Why don't we have movies called "*: The Movie" anymore? Why not The Da Vinci Code: The Movie, Munich: The Movie, or An Inconvenient Truth: The Movie?
I have to admit to being somewhat under-whelmed by Superman: The Movie. I guess since most articles about Superman Returns go out of their way to mention that the Richard Donner original is the ultimate comic-book movie, not to be besmirched in even a sidelong manner, my expectations were raised. I hadn't seen it since I was a kid, so it was practically like seeing it for the first time.
And don't get me wrong; I liked it okay, and all. I liked the John Ford-ish cinematography in the Smallville sequences, though teen Clark Kent bore not the smallest resemblance to Christopher Reeve. I was interested to see that Jackie Cooper as Perry White had grown from being an excruciatingly annoying child actor to a barely noticeable bit player. I guess that's progress.
I enjoyed the crystalline art direction of Krypton, and I was charmed by how extraordinarily dated the movie looked. Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder were good, and I revelled in how uncomfortable I felt during Lois's voice over poem while she's flying with Superman (I'm just that kind of masochist sometimes). The imperilled helicopter sequence was still fairly intense. But I have to admit I'm really looking forward to the better special effects of the new movie.
I guess my only real problem with Superman: The Movie is Superman turning back time by reversing the rotation of Earth. It's not that I mind bad science in a movie. That's fine, if it suits the story. But it too obviously begs the question; why doesn't he go back and save his father? Or simply go back far enough to stop Lex Luthor before he can get started with his plot?
Well, it was a decent evening, anyway. And it was only ten dollars. The big purchase was the thirty dollar pencil sharpener, but damn I needed one. Ever since my last electric pencil sharpener jammed, and I was unable to fix it despite taking it completely apart, I've been having to make do with a pokey little purple thing I must have gotten with a little stationary set in third grade. I couldn't even find another like it at Target; all pencil sharpeners are electric now.
A good pencil sharpener makes me happy. I was getting frustrated with the little one, which didn't so much make a point out of the pencil tip as it made a tiny mallet. It's kind of funny I put so much energy into it when all anyone ever sees is the inked page. We'll, here's the pencil version of a page;
I've been using these Design 3800 pencils. I start with a 2H, and then do details with 6B. I still don't know what those numbers and letters mean, but the 6B is a lot darker, and so I can make the mess you see above. As you can see by comparing the two images above, I often even make last minute dialogue changes between pencilling and inking. I even repositioned a word balloon in this case.
I've noticed a lot of web comics, whose pages are done only in pencil, seem to make a point of allowing the work lines to show through. Some people seem to really like "shown work" in the finished art, which has always sort of perplexed me. I mean, if the drawing wasn't drawn in the first place, how else could it have come into existence? And if you need to see the process of creation as you read, doesn't that mean you're less interested in the story than you ought to be? I don't know. I don't want to cast aspersions on people who dig that sort of thing, really. I'm just saying I don't get it.
Anyway, this entry's gone on long enough, I guess . . .