Members of the comic industry recently got a little testy when Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche went to the Wall Street Journal about a bias against conservative creators in the industry. Marvel’s Tom Brevoort quickly assured everyone that no “blacklist” exists at Marvel (Can you name one openly conservative writer who is employed there?), and then surmised that it wasn’t conservatives that editors have a problem with, but certain kinds of “behavior” **cough** that might translate into not getting employment.
Sure, no “blacklist” exists, as long as you don’t consider The Amazing Spider-Man writer telling Christians to move to “Christ-land” as evidence that maybe — just maybe — Marvel isn’t too friendly towards guys like Messrs. Dixon and and Rivoche.
Imagine if I found out that my local pool was going to have very specific “women-only” hours for Muslim women, who don’t want to be seen by men outside their immediate family. We’ll use Seattle as an example:
Seema is from Pakistan. Sahra is from Somalia. Both are Muslim. They say having a women-only swim program allows them to get some exercise while observing their religious customs. Seema says their religion requires them to cover in front of men. “We don’t cover our heads in front of our husbands, our dads, brothers,” she says. “But when we go outside we’re supposed to cover for woman’s modesty.”
What if I pulled a Dan Slott-like move, stretched my bigotry muscles, and told Muslim women: “This is America. Go find pools in ‘Muslim Land.'” I’m pretty sure my employer would fire me.
And then there’s this gem:
The thing with Hobby Lobby and other small religious businesses is that they took their grievance to court — and won. They followed the rule of law and the highest court in the land agreed with them. That is not an “asshole” move, but yet Dan Slott likens Christians to “conquistadors” and “assholes.” It’s incredibly mean, but also cartoonish; it’s reminiscent of 1992’s Office Space, where the character Peter Gibbons says “You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.”
Speaking of the Jewish faith, it’s now well-known that Dan Slott is very protective of his ancestry (just don’t mention that his own characters get taken to task by Bleeding Cool for engaging in “Nazi-like experimentation”). How would the Marvel scribe react if someone went full-Dan Slott on Jewish people like he does on Christians and Americans who are strong advocates of the Second Amendment?
Here we see another example of Dan Slott’s intolerance:
Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey made a good point shortly after the tweet went live: How would Dan Slott react to someone who tweeted him in a New York Jewish accent about money?
The tweet was deleted — down the Memory Hole — Dan Slott’s go-to move when he gets caught saying things that reflect poorly on his employer. It’s a good thing the Internet is forever.
If you are a fan of Marvel comics who just so happens to be a Christian, a Second Amendment advocate or simply someone who just doesn’t like seeing bigotry broadcasted via social media, you should probably think twice about buying products put out by Dan Slott. You might want to also consider contacting Marvel. It doesn’t have many standards these days, but there are a few that are hanging by a thread.
Slow clap for Dan Slott. He’s the guy you want to find when you want tweets infused with anti-Christian bigotry, or Marvel comics that are consistently trying to see how low the bar can go.
Update: Dan Slott continues to read this little old blog and attack it from afar because, as we all know, it’s much safer to allow Twitter groupies to massage your ego than to actually defend the indefensible.
Question for Dan Slott: If I just had a beef with a few Jews over a religious issue with political implications, and I told them to go to “Jew-land,” how would you respond? How would my employer respond? That’s right — you’d go ballistic. And then my employer would fire me. But you get to tell a bunch of Christians to go to “Christ-land” without consequences. Hypocrite.
Update II: Marvel’s Tom Brevoort has weighed in. No response to the question “If Chuck Dixon told Dan Slott to go to ‘Jew-land’ over a religious gripe, would he still get work?” Telling.
Someone else brought up similar sentiments about Marvel’s creators over at the New Brevoort Formspring. It turns out that Mr. Brevoort really does embrace the the strange business model “needlessly alienate potential customers” to grow the company.
Marvel Comics is paralyzed by political correctness. One needs to look no further than Tom Brevoort’s response to an inquiry about Frank Miller taking a crack at Captain America.
Read Mr. Brevoort’s words — “I don’t think, for example, we’d have gone with Holy Terror as a Captain America story” — and then go to any reputable news source and examine the stories coming out of Iraq and Syria right now. The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) is doing everything within its power to bring about an Islamic caliphate in the heart of the Middle East, Iraq is imploding, Syria is a terrorist breeding ground and the president of the United States is so desperate for help that he needs Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to help stem the violence.
A relevant publisher would see such glaring national security threats and say: “This is a subject matter that a Captain America comic book must address.” Sadly, that is not the case at Marvel Comics. The character who punched out Hitler won’t take on radical Islamic extremists because that might offend somebody.
Militants from the al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (Associated Press)
Let us turn to one of last week’s most interesting national security headlines. The Daily Beast reported June 14:
When Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi walked away from a U.S. detention camp in 2009, the future leader of ISIS issued some chilling final words to reservists from Long Island. The Islamist extremist some are now calling the most dangerous man in the world [said]: “I’ll see you guys in New York,” recalls Army Col. Kenneth King, then the commanding officer of Camp Bucca.
Hmmm. This seems like a pretty bad dude. He’s got a huge bank account, an army of men willing to die for him, and his organization has left a trail of dead bodies all across the Middle East. Oh, and he just-so-happens to hate America — but somehow Marvel doesn’t want ask the kind of tough questions “Holy Terror” addressed — in a Captain America comic no less? Pathetic.
When one reads excerpt’s from Frank Miller’s “This Old Cloth,” Mr. Brevoort’s answer becomes even more spineless:
Then came that sunny September morning when airplanes crashed into towers a very few miles from my home and thousands of my neighbors were ruthlessly incinerated — reduced to ash. Now, I draw and write comic books. One thing my job involves is making up bad guys. Imagining human villainy in all its forms. Now the real thing had shown up. The real thing murdered my neighbors. In my city. In my country. Breathing in that awful, chalky crap that filled up the lungs of every New Yorker, then coughing it right out, not knowing what I was coughing up.
For the first time in my life, I know how it feels to face an existential menace. They want us to die. All of a sudden I realize what my parents were talking about all those years.
Patriotism, I now believe, isn’t some sentimental, old conceit. It’s self-preservation. I believe patriotism is central to a nation’s survival. Ben Franklin said it: If we don’t all hang together, we all hang separately. Just like you have to fight to protect your friends and family, and you count on them to watch your own back.
So you’ve got to do what you can to help your country survive. That’s if you think your country is worth a damn. Warts and all.
No black ops for Cap in Syria. No black ops for Cap in Iraq. No black ops for Cap in Afghanistan. No black ops for Cap in Pakistan. But Marvel is all about Captain America taking on the tea party.
These days, Marvel doesn’t push the envelope at all. It puts out a press release every time it does something easy (e.g., the company creates a superhero that allows guys like Mr. Brevoort to chortle on about diversity, as if readers haven’t been bashed over the head with how awesomely-awesome diversity is since they could barely walk). Unfortunately, Marvel has not explored what it means when the desire for diversity allows the world to turn a blind eye to the most illiberal individuals and organizations on the planet.
Holy Terror is at times raw, confusing, and poignant. Sometimes it angers (do you think that might be intentional?). It also makes anyone who reads it wonder why it had to be written in the first place. Fans of Holy Terror know why, and some of us aren’t afraid to talk about it. Critics of the book liken any frank (no pun intended) discussion of Islamic terrorism to an attempt to make it synonymous with Islam as a whole. Again, whose fault is that? Perhaps we should ask Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch film director to whom Frank Miller dedicates the book. Or not…because he’s dead, slain by Islamic radicals.
Tom Brevoort likes the idea of having Frank Miller write Captain America tales — provided he turns in politically correct milquetoast pap. While the world focuses on very real, very evil bad guys, Marvel gives the green light to “Cap vs. Tea Party.” Readers got a heaping helping of weird Bush administration allegories with “Civil War,” but suddenly the burning desire to keep readers politically abreast of real-world headlines cooled just around 2008… How convenient.
If you want a thought-provoking read, tell Marvel to reach out to Frank Miller about writing Captain America. If you like self-congratulatory fare masquerading as ground-breaking diversity, then do nothing; Marvel has mastered that act.
An ISIS terrorist executes an innocent man in Iraq. Meanwhile, over in America, Marvel editors get nostalgic for the time they courageously had Captain America take on … the tea party.
Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche took to the The Wall Street Journal this past weekend to address an issue that guys like myself, Hube at Collossus of Rhodey, and Avi Green over at The Four Color Media Monitor have been spotlighting for ages: moral relativism in the comics industry.
Over the years, fewer and fewer superheroes had a functioning moral compass, and the result is that these days its often difficult for to distinguish between the hero and the villain. As the industry lurched to the left, conservative voices were elbowed out. The result: A politically correct schizophrenic comic book market, where creators see themselves as “social justice warriors,” one day, and writers with no social responsibility the next — usually when a cultural event turns the nation’s attention towards moral relativism practiced in much of the entertainment community.
In the 1950s, the great publishers, including DC and what later become Marvel, created the Comics Code Authority, a guild regulator that issued rules such as: “Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal.” The idea behind the CCA, which had a stamp of approval on the cover of all comics, was to protect the industry’s main audience—kids—from story lines that might glorify violent crime, drug use or other illicit behavior.
In the 1970s, our first years in the trade, nobody really altered the superhero formula. The CCA did change its code to allow for “sympathetic depiction of criminal behavior . . . [and] corruption among public officials” but only “as long as it is portrayed as exceptional and the culprit is punished.” In other words, there were still good guys and bad guys. Nobody cared what an artist’s politics were if you could draw or write and hand work in on schedule. Comics were a brotherhood beyond politics.
The 1990s brought a change. The industry weakened and eventually threw out the CCA, and editors began to resist hiring conservative artists. One of us, Chuck, expressed the opinion that a frank story line about AIDS was not right for comics marketed to children. His editors rejected the idea and asked him to apologize to colleagues for even expressing it. Soon enough, Chuck got less work.
The superheroes also changed. Batman became dark and ambiguous, a kind of brooding monster. Superman became less patriotic, culminating in his decision to renounce his citizenship so he wouldn’t be seen as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. A new code, less explicit but far stronger, replaced the old: a code of political correctness and moral ambiguity. If you disagreed with mostly left-leaning editors, you stayed silent.
Messrs. Dixon and Rivoche note that there have been bright spots over the years (e.g., “Maus,” Pixar’s “The Incredibles,”) but that a.) those creative endeavors are generally apolitical, and b.) they are now the exception rather than the rule. They conclude that most modern comics send the message: “in a morally ambiguous world largely created by American empire—head left.”
Perhaps the most recent glaring example of the industry’s moral relativism came from Marvel’s Spider-Man scribe, Dan Slott.
Here’s what moral relativist Mr. Slott said during the start of his run on Superior Spider-Man in an interview with Newsarama:
Nrama: With Superior Spider-Man, you’re writing Doc Ock as a lead character for really the first time, and a more long-term Doc Ock story than has really been seen before. We’re seeing the character put in very different situations, interacting with totally different characters. What kind of task has that been — approaching his mindset and his attitude in the position of a lead character?
Slott: He’s trying his best to be a hero, but he’s doing it in a very Doc Ock way. And Doc Ock’s an egotistical, annoying sh*t. It makes him an interesting character. At his core, he’s someone we don’t really think of heroic. But is he any more annoying than [former villain] Hawkeye used to be?
Yes, that’s right. Dan Slott actually asked if a man who tried to incinerate 6 billion people was any more annoying than Hawkeye in his very early days as a villain.
Slott continued:
Slott: Also, when you look at Doc Ock, he was so much like Peter Parker. Peter Parker, if he didn’t know the lessons of power and responsibility, that teenage nerd would have grown up to be an Otto Octavius nerd, with the same kind of, “I’m going to make them pay.” This is the flip of that. This is Doc Ock getting to go back in time and be as young as Peter Parker, and have force-fed into him this sense of power and responsibility. He has that lesson from Uncle Ben in his core. That was Peter Parker’s parting gift to the world — I’m not going to leave the world a villain, I’m going to leave them a hero.
So either Dan Slott was lying in his interview, or he forced Peter Parker to make one of the dumbest superhero decisions of all time. If Dan Slott’s “hero” had Uncle Ben’s lesson embedded in his core, Inception-style, why did he blow a guy’s face off at point blank range or engage in Nazi-like torture practices? Great “gift to the world,” Mr. Slott.
The funny thing about moral relativists is that when the culture spins out of control they refuse to take any responsibility for the disgusting cultural mosaic they’ve helped to create. It’s always the fault of someone else.
In the mind of a moral relativist like Dan Slott, the creative work he puts out into the world has zero effect on his reading audience aside from being innocuous “entertainment.” In the mind of a moral relativist like Dan Slott, he can make an American cultural icon into a genocidal maniac “Spider-Man” for over a year, have that character blow a guy’s face off and engage in Nazi-like torture, and then say with a straight face that what he does for a living has no effect on our cultural consciousness. It’s a great defense mechanism: “Hey, I ‘just’ write comics. Don’t look at me.”
Dixon and Rivoche end their piece by saying that they “hope conservatives, free-marketeers and, yes, free-speech liberals” will join them in entering the field with a renewed sense of purpose. Conservatives may have an uphill battle when it comes to getting their work seen through traditional outlets, but modern technology has helped level the playing field. If you’re a conservative or libertarian writer with a story that’s been sitting in your head for years, get it out of there. Crack open your laptop or go old school with a typewriter. Do whatever it takes to get your story one step closer to reality. Start that snowball rolling downhill and see where it takes you. The same thing goes for artists and musicians.
There’s an old saying that the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn’t exist. In a similar vein, the greatest trick moral relativists play is convincing people that what they read and listen to on a daily basis is incapable of warping their minds in dangerous ways.
If you see yourself as a creative conservative or libertarian individual, you owe it to yourself and your community to share that gift with the world. The ideological battle may be a long tough slog, but it’s one that is worth fighting.
‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ may be the most important superhero movie of all time. I don’t say that lightly. Those whose blood pressure is starting to rise should take note: I didn’t say it was the “most fun” or “action packed” movie of all time — I said it may be the most important film ever.
Right out of the gates director Bryan Singer lets the audience know he’s created a movie about big ideas. When the first thing a director asks is “Does free will exist?” he’s given himself a tall order to fulfill:
Charles Xavier: The future…a dark desolate world. A world at war. Suffering and loss on both sides. Mutants and the humans who dared to help them fighting an enemy we can not defeat. Are we destined down this path, destined to destroy ourselves like so many species before us? Or can we evolve fast enough to change ourselves, change our fate? Is the future truly set?
Everything from the visuals and the narration to the music by John Ottman says: “This movie has gravity. Leave now if you just want a mindless popcorn flick.”
How many of us yearn to be able to go back in time and visit our younger selves — to talk some sense into them? What price would you pay for a single attempt to impart wisdom and knowledge on your reckless youthful counterpart — who wouldn’t listen to anyone — because maybe, just maybe, he’d listen to you? What if you could go back in time and convey something to your younger consciousness that would save all sorts of pain and suffering that you — although you wouldn’t ever admit it publicly — caused friends and loved ones? What if you’ve created a “dark desolate world” for yourself, but you knew there was a moment in time that could set things on a very different path? Would you risk ripping your consciousness into a million pieces for a chance to travel through space and time to set things right?
These are all very deep questions, and the actors tasked with making it all real to the audience do a magnificent job. James McAvoy, Hugh Jackman, Peter Dinklage, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Evan Peters and basically the entire cast all do a commendable job. Everyone who was required to provide emotional weight to movie comes through in the clutch, and the end result is a movie worth watching many times.
In addition to the covering free will, ‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ covers redemption. The turning point in the film (major spoilers ahead — you have been warned) comes when young Charles finally comes face-to-face with his older self.
Young Charles: So this what becomes of us. Eric was right. Humanity does this to us.
Old Charles: Not if we show them a better past.
Young Charles: You still believe?
Old Charles:Just because someone stumbles and loses their way, it doesn’t mean they’re lost forever. Sometimes we need a little help.
Young Charles: I’m not the man I was. I open my mind and it almost overwhelms me.
Old Charles: You’re afraid, and Cerebro knows it.
Young Charles: In all those voices…so much pain.
Old Charles:It’s not their pain you’re afraid of — it’s yours. And frightening as it can be their pain will make you stronger if you allow yourself to feel it. Embrace it. It will make you more powerful than you ever imagined. It’s the greatest gift we have that can bear pain without breaking, and it’s born from the most human power: Hope. Please Charles, we need you to hope again.
Can you forgive yourself for all the mistakes you’ve made? Can you forgive your friends and loved ones for the pain they’ve inflicted upon you? Can you forgive humanity for all the injustices it’s inflicted upon itself? Can you find strength in pain and then use that strength to make the world a better place? These are all questions asked by Singer, and the end result is a movie that aims — and largely succeeds — at affecting those who are willing to let it do so on the deepest of philosophical levels.
In short, the evolution of Charles Xavier over the course of the film from a broken man and into the hero who would lead the X-Men to a better tomorrow is nearly flawless. Along the way you might even forget that you’re watching “just” a superhero movie and find yourself welling up inside. For much of the movie you don’t know how it’s going to turn out. Yes, fans “know” how it’s going to end (another movie is on the way, of course) but the writing, acting and directing are so good that it’s easy to get lost in it all and say, “Wow, they might not pull this out.”
Luckily, Professor Xavier regains his hope at a pivotal point in the film.
Hank McCoy:There’s a theory in quantum physics that time is immutable. It’s like a river — you can throw a pebble in and create a ripple, but the current always corrects itself. No matter what you do the river just keeps flowing in the same direction.
Wolverine: What are you trying to say?
Beast: What I’m saying is, what if the war is inevitable? What if she’s meant to kill Trask? What if this is simply who she is?
Charles Xavier:Just because someone stumbles and loses their way it doesn’t mean they’re lost forever. No, I don’t believe that theory Hank, and I can not believe that is who she is. Ready the plane. We’re going to Washington.
If you get a chance to see ‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ in theaters, I would highly suggest making the trip. It’s rare for a movie to work on so many levels, and the fact that it’s an X-Men film makes this longtime Marvel fan very happy.
Editor’s Note for regular readers: I know I mentioned not being able to pay to see this movie, given the storm clouds hanging over the director’s head. I went to the movie theater with every intention of paying for Godzilla and then walking into X-Men: Days of Future Past, but the theater turned out to be about the size of my bedroom. There was no way I could pull it off without creating an awkward scene, so I allowed a friend to pay for me. I still don’t feel right about it, so if Mr. Singer’s legal issues do not turn out in his favor I will make a donation that would in all likelihood meet his accuser’s approval.
Peter Parker went out like a punk — twice — by writer Dan Slott, so it’s only fitting that he would get a punk homecoming. If you’re an Amazing Spider-Man fan who has been waiting for over a year to get a steroidal cheese-ball version of of Peter Parker back in tights, prepare to give Mr. Slott a pat on the back.
For a mere $5.99 (Can someone tell me why digital copies are just as expensive as buying in-store?), Peter Parker fans get to see the real deal take on some two-bit villains, lose all his clothes, get called an “idiot” by Mary Jane (the same character whose IQ dropped about 50 points in order to make Superior Spider-Man work), and have his secret identity exposed because Doc Ock’s love interest, Anna Maria, has seen him naked. Yes, you read that right. (But hey, “nothing happened” … despite the fact that Doc Ock was going to ask her to marry him after two months.)
Feeling warm and fuzzy now that Peter Parker is back? If not, here’s another one: the radioactive spider that bit Peter and gave him his powers also apparently bit another woman before finally dying. Perhaps if Dan Slott stays on the title long enough we’ll find out that a second radioactive spider was present that day, and it bit two more students, which would fit in nicely with his upcoming “Spider-Verse” plans (i.e., Why waste time exploring Peter Parker when readers can just get lost in countless Spider-Men? Who needs character development when you’ve got tons of spider-powered people swinging around?).
Question for Dan Slott and the editors at Marvel: Why do you hate Mary Jane? Why do you take every opportunity you can to turn her into a dumb b**ch? Why do you take a character who should be Peter Parker’s supermodel Linda Cadwell (i.e. Bruce Lee’s wife) and turn her into a one-dimensional bimbo? Why do you have to rub salt in the wounds of fans who believe Peter and MJ are meant to be together — every chance you get? Are you mean and spiteful man-boys, or just tone deaf morons?
But I digress. Back to Amazing Spider-Man #1, the issue where Dan Slott decided the best way for Peter’s secret identity to be revealed to Anna was through a cheap turn of events that left him naked — and then in a web diaper — in front of the entire world. It’s actually rather fitting I guess, because Dan Slott is once again “exposed” as a writer who lacks the intellectual depth and breadth to take Peter Parker to the heights he truly deserves.
If you’re a fan of Peter Parker, you should cheer because he’s back. If you’re a fan of Peter Parker, you should cringe because Dan Slott is still in control of the character’s short-term destiny. Amazing Spider-Man #1 is an issue that was long overdue, but it also was yet another case of Team Slott over-promising and under-delivering. With six months of issues like this, sales will drop to levels no barrage of variant covers can save. Instead of realizing that a writer who isn’t up to the task of growing and developing Peter Parker is to blame, the same predictable crowd will fault the character. At that time, expect calls for the “return” of Superior Spider-Man.
If you don’t have a lot of disposable income, don’t spend $5.99 on this book. Check out ‘Winter Solider’ while it’s still in theaters, or possibly the new Amazing Spider-Man movie if someone you trust liked it.
Bonus:
Those who follow this blog regularly know that Dan Slott is particularly sensitive about observations of Superior Spider-Man’s affection for genocidal maniacs and their tactics — despite the fact that the character said he wanted to transcend “Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan” in terms of evil perpetrated upon the world — shortly before body-snatching Peter — and despite the “full blown Nazi-like torture/experimentation on his victims,” that predictably took place before the series ended (Bleeding Cool’s words — not mine).
“In today’s Superior Spider-Man, the character goes a little further. Into full blown Nazi-like torture/experimentation on his victims. By ripping out teeth and fingernails,” (Bleeding Cool).
Given that sensitivity, why is it okay for Dan Slott to write Marvel Universe New Yorkers who believe Superior Spider-Man was a “jack-booted thug,” but it’s out of bounds to then talk about the implications of being a “jack-booted thug”? Ask a group of history lovers what group they think of first when they hear the phrase “jack-booted thug,” and nine times out of ten you will get the Nazis. You might even get an embarrassing goose-stepping demonstration.
It is downright strange for Dan Slott to use that phrase — that very loaded phrase, with all the images it conjures up — in his book, especially since he went on a massive YouTube meltdown that he ultimately tried to scrub from existence. It’s almost like he subconsciously knows my criticisms are incredibly accurate, or that he wants me to call him out so he’ll have an excuse to go on more incoherent tirades.
The Marvel Universe has “Damage Control” and so too does Dan Slott, apparently. When Mr. Slott can’t do it himself, the “Dan Slott Damage Control” (D.S.D.C.) is always willing to pick up his mess. Luckily, it has no power here.
If you want honest and frank reviews of Amazing Spider-Man, head back here any time there are major developments. If you want weird rants that will be deleted by Dan Slott or Slott-friendly moderators (e.g., Marvel’s Orwellian message boards) when he refuses to save himself from himself, those sites are readily available as well. More power to you. Either way, I’m happy to spend $5.99 if it will mean some extra cash in your back pocket.
Check the YouTube page ‘Superior Spider-Man Panel SDCC 2013’ so you can see evidence of Dan Slott trying to scrub, scrub, scrub away as much evidence of his recent YouTube meltdown as possible.
For roughly an entire year now Dan Slott has had regular meltdowns directed at yours truly. Last May, I wrote a piece titled: ‘Is Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’ really a Superior anti-Semite?’ The whole point of the article was to show that a villain who came within inches of exterminating 6 billion people was about to be placed in Peter Parker’s body. Marvel’s flagship character was going to be taken over by a genocidal maniac. At a pivotal point in Spider-Man history, one of his greatest villains declared that he would transcend Hitler, Pol Pot, and Genghis Khan in terms of infamy perpetrated upon the world.
Dan Slott has obsessed over me for almost a year — even going so far as to sic his Twitter groupies on me — because I had the gall to react to his insertion of a real-world monster into a fictional comic. In response to his attacks I asked: What is more offensive — Dan Slott’s indiscriminate use of incendiary names or my reminder of the implications of his indiscriminate use of incendiary names? He never answered. All he’s done is engage in online ranting and raving (e.g., I’m a “terrible human being”) that must make consummate professionals within the confines of Marvel’s offices cringe.
For the past year he’s taken to multiple platforms to engage in character assassination. I’m a “terrible” person. I’m a “bad” person. He’s holds that I simultaneously “implied” and “flat-out” said that he — a Jew — was anti-Semitic (as if I even knew or cared about his heritage in 2013).
My response was that it was quite clear in the piece — and in the comments section within an hour of writing the piece, that I did no such thing and that his accusations were false.
From the piece: Silly me. The guy who “just” came within inches of an extinction level event because he hated all of humanity is now housed in Peter Parker’s body. …
Slott [to Newsarama]: He’s trying his best to be a hero, but he’s doing it in a very Doc Ock way. And Doc Ock’s an egotistical, annoying sh*t. It makes him an interesting character. At his core, he’s someone we don’t really think of heroic. But is he any more annoying than [former villain] Hawkeye used to be?
From the comments section the day it was published: Very well articulated. I agree with you in that I don’t think a hatred of Jews drove him, but I wrote the piece to corner Dan Slott’s fans into admitting just how horrible Otto is.
Rational adults can see that. I even used Dan Slott’s own words to show who and what he believes Otto represents (i.e., a wannabe hero is just kinda-sorta more annoying than Hawkeye before he was an Avenger — never mind that whole extinction-level event plot months earlier). Dan Slott refuses to acknowledge the truth when it’s right in front of his face, so I had to reiterate it for him:
Note that I say that if I had it all to over again I probably would have just used a picture of Hitler, but that it was “the first one that showed up on the Holocaust museum website [as] I was looking for stats, it was late at night, and I write my posts after extremely long days. I used that one. Oh well.” I needed a Nazi picture. There was one on the page I was reading at that moment. I grabbed it. Case closed.
How was I to know that a single blog post — by a random guy Dan Slott doesn’t know and will likely never meet — would cause the Marvel scribe to seethe with “crazy town banana pants” anger for an entire year? Of course I would have picked a different picture if I had it to do over again.
Afterward, Dan Slott started littering up the YouTube page with jokes about how I said I was unable to find a picture of Hitler online. Why would he do that? Because when faced with irrefutable evidence that he is wrong about the objective of my piece — or at a minimum should rethink his knee-jerk reaction to categorize me with real-world rapists, murderers, dictators and despots — he does what he does best: attack. And then, in order to feel even better about himself, he turns to Twitter, where The Dan Slott Ego Massage Squad can go to work. It’s always ready to rub down all those tender areas of his fragile mind.
Today a blogger explained to me why he used a picture of Jewish remains being shoveled out of ovens in his Spider-Man article. And why he left it up on his site for the better part of a year. It was because he couldn’t find a picture of Hitler. There are TWO takeaways here. 1) This guy is the world’s BIGGEST asshole. […] and 2) Apparently it’s REALLY hard to Google a picture of Hitler.
You see, it’s much more soothing for his sensitive psyche to soak in the slobbering Slott-worship of Superior Spider-Man diehards, who will lather him in in praise and confirm his conclusion that detractors are “assholes” and “douches,” than it is to deal with rational people on YouTube:
Dan Slott’s reply? I simultaneously “imply” and “flat-out” call him an anti-Semite. It’s a good thing that Dan Slott covers all his bases. Never mind the quotes above that demonstrate I did no such thing.
The truth of the matter is that Dan Slott didn’t like the way I went about making my point. He didn’t like the fact that I used very real historical pictures to point out that there are implications to what all of us write and say. When you put words in a character’s mouth, those words mean something.Or, as President Obama would say: “words matter.”
Dan Slott now says that Doc Ock citing a desire to surpass Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan’s collective infamy was merely the rhetorical flourish of a “James-Bond”-type villain. Fair enough, but if Dan Slott thinks that Hitler’s name is now merely fodder for James Bond-ish dialogue, some of us think that with that should come a dose of perspective.
And so, at this time, I will include the following image, which I show you with Dan Slott’s blessing.
Human remains found in the Dachau concentration camp crematorium after liberation. Germany, April 1945. — U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
That’s a wake-up call, isn’t it? Given Dan Slott’s reaction over the past year, it appears that he’s gotten the message — when you infuse real-world genocidal maniacs into the pages of Marvel comics, do not act surprised when history lovers take it seriously. Strangely enough, Dan Slott didn’t go into a TwitLonger rage when Bleeding Cool called out his character for “full-blown Nazi-like experimentation/ torture on his victims.” Ouch. How did that scene sneak by Dan Slott before going to print, given how important it is for him to protect the honor of his ancestors?
Being a veteran, whose friend was killed by a sniper in Iraq, I’ve had people say some pretty gruesome things to me, both online and in person. (Try dealing with it when it’s your college professors.) I’ve seen some horrible images that were personal affronts to the experience that probably shaped my life more than any other. However, I never obsessed over the individuals behind those hurtful or offensive acts and I didn’t call them “evil” people because, unlike Dan Slott, I know how to put things in proper perspective. But I digress. Back to the Holocaust image.
I received two reader comments that nicely summed up the debate about the picture after Dan Slott’s attacks began. They are excerpted here:
Reader #1. I think the pic was in poor taste. I see your point about taking a fictional character’s frame of reference as being wildly inappropriate. You are absolutely correct about that, it didn’t need that kind of punch. I believe Slott was only trying to maximize the horror and insanity of Ock’s mind. Regardless of his remarkably bad decision, it is still fiction, and the references should have stayed away from real-life mass murderers, unless it was far in the past. Hitler was too recent a reference, and as a Jew, Slott should have had the good taste to stay away from it. Enter Doug Ernst, who not only takes very real umbrage at this reference, but feels the need to one-up it with not only a blog post, but a photo of these poor, massacred souls to make a point. You also overstepped a boundary, Doug, and I still hope you decide to remove it on your own without further prompting. Slott is too full of bile to ask nicely, even if he is the one who instigated this. I then ask you, for the sake of those people who were in those ovens, the descendants of those unknown souls, and the millions who suffered this still-historically-relevant fate to please remove it from that entry. It serves no purpose other than sensationalism, and you don’t strike me as that kind of man who needs to stoop to that level.
Reader #2. I think Rogue is way off on the sensationalism and especially the testosterone rationale. It is important to show what Slott so casually put in his dialogue and inside Spider-Man’s head. I agree they are real people with no voice, I agree it was horrible, I agree it’s grisly — but it was Slott who betrayed their legacy — and that needs to be shown. Obviously his own grandfather’s story didn’t keep Slott from writing a tasteless story with an iconic hero, so maybe that image drove it home. I respect Rouge’s opinion, but I wouldn’t have changed it. It was Slott who inserted this awful chapter of history into the comic.
Two very different points of view, but which one is right? I ended up taking down the photo, even though I agreed with Reader #2.
My rationale:
I have removed the image and added an editor’s note. While I disagree about your conclusion that the only purpose it serves is to be sensationalistic, I think the more important point at this moment in time is that through respectful dialogue adults can work through their issues.
For that, Dan Slott called me a “coward,” proving my point that he is currently incapable of respectful dialogue.
Instead of responding to the coward claim, I will again cite Reader #1, who prompted me to take down the picture:
Slott never should have used Hitler as a reference, period. Can a fictional story use hot political or religious topics without the author being blamed as the source? No. Authors have been targeted over the course of history for their words, fictional or not. I won’t give history lessons here, but Slott decided to use a non-fictional, politically monstrous, recent, religiously sensitive reference to further a Spider-Man (HYPHEN!!!) story, and (I’m possibly reaching here), since he is a Jew, decided it was OK for him to use it. Only him. Because he’s a Jew. And he’s sensitive to the plight of the Jews. And his family has personally suffered from the Holocaust, so it was OK. Anyone else using Hitler as a reference is a BAD man, and has taken his “one thought bubble” out of context. What Slott fails to see is the hypocrisy inherent in what he did. You cannot use Hitler as a fictional hot button safely, simply because you are a Jew, then fall back on Jewish outrage to bury it once someone else picked up and expanded upon it. The truly laughable part was the threat to sue. Oy vey. I didn’t like Doug’s use of the pic for reasons stated above, none of which were in any way sympathetic to Slott or his reactions.
The point is, this whole debate is actually a lot more complex and nuanced than someone of Dan Slott’s maturity level can handle. It’s easier to call me “evil” and “terrible” and “bad” over and over again. And then, when a guy like me points out — after nearly a year of verbal diarrhea hurled in his direction — that one of the reasons why I enlisted in the armed services was so guys like him would never have to fear being shoved in an oven or shot and killed, he has the nerve to say I have unfairly used my military service as a shield.
A friend of mine put just laughed and mentioned that Dan Slott is pretty good at hiding behind his Jewish heritage (a point that Reader #1 also seems to have noticed).
And with that, I give you one last piece of evidence to show you what an immature and confused man Dan Slott is at this point in his life:
The guy encourages me to use the Holocaust picture for “intellectual honesty,” and then when I tell him I will do just that he again loses it and lashes out at my character. Do you see how it works in Dan Slott’s world? If I use the picture at his request — essentially his dare to provide “intellectual honesty” — I’m a “terrible” person; if I don’t use the picture, I’m a “terrible and dishonest” person. Dan Slott wins every time.
If I put up a picture that offends Dan Slott, I’m a “terrible human” on par with (ironically) Hitler. If I take it down after a reader acts like an adult, I’m a “coward.” While East Ukrainian Jews are being told to register with pro-Russian forces, Dan Slott pats himself on the back at night because he’s identified and attacked the real threat to the Jewish community — me. For days. And weeks. And months.
What courage. What bravery. What sacrifice. Churchill would be proud.
The great thing about Dan Slott calling me a “coward” is that anyone who reads these blog posts will understand that he’s attacked me personally on YouTube, Comic Book Resources, Twitter, TwitLonger, Comic Vine, the Marvel Message Boards and probably a few other places that I don’t even know of for roughly one year — but he hasn’t come here. Maybe now he’ll show his face. Or not. He seems to like the sound his Twitter followers make when he blows the stroke-my-ego dog whistle.
If he does decide to show up, expect him to once again say that I implied that he was anti-Semitic, even though I quite clearly never did such a thing. (Or was that “flat-out” say he was an anti-Semite? I can’t remember because it changes hourly.) No Dan, you did not write a book with an anti-Semitic character — you just wrote one with a man who wanted to kill six billion people because he hated all of humanity. And then, you made him Spider-Man. For an entire year. Again, silly me.
As a practicing Catholic, I find this to be incredibly tasteless (understatement of the year award). Using the Dan Slott litmus test for “bad” and “terrible” people, Erik Larson fits the bill. It’s a good thing I don’t use Slottian methods for judging someone’s character. If I did, then I’d obsess over Mr. Larsen’s single tweet for the next year and abuse the caps-lock button as I proclaim: “I’m Catholic! I’m Catholic! I — a Catholic — am Catholic! I’m Cathooooooooolic! How dare you challenge the Universal Salvific Will of God! RAGE!”
If you enjoyed this post, just know that there will probably be more in the future, as Dan Slott’s obsession with me shows no signs of slowing down. The next time he complains about tight deadlines, take a moment to think about just how much time he wastes attacking his critics.
If you’ve made it this far I now invite you to enjoy Dan Slott’s favorite song: ‘You Spin Me Round’
Exit question: How long will it be before Dan Slott lies to his Twitter groupies and tells them that a.) I picked ‘You Spin Me Round (Like a Record Baby)’ for surreptitiously evil purposes, and b.) I seriously implied/said (pick one … or both) that he enjoys listening to Wagner, even though he’s not supposed to.
Bonus Number 2: Tomorrow Dan Slott tweets to his followers that Francis Ford Coppola may be an anti-Semite.
Continuing Marvel and Disney’s enviable winning streak, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is making history at the global box office, debuting to a record-breaking $96.2 million in North America for an early worldwide total of $303.3 million.
Reviewing ‘Captain America: The Winter Solider’ is tough to do without adding spoilers. How do you critique an espionage tale without giving away the best parts? I’ll give it a shot.
Long story short: Chris Evans (Captain America), Scarlett Johannson (Black Widow), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon) find themselves in a situation where it’s essentially them against the world as they try and unravel the mystery behind an attack on Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury. They handle the situation with wit, intelligence, strength, speed, and agility. The chemistry between each of them was great, and Marvel would be wise to continue keeping the three of them together moving forward.
At one point in the film, Cap manages to find a way to directly address agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. He wants them to disobey a direct order — one that may end up costing them their lives — and in doing so he tells the audience what the film is essentially about.
Attention all S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, this is Steve Rogers. You’ve heard a lot about me over the last few days. Some of you were even ordered to hunt me down. But I think it’s time you know the truth. S.H.I.E.L.D is not what we thought it was. … They almost have what they want: absolute control. … I know I’m asking a lot. The price of freedom is high. It always has been. That’s a price I’m willing to pay. And if I’m the only one, then so be it — but I’m willing to bet I’m not.
What is the price of freedom? If you’re a wise guy who enjoyed ‘Team America: World Police,’ you might say “freedom costs a buck-o-five.” If you’re a serious person, you might say that it’s a tough call because those in positions of power have to find a way to maximize both individual liberty and security.
How do you protect a nation when there are individuals and organizations tirelessly plotting ways to take down free societies? When you’re facing down enemies who see no difference between civilian and military targets — when you’re up against an opponent who has erased any notion of the traditional battlefield and replaced it with one where everything is fair game, how much power are you willing to grant your protectors? As Captain America says to S.H.I.E.L.D.’s agents: our leaders want “absolute control.” But then the question becomes: Who watches the watchmen? What happens when the ones who protect us lose their way?
Director Joe Russo fills in the details during an interview with Mother Jones:
“[Marvel] said they wanted to make a political thriller. […] So we said if you want to make a political thriller, all the great political thrillers have very current issues in them that reflect the anxiety of the audience. … That gives it an immediacy, it makes it relevant. So [Anthony] and I just looked at the issues that were causing anxiety for us, because we read a lot and are politically inclined. And a lot of that stuff had to do with civil liberties issues, drone strikes, the president’s kill list, preemptive technology. [etc.]”
While I’m actually rather shocked that a Hollywood director had the guts to say that concerns over President Obama’s “Terror Tuesday Kill List” helped inspire a top-notch Marvel movie, on some level it’s no surprise given that the industry’s old-reliable when it comes to political thrillers is to blame America.
The trailer for Captain America: Winter Soldier is finally here. The good news is that it looks like it has all the makings of solid espionage fare: Robert Redford? Check. Russian spies? Check. Shady spy agencies? Check.
The bad news? It has all the makings of a blame-America espionage flick. …
Mullah nuts in the Middle East who deny the Holocaust and call for pushing the Jews “into the sea”? Eh. Chinese Communist intelligence agencies who have never met a U.S. business or defense contractor they wouldn’t hack? Eh. Nebulous terrorist organizations that don’t fly under a flag, even as they plot and plan to kill military and civilian targets on a massive scale? Eh. CIA attempts to “connect the dots” and “neutralize” threats before thousands of Americans die on their way to work on a Tuesday morning? Now there’s a movie!
Is it annoying that Marvel went for the easy layup by once again putting America in the cross hairs? Yes, slightly. Was the movie entertaining? Of course. In fact, I highly recommend it. It’s just odd that critics of ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ would have a point if they said it would have been better off going with ‘Captain America: Disillusioned with America.’ The movie has an assassin with a big red Soviet star on his metallic arm but no one talks about Communism, except for a passing reference? If the next installment doesn’t get into KGB agents and the world-wide espionage perpetrated by the Evil Empire, then Marvel should just openly admit that its favorite movie bad guys are aliens and Americans.
At the end of the day, there isn’t much to really complain about regarding Cap’s second solo outing. If Marvel continues churning out quality products like this, then Phase II, III, IV and V should roll along quite nicely. If you get a chance to see ‘Winter Soldier’ in theaters, check it out. You’ll be glad you did.
Superior Spider-Man #30 is finally here, and with it comes the guy we’ve all been waiting for: Zombie Peter Parker. Fans are supposed to rejoice now that Dan Slott’s “memory fragment” of Peter Parker has assumed the role of Spider-Man after Doctor Octopus decided to call it a day — conveniently as everything was crumbling around him. With great power comes…ducking responsibility? Since the real Peter died in Amazing Spider-Man #700 and the downloaded Otto maybe-sorta-kinda just committed suicide, fans are left to wonder: Does Spider-Man have a soul or is he an empty husk whose able to say witty one-liners and think about Uncle Ben from time to time? I suppose it’s possible that the real Peter Parker was simply brainwashed the entire time, which would mean that Dan Slott made him do all those dastardly deeds over the course of SSM’s run, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
Regardless, for those who want to know how SSM #30 transpired, all you need to know is that Otto’s love interest, Anna Maria, is being held hostage and will die unless Spider-Man finds her. As all the evil Ock has done as Spider-Man has come back to haunt him, he realizes that only Peter Parker could save Anna, and thus he relinquishes the role of the hero back to Peter.
Fans of the book are supposed to sniffle just a wee bit as Otto disappears into a Dr. Manhattan-blue mind dust and gets wind-swept into the super unknown. This fails because people who aren’t suffering from anterograde amnesia remember that this is the same character who blew a guy’s face off at point blank range only months ago.
And it’s the guy who wanted to surpass “Pol Pot, Hitler and Genghis Khan” in terms of evil perpetrated upon the world — “combined!” just over a year ago.
So the question becomes: Was it worth it? If you’re like Dan Slott and you only think in terms of sales, then yes.
If you’re like the retailer who went online to criticize the book because some things (i.e., the integrity of a character) are more important to you than a buck, then no.
Justin Bieber sells a lot of tickets, but the world knows he’s no Jack White. Dan Slott sells a lot of comics (by 2014 standards), but the world knows that sales are but one metric by which success is measured. As the years go by, critics will come to regard the Superior Spider-Man more as a bizarre embarrassment in the character’s rich history than a run to be treasured and adored.
To make matters worse, there’s also collateral damage to consider. Take how dumb The Avengers have become during the course of Superior Spider-Man. Their stupidity reaches a crescendo in issue number #30 as Iron Man and Captain America freak out about an “illegal medical facility” that Spider-Man turned a blind eye to. Blowing off a guy’s face as he’s on his hands and knees in front of you? Eh. Taking a page out of President Obama’s NSA spying scandal playbook and putting an entire city under surveillance? Zzzz. Amassing a militia of thugs and arming them with an arsenal that would cause Libyan Islamic terrorists to giggle like schoolgirls (if they allowed girls to attend school)? Yawn.
Didn’t go through the proper bureaucratic red tape necessary to open a medical center? Gasp! Dan Slott’s and Christos Gage’s Captain America wants to “arrest” that man. The Department of Health and Human Services is going to hear about this one, buster.
Should the world be happy that Peter Parker is back? Sure. But the problem is that we don’t know if he’s back because, as far as Dan Slott is concerned, a “memory fragment” without a soul is just as good as the real thing.
And with that, I give you a preview of Jack White’s new album “Lazaretto.” Dan, since I know you’re reading this, I suggest listening to “High Ball Stepper” while imagining me doing the vocals two inches from your face. As long as you continue to write Spider-Man, I will continue to write high ball steppin’ reviews. Cheers.
The history of Dan Slott trolling the Internet in search of wrongs to right is well known. He scours comic websites, Twitter feeds, Facebook groups and YouTube accounts looking to play “Slott Bakula” in his own version of Quantum Leap — even as he whines about tight deadlines. The funny thing is, when it comes to douglasernstblog.com, he has always chosen to try and slime me from a distance. Doing so allows him to sling all sorts of ad hominem attacks, knowing that the vast majority of the people will not fact check him. Oddly enough, he now talks about me on YouTube.
Dan Slott’s Twitter buddies wrote about me on Newsarama, and when I started to make him look bad I was suddenly banned. When users defended me, the entire thread was locked. (The url to “The Inferior Online Debate” is now dead.) Dan Slott also took to Twitter to insult me and sic his followers on me. He couldn’t resist talking about me over at Comic Vine, and the moderator had to chide him for his behavior. He couldn’t resist douglasernstblog.com talk over at Comic Book Resources and turned to the moderator to shut down the thread when he couldn’t goad me into saying something worthy of a ban. He even resorted to making weirdly-veiled legal threats over at Comic Vine at one point. To top it all off, there are the Orwellian Marvel boards at his disposal, which I also fell victim to over the years.
Here’s how I found out Dan Slott decided to take his attacks on me to yet another social media platform: a reader pinged me to let me know that in Dan Slott’s world, when you disagree with him it means that you must have fallen victim to the Douglas Ernst Jedi Mind Trick.
Note: A college student who disagrees with my politics and much of what I say just so happened to agree with a good portion my analysis regarding Superior Spider-Man. The comic is so bad that it transcends ideologies. Dan Slott’s reaction? The guy must be an idiot who can’t think for himself.
Even though this student disagrees with much of what is said on this blog, because he’s roughly on the same page as me regarding Superior Spider-Man, Dan Slott labels him a mindless automaton spewing “talking points.” Insulting. Dan Slott is all about winning over hearts and minds over at Marvel.
As usual, when I came in to defend myself Dan Slott starting hurling bizarre attacks in an attempt to derail the discussion or possibly predispose certain readers to outright dismiss anything I said. While most people want to talk about Superior Spider-Man on a YouTube video about Superior Spider-Man, Dan Slott wants you focused on Trayvon Martin, Global Warming and a post I did Doctor Octopus’ desire to “transcend” the evils perpetrated upon the world by Hitler, Pol Pot and Ghenghis Khan “combined” (not to be confused with Bleeding Cool’s article, which described Superior Spider-Man’s “Nazi-like” torture practices).
I deny Global Warming, according to Dan Slott. (I thought it was “Climate Change” these days, Dan. Which is it?) Here’s what I actually said on the matter, so the world can see how intellectually dishonest you are, Mr. Slott:
There is no doubt that the climate “changes.” The question is: How big of a role does man play? Is it big enough to warrant the redistribution of wealth — to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars — from the private sector to a bureaucratic Leviathan? Answer: No. Is shaving a few degrees off computer models that even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now admits are flawed worth the price in individual liberty? Of course not.
And then there was Trayvon Martin:
Here’s what I actually said, to show how intellectually dishonest Dan Slott is:
I don’t know if Zimmerman is “guilty.” Guilty of what? Murder 2?
An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that: a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
I would say there is plenty of reasonable doubt. You? You apparently think that Zimmerman hunted this guy down in cold blood in “Rambo” fashion and deserves to go to prison. You also seem to have an endless list of excuses for a high school kid punching a man in the face. I can honestly say that if I was walking through a neighborhood late at night and an adult asked me what the heck I was doing I would not punch him in the face.
The guy who “just” came within inches of an extinction level event because he hated all of humanity is now housed in Peter Parker’s body. And fans “love” the story. It’s what brought them back to the book. Congrats Mr. Slott, those are the kinds of winners I want giving me high fives and pats on the back at comic conventions…
Poor Slott Bakula — he can never reunite with Al in the future because every time he tries to right wrongs…he’s the one who is wrong.
Is it possible to have too many explosions in a superhero movie? DC’s latest, ‘Justice League: War’ is 79 minutes long, and almost the entire run time is filled with things going “boom.” In theory that sounds great, but there are only so many hordes of Parademons a guy can watch get sliced in half, bashed and vaporized before one asks: “Is this all there is to it?”
For those who are unfamiliar with the tale, Batman, Cyborg, Flash, Green Lantern, Shazam, Superman and Wonder Woman find themselves together for the very first time, fighting the forces of Darkseid in a battle that will determine the fate of the earth (of course). The movie was adapted from the 2011 reboot by writer Geoff Johns and artist Jim Lee (although the animated movie replaces Aquaman with Shazam).
In short, ‘Justice League: War’ is great if you like endless strings of carnage and destruction, but less so if you expect at least a few scenes with emotional depth. Only Cyborg gets dealt a decent hand in the characterization department, and even that is rushed though as quickly as possible to get back to the front lines. While the final battle with Darkseid is impressive, the ease with which Superman, Wonder Woman and the rest dispose of Darkseid’s minions becomes tiresome after 30 minutes.
Perhaps the worst aspect of ‘Justice League: War’ is writing that directly undercuts the heroes’ complains that they’re irrationally feared by the general population. For instance, Wonder Woman acts somewhat incredulous that a group of angry protesters outside the White House are wary of super-powered beings, and then later in the movie she forces a street vendor to feed her and a child ice cream, free of charge, at sword point.
Could it be, Wonder Woman (i.e., writers at DC), that people “fear” you because of your “might makes right” mentality? Just wondering. It’s hard to root for a hero when her idea of “justice” is whatever she decides from moment to moment.
‘Justice League: War’ also is diminished by gratuitous use of foul language. What could have easily been an animated movie for adults and kids to enjoy was squandered by the random interjection of “shit,” “ass,” “whore” and a joke about cross-dressing that seemed to serve no other purpose than to push the rating to PG-13. Does anyone ever watch a DC movie packed with action and say, “I would have given it an ‘A’ but Green Lantern didn’t swear enough for my taste,”? Of course not. Watch some old episodes of ‘Batman: The Animated Series’ to see how top notch DC entertainment is done.
Speaking of Batman, ‘War’ actually does get an ‘A’ for its treatment of him this time around. True, I was disappointed that Kevin Conroy wasn’t voicing the Dark Knight, but Jason O’Mara did a decent job. DC nailed Batman’s interactions with Green Lantern — they were quite humorous — and there is a scene between Batman and Superman that captures the dynamic between the two of them almost flawlessly.
How many mortal men can hold up their hand to Supes like a traffic cop and get him to come to comply? Not many, but Batman is one of them. DC deserves kudos for writing the scene so it all transpires believably.
While ‘Justice League: War’ does tend to drag on at times due to the never-ending stream of Darkseid’s minions populating the earth, the final battle is rather satisfying. It truly takes the team to take down Darkseid, and each hero has their moment to shine. Nobody’s power is underutilized and nobody is treated as if they don’t belong. While all of them essentially know deep down that Superman is in a “league” of his own, they also treat each other as equals on the battlefield. In fact, it is a collection of inferiority complexes — not pride — that often threatens to derail victory. It is only when the warriors begin to feel comfortable in their own skin — and trust the hero next to them — that victory is sealed.
Check out ‘Justice League: War’ if you get a chance, but don’t go in expecting some of the weightier issues tackled by, say, ‘Batman: Under the Red Hood.’ If you do that, you probably won’t go away disappointed.
The thing with Hobby Lobby and other small religious businesses is that they took their grievance to court — and won. They followed the rule of law and the highest court in the land agreed with them. That is not an “asshole” move, but yet Dan Slott likens Christians to “conquistadors” and “assholes.” It’s incredibly mean, but also cartoonish; it’s reminiscent of 1992’s Office Space, where the character Peter Gibbons says “You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.”
Slow clap for Dan Slott. He’s the guy you want to find when you want tweets infused with anti-Christian bigotry, or Marvel comics that are consistently trying to see how low the bar can go.
Update II: Marvel’s Tom Brevoort has weighed in. No response to the question “If Chuck Dixon told Dan Slott to go to ‘Jew-land’ over a religious gripe, would he still get work?” Telling.
Someone else brought up similar sentiments about Marvel’s creators over at the New Brevoort Formspring. It turns out that Mr. Brevoort really does embrace the the strange business model “needlessly alienate potential customers” to grow the company.
Douglas Ernst Blog 