|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Nov 22, 2008 7:03:57 GMT -8
Given, but you can clearly see that from the point of Gru's miniseries on, the idea of using analogues of the "big league" characters became a lot more fashionable.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Nov 22, 2008 16:19:36 GMT -8
Given, but you can clearly see that from the point of Gru's miniseries on, the idea of using analogues of the "big league" characters became a lot more fashionable. So, in other words, it's yet another case where GOOD storytelling (Gru's take on SS) is directly responsible for BAD storytelling (everyone who followed him). See also: everyone who has ever been inspired by Watchmen, ever ever EVER. You know what? Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to like good things, because they'll always like them for the wrong reasons, and in so doing, they'll just ruin them for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Nov 22, 2008 18:11:48 GMT -8
It certainly seems that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Dec 6, 2008 22:08:52 GMT -8
first content post in a while pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2008/12/2008-year-of-misogyny.html2008: The Year of Misogyny And really, what else can you call it when the list is so long? When so much bad writing has trashed so many female characters that "the good old days" of Identity Crisis start looking good by comparison? But hey, you want shabby treatment of female characters? Let's start with characters whom have been removed from prominent positions and made into supporting characters for other, male heroes, or were removed from books where they had prominence? Well, in this category we have: -Misty Knight -Black Widow -White Tiger -Night Nurse -Jessica Jones -Mary Jane Watson-Parker (no, really Marvel, FUCK YOU) -Catwoman -Siryn But you say, "Hey, that shit happens, it's not like they were brutalized". Oh? Well, you're right, because in the "brutalized and degraded" we've got: -Wonder Woman (Final Crisis and her own title) -Mary Marvel -Tigra -Dakota North -Black Alice -Mila Murdock -Sharon Carter/Agent 13 -Jackpot -Stature of the Young Avengers -Lady Bullseye -The entire race of Amazons in the DCU How about deaths? Do you want some women in refrigerators? Because we got'em! -Moondragon, Ko-Rel (the female Nova), and Deathcry (Sorry, but when 3 of the 4 major casualties in Annhilation: Conquest are women, it's not a good sign). -Jackpot -Kitty Pryde -The Wasp -White Tiger -Big Barda (on the kitchen floor no less!) And of course, that brings us at last, to cancellations. Here are the following formerly female-lead titles that were cancelled during the year 2008, or that cancellations were announced for: -Heroes for Hire -Catwoman -She-Hulk -Spider-Girl -Birds of Prey -Manhunter And there you have, the sick, depraved state of comics in 2008: A sick boyish fantasy of sexism, peruile debasement, and complete devestation. Makes you proud to have this hobby, huh? Makes you want to go share it with that girl you like? You go do that. Do the people who make these things have no shame? Do they not know any women? Or do they just not talk to them? Isn't this a damning condemnation of this genre that the only thing I can think of that has a higher frequency of violence against women are slasher and snuff films? Aren't you angry? If you aren't, then why? And if you are, what are you going to do about it? I'm sorry, because I have to ask. I really don't buy anymore, prefering to get the pictures and stories via Scans Daily and other outlets. I do this because I still have a (probably unhealthy) lingering attachement to this stuff from my childhood, but the more this goes on, the more willing I am to sever that attachement in an attempt to save my sense of morality and common decency. And didn't that used to be the whole point of superheroes? Man, we've fallen far. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Dec 7, 2008 1:39:44 GMT -8
BZZT!
Marvel + DC mainstream superhero comics =/= all of comics.
I know you already know this, but you keep talking about them as if they're the only game in town. And you know what? As long as you keep treating them that way they won't understand what they're doing wrong.
The way to make them change is to buy the comics that do right what they do wrong.
If you want comics with strong female leads, buy such comics. If you want comics that celebrate heroism, buy such comics. If you want comics that have quality writing, buy such comics.
And, not least important, tell people about them. Don't just say "these are bad, don't buy them" because guess what? It doesn't matter. You won't get a single person who enjoys reading them to stop by telling them they're bad.
But if you show them something better they can come to the realization themselves.
(Yes, it's the whole flies-honey thing.)
And I know, this is as much venting as anything else, and that's fine. As long as you're doing this to get it off your chest or maybe to strengthen the will of the already converted, no problem. Just don't imagine you're reaching anyone who actually likes reading this stuff.
(Sorry if this came off a bit harsh, but I'm a bit down on negativity (yeah, I know) lately. I'll get some breakfast now and then I'll be better.)
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Dec 7, 2008 9:02:36 GMT -8
OK, agreed, I've changed the entry to refer to the fact that I'm addressing "Big Two" comics only
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Dec 7, 2008 12:40:03 GMT -8
Again, I'm sorry if I came across a bit too harsh. I think your analysis is good (from what I can tell, since I don't follow the involved titles); I just can't muster the energy to care that much. Or rather, I'm not interested in mustering the energy to care. There are enough good comics out there that I don't feel the need to bother about that bad ones. It does annoy me when they fuck up characters I used to enjoy reading about, but it's been a long, long time since I followed any title long enough to care about continuity and sooner or later there will be a good writer on them again. Eh, anyway. Carry on.  |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Dec 7, 2008 12:55:18 GMT -8
It's not so much I care out of anything other than a "what the holy hell? This is fucking creepy" factor. It's just one of those entrenched manchild factors in the Big Two that needs to be disinfected with sunlight and napalm.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Feb 3, 2009 13:40:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Feb 16, 2009 15:53:28 GMT -8
pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2009/02/obey-your-master.htmlLook, it's as simple as this: If you supported the Superhuman Registration Act and the Initiative when Tony Stark was running things, you should be supporting Norman Osborn without hesitation. In point of fact, you should be CHEERING HIM ON. Why, you may ask? Well, has the Registration Act itself changed? No. Has the need for superhumans to be registered and overseen by the law changed? No. So, for those of you who supported the Registration, well, nothing's changed. Except the guy on top. Well, let's compare, shall we? "Norman Osborn is brining unrepentant criminals into the Initiative! He's going to be in charge of an army of supervillains!" As opposed to Tony Stark, who was the one who actually brought unrepentant criminals such as Bullseye, Taskmaster, Venom, and Norman Osborn into the mix to begin with. Please try again. Norman Osborn made a secret pact with a group of powerful criminals! Right. And Tony and his group of super-secret friends who killed a bunch of Skrulls and kidnapped and shot the Hulk into space are not at all the same kind of thing. Except it is. Norman Osborn has an agenda and bends and distorts the rules for his own ends! And so did Tony every time he didn't go after the New Avengers. Or Spider-Man. Or Daredevil. If Tony can make exceptions, so can Norman. The Initiative is corrupt and will fail because of Norman Osborn! It'd be pretty damn hard for the Initiative to fail any more than it already has. OK, well, fine, you say. But it doesn't change the fact that Tony is a decent man, and Norman a corrupt one. Well, as far as that is concerned, I'll let Nighthawk speak for me. (POST NOTE: You need to go to the link to see the speech in question) Do you understand now? If all it took was one man to turn the Initiative from a "good idea" to a "bad idea", then IT WAS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA. This was the reason commonly brought against Doom and Magneto: sure they could make Earth a paradise; as long as they were alive. After them, it would all fall apart. So making the Initiative and the SHRA dependent on any one man, no matter how noble, meant that it was fatally flawed from its very inception. And Bonus for Kirk: Kirk, come and watch BittercupoJoe squirm 
|
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Feb 17, 2009 10:17:20 GMT -8
Hell, this point was made -- unintentionally, I think -- by the very brain trust who came up with the Initiative. Millar, Bendis and Jenkins, at various points, indicated that the crux of Tony's Super Seekrit Plan was that all the Big Future Thinker types felt this was absolutely inevitable, and the only way to control the monster to come was to actually push it through themselves and make sure one of their own -- Tony -- was at the top. And with Tony in charge, nothing could go wrong!
And like Doom and Magneto, none of them really thought through the consequences of "What happens when and if Tony is inevitably cut out of the loop?"
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Feb 18, 2009 0:40:52 GMT -8
Just thinking: what if Secret Invasion and Dark Reign are the price the Devil demanded for the deal with Spidey? As in: "Okay, you get your aunt back, for that I take your marriage. You get your secret identity back, for that, your worst enemy wins and takes over the US."
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Feb 26, 2009 18:25:59 GMT -8
You know, if this had all been executed better, with regards to continuity, characterization, etc, etc...
This whole thing really would have been one hell of a story.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Feb 26, 2009 21:00:37 GMT -8
You know, if this had all been executed better, with regards to continuity, characterization, etc, etc... This whole thing really would have been one hell of a story. The problem is that all of Marvel's current stories are being written by people who, as Roger Ebert once said of Michael Bay, seriously don't understand the difference between a movie trailer and the movie itself. Bendis and Millar, in particular, have both been so desperate to sell out to Hollywood for DECADES that they think that the story and the sales pitch for the story are THE EXACT SAME THING. As soon as they come up with the IDEA for a story? That's it; job OVER, as far as they're concerned. They've flat-out stated in interviews that they can't even CONCEIVE of how the EXECUTION of a story could possibly not be as good as a story IDEA, because to them, the execution is IRRELEVANT. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Feb 27, 2009 0:04:08 GMT -8
flat-out stated in interviews that they can't even CONCEIVE of how the EXECUTION of a story could possibly not be as good as a story IDEA, because to them, the execution is IRRELEVANT. Link? |
|
