InsaneJournal

(Post a new comment)

	arbre_rieur 2009-08-13 09:43 pm UTC (link)
	(who looks like Jack Kirby) Isn't that a bit... disrespectful? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	geoffsebesta 2009-08-14 08:52 am UTC (link)
	I'd call it "perceptive." Have you read Kirby contemporary with the Vietnam War? He was not at all sympathetic to protesters. In fact, one might say he was starboard of John Wayne on that one. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	arbre_rieur 2009-08-14 09:52 am UTC (link)
	That's disappointing. I wouldn't have suspected that of him given his New Gods work. Do you have any links? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

mania21 2009-08-14 10:02 am UTC (link)

So Kirby was not a hippie supporter? I can understand that, I for one was rather disgusted with the hippie/Anti-war crowd, and the stunning hypocrisy that was its true legacy. J.M. states my own feelings on the most recent war very well here. This is reality, and the only way we can remove something like war from the board is to completely remove people's ability to choose evil over good. This would be the beginning of a move towards a world I would want nothing to do with. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	galateus 2009-08-14 12:30 pm UTC (link)
	Wait, wait, wait--you think Dennis is J.M. DeMatteis's mouthpiece in this story? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	geoffsebesta 2009-08-14 06:41 pm UTC (link)
	When you read it you are between disappointed and sympathetic for what someone who was, after all, a very badly traumatized combat vet. Sorry, I have no links -- try the library or Barnes & Noble. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	starwolf_oakley 2009-08-14 02:32 pm UTC (link)
	I'm surprised by that, if only from what I've read on the Internet (which means it must be true!). "Stan's politics reportedly irritated the two big guns of the Marvel Era. Ditko thought Stan too liberal, Kirby thought Stan too conservative." From: http://nobodylaughsatmisterfish.blogspot.com/2006/05/stan-lees-politics-dodgy-or-what.html (Reply to this) (Parent)

	halloweenjack 2009-08-14 04:23 pm UTC (link)
	I'd be interested in some citations for that claim. At any rate, Kirby, who served in WWII, would have a little more credibility for being a hawk than the Duke, who dodged the draft in WWII, not even serving as an actor in propaganda films the way that Reagan did. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

geoffsebesta 2009-08-14 06:48 pm UTC (link)

Check Thor and Captain America and tell me what you think. I've mentioned it before, but my all-time favorite issue of CA came out in 1968; the first appearance of Dr. Faustus. In this issue Cap keeps having flashbacks to the war and going into insane, uncontrollable rages. After a while he figures out it's his psychiatrist, who is evil and plotting against him. Jack Kirby was not a well man. We forget, since we have enshrined him, that part of his appeal was seeing what random, lunatic shit he would come up with next. I read an interview with him once (sorry, no citation) where he said that he research his comics by watching people walk by and trying to figure out how to beat them up. Another thing they don't mention much was his legendary temper. But that's neither here nor there -- the point here is that Kirby strongly believed, like da Duke, that young folk should register and fight for their country, and if they did not they were morally reprehensible. Again, I think his Thor issues have the best illustrations for this. By the time of Forever People he was more-or-less over the political and had moved on to the cosmological, so look for earlier stuff. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Deleted post)

	geoffsebesta 2009-08-14 07:46 pm UTC (link)
	Ah. I see. You think Stan Lee wrote Jack Kirby's comics. Well, then there's nothing more to say, is there? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	halloweenjack 2009-08-14 07:50 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, good lord, now you're going there. I've previously made the case that Kirby was the main driving force in that collaboration, but your implication that Lee had no influence on their partnership is simply bogus. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	geoffsebesta 2009-08-14 07:52 pm UTC (link)
	So if we can't even agree on what Kirby actually wrote, discussing his politics is going to be impossible, right? IMO, it would be a little strange if Stan Lee, who never was in a war, wrote a story about PTSD. But, whatever. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

halloweenjack 2009-08-14 08:23 pm UTC (link)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; you've got one story in which there's a psychiatrist as a supervillain, some random quote from Kirby that could be interpreted as him wondering how he'd fit someone into a fight scene, and an apparent belief that Lee contributed nothing to the books that he was co-credited with, something that Kirby himself never claimed. You can believe whatever you like, but you're going to have to make a more convincing case than that on a public forum like this one. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	geoffsebesta 2009-08-14 08:25 pm UTC (link)
	Out of curiousity, have you read the Thor or Cap comics from the late 1960s? (Reply to this) (Parent)

halloweenjack 2009-08-14 07:47 pm UTC (link)

...you do realize that Kirby scripted neither Thor nor Captain America, right? Before you make assumptions about either his general mental stability or his political views, I'd suggest either reading a decent biography of Kirby or just noting that Stan Lee (in one of the Origins books) took complete responsibility for the severe anti-commie tone of the Marvel books. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	geoffsebesta 2009-08-14 07:53 pm UTC (link)
	You edited this out from under the thread, but yeah, I don't agree with you and I seem to be proceeding from the same knowledge base, so I think we should let this drop until we arrive at some mutual understanding of what Kirby did and did not do. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	mania21 2009-08-14 11:34 pm UTC (link)
	Truthfully, as much as I respect Jack Kirby, I don't think that he would be as near as much as a towering figure today without Lee. Say what you will but looking at his 70's work, I think Kirby wasn't near as good a writer as he was an artist, world creator, and designer. Kirby had excellent "ideas" for stories but probably had trouble putting them down on paper. (Reply to this) (Parent)

cmdr_zoom 2009-08-14 02:09 am UTC (link)

God, this is bleak. A look at how icky black-and-white superhero morality, where the resolution to any problem eventually comes down to punching someone, gets when applied to something like the real world. And if you try to move outside that jingoistic, might-makes-right binary paradigm - when you're no longer a Good Guy - then you're obviously a Bad Guy, since those are the only two possibilities. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	daningram 2009-08-14 12:26 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, but comics have ditched that morality for years (though it seems to be creeping back). So it's hardly ground breaking. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	starwolf_oakley 2009-08-14 02:17 pm UTC (link)
	Mostly in DC Comics. And they're self-aware of it as well. Grant Morrison writes villains who admit they are evil and love it. (Insert standard "Grant Morrison's magic mushrooms" joke here.) Most Marvel villains act either out of a personal grudge or some kind of warped "greater good" justification. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jlbarnett 2009-08-14 10:24 pm UTC (link)
	anybody remember Edith Keeler in Stark Trek? That's what they're worried about him Savior 28 being. An influence on all the well meaning people to take up peace, while the bad people keep being bad. (Reply to this) (Parent)

daningram 2009-08-14 02:35 pm UTC (link)

Meh, not impressed. That line about Bin Laden seems especially stupid to me. He's not a damn hydra, and the idea that you'd just let someone go who killed 3000 people because 'it continues the circle of hate' just boggles the mind. That's not justice. I mean, come on, even the Pope admitted that the invasion of Afganistan was just. It's called self defense. Besides the fact that seems to denounce a style of writing that's not been around in years, it's as narrow minded as those that it denounces. Instead of acting like violence is the only response to a situation, it should show why violence is an incomplete response in and of itself. Have Savior 28 rebuild the buildings he destroys, do community work when he breaks up a gang, etc. This would probably be a better story if it was just about Savior 28 getting tired of the good fight, but it really don't seem that way. It just seems like some lame moral lecture. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-08-16 06:34 am UTC (link)
	I don't think 28 is saying that Bin Laden shouldn't be punished, simply that simply flying over and squishing his head is a reactionary action that would do no good, and only serve to galvanize his men. If you don't want to encourage the sort of chaos that Bin Laden thrives on, then you must bring him in alive and have him tried by the law. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	daningram 2009-08-16 03:57 pm UTC (link)
	That certainly doesn't seem to be the impression that they're trying to convey in this scene. Savior 28's renouncing all forms of violence, which is fine character wise but terribly naive as a message, IMO. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-08-16 08:41 pm UTC (link)
	Renouncing violence doesn't preclude simply finding and arresting someone - and I don't think he's necessarily renouncing violence absolutely and completely, just saying that one should not depend on it the way he's been doing for most of his life, and that nonviolence is infinitely preferable and should be sought out whenever possible. That's my take on it, anyway. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	halloweenjack 2009-08-14 04:24 pm UTC (link)
	This is so heavy-handed that it's almost like a parody of the whole superher-deconstruction microgenre. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	halloweenjack 2009-08-14 04:25 pm UTC (link)
	Er, superhero. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jlbarnett 2009-08-14 10:25 pm UTC (link)
	It's actually meant to be a Captain America story that was cancelled. Back in the 80's a writer was going to have Cap give up violence and get assasinated. In in that book "Comic Book Mysteries Revealed." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cmdr_zoom 2009-08-15 04:17 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, you can tell because of the ref to the fickle and gullible civilians of 616. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous) 2009-08-16 03:00 am UTC (link)

Hi, Mike Cavallaro here. I'm the artist drawing THE LIFE AND TIMES OF SAVIOR 28. I thought I'd throw my two cents in here. I've been asked in interviews about a lot of the design work on S28, including the character design for Dennis McNulty. Here's how it went ... J.M.'s script notes frequently mention actors of various periods when trying to communicate the general look of a character. The notes regarding Dennis basically said, "Think elderly James Cagney / Leo Gorcey." And that's what I did. A studio mate of mine walked by my desk one of the first times I was drawing McNulty and said, "Hey, is that supposed to be Jack Kirby???" It hadn't occurred to me before that, but once pointed out I could see the resemblance. I couldn't help thinking of all the old photos I'd seen of Jack. There's a few where he's wearing a smart looking suit with a wide brimmed fedora, and his resemblance to people like Cagney is noticeable. I would speculate that figures like Cagney must have been a sort of role model for guys of Jack's generation. Again, I'm speculating. So yes, Dennis does kinda look like Jack Kirby. But he also kinda looks like James Cagney with maybe a little Leo Gorcey, which is what I was really shooting for. No attempt was made by either J.M. nor myself to draw any connection between Jack Kirby's beliefs and those of the character, Dennis McNulty. I'm a huge fan of Silver and Golden Age comics and those that created them. I probably read as many interviews with cartoonists of those generation as I do comics themselves. I really love what those guys accomplished, the way those comics used to look, etc. etc. Obviously, Jack Kirby is one of my artistic heroes. I love almost everything he drew. I don't really know what his personal beliefs were regarding hippies, politics, etc. etc. I'm sure it will make interesting reading at some point, and I'm also sure that regardless of how near of far his views fall in proximity to my own, it will do nothing to diminish my respect for him. Hope that clarifies things. Dennis McNulty is not a stand-in for Jack Kirby. Reading S28 from that perspective will only mislead you. Finally, thanks so much to anyone who has been reading along. I've already completed work on the series, and I still can't believe I got to work with J.M.D., another one of my heroes. If you ever get the chance to meet him at a con, don't hesitate. He's truly one of the nicest, most encouraging, most genuine persons I've met in comics. (Reply to this)

	psychop_rex 2009-08-16 06:37 am UTC (link)
	I'm wondering - is this supposed to be set pre-Obama? 'Cause this may be coming out now, but it seems like a very Bush-era comic to me. Savior 28's actions and the words of his interrogators would make a lot more sense under a reactionary administration like Dubya's. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	daningram 2009-08-16 03:56 pm UTC (link)
	Bush era, but not something they'd ever dare publish during it, sigh... (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-08-16 08:37 pm UTC (link)
	I dunno - there was some pretty outspoken stuff coming out during the Bush era, especially near the end of it. I could see this coming out then. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	starwolf_oakley 2009-08-16 08:31 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, aside from all the flashbacks, the story takes place between 2001-2003. An earlier issue showed that Dennis answers directly to Dick Chaney or some other government agency. (Reply to this) (Parent)