Robert Kirkman vs. Tony Moore Over Walking Dead

So here it is, the newest insanity to come out of the film news press; artist Tony Moore is suing former collaborator and childhood friend Robert Kirkman over proceeds and royalties for The Walking Dead. Moore is claiming that he was "swindled" by Kirkman into signing over his interest in The Walking Dead TV series and now isn't receiving any royalties.

Let's ignore the fact that Moore didn't believe that the TV series would take off and so willingly put forward the contract he is now in to give Kirkman the rights to the show and its proceeds. Moore also stopped drawing, inking and grey-toning the comic book series after issue SIX, being replaced by artist Charlie Adlard (who continues to do the series). Sure, Moore continues to do the covers and is owed for this work, but he has not been "swindled" out of anything.

Kirkman told the Hollywood Reporter:

The lawsuit is ridiculous, we each had legal representation seven years ago and now he is violating the same contract he initiated and approved and he wants to misrepresent the fees he was paid and continues to be paid for the work he was hired to do. Tony regularly receives payment for the work he did as penciler, inker and for gray tones on the first six issues of The Walking Dead comic series and he receives royalties for the TV show, to assert otherwise is simply incorrect.

Kirkman is also, let's not forget, the creator of the series - as all the inside comic-book credits point out - and Moore as responsible for "penciler, inker, gray tones".

So, the story seems to be that the creator of the franchise was approached about making a TV show out of his comic book. The artist and collaborator didn't believe in the project and put forward the contract within which they are currently bound - in which he does receive royalties from the TV show. The show then becomes a sensation and the creator is shot forward into fame and fortune and the artist feels he was swindled.

I'm sorry, but that is simply ridiculous. I cannot believe someone with Moore's talent and reputation would have the gall to put forward such a lawsuit and damage himself and Kirkman with the claims he is making. Face it, Moore, you signed away your rights - with legal council present for both you and Kirkman, on a contract you agreed on - and now that it's popular, you want your piece of the pie. Grow up.

Mahalo.

The Avengers Coming at us with A Vengeance!

It's very likely that anyone out there remotely interested in superheroes, nerd culture or film will have seen the latest trailer for the upcoming Joss Whedon production of The Avengers.

Seriously, does this movie not look fantastic? Robert Downey Jr. is beyond dreamy.

Though I was incredibly disappointed to hear that Edward Norton was being replaced by Mark Ruffalo for the role of Bruce Banner some time ago, I have to say that Ruffalo really looks like he is going to step up to the plate. I think that he'll be able to pull off the same awkward and brooding scientist that Norton produced and that original actor Eric Bana failed to do.

Mahalo.

Limitless Ltd

"Limitless" was pretty much going to be the drug movie of the new age; the "Requiem for a Dream" of the 21st Century. It didn't really turn out that way. While it may have prompted me to read the book, it delivered some other, stranger messages. One of them seeming to be "drugs are great" and "if you do enough of them, you'll be president someday" which I find a little odd. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

The film is about Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper), a writer who is creatively-blocked, unkempt and just got dumped. He is glowering in the worthlessness of himself when he runs into his ex-wife's brother (Johnny Whitworth) and is given a mystery drug that bestows upon him more or less superhuman abilities. Of course, from here, things can only go up. Nevermind that the brother was, at a time, a derelict drug-dealer who should never be trusted.

Bradley Cooper was, as he always is, excellent in this role. He broke out of his normal role to play someone with a lot more depth and emotion, while also remaining a stylish and charming son of a bitch.

About halfway through the film, though, I couldn't help but ask: wait, wasn't Robert de Niro supposed to be in this movie? And he is. For very little of it. It kind of looks like they just got him in because it was a big name that would draw crowds, but he was still great in the role of tycoon Carl van Loon.

Sure, bad things do happen to Eddie even after he's taken the super-drug - most of the bad things caused by it - but I didn't feel there was any kind of evolution. He was a failure, he took drugs and became awesome. Period. I'll leave it up to you whether this fits the mould of a redemption or evolution story, but I don't think it does - and to its detriment. Usually, I'm all for subverting a genre and changing things up, but this just didn't seem to gel with me. Still, watching Bradley Cooper act for 2 hours up against de Niro was definitely worth the money and the cinematography and music were both excellent. 7.5/10