Dissed In Crayon - AF.net John Calimee Interview

Quote:

---

"As I sat in the theatre watching the movie Serenity , I wanted Josh Whedon to lose his licence to write when he had the "hero" kick a man off the rail of his craft and then shot the guy dead.... Do you know if Josh Whedon had served in War? Watched the friend next to him get his brains blown away? If he's seen the life of a man slip away due to his own hands? If he had, I doubt he wouldn't write his heroes this way. Jack Kirby fought the real deal. Tolkien knew the meaning of War. They meant it when they separated good from evil."

---

The character in question -- Mal Reynolds from Serenity -- had about three seconds to decide whether he would risk his entire crew to save a guy he didn't know. He decided he could not. He then shot the man because under the circumstances, a quick death was merciful. Given Joss Whedon's age, I doubt he has ever been in combat, but I think John Calimee must never have even read about it. Does he actually think real soldiers never let anyone innocent die, or only killed "bad guys"? War constantly asks soldiers to do things that seem immoral. Yes, Tolkein and Kirby both separated good from evil in their work -- and unless they were insane, both knew this was wishful thinking, a fantasy. That fantasy was their response to war, but it certainly isn't the only valid response. Look at the work of director Samuel Fuller. Samuel Fuller fought in WWII and when he came out, he had no use for do-gooder heroes. John Calimee should look at Fuller's Pickup on South Street and see what he thinks of the hero of that film. Or try the work of Sam Peckinpah, another WWII vet. Perhaps Kurt Vonnegut. Tolkein's and Kirby's work is wonderful, but not every fantasy needs to be set in a world in which heroes never have to choose the lesser of two evils. Whedon's "heroes" (and Whedon never called Mal Reynolds that) are willing to make those choices -- this shows respect for real soldiers and respect for his audience. Calimee could learn from the example.

Not to defend Tolkein, but it seems to me that Gandalf, et al. sent the Hobbits off to Mordor knowing full well, or at least assuming, that they wouldn't return ... that they would die in the doing of their deed, or just die.

What makes his work fantasy, is the classic dualistic portrayal of the enemy as inhuman. In reality, one's enemy generally tends to be a man not so much unlike oneself, and not an "inhuman monster".

In the face of an enemy that is an inhuman monster even the grossest of felonies become permissable.

I just read the John Calimee interview and wanted to comment.

John's memory must have failed him because we did talk more than a couple of times in the phone. I have always been big on communicating with my artists. While we did not talk as much as I have with some others, John and I did have several conversations. I remember our first one, especially because he seemed surprised when I called him up and was apologetic about his art. He said he sort of fell into it and it wasn't a career he expected to be in.

Anyway, I tried to find out from him where his strengths were so I could write to those strengths. I admit some of my early scripts were Alan Moore influenced and expository, but I cut way back on that by the time the fish story came up. And part of my cutting back was because John said he wanted less detail. My concern as a storyteller, however, has always been to not forget certain details that are important to telling a story.

So sometimes I would add some details so he had an idea what I was talking about. I didn't expect him to take it literally. It was just so he would be able to visualize it.

I probably did have too many characters in some scenes, but that was because the editor Marcus McLauren, who was also new at the time, wanted that. I wanted to cut back because I knew it was hard on artists. I have a lot of artist friends, and used to see Brent Anderson all the time, so he told me what to avoid. But they wanted some stuff in the book that I felt was going to hurt it, like too many bodies in a scene.

The human eye can only process so much information for it to be effective. I have always believed that less is more.

As for his art, I was very unhappy that I was saddled with him at teh time because I felt he was not right for the book I was trying to do and wasn't experienced enough. A mark of a good artist is that he is able to be self critical. So he understands this also. But, hey, we both needed a job.

I would have loved to have worked with Lee, buit the artist I wanted on the book, that Carl Potts nixed was Hugh Haynes. I felt he could have grown into it. We a couple stories early on in Alpha Flight, but Potts felt he wasn't good enough to stay on the book. I'll never understand that. He showed the talent and was getting better.

Ah well...

Hello James and welcome to the forum. I'm kinda curious in regards the number of issues a writer would expect to have to write before he had an idea as to an artists strengths? Warren Ellis seemd to understand fairly quickly that the limitations of Stormwatch as a concept curtailed the strengths of Hitch and Neary therefore necessitating the rebirth of the book as 'The Authority'.

I think you did a number of issues of Strikeforce Morituri with John Calimee before you came over to Alpha? Did the art in those issues differ much from the art in Alpha Flight?

FIGHT OR FLIGHT?

Derek Robinson interviewed comics artist John Calimee over his "Alpha Flight" work a few years ago. A title Byrne originated, and both wrote and drew. But, even if Calimee can't touch Byrne's artistic heights on the title, how about his intriguing perspectives? Off the art board I mean….

You'll have your own favourites from this remarkably self-depracatory interview, but I think my favourite has to be this.

"As I sat in the theatre watching the movie 'Serenity,' I wanted Josh Whedon to lose his licence to write when he had the 'hero' kick a man off the rail of his craft and then shot the guy dead. With 'friends' like this, thank god for enemies.

"It plays well to the popular crowd, but it's hardly inspiring. There's nothing appealing there. Do you know if Josh Whedon had served in War? Watched the friend next to him get his brains blown away? If he's seen the life of a man slip away due to his own hands? If he had, I doubt he wouldn't write his heroes this way"

That's right, folks, Joss Whedon is a terrible writer because he Did Not Go To War. They should have used that on propoganda posters...

Still Joss, if things start heating up in Iran, there's plenty of opportunity for you to hone your writing skills.

Mind you, Calimee may have also missed that the cast of Serenity are meant to be bad guys...

Where is the wine?

This was posted over at www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=13

It's in the Lying in the Gutters

MM

It would be interesting if Mr. Hudnall got to write AF again. I've always thought well of how he wrote.

Hi Del,

I read your interview with John Calimee recently, and was equally impressed with his candor, enthusiasm, and love of the comics medium. As a comic creator myself, I wanted to write him and share some of my thoughts, as well as inquire about his current freelance availability. Since I don't have his contact info, I sent you an e-mail via this forum, but I'm not sure if it ever got to you. Can you please contact me via e-mail or private message?

Thanks,
Dara

Hi Dara
I've dropped you a private message with some bits and pieces in there.
Johns candor raised a few eyebrows at certain forums. I found it refreshing.

Regards
Del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maniac mike

Mind you, Calimee may have also missed that the cast of Serenity are meant to be bad guys... MM

---

Especially since, about ten minutes before the scene in question, one of them says it literally. "Let's be bad guys."

Also, I loved Hudnall's writing of AF. He made an issue with Calimee's art (which I hate hate) one of my favourites.
('cept the way he keeps putting 'ha ha' into dialogue. That always bugged me.)

- Le Messor
"Down with categorical imperatives!"

I am reminded of a favorite commerical where the guy softly whines...

"Don' be hatin'."

Someday I'm gonna lift a beer with Rob Liefeld and trade 'worst slams ever received.' Or perhaps start a poll for 'worst moment in comic-art history... the infamous Captain America swallowed a safe pin-up... or my run on AF. (He says smiling.) Perhaps we could talk Keith Obermann into covering the event. Today's worst-person in the world...

Hi Jim. We spoke several times? My bad. We are talking some 14 years ago. My memory of the last 20 years is quite vague. The mind, and memory is very selective. The kernel of truth that generated my comment was reflecting on the 'process' by which the books were done. I doubt I offered any suggestions regarding the book as I understood plots were 4 issues, if not more, ahead of my pencils. Besides, I was under the gun just to meet deadlines, let alone distract myself contributing plot ideas. It was what it was.

I am quite pleased to see Kurt Vonnegut mentioned in this thread. May I throw in a few more 'classics' for our younger generation to feed upon. If one is in the market for conflicted heroes, I highly recommend the Hollywood Classic 'The Misfits.' Or 'Long Day's Journey into Night.' Serenity is to these films as my run on AF is to Alex Ross. Seeing how we are discussing quality in narrative...

I'm happy you enjoyed Serenity. Heck, I'm sure someone's posting on the net who thinks 'The Punisher' was great cinema as well. Don't let me stop your fun. For me, and I only speak for myself, when I watch or read a story -as someone who creates- I often find myself looking at a story from the p.o.v. of the act of creation. Not as a consumer.

It's certainly enjoyable to have a good story just wash over one's self and enjoy it for what it is. But part of my fascination as a creator is to see the structure of a story as a blank page where some slob sat up half the night hashing out what happens next. The parameters of what happens happens because the writer CHOOSES these things to happen. Mack Reynolds could have "three seconds" to work with, or 3 years. All with the flick of a pen -or eraser. As to whatever dramatic this set up later in the film...' I've seen more angst from Karl Rove on any given day. -You want genuine character angst? Watch 'The Misfits.' The varied and conflicting emotions in that film is heart wrenching. Whedon's choice of structuring that scene as he did falls flatter still when we get to the end of the movie and these oh, SOOO evil, frightful creatures are mowed down -LITERALLY- hundreds to one. Kuwait put up a better fight.

As to Mac Reynolds not being a hero. You get no arguement from me there.

My disconnect with his character is much the same disconnect I have with all the populist grim and gritty, conflicted, angry, take no prisoner, who's the hero??? narrative that runs throught Comics today. Blurred ethics consumables for a culture that reeks of blurred ethics. The shoe fits.

Let's talk about Steve Rude. That man is a god.

Many thanks for reminding me of the absurdities that are Serenity. I've been sitting up in the wee hours mixing a palette of my just arrived galena pigment (black leaded sulphate). Did you know Raphael used black leaded sulphate -and ground, clear venetian glass -cristallo- in his paintings? Anyway, it's easy to kid about my 'old' work considering I didn't learn a damn about art back in college, only to gain a great deal of understanding and means in the Arts since. Including having a fairly good idea how Jan van Eyck did what he did. -With no tempera, no less. But in the immortal words of Peter David, "I digress."

Thanks for the chuckle. Better n' coffee.

Sorry to forget Mal's name. I was too busy being afeared some Amish furniture was going to pop up in the next scene of the movie. I give them credit for dumbing down that decor. Nice set designs. But thank god they aired the film before Brokeback Mountain was released. One knows what it looks like NOW to run around in cowpoke gear. Ol' Mal would have a lot of explainin' to the missus, all dressed up like that.

Who could forget the wonder and pondering over the chick with big boots and what mysterious powers she might posess? That someone would chase her across the stars. (Farther than chasing someone from Boston to South Carolina, even.) You have to mean it to chase someone across stars, murder entire villages, etc. etc. All this over some 'mysterious' power -that turns out to be....

She fights like Kato. Ok. And she's slightly telepathic. Not in a Professor X sort of way. More in a Deanna Troi sort of way.

Now, if you put Kato and Deanna into one body, I might feel comfortable walking with him/her late at night on the mean streets of Chicago. But said person would hardly give the present Canadian Army pause, let alone an inter-stellar Federation. One laser guided air strike and 'poof.' No more Deanna/Kato. -What's up with that?

And one would think flying a space ship involves a little bit of skill in higher reasoning. At least equal to the intellectual gymnastics one would need to hail a bus. Driving in Space takes skill, even for a zombie. So what dullard of a zombie -that can navagate a space ship mind you- would fall for the old 'dead bodies on the hull' trick? What a duffus. It's hard to be afeard of stupid critters. The 'walking the gauntlet scene' in Pitch Black was rivetting. One ached for the characters to survive the passage. This dead man float didn't. I cared more dropping a scoop of ice cream from my cone as a kid.

Ok, so maybe it wasn't about the 'powers'. It was about the SECRET. Yeah right. Like George Bush loses any sleep that you know about the NSA. What self respecting Inter-stellar government would tremble over something as inept, dullard zombs???

Ooooh, bad zombies. They're not so tough. Any millitary worth it's salt would just set up assault lines in places where's there's only one point of entry. Dullar zombies pile up at the door at the rate of 100's to 1.

Although the 'one' was touching. -Perhaps the only likable character in the film and he dies for the angst of it all. So touching.

Next thing, you guys'll be telling me the Fantastic Four was a good movie.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Galaxy Quest. Now that's good story telling.

Gonna have to disagree with you like woah, Mr. Calimee. Serenity's definately one of the better flicks of last year

Quote:

---

She fights like Kato. Ok. And she's slightly telepathic. Not in a Professor X sort of way. More in a Deanna Troi sort of way.

Now, if you put Kato and Deanna into one body, I might feel comfortable walking with him/her late at night on the mean streets of Chicago. But said person would hardly give the present Canadian Army pause, let alone an inter-stellar Federation. One laser guided air strike and 'poof.' No more Deanna/Kato. -What's up with that?

---

You can't launch a laser guided air strike if you don't where the hell she is.

Quote:

---

Driving in Space takes skill, even for a zombie. So what dullard of a zombie -that can navagate a space ship mind you- would fall for the old 'dead bodies on the hull' trick?

---

How did they not look like a small Reaver ship? I'd have been fooled, if I didn't know better.

Quote:

---

Like George Bush loses any sleep that you know about the NSA. What self respecting Inter-stellar government would tremble over something as inept, dullard zombs???

---

Seriously, how can you even compare the two? Was the NSA killing planetfuls of people, creating a race of killers that went on to slaughter hundreds more?

Serenity had a lot more to it than you give it credit for. It wasn't just some slapped-together space movie. It's about a group of people treading the middle ground between absolute control (the Alliance, at the centre of everything), and absolute chaos (the Reavers, out in the black, just as bad as the Alliance, just in a different way). Simon and River parallel this somewhat. She's nuts, and he's uptight, but he was around first and has more reach, so he wins. They are the embodiment of this spectrum of chaos/control, and between the two of them, everything they touch turns to ****.

But yeah, tangent much, the point of Serenity is that everyone has to live somewhere between these two extremes.

ETA: Although I'll definately agree with you about Galaxy Quest. ;)

Allô M.Hudnall and M.Calimee,

I liked to read both what you said about your time with AF. I thought there was a lot of potential in those stories and also in the drawing, but it was not there yet like it should be.

I did not followed your perspective career after AF, but for your drawing Mr. Calimee, it look very good now, the same powerful simple lines, but with backgrounds and better proportions.

As for Serenity, The Misfits or Galaxy Quest, I can't say anything since I never seen those movies. But I read Lord of the Ring and I liked the black and white view because it was set in a magical world where everything is bigger than nature. It's a metaphore on many levels and it's why it's good.

As for super heroes comic books, we are supposed to believe it's here and now in our world except there is people with super-powers. The black and white look of thinks usually don't fit well for me for that style. The all good know-it-all superhero just frustrate me and the all bad, all evil supervillain is boring and sometimes even insulting to many people. Remember the time where every russians where villains unless they pass to the west came to live in the US, to live the live of the free?

I like better the grey area without going to the grim and gritty some goes making it artificially dark without real reasons.

As for heros, I will let the artist Jean Giraud AKA Moebius talk for me (sorry for the bad translation) : "My personal idea of a hero is not a perfect being, but someone that is inproving (going toward perfection)"

I'm not offended that Calimee didn't like Serenity. I liked it a lot, though I don't feel it was perfect. What offended me was the suggestion that writers who actually fight in wars would put good on one side and evil on the other, like Kirby, and make the path of righteousness difficult but never hazy. I offered Vonnegut, Fuller and Peckinpah as war veterans who did not do that, not as Whedon's artistic equals. But I think Whedon is good at what he does, and part of what makes his fantasy worlds interesting are tough choices. Remove those impossible choices, you do not improve the work -- you damage it.

Now Calimee's more recent posts suggest that he likes Vonnegut. (As well as Eugene O'Neill and Arthur Miller, though these men weren't war vets and never wrote about war, guns, or anything else we're talking about here.) I take it Calimee is drawing a line between art and entertainment. Calimee can ask for pure heroism in entertainment while accepting anti-heroes in art -- I deeply disagree, but the notion doesn't offend me.
It's just the notion that fighting in a war would bring Whedon (and presumably everyone) around to this opinion that ticks me off.

A final salvo on the subject of Serenity.

I mentioned it in the interview in its relation to comic books. Whedon is writing comics now, part of the "if you can't beat the movies, be a movie" syndrome running through comics now. Paper movies. Ugggh.

Wheither or not one wants to tag Mal the 'hero', he is the central character with whom the writer wants us to have an empathy. I sit watching a character WRITEN to kick someone off the edge of a craft -and shoot them in the head. Well, my empathy went sailing out the window at that point.
It's the same type of character garbage one finds in Tom Cruise 'romance' movies, where I sit pondering, "Why should I care? I don't like either of these people. It would serve them right to die a lonely death."

A character moving towards perfection is well and fine but it cannot be to a moral standard lower than one is willing to go. Osama Bin Laden is, was 'moving toward perfection', at least in his own mind.

I am not advocating that heroism is a narrow spectrum of absolute good and absolute evil. Good storytelling is exactly demonstrating the struggle a character goes through making moral choices towards a good. Where writers have moved into the blurred lines of anti-heroes and the like, it works best when EVERYTHING about the story is as equally complex and nuanced. Where complex and nuance IS the subject of the story. This film has none of the complexity seen in Doctor Strangelove and if one isn't willing to write in that direction all the way, it's bad writing to write it but a hint of the way. Superficial things unnecessary to the movement of story should be dropped. Nothing about how the story hinged on the shooting scene. All it did was take me out of the story. That Whedon would be so cavalier to structure his story to include the shooting scene suggests to me that he lacks a certain gravity toward the subject. War, or any other life experience -say, a family member being murdered- would color his experience enough to approach the subject with real depth and gravity, ala Vonnegut. Or not go there at all.

-But enough on that. I'd rather talk about good storytelling.

"I, Borg" was such a brilliant bit of storytelling. The introduction of the Silver Surfer in the FF. Ditko and Lee's Spiderman, particularly the issue where Spidey frees himself from this mammoth weight. The Dick van Dyke episode where Laura gets her foot stuck in the tub. That's good storytelling. These stories suck you in from the first moment and hold you straight to the end. There is clarity, structure, wit, and a marvelous economy.

Making a comic like-a-film is putting style far ahead of substance. Writers and artists should be interested in speaking to the human condition -with clarity, structure, wit and economy. Word balloon counts shouldn't matter. Pin-up shots shouldn't matter. Panel grids shouldn't matter. New school, old school shouldn't matter. Make the reader care.

If you haven't seen The Misfit, Galaxy Quest or Long Days Journey into Night, do yourself a favor. Run to a rental store. You'll be very glad you did. Quality. Quality. Quality.