jon_thompson

jon_thompson

[	userinfo	\|	livejournal userinfo	]
[	archive	\|	journal archive	]

Comics get even worse	[Oct. 26th, 2006\|06:02 pm]
Wow. So, on the one hand you have some comics being insanely annoying with the Civil War storyline. Fine, fine. Writers are blathering on about political theory without understanding it, nothing new. But, in other comics, well. Things are even worse. My current example of choice: The Excalibur team travels back in time to save Camelot from invading space aliens who look like dragons who killed all the dragons living in England who, in normal or proper time, were supposed to attack Camelot and be thwarted. The REALLY funny thing is that the characters keep talking about having to change history books if they mess something up. Which seems to ignore that, you know, Camelot never existed.
link	post comment

All pretense is gone! WOOHOO!	[Sep. 29th, 2006\|02:11 pm]
So, Marvel decided to drop all pretense on Civil War. The people who don't register are held in the Negative Zone, which is off of American soil, so they don't have to be given a trial. They are fed and treated well, but they are still being imprisoned. So, Peter Parker (the moderate who orgininally supports the registration act) says that the Negative Zone prison is OK, as long as it is only temporary. When he learns it is permanent, then he decides he was wrong about the act, and must fight for what is right. Along the way, background news services chatter about how well Halliburton is doing on the stock market. And Reed Richards supports his work for the registration act by saying that you just have to do whatever powerful men say, no matter how dumb it is. He even relates the story of how his eccentric uncle was taken before the HUAC and how his life was destroyed because he told the comittee to bite him. And Reed tells this story to show that you have to go along with registration, even though it IS stupid. On the upside, Ultimate Avengers had the climactic battle to retake America from the Liberators. That was cool. Although, the writer for that one is the most violent guy I've ever seen in the field; he has the Hulk punch someone's head in HALF.
link	post comment

Weird sign.	[Sep. 26th, 2006\|03:30 pm]
I noticed two weird signs driving to work today. One said, "Try urine." That's all it said, and it was some kind of a veterinary store. So, I spent five minutes thinking about what it could mean. Then, I saw a sign that said, "Free trip to Heaven. Details inside!" Church, obviously. But, I was so tired and still confused by the other sign that for a second, I thought it sounded like a nice offer. "Free trip? Cool! And, Heaven certainly sounds nice!" Then I felt gypped when I realized what they meant. I wanted free STUFF, not spiritual enlightenment. Spiritual enlightenment is already FREE, no one cares if you offer MORE for free. Give me free stuff. Stuff is what I crave.
link	post comment

My boss almost killed me today.	[Aug. 7th, 2006\|08:04 pm]
That is all.
link	post comment

Civil War follies	[Aug. 7th, 2006\|12:03 am]
Another thing that's getting me about Civil War. Some characters say they don't want to work for the government (a concern I'd appreciate). Others say they aren't active super-beings, so they shouldn't have to register (another one I'd buy). But, the thing I'm wondering is, has whoever is behind the editorial process actually decided exactly what "registration" means? Do some writers think it just means you tell the world who you are if you wear a mask and run around beating on criminals, while others think it means that you have to work for the government if laser beams shoot from your armpits when you sneeze? In all honestly, the pro and con arguments seem to be making different assumptions about what registration means, so I've just got to ask. Did ANYONE define it? Or did the editor just say something about different guys being for, others against, and leave the writing to the writers? That's what I think happened, and I think that's part of why Civil War doesn't seem to be making much sense. On the other hand, I just would love to talk to the writers for the anti-registration side for a minute. What do Cap and the others hope to accomplish by fighting? Do they hope to overthrow the US government? Or change people's minds by beating up other guys with powers? On top of that, do these people really think that after an accident like Stamford, the American people, if they are as angry as the Marvel writers say they are, are just going to forget it if the government ignores them and does nothing about super-powered types? Sorry to say, but if the majority hates you, it doesn't matter what the government does, not much. If the government leaves you alone, either people attack you, or the people elect a new government which does a lot worse than get you to register. That's another thing I don't like about Civil War. The whole focus is on how the government treats heroes, not changing popular opinion.
link	4 comments\|post comment

Civil War observation.	[Aug. 6th, 2006\|11:59 pm]
Iron Man, so important to the story of Civil War, is actually having a separate and totally unrelated story going on his comic. He is (surprise!) being used for evil by someone who has gained control of him (and it is happening in Marvel time, to, since he's in prison for part of it, and he's always free and unaffected when he cameos elsewhere). I'm just guessing, but I think this is because it is going to turn out that Iron Man is the real bad guy, or he'll become the real bad guy. Just my thought.
link	post comment

Spider-Man, watch out for Walrus Man!	[Aug. 6th, 2006\|11:40 pm]
I saw a comic panel from Superdickery the other day which was kind of funny. Spidey fights a guy who claims to have the proportionate strength and speed of a Walrus. Spidey laughs, and gets sucker-punched. But, the thing is, if the character isn't supposed to be a joke, that's about right. The first time a new villain shows up or if there is a hero crossover, Spider-man, who can lift almost ten tons, dodge machine-gun fire, has super-web spinners, and can punch someone forty times in the time it takes a normal man to punch one time, and has years of battle training, etc, can't beat a guy with human strength, speed, and a bit of determination. Just as an example, in a recent Civil War story, Spider-man (wearing armor which can stop a .38 round) can't beat up Captain America (who has peak human strength and speed and only a few more years battle experience than Spider-man). Not only that, but Cap's punch hurts Spider-man badly, which is itself stupid, considering Spider-man once rested while he let a group of thugs pummel him when he was wearing thin cloth. I understand suspending disbelief, and that's cool and all. But, inside of a created reality, there have to be logical rules. Spider-man can dodge bullets, but not Cap's fists? He can take a beating from guys who throw trucks, but nearly folds after two hits from Cap? The whole thing doesn't make sense according to the created world of Marvel. What's worse, if anyone comes out worse, it is Spider-man. I wouldn't be so annoyed if Cap had managed to hold his own for a bit while taking the worst of it. But, to have Spider-man basically losing right up until the end is just insane. I know it is a silly thing to be annoyed about given the weakness of the whole argument for and against both sides in Civil War, but, still. It always got to me, and it still does.
link	post comment

The morality of Marvel

[Aug. 6th, 2006|11:26 am]

[

mood

disappointed

]

So, I've been thinking for awhile now. I've reread a few of my older What if comics, and I've even gone so far as to read a few of the newer comics out there I don't have subscriptions too. While it is clear some things fall under an overarching guidelines (like unquestioning support for the Drug War), others are left to individual writers. Still, I think you can learn a bit about the basic mindset of Marvel writers if you do enough research. So, that's what I've done, so you don't have to. I'm a wonderful person!

So, what did I learn? For the most part, it isn't that bad. There are two What ifs where an evil Captain America makes America a racist and evil nation. But, in both worlds, nationalization of industry or job protection acts hurt minorities and end up being the first evil actions of the new racist government, so, it seemed to me that it was more anti-Nazi than straight up anti-right wing or anything (and the job protection act thing was the sort of thing we might really pass in America, so I was actually a bit impressed by that one, which was easily the better written story).

Other than that though, when it comes to morality, I'm not impressed. There are two stories in particular that have me shaking my head. One What if has the idea that the super soldier serum is made public, and regular people begin using it. However, some people are too poor to buy it, so the Roxxon corporation (if you can't tell, it is supposed to be Exxon, the oil company) makes a cheaper drug that requires boosters. Still, some don't want it or can't afford it. So, you have a nation of people addicted to a drug and divided between the haves and have nots. Not a utopia, but, where's the fire? The majority are healthy, and no one is discriminated against because of race. It is just that Roxxon charges for their miracle cure. So, apparently, the better world is one in which the serum is stripped from humanity forever rather than given only to 80% of the people. I just thought that was dumb.

The second What if is similar, and exposes a simple strain of anti-freedom prejudice in Marvel writers. Just like in the previous story, there is a technology made available, and because it causes problems, it must be destroyed. The idea is that Iron Man makes his tech public and sells it to the army, construction companies, medical firms, and the police. However, eventually, the evil US government, with talk of fairness, allows other firms to produce tech along similar lines. Now, first off, I'll admit I don't like the idea of stripping Stark Industries of their patents, ESPECIALLY not in the name of fairness. However, the problems this is supposed to create are ridiculous. All of a sudden, criminals are almost unstoppable, and America's enemies are producing the best Iron Man armor. Which is gibberish; why would releasing a new tech shift the balance of power to criminals OR America's enemies? This is the story that really cheeses me, because it is not just anti-freedom in that it seems to feel that the government alone is responsible enough to do some things for us children, but it is also anti-technology, seeming to say that some technologies should be kept secret, even if they have myriad constructive and productive uses.

The final one that gets me is a recent Cable/Deadpool. It is a dumb comic all around, about a revolution in a tiny European nation and the new government, but the thing that really gets me is that the heroine (voice for the writer at this point) basically says that censorship and making it illegal to teach history is a good thing, while letting kids get drunk (which they already do in most of Europe, where the story takes place) is a bad thing. So, freedom=bad and government=good. Nice. Thanks. Who are these people who look at the big scary world and say, why can't government take away more of my choices so I don't get so confused?

Oh, right. A good number of them are Marvel writers.

link

3 comments|post comment

navigation

[

viewing

most recent entries

]

Customize

Advertisement

Advertisement