InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "We got movie sign!"

cyberghostface (cyberghostface) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-05-29 11:22:00

Entry tags:

char: spider-man/peter parker, char: wolverine/logan/james howlett, creator: joe kelly, creator: phil jimenez, publisher: marvel comics, title: amazing spider-man

Two panels from Amazing Spider-Man #595...
Hopefully this is okay with the new legal limits as it's 1/4 of a page...

Speaking as someone who leans pretty hard on the Left and is a huge supporter of Barack Obama, I really thought this was a bit out of place. I don't think political digs of either side should be present given the title. It's hardly the worst thing that's in the issue (Jonah Sr being a Marty Stu to Osborn while Jonah Jr is warming up to him despite their history takes that piece of the cake), but it did annoy me a little.

Thoughts?

(Post a new comment)

daningram
2009-05-29 10:45 am UTC (link)

I'm annoyed, mainly because Marvel barely had the balls to stand up to Bush when he was popular and only seem to have found the stones when Bush was already tumbling downhill. Worse, when attacking Bush policies, they take cheap shots and rarely say anything of substance.

In short, they're the weak ass liberals that Republicans rightfully loath and smarter liberals are ashamed to be seen with. And it's practically across the entire industry!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	tavella 2009-05-29 11:15 am UTC (link)
	Liberals? Are you kidding? Civil War was one big wet kiss to Bush and the neocons, and they've spent the last two years going "they were right! totally right! hard men doing the hard thing!" There may be some individual writers that are liberals, but Marvel as a whole is conservative. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

daningram
2009-05-29 12:05 pm UTC (link)

Civil War a wet kiss?

Is that why they created a zombie Thor? Why they threw heroes into another dimension? Why Stark was a scum bag during the war and Captain America above reproach until the last four pages?

If you think Marvel as a whole is conservative, you really haven't been reading long. Iron Man's side won the war because it was more dramatic, allowing writers to continue their Bush-era whining.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tavella
2009-05-29 12:14 pm UTC (link)

"above reproach"? You mean the guy they wrote as an inarticulate idiot?

And the whole point was to certify that in fact, the people who complained about detention without trial were pussies who just made everything worse; if they'd just gone along and obeyed like they should have, there wouldn't be any need for it and they merely extended it by fighting.

Millar's very clear about this in interviews, you know; it's not just my interpretation (though I read it correctly even before I read the interviews.) To him, Tony Stark was the hero, and he only threw in things like zombie Thor because he felt it was so obvious that Tony was the hero that he had to do *something* to give it a little tension. And the end of the book is a paean to that: he quite literally has the *heroes of 9/11* attack Captain America to save Tony and put their stamp of righteousness on him. With Captain America crying and giving up and Tony Stark accepting the accolades of the world (and being a smirking triumphalist, because that's what Millar loves.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

daningram
2009-05-29 12:22 pm UTC (link)

"Millar was very clear about this in interviews."

If you've read his Authority, you'd know just how conservative Millar is. If Iron Man's side was the good guys, Hill wouldn't have attacked Captain America illegally, wouldn't have come down on Patriot like the Fist of God, Stark wouldn't have created a cyborg clone (without Thor's consent) that killed Goliath, wouldn't have thrown heroes into the Negative Zone, wouldn't have attacked Spider-Man and sure as hell wouldn't have recruited villains like Venom, Bullseye and Deathstrike.

The writers insisted that there were no right or wrong sides, even when Reed argued in favor of government witch hunts. They were far from fair and balanced ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	tavella 2009-05-29 12:55 pm UTC (link)
	I've read plenty of Millar's Authority; it's power-worshipping fantasy. That doesn't make it 'liberal'. Again, Millar and the Marvel editors were very, very clear on their views in interviews: Tony was the hero and Steve was wrong. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

daningram
2009-05-29 01:01 pm UTC (link)

No, what made Millar's writing liberal was them overthrowing dictatorships, Bush licking Magneto's feet (in Ultimate X-Men), the Authority slaughtering a secret committee representing the G8 nations, throwing a Cheney stand-in into Iraq. And don't get me started on his Ultimates...

I know what the editors said. But they were either lying (which is standard fair) or have very messed up ideas about being objective.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-05-29 01:26 pm UTC (link)

I know what the editors said. But they were either lying (which is standard fair) or have very messed up ideas about being objective.

Actually, allow me to suggest a third way perspective here, which might actually reconcile your position and mine.

Millar believes himself to be a liberal - on this, I think that you and I can agree. The problem is, and this is where I'm coming from, he's not really. He may not like Bush or Cheney - and indeed, you provide rather overt proof that he doesn't - but when it comes to his politics, as they express themselves in his character dynamics (as opposed to his relatively simplistic declarations of OMG X IS WRONG in his stories), he really agrees much more with Bush and Cheney than he doesn't.

Again, with the exception of his runs on Superman Adventures and The Flash, neither intelligence nor compassion nor any sort of morality ever prove decisive in winning the day; rather, it's always the guy who's not just STRONGER, but MEANER, who's going to win.

This is why his Doom, and pretty much every other supervillain written by Millar, is so one-dimensional, because he wants his "heroes" to be completely unrestrained fascist bullies, and the only way he can justify this is by making their enemies almost literally INHUMANLY evil. Millar villains have NO redeeming virtues, because that way, no matter how bad his "heroes" get, he can say, "Well, they're only that bad because they HAVE to be!"

Short of Frank Miller, Mark Millar is the most overtly might-makes-right proto-fascist superhero writer I've ever seen, except that, unlike Millar, Miller is actually SELF-AWARE about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

colonel_green
2009-05-30 11:08 am UTC (link)

I wouldn't say that's a contradiction. It's cynical. Millar believes that the world we live in, and thus the world he writes about in exaggerated form, is a place where the biggest bastard wins; hence, most of his heroes (apart from his lighter works, like his run on Fantastic Four), who are either liberal bastards (The Authority) or parodies of conservatives. The end of Ultimates 2's "Grand Theft America" is a perfect example of the latter; Millar constructs the whole "Ultimates vs. Liberators" as Bush-era interventionist foreign policy vs. the backlash. Now, the backlash consists primarily of regimes even worse than Bush's biggest excesses, but the Bushites win not because of morality, but through shear bloodymindedness. The story ends with Ultimate Cap, who up until that point was basically distilled anachronistic jingoism, learning the lesson that preemptive strikes and government-funded heroes are a bad idea, and they go independent and international.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

colonel_green
2009-05-30 11:12 am UTC (link)

Relatedly, his works have a strong recurring theme of dealing the superhero-as-overman, and how that sort of power affects morality. In most of his stories, possessing that sort of power leads to the heroes becoming ruthless and dictatorial. How this is depicted varies; he's clearly drawn to the idea of a single man shaping history through force of will (compare Luthor in Superman: Red Son and Iron Man in Civil War).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	box_in_the_box 2009-05-29 01:36 pm UTC (link)
	And as for this ... No, what made Millar's writing liberal was them overthrowing dictatorships [...] ... Yes, because it's not like CONSERVATIVES have ever used this as a justification for preemptive unilateral invasions of other countries OH WAIT NEVER MIND (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	daningram 2009-05-29 01:44 pm UTC (link)
	I'd concede the point, but I remember how the Republicans bitched and moaned about Clinton's actions in the Balkans. Plus, the dictatorships that Authority disposed were in Asia, Tibet and Chechnya, among others. There was nothing preemptive about it either. The Authority had the power and so did it. Iraq was actually left alone, judging from an offhand comment. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-05-29 01:55 pm UTC (link)

I'd concede the point, but I remember how the Republicans bitched and moaned about Clinton's actions in the Balkans.

Yes, because conservatives have never applauded their own for doing something they'd already condemned the opposition for doing ... like, say, being a WORKING mom, or a SINGLE mom -

OH WAIT NEVER MIND

I'll concede your points about the specific countries, but again, that's where Millar's liberal pretensions come in, I think (because EVERY fashionable white college liberal is obligated to care about Tibet, even though most of them don't really).

Point being, though, as I said, Millar THINKS he's a liberal, because he likes to swear and make fun and include lots of sex and violence in his stories, but if you've ever read the fiction of John Ringo (OH JOHN RINGO NO) or, God help you, Bill O'Reilly (yes, Bill-O has written stories which include "steamy" sex scenes, and yes, it's just as horrifying as you'd imagine), that's not really a disqualifier for being a conservative. Hell, Ted Nugent has made an entire living out of being a "rock-and-rock conservative," and to me, Millar has much more in common with Nugent than with any liberal, because Millar is an Entitled White Male who thinks his OMG RIGHTS R BEIN OPPRESSED when people come down on him for saying things like, "I've never seen black retarded people before, so I always thought they didn't exist" (and no, I am not making this up, although I wish I was").

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

daningram
2009-05-29 05:21 pm UTC (link)

As much as I would like to believe otherwise, hypocrites and morons are not limited to conservatives.

Simply because he sees no way to convey his political beliefs without the use of violence does not make him conservative. The Right hardly has a monopoly on the use of violence, though IMO they are more likely to resort to it first.

Millar wouldn't be the first writer to stumble when doing a political message. I remember a Warren Ellis comic, Jack Cross that had the character defending the constitution and comparing 9/11 to just jamming a stick into a computer, emphasizing the importance of human rights. Nice message, if you forget that he literally shot off a man's finger to get information.

Millar just drops the ball on a regular basis. But that doesn't make him Right Wing by any means. Just that he likes violence and doesn't think.

If Millar were Right wing, I think his final arc of Ultimates would have ended differently, and Superman Red Son wouldn't have been such a glowing depiction of communism.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

daningram
2009-05-29 01:09 pm UTC (link)

Killing secret members of the G8, throwing a Cheney stand-in into Iraq, Bush licking Magneto's boot and don't even get me started on Millar's Ultimates...

At the end of the day, Millar is deeply liberal but lacks the ability to convey any of these principles to a conclusion in his stories. 'Might makes right' is how Millar ends his stories and it often undercuts his message.

I really don't care what the editors said, as it's their job to push the product. During Civil War, they said that no side was right or wrong, and when it ended, they said that Stark was right. See the conflict there?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

box_in_the_box
2009-05-29 01:07 pm UTC (link)

Mark Millar and Tom Brevoort both flatly stated that "Civil War proved Tony Stark right." There is no room for debate on this subject. Both the writer and the editor of the event have made it clear, to the point of openly insulting those who disagree with them, that the pro-reg side was morally justified in everything that it did, and that it deserved to win.

And actually, in spite of his liberal pretensions, I DO think Millar is a conservative, because in his worldview, the only way to win a fight is by being more evil than your opponents. Yes, the pro-reg side did evil things, but Millar doesn't just support them in SPITE of those things - he supports them BECAUSE of those things, just like the fans of Jack Bauer in 24 love his character BECAUSE he uses torture, because much like Dick Cheney, Millar believes that brutality should be one's FIRST resort in a fight.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

daningram
2009-05-29 01:17 pm UTC (link)

Or, ya know, he doesn't know the moral implications of his writing or lacks the ability to finish his stories.

IMO, it's the emphasize that matter more than the actions. Under Millar, it's the politics that get emphasize. That the heroes won because of superior firepower is something that he often overlooks or flat out ignores.

I don't condone torture, for instance, but really don't care when it shows up in my entertainment. The only time it annoys me is when writers call it out and laud it's effectiveness or how it's justified in that situation.

Same with Millar. The nuance of that is really lost on him, IMO. He compared his Ultimate Avengers vs. X-Men to the United States' war in Iraq because of 9/11. But if one went with his metaphor, then there was an actual link between Al qaeda and Saddam when there wasn't one in reality.

Just because a writer knows the defination of a metaphor doesn't mean they can use it well.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-05-29 01:25 pm UTC (link)
	I actually don't think that you and I are that far apart on this issue, but I'll address that in another reply post. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	aaron_bourque 2009-05-30 04:31 pm UTC (link)
	conservative, because in his worldview, the only way to win a fight is by being more evil than your opponents. . . . (Reply to this) (Parent)

	xdoop 2009-05-29 11:18 am UTC (link)
	Joe Kelly wrote JLA #83, a thinly-veiled criticism of the Iraq War, in 2003, so it's not like he was afraid of standing up to Bush before. And Millar attacked Bush in Ultimate X-Men, which came out in 2001. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	daningram 2009-05-29 12:01 pm UTC (link)
	Both wrote straw men though. They didn't go into the real issues, just shallow comparisons. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xdoop 2009-05-29 12:19 pm UTC (link)
	Regardless, you said "Marvel barely had the balls to stand up to Bush when he was popular and only seem to have found the stones when Bush was already tumbling downhill," and that doesn't apply to Joe Kelly who was criticizing Bush in 2003. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	brianwilly 2009-05-29 02:39 pm UTC (link)
	Nitpicking, but..JLA is DC, ya? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xdoop 2009-05-29 02:42 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, but it's the still same guy who wrote this scene. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	menagerie 2009-05-29 12:12 pm UTC (link)
	I'd say Civil War was a shot at Bush, but it was rather clumsy and hamfisted in its commentary. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	daningram 2009-05-29 12:23 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, that's Millar to a T. He's great at action but terrible at leading up to it and it's eventual pay off. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	xdoop 2009-05-29 11:14 am UTC (link)
	I think Osborn's history with JJ was referenced when he said "Not everyone is forgiving as you are." While I want to learn more about what JJ is thinking, it makes sense he wouldn't want to make Osborn his enemy now that Osborn is the most powerful man in the country. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	liliaeth 2009-05-29 11:20 am UTC (link)
	Are you kidding me? this is J Jonah Jameson, he went in against Bastion. He went in against politicians with mob connections that threatened to murder him if he did so. The only way that Jonah would give in to Osborn, is if Osborn threatened Jonah's family as he did the last time. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xdoop 2009-05-29 11:23 am UTC (link)
	I doubt JJ has forgotten the first time Norman did that. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mullon 2009-05-29 12:24 pm UTC (link)
	Marvel giving us un-asked for political commentary isn't anything new. (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2009-05-29 01:10 pm UTC (link)
	It's not like anyone "got Bush out of office". He enjoyed two full terms and will never have to answer for any of the numerous questionable acts he condoned or engaged in. In my book, that's him winning, and not really the sort of thing a critic should celebrate. (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2009-05-29 01:32 pm UTC (link)
	Ignoring the political part. The fist bump image is awesome. (Reply to this)

brianwilly
2009-05-29 02:46 pm UTC (link)

It is rather annoying to see so blatant a dig. I mean, there's just no subtext there. It's "HAY THIS COMIC IS BEING POLITICAL HEY LOOK GUYS LOOKIT. Look." And Osborn's not even the president, so the dig itself only even barely makes sense.

On the other hand, it's not exactly out of character, either, so you can't really say it's all that meta or breaks too much fourth wall. Both of these guys were anti-regs. Logan is a mutant. They would in fact say those things to each other, in all probability.

(Reply to this)

	seriousfic 2009-05-29 02:47 pm UTC (link)
	You know what would probably be a better reference? That time, in canon, where the US President was heading the Secret Empire and committed suicide in front of Captain America. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	valtyr.dreamwidth.org 2009-05-29 03:54 pm UTC (link)
	The one where the President turned into a lizard and hit Cap over the head with the flag? That was hilarious. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	seriousfic 2009-05-29 03:57 pm UTC (link)
	No, two entirely separate occasions, strangely enough. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	valtyr.dreamwidth.org 2009-05-30 01:58 pm UTC (link)
	Man, you just can't trust Presidents. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sparkysharps 2009-05-29 07:00 pm UTC (link)
	We need scans of this. NOW. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2009-05-29 08:51 pm UTC (link)
	I don’t think there really is any bias toward either main party. Joe Q’s Marvel has always been in bed with whichever side is in power at the time. Today they have Obama covers and four years ago they had that pro-Iraq-War Combat Zone mini. (Reply to this)

	milleniumrex 2009-05-29 10:21 pm UTC (link)
	Wait...is Marvel actually asking us to believe that WOLVERINE is a Democrat? I mean, this is one step above Punisher at an anti-war rally here. (Reply to this) (Thread)

xandertarbert
2009-05-30 12:13 am UTC (link)

I'd say most heroes in Marvel were Independent politically. Socially, Logan would be a Democrat, since most attacks on mutants seems to come from more of a God-fearing very super-v. But he'd draw the line at anything smacking of political correctness, or laws on social issues such as smoking and drinking.

Spider-Man, I can't see him having the time to sit down and think about any of this stuff. Granted, since today's Republican party is so far out of touch of anything, they've lost sight of what they were originally founded over, he's more of a Democrat due to lack of any other good choice. With views on personal responsibility, he'd be a great modern day Republican, but since he's Marvel's poster boy, I can't see him being anything other than a Democrat.

Now, what really bugged me about the Civil War being used as a metaphor for political parties is that I can't see Democrats with their gun laws trying to keep super-humans from registering. This is the party that wants a .22 hunting rifle license that takes a 30 days backround check, not being able to transport it in a car, and if you fire it for whatever reason they take it away. It's really a fight between two versions of the Republican party, the old style Captain America one, and the new stuff, led by "OMG-EVERYTHING-IS-SCARY-SO-LET-ME-LEAD-YOU-PEOPLE-OF-EARTH!" Tony Stark.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	arilou_skiff 2009-05-30 05:39 am UTC (link)
	Wolverine is Canadian. I really can't see Spidey as being anything other than democrat though. He's a New Yorker of working class background. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	I voted for Obama too Marvel but for the love of God... proteus_lives 2009-05-29 11:58 pm UTC (link)
	Get off his dick! Wolverine would not give a fuck who the president is anyway. (Reply to this)

	zegim 2009-05-30 12:57 am UTC (link)
	I confess, the fistbump distracted me. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	schala_kid 2009-05-30 03:05 am UTC (link)
	Same here, I didn't even notice what Wolvie was saying all I was looking at was BROFIST!!! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	psychop_rex 2009-05-30 03:09 am UTC (link)
	I agree that it's a little gratuitous, but in all fairness, it IS the sort of thing that gets said all the time in real life. (Well, I mean - not the armor part, but you know.) If I were a superhero talking with my buddies, I'd totally say stuff like that. (Reply to this)

	stolisomancer 2009-05-30 03:36 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, I didn't think much of this exchange. The larger conversation's honestly not bad, and has a pretty good character moment for both of them ("...because those are two very different conversations"), but these two panels are jarring. I kind of want to believe Kelly included them as a gift to Photoshoppers. Replace Logan's dialogue in a hundred hilarious ways! (Reply to this)