Charlotte’s Creative Loafing weekly reviewed an issue of The Immortal Iron Fist, but may have missed one little thing, and, I think I’m going to have to disagree with one other thing they say here:
The Deal: The Immortal Iron Fist chronicles the adventures of the superhero known as Iron Fist — aka Daniel Rand (that’s his secret identity). For all intents and purposes, this is a kung fu comic

Uh oh, I suppose it was going to come to this. (via and ), Paramount, if anyone, seems to have a problem with marketing a movie adaptation to a global audience because overseas moviegoers allegedly have a problem with the US military:

GI Joe is a real American hero — and that might be a bit of problem for both Paramount Pictures and Hasbro.

Their relationship would appear to be on extremely solid footing: Paramount and Hasbro are both riding high this summer, enjoying the $633 million global box-office haul of the toy maker’s smash hit, “Transformers.” But now, efforts to turn Hasbro’s GI Joe into a motion picture are proving particularly fraught.

Deciding whether to make “GI Joe” at all, let alone how to market it, is nettlesome thanks in large measure to an unpopular American president defending an unpopular war: In a July USA Today/Gallup poll, a record high of 62% respondents had called the invasion of Iraq “a mistake.”A month later, that view is 57%, more or less where it’s been for over a year.

Overseas, the view is even more dire. “Not only is there worldwide support for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there also is considerable opposition to U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan,” the Pew Global Attitudes Project found in June. So the prospect of sending more soldiers — albeit celluloid ones — is a complicated task at best. “There are always challenges,” said Brian Goldner, Hasbro’s chief operating officer. “GI Joe is not just a brand that represents the military; it also represents great characters.”

Good gosh, they really buy into all that MSM propaganda, do they? And I thought this movie was going to feature the franchise heroes who were popularized during the 1980s, an elite commando squad that fought against the evil forces of Cobra, which Goldner does hint at.

They really seem intent here on attacking the war in Iraq and pandering to moonbats, it would seem. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that France, for example, after it voted for Nicholas Sarkozy, would really have a problem with a patriotic movie or even one that upholds the US military. And considering that terrorism is seen in several parts of Europe as a serious problem today, I find it additionally hard to believe that anyone there would have a problem with a movie where the heroes fight terrorism.

There are two competing scripts in development at Paramount. The latest comes from screenwriter Skip Woods, best known for writing the thriller “Swordfish,” the other, from the team of David Elliot and Paul Lovett, who last penned Paramount’s sleeper action hit “Four Brothers,” which Mr. di Bonaventura also produced.

Mr. Elliot and Mr. Lovett’s script is said to be evocative of the less-overtly militaristic version of GI Joe. A person familiar with both scripts describing theirs as “sort of an ‘X-men’ meets ‘Mission: Impossible’ — like GI Joe force.”

No decisions made
Mr. Woods’ script is more akin to GI Joe circa 1997, when Hasbro’s Classic Collection featured more realistic military hardware and weaponry and a more patriotic theme — and presumably, therefore, a more problematic marketing plan. It’s said to include a character called “Action Man,” a nod to the title GI Joe used in overseas markets. Mr. Goldner said the film might be marketed as GI Joe in the States and Action Man overseas but no decisions has been made.

I thought that was “Action Force”? From what I can recall, that was the title under which GI Joe was marketed in various overseas countries (it may have been used here too). Regardless, if what the script by David Elliot and Paul Lovett does is turn the Joes into superpowered beings, that just doesn’t fit the bill. It is Skip Woods’ script that should be used, and without studio interference.

It seems that Paramount has gone all squishy on this because the overseas market matters more than their own country. I think that’s just plain stupid, and knowing that GI Joe does have a loyal following of fans out there who may not take kindly to this, that’s why Paramount should consider.

A protest by Joe fans is what’s needed now.

Trackposted to: , , , , .

that traces the history of superheroes from the Golden Age until today.

(”The Chosen̶ as seen through the eyes of a soldier in Afghanistan, and which, yes, does appear to be just a flashback story. But there’s at least two reasons to keep expectations on this to minimum: one, because Morrell may be chummy with Max Allan Collins, who if memory serves, supported the anti-American steps taken with Cap a few years ago by writing an introduction to the trade paperback of the Marvel Knights series at the time in which he attacked “jingoism”. And two, because this miniseries, just like the Marvel Knights series, seems to put Cap into real life settings in ways that could trivialize the tragedies in real life:

Another unique element of Morrell’s Captain America story is the story’s setting. “My story could have happened anytime after 9-11 because there are a lot of references to 9-11,” Morrell said. “There are pictures of the Cole after the hole was blown into it and pictures of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There’s one of the Madrid train bombings and one of the London bus bombings so it’s very contemporary. This story could have happened any time in the last couple of years and could be considered to predate what happened in ‘Captain America’ #25.”

“Captain America: The Chosen” takes place in a country tied to those events, Afghanistan. “There’s an initial big battle in a village but the bulk of the story takes place in a cave,” Morrell stated. “The point here is that since this is a dark, psychological examination of Captain America the cave is very appropriate. We’re getting into the darkness and the depths. That’s the metaphor I was trying for.”

I’ve heard the whole tale about dark before, and something tells me that this miniseries may be a boomerang on the grave errors that were made with Cap before again. Including when you take into consideration that, since this is the MCU, Captain Britain and Excalibur could surely have been around to battle the vile scum threatening the UK just like the superheroes in America could’ve been around to battle the vile scum threatening that part of the world.

Accompanying Captain America and the reader on their journey into the darkness and the depths is a new character, a corporal in the United States Marine Corps named James Newman. “He’s in Afghanistan and he’s been over there so long and has been in so much fighting. He has a wife and son who live in San Francisco and he’s at the point now where all he wants to do is go home. You can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys over there and he’s just absolutely overwhelmed with the combat and the conditions. It’s under there circumstances that he and Captain America cross paths.”

Uh oh, do I detect a possible anti-war position on the horizon here? And surely we haven’t heard that whole absurd story about being unable to distinguish between good and bad many times before?

And now, uh oh, I think I may have found another clue that this may not be anything good:

Morrell is aware that a realistic toned Captain America adventure that occurs after 9-11 may sound familiar to readers of John Ney Rieber’s run on “Captain America” from a few years ago. “I know those stories and that’s kind of the tone we’re going for,” Morrell said. “The one that really stuck in my mind was kind of a hymn to all the emergency responders and all the pain that was there and how Captain America was working trying to save people there. I had bought that issue about the World Trade Center as soon as it came out. I made a bee line to get it. That kind of realism is what I wanted. The difference is my story is intended to be a self contained plot. The kinds of arcs that I would use in a novel are what I use here.”

Ugh! I think the clues he’s given here are enough to turn me away from this miniseries indefinitely.

“Captain America: The Chosen” is Morrell’s first comic book project and there’s a good chance that it’s not his last. “Marvel and I have talked about doing something else,” Morrell said. “It’s just a matter of if we can all make things come together the way we want.”

It may not be his last comic book project, but if this does turn out to be just more anti-war propaganda, that’s why it’ll be the last thing I’d want to hear about that Morrell’s writing.

about a comic book from France (or bande dessinee, as they call them there) that stars a police intelligence operative who prowls the shadowy backstreets of Paris in search of terrorists. And it looks like there was even a real life inspiration for the hero as well, a veteran of commando units of Spanish descent who did undercover work in the North African/Islamic underworlds. What American companies are failing to show the guts to tackle, it appears that French companies by contrast are willing to work on.

, but after all the pretentious writing he did with Civil War, among other books of yore, I really don’t care to read whatever he’s planning to write here, even if it isn’t more politicized nonsense.

Okay, now that I’ve completed my of that mainstream reporter’s double-talk, I’m going to provide some criteria on something that he by contrast didn’t: a case of sexism that took place in The Brave and the Bold #166 in late 1980, written by Michael Fleisher of Jonah Hex and Warlord fame. For that, here’s the letter column from issue #171, February 1981:
Sorry if the page I scanned is a bit blurry, but it’s difficult for me to get the inner side of the page pressed down well under the cover and get it to go flat along the glass, and I have a policy not fold things over, because that’s taking a risk in damaging the goods. But, not to worry, I’m going to copy the second letter featured right onto the good ol’ HTML:

Dear Paul [Levitz],

The latest issue of BRAVE AND BOLD starring Batman and Black Canary was easily the most offensive story published by DC in recent years. That a writer could submit such a sexist story in this day and age is perhaps explainable, but that an editor would accept it, possibly without even realizing that the blatantly chauvanistic content of the tale would infuriarate many readers, is incredible.

The purpose of B&B is to expose the co-stars to the larger Batman audience in hopes of increasing their popularity. In order to do this, the guest stars must be given an opportunity to show off the qualities which make them DC Superstars. All Black Canary got to do was sit around tied to a chair in her underwear. She was treated in a totally contemptuous and paternalistic manner by both the Batman and the writer. Not only was she portrayed as being totally ineffectual, but as being too dumb to notice the fact. I am deeply disappointed in you and DC comics in general. That a company which only a few years ago was trying to portray itself as being in the forefront of current events could print such an insensitive story is reprehensible.

It’s amazing how some of the above easily describes some of what goes on today. And, here’s an older story in which there was apparent sexism abound. Of all Batman and Black Canary’s team-ups, this was surely the weakest.

At the end, then series editor Levitz answered and says that “curiously none of the letters to the only point that had been the subject of objections from the distaff side of our editorial department - the relative state of undress the Canary was subjected to”. Does that mean that, if they hadn’t depicted her tied up in her lingerie, it wouldn’t have come across as bad? I don’t think so, because already, she was shown as unsuccessful in quizzing a crook who only cooperated when he saw Batman turn up! Then, Levitz said that “all accused him [Fleisher] of contempt for super-heroines in general, which we feel is hardly fair based on this story alone, no matter how he had portrayed Dinah.” But what if it were another female crimefighter in Dinah’s stead? Say, Barbara Gordon, still in Batgirl action at the time? It could’ve happened, and that’s why what was done here was an insult to any and all.

But even if it’s just Canary that Fleisher had disrespect for, that’s still unjust. It’s a mistake being made by some writers today as well, where they dislike certain characters to the point of where they’ll misuse them, as Brian Bendis did with Scarlet Witch in Avengers: Disassembled.

It’s worth noting that Levitz, as the DC publisher, also has to shoulder some blame for the misogyny that’s taken place at DC, since he could surely have the authority to curb some of the worst things that happened, if he wanted to. Plus, he’s one of those responsible for appointing Dan DiDio as EIC, isn’t he? Today, following the quagmire of Identity Crisis, Levitz certainly can’t defend himself and the company against charges of sexism like he might’ve been able to back then, unless he’s willing to show some responsibility and start working towards repairing things.

Scripps-Howard News Service’s Captain Comics has . But what he says is too little, too late, and predictably remains on a superficial level. So, here I boldly go into the Negative Zone to do a little tearing apart of yet another pretentious mainstream newspaper article. Let’s see what we have here for starters:

Are comics sexist? A recent reprint has put that long-standing charge in the spotlight.

“Showcase Presents: Batgirl” (DC Comics, $16.99) is a B&W trade paperback reprinting in chronological order more than 500 pages of the titian-haired tigress’s earliest solo adventures, from her debut in “Detective Comics” No. 359 (cover dated January 1967) through around 1975. The stories are a lot better than they have a right to be, but the cover image has some fans screaming “sexism!”

He’s referring to an argument that probably first appeared on the internet ( from Peter Sanderson) that may have been minor, but there were a few who didn’t like the cover. Trouble is, he’s bringing the whole subject of sexism up more than a couple years too late at his end of the spectrum, and the subject focus here is just too easy. Where exactly was he when DC was coughing up Identity Crisis? Oh, that’s right, he was too busy lovingly fawning over it in the following, most disgusting articles featured below, which make me doubt he really means anything he says in his latest balderdash. First, on , he said:

…I recommended DC’s “Identity Crisis,” a seven-issue miniseries by best-selling novelist Brad Meltzer (”The Zero Game,” “The Millionaires”). Meltzer has 6 million books in print, two movies in production and a WB pilot that just finished shooting _ and his “Identity Crisis” has already drawn glowing commentary from The New York Times, New York Post and Spin magazine.

For a change, the Captain agrees with all the hype. “Identity Crisis” No. 1 is now on the stands, and it actually brought tears to my eyes.

As advertised, the miniseries begins with the death of a Justice Leaguer and plays into a larger mystery involving some early recruits of the JLA _ but not big guns like Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. Instead, the story focuses on “B-list” players like The Atom, Green Arrow, Hawkman, Elongated Man, Black Canary and Zatanna. But before we get into that, we have to pay respects to the victim. I’m not easily moved by a comic book, but this death was poignant, chilling and touching.

Puh-leez. It was nothing of the sort, and was more insulting than touching. Actually, the death of an innocent is never touching, so that smells more than a bit of sensationalism. And it only got worse on :

This seven-issue miniseries kicked off with the brutal murder of the wife of a Justice League member, a beloved character that’s been around for more than 40 years — followed by a flashback revealing that she had once been raped by a supervillain. Add to that the revelation that some Justice Leaguers have used brainwashing in the past to alter the memories and personalities of certain villains. How can I possibly be enjoying this?

Well, possibly because it’s a riveting murder mystery by novelist Brad Meltzer, who’s also the creator of Jack & Bobby on The WB. And because it’s a challenging examination of the moral issues confronting those who fancy themselves heroes. And because it’s a crackling tale wherein the horrific events service the story, instead of being offered up as shock value.

Yep, that’s the same man, the very same man, who’s addressing sexism now, who wrote that smut three years ago too, as well as the following torpedo bomb on :

The most controversial series of 2004 was “Identity Crisis,” a seven-issue miniseries by mystery novelist Brad Meltzer and artist Rags Morales starring DC’s Justice League of America. In the first issue, the pregnant wife of second-tier superhero was murdered in a brutal way. While the murder mystery (one that was truly a challenge) was the “A” plot, the investigation by the superheroes set off a domino effect, revealing that the victim had been raped by a supervillain years ago _ and in retaliation (and self-defense), a small cabal of Leaguers used their superpowers to, effectively, render the villain mentally incompetent. This also had negative repercussions, which were revealed slowly like the layers of an onion.

The whodunnit was wrapped up with “Identity Crisis” No. 7, but the many unresolved red herrings and the ramifications of the League’s moral lapse are just beginning to be addressed, and will spread throughout all of DC’s books in 2005. Love it or loathe it, “Identity Crisis” was truly an event, a slow-motion car wreck that generated more than 100 pages of comments on my message board alone.

Wow, how can he possibly argue that comics are sexist when he’s been fawning over the very stuff he speaks about for goodness knows how long now? Worst of all, the way he talks about a story in which a pregnant woman was murdered and raped in flashback is sensationalistic, and that goes without saying. As far as I’m concerned, that smut he wrote is an offense to rape victims and battered women. And no matter what he’s talking about now, there’s every chance that he’ll be right back to his old reporter tricks again tomorrow, either by a]fawning over the next abominable act of sexism in comics, or b]watering down a serious subject by c]choosing a most superficial item to comment on, or d]not discussing it at all. After all, most people of his standing are usually so biased in the publisher’s favor that you can’t expect them to write up an article that’s got any really convincing impact.

Now, back to :

As the initial story goes, librarian Barbara Gordon is inspired by Batman and her father, Commissioner Gordon, to try her hand at crime-fighting. And, by the mere act of pulling on leotards, this mousy redhead becomes the zaftig Batgirl, who is just as capable as Batman and Robin (who had trained all their lives) in the art of beating up heavily armed thugs. Sure, she had a “brown belt in karate,” but that doesn’t explain how she could take down gangs of men twice her size, or how she invents a motorcycle headlight that can track cars by their treads, or why Batman — “the world’s greatest detective” — can’t figure out who is behind the mask. Gee, Caped Crusader, do you really know so many twentysomething redheads that you can’t guess? But he can’t…

I thought Batman did figure it out eventually, but Babs convinced him not to oppose her being a crimefighter, and to take her under his wing alongside Robin as well? Or is Capt. Comics ambiguously referencing the TV show? I can’t tell from this, but if in his view, Babs couldn’t possibly take down a bunch of men twice her size, then surely Dick Grayson, a young teen at the time, couldn’t handle them either? Talk about forgetting that this is comics! Not to mention surrealism.

So why the sexism charge? Well, originally the book was solicited with the 1967 cover to “The Million Dollar Debut of Batgirl” on the front, a standard shot of Batgirl running toward the reader with the Dynamic Duo reacting in the background. But when the book arrived, another cover had been selected — the first page of “Batgirl’s Costumed Cut-Ups” (”Detective” No. 371, 1967), where Batgirl is depicted as being more concerned with her lipstick than fighting crime.

This image is somewhat misleading. Rather than revealing Batgirl as a vain girly-girl, “Cut-Ups” dealt with her concerns in that arena, and her successful efforts at triumphing over those doubts. The lipstick scene played against type for dramatic effect, whereas the story proved the reverse, reinforcing Batgirl’s toughness and dismissing any lingering doubts about her ability.

I wish I could applaud him if he feels that any complaints about the trade’s cover are an overreaction, but, if he’s going to avoid the even more challenging questions of if gals in comics are being violently assaulted and demonized, then I cannot.

But the cover selection has resulted in a furious debate in fandom, breaking down largely by gender lines. Men generally react with “What’s the problem?” — whereas women generally say, “If you don’t see the problem, that is the problem.”

And unfortunately, Capt. Comics doesn’t see the problem if he turns a blind eye to Identity Crisis and also the death of Spoiler in the Batman War Games crossover. To which we could add Donna Troy’s going down with much of a fight in Titans/Young Justice: Graduation Day, the death of Jade in the Rann/Thanagar War, Jean Loring’s being turned into a new Eclipso in Day of Vengeance, Scarlet Witch and at least two other ladies being subjected to horrific discrimination in Avengers: Disassembled, Gwen Stacy being defamed and Mary Jane Parker made to look like a liar, Linda West’s getting struck to the ground by Zoom and then shown going through it repeatedly in time-based flashbacks, and even the demonization of Wonder Woman’s sisters in Amazons Attack. Oh yeah, where was he when all this was going on? I don’t think there was any true mention or criticism of misogyny in his column there either.

And, to be honest, I am sympathetic to the latter [women’s] position.

And from my end of the spectrum, I don’t think so. Not if he can’t take up the subject of any of those examples from at least three years ago, which came as pretty notoriously obvious ones.

Comics often are really sexist, as a glance at various heroines’ assets can attest. While men’s physiques are often just as exaggerated, there’s little doubt that pandering to the adolescent male mind exists, metaphorically putting out a “girls not welcome” sign on many comics. This is a problem that needs to addressed, a debate that needs to be had.

Sorry, pal, but your example here is just too easy. What about victimization at the hands of VIOLENCE? What about depicting a woman as unable to defend herself, and going down without a fight? What about depicting them as vomiting for sickly sensationalism? What about depicting them as one-dimensionally evil criminals? Assets is what you consider sexist here? Puh-leez. That’s just plain diddly compared to what I cited. And while there have been some debates, I highly doubt he’ll ever contribute convincingly to any of them.

But in this case I’m going to give DC a pass. I don’t know why this cover was selected, but it is historically accurate — and its drama is derived precisely because Batgirl is acting out of character. As the 500-plus pages behind the cover attest.

And you’d give them a pass even if it were a more serious argument built around the kind of examples I cited too, charlatan. People of your standing have always taken the company’s side, all the time. It’s got nothing to do with whether the customer is right or not, it’s because money trumps all, ditto public relations with the publishers, who probably wouldn’t be as kind and cooperative if you literally rubbed them the wrong way. And if that’s how it’s going to be, then you shouldn’t be discussing comics for the MSM.

Yes, sexism has always been rampant in comics. But I read “Showcase Presents: Batgirl” with a clear conscience, and I think you can, too.

Spoken by the same dimwit who apparently was able to read Identity Crisis and Avengers: Disassembled with clear apathy for any of the more challenging questions they bore within. And there’s a wee bit of a problem with how he admits that sexism has always been rampant in comics: he doesn’t give any examples from any specific books. A little more research and a bulleted list of bummer stories involving sexism would do quite nicely in a case like this. Instead, he wastes a whole column addressing surely the most superficial of all examples, the assets. Please, spare us the spluttering, journalist. You are not one who’s qualified to discuss these issues.

The worst part here is that this J. Jonah Jameson wannabe is probably trying to use this in order to imply that the audience is wrong, even when they’re right. Exactly why the mainstream press is simply not to be trusted, because really, they just don’t have any respect for the audience.

I’d once mentioned Wieringo , his bold argument that DC had done wrong to bump off Barry Allen’s grandson Bart, whom he co-created with Mark Waid, and now, I was shocked to discover that . That’s absolutely terrible. He was a very talented artist, I’d looked at his work on a few DC and Marvel books and was impressed, and now, I have to discover that he’s no longer with us.

It’s sad. I give my condonlences.