I think it was a touch ridiculous to have a panel that had more moderators than panelists. You’d have thought THE STACK guys would have drawn straws to see which one or two of them should drop out.

20 years later they are still holding the same bullshit panels…the industry will never change…the inclusion of Jenna James only confirms that for too many of the comics fans out there, creative women in the comics field are judged only on the fantasies they incur as sweaty palms reach between their legs and jerk up and down while they drool over Power Girl’s breasts.

I wasn’t there because of Passover, but kudos to my friend Amanda Connor for trying to bring some semblance of professionalism to the panel. Unfortunately, it’s a losing cause, Amanda.

The only thing that we women can do is to continue to create comics springing from the deep wells of talent and creativity and love of the form, not to satisfy the fans, but for ourselves.

Which is the important thing, isn’t it?

Mindy

“man, this is funny. amanda had a good time and didnt mind the panel at all.”

So, Jimmy, your wife was smart enough to know what she was doing and had a good time with the whole thing? She represented herself well and tried to use Jenna’s shine to spotlight herself a little bit and try to get some new fans? Good for her! I’m glad she used the opportunity to the fullest extent and didn’t get all self-righteous over it!

Alex, I, just like just about everyone in this thread, wasn’t at the panel either, but unlike just about everyone else, I’m actually going to take you at your word. I believe Conner knew exactly what she was walking into and maybe was there because she thought it could be ironically fun. I believe you and your co-workers tried your best to have a fun panel. And I believe Ms. Jameson was trying to do some fellow professional women a favor by being on the same panel as them and using her star power to shine on their work a little bit.

the panel and the room had fun, was not a disaster and both people on stage got questions directed to each of them.

afterward, we went off into another room and spoke for a bit. whatever you think of jenna, she really tried to do her best up there and whatever you may think you know about amanda, she doesnt judge people one bit and feels that everyone is entitled to their opinions and repectful of their wishes.

jimmy

I’m not trying to change anyone’s minds, just present a balanced version of facts, rather the supposition that has been presented elsewhere.

- Jenna did not assume they would be late. When she heard they were not there yet, we waited for them.

- Jenna’s people did not ask for three “handlers.” Justin, Pete and I perform together as a trio, and were asked to moderate together. We asked if they really wanted three people, and NYCC said, “sure, that’ll be fun.” That’s it. No massive conspiracy.

- Things can be a spectacularly bad idea, and still turn out fine. You’ve never had an experience that turned out better than you expected? Not trying to be snarky, but seriously, yes, there were several poor decisions, but you make things work with the situation you’re in, and end of the day, if the two panelists, the moderators, and the audience had a fine time*, that’s way more important than anything else.

And, as I said above, if it turns out from the audience or the panelists that I’m completely wrong, I apologize, my perspective was incorrect.

*And, just because writing in the comments section of a blog is a great conveyor of tone, I want to once again explain that when I say “fine,” I literally mean “fine,” not great.

Why did she assume the other panelists would be late? That sounds like a load of baloney. It seems more like someone was angling for a grand entrance, which was achieved.

The role of a moderator is to keep a panel on track, and it’s clear from the report that it went exactly the way Ms. Jameson’s people hoped it would. (Who the fuck needs three handlers to be on a panel at a comic convention, anyway?)

I think you are trying valiantly to defend a chain of iffy decisions. You weren’t in control of the panel, you agree the panel was a bad idea, yet you’re defending the end result.

It’s probably a vain hope that programming at NYCC has learned anything from this, but I can tell you I would not be on a panel like this. I have been the person whose purse was being held, and I have held purses. Neither is fun.
I maintain that this panel was hugely disrespectful of the professional comics creators included, and I’m astonished you can acknowledge it was a ill-considered idea and still hold the line that it wasn’t “that” bad.

However, the panel, as far as I understand it, was suggested by Jenna Jameson herself… The reason it started so late is because she wanted to wait for the other panelists to show up, and felt it was important to give them time to get there. Don’t quote me on that, but that’s generally what I was told.

And just to clarify a bit more, I was starting off a line of questioning that was discussed with Amanda Connor before the panel, while we were waiting for it to start, trying to figure out how to make the point when there are 50% less panelists available. We started off on a line of questioning that was going to lead up to that, but it was clear the conversation was talking a very different (and totally fine, but more retrospective) direction, and so rather than hijack two unwilling panelists, and an audience, we kept going in the direction the questioning was going.

I should ALSO mention that, though Jenna Jameson was very much plugging her stuff throughout the panel, she was also clearly interested and impressed by Amanda Connor, and deferred to her on several different questions. Amanda Connor also didn’t seem to have a problem with Jenna Jameson, and felt free to plug her own stuff.

As for the clip, it was right at the top, literally about 15 seconds long, and nobody referred to it ever again

Anyway, I was trying not to respond to this too much, but I feel like the panel is getting painted in a very negative way. Believe me, I was VERY aware how horribly wrong it could have gone, and I don’t think it did. As I said above, it was just fine. Not great, not bad, just fine.

And Alex, you could have still asked that question with two people. Two female creators would be able to answer that question just as good as four. Unless you realized that asking why a “Women In Comics” panel is necessary doesn’t work that well when one of the two only has a tenuous connection with comic books.

My question is, why not have a Jenna Jameson panel in and of itself? Why shoehorn her in on a “Women who kick ass” panel where she really doesn’t belong. Because this panel seems (again, I wasn’t there) just be a means to an end to promote Zombie Strippers and, hey, since they were there anyway, Shadow Hunter. Unless Mr. Bunche forgot to mention the clip of equal length to the Zombie Strippers one that was devoted to Ms. Conner’s career. Maybe every panelist was to receive their own clip.

Because, even if Ms. Doran and Ms. Simonson showed up, I’d imagine Ms. Jameson would not at all be able to hold her own when talking of women’s contributions to the comic book field. And you’d have three women twiddling their thumbs when Ms. Jameson promoted her shlock horror film with that clip instead of just one .

But seriously, why wasn’t there a “Jenna Jameson:Pop Culture Icon” panel with other creators from Zombie Strippers and Shadow Hunter on the dias. That would have been better than this dog and pony show and less insulting to three great female comic book creators.

Was it spectacular? Heck no. It was completely weird to try and balance questions to a “panel” when you have two completely incongruous people on it. If we had the whole panel the idea was to engage the panelists and audience in a discussion about why comic-con organizers think it’s necessary to set up a panel like this, and why it, in fact, is not necessary. That would have been interesting, and possible, if we had a panel instead of, as I said, two incongruous guests. Who regardless of all that, from my perspective, both came off fine.

But, if you went to the panel, and were in the audience, and it really seemed like the whole thing was an absolute trainwreck, and we completely disparaged Amanda Connor, then I take everything back. That was not our intention, and I’m not quite sure why it came across that way.

“…annoying…douchebag(s like) Ryan Seacrest.”

I’d have bailed, too. Not because Jameson is a porn star. But because it would be (and was) exactly as described: a showcase for the porn star.
Why waste the time?

This was a stupid, stupid panel idea, and whoever came up with it and whoever approved it owes the female comics pros on it an apology for turning them into the B list. (There was a different women in comics panel just one hour earlier.)
This panel hearkens back to when “The Women in Comics Panel” at any given con was THE Women in Comics Panel because it would be the ONLY panel which had women on it the entire weekend.

“When it comes to creating comics, and most other things for that matter, gender is irrelevant and the main factor to consider is the validity of the creator’s vision and intent rather than whether or not the talent possesses twig & berries”
To paraphrase Sturgeon (massively), if there’s a specialized interest, a panel for it isn’t a bad thing.
Readers/aspirants/followers WANT to see creators of their color, their gender, their sexual preference. Now, if a panel for women/chinese/black/gay, etc. are the ONLY place you will see someone Chinese, black, female, gay, etc., there’s a problem. (And there is definitely sometimes a problem.)
It’s easy to say it’s all about the merit and dismiss the need for focus.

We could apply this same thinking to comics in general: if it’s all about the merit, why have a manga panel, capes panel, or minicomics panel?
Silly, huh?