Saturday, November 24, 2007

Not Just By The Numb3rs

Lately, owing to the fact that so far NBC has not brought back Law & Order – perhaps a result of the need to deal with the loss of presidential candidate Fred Thompson as a cast member – I’ve been watching that show Numb3rs on Friday nights.
(As an aside, a recent episode of SVU revealed that Jack McCoy has moved into the big office and is now the DA in the Law & Orderverse.)
I’ve watched the show off and on for the past few years, and it’s actually pretty decent, in a geeky sort of way.
Last night’s episode, though, upped the geek ante, as it centered around comic books.
Once I found out what the show was going to be about I was a bit wary, as, despite the tremendous success of movies based on comic book properties – and the great treatment comics just received on The Simpsons – Hollywood has a tendency to seriously mishandle stories centering around comics and comic fandom.
I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised, and that, except for a few clichéd representation of fanboy stereotypes, the overall tone was fairly respectful.
As always, it pleased me to see (well-researched) references to some of the more obscure comic characters, though it might have been nice to see some more DC characters getting some love.
I also liked the fact that the story was built around something that is an all-too common reality in the comics industry: legendary creators of failing health and limited financial means. There are far too many iconic creators who have fallen on hard times, so it was good to see this brought to life, though I would have liked to have seen a little more in the way of exploring why said creators have fallen on hard times. The primary reason? They got totally screwed by the companies that they did so much great work for during their careers as creators.
Still, that quibble (and another one that I’ll get to shortly) aside, I found myself wondering just how much research was done and who, if anyone, they talked to in the industry, as there were a lot of obvious analogues to the real comic personalities, such as the character portrayed by Wil Wheaton (a real-life geek), who was very clearly patterned after Todd McFarlane.
Being the target of a lot of fanboy antipathy himself (I mean, who didn’t hate Wesley Crusher?), I’m sure Wheaton had a blast playing the role of someone vilified by fans.
The relationship between the ailing creator – played by Christopher Lloyd, who had a great moment of meta-humor when series regular Judd Hirsch said to him, “I have a hard time picturing you as a hippie.” – and a much younger comics writer/artist seemed to be very much informed by the relationship between Jack “King” Kirby and his official historian Mark Evanier.
Anyway, it was a surprisingly fun episode that set a pretty high bar for any future handling of geek culture on TV and in the movies.
My only other quibble with the show as a statement made on how the value of a comic as a collectible is determined. The factors listed were rarity, age, and condition.
That’s most of the story, but I would submit that there is one other factor: significance.
Sure, pretty much any rare and old comic in near mint condition is likely to command a high price, but it’s the old, rare, and significant comics whose prices shoot through the roof. Action Comics #1 isn’t valuable just because it’s old and rare, but because it’s also the first appearance of Superman. The same goes for Detective Comics #27, which features the first appearance of Batman, or Amazing Fantasy #15, which gives us the first appearance of Spider-Man.
But I suppose that, all things considered, I can forgive them for this omission in their theory on the value of collectible comics.
It’s more than what the stereotypical comic fanboy geek would do, but I would say they earned it by producing a quality episode that dealt with a subject near and dear to my heart.

No comments: