Jason Wood


Name: Jason Wood

Bio: Rabid comic collector for 25+ years. Started out as primarily a Marvel Zombie but my interests now span Marvel, DC and tons of indies.

Pull List

For Comics shipping on 08/28/13

    View details of my comics
    Print Your Pullist

    Lucky #13 of Marvel’s updated OHOTMU series. I realize this is very much a niche glamour item these days, as…

    Read full review and comments

    G.I. Joe Cobra (including the Tomax/Xamot one shot) was so astoundingly surprising, even for a life long G.I. Joe fan…

    Read full review and comments

    Art: 5 out of 5Story: 5 out of 5 It pains me to see only two pulls for this OGN….

    Read full review and comments
    Wood's Recent Comments
    January 18, 2013 4:03 pm VERY excited for all involved. Ron, you've become one of my good friends over the last few years and as you know this is a job I would've tailor made for you if I had Civilization-level god-like powers. And while the opportunity does create a big change in iFanboy, I think Paul is such a natural fit to step into the role and form like Voltron with Josh and Conor to continue the excellence you three have established over a decade-plus of intensely hard work and unyielding entertainment.
    January 3, 2013 12:18 pm Ron has SEEN THE LIGHT :)
    December 7, 2012 10:28 am A FANTASTIC list. I either own, or plan on owning, everything on this list...it's all wonderful stuff.
    July 6, 2012 10:41 am Every one of these is a visual treasure
    July 3, 2012 11:32 pm Having been a devoted Marvel supporter for close to 30 years, I'm EXHAUSTED. This probably serves as a nice way to end cap my time buying Marvel books on the regular. It was a HELL OF A GOOD TIME while it lasted.
    June 25, 2012 10:08 pm I'm mystified by CB and Bendis' approach here. There are a MILLION reasons why one might opt not to fund something on Kickstarter. I'm a relatively active patron on the site and yet I have my own criteria that will preclude me from funding a project. And I know others who have their own set of rules. So I'm not faulting Bendis and CB from expressing a desire to be selective. But what I don't get is the cries of greed. The GREAT thing about Kickstarter is the complete democratization of the process. The creators get to choose what they offer. They get to figure out what to ask for, what the breakpoints are, and what the incentives will be. The potential supporters also have total choice. If the creators don't craft a campaign that established value in enough patrons, the project doesn't happen. Compare that to the broken system of the direct market. We as end consumers have next to no say in what gets made -- our ONLY choice is whether to pay for the product as its solicited. That's it. And when we do voice our displeasure, we're characterized as "haters" or reminded that we don't "understand the system"...yet the people criticizing us rarely offer ANSWERS with SPECIFICITY but instead do what CB and Bendis did to Jim and chastise him for not doing his homework. It's so comically sad and broken that some of the more influential people in the industry (and Twitter regulars) would besmirch THE MOST EXCITING THING to happen to creator-owned comics in a generation.
    February 10, 2012 10:59 am Hail brings up an interesting point. That said, I'm not sure it's germane to the way this lawsuit plays out. No one can deny that the AMC show used Moore's imagery as a major driving point, far beyond the "conventional" way the zombies may have looked. They pilot basically used the same frame and panel layouts that Moore did, almost identical in many cases. The issue isn't whether Moore's visuals are a big part of Walking Dead, the issue is whether Moore is right in his claim that he was unfairly taken advantage of in giving up those rights.
    February 10, 2012 10:57 am Tony has certainly taken that option off the table. Typically lawsuits are filed after attempts to resolve things privately fell apart, or went unanswered. You can't file a suit like this and then put the genie back in the bottle. Now that said, they COULD agree to something like binding arbitration, and then seal whatever settlement agreement comes of it, but given Kirkman's legal response, I see that as unlikely.
    February 10, 2012 10:38 am This is very unfortunate on a lot of levels, and makes the upcoming Image Expo a bit more of a potential media brouhaha. I'm sure anyone that's ever met both of these guys (and I've had the good fortune) knows that they're both likable, hard-working, incredibly talented individuals. They were childhood friends who let business get in the way of their friendship -- which wasn't the first and certainly won't be the last time that happens in the world. It's very hard for us to not gravitate toward one side or another, and I can't pretend to not be guilty of that. But I would caution anyone from jumping to conclusions here, because this is a tort matter. There are very specific legal definitions to the rights of these properties, and the construct of verbal and written agreements. The onus will be on Moore's team to prove their claims, since they're the litigant, and whether they have a case will come down to the specific claims versus a judge's specific interpretation of the evidence presented. It's dry, boring stuff that will only make the lawyers happy. There are no winners here. I will tell you, from experience in following these matters as an investor (companies get sued all the time), the resolution of these things is rarely cut and dried. And the only way we'll see a quick resolution will be a) if Robert's side decides to not accept any wrong doing but ups Moore's piece of the pie (unlikely) or b) a court throws the case out as being frivolous (more likely). If the courts deem the case to have merit (and that's a low hurdle, legally), it will proceed and take a looooong time. I can't pretend to not be a bit skeptical, but I'm also open to either outcome since I have no idea what was said between the two, what was written, what they signed, and when they signed it. Based purely on gut instinct, I find the timing of the lawsuit, combined with Tony's prior comments about being at peace with things and having no regrets, to be tough to rationalize. Walking Dead was NOT anywhere close to a financial empire when they made these agreements in 2005-2006, and it's very easy for any of us to look at what it's become and say how easy it should be for Kirkman to dish out more money. It's the 'there's enough to go around for everyone!" argument. But we have to remember that no matter how this case turns out -- Robert kept building the Walking Dead into the giant its become while Tony walked away (whether he was happy to do so is not relevant to my point). Maybe Robert believed in his heart of hearts that WD was going to be massive, even back then, while Tony thought it was just another indie comic. We'll find out, I guess.