By
The Reverend
November 9, 2003 - 13:17
The first thing I have ask regards something that's gnawed at me for the last couple of weeks:
Is it just me, or have other people confused Elizabeth Smart for Jessica Lynch lately? It's like, when one of their names gets mentioned when I'm casually watching TV, I may not be picturing the correct storyline in my head. I follow a lot of different news sources on a daily, and these two women's respective stories have been all over the place recently, a lot of it culminating in November sweeps events to be presented this next week on competing TV networks. Both young ladies are the "gets" in broadcast journalism right now, and I'm losing track on who got the exclusive with the American POW in Iraq, and who got to interview the 14-year-old kidnapping victim (I've seen news reports list the age as anywhere from 13 to 16 - glad we're all on the same page on this). When NBC's Katie Couric got an interview for the
Today show, ABC's
Good Morning America countered by airing clips of Oprah Winfrey's interview with the Smart family. And I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, that ABC's Diane Sawyer snagged the interview with Private Lynch whose "fact-based' story will be on NBC. I really don't want to get too into the exploitative nature of the whole media circus, but I'm just a bit corn-fused.
Both young ladies are the subjects of made-for-television movies this Sunday, deep in the heart of November sweeps. NBC features Lynch in "Saving Jessica Lynch," and Smart is the tentpole for CBS's Sunday night lineup with "The Elizabeth Smart Story" (CBS had to be in the mix somehow) Not to cheapen the legitimate trauma these girls had to face this last year, but the networks, whether they meant to or not, are asking the viewers (i.e. consumers - this is the whole point of sweeps, you know) to choose between two maligned and exploited blonde Americans. Television viewers who actually watch either of these with avid interest may get something out of it (not likely, really), yet these young ladies are going to being chasing demons of one sort or another for years. Personally, I think I'll stick with Fox's lineup, what with their Sunday comedy lineup being firmly in place after weeks of baseball-related delays. You'd be amazed how much more truth comes out of hilarity than your typical fact-based drama.
Other than feeling relief as anyone else did months ago for Elizabeth Smart's remarkable return to her family after a harrowing kidnapping, I have not followed the story too much. There are a lot of creepy things that contributed to the kidnapping, not to mention the media circus that has been primarily conducted by Elizabeth's parents. They seem eerily open to the public over an event that would seem to benefit all who were involved more if it was kept private. I'd be all too happy to respect their privacy whenever they feel like getting around to really earning it.
What concerns me most centers around the new movie about Jessica Lynch. I believe the tagline used by NBC in promoting their Sunday night movie is "…the story that gave America hope." I beg your pardon? The Bush administration was hip-deep in the middle of an invasion of a foreign country, an act that has polarized the United States to this day, and the rescue of one POW gave our nation hope? I have nothing but love, respect, and admiration for the men and women in uniform who do their job, but considering the fact that there were other POWs -- men & women, black, white & Hispanic -- what was particularly compelling about Pvt. Lynch's ordeal that supposedly brought us all together? Well let's just set it straight right now that this DID NOT bring all Americans together. Americans are just as divided, if not more so, than they were back in March when our president ordered the unprovoked invasion of another country for reasons that have yet to be proven (Got WMD??). And those who actually pay attention and refer to news sources that are not backed by Time Warner, Disney, and Rupert Murdoch are aware that the story behind Pvt. Lynch's harrowing ordeal has more holes in it than the POW herself had at the time she was reclaimed by the U.S. military. Isn't it just a little convenient that the one time the Pentagon supposedly offered full disclosure during combat is during the rescue of a plucky blond who may not have even been captured if her government-issued equipment hadn't failed her (jammed gun, crashed vehicle, etc.)?
I'm not here to question the resolve of Jessica Lynch, believe it or not. Just this week we're finding out that she reportedly suffered the kind of treatment that one would expect to befall a helpless woman held in captivity in a foreign country. Not for a moment would I even suggest that Pvt. Lynch did not pay her dues when she chose to fight for her country. It's just that this story, still in development from where I'm standing, is getting heralded in a manner that only a conservative could love while CBS, in a staggering act of creative cowardice and incompetence, pulled the made-for-TV miniseries "The Reagans" from its scheduled broadcast this month.
Republicans everywhere attacked this production since Day One for a myriad of reasons, first the fact that the star, James Brolin (as our 40th president, Ronald Reagan) is married to one of the Democrats' most vocal supporters, Barbra Streisand. Early on, that seemed to be merely an amusing and ironic footnote to the production. But then, in a unprecedented development in the history of Hollywood biopics, we learned that some of the material was sensational enough to place Ronald and Nancy Reagan in an unflattering light (indisputably shattering the angelic image every single American has maintained of the former First Couple in the last 23 years). CBS head Les Moonves decided to pull the program from their November schedule and ended up shuttling it off to their partner in Viacom, Showtime. Personally, I may actually watch the show now, knowing it's on a more unfiltered channel like Showtime. Perhaps some of the material that was trimmed in an attempt to appease the GOP may return to the finished product, that is, if we ever see it.
Have we detected a pattern of hypocrisy yet? Much like the way Republicans and conservatives everywhere supported Arnold Schwarzenegger's candidacy for governor of California, we have seen that there's battles you should fight, but only when they support your party's ultimate cause. It's been common knowledge for years that Schwarzenegger has committed loutish behavior that would make Bill Clinton blush, yet Republicans didn't see the fault six years ago in spending in excess of $50 million in taxpayer money to oust the 42nd president for covering up the act of cheating on his wife. Ahnold wouldn't have stood a chance if he campaigned on the Democratic ticket, because all of that energy that the GOP used to recall Gray Davis would've been used to make sure the flood of accusations of female groping actually stuck. And since I brought it up, will somebody tell me how The Governator can launch an investigation on impropriety claims against himself?? How does THAT work? Since this is the act of a Californian Republican, I think I already have my answer.
So while we, as discerning and objective American television viewers, can get a rosy uplifting story about a soldier's rescue in an attempt to paint our war efforts as noble and heroic, a docudrama about recent historical figures under a glaring spotlight is unacceptable. Consider this dog wagged.
*************************************************
YES, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TOYS SOMEWHERE AROUND HERE
For over a year now it's been common knowledge to action figure collectors that DC Direct finally had freedom to do just about all the Superman- and Batman-related toys that they want. This opened a lot of doors for a company that has enjoyed remarkable success since 1998 considering they couldn't even create figures based on their two most popular characters. There's been dissent from some of the DC Comics faithful out there that DC Direct's tendency to create figures based on their more obscure and historic (yet currently inactive) characters would fall by the wayside once they started cranking out the likes of the Joker, Batgirl, Catwoman, Brainiac, Bizarro, and Supergirl. That these concerns were warranted is still up for debate, but I do think there's some ways to make both camps happy (thus, happy campers J). I'm not going to say this is going to get us Doom Patrol or anything, but then again no one ever accused me of being Annie Sullivan.
A lot of the Superman Family out put for 2003-04 revolves around comic book story arcs from ten years ago, "The Death of Superman," and "Reign of the Supermen." While there have been many a pleased Superman fan at the prospect of getting the Eradicator, Superboy, and Steel, the overall decision with this concept has been hit and miss. The quality is there, but I think there was a failure to see the big picture. While plenty of fans, not even directly of the Superman Family, could use an action figure of John Henry Irons as Steel, perhaps for their JLA collection, how many people need the one of Superman in a "returned from the dead" black costume that was featured in no more than three issues total among the four different Superman titles that were published in 1993? To the 653 fans out there that will pick this figure up, I say "Enjoy." And let's not even get too much into the fact that the original Superboy clone had an original costume design that would've fit right into New Kids on the Block's video for "Please Don't Go, Girl." Christ... DC Direct became a benchmark in action figure quality four years ago when they started rolling out product that celebrated DC Comics' decades-long history. I don't think what was part of the Man of Steel's mythology ten years ago in an isolated storyline qualifies just yet. Hindsight being 20/20, I think the concept would've been better suited for Mattel, DC Comic's toy manufacturer for mainstream markets (what with their tendency to do a handful of villains and supporting cast and a shi#load of Superman variants). DC Direct got off to a great start two years ago by releasing the Silver Age Superman & Lois Lane deluxe set, and following that with the Classic Superboy/Supergirl deluxe set (complete with Krypto & Streaky). DC Direct could really serve the masses better by continuing to go in that direction. I'd suggest the likes of Clark Kent's supporting cast at the Daily Planet: Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, and perhaps an individually packaged Lois Lane (not one straight out of the original TV series). Why do you think it was a big deal that Michael McKean guest-starred on
Smallville recently as Perry White? Because he's been a well-recognized Superman fixture for decades. And let's see more villains like Lex Luthor (any version would work), Brainiac (the original, please), Toyman (ditto), and Mr. Mxyzptlk. Whereas the upcoming Superman output will all but pass me by at the checkout counter (and it will many other fans, as I fear DC Direct will find out next year), the suggestions I offered are universally adored by many generations and could enjoy years of success. You could totally keep producing the Superman/Lois Lane set, and it's always going to find new customers. With "Reign of Superman," you stand to capture a small group of fans in an even smaller window of opportunity.
However, the points I just made in the last paragraph are about to be contradicted: I am loving the new figures planned for next year based on
Batman's story "Hush," by Jeph Loeb and Jim Lee. Here we see a plan to make ten new Batman Family figures based on a year-long story that just concluded this summer. Not a whole lot of history behind that, eh? To quote ESPN's Lee Corso: Not so fast, my friend. I would argue that with these figures, characters are going to be made that have exposure that goes beyond what was seen in the pages of
Batman this last year. It's not a perfect theory, but of the five that have been revealed so far, Batman, Poison Ivy, Joker, Huntress, and Hush, the first three mentioned, as they were sculpted, transcend the "Hush" story. Plus with the Joker figure, some fans out there have a less expensive opportunity to grab him without an extra figure (Batgirl). Hush and the Huntress are the only two who, as they appear in their sculpted form, are specific to this story. And all of the next five figures, Nightwing, Robin, Harley Quinn, Catwoman, and Superman, while all rendered in designs based on Jim Lee's art, are universal to DC's history in the last several years. And to those who say
"Another Superman figure?" I would remind you that DC Direct has to stay in business somehow, and the Last Son of Krypton sells. People who didn't even read "Hush" are going to love the idea of finally getting action figures of Nightwing, Tim Drake as Robin, Harley Quinn, and the Modern Age Batman. It's not all that bad to put these characters in plastic if they transcend the specific story for which they're being marketed. DC Direct can serve the fans best, as well as themselves in sales, when they keep the timelessness of these characters in primary consideration.
ComicBookBin
