The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
b-side
Thursday, January 18, 2017 — 5B
CW
TV is a better medium for
comic book adaptations
Despite a boom in comic book movies, the small screen is
a better platform for the episodic nature of comic books
We live in what some might
call “the golden age of comic
book movies.” That is, we live in
an age with a seemingly endless
cycle of comic book films. Capes
and cowls fill the big screen all
months of the year. Next year
alone will see the release of
three “X-Men” movies, three
Marvel Studios movies, a DC
film, a Sony Pictures Spider-
Man spin-off about Venom and
others as well. But while comic
book movies have only recently
begun
to
dominate
movie
theaters, TV shows based on
comic books have been popular
since the early ’90s. It is
television after all, not movies,
that is designed to be literally
episodic in nature, watched
week to week, episode to
episode, for as long as possible.
While it is comic book movies
that currently take up most of
the airtime surrounding comic
adaptations, I believe that TV
is actually the medium most
suited to adapting comics.
Unlike movies, TV shows
don’t have to wrap up their
storyline at the end of an
episode. TV shows are built
off the idea of a cliffhanger, of
keeping the audience coming
back week after week. TV
shows may have given birth
to the phrase “monster of the
week,” but they really got that
idea from comic books. Shows
like “Smallville” or “Batman:
The Animated Series,” based
on comic book stories about
Superman
and
Batman
respectively, feature an ongoing
storyline while also allowing
their heroes to fight different
villains and foes each episode.
Cartoons in general are a
natural home for superheroes,
with colorful animation fitting
in perfectly with the artwork
that children are familiar with
from reading comics. Shows
like “Teen Titans,” “Batman:
The Brave and the Bold” or
“Riverdale” make great use of
their admittedly silly source
material by playing everything
completely straight, and letting
the drama play out as it would
in a comic book, with twists
taking weeks to play out and
ending episodes in ways that
always
leave
the
audience
wanting more.
Another
way
in
which
TV shows based on comics
have succeeded where films
have failed is the idea of
the
“Cinematic
Universe.”
This term first came into
use around the time of the
original
“Avengers”
movie.
Pioneered by Marvel Studios, a
“Cinematic Universe” is a series
of interconnected films that all
take place in the same “canon,”
allowing them to build off of or
out of each other. While this
idea seemed novel at the time,
TV beat them to the punch by
almost two decades. The DC
Animation Universe began in
the early ’90s with “Batman:
The
Animated
Series”
and
“Superman:
The
Animated
Series.”
These
two
series
featured
regular
crossovers
and eventually expanded their
universe to include “Justice
League,”
“Justice
League:
Unlimited,” “Batman Beyond,”
“Teen Titans,” “Static Shock”
and many others. While DC
fans continue to ring their
hands over the fate of the DC
Universe on the big screen,
DC has twice over had the
best interconnected television
universe
on
the
market.
First with the DC Animated
Universe of the ’90s and 2000s
and now with the so-called CW
Arrowverse, which includes the
shows “Arrow,” “The Flash,”
“Supergirl” and “Legends of
Tomorrow.”
Indeed, TV is more suited to
the connectivity that is featured
so
prominently
in
comics.
In TV, it’s easier to contract
actors through the network
to appear on a multitude of
shows, or to animate a bunch
of background characters from
another
TV
show
without
having to pay anyone a cent.
In TV, long storylines that
play out over a half-decade or
longer are the norm, not the
exception. It’s hard to really
imagine a “Riverdale” movie,
but the series works great on
TV, where it is just schlocky
enough to have some kind of
bonkers appeal. TV shows also
don’t have to reach nearly as
large an audience in modern
times as movies do, and in that
way they can be more selective
and considerate of the kinds
of stories they want to tell.
While movies appear to be the
dominant form of comic book
adaptations, TV shows remain
strong, and it seems likely that
they will once again become
the prevailing method of comic
book adaptation in the future.
IAN HARRIS
Managing Video Editor
Singing in speech bubbles:
Gorillaz’s 2-D revolution
How the animated band harnessed the untapped potential
of virtual music-making and changed the music industry
For a whole month during the
summer of 1969, the hottest song
in the United States belonged
to a comic book character. The
chart-topper
“Sugar
Sugar”
was recorded by none other
than the Archies; that’s right,
the cartoon band made up of
“Archie Comics” characters like
Veronica Lodge, Betty Cooper
and
the
eponymous
Archie
Andrews himself. “Sugar Sugar”
ruled the airwaves, spending
22 weeks on the Billboard Hot
100 and selling over a million
copies. While not the most
groundbreaking group at the
time, both conceptually and
sonically, the Archies’ animated
bubblegum fare indirectly paved
the way for one of the most
imaginative and experimental
musical acts of the 21st century:
Gorillaz.
To
the
unfortunately
uninformed,
Gorillaz
is
a
virtual band — meaning their
lineup consists of animated
characters rather than human
musicians. 2-D provides the
lead vocals, Noodle and Murdoc
play the guitar and bass guitar
(respectively)
and
Russell
anchors the band on drums.
However, hidden behind these
four memorable personalities
lies the twofold heart of the
operation: former Blur frontman
Damon Albarn, who spearheads
the musical side of things,
and comic book artist Jamie
Hewlett, the man behind the
now-iconic artwork and design
of the band. The question is,
how did Gorillaz cement itself
as a legitimate and legendary
band and avoid being reduced
to nothing more than a fad like
their animated ancestors Alvin
and the Chipmunks and the
California Raisins? The answer
lies in Gorillaz’s understanding
of the creative potential found in
the fusion of comics and popular
music and their unwavering
dedication to create visuals
as lasting as the sounds they
accompany.
The fact that Gorillaz even
evolved beyond a mere idea
was as unlikely as an animated
band earning nine Grammy
nominations
and
achieving
double-platinum
status.
In
1990, Hewlett was tasked by
Deadline Magazine, home of
his comic strip “Tank Girl,”
to interview Albarn. By all
accounts, their first meeting did
not go well. Hewlett initially
thought of Albarn as “arsey,
a wanker.” Despite becoming
mild
acquaintances
with
Albarn and the other members
of
Blur,
including
guitarist
Graham Coxon, their friendship
stagnated
(especially
after
Hewlett began seeing Coxon’s
ex-girlfriend). Despite all of this,
however, Hewlett and Albarn
ended up sharing a flat in 1997.
And on one fateful day, the pair
happened to mindlessly watch
MTV long enough for them to
realize something. Frustrated
by the oversaturation of nothing
of substance in popular music at
the time, they decided to take
action. If what people were
hearing was manufactured, then
they might as well do it properly.
Their band was going to be fake,
but the music sure as hell would
be real.
Gorillaz deserve all the praise
they get musically for their
attempts to deconstruct and
synthesize different genres into
a wholly unique and unheard
blend of sound, but the true star
of the show is the captivating
visual universe Hewlett has
designed.
Behind
their
five
studio albums lies a trove of
music videos, documentaries,
radio interviews, social media
posts,
magazines,
animated
shorts
and
one
illustrated
autobiography that all constitute
a storyline more expansive and
detailed than those of many
comic book heroes. The skeleton
of the Gorillaz-verse comes in the
form of four distinct “phases,”
each correlating with the rollout
and promotion of their mainline
albums (excluding 2010’s The
Fall, which was recorded by
Albarn on tour on an iPad and
released as a free download). The
four phases function as separate
lenses, showing new angles to
the same story and charting the
band’s evolution over its near
two decades of existence.
Phase
One,
aptly
titled
Celebrity Take Down, was a direct
response to the mind-numbing
dominance
of
MTV
Albarn
and
Hewlett
originally
felt
compelled to rebel against. The
videos for singles like “19-2000”
and “Rock the House” seem
tailor-made to be broadcasted
on the channel. Watching them
now, they both capture perfectly
the nostalgia for that hazy 2000s
aesthetic. The videos for their
self-titled debut were visually
engaging enough to subtly slide
lyrics parodying the shallowness
of the music industry into the
mind of viewer without them
realizing. Ironically, these music
videos were lapped up by MTV,
tricking it into following exactly
what 2-D croons on “19-2000”:
“Please repeat the message / It’s
the music that we choose.”
Phase Two and beyond were
able to reap the benefits of
Gorillaz receiving international
attention
both
for
their
music and novelty of concept.
The
music
videos
became
more
involved,
cinematic
productions: “Feel Good Inc”
and “El Mañana” both seem like
Hewlett’s take on a Studio Ghibli
film (with some scenes being
directly inspired by “Castle in
the Sky”) and “Stylo” is a foray
into 3D CGI animation featuring
the band members caught up in
a Mad Max-esque car chase with
Bruce Willis in an El Camino.
The more attention Gorillaz got,
the more effort was expended
towards refining their art style
and cultivating their expansive
backstory. With the release
of 2017’s Humanz, however, it
seemed like the band became less
concerned with telling a story
through music videos like they
did with Demon Days and Plastic
Beach, and instead focused on
showing vignettes of the four
characters’ current lives using
a new multimedia approach
(the first official glimpse of
Phase Four came from Hewlett’s
instagram). Although Gorillaz
has changed much throughout
the years, their commitment to
creating compelling art has not
ceased.
While the story of Gorillaz
could be easily told as a graphic
novel or a comic book, the
fact that it is a band and has
that extra layer of musical
storytelling makes it all the more
noteworthy. Albarn and Hewlett
are able to disappear completely
behind the animated facade they
have constructed, leaving fans
fascinated by the mystery behind
Gorillaz and its lore rather than
fawning over the fake, produced
image which shroud most pop
acts. When Liam Gallagher (the
lead singer of Oasis and rival
to Albarn during the height of
Britpop) once derided Gorillaz
as a “fucking kids band,” Hewlett
thought it was the coolest thing
ever said about them: “I want it
to be for kids. They’re the ones
who don’t care who’s behind it.
They think it’s Gorillaz, they buy
into it the way they should.” The
fact that when you hear Albarn’s
vocals you immediately picture
2-D singing speaks volumes to
everything Gorillaz is about.
They’re a larger-than-life band
that wasn’t even alive to begin
with.
ROBERT MANSUETTI
Daily Arts Writer
Warner Bros.
TV NOTEBOOK
They’re a larger-
than-life band
that wasn’t even
alive to begin with
The fact that
Gorillaz even
evolved beyond
a mere idea was
as unlikely as
an animated
band earning
nine Grammy
nominations
MUSIC NOTEBOOK
MUSIC VIDEO REVIEW
CupcakKe — Chicago-born
rapper, singer, activist and
certified deepthroat pro-
fessional — just changed
the game for duck onesies
everywhere with the release
of her “Duck Duck Goose”
music video. It’s filthy. It’s
fun. It features multiple
close ups of a seemingly
never-ending stream of
frighteningly realistic dil-
dos. The shots are simple,
alternating between cup-
cakKe fully clothed in
a pool or cupcakKe, not
clothed at all, lounging in
a bedroom. She stares us
straight in the eye as she
raps, aggressive and unwav-
ering. Her rhymes are per-
fect.
This is cupcakKe in her
prime: fur heels and rubber
duck nipple pasties, smiling
wide as she delivers, “Tap
the head of the dick, duck,
duck duck goose.”
There’s power in this
unabashed ownership of
gratuitous raunch. When
cupcakKe emerges dur-
ing the first few seconds
of “Duck Duck Goose,” she
doesn’t just walk in wear-
ing a mesh bodysuit, she
struts. When she taps the
dildo she’s holding against
a miniature Statue of Lib-
erty, she’s not questioning
whether or not she can
make your dick stand up,
she knows she can. And who
are we to argue with that
kind of confidence?
“Duck Duck Goose” is sex
positive and body positive,
but it’s also cupcakKe just
having the time of her life.
She manhandles multicol-
ored sex toys with bright
orange nails; she has no
time for your opinion.
-Shima Sadaghiyani, Daily
Music Editor
cupcakKe
“Duck, Duck,
Goose”
cupcakKe