Slashdot Mirror
Ask Tick Creator Ben Edlund
The non-cartoon Tick debuted on Fox last night, so this is an ideal time to have Tick creator Ben Edlund as a Slashdot interview guest. Before you start typing, you may want to read this May 2000 interview with Ben to keep from duplicating questions and to see what kind of person he is. Then ask away. As usual, we'll send 10 of the highest-moderated questions to Ben, and publish his answers as soon as we get them back.
Tick, to my mind, is an ideal hero icon for the current generation. He has good intentions, but isn't too aware of the fine details (well, even some gross details) of the world around him. He tries hard, and things tend to work out after a fashion, but usually not as a result of any particular brilliance on his part. Tick fulfills the iconic image of style over substance, of good intentions versus understanding, of the brawn and machismo not directed by a terribly powerful cranium, and of accidental destruction as a consequence of his good intentions and bungling execution.
His sidekick Arthur, of course, is more down to earth and aware. He's a bit of a geek (though I have yet so see him hack a kernel) with less-than-stellar social skills. He too seems to fill an iconic image in modern-day society - the nerdy brains-behind the brawn.
When these characters evolved, were they merely an attempt to poke fun at Superhero archetypes, or were they consciously intended to be more "in touch" with and to more closely parallel today's society? Or do you consider such analysis to be far deeper than the subject matter merits? Is the Tick just good humored fun, or is it perceptive art?
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
It seems the relationship between The Tick and Arthur is similar to the one between Don Quixote and Sancho. Is this intentional, or merely reflecting the influence that book has had on "buddy" motifs in literature? Finally, have you considered a plot line involving invisible giants that only The Tick can see so that when Arthur is urged to join in battle against them, he can utter "What giants?"
> Is it tasteful or even possible to humorously
> depict Evil Masterminds so soon after a
> chilling reminder of real evil?
I will take my licks if readers of this response feel the need to mod me down, but I need to be clear that this is not intended as a troll:
SCREW YOU! People like you who think that any depiction of anything other then fluffy puppy dogs on TV is inappropriate are continuing the work of the terrorists!
Every time some good for nothing self appointed censor says 'Uh, maybe that is not so tasteful right now.... please think of the children.' and changes stuff to make it less 'scary' or defangs humor to deal with 9/11 they are helping keep our country down!
Get a fucking clue, goddamnit! If we have ANY chance to get back to normal, and ANY chance to defiantly tell the people who hate us that we will not be defeated, we NEED things that violate your precious little ideal of 'tasteful'.
You are part of the problem. Fix that.
(once again, I am not posting this as AC because I strongly feel this way. If you are a moderator who feels the need to mod this down because I used 'bad words', go ahead if it makes you feel better. I'm willing to sacrifice my 50 Karma to prove that I am serious.)
As you and others were developing The Tick into a live action series, (after watching the first live action episode) you seem to be trying to return to the style of the comic book rather than the animated series. To that end, some things probably weren't appropriate for TV, like having the Tick escape from an insane asylum in the pilot. Other things were created to make the show more appropriate for a tv audience - more character development and making them seem more like "real" people (jobs, cell phones, drinking at the bar, etc.).
How much did you have to give and take between making the live action have content appropriate for tv (ie network censors), adding plot elements and characters to make it appropriate for a (potentially) long running tv series, fighting the cartoon copyright issues, and adapting it to suit your vision of the Tick on tv? Also, what would you like to do with the show that you can't on tv?
thanks
t.
"Corrupting our youth one mind at a time"
My take on the early issues of The Tick was that it was making fun of, among other things, exactly the representations you describe in your first paragraph. All the testosterone fueled heros & heroines, the latent homoeroticism, the predictable pinup figures of all female characters, etc. I don't think "Tick" was part of the problem you're describing, I think "Tick" was taking a swipe at it...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
If the cartoon was more "kids only", I'd suggest that's because it was, well, a Saturday morning kid's cartoon, and had to work with the market it was put into. Granted, the audience of the average comic book is probably only slightly older than the Saturday morning cartoon audience, but still there's more variability there, with room for more edgy stuff like Tick. Now this show is aimed at prime time television, which will have an older demographic than the cartoon did, so they have the freedom to go back to the more mature humor.
If it counts as a shift, it's a shift back to where the characters & stories started out, and that's a good thing in my eyes. A lot of the best storytelling does the same dual humor thing: from "the Simpsons" and "Theres Something About Mary", back to Shakespeare's comedies. It's an old trick -- include slapstick for the kids & immature adults, and more ironic, biting humor for the more mature portion of the audicene. Heigh ho, everyone goes home happy... :)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
What the hell do people see in that crap ass show? It's a TOTAL Simpsons rip-off.. Seeing that crap given a decent timeslot while the genius that is Futurama is banished to Sundays at 7pm is why Fox sucks.
Before you start typing, you may want to read this May 2000 interview with Ben
That's what you should have done. It says in there:
At the beginning, I thought it would be good to have a kind of a CGI (computer-generated imagery) pair of eyes that more perfectly matched what was going on in the comic book design, the cartoon design. But first of all, the cost of that, for a series, you know maybe for a feature it would be fine, but for a series, is prohibitive.
This may have lead you to believe that they wouldn't have done computer-generated antennae. However, if that doesn't convince you...
We had to body cast Patrick Warburton, and build a giant rubber suit, and remote control antennae...
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
I really hate this kind of thinking. Why do people always assume that really creative people use drugs to get their creativity?
Clive Barker doesn't use any mind altering substances and he writes the freakest shit. David Cronenburg isn't exactly who you think of as a drug user, but his imagination is like no other.
Even rampant drug users like Richard D. James (aphex twin) says that he doesn't create while high because it all comes out like garbage.
Creativity is often best served by a clear head.
however, the boxer's question is really important.