#And Evil Wolverine THINKS he has the same insight | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hellyeahheroes · 4 years

Text

Let Molly Punch Wolverine: Why I’m worried about X-Men appearance in Runaways

I want to preface this by saying that I have strong trust in Rainbow Rowell and while I am behind her series due to financial and pandemic related reasons, I trust her to deliver the best story she is allowed to. The worries I express below come from the fact I do not trust X-Men editorial and Jonathan Hickman enough to believe they will allow her to tell the best story.

The way I see it, Runaways are the quintessential Millenial comic in that it perfectly captures Millenial generation’s disillusionment with world and society built by Baby Boomers. A disillusionment that was to be expected in face of failiure of American defenses to prevent 9/11, the government and mass media wholeheartely embracing islamophobia and homophobia in it’s wake and American war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of myriad other problems that were already present in the 00s and only got worse as we went ahead.

This is not seen just in the core premise of the original series, the idea that the parents kids are taught to respect and look up to are actively evil and damning the world for their own benefit. But also in the general potrayal of adults and adult superheroes in the series, who are mostly useless or outright malicious in case of Doc Justice. Sole exception being somewhat Spider-Man, who himself is portrayed as having gone through what Runaways have and so having insight and empathy other adults lack.

While that theme has become more gray over the years, as Runaways managed to gain a good footing with teachers and students of Avengers Academy alike, and Nico and Victor were on Avengers offshot teams, even then it was clear that the older heroes are not these perfect ideals too look up to, but flaved in their own way. Entire Avengers A.I. is about fixing one of Hank Pym’s screwups and A-Force’s premise is the team doubles as a support group, every member having gone through traumatic experience in the past and being on different stages of healing process (not to mention how it crashed and burned due to mistakes made by Carol in Civil War II). Even X-Men themselves started as outright antagonistic to Runaways under BKV. And then uder Yost went into the mutual “MAYBE they aren’t THAT bad” relationship with Runaways. Every meeting so far had Molly punch Wolverine.

In current series most of the team moved from teenagers to young adults and their experiences still reflect those of late Millenials. There is this feeling in current series of powerlessness, Runaways making it to the adulthood only to find all it gets you is more problems and all ability to fix the world have been systematically wrestled from your hands by the very people who broke it just so that you cannot fix their mess. It is a story about trying to live in a messed up world with that realization and how your found family can help you carry on whatever it will throws at you. I think in this way is why I can turn a blind eye on things like Nico in Strange Academy - it makes sense she would want to at least try to help kids who are going through what she did to not have as much a hard time. And, you know, Strange didn’t invite A NAZI WHO ACTUALLY WORKED AT AUSCHWITZ WITH MENGELE to help him run the school.

I do not beleive X-Men editorial can play along with that. Right now X-Men and their fandom are at the height of drinking their own kool-aid, portraying their stupid sex island as the msot perfect and best thing ever, to the point they ignore the blatantly fashy things happenning like making up new minority groups (precogs and clones) to oppress, or abovementioned inviting of Nazis, mass murderers and islamophobic crusaders who want to “take back Jerusalem”. They are so into the “mutants are a minority” metaphor that they outright demand that every other book touching on it portray negatively anyone who does not immediatelly bows down at their feet. Something we have seen in X-Men interactions with Fantastic Four, where Sue Storm’s legitimate complaints about X-Men’s current position are caricaturized to cast her in a “uniformed homophobic mom” stereotype just to keep the metaphor working. Even in Fantastic Four’s own book. In wake of this I can somewhat see why the infamous “Franklin is not a mutant” retcon took place.

I cannot beleive that current X-office could allow X-Men to be shown in a way that adheres to themes of Runaways. I mean for Pete’s sake, look at their treatment of New X-Men Academy X - another Millenial at heat series. And another one that tackles disillusionment of that generation with Baby Boomers’ run world with its own 9/11 equivalent in form of a terrorist attack that killed many of its students and traumatized the rest. It is a known secret editor Jordan White considers this a “mistake” because it made old X-Men look bad. And under him in particular X-Books had a history of undermining and derailing NXM kids to show them as inexperienced, dumb kids who never had any hardships and do not know what it really takes to be an X-Man, who see it as all the glamour and no work. All in spite of the fact they may have suffered more than all their elders except Karma, writers’ favorite punching bag. Now the books are outright lobotomizing the surviving kids while bringing back dead ones not to explore any stories with them or how such return could affect the ressurected and their friends alike and maybe allow a possibility to heal. No, this is done solely to erase that massacre from ever happenning because it make Jordan White’s heroes look bad.

I’m supposed to believe this editorial will allow Cult Sex Island to be shown as imperfect or not a place that would “obviously” be much better for Molly? That it will allow Runaways to not be cast as “bigots” for not wanting to handle Molly to “real family” (as determined by genetics) same way X-Men treated Fantastic Four? As things stand now X-Men, a franchise and fandom that is ever entitled to special treatment to the point it cried Marvel wants to bury them when having “only” four books a month. One that has demanded for Kamala Khan to be handed over to them and made a mutant just to spite Inhumans over some perceived slights. A fandom that has wished death members of every superhero team with a mutant who refuses to hand the mutant over and celebrated brutal murder of a kid with a reprogrammed Sentinel. This blind entitlement is not jsut a fandom thing but also infects creatives working on it. Need I remind you how Jason Aaron made a big deal out of making Firestar join the X-Men? He took a character who canonically didn’t care much for the team and wanted to do her own thing and retconned her to be a total fangirl who dreamed of joining but was never before truly “worthy” of this “honor”. Right now we have more and more evidence every franchise interacting with X-Men needs to bow down and play a secondary role to it. but the respect here is a one-way street, Jonathan Hickman outright complains about having to adhere to work of other writers. I have absolutely zero trust that editorial will not try to force the story in Runaways to also be worshiping the ground X-men walk on. Worst case scenario they insert themselves like they did with Fantastic Four, becoming recurring plot thread and casting rest of Molly’s family as evil for not wanting her to join what is effectively a cult.

I wish I’m being wrong here. I do not want Runaways to become a glorified advertisement to a bigger franchise that has become souless and vile and whose fans turned into bullies. I have faith in Rainbow Rowell but that faith is outweighted by my distrust in Jordan White and Jonathan Hickman and their egoes. I hope I’m wrong. All I want is a story that ends with X-men fucking off and Molly staying with her real family, the Runaways. And of ocurse, her punching Wolverine. Which I do not trust White and Hickman to allow either.

PS: Some of you are probably already typing some sort of “if you don’t like the X-men, just don’t read them” response. To you I say: I would be glad too. Too bad they keep forcing themselves into things I actually like. Like a mold. Which is a good metaphor for what this old, gross thing the franchise has become.

-Admin

#Runaways #X-Men #Molly Hayes #Marvel

32 notes · View notes

preserving-ferretbrain · 5 years

Text

Garth Ennis Is A Hack

by Rude Cyrus

Friday, 10 April 2009

Rude Cyrus is deservedly rude about The Boys.~

Once upon a time, superheroes were seen as protectors of the innocent, bringers of justice, and saviors of mankind. When I was a kid, there was no greater thrill than watching Superman pummel giant robots or stop a plane from crashing into a city. As time went on, the public began to tire of flawless beings that could do no wrong, so creators began to make the heroes more “realistic”, at least in terms of character. Antiheroes like Wolverine and The Punisher became popular while concepts like vigilantism would be explored in comics like Watchmen.

Unfortunately, the pendulum swung a little too far during the ‘90s, a decade where you couldn’t swing a dead badger without hitting some DARK and GRITTY antihero. This is the same decade that gave birth to Image Comics, a publisher that needs to make an acquaintance with an H-Bomb. All you need to know about Image Comics is that it took over the canceled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtlesfranchise and turned Donatello into a cyborg. That says it all.

This brings me to the present and The Boys, a comic series written by Garth Ennis and illustrated by Darick Robertson (which I keep pronouncing as “da’ Rick”).

Let me just say that I hate this series. I don’t hate it because it’s ultra-violent and ultra-sexualized. I don’t hate it because it makes superheroes (or “supes” as they’re called here) turn out to be a bunch of amoral douchebags. I don’t hate it because I think Garth Ennis is an overrated hack who’s convinced everyone he’s a genius. No, I hate it because I can’t stand the characters.

Everybody, with few exceptions, is thoroughly repugnant. Just look at the main characters:

Billy Butcher is a sociopath with a neck the size of a ham and a perpetual smirk plastered on his face. He owns a bulldog named Terror that can fuck things on command; seemingly hates supes because one raped his wife, who ended up dying because the fetus ripped through her stomach. Butcher ended up beating said fetus to death with a lamp.

Wee Hughie joined The Boys after his girlfriend was accidentally killed by a supe named A-Train. Much of the series is focused on following Hughie’s thoughts and actions, which is unfortunate because he’s a wet blanket with exactly three facial expressions: anger, incredulity, and shit-eating grin. He’s also a dead ringer for Simon Pegg – I suspect Ennis was sitting around, smoking pot, and said to himself, “Dude, wouldn’t it be cool if Simon Pegg had superpowers?”

Mother’s Milk is a somewhat decent guy, which means he gets shoved into the background more often than not. He seems to derive his powers from an entity he calls “Momma” in a process that makes him vomit. Why does he have to do this? Who cares, let’s watch a midget use a massive vibrator!

The Frenchman and The Female are psychotic killers with the ability to rip people apart with their bare hands. Defining characteristics: one is French, the other lacks a penis. Garth Ennis doesn’t give a shit about them, so why should I?

And what would a team of morally dubious antiheroes be without a team of superheroes to oppose them? Enter the Seven, an analogue of the Justice League, filled with characters that make The Boys look like The Boy Scouts. The only good member of the group is Starlight, and she’s constantly degraded by the other members, whether it’s forced into wearing a more revealing outfit, giving fellatio to the male members of the group as a “test”, or nearly being raped by the aforementioned A-Train. It’s also strongly hinted that Homelander (leader of the Seven and Superman analogue) was the one who raped Butcher’s wife.

What a charming bunch. Thankfully, it’s not all bad, as Starlight later becomes Hughie’s girlfriend. It’s a match made in heaven, as they’re both outstandingly bland.

Other notable characters include a CIA analyst with a fetish for female paraplegic athletes, a CIA director that frequently has humiliating sex with Butcher, and recurring cameos by Stan Lee – okay, he’s called the Legend, but it’s supposed to be Stan Lee. Perhaps “Exposition Man” would be a better name, because all he does is talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk…

Speaking of stereotypes, there are quite a few on display here. For example, there’s the two fat, hairy, greasy, comic book store-owning Italian brothers who are constantly using variations of “fuck” and threatening their customers with graphic violence; the enormous bearded Russian who talks about communism and the Motherland all the time; the “East Coast vs. West Coast” superhero teams that are always fighting each other, throwing up gang signs and using the n-word. I kept wondering why Garth Ennis was doing this, and I settled on “because he thinks it’s funny.” See, Ennis is pointing out how absurd these stereotypes are, so it’s not really racist, right? Right?

Despite all of this, I forced myself to read all 29 issues, which, at times, felt like I was cutting off my legs with a rusty hacksaw – oh, look, the Russian guy is called “Love Sausage” because he has a fifteen-inch cock! Oh look, Hughie has menstrual blood on his face from oral sex because Starlight was on her period! Oh look, one of the superheroes can vomit acid! Isn’t that a knee-slapper? Worse still was the heavy-handed social and political commentary that Ennis shoehorned in, ranging from how St. Patrick’s Day sucks, to how the military-industrial complex has the United States in a chokehold, to American politics (the President and Vice President being analogues for Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, respectively), to how superheroes are evil. He even uses 9/11 to make his point, for fuck’s sake. Basically, one of the hijacked planes crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge (the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were spared) because the Seven tried to save the day but bungled it due to incompetence and selfishness. Do you see? SUPERHEROES ARE EVIL!

No, that wasn’t what made me stop reading this comic. What made me stop was the latest story arc, called “We Gotta Go Now”. The Boys have to investigate the public suicide of Silver Kincaid, a member of the G-Men (no prizes for guessing who they’re supposed to be an analogue of), for reasons I can’t be bothered to look up. Hughie has to go undercover and infiltrate one of the younger G-teams (as “Bagpipe”, because he’s Scottish, get it?) called G-Wiz. See the subtle pun there?

It’s immediately apparent that something is off with G-Wiz – sure, they might seem to be your average fraternity (i.e. boorish drunks obsessed with bodily functions), but they’re a little too comfortable with each other, if you catch my drift. Couple this with the revelation that G-Men’s leader, John Godolkin (analogue of Charles Xavier – apologies for all the analogues) actually abducted almost all of the G-Men when they were kids and turned them into superheroes, the fact that he refers to the G-Men as his “children”, and all of the dark mutterings of “what we had to deal with” and things start becoming clear.

At this point I thought, “No way. There’s no way Ennis would be so cheap and unoriginal. There has to be more to this.” I read issue 29, and, lo and behold, one of the characters confirmed my worst fears:

John Godolkin is a child molester.

That was the last straw. It wasn’t because one of the villains was a pedophile; rather, it was because Garth Ennis had resorted to such tacky exploitation in order to wring an emotion from his audience. Instead of taking the time to craft something novel, Ennis, out of sheer laziness, decided to go for the biggest heartstring and yank. Why have a complex villain when you can just say, “He’s an evil kid-toucher! BOOGA BOOGA!”

I’m sure Ennis pats himself on the back every day for what he thinks is scathing criticism on the superhero genre and insightful commentary on numerous aspects of life. He isn’t clever, creative, or even likable. He’s just a lazy hack. My smoldering ire also extends to the fans that keep buying this dreck and give it good reviews. What the hell is wrong with these people? My guess is that, in their minds, they equate DARK, GRITTY, and SERIOUS with being good. In my mind, it’s just BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, and more BULLSHIT.

Themes:

Damage Report

Sci-fi / Fantasy

Comics

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Wardog

at 17:17 on 2009-04-10I don't know what to say ... I am completely flabbergasted by the awfulness of this. Why on earth is it garnering praise?

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 17:26 on 2009-04-10Once upon a time the publishers of

2000 AD

thought it would be great to hand over all the writing duties for the comic for a few months to Garth Ennis, Grant Morrison, and various hangers-on. Why they thought this was a good idea was a mystery because Garth had already proven he shouldn't be trusted with other people's properties when in

Strontium Dogs

(the sequel series to

Strontium Dog

) he pulled a blatant retcon out of his capacious arse to turn the sweet, gentle comic relief character The Gronk into a psychotic gun-toting protagonist. Nonetheless, the magazine went ahead with the Summer Offensive, as it called the promotion (because, you see, it's Garth Ennis and he likes being offensive, and it happened in the summer), and the general tone of the comic went from "12A bordering on 15" (in movie age rating terms) to "18 certificate and a big argument about violence in the media on the side", which prompted the parents of certain younger subscribers, such as myself, to cancel the magazine.

And that's how Garth Ennis ruined

2000 AD

for an 11 year old Arthur.

Seriously, the man is awful. I think the only thing he's done that I've actually liked was

Hellblazer: Dangerous Habits

. Frustratingly, that was brilliant. He's capable of not being an idiot if he tries, he just

doesn't try

permalink

go to top

Rude Cyrus

at 19:49 on 2009-04-10This was actually nominated for an Eisner Award for "Best Continuing Series" in 2008. And comic bok fans wonder why so many people don't take comics seriously.

Thanks for the image, by the way.

permalink

go to top

Wardog

at 20:35 on 2009-04-10For a moment there I was wondering if you meant the image of an 11 year old Arthur but then I realised you meant the literal image that illustrates this article. I hope it's okay - I chose the cover that most annoyed me :)

permalink

go to top

Sonia Mitchell

at 23:23 on 2009-04-10This series sounds horrific. Thank you for the warning.

(I badly want to google cyborg Donatello. I'd like to think it can't be as disastrous as I'm imaginging, but that would probably be naive. I'm therefore restraining myself...)

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 00:46 on 2009-04-11

Oh hey look what else Image have published.

On the other hand, they also put out

The Walking Dead

, which

I really like

permalink

go to top

Guy

at 03:59 on 2009-04-11Speaking of Image, this is one of the most funny/disturbing things I've ever read: Rob Liefeld's 40 worst drawings: http://progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 15:04 on 2009-04-11I'm amazed they were able to find 40 drawings worse than

the infamous Captain America one

Actually, I'm not amazed, Liefeld is terrible. Oh God, the feet...

permalink

go to top

http://webcomcon.blogspot.com/

at 06:31 on 2010-07-11Thread necromancy: After reading this article from the random button, I'm reading

The Boys

out of morbid curiosity. I've gotten through the first couple of storylines, issues one through ten. It's about as disgusting as Rude Cyrus has said, with everything as juvenile and pointlessly violent and so forth.

One of the annoying things is that there are occasionally glimmers of interest that make me think "You know, if Garth Ennis actually gave a shit, and stopped dropping tons of stupid violence and stupid sex and stupid ham-fisted 'haha the gay activist is violently afraid of actual homosexuals' shit, he might actually be able to make some points about 'how do we make superheroes accountable?'" One advantage of

The Boys

is that, unlike

Civil War

, it's just one author, so there aren't a bazillion different axes being ground. And it doesn't seem like it's constrained by being a DC Comics Continuity Event, the way

Civil War

was a Marvel Comics Continuity Event. And every once in a while, it seems like Ennis might have something to say on the matter.

But it inevitably degenerates into "hurr hurr supes are pervs, butcher punches them." Fuck you, Ennis, for being wasted potential.

permalink

go to top

http://webcomcon.blogspot.com/

at 06:32 on 2010-07-11Aack, unclosed HTML tags. Sorry! (I'm used to a forum that won't let me post if I have unmatched tags, and didn't check.)

permalink

go to top

Rami

at 05:43 on 2010-07-12@webcomcon: Fixed it for you. I'm afraid FerretBrain doesn't really do warnings -- but we do suggest using the Preview button!

permalink

go to top

http://blackgeep.livejournal.com/

at 18:20 on 2010-07-13Continuing thread necromancy!

I am a comic book artist. I detest

The Boys

with a deep, abiding disgust. My employer thinks it's brilliant. He is also a big fan of Liefeld (needs more pouches!), so go figure. While

The Boys

is bad, try having your only income being working on the dream project of someone who likes

The Boys

, and feel your artistic integrity shrivel.

I actually considered sending in issue one of

Polis

(what I'm paid to draw) to Ferretbrain for a review; I may yet do that alongside

Polis

issue two and my own side project for what the great minds here could find a fun comparison. "The world is corrupt and drug-addled, corporations are evil, and our main hero is an amoral Cape [superhero] with few redeeming qualities." versus "A space princess and space pirates act terribly toward one another, but all in good fun." I asked my employer, and he thinks any publicity is good.

Speaking of "Cape" and "Supe", what is this allergic reaction to the word superhero? Yes, superhero is a long word, but so is computer. From my perspective, it would seem more likely that superhero would get shortened to just hero. Then advert campaigns about "The

real

heroes of X city: our policemen and firefighters" would take on a whole new weight. Plus, I haven't met many people who say 'puter, and compy only caught on after Strongbad popularised it.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 19:11 on 2010-07-13I think the thing about abbreviating "superhero" to something like "cape" or "supe" (did Watchmen use "mask" or am I making that up) is that it highlights the fact that this is an EDGY SERIOUS WORK OF FICTION about EDGY DARK CHARACTERS not some KIDDY THING about SUPERHEROES.

Because as we all know, nothing screams "maturity" like going to great lengths to appear mature.

permalink

go to top

http://blackgeep.livejournal.com/

at 21:32 on 2010-07-13The thing which screams maturity the best is to have everyone swear all the time, and put blood and torture on every page. The ability to engage in traditionally adult themes while employing transgressive story elements such as bodily fluids, misogyny, and rape is the hallmark of an individual whose mind has progressed past puerile adolescent fascination. As you said, superheroes are so childish. We aren't writing stories about superheroes under a different name. These are adult stories about well rounded characters employing serious themes. Just like Terry Goodkind is definitely not a *pfft*

fantasy author.

Sarcasm over, I honestly don't remember if

Watchmen

used "mask." I guess I've just lost some comix-cred.

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/O9dPXbw3peUAacFQM4aervEXf232TbhO0FE-#dcc46

at 13:13 on 2011-10-28Hey guys. I'm aware this is a few years old but just discovered the site and enjoying it, even when I disagree.

But this is the only one I think I needed to comment on.

Firstly, Garth Ennis is demonstrably not a hack. That's just incredibly lazy.

Secondly, this review seems to have totally failed to come to terms with the text.

OK. I'm not going to argue against certain points here. There's gross out humor, there's swearing, there's a hamster well-up in a zombie's bum. There's puke and disgusting, disgusting periods that no man should ever have to read about (cos girls, right! ew. The writer of this article agrees!) and there's even some blood and guts and a superhero orgy and someone strangles Scarlet Witch with a belt!

But.

The scene where poor old Annie, Starlight, has to service six members of the Seven to get in? It's awful. And a considerable part of the text is concerned not only with her coming to terms with the assault but (and how often to you see this?) actually come to terms with and starting to heal from the assault.

The two black teams who scream the N word at each other? There's no discussion of the young black man who is going to be forced into one of the teams who sees nothing he recognises of his experiences in tired mainstream hip hop lingo and posing. A man who has begun to understand that to become a superstar, he has to enter into a well-dodgy narrative.

No discussion of the good people warped into being celebrities and what that costs them, which is the central metaphor of the book.

Or the actual honesty when Hughie, who's never met a gay man but has to hang out in a gay club and suddenly finds his liberal sensibilities a bit overwhelmed. A scene that's never, ever played for cheap gay joke laughs.

The point of Hughie going down on a girl with a period is not that it's gross and his mates laugh at him. It's that he refuses to let something as dumb as that get in the way of his relationship with Annie. He cops some jokes and some pisstaking but then will not let the deathly embarrassed girl freak out over what turns out to be ... nothing at all.

In recent years, we've also seen a cheap man-on-man 'Dark Knight Returns' rape joke actually turns out to actually be a proper discussion on the reasons why a chap might not be able to discuss it with his friends. And what that cost him.

St Patrick's Day sucks? Surely an repatriated Northern Irishman who grew up in the Troubles has nothing to say about the immigrant experience to the United States. What a hack!

As for scoring political points off 9/11.... mate. Welcome to the world. I fail to even see an argument here.

I'm not going to say everyone should love The Boys. And sometimes I get a bit weary of schoolboys bleeding out of their arses and all the rest. And I think Ennis has made his point about religion by now. I do. (Spoiler alert: Preacher)

I like the comic but I don't expect everyone to be able to laugh like I do when the mentally ill Batman analogue has sex with a meteor.

So don't like it. That's cool. It's not like I'll gnash teeth if you don't like what I like. But this review has really failed to come to grips with and has actively misrepresented the text.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:32 on 2011-10-28Hi dcc46, welcome to Ferretbrain!

I've not read

The Boys

but I have read enough Ennis to at least address this point:

Firstly, Garth Ennis is demonstrably not a hack. That's just incredibly lazy.

You know what else is incredibly lazy? Basing your writing career so heavily on cheap shock tactics which come across like a 13 year old trying to be edgy. I couldn't get past the first volume of

Preacher

because Ennis' obsession with gore, fucking, and other scatological subjects just became intensely monotonous. His contributions to 2000 AD were much the same. His

Hellblazer

run started out brilliantly - I think

Dangerous Habits

is both the best thing he's written and the best

Hellblazer

story that

anyone

has written - but I couldn't abide the rest of it precisely because he kept falling back into bad habits.

When a man makes a career out of indulging his puerile instincts to an extent where consistently and repeatedly his material degenerates into lame attempts to be shocking for the sake of it, that's pretty hackish.

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/O9dPXbw3peUAacFQM4aervEXf232TbhO0FE-#dcc46

at 13:51 on 2011-10-28Well, if that's all you've read of Hellblazer, that's cool. When he was, what, 21, he wrote that. There was a bit of a fall off in quality before he'd come back with stories of Kit and Ric the Vic and end up telling stories of the devil contrasted with the nasty realities of racial politics in early 90s London.

If you passed on Preacher, that's cool. That second story arc is uninspired. But you missed out on a a meditation of faith, friendship, watching a man try to navigate between his old-fashioned 'chivalry' and a woman who refused to be patronised or left behind.

So I honestly don't see shocking for shocking's sake. I see bad taste. But I've never felt there's a kind of splatter punk aesthetic at work.

That's sort of my point.

I see humour that may or may not work for you. But I'm suggesting to you that if you can get past the guts and jizz all over the shop. And if that's really a sticking point for you, then you won't ever get into it.

But I think your wrong if puerility is all you get out of the work.

I know you had issues with his early 2000AD run. I never got that. I'm Australian and 2000AD seemed to ship... on a madman's calendar. So I can't comment on that.

So I tell you what. Try something like his PG Hitman. His war stories, where he reigns himself in. His Punisher MAX, which is humorless as a Derek Raymond novel.

But I'll split you the difference: Jennifer Blood is fucking awful.

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/O9dPXbw3peUAacFQM4aervEXf232TbhO0FE-#dcc46

at 14:05 on 2011-10-28Anyways, I'm off.

But, a hack writer is a bad writer. Matt Reiley is a hack writer. He's bad at the English language, his plots are hackneyed, his haircut is stupid.

If you don't like Ennis' work, that's cool. But just because you think he wraps things up in grossness doesn't make him a bad writer -at all-. He's an accomplished writer with themes and metaphors and all that writery stuff.

Nevertheless, good site. Talk later.

permalink

go to top

valse de la lune

at 16:00 on 2011-10-28

So don't like it. That's cool. It's not like I'll gnash teeth if you don't like what I like. But this review has really failed to come to grips with and has actively misrepresented the text.

How quaint; you appear to be gnashing your teeth exactly because Cyrus didn't like the thing. I also agree with Arthur's assessment of Ennis: overrated hack pandering to things teenage boys--usually teenage white boys at that, what with the n-word thing--find oh so edgy and clever.

Preacher

is absolutely fucking unreadable and I spit in its general direction.

And, while you can certainly use the word "hack" to denote a poor writer--which I'd argue Ennis

, at that--his general attitude and output are pretty hacky too, in the lowest-common-denominator sense.

permalink

go to top

Rude Cyrus

at 20:31 on 2011-10-29Here's the thing: whatever good points or ideas Ennis may have are ruined by the juvenile shock tactics he wraps them in -- it's one thing to use violence and sex occasionally and for great effect, it's another to use them

all the time.

For example, I can agree with Ennis that St. Patrick's Day is an excuse for every American with a drop of Irish blood to wear green and get sick on beer, but when he ends this commentary on a close-up on a hat filled with puke, it makes me roll my eyes.

permalink

go to top

In order to post comments, you need to

authenticate with OpenID

. Don't have an account? See the

About Us

page for more details.

Show / Hide Comments -- More in April 2009

#Ferretbrain #Rude Cyrus #The Boys #Garth Ennis #Superhero

1 note · View note

salarta · 7 years

Text

Polaris Relationships, Constructive vs Toxic

For lack of a better post title, I’m using this.

I’m going to start with an unusual prediction. In X-Men Blue #12, multiple characters, including Polaris, are trapped in these magma vents with a threat that trying to get out will roast them.

Polaris has a Masters degree in Geophysics. Despite being applicable to the situation, I predict her degree will not play any kind of role in getting out.

Okay, now to dig in on the main topic. I’m about to go into the difference in fiction between using relationships in a constructive manner vs a toxic manner. This is all going to revolve around Polaris because what keeps happening with her is the whole reason for this post.

Anyone that knows me, knows how absolutely dead set I am against Polaris and Havok interacting at all right now. They also know why. The pairing has decades worth of Lorna getting treated poorly for Havok’s benefit. Lorna is still suffering from that poor treatment, and Marvel keeps refusing to give her a fair shot to build her own character without his involvement.

Because most of my talk is about Havok, that could make people think there are no similar risks with other characters. That’s not true. The point of trying to keep Havok and Polaris apart for now is to let her break the cycle of poor treatment.

But, that cycle still exists, and it seems to have infected how some writers see her relationship with other male characters like Gambit and Magneto.

So, we’re gonna go into just what the heck I see as an issue. But we’ll start with what’s possible. The good stuff.

Potential: Gambit and Magneto

With Gambit, we have a character who’s charming, romantic but frequently underestimated. Much of Lorna’s history with Havok hasn’t been about the two showing affection for each other, but about Lorna showing devotion to Havok. One way. Gambit would be a nice change of pace, and he’d likely encourage a lot of taboo angles for Lorna to explore - compared to how Havok is straight-laced, self-suppressing, a “boy scout” to many even when evil.

Further, a lot of people seem to see Gambit as second to Rogue, in the same fashion as Polaris is often seen as second to Havok. Lorna and Gambit also have history as Horsemen of Apocalypse, and Lorna had a shapeshifter stripper that looked like Gambit at her bachelorette party. They have shared experience to build off of with each other, and a potential for storylines where they’re of equal importance.

SImilarly, Magneto offers a lot as Polaris’ father. He knew of her being his daughter at least since she was a toddler. He acted in ways he thought would protect her. When she grew up, he eventually recruited her for Genosha, helping her to improve her skills and learning a thing or two about leadership and diplomacy.

They have shared experience with genocides, too: Magneto with the Holocaust, Lorna with the genocide of Genosha. They both understand the effect their powers have on their minds and bodies. There’s a lot between them to work with. And, when the Maximoff twins are restored as Magneto’s kids, the whole family will have so much they can do together.

There’s a lot of potential here. So let’s look at how it’s been done all wrong lately.

Toxic: Gambit

All-New X-Factor started promising in issue #1. Some cracks in #2. But what’s relevant here, with Gambit, is #3 to #6. ANXF was a book meant to let Polaris lead a team of her own, and Gambit had experience as a leader. Gambit could have provided guidance, and they could have disagreed, but here’s the key: Lorna already had leadership experience thanks to Genosha (w/ Magneto) and replacing Havok and Madrox as temporary leader on X-Factor.

All-New X-Factor ignored Lorna’s leadership experience. It emphasized Gambit’s leadership experience. This started a downward spiral into problems where Gambit became a “replacement Havok.”

The rules of what would set Lorna off into “rage mode” were all over the place. A cat scratches her in ANXF #2 and she’s suddenly ready to kill it. Then ANXF #6 comes along, Gambit roughly yanks her arm and shouts at her not to do something just because he disagrees with it, and she just lets it slide?

ANXF #4 itself had everything deliberately set up for Gambit to be the “savior” - and for Polaris to look like an out of control idiot to build up Gambit and Danger. In theory, Lorna’s behavior could have been explained as emotions affected by remembering what happened to her on Genosha. But that allusion never happened. To get that message, you would’ve needed to know about Genosha and Lorna’s history. It wasn’t provided anywhere on panel.

Over the course of ANXF #3 to #6, Peter David slowly slipped from Lorna being the leader of her own team, to Gambit acting like the real leader of the team with Lorna only playing pretend. He even wrote Gambit as inviting Danger to the team, and Lorna acting frustrated by the offer but letting it happen. On her own team. As if, as leader, she has less authority to decide who’s on her team than one of the team members.

This is how what could have been a good relationship between Polaris and Gambit on All-New X-Factor was poisoned by poor writing. They could have developed an excellent dynamic. They could have been co-leaders, and storylines could have been developed that treated them as equals. Instead, the relationship as written on ANXF became toxic for Polaris. It made her look worse for Gambit’s benefit.

There’s still potential with them and I want to see it pursued. But it has to be done right. ANXF #2-6 wasn’t it.

Toxic: Magneto

This is a section I’d hoped I would never have to write. I spent much of the past 8 years pushing for Lorna and Magneto to retain their relationship and explore it because I saw so much opportunity for both of them. Unfortunately, that opportunity has not been seized upon to date.

We started with nice parallels. Magneto as symbolic of darker aspects of Lorna, and Lorna as in a sense providing a legacy for Magneto.

But there’s a difference between being part of a legacy that comes from Magneto, and existing exclusively to benefit Magneto.

In the final arc of the Magneto solo, we saw some great moments of Lorna and Magneto ‘Getting Shit Done’ (TM) together. Those were good. We even got a reference to Lorna’s time as Malice!

But then we had her written as acting horrified by Magneto putting lives at risk while trying to save the world. As if she’s too dumb and naive to think on the level of her “wise and experienced” dad. We also had Lorna act shocked and betrayed by Magneto deciding to siphon all her power and take on trying to save the world by himself, as if she is, again, too dumb and naive to expect that from him after all their time on Genosha.

Then, on Deadpool and the Mercs for Money, we had her costume adapted with allusions to her father. This isn’t the first time a “future Lorna in a dead end future makes herself look like her father” scenario has happened, but there are key differences.

On Wolverine and the X-Men (cartoon), it was from a traumatized Lorna broken by the loss of her dad and all of Genosha. It was representative of shattered innocence, same as Lorna donning the helmet when Havok left her at the altar in the comics. On Deadpool and the Mercs for Money, it was Lorna adopting his symbols when taking up the mantle of leader - essentially suggesting that her authority to say or do anything for mutants comes exclusively from him, not herself. She’s just an extension of him.

X-Men Blue. This is the one I’ve been ranting about most. I’ll skip the Havok-specific parts and focus on the Magneto ones.

For her “big reveal” at the end of X-Men Blue #8, what Polaris got to describe was dialogue about Havok and her name as only this for description: “Daughter of Magneto.” Other characters got things like descriptions of their powers, or special titles. Lorna got “she’s an extension of her dad.”

With no insight provided into Lorna herself, her depicted reasons for being on New Tian and fighting Havok for #9 became “because daddy wanted her there.” #9 also added insult by twisting a title she’s well-known for, Mistress of Magnetism, and adding ‘daddy’s little’ in front of it. “Daddy’s Little Mistress of Magnetism.”

Bunn twisted it from a title she earned for herself, into a title bestowed on her solely because Magneto is her dad.

Finally, we get to X-Men Blue #10. Polaris and Magneto spend time together. Their interaction looked okay. Lorna said some nice things about not just going along with whatever her father says... but then their base was attacked. And in that moment, Bunn wrote Polaris as - again - stupid and naive, shocked by a surprise attack happening on the base, so that Magneto could “correct” her.

Polaris was nearly killed by a surprise attack on Genosha. Millions of people died all around her in a surprise attack she couldn’t stop. She had intense trauma from the ordeal that drove her “crazy.”

Simply put: there’s no way Lorna would be shocked by a surprise attack like that.

That’s how the relationship between Polaris and Magneto in the comics is on the verge of becoming horribly toxic for Lorna. Instead of their relationship used to help develop Lorna and establish who she is, it’s being used to rip development away from her and give it all to her father.

It’s the same problem Lorna always had with Havok. Anything she managed to accomplish, it ended up being just a sign of how great and wonderful Havok is. So far, Bunn’s writing of her relationship with Magneto is the exact same thing. It just doesn’t have Lorna crying “Daddyyyyyyyyyyy!” every time she gets a paper cut. Yet, anyway.

Toxic in Reverse: Magneto, Quicksilver

I want to touch on Secret Wars: House of M for a moment. Lorna’s depiction in that was excellent. Nothing wrong with it at all that I can imagine. The problem comes in with how Magneto and Quicksilver were treated poorly for Lorna’s benefit.

At one point, Magneto was written as stupidly blinded by rage and unwilling to work with others or listen to reason. He took unnecessary risks - which made absolutely no sense for a man who had somehow become such a high and mighty ruler. In that scene, Lorna was written as a sensible daughter, a calming influence, pulling him into the right direction. This made Lorna look great, but it didn’t fit Magneto at all.

Similarly, SW:HoM wrote Quicksilver as a conniving, cowardly brat who schemed with Namor to steal the throne. He trembled at the idea of having to fight Polaris, then acted high and mighty when a happenstance blow from elsewhere took her down. Did this make Lorna look good? Yes. Did Pietro need to be written this way? Absolutely not. He could’ve been playing Namor, for example, and he could’ve stood up to Lorna unafraid.

Final Thoughts

A lot of people mistakenly think that to make one character look good, you have to make another character look like shit. Or, they think it’s acceptable to ruin one character to build another.

This is ignorance, and it’s ultimately bad for all characters involved.

There is so, so much potential between Polaris and other characters. Friends. Enemies. Family. Lovers. Two characters can disagree on a topic and have their own points of view, based on their own life experiences.

Let’s take a hypothetical future scenario. Magneto and Polaris disagree on how to train the teen O5. Magneto decides to try to stay more in line with Professor Xavier’s teachings, because Prof X isn’t around and it’s what Charles would’ve wanted. He emphasizes diplomacy and non-violent solutions if possible, with only a little bit more of hard edges.

The wrong way to write Lorna here would be “Where’d my old man go, what happened to the ideals you taught me to believe?” This would be Lorna defined as a character whose identity depends solely on “what you made of me.” No development outside him. Just Lorna robotically serving as one aspect of Magneto’s character.

Another wrong way to write Lorna here would be having Lorna say Magneto is still too violent, and citing nothing of her own history except what men told her. This would be Lorna serving as an aggressor to Magneto’s plans just so he has a daughter adding difficulties. If there’s nothing in her own history to work with here, then it’s still defining her exclusively by her father.

The right way to go about it would be Lorna insisting on a direction based on her own history. One potential course would be Lorna insisting the teen O5 need to know the horrors possible to prevent/be prepared for something like the Genoshan genocide. She might insist on harsher training.

I am not saying this is how such a scenario “should” go. I’m not even saying I’d necessarily think it was the right way to go if it was written and made canon. I’m thinking off the top of my head in giving an example. The point of my example is that in it, Lorna is defined by herself. She’s defined by something she lived through that shaped her worldview and values - not by Magneto’s worldview and values. Her actions are hers.

Character relationships are only good for Lorna if she gets to be her own character in the process. They only tear her down if she’s just serving as a proxy or extension of another character.

And the same goes in reverse. You��re not challenging who your favorite character is by making the other character defined by them. There are no genuine outside viewpoints to contend with. It’s like arguing with yourself for the rest of your life. You’ll eventually reach a dead end and miss out on things you never would have thought of by yourself.

#polaris #lorna dane #magneto #havok #gambit #x-men #marvel #scarlet witch #wanda maximoff #quicksilver #pietro maximoff

10 notes · View notes

filmfrancais101-blog · 6 years

Text

Survival Movies - The Cream of the Crop and Those That Didn't Shine

Tactical Movies, Best to the Worst! The popularity of survival motion pictures has really grown over the past couple of years. I have rated these shows in three different categories. The categories are: realisticness, survival value and entertainment factor. Each of these is on the A - F Grading Scale with A being greatest and F being worst. These ratings are all depending on my opinion so you may not feel the same. Waterworld - Realisticness - D Survival Value - D Entertainment component - C+ The Earth is now filled with water, but some folks believe there is still dry land on the earth. This is one of the numerous survival movies about the fight over resources. As in numerous movies, this is a fight between the protagonist (Kevin Costner) as well as the antagonist (Dennis Hopper) and his cronies (called the smokers). This movie is fun to watch but I avoid feel it was realistic or offered much in the way of emergency value. The Postman - Realisticness - B Endurance Value - C Entertainment factor - B Personally i think the reviews of this movie by critics don't perform justice. In this film, the United States is a very different place along with little order. Many people have gone back to a dark age groups style of living with no electricity, very little law, and a tyrant thug (Will Patton) trying to gain power. The leading part (Kevin Costner), a drifter, finds a way to make a difference on the planet even though he is originally only worried about his own livelihood along with well - being. This was a very long movie, but I truly enjoyed it and liked its sense of wish. I thought this movie offered decently realistic insight about what could happen with a breakdown of society and numerous years of lawlessness. It had a few areas that I think gave it a few survival value, but overall, it was just one of the entertaining coping movies. The Road - Realisticness - A Survival Valuation - B Entertainment factor - C While I did not feel this was one of the survival movies that lived as much as my expectations, I feel it accurately portrayed the psychological rollercoaster that an end of the world situation would create. The actual characters in this movie were not able to trust anyone surrounding them, and they lacked the resources necessary to carry on a normal life, that could be an accurate outcome in a real societal breakdown. I believe this movie, while being boring in some spots, sensed very realistic and showed the dreary outlook from the main character (Viggo Mortenson) in a post apocalyptic globe with no hope. On the survival value front, I thought there have been some topics to take away from the story line that would be within real life. I felt that this film streaming allowed me to understand that striving for happiness and wishing to live life towards the fullest despite terrible circumstances is key to beating the finish. I am Legend - Realisticness - C Survival Cost - B - Entertainment factor - B This is certainly another of the survival movies that I think showed fantastic emotion. The main character (Will Smith) and his dog try to survive throughout this film despite the constant threat involving zombies. I will say this movie has one of the saddest scenes in any movie I have ever seen, which makes the entire movie worth watching. This survival movie really demonstrates how important a companion is when you are lonely. Other than the value of companionship, there were only a few survival lessons to be learned. Guide of Eli - Realisticness - C Survival Importance - C Entertainment factor - B I believed Book of Eli with Denzel Washington and Mila Kunis was worth the watch. This survival movie revealed how important being aware of your surroundings is. Also in a catastrophe ridden world it shows how there will be people that will require power any way they see fit. The use of religion to control men and women is what the antagonist (Gary Oldman) uses to gain energy. If you are a Christian or are religious this is definitely an important flick to watch because it shows how people can use religion plus the Bible for good as well as evil to push their own motives. However, in the end, this movie didn't show the Bible or Christianity in a bad light. I thought the lesson of being conscious was the best survival value it gave. Jeremiah Manley - Realisticness - A Survival Value - C Entertainment factor - B Jeremiah Johnson (Robert Redford) is one of the best survival movies. This movie is about a person who wants to live as a hermit living off the land, who also wishes to be left alone to do his own thing. This is actually the oldest movie on my list and also one of the best. I believe they have great survival value and is quite realistic. In one picture, Jeremiah Johnson finds a man who has been dead for some time with a note on him saying, "I, Hatchet Jack port, being of sound mind and broke legs, perform hereby leaveth my bear rifle to whatever sees it, Lord hope it be a white man. It is a great rifle, and killt the bear that killt me personally. Anyway, I am dead. Yours truly, Hatchet Jack. inch How can you not love this movie with a scene like this? This movie is great at depicting how to live off the actual land and be self - sufficient. Castaway - Realisticness - B Survival Value - C Entertainment issue - B Castaway, starring Tom Hanks, is a family members survival movie. There is some survival value to this video clip like starting a fire or taking an abscessed teeth out with an ice skate. The main character is associated with a commercial UPS type plane crash that leaves your pet stranded on an island with no other survivors. It shows how ingenious people can be when they do not have the conventional resources for survival. Into the Wild - Realisticness - The Survival Value - B Entertainment factor - Udemærket Into the wild is the true survival story of Captain christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch) who gives up his ordinary living to roam the US and live in Alaska. This is an greatest adventure movie that shows how Christopher lived simply by himself in the Alaskan wilderness with only what can carry on his back. This film offered good medical value, and it taught me something very important: never consume wild plants unless you know exactly what they are and if they are secure to eat. Zombieland - Realisticness - D Survival Benefits - D Entertainment factor - A - It is really a comedic approach at the survival and zombie type. While there is really no realisticness or survival value in order to speak of it, is very funny. This survival movie stars Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, and Emma Stone. During the motion picture, they all come together to help each other survive a zombie infested world. In my opinion, one of the best cameos of all time occurs during this picture. Just watch and see! 28 Days Later - Realisticness - B Survival Value - C Entertainment point - B 28 Days Later is a survival movie starring Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins). After a virus baby wipes out almost everybody on the planet, a few survivors come together to try and look for a safe place to live. This was a good movie that described what could happen if an epidemic were to spread very quickly. This particular survival movie does not have tons of survival value, but it nevertheless provides insight on the possibility of a nation or globally epidemic. Mad Max/Road Warrior/Beyond Thunderdome - Realisticness instant D Survival Value - D Entertainment factor tutorial B Mad Max, The Road Warrior, and Beyond Thunderdome are very entertaining and fun survival movies to watch, but are very unrealistic. Mel Gibson stars as Mad Maximum, a man who lives in a post apocalyptic world who have also tries to improve life for himself and others. Generally there really was not much survival value in these movies, but you will find cool vehicles with many types of weapons, which makes them enjoyable. Red Dawn - Realisticness - B - Emergency Value - B Entertainment factor - A+ Red-colored Dawn is not just one of my favorite survival movies, but also among my favorite movies It has quite a few stars before they were home names (Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, Lea Thompson in addition to Jennifer Grey). The Russians and Cubans have taken portion of Colorado and are rounding people up, whom they believe to become threats, into camps. A group of high schoolers get together plus live in the woods. They badge themselves the "Wolverines" trying to take back the land that was previously theirs. This is a wonderful movie that provided survival value in the way of outdoor residing, hunting and fishing. The other thing I love about this film, that others have also expressed, is that when you finish viewing this movie, you feel extremely patriotic and proud of the fantastic people that live in the United States. Rescue Dawn - Realisticness - A Survival Value - B Entertainment factor -- C This survival movie is the true story connected with Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale), a German American jet fighter pilot whose plane is shot down over Laos during the Vietnam War and captured. I believe this video gives you a picture of how the living conditions in prisoner campements were. Additionally , it shows how important having a strong : will is when you need to get out of a seemingly lifeless end situation. There are many scenes in this film that have survival value, especially when they escape from the camp and should live outdoors and survive in the wild. Alone Throughout Australia - Realisticness - A Survival Value rapid B+ Entertainment factor - B+ This is survival documented is not well known, but still provides pretty great survival worth. The only reason I saw this was because I attended a little independent film festival in my town. This is the story with Jon Muir and his dog that set out on a trip throughout Australia with only him, his dog, and what he could carry on his homemade cart. This is a great look at success and has the highest survival value out of any of the survival dvds I have reviewed. Out of all the movies I've ever seen, this particular film probably has the saddest scene because what occurred in the movie was what happened in real life. In case you get a chance, definitely watch this documentary. The only concern is it is difficult to find and usually expensive because of its rarity.

0 notes