I hadn’t heard that but I think it does make Maher a real jerk. I am in no way ashamed of reading comics as a child (and it helped me learn to read) nor that I continued to read them even as an adult until I was so busy with my family I rarely had time. I am grateful I lived to see movies based on comic books that are visually awesome. Comics do indeed teach lessons if you actually read them. They are not meaningless and not just for children.
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make that is causing us to go in circles here. To recap the conversation, these are the statements and direct responses:
Ají de Gallina: If you get offended by his comment which wasn’t even on Stan Lee himself, then you got other problems.
Czarcasm: When someone says something offensive, it is the people that are offended that is the problem?
Me: That’s just an opinion. If someone is offended by that then, yeah, they’re the problem.
And here is my point: There was nothing offensive to start with. If people are offended by one random guy with a TV show who doesn’t like comic books, then they are just going around looking for things to be offended by. They have no sense of proportion.
I get, “Boy, Maher’s a real asshole.” I don’t get the indignation.
My complaint about comic books is I wish Hollywood would make more original movies instead of Batman 43, Spiderman 36 , X Men 16, etc.
More original comic movies? Space douche and his team including gun raccoon and laconic tree man not do it for you? Even then-obscure Iron Man was a ballsy character to start with.
Doom Patrol!
You’ve obviously not read League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It has ads for Victorian sex aids.
Maher didn’t offer his opinion about comic books, he offered his opinions about adults who like comic books. And those opinions were not complimentary. As an adult who likes comic books, I don’t care for people going on TV and saying shitty things about me. I don’t think reading his comments, and then going on the internet and saying, “Bill Maher is an idiot,” is reacting out of proportion to that.
Since 2008, Marvel has released works, both movies and TV, based on the following superheroes / characters:
Iron Man (3)
Hulk
Thor (3)
Captain America (3)
The Avengers (3)
Guardians of the Galaxy (2)
Ant Man (2)
Doctor Strange
Spider Man
Black Panther
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D
Agent Carter
Daredevil
Jessica Jones
Luke Cage
Iron Fist
the Defenders
The Punisher
(There were rumors of an Inhumans show, but I prefer to think that never happened)
Have we reached Peak Marvel? Maybe, but they are definitely working hard to get a lot of different characters involved in the universe.
To clarify I wish Hollywood made more original movies that have nothing to do with comics. For example more movies like Interstellar.
But I know it’s all about the bucks so as long as comic movies rake in the big bucks that’s what we will keep getting.
But that’s just it. Bill Maher doesn’t know you. He didn’t say shitty things about you. Why do you give a shit what he says?
I am a jazz guitarist. If Bill Maher said, “Rock guitarists rule, jazz guitarists are stuck in the past and are idiots” I would hit the delete key and go on with my life.
I remember when Roger Ebert offered his opinion that video games weren’t art. And I disagree 100%, and think he was operating out of preconceived ignorance, but the difference is that he didn’t say that only dumbass kids played video games.
Runaways
Cloak & Dagger
New Warriors (future)
Not counting non-MCU Marvel, of course.
I was going to say that only a couple studios (Marvel, and Warner Brothers with DC) make comic book movies, and that the rest of the studios have their own big dumb comic-style franchises. But then when I sat down to make a list, there are actually two more studios who churn out repetitive comic book stuff: Sony’s Spiderman and 20th Century Fox’s X-Men and Deadpool.
[ul]
[li]Disney: Star Wars[list][*]also Marvel Studios[/ul][/li][li]Warner Brothers: DC Comics, Harry Potter[/li][li]20th Century Fox: X-Men, Deadpool, Fantastic Four, Avatar[/li][li]Sony: Spiderman, James Bond[/li][li]Paramount: Mission Impossible, Star Trek, Terminator, Transformers[/li][li]Universal: Fast and Furious, Jurassic World[/list]When someone complains about Hollywood making too many comic book movies, I think they’re kind of talking about everything in the above list, not just movies based on comic books. I mean, is Fast and Furious really all that different from a comic book?[/li]
For more interesting stuff you have to seek them out, since most of the advertising budgets go to tentpole franchises. Some recent examples from my Netflix DVD history, all released this year or last, and with varying degrees of both quality and obscurity. (My ratings in parentheses.)
I Think We’re Alone Now (3)
Upgrade (4)
Adrift (4)
The Endless (5)
A Quiet Place (5)
Hereditary (5)
Mayhem (3)
Downsizing (3)
Meadowland (3)
Flower (4)
Annihilation (4)
Professor Marston and the Wonder Women (4)
Mother! (5)
Upstream Color (3, despite really wanting to like it more. Same guy who made Primer.)
It Comes at Night (4)
There’s a ton more from 2016 (Arrival, The Belko Experiment, etc…) and for pretty much every year before that. I guess what I’m saying is that if you have comic book / tentpole franchise fatigue, there are tons of other current movies to watch instead. And if you go see them in the theater, studios will see them being more profitable and might put more focus on those kinds of movies.
You really think Maher makes a distinction between graphic novels and comic books? Or maybe calling them “graphic novels” is exactly part of what he thinks is adults labeling them as sophisticated literature.
When Maher was a kid, comics might have been only kid stuff. But superheroes stories advanced, never mind the other forms of stories told in graphic art format. That he doesn’t understand this shows his ignorance. That he chose to piss on Stan Lee shows his personality.
Can someone explain the difference, if there is one, between a Comic Book and a Graphic Novel? I was never into comic books as a kid (or as an adult), so I’m pretty ignorant on the subject. The first time* I head the term “Graphic Novel” I figure it was just a comic book that people wanted you take seriously. But again, I’m pretty ignorant on the subject so I could be dead wrong.
*It was when I first saw Sin City.
In common parlance, perhaps not. But it would surely be more precise – and consistent with the kind of behavior that is encouraged by the rules of this board in speaking of fellow posters – to say that Bill Maher’s statement was idiotic, rather than unnecessarily vilifying the man himself. I’m sensitized to this distinction because I generally enjoy Maher’s program, agree with most of what he says, and find him to be generally fairly well informed, or at least well briefed for the topics that come up on his show.
And I’m well aware of the infamous interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in which Maher appeared to side with some of his anti-vax bullshit. But to justifiably call someone an idiot, as a person, really requires a consistent pattern of idiotic behavior. Many people dislike Maher – some very intensely – and believe that the pattern is there, but I don’t see evidence of it. He’s just intentionally provocative and willing to risk being offensive, and that’s always been his show-biz niche. Nothing wrong with that if you can back it up with also being reasonably well informed, at least most of the time. Many of the panel conversations on his show are actually very informative and thoughtful, sometimes with leading political and intellectual figures, and I often find them a soothing late-night intellectual palliative to the woes of the world.
Agreed, it was a stupid blunder. As for attention-seeking, however, I’d venture to guess that you’d be seeking attention, too, if your income and livelihood were directly dependent on it. This particular case was a very stupid way to do it, but my reaction to it is to acknowledge that fact, consider it all in context, and move on.
Miller and I have already gone down this road - there is none.
‘Graphic novel’ isn’t a term with a single set definition. There are a handful of common definitions - most of them place it as a specific subset of comic books (‘serious literature’ types, long form self-contained stories, single volumes), and one makes them directly synonymous, but ‘graphic novel’ is used to avoid the juvenile implication of ‘comic book’. (Sort of the SF/Sci-Fi thing, except the backlash against it isn’t so hard.)
There is no standard set of definitions that differentiate the two. There are people who might subscribe to these models:
-
There is no difference. The two are interchangeable.
-
If it’s for kids, it’s a comic book. If it’s for adults, it’s a graphic novel.
-
If it’s crappy, it’s a comic book. If it’s good it’s a graphic novel.
-
If it’s a serialized periodical it’s a comic book. If it’s a complete, self-contained story, it’s a graphic novel.
Under the last definition, a comic book becomes a graphic novel when it’s collected and bound together in a single volume or series of volumes.
I’m reminded of a conversation on the topic elsewhere a couple of years back (which is where I got the link up-thread.) I link to this post because it isn’t just some guy on the internet saying that “graphic novel” doesn’t really mean anything, it is this guy on the internet saying that “graphic novel” doesn’t really mean anything.
I stopped watching Maher because he’s an idiot. And I’m someone who agrees with him on probably 80 percent of his opinions.
There are three areas in which he routinely makes idiotic statements.
The first is any topic related to health, diet, medicine, vaccines, etc. He has said more than once that he believes that pretty much all health issues boils down to diet. That we wouldn’t need government-supported health care if people just adopted the same diet he has.
The second is religion. And I say that as a hard-core atheist. Maher’s documentary about religion was full of stupid arguments and false information. And his militant atheism has led him into a path of anti-Muslim bigotry. No matter how bad you think a religion might be, you can’t blame an individual for all its crimes just because he or she nominally subscribed to something by the same name. Just like not every white man has to answer for all the crimes by all white men.
Finally, Maher supports anti-science terrorist group, namely PETA, both in spirit, with his endorsement, and with his money. His animal activism has also led him to make idiotic statements about the economy and agriculture.
Those are his worst intellectual crimes.
There are more minor issues that negatively affect the quality of his show
Here’s a good example – following up from my earlier post – about why it’s a mistake to subject Bill Maher to broad-brush vilification as “an idiot” just because he occasionally says something controversial or maybe even stupid.
I posted this in 2015 about the appearance of Rick Santorum as the key interviewee on Maher’s show, who then proceeded to spout climate change denialist bullshit. Many of Maher’s shows feature controversial right-wing figures like that, and they’re treated respectfully (with Maher sometimes enjoining his liberal audience to do the same if they appear to be getting hostile), but at the same time Maher is relentless in challenging them with facts.
In this particular case, Santorum blindsided him with a claim so absurd that Maher was unprepared to refute it. The claim was of course complete bullshit, as I describe in the linked post, but at that point Maher didn’t have the information to refute it, so he could only smile and say he doubted it, and move on to another topic. The show was on hiatus the next week, but what impressed the hell out of me – and I’ve never seen this before on any show – was that when he was back two weeks later, the issue had been researched by his staff and Maher took time out to provide a comprehensive factual rebuttal so closely aligned with my previous post that it was almost as if he was quoting it.
My point is that in the majority of circumstances Bill Maher is informed, informative, and except for some oddball or controversial beliefs and the occasional tasteless snark, is mostly about the exposition of factual reality in a humorous vein.