Marvel's Political Agenda

Discuss Spidey's comics, or any other comics that you like.

Moderators: PartyHardy, BD, stillanerd, Spideydude

Post Reply
Chase the Blues Away
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:13 pm

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Chase the Blues Away » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:48 am

Timmyb52 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:41 am
Of course Marvel has always been liberal...but it hasn't always made it their primary concern to push liberal philsophies down their readers throats. Marvel has always been diverse...but with modern day Marvel they are just too heavy handed about it.
Are comics a political soapbox? Is the intent of a comic company to push political messaging rather than characters and stories which will appeal to as many people as possible...despite their political leanings?
A company whose purpose is to generate maximum profit should not be so concerned with political messaging that may offend customers and potential future customers. Once a company has decided that putting political propaganda and messaging is more important than entertainment and profit generation they are only appealing to a consumer base that shares their own political views rather then the entertainment they produce...they effectively cut themselves off from maximum profit generation.
Marvel is a comic book company whose sole purpose should be the focus on generating interesting characters and good stories...not politics! This is not to say that comics cannot discuss political issues but it should present a fair and balanced presentation so that consumers of their product who may not agree with their heavy-handed political messaging aren't offended and stop buying their books.
Their purpose is to produce a product that everyone will want...not just a product liberals and far-leftists would want.
Marvel choosing to be a political party rather than a comic company are practicing in self-sabotage that will only lead to the loss of further profits and readership.
How many left leaning readers would drop Marvel if they started hitting them over the head with Right leaning and far-Right leaning messaging over and over again, month after month?
The only people who don't see anything wrong with Marvels Far-Left and Left leaning heavy and biased political messaging are those who share those same political beliefs.
It's OK for Marvel to be liberal...but its not OK that I should have to be bombarded by their liberal political messaging! And if Marvel has decided to be a company that wishes to be a political party rather than a comic book company then they also must be prepared to lose a lot of money...not just in the short-term but in the long term.
This is not about diversity at all,or representing minorities...it is about the left leaning political messaging itself that they put in the mouths of these characters that is biased and unbalanced...and it turns off people who don't like being overly preached too with wanna-be political correctness!
If Marvel wishes to continue with this foolishness...then more power to them! But don't think that Marvel will be able to stay # 1 when it has chosen to pander to a subset of their readership and fanbase while neglecting and ignoring a much larger fanbase they could have and retain by maintaining a balanced political landscape in their characters and books.
The majority of comic readers could care less about politics...they just want to be entertained with good stories and characters and don't want to have those characters preaching a biased political message.
You can have all the minorities represented...but do they all have to spout far left and left leaning political correctness? Why can't they just speak like normal people do in every day life? Why do all these characters have to constantly remind us of how special they are just because of their skin color or sexual orientation? We get it...and you know what? We don't care because we judge a person based on their character and not what skin color they are or what kind of sexual intercourse they prefer!
Moving the goalposts to make these concerns that many fans have against Marvel's current political messaging all about being against the characters skin color or sexual gender is disingenious and cheap. It seeks to demonize a person's character rather then to address the questions raised...in essence the person or persons who use such tactics can not defend their position and must resort to name calling in order to maintain and defend their unsound opinions and beliefs.
Again, Marvel doesn't have to do anything except earn a profit. That's their only purpose. They are under no mandate whatsoever to be "fair and balanced." Again, they are not the government or a court of law. They're a publicly traded, for profit entertainment company as a division of Disney. They have to answer only to Bob Iger, the Disney board of directors, and the Disney shareholders.

You say Marvel won't stay #1 - great. Let them reap the consequences. But I'll point out DC espouses similar values in terms of diversity and equality and it's doing just fine. I'm also fairly certain the Disney company as a whole has access to millions of dollars' worth of market research and they know their target consumer quite well.

If Marvel published something abhorrent to me, then I would stop buying it. In fact, I did exactly that with One More Day. I stopped buying Marvel Comics cold turkey, and I used to have a $75/week habit. Now I only buy a select few titles I wish to support. Renew Your Vows is the only Spider title I purchase.

So if you are truly offended: don't give them your money.

It sucks when you feel like you can no longer enjoy something you used to enjoy, but luckily we live in an era when there are more entertainment options now more than ever. There's fan fiction if you need stories about your favorite characters. You could even try writing your own fan fiction. There are back issues. There are films and TV shows. There are other comic book companies. There are books. The Spider-Man novels from the last decade or so are decent and in some cases, like the trilogy written by Adam-Troy Casto, quite excellent. You can find them used on Amazon.
Big Al wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:42 pm

I feel in modern Marvel to a certain extent social/political issues have in certain instances comprmised storytelling quality. Case in point I think Marvel treats Riri Williams mere existence as justification for her to replace Iron Man and be regarded as a good character when there are numerous creative problems with her, mostly stemming from her age. On the flipside you have Miles who I really do feel is aggressively overrrated partially (but far from entirely) due to the representation he provides in spite of his massive creative problems as a character. And the irony for me being that I think he'd actually be a much BETTER character if they actually went further with the examination of his ethnicity as part of his identity.

I've wanted to see a scene where Miles webs up a mugger in alleyway and then questions the act because between him being a POC and his dad working within the legal system he knows all too well that the guy is going to experience multiple miscarriages of justice.

Or, being of immigrant descent myself, seeing a FAR more substantial exploration of his Puerto Rican heritage. Speaking for myself, though I don't feel I truely suffer due to it, I do feel like I live in a weird in between space between being English and being Cypriot because of where I live vs where my family (and thereby certain traditions I have been raised with) originate. Case in point, never have I met an English person who's relationship with their grandparents mirrors my own or my Greek friends because of how gransparents are regarded differently between our cultures.

So emphasising that with Miles (and in BETTER ways than his angry stereotype of a Grandmother) would've raised his esteem in my books

But you know when it comes to liberal POVs, whilst there is a lot I disagree with (I've come to view myself as centre left or moderate I guess), I think Marvel's biggest problem is more about presentation than anything.


The fact is that I think Marvel have over the past 10 years had a MASSIVE elitism problem. From Quesada to Slott to Brevoort, to Wacker and many others, I think a shitton of people within Marvel feel they are somehow 'better' than the fans and to an extent that bleeds into their politics meaning they feel a lot of the times morally superior too.

And consequently when they present certain liberal politics, especially stuff linked to identity politics, they come off as IMMENSLY obnoxious.

And it's that that pisses people off more than anything..
Here's the real problem with Marvel, as I see it, and you've also hit on it:

It's not the characters, or even the intent of the characters:

It's the creators.

When you have white middle aged upper middle class men writing a black/Hispanic teenager from a working class home: it's not going to be authentic. It's going to be heavy-handed, and it's going to err on the side of making the character of color into either a faultless saint or mouthpiece. And that's the opposite of characterization.

This is why Ms. Marvel is beloved by its readers, because G. Willow Wilson is telling a story near and dear to her, even if Wilson isn't of Pakistani descent. But she's knows what it is like to grow up female, and she's a member of the Muslim community.

This isn't to say people can't write characters of different backgrounds and ethnicities to themselves, but it takes research, sensitivity, a willingness to accept criticism and admit when you got it wrong. And that doesn't happen at Marvel.

So Timmy does have a point about the heavy-handedness, but I view it as a creative failure more than anything else.
Or that moment in Mockingbird by Chelsea Cain where she literally says "All men should come with remotes" (which I'm sorry...wouldn't be funny if the statement was reversed to be about women).
I'm calling foul on this. First, she and Lance were undercover in a bondage club, and she was playacting to maintain her cover. Second, really, with everything that's coming out in the news, it's women controlling men that's the problem? RLLY?
Or Titania being aggressively out of character in that issue of Jane Foster Thor's comic where (after Jane had beaten up her HUSBAND) she expressed solidarity with Jane over her being a woman stepping into a male hero's role and surrendered. a) Titania LOVES mayhem and fighting and always has so her surrendering really doesn't ring true at all b) Titania legitimately loves her husband Absorbing Man so her being that nice to Jane after she'd seen the man she loved who'd helped her through some serious shit in her life (like her phobia of Spider-Man) is also incredibly unlikely c) Titania's arch-foe is SHE-HULK! And she LOATHES her. Don't remember much female solidarity between those two. So no...Titantia would 100% never act that way in that situation. But because it was making the point Aaron waned to make he ignored her established characterization.
This I agree, because it's OOC, and it's what men think women talk like. They don't. This is why Marvel needs more female writers and staffers, so they can learn what women talk like. But I digress.

User avatar
Big Al
Captain Universe
Captain Universe
Posts: 4604
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:49 pm
Location: My Cat's name is Felicia

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Big Al » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:58 am

Chase the Blues Away wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:48 am
Timmyb52 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:41 am
Of course Marvel has always been liberal...but it hasn't always made it their primary concern to push liberal philsophies down their readers throats. Marvel has always been diverse...but with modern day Marvel they are just too heavy handed about it.
Are comics a political soapbox? Is the intent of a comic company to push political messaging rather than characters and stories which will appeal to as many people as possible...despite their political leanings?
A company whose purpose is to generate maximum profit should not be so concerned with political messaging that may offend customers and potential future customers. Once a company has decided that putting political propaganda and messaging is more important than entertainment and profit generation they are only appealing to a consumer base that shares their own political views rather then the entertainment they produce...they effectively cut themselves off from maximum profit generation.
Marvel is a comic book company whose sole purpose should be the focus on generating interesting characters and good stories...not politics! This is not to say that comics cannot discuss political issues but it should present a fair and balanced presentation so that consumers of their product who may not agree with their heavy-handed political messaging aren't offended and stop buying their books.
Their purpose is to produce a product that everyone will want...not just a product liberals and far-leftists would want.
Marvel choosing to be a political party rather than a comic company are practicing in self-sabotage that will only lead to the loss of further profits and readership.
How many left leaning readers would drop Marvel if they started hitting them over the head with Right leaning and far-Right leaning messaging over and over again, month after month?
The only people who don't see anything wrong with Marvels Far-Left and Left leaning heavy and biased political messaging are those who share those same political beliefs.
It's OK for Marvel to be liberal...but its not OK that I should have to be bombarded by their liberal political messaging! And if Marvel has decided to be a company that wishes to be a political party rather than a comic book company then they also must be prepared to lose a lot of money...not just in the short-term but in the long term.
This is not about diversity at all,or representing minorities...it is about the left leaning political messaging itself that they put in the mouths of these characters that is biased and unbalanced...and it turns off people who don't like being overly preached too with wanna-be political correctness!
If Marvel wishes to continue with this foolishness...then more power to them! But don't think that Marvel will be able to stay # 1 when it has chosen to pander to a subset of their readership and fanbase while neglecting and ignoring a much larger fanbase they could have and retain by maintaining a balanced political landscape in their characters and books.
The majority of comic readers could care less about politics...they just want to be entertained with good stories and characters and don't want to have those characters preaching a biased political message.
You can have all the minorities represented...but do they all have to spout far left and left leaning political correctness? Why can't they just speak like normal people do in every day life? Why do all these characters have to constantly remind us of how special they are just because of their skin color or sexual orientation? We get it...and you know what? We don't care because we judge a person based on their character and not what skin color they are or what kind of sexual intercourse they prefer!
Moving the goalposts to make these concerns that many fans have against Marvel's current political messaging all about being against the characters skin color or sexual gender is disingenious and cheap. It seeks to demonize a person's character rather then to address the questions raised...in essence the person or persons who use such tactics can not defend their position and must resort to name calling in order to maintain and defend their unsound opinions and beliefs.
Again, Marvel doesn't have to do anything except earn a profit. That's their only purpose. They are under no mandate whatsoever to be "fair and balanced." Again, they are not the government or a court of law. They're a publicly traded, for profit entertainment company as a division of Disney. They have to answer only to Bob Iger, the Disney board of directors, and the Disney shareholders.

You say Marvel won't stay #1 - great. Let them reap the consequences. But I'll point out DC espouses similar values in terms of diversity and equality and it's doing just fine. I'm also fairly certain the Disney company as a whole has access to millions of dollars' worth of market research and they know their target consumer quite well.

If Marvel published something abhorrent to me, then I would stop buying it. In fact, I did exactly that with One More Day. I stopped buying Marvel Comics cold turkey, and I used to have a $75/week habit. Now I only buy a select few titles I wish to support. Renew Your Vows is the only Spider title I purchase.

So if you are truly offended: don't give them your money.

It sucks when you feel like you can no longer enjoy something you used to enjoy, but luckily we live in an era when there are more entertainment options now more than ever. There's fan fiction if you need stories about your favorite characters. You could even try writing your own fan fiction. There are back issues. There are films and TV shows. There are other comic book companies. There are books. The Spider-Man novels from the last decade or so are decent and in some cases, like the trilogy written by Adam-Troy Casto, quite excellent. You can find them used on Amazon.
Big Al wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:42 pm

I feel in modern Marvel to a certain extent social/political issues have in certain instances comprmised storytelling quality. Case in point I think Marvel treats Riri Williams mere existence as justification for her to replace Iron Man and be regarded as a good character when there are numerous creative problems with her, mostly stemming from her age. On the flipside you have Miles who I really do feel is aggressively overrrated partially (but far from entirely) due to the representation he provides in spite of his massive creative problems as a character. And the irony for me being that I think he'd actually be a much BETTER character if they actually went further with the examination of his ethnicity as part of his identity.

I've wanted to see a scene where Miles webs up a mugger in alleyway and then questions the act because between him being a POC and his dad working within the legal system he knows all too well that the guy is going to experience multiple miscarriages of justice.

Or, being of immigrant descent myself, seeing a FAR more substantial exploration of his Puerto Rican heritage. Speaking for myself, though I don't feel I truely suffer due to it, I do feel like I live in a weird in between space between being English and being Cypriot because of where I live vs where my family (and thereby certain traditions I have been raised with) originate. Case in point, never have I met an English person who's relationship with their grandparents mirrors my own or my Greek friends because of how gransparents are regarded differently between our cultures.

So emphasising that with Miles (and in BETTER ways than his angry stereotype of a Grandmother) would've raised his esteem in my books

But you know when it comes to liberal POVs, whilst there is a lot I disagree with (I've come to view myself as centre left or moderate I guess), I think Marvel's biggest problem is more about presentation than anything.


The fact is that I think Marvel have over the past 10 years had a MASSIVE elitism problem. From Quesada to Slott to Brevoort, to Wacker and many others, I think a shitton of people within Marvel feel they are somehow 'better' than the fans and to an extent that bleeds into their politics meaning they feel a lot of the times morally superior too.

And consequently when they present certain liberal politics, especially stuff linked to identity politics, they come off as IMMENSLY obnoxious.

And it's that that pisses people off more than anything..
Here's the real problem with Marvel, as I see it, and you've also hit on it:

It's not the characters, or even the intent of the characters:

It's the creators.

When you have white middle aged upper middle class men writing a black/Hispanic teenager from a working class home: it's not going to be authentic. It's going to be heavy-handed, and it's going to err on the side of making the character of color into either a faultless saint or mouthpiece. And that's the opposite of characterization.

This is why Ms. Marvel is beloved by its readers, because G. Willow Wilson is telling a story near and dear to her, even if Wilson isn't of Pakistani descent. But she's knows what it is like to grow up female, and she's a member of the Muslim community.

This isn't to say people can't write characters of different backgrounds and ethnicities to themselves, but it takes research, sensitivity, a willingness to accept criticism and admit when you got it wrong. And that doesn't happen at Marvel.

So Timmy does have a point about the heavy-handedness, but I view it as a creative failure more than anything else.
Or that moment in Mockingbird by Chelsea Cain where she literally says "All men should come with remotes" (which I'm sorry...wouldn't be funny if the statement was reversed to be about women).
I'm calling foul on this. First, she and Lance were undercover in a bondage club, and she was playacting to maintain her cover. Second, really, with everything that's coming out in the news, it's women controlling men that's the problem? RLLY?
Or Titania being aggressively out of character in that issue of Jane Foster Thor's comic where (after Jane had beaten up her HUSBAND) she expressed solidarity with Jane over her being a woman stepping into a male hero's role and surrendered. a) Titania LOVES mayhem and fighting and always has so her surrendering really doesn't ring true at all b) Titania legitimately loves her husband Absorbing Man so her being that nice to Jane after she'd seen the man she loved who'd helped her through some serious shit in her life (like her phobia of Spider-Man) is also incredibly unlikely c) Titania's arch-foe is SHE-HULK! And she LOATHES her. Don't remember much female solidarity between those two. So no...Titantia would 100% never act that way in that situation. But because it was making the point Aaron waned to make he ignored her established characterization.
This I agree, because it's OOC, and it's what men think women talk like. They don't. This is why Marvel needs more female writers and staffers, so they can learn what women talk like. But I digress.
I think there can be a multi-pronged approach to writing characters at times.


There was some discussion on Hooded Utiltarian some years back about writing black characters inauthentically in so far as they are portrayed the way white characters would act but with little mind paid to the nuances of the black experience and how that factors into their behaviours.


It essentially was saying that whilst they weren’t necessarily acting in unbelievable ways if done realistically there would have been more to them.

I guess it was summed up as the distinction between writing a character who happened to be black vs writing a character for whom being black was intrinsic.


Or if you like the difference between writing say 1980s Monica Ranbau vs Luke Cage of Black Panther or Static.


I feel if a writer honestly doesn’t know how to do that, then sure, write them relatively generically as opposed to doing what 1970s Luke Cage did and write them as how white people believed black people would act. The latter imo is far worse than the former.


On the Mockingbird point, fair point. I hadn’t considered that part of her cover.

As to it being women controlling men that wasn’t my assertion and I apologize if it came off that way.


My point was not really about one group controlling another but more the line throwing a jibe and shade at one group. If its in context of her cover, then fine. But if it wasn’t meant that way then no I don’t like that at all. Not because of it discussing issues of control. Of course the real life situation is the other way around and should be ended.

I just don’t like the line because it throws shade at men in much the same way lines like ‘women should come with off switches’ does. I believe we just generally shouldn’t throw in lines like that period.
Delta House Member Gimli

https://40.media.tumblr.com/2e65cb18213b8d4bf704dca08169e49c/tumblr_nz9jrqvyRA1she6m6o1_400.jpg

"The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the water spout. Down came the Goblin and took the spider out. "

Joey Z was F.A.C.A.D.E.

THIS: http://hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger.tumblr.com/post/77268781356/the-debate-norman-osborn-vs-otto-octavius-who-is-the

My secret identity is: Ubertestosterone90sArnieAvenger....-Man

Chase the Blues Away
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:13 pm

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Chase the Blues Away » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:58 am

Big Al wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:58 am

I think there can be a multi-pronged approach to writing characters at times.


There was some discussion on Hooded Utiltarian some years back about writing black characters inauthentically in so far as they are portrayed the way white characters would act but with little mind paid to the nuances of the black experience and how that factors into their behaviours.


It essentially was saying that whilst they weren’t necessarily acting in unbelievable ways if done realistically there would have been more to them.

I guess it was summed up as the distinction between writing a character who happened to be black vs writing a character for whom being black was intrinsic.


Or if you like the difference between writing say 1980s Monica Ranbau vs Luke Cage of Black Panther or Static.


I feel if a writer honestly doesn’t know how to do that, then sure, write them relatively generically as opposed to doing what 1970s Luke Cage did and write them as how white people believed black people would act. The latter imo is far worse than the former.
Or maybe don't write them, period, and let a writer who is either of that community or who is willing to do the work necessary to write an authentic character write the character.

There is also the issue of who judges what is "ethnic" enough. There's a story flying around Twitter about a Korean-American author whose white editor rejected his book because "the characters weren't Korean enough." The writer shared the editor's notes. The editor wanted the characters to stare in the mirror and remark on the shape of their eyes, eat kimchi with every meal, only listen to K-pop. That's just as appalling as refusing to publish any works by Korean-American writers.

It's not enough for characters to be diverse, but the people telling and approving the stories need to be diverse as well. Or we're left with Marvel's heavy-handed, not at all realistic and yes, off-putting editorializing.

On the Mockingbird point, fair point. I hadn’t considered that part of her cover.

As to it being women controlling men that wasn’t my assertion and I apologize if it came off that way.


My point was not really about one group controlling another but more the line throwing a jibe and shade at one group. If its in context of her cover, then fine. But if it wasn’t meant that way then no I don’t like that at all. Not because of it discussing issues of control. Of course the real life situation is the other way around and should be ended.

I just don’t like the line because it throws shade at men in much the same way lines like ‘women should come with off switches’ does. I believe we just generally shouldn’t throw in lines like that period.
They are undercover in a bondage club. Lance, who is Bobbi's annoying but endearing ex if rather "Me Tarzan, You Jane" in his approach to working with her, is strung up on stage, pretending to be a submissive as his cover. He's wearing a collar controlled by the remote. Bobbi is pretending to be a dominatrix as her cover. She is given the remote so she can use Lance to put on a show for the rest of the club.

Context matters.

The Mockingbird series was very tongue-in-check and, honest, cleverly written. It's told from the point of view of a character whose body is slowly turning against her (in the beginning, she's having an adverse reaction to the Secret Soldier Serum she was injected with), who is under a great deal of stress because her ex-husband, with whom she is still in love, is on trial for murdering Bruce Banner. Then she's forced into working with her overprotective ex Lance. She's not a stand-in for all women, she's very much her own character, and the themes of control, autonomy and agency are prevalent throughout the series. It's too bad a certain subset of comic fans decided to take panels out of context and got their boxers in a bunch on social media, but that's comics fandom and the internet for ya.

User avatar
Spider-Padre
Avenger
Avenger
Posts: 1918
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Spider-Padre » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:25 pm

Chase the Blues Away wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:13 pm
Spider-Padre wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:00 pm

Don't believe Marvel's liberalism is some new thing.
It's not. Written 49 years ago:
Image
I don't even find that soapbox terribly liberal. I'm a traditional Protestant, and I can affirm pretty much everything in it. Stan's liberalism was more of a patriotic, WW 2-era-veteran flavor. Kind of like how old-time trade unionists were also very anti-Communist.

User avatar
Big Al
Captain Universe
Captain Universe
Posts: 4604
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:49 pm
Location: My Cat's name is Felicia

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Big Al » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:29 pm

Chase the Blues Away wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:58 am
Big Al wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:58 am

I think there can be a multi-pronged approach to writing characters at times.


There was some discussion on Hooded Utiltarian some years back about writing black characters inauthentically in so far as they are portrayed the way white characters would act but with little mind paid to the nuances of the black experience and how that factors into their behaviours.


It essentially was saying that whilst they weren’t necessarily acting in unbelievable ways if done realistically there would have been more to them.

I guess it was summed up as the distinction between writing a character who happened to be black vs writing a character for whom being black was intrinsic.


Or if you like the difference between writing say 1980s Monica Ranbau vs Luke Cage of Black Panther or Static.


I feel if a writer honestly doesn’t know how to do that, then sure, write them relatively generically as opposed to doing what 1970s Luke Cage did and write them as how white people believed black people would act. The latter imo is far worse than the former.
Or maybe don't write them, period, and let a writer who is either of that community or who is willing to do the work necessary to write an authentic character write the character.

There is also the issue of who judges what is "ethnic" enough. There's a story flying around Twitter about a Korean-American author whose white editor rejected his book because "the characters weren't Korean enough." The writer shared the editor's notes. The editor wanted the characters to stare in the mirror and remark on the shape of their eyes, eat kimchi with every meal, only listen to K-pop. That's just as appalling as refusing to publish any works by Korean-American writers.

It's not enough for characters to be diverse, but the people telling and approving the stories need to be diverse as well. Or we're left with Marvel's heavy-handed, not at all realistic and yes, off-putting editorializing.

On the Mockingbird point, fair point. I hadn’t considered that part of her cover.

As to it being women controlling men that wasn’t my assertion and I apologize if it came off that way.


My point was not really about one group controlling another but more the line throwing a jibe and shade at one group. If its in context of her cover, then fine. But if it wasn’t meant that way then no I don’t like that at all. Not because of it discussing issues of control. Of course the real life situation is the other way around and should be ended.

I just don’t like the line because it throws shade at men in much the same way lines like ‘women should come with off switches’ does. I believe we just generally shouldn’t throw in lines like that period.
They are undercover in a bondage club. Lance, who is Bobbi's annoying but endearing ex if rather "Me Tarzan, You Jane" in his approach to working with her, is strung up on stage, pretending to be a submissive as his cover. He's wearing a collar controlled by the remote. Bobbi is pretending to be a dominatrix as her cover. She is given the remote so she can use Lance to put on a show for the rest of the club.

Context matters.

The Mockingbird series was very tongue-in-check and, honest, cleverly written. It's told from the point of view of a character whose body is slowly turning against her (in the beginning, she's having an adverse reaction to the Secret Soldier Serum she was injected with), who is under a great deal of stress because her ex-husband, with whom she is still in love, is on trial for murdering Bruce Banner. Then she's forced into working with her overprotective ex Lance. She's not a stand-in for all women, she's very much her own character, and the themes of control, autonomy and agency are prevalent throughout the series. It's too bad a certain subset of comic fans decided to take panels out of context and got their boxers in a bunch on social media, but that's comics fandom and the internet for ya.
I accidentally cut part of my original point.

I was going to say that due to the demographics and low pay within the industry as it stands if a writer like Wilson walks off the title finding another female Muslin writer with the right talent to handle Kamala in time could prove difficult so finding SOMEONE to plug the hole and keep the character around (hiatuses are very damaging, especially to characters like Kamala, because they offer jumping off points) is likely something Marvel would try to prioritize. In a sense having SOMEONE write Kamala is a lesser evil than putting her on hiatus whilst you look for the right person to write her. Maybe you could get away with that on Spider-Man, or even Fantastic Four, but Kamala and Miles and other characters are way more vulnerable to disappearing outright.


So if SOMEONE has to fill the gap just to keep them around and has to be generic because they honestly don’t know enough about how to write them properly, so be it. Better than letting them disappear whilst you scramble to find someone who could get them. I mean how much work did Bendis have to put into making Luke Cage a THING after he’d been more or less absent for ages and ages? A shitton.

My solution would be to do that whilst LOOKING for a more suitable replacement and looking way harder than they have been in the past. Marvel have been stupidly inaccessible to new talent for a very long time or else just recuruiting big name writers for the clout alone. Sometimes that’s worked out sometimes it hasn’t. Personally i think they need to get back to what happened during DeZago’s day or Fiona Avery’s day and have an in house training program.

OR...maybe they should consider co-writers. Find people who maybe aren’t the best at comic book or superhero writing but can speak to the realities of, sticking with this example, being a female Muslim , and pairing them up with someone who couldn’t speak to that but does know the mechanics and tropes of superhero comic book writing. The collaboration could then cover all the bases. It’s a little bit like what happened with Coates where Stelfreeze was mentoring him in a new form of writing he didn’t know how to do.


I know context matters, but on first reading I read her saying the line in sincerity rather than just saying it to play into her cover story. Also whilst I’m looking at it a bit differently now, I didn’t completely grasp that the Mockingbird book wasn’t intended to be taken completely seriously or at face value until the last book where Bobbi got saved at sea so my opinions of parts of it were formed (and not re-evaluated, though I stand by other opinions I held and still hold about it, e.g. the retcon in issue #8 and the opening of issue #3) when I was taking it more at face value.


I think a lot of people judged it without the lens of it being somewhat comedic.


I also didn’t consider the theme of control. In modern comics themes a lot of times escape me due to the multi-part nature of the books across months, though Mockingbird was better at that than most books.
Delta House Member Gimli

https://40.media.tumblr.com/2e65cb18213b8d4bf704dca08169e49c/tumblr_nz9jrqvyRA1she6m6o1_400.jpg

"The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the water spout. Down came the Goblin and took the spider out. "

Joey Z was F.A.C.A.D.E.

THIS: http://hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger.tumblr.com/post/77268781356/the-debate-norman-osborn-vs-otto-octavius-who-is-the

My secret identity is: Ubertestosterone90sArnieAvenger....-Man

User avatar
Spider-Padre
Avenger
Avenger
Posts: 1918
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Spider-Padre » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:51 pm

I gather 4Chan pol-board types aren't known for their incisive sense of tongue-in-cheek humor.

User avatar
Timmyb52
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:27 pm
Location: Battle Creek,Michigan

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Timmyb52 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:35 am

Spider-Padre wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:25 pm
Chase the Blues Away wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:13 pm
Spider-Padre wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:00 pm

Don't believe Marvel's liberalism is some new thing.
It's not. Written 49 years ago:
Image
I don't even find that soapbox terribly liberal. I'm a traditional Protestant, and I can affirm pretty much everything in it. Stan's liberalism was more of a patriotic, WW 2-era-veteran flavor. Kind of like how old-time trade unionists were also very anti-Communist.

Agreed...Stan was a classic progressive liberal IMO...this new liberalism we have today is not "classic" it is a mix of liberalism blended with Marxist Socialism. Young liberals today seem to think that this new liberalism is the same as classic liberalism and are being fooled to accept it.
I was born and raised a classic progressive liberal...a child of the 70's raised by parents who were progressive liberal hippies and what Obama and Hillary and a lot of the DNC now spout and propagate is not classic liberalism by any stretch of the imagination IMO.
This negative Neo-Liberal influence led to me changing my voting status to Independent since the Party that used to represent my values and the middle-class decided to leave it all behind.
The Party became pseudo-liberalism,or Neo-Liberalism which seeks to transform and control the masses through political correctness and hive mind group think while hiding behind the cause of equality and diversity while at the same time rejecting criticism and diversity of thought...it lacks the subtlety of a sledge hammer.
As I have mentioned before...Marvel has always been liberal...but they have not always been Neo-liberal.Even in the past they new how to present their liberalism in a way that was not so heavy handed or preachy...they knew how to also not make it the companies main focus and drive in creating good entertainment because they new that they were a business and not a political party.
I want to buy more Marvel...I was raised on Marvel...but Marvel makes it so hard nowadays to simply buy and enjoy their books due to their bad story telling and political messaging...along with their criticism of the fans who simply want to see Marvel succeed.
It is my hope that with the new EIC coming in we will get a new Marvel renaissance that will spread and benefit the comic industry as a whole.I want to see millions of people in the US picking up and reading comics...not just a paltry 100,000-150,000.
Here's hoping for a better year with 2018!

User avatar
Timmyb52
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:27 pm
Location: Battle Creek,Michigan

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Timmyb52 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:09 am

Chase the Blues Away wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:48 am


Again, Marvel doesn't have to do anything except earn a profit. That's their only purpose. They are under no mandate whatsoever to be "fair and balanced." Again, they are not the government or a court of law. They're a publicly traded, for profit entertainment company as a division of Disney. They have to answer only to Bob Iger, the Disney board of directors, and the Disney shareholders.

You say Marvel won't stay #1 - great. Let them reap the consequences. But I'll point out DC espouses similar values in terms of diversity and equality and it's doing just fine. I'm also fairly certain the Disney company as a whole has access to millions of dollars' worth of market research and they know their target consumer quite well.

If Marvel published something abhorrent to me, then I would stop buying it. In fact, I did exactly that with One More Day. I stopped buying Marvel Comics cold turkey, and I used to have a $75/week habit. Now I only buy a select few titles I wish to support. Renew Your Vows is the only Spider title I purchase.

So if you are truly offended: don't give them your money.

It sucks when you feel like you can no longer enjoy something you used to enjoy, but luckily we live in an era when there are more entertainment options now more than ever. There's fan fiction if you need stories about your favorite characters. You could even try writing your own fan fiction. There are back issues. There are films and TV shows. There are other comic book companies. There are books. The Spider-Man novels from the last decade or so are decent and in some cases, like the trilogy written by Adam-Troy Casto, quite excellent. You can find them used on Amazon
DC may hold those values for sure...but unlike Marvel they do not insist on hitting their readership over the head with it every month and in every book. DC is not practicing the heavy handedness method that Marvel relies on...and this is because DC has realized they are a business that must relate to all potential customers not just liberal customers.
The main purpose of any business is to gain more consumers...not political sympathizers!
As I have said previously...Marvel can choose to do whatever it wants...but as for me {and others like me who share the same feelings}, we won't buy their books.
In fact I only buy two books from Marvel...Scarlet Spider and Venom and this is due to the attention being on the characters and the story and not far-left political messaging. Marvel gets very few of my hard earned dollars...far less then I used to give.
Marvel is getting fewer and fewer dollars because fewer and fewer of their books are attractive...either way, Marvel is hurting and will continue to feel the hurt until they fix the problems affecting their publishing division.
But must I, being a huge Marvel fan... just shrug my shoulders and accept Marvels current bad practices just because there are alternatives to their comics? On it's surface it appears to me as if you want the current heavy political messaging just to be accepted and ignored and that anyone who has a problem with it should just go and read a novel or fan fiction! In essence are you telling me that if I have a problem with the far-left messaging I should just give up on comics? Is that to make me feel better or you?
Marvel comics are not just for liberals, not just for Republicans,not just for Independents...they are supposed to be for all of us no matter our personal political beliefs or leanings!
I love Marvel and personally I refuse to watch a company I care about make bad decisions by putting its politics over its characters,stories and fans. My hope is that by speaking out about it we can create change...but just shrugging my shoulders and ignoring it to make a few liberal fans happy is not the answer IMHO.
Again..it isn't about making you happy,or me happy...it is about making the whole industry and fans happy despite our personal politics and that is done by creating great stories and characters...not political commentary IMO.
It seems with the choice to bring in a new EIC they have now realized that.

User avatar
Spider-Padre
Avenger
Avenger
Posts: 1918
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Spider-Padre » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:44 am

A quote I read from Cebulski yesterday indicates he'd like to tone down the politics.

User avatar
RDMacQ
Captain Universe
Captain Universe
Posts: 4510
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by RDMacQ » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:15 am

Spider-Padre wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:44 am
A quote I read from Cebulski yesterday indicates he'd like to tone down the politics.
I think that probably might be for the best.

I'm a pretty liberal guy myself (And I know saying that often comes right in front of someone saying pretty un-liberal things, but just bear with me) but I do think that Marvel went a bit overboard with their current approach. I think it's an attitude that a lot of liberals- myself included- had over the past year. This notion that we were just right and everyone else is wrong. I'd hate to say "Arrogance," but, yes, even liberals can be arrogant. Much like how those who identify as conservatives can be arrogant.

To use this as an example, part of the reasons I feel the Republicans lost the 2008 and 2012 elections was that they favored the Rust Belt over the Sun Belt, assuming that their victory was assured and ignored all those that spoke out against their positions and diminishing and demeaning those that disagreed. But the reason that the Democrates lost the 2016 election was that they favored the Sun Belt over the Rust Belt, again looking on anyone that supported the opposition with disdain and disgust and just had this general notion of "We're just going to win now." And I think that attitude filtered down the ranks. And I include myself in that group. That doesn't mean that I all of a sudden have decided to become a conservative, or agree with more right wing, conservative values. It just means that I think it's important that people who assess more liberal values should take a step back and consider what happened, what went wrong, and why one part lost and the other won. Although I'd be remiss to call the democratic party "Liberal," but it's honestly the best a lot of people have down in the States.

Just from my own personal perspective, I kind of lost interests in following politics after the 2016 election. I stopped watching an online news show where I got most of my information. And I stopped watching the Daily Show. I just kind of felt the news depressing, and I didn't want to focus on that. Stuff like that brought me down, and so I decided not to have that in my life. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people feel that way. That doesn't mean they aren't politically motivated. That doesn't mean that they don't care about the issues. That doesn't mean they don't want to see more progressive stances taken in their entertainment. But, just from my perspective, I wanted to be entertained, first and foremost. I want a safe space where I can just enjoy something, without having to be reminded of a lot of the stuff that brings me down. I don't mind my medium having a message, but I don't want the message to be the entire point of the medium, if that makes any sense.

User avatar
Timmyb52
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:27 pm
Location: Battle Creek,Michigan

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Timmyb52 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:55 pm

Spider-Padre wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:44 am
A quote I read from Cebulski yesterday indicates he'd like to tone down the politics.
Yeah I was very happy when I read that also...it gives me hope that we will be seeing a return to classic Marvel stories and characterization under his tenure while at the same time improving upon the new diversity characters without the politics. I admit that I am very excited for the new year of 2018 in regards to Marvel...I look forward to see what happens.
:)

User avatar
Timmyb52
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:27 pm
Location: Battle Creek,Michigan

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Timmyb52 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:08 am

RDMacQ wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:15 am
Spider-Padre wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:44 am
A quote I read from Cebulski yesterday indicates he'd like to tone down the politics.
I think that probably might be for the best.

I'm a pretty liberal guy myself (And I know saying that often comes right in front of someone saying pretty un-liberal things, but just bear with me) but I do think that Marvel went a bit overboard with their current approach. I think it's an attitude that a lot of liberals- myself included- had over the past year. This notion that we were just right and everyone else is wrong. I'd hate to say "Arrogance," but, yes, even liberals can be arrogant. Much like how those who identify as conservatives can be arrogant.

To use this as an example, part of the reasons I feel the Republicans lost the 2008 and 2012 elections was that they favored the Rust Belt over the Sun Belt, assuming that their victory was assured and ignored all those that spoke out against their positions and diminishing and demeaning those that disagreed. But the reason that the Democrates lost the 2016 election was that they favored the Sun Belt over the Rust Belt, again looking on anyone that supported the opposition with disdain and disgust and just had this general notion of "We're just going to win now." And I think that attitude filtered down the ranks. And I include myself in that group. That doesn't mean that I all of a sudden have decided to become a conservative, or agree with more right wing, conservative values. It just means that I think it's important that people who assess more liberal values should take a step back and consider what happened, what went wrong, and why one part lost and the other won. Although I'd be remiss to call the democratic party "Liberal," but it's honestly the best a lot of people have down in the States.

Just from my own personal perspective, I kind of lost interests in following politics after the 2016 election. I stopped watching an online news show where I got most of my information. And I stopped watching the Daily Show. I just kind of felt the news depressing, and I didn't want to focus on that. Stuff like that brought me down, and so I decided not to have that in my life. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people feel that way. That doesn't mean they aren't politically motivated. That doesn't mean that they don't care about the issues. That doesn't mean they don't want to see more progressive stances taken in their entertainment. But, just from my perspective, I wanted to be entertained, first and foremost. I want a safe space where I can just enjoy something, without having to be reminded of a lot of the stuff that brings me down. I don't mind my medium having a message, but I don't want the message to be the entire point of the medium, if that makes any sense.
Very well written and heart felt words RD and I can sympathize wholeheartedly believe me.
[smilie=spidey_clap.gif] :)

Chase the Blues Away
Black Suit Spidey
Black Suit Spidey
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:13 pm

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Chase the Blues Away » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:27 am

Timmyb52 wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:09 am


DC may hold those values for sure...but unlike Marvel they do not insist on hitting their readership over the head with it every month and in every book. DC is not practicing the heavy handedness method that Marvel relies on...and this is because DC has realized they are a business that must relate to all potential customers not just liberal customers.
Or, as we've discussed, DC has better creators.
The main purpose of any business is to gain more consumers...not political sympathizers!
No, the main purpose of any business is to make a profit and/or please their investors. That can come from acquiring more customers, or it can come from selling more items to the same customer, or it can come from increasing prices and selling to the same customer, or it can come from cutting the costs of production and distribution while selling to the same customer. A company can be as political as it wants. Take Toms Shoes, for example. Or Fox News. Their politics ARE their business.
As I have said previously...Marvel can choose to do whatever it wants...but as for me {and others like me who share the same feelings}, we won't buy their books.
In fact I only buy two books from Marvel...Scarlet Spider and Venom and this is due to the attention being on the characters and the story and not far-left political messaging. Marvel gets very few of my hard earned dollars...far less then I used to give.
Awesome. That's how capitalism works. They put out a product, you can chose to buy or not buy.
Marvel is getting fewer and fewer dollars because fewer and fewer of their books are attractive...either way, Marvel is hurting and will continue to feel the hurt until they fix the problems affecting their publishing division.
Marvel is still #1 when it comes to dollar sales, so I challenge this assertion. Even if their comic books aren't #1 in terms of unit sales, they sell more books, period. They also have a much more robust consumer product licensing business than DC.

Sales of individual comic books are only one way to judge a company's health, and by far not the only way.
But must I, being a huge Marvel fan... just shrug my shoulders and accept Marvels current bad practices just because there are alternatives to their comics? On it's surface it appears to me as if you want the current heavy political messaging just to be accepted and ignored and that anyone who has a problem with it should just go and read a novel or fan fiction! In essence are you telling me that if I have a problem with the far-left messaging I should just give up on comics? Is that to make me feel better or you?
And now you're mindreading and ascribing motives that just aren't there.

I'm pointing out the facts of how businesses work in our current economic system. Period. You can either buy the comics or not. You can find other means of entertainment if you are so hungry for it.

Or if complaining on an internet message board is your form of entertainment, have at it. Just expect others to respond.
Marvel comics are not just for liberals, not just for Republicans,not just for Independents...they are supposed to be for all of us no matter our personal political beliefs or leanings!
No. Marvel Comics are to make money for the Walt Disney Company. That's it.
I love Marvel and personally I refuse to watch a company I care about make bad decisions by putting its politics over its characters,stories and fans. My hope is that by speaking out about it we can create change...but just shrugging my shoulders and ignoring it to make a few liberal fans happy is not the answer IMHO.
Again..it isn't about making you happy,or me happy...it is about making the whole industry and fans happy despite our personal politics and that is done by creating great stories and characters...not political commentary IMO.
It seems with the choice to bring in a new EIC they have now realized that.
You'll affect change faster and more emphatically by not purchasing their products. Complaining on a fan board is unlikely to affect change. [smilie=spidey_shrug.gif]

I agree it's about creating great stories and characters, and that is an area where Marvel has been falling down. But it has nothing to do with politics. It's about inauthentic storytelling and hiring the wrong creators. Ms. Marvel is a terrific character and a terrific book. Silk was an AWFUL character when written by Slott, far more likable and appealing when written by Robbie Thomas. Riri Williams could be a great character, but Bendis never developed her or gave the audience a reason to care for her. Secret Empire was terrible because it was written to shock the audience, not to tell a compelling story. But there could have a very good story about Captain America as a Hydra agent and Hydra taking over the world. It could have been a thoughtful examination of how we are driven by ideals and to what extreme will we go, by holding up a fun house mirror. The idea itself is not terrible, but the execution stank.

I'm betting the exodus of Brian Michael Bendis is the last straw that led to Alonso's firing. Marvel has no superstar creators left, and no real rising stars either. And that's why it makes sense they promoted Cebulski instead of current book editor, because Cebulski's background is talent spotting.

User avatar
MisterMets
Avenger
Avenger
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by MisterMets » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:57 pm

Chase the Blues Away wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:42 pm
Timmyb52 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:10 pm
Peter is a liberal because everyone in the Marvel universe is a liberal...and that's because everyone at Marvel is a biased liberal. The only world view Marvel projects is liberalism and left-wing ideology with sprinkles of third and fourth wave feminism...this wouldn't be so bad if it was a balanced representation of the political landscape...but it isn't.
It is biased in its view and presentation to its readership...Marvel does not care if they offend fans who may not share those liberal values and beliefs and thus they lose readers due to political grandstanding over concentrating on rich stories and characterization.
The world outside your window that Marvel represents is one worn with rose colored liberal politically correct glasses on that abhors diversity of thought and people who have different views and opinions of the world IMO.
Anyone who doesn't have a liberal outlook is shut down,blocked,called names and told if they don't like Marvels political propaganda to not buy their books...how is that for a group who claims to be for inclusion and diversity?
Plain and simple...it's hypocrisy!
You seem to be operating on the assumption that Marvel has some sort of mandate to be "inclusive" or to reflect your personal views.

Marvel is a for-profit, publicly traded company as an operating division of the Walt Disney Company. It is not the government, which is the only institution required to be "of the people, for the people, by the people."

If you do not like Marvel, you have a right as a consumer to not buy its products and thus not support its operation. You can also not purchase stock of the Walt Disney Company.

But that's the only right you have with regards to how Marvel operates.

If Marvel loses enough sales, then it might change the type of stories it puts out. Or the company might believe that continuing to promote a more diverse Marvel, in which women and people of color are treated equally and with compassion, might be the key to increasing sales by bringing women and people of color to the cash register. If they played only to a narrow subset of white males, then their market would shrink, just as the demographics of the United States are changing.

Businesses rarely operate solely from a moral stance. While good will is an asset on the balance sheet, it is an intangible one. For-profit, publicly traded companies are motivated by profit margins and returns on investment for their investors.
Consumers do also have the ability to criticize decisions made in public forums, in ways that might differ from the preferred narrative of the company. With comics, writers, editors and artists are accessible on the internet and in convention panels, so there are opportunities for dialogue. This does require fans to be more articulate, to get their points across in ways that are easy to engage with, which can be an issue with people who communicate mainly within particular bubbles.

Chase the Blues Away wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:58 am
Big Al wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:58 am

I think there can be a multi-pronged approach to writing characters at times.


There was some discussion on Hooded Utiltarian some years back about writing black characters inauthentically in so far as they are portrayed the way white characters would act but with little mind paid to the nuances of the black experience and how that factors into their behaviours.


It essentially was saying that whilst they weren’t necessarily acting in unbelievable ways if done realistically there would have been more to them.

I guess it was summed up as the distinction between writing a character who happened to be black vs writing a character for whom being black was intrinsic.


Or if you like the difference between writing say 1980s Monica Ranbau vs Luke Cage of Black Panther or Static.


I feel if a writer honestly doesn’t know how to do that, then sure, write them relatively generically as opposed to doing what 1970s Luke Cage did and write them as how white people believed black people would act. The latter imo is far worse than the former.
Or maybe don't write them, period, and let a writer who is either of that community or who is willing to do the work necessary to write an authentic character write the character.

There is also the issue of who judges what is "ethnic" enough. There's a story flying around Twitter about a Korean-American author whose white editor rejected his book because "the characters weren't Korean enough." The writer shared the editor's notes. The editor wanted the characters to stare in the mirror and remark on the shape of their eyes, eat kimchi with every meal, only listen to K-pop. That's just as appalling as refusing to publish any works by Korean-American writers.

It's not enough for characters to be diverse, but the people telling and approving the stories need to be diverse as well. Or we're left with Marvel's heavy-handed, not at all realistic and yes, off-putting editorializing.

On the Mockingbird point, fair point. I hadn’t considered that part of her cover.

As to it being women controlling men that wasn’t my assertion and I apologize if it came off that way.


My point was not really about one group controlling another but more the line throwing a jibe and shade at one group. If its in context of her cover, then fine. But if it wasn’t meant that way then no I don’t like that at all. Not because of it discussing issues of control. Of course the real life situation is the other way around and should be ended.

I just don’t like the line because it throws shade at men in much the same way lines like ‘women should come with off switches’ does. I believe we just generally shouldn’t throw in lines like that period.
They are undercover in a bondage club. Lance, who is Bobbi's annoying but endearing ex if rather "Me Tarzan, You Jane" in his approach to working with her, is strung up on stage, pretending to be a submissive as his cover. He's wearing a collar controlled by the remote. Bobbi is pretending to be a dominatrix as her cover. She is given the remote so she can use Lance to put on a show for the rest of the club.

Context matters.

The Mockingbird series was very tongue-in-check and, honest, cleverly written. It's told from the point of view of a character whose body is slowly turning against her (in the beginning, she's having an adverse reaction to the Secret Soldier Serum she was injected with), who is under a great deal of stress because her ex-husband, with whom she is still in love, is on trial for murdering Bruce Banner. Then she's forced into working with her overprotective ex Lance. She's not a stand-in for all women, she's very much her own character, and the themes of control, autonomy and agency are prevalent throughout the series. It's too bad a certain subset of comic fans decided to take panels out of context and got their boxers in a bunch on social media, but that's comics fandom and the internet for ya.
Going for authenticity can be complicated. It seems limiting to minority creators to suggest that writers work with people who fit their background, since that would close off some of the most popular characters in comics for them.

There is often less overlap between backgrounds and characters than we'd assume, even among creators who are credited to adding to diversity. Ta-Nehisi Coates and Priest are African-American, rather than African. G. Willow Wilson is a white woman who converted to Islam and lived in Egypt for a few years, which is still different from someone who grew up in a Pakistani Muslim-American family, as is the case with Ms. Marvel.

User avatar
Big Al
Captain Universe
Captain Universe
Posts: 4604
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:49 pm
Location: My Cat's name is Felicia

Re: Marvel's Political Agenda

Post by Big Al » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:21 pm

A few more points on the issue.

If we wanna talk politics technically speaking Marvel publish comics about Peter Parker, Kamala Khan, Frank Castle, Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Logan and Doctor Doom.

Granted you have to sort of take them in their classical portrayals but broadly speaking that’s an immense diversity of political views.

Captain America is unapologetically liberal but in a lot of ways Kamala is probably MORE liberal than him. Spider-Man is at most centre left on most issues. Tony Stark has fluctuated but there is little doubt in my mind that before his trip to Vietnam he was a Republican and I actually persionally think he stayed one even after that, he just wasn’t pro-war anymore. Frank Castle is to my observation very conservative and Wolverine to me leans a little more conservative on most issues but not all (I think he’d be pro-environmentalism to a large extent due to his connection to wildlife). And Doctor Doom is a straight up dictator and tyrant.


So...yes Marvel is Liberal but it isn’t like every hero or protagonist is a liberal.


Furthermore, the only way Cap being a HYDRA agent could’ve worked is if it hadn’t been presented as ‘he’s always been this way’, if they’d been upfront and shown us step-by-step how HYDRA corrupted him.

However their timing really was the worst and they should’ve known better.

To be very indulgent for a moment, the state of America or the world being the way it is I legit think we all NEED Captain America to be Captain America not some weird alternate version like Werewolf Cap. In all seriousness, whilst I am not broadbrushing all of Trump’s supporters as this, let’s be real...straight up white supremacists have been emboldened in the last few years. If I recall correctly, here in the UK anti-Semitism in recent memory was at all all time high.

And unless I recall incorrectly..wasn’t Captain America literally created as propaganda that partially served as a refute to those kinds of attitudes?
Delta House Member Gimli

https://40.media.tumblr.com/2e65cb18213b8d4bf704dca08169e49c/tumblr_nz9jrqvyRA1she6m6o1_400.jpg

"The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the water spout. Down came the Goblin and took the spider out. "

Joey Z was F.A.C.A.D.E.

THIS: http://hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger.tumblr.com/post/77268781356/the-debate-norman-osborn-vs-otto-octavius-who-is-the

My secret identity is: Ubertestosterone90sArnieAvenger....-Man

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChiTownSpidey, NickMB and 2 guests