Posts Tagged ‘comic-con’

SDCC 2011 Recap: Expanded Universe Edition

28/07

I’m clearly not sticking to the SDCC posting schedule I set out earlier in the week, but I’ve been spending the last few days reading recaps of the #ohyousexygeek panel, and getting into some good back-and-forth conversations on twitter (with some of the panelists themselves, no less). I used the word “disappointing” to characterize the panel itself, but the blog posts, twitter exchanges, and heated debates in comment threads that have emerged out of that panel are anything but. Divisive at times, maybe, but not disappointing.

So, before we move on, a quick blogroll for those who’d like to read further on this:

Posts from the panelists…

Clare Kramer

Jill Pantozzi

Jennifer K. Stuller

Also, Jennifer de Guzman has been great about collecting responses, blog posts, and apologetic letters from G4 here.

Since I’ve fallen behind on recaps, my better half Luke Pebler is stepping in today as guest blogger to offer his perspective on some of the issues of authenticity raised in the #ohyousexygeek panel (which we attended together, and have been discussing ever since).

*****

Like Suzanne, I was a bit disappointed with the #ohyousexygeek panel at Comic-Con. Basically, the feminist bloggers were seated too far from the fashion models, and consequently no one got their hackles up enough to make it fun. And it must have been doubly frustrating for the ladies to have their debate framed most succinctly and effectively by famous, penis-having audience member Seth Green. Seth’s point was that the Sexy Grrl Geek Debate is actually part of a larger debate about fan authenticity in general, and I couldn’t agree more.

Sorry, ladies, but you’re not the only nerds whose culture has been hijacked by comely, vapid caricatures.

I have many fond memories of watching the TechTV cable network in the early 2000s. Its content was so unadornedly nerdy, its hosts so charmingly schlubby, that I paradoxically found it thrilling. These people look and talk like my friends and me. Who let them on TV? As a rural teenager, it gave me the first whiff of geek euphoria that would one day explode my brain when I finally attended my first convention (Star Wars Celebration IV in LA, 2007). But even at that naïve young age, I was looking over my shoulder. I thought: This is a mistake. This is too good to be true.

And so it was. In the span of just a year or two, Comcast-backed goons killed and ate my favorite network. G4 ostensibly merged with TechTV in early 2004, but by Feb 2005 G4 had already dropped “TechTV” from its name and expelled nearly all its people and programming. All operations in TechTV’s original Bay-area home were shuttered, and anyone who wouldn’t relocate to LA was canned. The only vestige of TechTV remaining at modern G4 is, unsurprisingly, the show that anticipated its shrill, slick aesthetic.

This tragic assimilation can be summed up perfectly by the metamorphosis of TechTV’s flagship talk show, “The Screen Savers,” to its spiritual G4 successor “Attack of the Show.” Compare this:

to this:

G4 is exactly what you’d expect TechTV to have been in the first place, if you’re an appropriately cynical adult: Hollywood-polished “personalities” contorting themselves into our niche because they couldn’t land that Axe Bodyspray commercial gig and they gotta pay the rent somehow. (It’s telling that even TechTV’s original resident frat broheim, Kevin Rose, proved too endowed with genuine talent and integrity to stay at G4, bailing out of AOTS after barely a year. Also, funny story how they replaced him!)

Looking back, TechTV was an anachronism and perhaps never meant to last. The internet is almost certainly a better way for tech geeks, gadget freaks, and video gamers to get their news and punditry, and many TechTV alumni have re-coalesced into great new-media entities. Leo LaPorte et al remain as adorable as ever, and are presumably still making a living. Given this, maybe I shouldn’t be bothered by the sort of knuckledragger that would still watch television to get his tech/game news. Live and let live, as Seth Green suggests.

But I can’t help it. Every time I happen past the two-story G4 Comic-Con compound, with its slimy air of velvet-rope starfuckery and its halo of howling Halo fans (whipped into a frenzy by PR flaks), it always gets my hackles up. Because I can feel it creeping up on us all. What I will call “douchegeek hegemony.”

It drives me nuts that these guys are now who laypeople picture when they think of a “gamer.” Honestly? I preferred this guy. Jimmy Teenager doesn’t have the luxury that I had, to like computers and then watch a cable show about computers that is literally just two dudes taking apart a computer. He sees all those people screaming behind Kevin Pereira, and maybe he doesn’t stop to think that the crowd’s been manipulated. He just thinks “If I’m a videogamer (which I am), and I want to be popular (which everyone does), this schtick seems to be working for that guy!” This is douchegeek hegemony.

And it doesn’t apply just to G4, frighteningly. I suggest we vet our icons carefully in all media. The conscription of geek culture by filmic douchebags gives us things like Michael Bay Transformers movies which, when they make $400M, begin to breed, and meanwhile Terry Gilliam still can’t scrape together the money to finish La Mancha. Douchegeek hegemony.

I understand that it’s sometimes hard to police your own subculture, especially amid the head rush of actually being catered to by mass media for the first time. Men, especially, seem gleefully willing to overlook problematic underlying implications whenever boobies or swag are flashed in front of them. But the honeymoon should be over by this point, ten years on. It’s time to put down the controller and push back.

I won’t tell you to make use of the glut of great game/nerd journalism that’s all over the web, because I’m sure you already do. But you gotta stop watching G4, and you really have to stop swarming their booth just because some hired babe waves you over. Go cheer in front of Penny Arcade‘s booth instead. Call Chris Gore what he is: reprehensible. Sweet Jesus, STOP GOING TO TRANSFORMERS MOVIES.

(And hey, Chris Hardwick? It’s time to cut the G4 ties, buddy. You’re beyond them.)

No matter how loud the techno, or awesome the free sticker, or big the fake breasts/enthusiasm, ask yourself: shouldn’t the internet and the mainstreaming of geek culture bring us a broader definition of what “cool” can be, for both women and men? Or are we just gonna let the same boring, good-looking people we loathed in high school define our norms again? I’m a better person for having watched TechTV, and I pray the geek youth of today are smart enough to see through G4’s pandering and go find their own Screen Savers.

Luke Pebler works professionally as a television editor while pursuing passion projects in film, online media and speculative fiction. His credits as a writer/director include the award-winning sci-fi short film The Professor’s Daughter and the web series The Last Hand.

San Diego Comic-Con 2011 Recap (Episode II: Attack of the Princess Naked)

27/07

Whew.  I know I promised to post this yesterday, but as you can see it got a bit…epic.  Bear with me gang, I’ll get to the “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel, but first a little context:

Having devoted an entire chapter of my dissertation to the “Twilight ruined Comic-Con” protests that occurred in 2009, I have spent a good deal of time thinking about SDCC as a gendered space, analyzing how gendered tensions are manifested in that space, and considering how the popular press reinforces a (false) conception of comic-con as an inherently masculine space.  In this chapter, and in various conference presentations I’ve since given on “Twihate” generally, I spend some time analyzing the implications of an illustrated sidebar from a July 25, 2008 Entertainment Weekly article that attempted to humorously outline SDCC’s consistent “Faces in the Crowd.”

The majority of the “usual suspects” here are (perhaps unsurprisingly) men, from the “Campers,” who “arrive at the convention ballrooms each morning, burrow in, and remain in their seats all day as panel after panel parades in front of them,” to the “Family Man,” an aging fan who hasn’t yet realized that “fandom isn’t genetic.”  Female SDCC attendees, meanwhile, can apparently be divided into two camps: “Princess Nakeds” (defined as a “young woman wearing nothing more than skillfully placed electrical tape”) and “Dr. Girlfriends” (defined as “friends/lover/wives of the Con faithful who have no interest in the convention but attend solely to show their support”).

Admittedly, all of the SDCC attendee archetypes outlined above perpetuate crude stereotypes about fans generally, and mock male and female fans equally.  What makes these two “fangirl” representations especially problematic for me is not the fact that they trade in old pathologies, but that they offer no real point of identification for most female SDCC attendees.  The “Princess Nakeds” are constructed as sexualized spectacles rather than fans, offering themselves up for the implied male gaze of SDCC attendees.  As discussed at length in the “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel, many fangirls choose to cosplay in sexually explicit garb and claim that choice as empowering, but the fact that the “Princess Naked” is here constructed as a separate category from the “LARPer” is telling.  Even if we assume that the term “Princess Naked” is a reference to the disproportionate number of “Slave Leias” that tend to populate events like SDCC (as the accompanying caricature would suggest), the description divorces the archetype from cosplay and LARPing traditions and makes it difficult to read this (by definition, sexualized) display as a form of fan production.  Wearing her costume of “strategically placed electrical tape” (what character is this supposed to be?!?), the “Princess Naked” under this definition isn’t attempting to embody a specific character, she is simply offering herself up as a sexualized object for the fanboy gaze.  She is, in the parlance of the panel in question, simply “pandering.”

The “Dr. Girlfriend” archetype is, in some sense, far more troubling to me than the implicit alignment of the “Princess Naked” with the sexually objectified “booth babe.”  As I’m sure you’re all well aware, “Dr. Girlfriend” is a reference to a character on the cult Cartoon Network Adult Swim series The Venture Bros. (2003-present). Costumed in the retro style of Jacqueline Kennedy, and voiced by the male co-writer of the show, Doc Hammer, the clash between her hyperfeminine aesthetic and decidedly masculine aural presence has made Dr. Girlfriend one of the show’s most popular characters, and a favorite character for fangirls to cosplay.

Entertainment Weekly’s description of “Dr. Girlfriends” as unwilling attendees, tagging along after their boyfriends or husbands (the presumed “real” attendee), coupled with a caricature of a horrified-looking woman being forced to carry poster tubes and bags of merchandise, goes beyond simply failing to represent female fans.  The characterization of the “Dr. Girlfriend” subtly implies that no woman could possibly enjoy an experience at SDCC…unless, of course, she’s a “Princess Naked” exhibitionist.  Ultimately, both the “Princess Naked” and the “Dr. Girlfriend” archetypes are rooted in a binary view of female sexuality, the former hypersexualized and the latter heteronormatively coupled.  In both cases, importantly, female attendees are constructed through and defined by their male cohort’s gaze and companionship.  They are safely contained.

I do find it amusing that it looks like that sand person is managing this car wash

The “Oh, you Sexy Geek!” panel at SDCC 2011 this past Thursday was designed to take on the “Princess Naked” effect, and speak back to the accusations of “pandering” the so-called “fake fangirls” who wear these sexualized costumes (or post geek-themed pinups online, etc.) endure.  The panelists ranged from notable female geekerati bloggers and video parodists, to former Buffy big bads and reality television stars.  The lone academic presence on the panel was Jennifer Stuller, author of the recent book Ink Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors: Superwomen in Modern Mythology.  At one point, Stuller joked that she was assured she wouldn’t be the only “humorless feminist” on the panel, but in general my issue wasn’t the lack of second wave feminism (I don’t expect/assume everyone to embody those values, or constantly parrot them if they do), or even the problematic/third-wave feminist definition of “empowerment” through beauty culture that seemed to hang over the panel.  No, my main issue was that this devolved into a postfeminist panel, in which feminism was invoked and then discarded as no longer necessary (or too “old fashioned,” or some form of buzzkillery we need to “get over”).  I don’t think that was the intention, but the rhetoric pointed towards those values more often than not.  In fannish terms, it all got a bit…Mary Sue.

The “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel was, in a word, disappointing.  I appreciate its presence, and credit it for setting out some ambitious conversational goals, but the bulk of the panel was weighed down with play-nice platitudes (“Who are we to judge a girl who chooses to cosplay in a skimpy outfit?”/“Everyone should feel sexy!”) and (genuinely) witty commentary at the expense of any real debate.  Many have already railed against the girl-power brand of “feminism” being touted at the panel, and apparently Bonnie Burton was openly accused of being a “bad feminist” by several disgruntled attendees.  I don’t agree with the accusation, and I definitely don’t agree with the tactic.  Better to discuss the feminisms that have always circulated around girl geek culture than to begin internally creating the same sort of hierarchies that girl geek culture has battled for decades.

Many have also justifiably expressed their disgust for Chris Gore’s “contributions” to the panel.  I’m hoping to cajole Luke Pebler into guest blogging something about the G4ification of geek culture/comic-con down the line, so I’ll save a few choice words on the appearance of Chris Gore midway through the “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel for that comment thread.  If you’re looking to see what got everyone so riled up, Jennifer de Guzman and Feminist Fatale have recaps of the panel and Gore’s presence up that you should check out.  Suffice it to say that rolling into a panel that purports to empower female fans, and smarmily opening with “I would stick my penis in every single one of these ladies” is, at worst, Exhibit A of why some women continue to feel objectified and marginalized within geek culture.  At best, it was a severely lame to pander to the fanboys in the room.  Funny, how that sort of pandering never seems to get the same sort of scrutiny that this did:

The “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel was at capacity, so if/when it makes a return to SDCC in 2012, here’s what I’d be interested to see/hear:

– A more focused conversation, to avoid getting mired in generalities.  Focus on one “pandering” controversy, or one costume, and really dig in.  Take a position and argue it, propose change, something to make this a bit more concrete and constructive.

– Encourage a richer twitter backchannel…clearly there were many in the audience who felt strongly about these issues.  Announce the hashtag up front!

– Less about sexy costumes, more about the politics of DIY vs. BIY (buy-it-yourself) costuming at the con (sexy or otherwise…I’m still waiting for some badass woman to actually weld her own gold bikini).

– More from Bonnie Burton on crafting as a fan practice.  Taking a glance at her twitter feed, many a fanboy are out there seem amped to make Chewbacca finger puppets and AT-AT planters.  I think most would assume that crafting falls squarely into the realm of “women’s work,” so the success of her Star Wars Craft book with fanboys and fangirls alike could open up a nice gender neutral space in this discussion.

– More from Katrina Hill on gender/genre bias (or presumptions surrounding gender and genre).  I am a complete gore hound, horror buff, so hearing the Action Chick’s thoughts on, say, the animosity directed towards Twilight’s presence at SDCC would have been fascinating, especially considering all the complaints that Twihards only attend SDCC to ogle and sexually objectify the male stars.

– Get another academic on the panel.  This is in no way a dig at Stuller, who made some great interjections about the need for media literacy and outreach (hear hear!), but it would be useful to also have someone who is studying the gendered mainstreaming of fan/geek culture, fanboy/fangirl identities, or the evolution of SDCC as a space on the panel.  Better yet, get someone doing work on postfeminism in the media to contextualize some of these debates.

– More from the nerdybird, author of the blog “Has Boobs, Reads Comics,” as so much of the conversation seemed to hinge on a Jessica Rabbit “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn this way” defensive strategy.  Or, get a comic book creator/artist on the panel (or someone designing and drawing these costumes we’re discussing).  At the top of my personal wish list would be Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson. I’d love to hear them talk about their commentary on female superhero costuming via the character of Starlight in The Boys.

– More panelist diversity in general would have made for a richer conversation.  Hell, bring in someone who has been working as a booth babe at SDCC for the past few years. We need only look to the EA “Sin to Win” controversy to see how this panel’s topic is part of a much larger marketing culture at work.  Or, bring in a girl geek who has attended the con for over a decade to anecdotally discuss how the culture around it has changed. I’d like to hear their stories, and they are absolutely part of this debate.

– Actually dress up as buildings for the next panel (…I guess you had to be there for that one).  As encouragement, check out this killer array of Tardis dresses!

I could go on, but I won’t, and before I close I want to be clear- I’ve got nothing against any of these women.  I avidly read many of their blogs and their twitter feeds, and despite the fact that my “humorless feminist” hackles were raised repeatedly over the course of the panel, the questions of identity and authenticity that the panel consistently poked at are exceedingly complex and difficult to navigate.  Authenticity debates within subculture, and studies of subculture, are nothing new.  The gendering of “authenticity” and authority in those spheres also has a long history that is difficult to cram into a single panel.

Was I disappointed that it was Seth Green (interjecting from the audience), and not one of the panelists, who finally unleashed an impressively articulate tirade about what’s been gained and lost in the mainstreaming of geek culture, and the importance of being good fan culture ambassadors (“You can’t be pandering if you’re sincere”)?  Absolutely.  Was it depressing that no one on the panel seemed to be able to muster up an example of an empowered/empowering female character to cosplay that wasn’t at least a decade old (see: Wonder Woman, Buffy)?  Terribly.   But I completely respect these women for getting up on stage and having the conversation (or even for acknowledging that these conversations need to occur more frequently in spaces like SDCC). As far as criticisms of the panel go, I have plenty, but I’m less interested in hating and more in participating in an ongoing dialogue about these issues.

As for my version of sexy cosplay solidarity…

I defy you to find someone who is more of a sexy badass than Malory Archer/Jessica Walter.

So, if you were at the panel (or on the panel), I’d really like to hear your thoughts on what you were expecting, what you walked away with, and what you’d like to see future panels along these lines tackle.  Debates about sexy cosplay, the feminisms of girl geek culture, etc. are also welcome, obviously.

Comic-Con 2011 Recap (Episode I: The Litmus Test)

25/07

This is the official kick off to my San Diego Comic-Con 2011 blogging theme week.  The goal is to post at least 3 short reflection pieces, here’s the tentative schedule:

– Tuesday: Reactions to the “Oh, You Sexy Geek!” panel on gendered geek culture, authenticity, and accusations of pandering and “bad feminism” (which, as we all know, really means “bad second wave feminism”)

– Wednesday: Considering the webcomic Axe Cop as transformative work and play

– Thursday: Swag as a signifying practice (or, why the Conan O’Brien potholder is important)

In the meantime, some initial thoughts (filtered through minor adventures in cosplay), but first a list of things I missed.  If you were at one of the following panels and would like to share insights/squees/commentary below in comments, that would be stellar!  We’ll go by day:

-THURSDAY-

11:15am (Hall H): Twilight: Breaking Dawn panel (Rumor was Twihards didn’t fill the hall, which many smugly took as a sign that A. the phenomenon was waning, or B. that Twihards had been successfully bullied out of attending the Con.)

1:00pm (26AB): Panel on digital comics (I would just be curious to hear about strategies and debates re: the turn to digital comics)

5:00pm (32AB): Buffy and LGBT Comics Fandom panel (interested to see if there was any continued debate about Buffy’s sapphic dabbling here, in particular)

-FRIDAY-

10:30am (8): Locke & Key [failed] pilot screening (purely fannish interest here, as a reader of the comic)

2:00pm (26AB): Transmedia, Comics Form, and Contemporary Adaptations

6:00pm (25ABC): Girls Gone Genre

-SATURDAY-

11:30am (Hall H): Twixt with Francis Ford Coppola (twitter lit up with discussions of Coppola editing footage on his iPad during the panel, and multiple remarks about how Coppola’s approach would “revolutionize” distribution…would love to hear accounts or be passed along links to video of this)

2:15pm (Hall H): Knights of Badassdom  (thoughts on the film’s representation of LARPers? I’m fannishly curious about this one)

5:30pm (26AB): Comics in the Classroom

-SUNDAY-

– 11:00am (7AB): Watchmen 25 Years Later

– The TV takeover of Hall H (Glee, SPN, Dr. Who)

– 2:30pm (26AB): The Culture of Comic-Con (DEVASTATED that I missed this)

…and, of course, would love to hear thoughts on other panels not listed above that you enjoyed, found interesting (professionally/academically or personally), trends in panels that you spotted, etc.

By way of introducing the themes that will undoubtedly run through my posts on Comic-Con 2011 this week, I present to you our Saturday costume (I’m saving tales of Archer cosplay for my Tuesday post):

Saturday (quasi) Cosplay: Rob and Don

Admittedly, a lazy rendition, but still evocative of their henchmen namesakes, from Frank Miller’s 1986 Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.  There was a lengthy discussion about bald caps, but because we were tackling two costumes this year with limited time, we settled for this version, even though I would have loved to thrift hunt the 80s components to do a spot-on characterization:

Then again, I also dream of cutting my hair and dressing as Carrie Kelly/Robin some year...

For better or for worse, I saw this costume as something of a litmus test.

Luke (aka Rob) and I attempted to strike a balance between the canonical (Watchmen and The Killing Joke aside, I find that most who have every picked up a comic or two have at least come into contact with Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns), and the obscure (Rob and Don appear in approximately 10 panels of the collected graphic novel, as the only named members of the mutant gang).  Keeping the recurring debates about fannish authenticity, the shifting promotional space and demographics of comic-con, the perils of swag culture, and whether comics are adequately represented at the con in mind, here are the results of said litmus test, by the numbers…

– Number of signs of recognition/knowing snickers from attendees passing us on the floor Saturday: approx. 3-5

– Number of drinks comped at dinner: 2 (I choose to believe that this was due to our waiter being a Frank Miller fan, rather than incompetent.  Either way, this one worked in our favor.)

– Number of conversations and pictures requested: 1

– Number of attendees who chased us down and frantically asked us which booth was giving out out glasses as swag: approx. 80-100

There’s one disheartening way to read these stats (kids these days, no sense of history, rabble rabble, the con’s turned its back on actual comics, the conspicuous consumption swag culture is ruining everything, etc.), but I’d prefer to tell you about the one guy who did recognize us, stopped us to ask for a picture, and chat.

He was late 40s/early 50s, wearing a Superman t-shirt.  He actually used the phrase “lickin chegs” within the first minute of talking to us, which aside from being an excellent fannish reference to the comic, is impressive to just casually drop into a conversation.  Here’s the best bit: the guy’s name was Don.  His best friend growing up was named Rob.  They were both huge fans of the comic and the characters.

Meeting a guy like Don is one of the many reasons I still love the experience of comic-con, despite my reservations and cynicism about particular industrial/promotional evolutions and gender-biased mutations the con has undergone over the past decade (which, I’m sure, will emerge in later posts).  For a few minutes, I got to talk comics with a fan I’ve never met and I’ll likely never see again, got to hear a bit of his story, and felt the sort of immediate kinship that can exist in fannish spaces amongst strangers.

Gearing up for San Diego Comic-Con 2011

11/07

Consider this a primer for the inevitable comic-con wrap-up(s) and reflections coming at the end of the month (I  predict I will be addressing cosplay in some detail, as the 2 different couples costumes we are prepping pose an interesting geek litmus test).  Full disclosure: I have been attending San Diego Comic-Con (SDCC) for the past 5 years as a fan, not an academic.  Though I did parlay my experience of the gendered Twihate protests at SDCC 2009 into a dissertation chapter and several conference presentations, and I frequently mull over the idea of working on the shifting promotional/fan space of SDCC as my next major (read: book) project, my attendance thus far and this year is attached more firmly to the “fan” half of my “acafan” identity.  Case in point:

Though debating gains and losses of the “mainstreaming” and “industrial takeover” of SDCC has become something of a hobby for fans and bloggers, and lamenting the ballooning scope and capacity crowds is now a rite of passage, this year’s repeated registration fail seemed (at least to many on twitter) to be the death knell signaling that the “real” fans have been officially edged out by industry types and casual consumers. I finally, luckily, scored tickets from a friend with “professional” status, after spending a sum total of 10 hours on three different days trying to buy tickets through the system, and remarking somewhat melodramatically on twitter that seeing the registration confirmation page for would be like seeing the faces of the final five cylons.

All of this said, the recent release of the SDCC 2011 program suggests some significant shifts and new strategies, and I’ll be interested to see how they pan out, as both a fan and a media scholar:

(more…)