Answers to The World’s Hardest Comic Book Quiz

OK, dig out your answers and compare them to what I have below.  I have added an explanation to each answer to give a little history.  I promise, you will stump your friends with at least one of these questions.  If you get 100% on this quiz you’re writing this blog from now on.

1.)  In Loki’s first appearance in Journey into Mystery #85 he couldn’t use his powers when:

     a.)  He didn’t have his helmet on
     b.)  He didn’t have his scepter
     c.)  When he was soaking wet
     d.)  During the night

As odd as it may seem, In his first Modern Age appearance (Journey Into Mystery #85) Loki couldn’t use magic when soaking wet.  That is no longer an issue apparently.

2.)  Wonder Woman’s bracelets were made of Amazonium, but in the 70’s TV Series they were named something different.   What was it?

     a.)  Vibranium
     b.)  Feminum
     c.)  Adamantium
     d.)  Indestructinum

“Amazonium”, the metal from which Wonder Woman’s bracelets are made, was renamed “Feminum” in the 70’s tv series.  I couldn’t locate a reason for this change.

3.)  In the Marvel Universe, Loki’s real father is ________, but in Norse Mythology that is actually Loki’s _________ name.

     a.)  Odin, brother’s
     b.)  Laufey, mother’s
     c.)  Zeus, son’s
     d.)  Odin, father’s

In the Marvel Universe Laufey is Loki’s father.  In Norse mythology Laufey is actually Loki’s mother’s name, while his father’s name is Farbauti.

4.)  Captain America set aside his original shield for his current discus shaped shield.  Who gave him the discus shaped shield?

     a.)  Tony Stark
     b.)  Tony Stark’s Dad
     c.)  Nick Fury
     d.)  Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Yes, given to him by the president and it was lighter than Caps old shield, bulletproof, and disc shaped so it’s easy to “hurl”.  The President goes on to say, “I’m told that the metal in the shield has some incredible properties.  If only the metallurgical accident which produced it could be duplicated..."

5.)  Batman once peed himself and admitted it (yes, it’s true).  He said that there was a large explosion with a sudden impact and he:

     a.)  had a bladder spasm
     b.)  peed himself
     c.)  secreted hydrogen dioxide
     d.)  found he had excessive moisture in his pants

Batman says, “And when I felt the size of the explosion and the sudden blast of searing heat...well...I had a...bladder spasm.”  To which another person says to him, “No!  You’re saying you wet your pants?”  Look for yourself in Batman: Year One.

6.)  Who was the first flying hero?

     a.)  Superman
     b.)  Namor the Sub-Mariner
     c.)  Captain Marvel
     d.)  Wonder Woman

Since Superman started flying only after the animated series (1943) and apparently Captain Marvel started in the fifth issue of Whiz Comics (1940), the first hero to fly was actually Namor, who was described in his first appearance on Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 (1939) as “An ultra-man [who] flies in the air”.

7.)  Cyclops, from the X-Men, can light a fire with the beams that come from his eyes.

     a.)  True
     b.)  False

Cyclops’ optic blasts are not lasers -they only have concussive force- and they don’t generate any heat.
Sometimes writers don’t know about that, forget, or joke about it.  There are several panels in comics that show Cyclops lighting birthday candles or starting a fire.  In another panel, Corsair, Cyclops’ father, asks him to start a fire and Cyclops replies, “My eyes don’t give off that heat, Dad.”  Whatever “that heat” means.  Oddly enough, his laser blasts come from another dimension to which his eyes are a portal.  He is also immune to his own power which is why he doesn’t lose his eyelids.

Source (and Uncanny X-Men #391/#502)

8.)  In The Amazing Spider-Man #3, Doc Ock calls Spider-Man another name, what does he call him?

     a.)  Super-Spider
     b.)  Super-Man
     c.)  Spider-Web
     d.)  The Spider

The conversation went like this:

Spider-man (thought bubble):  My web! He snapped it!  Nobody has ever done that before!
Dock Ock:  And now, Super-Man, I grow bored with this game!  My time is too valuable!

Did you ever notice how everything they say, or think, is exclamatory?  They’re very excitable.

9.)  In the 2007 crossover “New Avengers Transformers” Iron Man comes up with an interesting way to fight the Transformers.  What does he do?

     a.)  He sprays them with a “Rusting Agent” which rusts them instantly
     b.)  He uses huge magnets to hold them until he can dismantle them
     c.)  He finds their inventor and asks him how to stop them
     d.)  He puts on his “Anti-Transformers” armor

There is nothing more to this than Tony’s ingenuity.  Yes, he created “Anti-Transformers” armor.

10.)  It’s a fact that “Kryptonite” was introduced on the Superman radio show, not in comic books.  In comic books it was first called “K-Metal” in an unpublished story in 1940, introduced by co-creator Jerry Siegel.  Why was kryptonite introduced into the radio show initially?

     a.)  Because Superman was too strong and he needed something to weaken him
     b.)  It was suggested by the creators of Superman as an alternate to “K-Metal”
     c.)  It was a slip of the tongue by the voice personality and they kept it in
     d.)  It was a plot device that allowed other characters to take the lead so the voice personality
           could take a vacation

Contrary to popular belief “Kryptonite” made its debut in the Superman radio drama, not in the comic books.  It was added as a plot device to allow Bud Collyer, Superman’s voice on radio, to be able to take some time off while other characters took over as the main characters for awhile.  The idea, however, did come from the unpublished comic by Jerry Siegel in 1940 called “The K-Metal from Krypton”.

11.)  Jamie Madrox, also known as Multiple Man, creates duplicates of himself that can live their own lives.  It’s interesting to note:

     a.)  that Jamie didn’t originally have this power until he died and was brought back to life
     b.)  that he got the power after falling into a vat of radioactive liquid that was being churned
     c.)  that one duplicate body started a family and became a Preacher
     d.)  that Jamie was asked to become part of the X-Men but turned it down

Bizarre but true, that is until Jamie reabsorbed said Preacher and his family was left to fend for themselves.

12.)  While the current Green Lantern Corp is weak against the color yellow, the first Green Lantern, Alan Scott, was weak against:

     a.)  the color yellow also
     b.)  other Green Lanterns so they couldn’t fight
     c.)  against himself, so he couldn’t use his powers to fly
     d.)  wood

While the modern age Green Lanterns can’t use their powers against yellow stuff, Alan Scott could not use his powers on wood.  Wikipedia states that "power ultimately corrupted the early Green Lantern, the one that predated Alan Scott, as he attempted to rule over mankind, which forced the Guardians to cause his ring to manifest a weakness to wood, the material from which most Earth weapons of the time were fashioned. This allowed the Chinese peasants to ultimately defeat their corrupted "champion". His ring and lantern were burned and it was during this process that the “intelligence” inhabiting the ring and the lantern, and linking them to the Guardians, was damaged. Over time, when it had occasion to manifest itself, this "intelligence" became known as the mystical 'Starheart' of fable."

13.)  What was Jack Kirby’s real name?

     a.)  Jacob Kurtzberg
     b.)  Jack Kirby
     c.)  Jacob Krigstein
     d.)  Jake Kurgsburg

He changed his name soon after he was married.

14.)  Arkham Asylum, the famous institution from the Batman comics, is names after:

     a.)  Arkham Sanitarium in Arkham, MA
     b.)  The actual Arkham Asylum that used to be in New York City
     c.)  It’s not named after anything, it was created by the writers of Batman
     d.)  It was named after Noah’s Ark because it held so many different “animals”

Arkham Asylum is a reference to Arkham Sanitarium in Arkham, MA.  Don’t see an Arkham in MA?  You won’t.  It’s fictional.  It’s taken from H.P. Lovecraft’s story “The Thing on the Doorstep”.

15.)  Which of these statements is false:

     a.)  Before Action Comics #1, Siegel and Schuster published a short story called “Reign of the
           Super-Man" where the Superman was a telepath trying to take over the world.
     b.)  In Age of Apocalypse, Magneto and Rogue are romantically involved.  In this reality, Rogue
           absorbs Polaris’ magnetic powers so that touching Magneto won’t put him into a coma
     c.)  Because of the time they spent together the Venom symbiote no longer triggers Spider-Man’s
           spider-sense.
     d.)  Nightcrawler is Mystique’s son, but she was the father thanks to her shapeshifting 
           capabilities.  Destiny is his mother.

a.)  It’s true!  Still wondering where the Superman idea came from?  Sadly, this evil Superman thing has 
      no relation to the Superdickery covers.  Look it up.
b.)  No strange explanation here.  It’s just how the story went.  This is certainly better than when they
       first got together and Rogue’s touch caused rather unfortunate reactions in Magneto.
c.)  Although it does trigger the spidey sense of spider-man’s clones created before Peter got the 
      symbiote.
d.)  Believe it or not, this storyline was considered. The idea was dropped due to the Comics Code 
      Authority’s limitations about gay or bisexual characters.

16.)  Which doctor did Squirrel Girl beat-up with the help of her Squirrels?

     a.)  Dr. Doom
     b.)  Dr. Strange
     c.)  Dr. Octopus
     d.)  Dr. Light

Squirrel Girl is a mutant with squirrel-like looks whose ability is to communicate with squirrels and also behave like one.  In Marvel Super-Heroes Volume 2 #8, where she made her first appearance, she managed to defeat Dr. Doom with the help of her squirrels (all the other Doombots laughed at him I would guess).  In the process she saved Iron-Man, who she was trying to impress.  That must have done the trick!

17.)  In his first stories, Bruce Banner didn’t turn into the Hulk when enraged.  It was actually triggered by:

     a.)  Being physically threatened
     b.)  Being struck
     c.)  When he concentrated on becoming the Hulk
     d.)  Sundown

Oddly true.  Prior to being enraged caused the transformation the change was triggered by the sun setting.

18.)  Natalia Romanov a.k.a Natasha Romanov, Black Widow, has kept her young looks due to a variation of the Super Soldier Serum.  How old is she actually?

     a.)  30
     b.)  50
     c.)  70
     d.)  90

This one speaks for itself.  ‘Nuff Said.

19.)  Batman is known for having a huge penny in his bat cave.  How did he get it?

     a.)  It was given to him by Two-Face
     b.)  He got it from “The Penny Plunderer” a villain he fought in the 40’s
     c.)  He had it made for him to remind him that there are two sides to every story
     d.)  It was a novelty made for Wayne Enterprises that was discarded during remodeling

Long thought to be a gift from Two-Face, it was actually owned by The Penny Plunderer, apparently a “penny-themed” villain.  I can’t even imagine who came up with this idea or what the villain looked like.

20.)  The original Hulk was gray, but later changed to green due to printing problems.  Why was the original color gray?

     a.)  The original drawings were black and white and the original gray coloring just stuck
     b.)  They wanted him to resemble the color of stone to symbolize strength
     c.)  They wanted a neutral color so as not to suggest a particular ethnic group
     d.)  He was supposed to be green all along, but at the time of the printing deadline they didn’t
           have enough green ink to satisfy the volume of comics to be produced.

It was Stan Lee who suggested that the original color be gray.  It was only changed after a printing problem caused him to go green.  I can’t see any ethnic group being offended by green, unless the “Kermits” have an issue with it.

So ends the World’s Hardest Comic Book Quiz.  How did you do?  Get a 100%?  Liar!  Admit your plans of a perfect score were foiled by me!!

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed it and I expect you to name and drinks you win after me.

I would like to pay tribute to the website from which I pulled all of this information, Comicfacts.com.  So, no, I didn’t scour the web, I scoured this site.  Wikipedia filled in on the whole “Alan Scott” and “Wood” thing.

I would highly recommend you go there and see all of the other things you probably didn’t know about comic books.

Criticizing the Critic...Has it been done yet?

I remember the first-ever critics that were taken seriously.  I also remember the first questions about the first critics taken seriously...how does one become a critic?

How hard is it to criticize a film?

I have to ask.  Has there ever been a critic of critics?

I am asking for a reason.  My friend and I have gotten together every single Friday for the past 10 years and watched a movie.  That’s alot of movies.  It’s true that we can critique every one, but does that qualify us as critics?  One thing is for sure, movies we like were given the little green splotchy thing by Rotten Tomatoes but loved by the iTunes reviewers on almost every occasion.  That turned out to be the way we judged what we would watch.  If Rotten Tomatoes hated it, but the iTunes universe loved it, we’d watch it and usually liked it.  But enough about me.  Let’s talk about who critiques the critics.

Frankly, there has never been a better time to ask.  The launch of the catastrophic bomb that is “The Fantastic Four” has the critics climbing over each other to lambast the film.  More importantly, their input lowers, or raises, the percentage on “Rotten Tomatoes”.   Yes, this group of anonymous people actually help determine whether some people go to see a movie or not.

Let’s look at this a little closer.

As a movie-goer you typically rely on other people as to whether you should see a film or not, especially if you are on the fence about seeing it.  Those people, however, are people you usually know and whose opinion you respect.  Rotten Tomatoes, however, is a group of people you don’t know.  Tens of thousands of people rely on whether Rotten Tomatoes has given “two thumbs up” or not (yes, an homage to the old Siskel and Ebert days).  Not only that, but the movie industry is swayed by what is said by critics, including those on Rotten Tomatoes.

Think about it, a web site of people who have credentials most couldn’t name, determining whether a movie is seen, or not seen, by people because they have an opinion people read.  It’s amazing how this industry became so influential and how many people rely on that industry.

To put this in perspective, if a stranger on the street comes over to you and says, “The new pizza at the local pizza shop tastes terrible and has rat hair in it.” would you take them at their word?  Probably not, I certainly wouldn’t.  I have no idea who that person is.  They could be the competitor across the street!  But that is what we do with movies.  We take the word of someone who could be a complete dunce, or may have not even seen the movie, as to whether we should see a movie.  It boggles the mind.

But who criticizes the critics?  Who determines whether a critic is even worth listening to?  Is there some governing body that says that one critic should be listened to and another is just a worthless hack?  Further, if a person is worth having an opinion, is there a rating on their writing of the reviews?  In other words, can the typical movie-goers even understand what is being said in the review?  Before you think I’m saying that people are dumb, wait until you read some quotes below, you’ll understand what I mean.

Here’s an example of a critique on the newest Fantastic Four movie:

"The film is all foreplay without an orgasm. . . . Visual effects supervisor Kevin Mack must have still been slaphappy from his work on 'Fight Club.’” 

This was written by Brandon Judell of the Huffington Post.

Here’s his picture:

First, yikes.  This looks like a photo that gets shown on a “60 Minutes” murder mystery where he is the suspect.  As a disclaimer, I don’t believe this is the case, so please don’t write to me telling me this is slander or whatever.  I’m sure he’s a perfectly nice man.  If this is even his picture.  You never know nowadays.

Second, “all foreplay without an orgasm”?  Does one get an orgasm during foreplay?  Wouldn’t it better written as “all sex without an orgasm”?  Either way, I’m not even sure why one would use this in a movie review to begin with.

Third, in this same critique, Brandon is quoted as saying, "Based upon the venerated Marvel comic that debuted in 1961, whether this take is faithful or not I can't say, having spent my formative years reading Hermann Hesse and The Hardy Boys. “  Come on, a person who NEVER picked up a comic book is critiquing whether a movie based on the first family of superheroes is good or not?  Shouldn’t the person offering the critique know something about what they are critiquing?  That’s like me saying the new tool used by astrophysicists is a bad one.  I can barely spell astrophysicist let alone judge anything that has to do with them.

Last, but certainly not least, is the question; who uses the word “slaphappy” anymore?  Is this the way he sets himself apart from the other critics all saying the exact same thing but in different words?  I can’t take anyone serious who uses words like “slaphappy”, “zany”, or “fantabulous”.  Brandon is only guilty of one of these, but it’s more than enough.

Brandon, the not so wise one, gave the movie a little green splotchy thing signifying that the movie did not quite hit the mark.  The incredible thing?  People use this as a reason to go, or not to go, to see the movie.  In my opinion Brandon’s review is worthless based on his lack of comic reading alone.

So we don’t strictly dwell on Brandon, let’s take someone else.   Hmmmm, who should it be?  The winner is Jonathan Romney of the Observer (UK).

Here is a quote from Jonathan about the film, "But this unnecessary reboot is a solemn affair, visually murky and misjudged. After a laborious build-up about plucky young things building a teleportation machine, the revelation of the quartet’s transformations feels incongruously macabre, with the faintest overtones of David Cronenberg.”

“Incongruously macabre”?  “plucky young things”?  “visually murky and misjudged”?  “faintest overtones of David Cronenberg”?  Where does he come up with all of this lingo that he feels is impressive?  Again, is this to put himself above the other critics all struggling to be read by the public?

Let’s start with his picture which was left off the critique.  Wise move, Jonathan.  Now no one can recognize you on the street and throw rotten tomatoes (play on words is purely intentional...sorry)

I have a slight idea, but what does 'incongruously macabre’ mean exactly?  If someone said that what you just watched was ‘incongruously macabre’ would you know exactly what they meant?

How about ‘plucky young thing’?  Add the word “plucky” to the list of words that will keep me from taking anyone seriously.  Frankly, if he called my kids “plucky young things” I would punch him in the face.  It sounds like he has ill intentions and that there are not-so-nice undertones.  I can also tell you that never, in all my years of reading the Fantastic Four, felt that they were ever “plucky young things”.  I know he’s referring to the actors, but still...

Lastly, a film having the “faintest overtones of David Cronenberg” assumes that you know the films of David Cronenberg.  Can you rattle off a list?  If you can, put yourself in the top 10% of moviegoers.  The remaining 90% have no idea what movies they are and after watching hundreds and hundreds of movies I feel I should.  Maybe this is my bad.

Now, before you think I am giving Jonathan the little green splotchy thing, which he did to this movie, let me say that this sentence impressed me:

"For anyone who remembers the strip as drawn by Jack Kirby in its wildly inventive 60s prime, this is beyond depressing.”

At least Jonathan, unlike Brandon, can successfully tie the movie in to the comic book origins.  This gives him some credibility at the very least.

But all of these things make me wonder.  Are the critics writing for the general moviegoing public or are they writing to impress other critics by using words that others haven’t?  More importantly, are you doing yourself a disservice by relying on this group of misfits to guide your movie choices?  People like Brandon and Jonathan are telling you that the movie is trash and neither should be telling anyone anything.

I think I would like to continue to critique the critics, but would like to hear your feedback as to whether you liked it.  I’m as qualified as anyone and, actually, so are you.   In the meantime, judge a movie for yourself.  Check the movie time and buy tickets, but don’t look at any critic reviews.  I’m relatively sure you will be able to give feedback without the words “plucky” or “slaphappy”, and that would be a favor to everyone.