Saturday, April 4, 2015

Monty's Moonlight Snacks: Frosted Lemonade and Birthday Cake Eggs

Whoa! We actually have header art for this taste-test themed sub-feature now?
What's next, color?

Okay, okay, anyway, tomorrow is Easter Sunday, folks. You might be familiar with it. You know I'm a holiday nut, so I'm looking forward to it, even if money is tight this year and I still don't have a girlfriend to color eggs with. But, why break a 40 year tradition, right? I'll be enjoying some barbecue (oven style, ha) and chocolate, and yellow chick peeps and bunny cake, lemon pie and, of course, the always essential Reese's eggs, while taking in my Easter traditions of "Hop", "It's the Easter Beagle, Charlie Brown", and "Here Comes Peter Cottontail", plus some other Rankin/Bass classics, some non-Rankin/Bass classics, and some just flat out non-classics, ha. You know, my usual holiday routine when I have nothing to do and no one to do it with. Maybe I'll squeeze in another posting or two, maybe not. We all know how Christmas went in that regard, ha. I'm still gonna get around to some of those long intended articles though.

Anyway, the reason I'm posting right now is because I've tried a couple of new treats that I felt I should share with the rest of the class. And it's really not such good news, but let me get right to the first one... drum roll...
Chick-fil-A's new Frosted Lemonade

Ah, Chick-fil-A. Hate 'em for their politics, love 'em for their insanely delicious chicken. The only chicken, in my personal opinion (and werewolves LOVE chicken!), that rivals that of KFC, aside from my own cooking, of course. Chick-fil-A has a lot of other delicious stuff on their menu too. Even if they crapped out in the dessert department and went the boring "cookies and soft serve" route everyone else travels these days, getting rid of their classic cheesecake and brownie offerings. It's a crime, I tells ya! And that brings us to today's subject from Chik-fil-A, or, "how we make a new dessert out of crap we already have laying around". Their answer: The all-new Frosted Lemonade. 

What is a Frosted Lemonade, you may ask? Okay, simply, it is Chick-Fil-A's soft serve ice cream blended with their lemonade, which you can get in regular or diet versions. And, incidentally, people seem to love it. I, personally, probably would never have tried it if I did not own a Chick-fil-A 2015 Calendar card, which is offering the Frosted Lemonade as this month's free item. It was labeled as "Mystery Offer" on the card (something they're annoyingly doing a lot now), but, yeah, this is what it is. Now, I love lemonade (preferably homemade), and I love ice cream, but that doesn't mean I want the two mixed together. Honestly, I thought the combo might be a little bit... gross.

Well, having tried the regular version, in my personal opinion,... it's gross! Really! Now, I'm not going to discourage anyone from trying this, because I guess it's pretty popular, and I know other folks are more into mixing flavors than I am. Not a fan particularly of mixing fruit with most other things, and, apparently, soft serve ice cream is one of those other things. HOWEVER, if you're a fan of creamsicles, then you might be a fan of this. Though, I always liked creamsicles, but I don't remember any lemon ones. In fact, I kinda just remember orange. Do they make lemon creamsicles? Well, if they do or if they don't, I'm sure that's what this taste's like, so, yeah, make your own judgement call on whether or not to try this one. I give it two claws down, but I can certainly believe that most of you will disagree with me here, which makes you all GROSS!!!

On to the next! 

Yeah, keeping this post short, I guess... The other item I'm bringing you today is from the candy aisle. The Easter candy aisle, that is. Even though there's nothing very Eastery about this flavor of Russell Stover chocolate egg. This is the Russell Stover "Birthday Cake Egg".


Now, what do you think of when you see that? This is going to be a chocolate covered bit of yellow cake, right? That's exactly what I thought! I'm about to bite into a piece of cake! Yay! I love yellow cake with chocolate frosting!!! Well, maybe you Russell Stover fanatics would have known better, or maybe I should have worked harder to understand the text on the wrapper. These were cheap though, so I had to try one! Incidentally, unlike today's frozen lemonade fiasco, I tried this in early March, I believe, if not late February. Whenever the Easter stuff first went up at Target. Don't worry though, I remember it like it was yesterday. And in vivid color photos...

As you can see, it all looks fine and very pretty (though those sprinkles go everywhere when you open the package!), and in the pic below, it sure looks like a piece of yellow cake covered in chocolate, huh?

Well, my friends, looks can be very deceiving! That is NOT yellow cake! Despite the picture of a slice of yellow cake on the wrapper, that is not what you're getting with a Russell Stover Birthday Cake egg, just in case you're as ignorant as I and thought it might be. What you're getting is candy, pure and simple. And if that candy inside is birthday cake flavored, it's very faint. Basically, this is your standard, overly sweet, dud in a box of chocolates. I should have known by the name Russell Stover, but I was being way too optimistic that day! This is why you should always only buy chocolates you know have nuts in every single one of them. These things are never good. Epic, epic disappointment. Though, if you were not expecting actual yellow cake bites here, as I was, you might like this fine. Again, it doesn't taste much like birthday cake at all. Some have said it tastes like sugar cookie dough inside, and, yeah, maybe a bit, but certainly not like cake. My personal opinion is to avoid these and stick to the Reese's Peanut Butter Eggs. They're still the king of Easter candy!

And that's all for now, guys. Just a quick little pre-Easter post. I was so grossed out by that lemonade that I just felt like venting. Still can't believe everyone else seems to love the stuff! Oh well. No accounting for taste! Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a mouthwatering bowl of chicken livers in the kitchen with my name on it!

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Moonlight Movie Reviews: Cinderella (and Frozen Fever)

Yep, saw a couple of princess flicks at the Village Drafthouse today...


We'll try not to draw this out. Being a huge Disney fanatic, I do have a lot to say about this experience. BUT, I also have work tomorrow. So, I'll make my usual failed effort to give you the ten peso version. We'll begin though, with a quick look at the Drafthouse preshow...

Yeah, I'll keep the preshow tribute brief too. I don't think I arrived very late, but I didn't see much. Maybe it's because they showed a whole short cartoon, but that was very cool. It was an early Disney Laugh-o-gram Cinderella cartoon! Nice choice! I expected to see the usual Betty Boop Cinderella. Though maybe that ran earlier. They also showed a commercial for the Brandy version of Cinderella, but I wasn't quick enough with my camera. It can be tricky getting these screen-caps, let me tell ya! Good enough ones to post, anyway. Enough of that though, on to the main subjects...

We'll start with the all-new Disney short that accompanies their new Cinderella, "Frozen Fever", a short sequel to the mega-smash animated musical "Frozen". This computer animated short is all about ice-powered Queen Elsa's attempt to give her little sister Anna a perfect birthday party, despite having a cold, with the help of friends Olaf, Sven, and Anna's boyfriend, Kristoff, and including a couple of other fun cameos from the film. For example, we get to see what nasty ol' Hans has been up to lately. I won't spoil that for ya though.

Without a doubt, if you are simply wanting to see new, fun footage of Elsa and Anna (and their friends, but I come for the droolworthy princesses), "Frozen Fever" is going to be adored by you. I'm sure it made little girls across the country squee with delight. The whole short could be billed as a music video for a new song by Anna and Elsa, as that is pretty much what it is. I am not gonna do Disney-fanatic-style butt-kissing today though (you'll know that for sure when I get to Cinderella). The short is visually beautiful and overall a cute experience, but... there wasn't much to it storywise. It was simply Elsa and Anna following a string that led to various birthday gifts, singing a song and unintentionally adding to a hoard of tiny snowmen every time Elsa sneezed. Entertaining, but not really a story, per se. I'll admit, I felt that way about "Tangled Ever After" also. Still, that one had a bit of a plot, a very cartoony gag kinda plot anyway, which seemed more legit than here, in which mainly it seemed just about singing a long. And, since I wasn't blown away by the song this time (it actually had the line, "A cold never bothered me anyway," or something to that effect, and I highly suspect that pun was the inspiration for this whole short), I wasn't very blown away by this short. I guess I'm going to be a bit hard on my favorite company tonight, even though I was in their corner with some of their recent flops, while I've read tonight's to subjects are getting generally favorable reactions and high praise. Oh well, what do I know? Bottom line, I just saw this as a way to spend a bit more time with the latest Disney princesses. For that purpose, it's fine, but I guess the feeling I couldn't shake from it was that it screamed "product". As in, "People loved Frozen! Quick, make more!" I'm fine with more, don't get me wrong, just hide the "product" feeling better if you make a full-on, feature-length sequel. But, speaking of films that scream, "product based on past success,"...

Okay, here goes. "Cinderella" is the quintessential fairytale. Trust me, I took folklore in college. It's the golden idol. It's the big one. It's been done on film several times. Even though I LOVE fairytale films and collect them, I still haven't seen all the versions of this film, not even all the most popular ones. I do, however, have the Disney classic on DVD and Blu, and I used to own it on VHS. I am sure I saw it in theaters a few times too, though my memory sucks for recalling things like that. Anyway, it's also the film that saved the Walt Disney company back in the 50's, that original, animated version I mean. I'm sure most of you have seen it. It may seem dated now that animation is almost always done with computers, but for most of us it is a true masterpiece with glorious music, hauntingly beautiful visuals and unforgettable characters.

These days, when Disney finds a formula that works, they stick with it. The trouble is, they don't usually do a good job with "sticking with it". They don't seem to access the right things when putting their formulas together. For example, They had big hits with Alice and Maleficent, so now they're back on a "live-action versions of animated classics" kick that I always thought was going to be kicked off many years back with 101 Dalmatians (but that never really happened). With Alice and Maleficent, the stories stayed somewhat true to the originals while also taking huge departures. The Tim Burton "Alice in Wonderland" was a sequel. The Angelina Jolie "Maleficent" was from the villain's point of view, with some big story changes to make the character an anti-hero. Both films were huge successes, though met with mixed reviews. So far, I'm only hearing great things about Cinderella, but it takes a very different approach from those other two. Or, rather, it takes an approach closer to 101 Dalmatians in that it stays much closer to the original film (because, yes, this is a live-action version of the Disney classic, not simply a film based on the classic fairytale). Now, honestly, this is fine. In fact, I'm glad they went this route. But... they didn't go far enough with it. 

The new Cinderella (the story of a kind girl who is turned into a servant by her wicked stepmother, but who becomes a princess when her fairy godmother uses magic to send her to a ball and meet a prince) indeed does try to follow closely to the classic film, and the result is simply... fine. Like with "Frozen Fever", the new "Cinderella" from Disney is just... fine. It's a sweet, children's fairytale. But I hate that it had to be brought down to that. The original film, as I said before, is a masterpiece. This film, even as a carbon copy, could have been just as breathtaking. Instead, it is fine as a very kid-friendly film-version of Cinderella, but it doesn't reach it's potential in my opinion, and the ways in which it failed, the fact that it comes off purely as something to please kids hungry for my princess material, makes it feel like another "product" film to me. 

I hate coming down on this film for just being "adequate". I just found out it was directed by Kenneth Branagh. Who doesn't love him! I even LOVED his Frankenstein. I sometimes get the impression I'm the only one, but that's my favorite Branagh film! Anyway, I do praise this film for going the traditional route, but why couldn't they have gone all the way? Let's break this down a bit...

Okay, the film went as far as to have one of the CGI mice be named Gus Gus. As a nitpicker, I have to say? Why not Jaq too then? That is the fanboy in me, but that sort of omission always irks us a bit. A minor complaint though. Here's a big one, what was up with the songs? It was... interesting, and nice too, I guess, that they included a retooled version of Lavender Blue (Dilly Dilly) from Disney's "So Dear To My Heart", plus the half-second tease of "Sing Sweet Nightingale", but they shouldn't went all out and just used the classic songs. In the end credits, we hear a beautiful rendition of "A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes" sung by the star of the film, Lily James, and a delightful "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" sung by Helena Bonham Carter, but neither songs are in the film?! What is up with that? It seems they were afraid, perhaps, that it would make the film too much of a copycat of the original? So what? In the end, what we have is a film that pales in comparison to the original. Changes like these were part of that problem. People came to this to see a live-action Cinderella, and that's what they decided to go for, but instead of an amazing recreation of "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo", we got a ridiculous, slapstick scene where Fairy Godmother changes the pumpkin into a carriage inside a garden house, by clearly stated choice, when it was obviously a stupid thing to do! That was the most absurd, child-pandering comedy, when kids would have been just as pleased (and parents much more so) by a highly magical and surreal transformation such as in the original film, but brought to life in live-action with modern effects! Don't get me wrong, I like slapstick, but slapstick doesn't belong in otherwise straightforward Cinderella (or Christmas Carol) films, guys at Disney! C'mon...

So, that's what was getting on my nerves about the music. But, that reminds me of a rant I made earlier to my sis after seeing this film. I've made this rant before. It's about how they made this film such a straight up kids' movie. How they do that a lot lately. Here's what we get these days... We get adult films, translation = sex; We get Kids films = translation, humor that might get chuckles, but also insults your kids' ability to handle richer material; And, we get the films that are supposedly for kids AND adults, but really they are the second one with double entendres peppered in. That stuff can be okay, but it's not living up to its potential. Ya know, in the 80's, we had great kids' films that didn't insult our intelligence or act like we couldn't handle stuff that we encountered daily in the real-world. I'm not saying this Cinderella movie should be as raw as "Monster Squad", I'm saying family films don't have to be "kids' films", or kids' films with double entendres. No films need to be that. They CAN be what Walt Disney originally intended. His work was all about creating stuff that was entertaining, entirely, for both kids and adults together, so they could enjoy spending time together. That concept is mostly thrown out the window these days because it's easier to sell (to sell more, anyway) something that is aimed hard at a specific audience. So, we're back to movies and TV shows, whole networks, in fact, that are geared towards specific age groups and genders. Compare the original Disney Channel (I mean the really original Disney Channel, from the 80's) to today's Disney to see what I mean. 

Now, I'm not saying this whole Cinderella film was like that, but... most of it, yeah, seemed entirely geared towards the kid and teen female audience. When it was truer to the classic original, that's when it was better, but then you had those moments that brought to mind the one thing I hated in "Maleficent", the awful take they did on the three good fairies. Helena was fine as the fairy godmother, except when they got slapsticky and just plain dumb by trying to create a carriage inside a building... And, then you have the other pandering stuff. There's this standard fairytale scene you have to have now, where the girl meets the prince in the woods before the ball, so they can fall in love without her knowing he's a prince, or something. Yeah, they inserted that in hear too, complete with cheesy dialogue exchange that was harkened back to throughout the film. And, the moral lessen that was blatantly stated and repeated throughout the film, oy, just to make sure kids got it and adults saw that this story teaches a valuable lesson. That's the stuff that really screamed "Princess Product" to me in this film. The narration too, I totally forgot about that! Did they have to narrate the whole movie?

Oh, and the Stepmother, I should talk about her. Don't get me wrong, Cate Blanchett is a fantastic actress, and everyone turned in excellent performances in this, but... well... she just wasn't scary! I mean, the animated Lady Tremaine will send a shiver up your spine with her icy stare. You just don't get that here. Too much for the kiddies, maybe? This new Tremaine is awful, no doubt, but not a bit scary. I could also nitpick and say that Cinderella was only pretty in some scenes, and one of the stepsisters was far prettier in my opinion, but that's a "to each his own" kinda thing. She did fine in the role... Everything was... fine. It just didn't reach its potential.

I'm not saying this film is terrible or not worth seeing. It is, but the original, animated film is better. It's just better. That's all there is to it. I am in no way saying they should have put a twist on it either, like with Alice or Maleficent. I'm definitely not saying they should have put a new, feminist spin on it, as others have suggested, or modernizing it in some other way like Frozen or Shrek, or whatever. Look, that stuff is starting to get tired, in my opinion. The original fairytales are classics for a reason. Once in a while, it is certainly nice to go back to the basics of boy meets girl. At least once in a while, a fairytale that is a bit old-fashioned can be nice, even if it isn't politically correct and even if it implies love-at-first-sight can be true love. Is that b.s.? Probably. But so are Fairy Godmothers. If you're gonna have those, then go for broke! We have plenty of "Once Upon a Time" and "Into the Woods" type stuff mixing it up. I definitely applaud them for trying to just give us the animated film in live-action, but they shouldn't have held back. Cutting out the songs and replacing them with slapstick that is poorly contrived is disappointing. Removing the scary and inserting all-too-blatantly stated lessons and end credit pop songs (before they played the good, classic Cinderella songs) just screamed "Princess Product", whereas just a pure adaptation of the original animated feature would have been fine by me. Increase the haunting, moody backdrops and slow things down a bit, and this movie could have gone from being fine to being something amazing.

Having said that, it is still a good fairytale movie, particularly if you are the odd duck who never saw the original. I can definitely see how those individuals would be enchanted by this one,  inferior as it is to the animated classic. It's far from the worst thing that has come out of Hollywood recently. It's just that ya can't help but compare it to the classic. It's a cute, sweet, well-meaning film though, I just am sad it didn't reach its full potential in bringing the original to life in live-action. When it was good, it was good, but when it let me down, it let me down hard, and I could sit here and nit pick much more. This is just the heavy stuff, ha. I'm just hoping the'll avoid that very easy to fall into "Product and kid-pandering" trap with their future remakes, Beauty and the Beast and Jungle Book, and  Pete's Dragon, and whatever else.Still, this one... has its moments. If you love the subject matter, the great performances and pretty visuals do make it worth seeing. 

Well, I could probably talk more on this, but man, I'm getting so little sleep as it is. I'm not sure I've been totally coherent in these last few paragraphs. I hope I wasn't too hard on either film I discussed tonight, as both were completely cute and benign, I just know they could have been much more. 'Night! 

Monday, March 9, 2015

Management Recommends - Staple, the Independent Media Expo

I know, I know, it's been quite a while since I posted last. Things have been... interesting, to say the least, and I've been crazy busy. So much to talk about, so many comics to get out... and no, I'm not scrapping all those things I said I'd post about before. This is gonna take some time though. It's been and will likely continue to be a crazy year for me. But, tonight, I'm gonna talk about Staple.

Staple is an annual convention here in Austin specifically for independent media folk like myself. It's basically a mini comic convention, too mini and too indie-focused to see cosplayers walking around, but still pretty important if you're an independent or local artist trying to meet others, learn stuff and get your work "out there". 

Now, I'd heard of Staple before, I've heard of a lot of things that I should have investigated by now to see if they can at least get my comic strip on the local map, but now that I've got a table waiting for me at Wizard World Texas this year, I really need to get going and check this stuff out, and Staple seemed like a good place to start.


Staple took place on Saturday and Sunday of this past weekend (March 8th and 9th, 2015), and this was brought to my attention when visiting some of the local comic shops for the first time a week or so ago in search of the new (finally in canon) line of Star Wars comics from Marvel, but more on that experience in another article. I work on Saturdays though, so I opted to only show up on Sunday. After all, I was mostly just expecting to examine and photograph table setups as a refresher for Wizard World in October. I've been to Wizard World before on both sides of the table, but it's been years. So, Sunday finally arrived, and I headed over to Marchesa Hall (over by the Highland Mall), which was conveniently on my current side of town and not a problem in terms of parking either. I paid ten bucks for the day, carefully attached the yellow entry tag to my harry wrist, and went into the lobby. That's a picture of said lobby above. I know you're not allowed to be attracted to women at comic conventions anymore, but immediately, first thing I see: gorgeous girl buying t-shirts. Didn't even realize I'd caught her in this unflattering photo, but in-person, wow... but, I digress. 

I picked up some business cards and stickers and stuff in the lobby, had a brief discussion with the t-shirt seller who owns a local print shop (important, since I'm gonna need a lot of stuff printed up for Wizard World and hopefully Staple 2016), and then started my exploration. There were three rooms to this event, lobby not included. Two were exhibit halls, and if put together, they wouldn't add up to the size of a Wizard World exhibit hall, but they were just right for something like this. Staple is like if Wizard World was just Artist's Alley, plus those exhibitors who are basically doing the same thing but are famous enough or shell out enough dough to be in a regular booth. In other words, at Staple you don't have the comic shop stands full of toys and collectibles for sale, and you don't have Lou Ferrigno selling autographs for 20 bucks, or however much they run these days (I don't remember, but yeah, I bought one once). There are special panels, but I didn't attend any since I was only there from 2-6 on Sunday, and I filled all that time walking the tables, taking photos and cards, and talking to the artists and writers. There were also film screenings in the third room, which was the theater. I do wish I'd gotten to at least check out what the "theater" looked like, but I ended up not having time for any screenings either. Once I got into walking the exhibition floor, I didn't end up having a moment to spare. 

See that Kevin T. Chin guy in the upper left photo above? I came really close to buying one of his prints or books. Had I more money, I would have. I really liked his stuff. If I'd had a bit more money, there were a handful more people I would have bought from than I actually did, but as it was, I was surprised at how much I DID buy. Setting aside all the free stuff (and I'm sure I missed most of that by not coming Saturday), which was mostly business cards of various sizes and some stickers and mini books, this was the booty I actually paid for below...

 A modest haul by some standards, but I love all of it! I think this is the first time I've bought art prints and indie books at a con, I must admit! I've brought some home for free from W.W., but this is the first time I wanted some so much that I had to buy them. Oh, that green finger puppet monster was a freebie, ha. Here's some details on the people I talked to the most and the stuff I actually ended up buying...

You may already know that my comic book fandom is not the average one. While I love superheroes on the big and small screen VERY MUCH, my comic book love and collection is mainly composed of Disney and Star Wars comics (and Indiana Jones and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and also a lot of randomness, including superheroes at times). Well, I was amazed to find at the very first table of the expo, Paul Benjamin, a writer who had actually written a book that has been in my collection for a few years, Monsters, Inc.: The Laugh Factory. I didn't know if I was going to find anything at Staple that I wanted to add to my collection, but here I had found something at table number one! Now, I didn't make the purchase immediately. I walked around a bit first, but I inevitably came back, and since I already had Laugh Factory, I bought one of Paul's Muppet King Arthur comics, which he cheerfully signed for me. On top of that, he was kind enough to give me the full story and lots of great advice when I asked him how he managed to get into the mainstream comic world. This guy, who also has written Hulk, Spidey, and Tokyo Pop comics, has a heck of a resume in the world of popular characters, but his main tip was to do plenty of work and hit these conventions with it! A huge part of it is in the connections you make there. Well, that's a little disheartening for me since I have some extreme social anxiety about interacting with strangers, but I'll keep trying! I was shy to talk with a lot of people at this convention (especially when they were attractive lady-types), unless I had something particular to ask about, but thankfully, in a couple of cases (like this one) it went well for the most part.

Above is Rick Brooks, a comic STRIP style artist. I was sooo happy to run across a newspaper comic strip-type artist at Staple, since that is more in-line with what my Moonlight Motel webcomic is, even though I am writing a graphic novel based on it (but it lends itself well to both). Rick is the San Antonio-based creator of this Mr. Morris comic, and he was simply the nicest guy! And so full of awesome information! He clued me in on a local newsprint publication called Rock Salt that loves local strip cartoonists, and he gave me great info on printing your work when you have to self-publish, as most people at Staple have to do. I bought a copy of his Mr. Morris comic, but I completely forgot to ask him to sign it! Argh! Ha. And I should have given him better warning about taking his picture. He'd just had a bit of peanut butter, ha.

Now, this was an interesting buy. I picked up both volumes of this Moonlight Rrriot book you see above. I saw these on a few different tables, and that's because, as it turns out, several artists and writers who worked on the book had tables at this expo. Anyway, so this is basically a Sailor Moon-themed collection of art and stories. Made by fans, for fans, so I sure hope I can get some art in a future issue myself someday!

And, basically, here was the star of the whole con, the super-sweet Babs Tarr, the Batgirl artist who also designed her new look, and in my opinion, did a fantastic job! I didn't even know she was going to be here, because I did very little research on this excursion, but I was so glad to get the opportunity to pick up a signed print and comic from her! The only hard part though, was selecting a print! She had some really gorgeous Sailor Moon and April O'Neil themed work, and Harley and Ivy, and other fantastic stuff as well!

In the end though, I had to opt for a double Batgirl purchase: Batgirl comic AND Batgirl print. I mean, I've had a thing for Barbara Gordon Batgirl since I was like 5, watching reruns of the 60's TV show and drooling over purple-suited Yvonne Craig. Batgirl is still my favorite superhero crush, aside from the Sailor Scouts, and here was one of her legitimates artists/designers, so, yeah, it had to be a Batgirl print.

My final takeaway from the evening was a second print, this time by the lovely artist Jessica von Braun, whose illustrations are both haunting and beautiful. One in particular kept drawing me back to her table, the peppermint girl that must be one of her most popular pieces (she even displayed her name under it). I immediately loved this piece. It might have something to do with Kiki, I'll admit, who once had pink hair when we used to hangout together, and whom I began to paint a similar portrait of before she moved away, and who also, I think, would have a great appreciation for Jessica von Braun's style, if she doesn't already. My thanks to Jessica for allowing me to snap a couple of pics of her at her table. She was so sweet and she wanted her daughter to be in the pic as well, but got a refusal, ha.

Yeah, I gotta admit, it was a really enjoyable time I had at the Staple Expo, and I sincerely hope to go again next year and have my own table when I do. My endless thanks to everyone who put up with my social awkwardness this year and took the time to chat and pose for my pictures. It was great meeting all these awesome people, and more that I wasn't able to get pics of for whatever reason (be it crowds or simply my shyness). I'm going to wrap this up for now, but I'll leave you with more random pics I snapped throughout my time at Staple 2015. And, I mean it this time, I'll write again soon, ha, AND get some new comics up! Later, folks!