like Comedy Central, USA, Sci-Fi, aren't restricted in the same way.

          So the networks are controlled by the FCC, cable channels are the ones controlled by the sponcers.
          • Cable channels are restricted to some extent by the FCC. The reason networks are more tightly controlled is because they broadcast over public airwaves. As for the FCC controlling the networks: a) The FCC won't step in unless someone complains. They don't watch and listen to every Radio and TV broadcast. b) The FCC typically issues fines which are nothing compared to the Multi-million dollar deals that networks get from advertisers such as Nike, Gap, etc. c) Each network has their own sponsors that determine what may be objectionable before anything airs. HBO mostly has to worry about its suscribers. Of course, even HBO would have problems if they decided to broadcast Anal Penetration movies at 2pm on HBO Family.
          • cable channels are the ones controlled by the sponsors.

            I prefer the term " Corporate Propagandists ."

        • They have every right to go out and start a pay channel with all the nudity in the world. As long as they offer Free TV with advertising being their source of revenue they are going to have to follow the rules set forth essentially by the advertisors.

          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?


      • 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>
        • I'm taking this off-topic, but this struck a nerve...sorry.

          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.

          • 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.


            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".

        • Why is it that the television producers feel a need to "push the envelope" when it comes to profanity.
          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.
        • Some would consider the lack of nudity, profanity, and general nastiness as a plus, not a constraint.

          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

          • Some would consider the altering of reality, of public discourse, so as to not possibly offend someone... as a little bit profane in itself.
            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!
        • I will have to put in another vote for your position, good sir. I have read and well understand all of the responses to your post, lambasting you for wanting to censor the network based upon your own standards of morality, and I would like those people to consider this: What does it gain us to have sex, violence, and profanity prevalent on network television? What positive impact on society does it create? The US has a standard of legal obscenity which is defined thus:
          (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]
      • It's funny to hear about the networks wanting to make the language more harsh, and the creator wanting to "censor" it.

      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.

    • I think it has more to do with Ben's idea of where the tick came from. In the original comics he (the Tick) was hinted at having a past (my comics are not with me at work, forgive a bended fact here or there) and even possibly an ex-wife. It seemed as though his mind had simply snapped and here he was trying to save a world he had failed to cope with in other ways. The Tick of those original comics wouldn't have said those things.

      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".
    • It would be interesting to get Matt Groening's point of view on this. (Whether he pushes towards the more profane or less profane.)

      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.

    • Networks don't want to make the language "more harsh" or realistic, or mature, they want to make it more profitable
      and every little "bitch" counts. They ruled out appropriate behavior by The Tick in favor of appeal-to-young-men-with-disposable-income behavior.
    • I wish people would stop abusing the word censorship. This was not censorship. The line was merely out of character. That's all. It would be like The Tick saying "... make evil use emacs!"

      t.

      • hence the use of the quotation marks around the word "censor", and the question mark at the end of the title.
        • For your information, I was refering to the word "censorship" in the title and not "censor" which is what the poster was probably referring to. As in TV censors, the people who used to prohibit the word "ass" on TV. Which is completely different from what true censorship is. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "abusing", maybe I should have said that people should learn what the word actually means.

          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.

  • I've always been a fan of the cartoon, and not so much the comic. Tick is just not the same without American Maid, Die Fledermaus, etc. Plus, that guy from Seinfeld is just not 9 feet tall.

    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)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @12:05PM (#2619606) Homepage

    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:3, Insightful)

      by iabervon ( 1971 )
      The line seemed okay to me; it sounded like The Tick had picked it up from hearing other people, and had no clue what it meant. Saying it about a villian or some other person would be out of character, but about a coffee machine is different. The Tick is too innocent to understand why this is odd, and probably too innocent to know that it's naughty. At least to me it came across as something he wouldn't say if he knew that it was something he shouldn't say.
    • And it doesn't hurt that Melissa's hot as all hell.
  • LOL. Do I sense a new villain in the making? How cool would it be to have a character on the show based off of a "character" on Slashdot?
  • I'm no professional actor, and I don't produce TV shows. I program all day. But even I know that if you're trying to make a production centering around an already popular character, you have to understand what makes that character successful.

    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.

    • 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.

      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!

    • I hope that it becomes the first few seasons of the Simpsons. The last few seasons are better left to the dark relm of where sitcoms go to die. Look at the last years of I Love Lucy, same thing.
    • 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.

      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
  • Cause The Tick wasn't even broadcast last week (Turkey/Adam Sandler day), and it is not scheduled for this week, either (Lord of the Rings informercial will be on). Maybe I've seen (and enjoyed) the only two episodes that will ever be broadcast.

    Little kid told me,"I used to watch The Tick cartoon show, but now I watch the real Tick."
  • OK I'm a family guy. We loved the The Tick Book. The kids would pile in the bed on Saturday morning and we'd read another adventure. It was zany and stupendous. The humor was right up my line. Loved reading it out loud to them. They loved hearing.

    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?"


    • 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.

    • As a father and a Tick fan from the VERY beginning (with his one-panel intro in the New England Comics catalog) with a son who loved the cartoon, we sat down and watched the show together. I was a pretty uncomfortable half hour. I wanted to laugh at the bitch line...but I wanted to be a stern, no-nonsense dad that doesn't appreciate that behavior out of an 11 year old. I just hope that Ben can iron out the ticks behavior and make him as stupid, innocent and loveable as the comic/cartoon.

      p.s. - I miss the mask.

  • Funding the cool stuff (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Goose Tov ( 539492 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @05:46PM (#2621793)
    Ben's answer to question #8 where he said another $100K would have made a big difference reminded me of an idea I had.

    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)
  • I have firsthand experience with the idiocy of networks, so I'd be very interested to hear how you pitched the idea.

    Yes...I would imagine so.

    Sorry, that just made me chortle. Not laugh, mind you, but chortle - an essential distinction.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Close