Paul Cornell on death in comics in general, and Wolverine’s upcoming demise in particular.
And I cannot tell you how much I love this quote and have been saying much the same thing for years.
That’s a pretty big IF though. IF it’s a good story. And I can count on the fingers of one hand the super hero stories that contained the death character I’d describe as ‘good’.
In fact, The Death of Captain America’s probably only the only story from the last decade that had some kind of emotional impact or affected the world around the character in some way. When I say I’m sick of death in comics I’m talking about the terrible, shoddy deaths of Kurt Wagner or Stephanie Brown or Tasmanian Devil or Skin or Johnny Storm or whoever. Kurt and Johnny certainly were killed off to grab attention, not for any desire to write a good story and THAT is what people react against. You can’t attempt to color superhero deaths as meaningless on one hand and expect an emotional response with the other.
Sure, writers can say the only thing that matters is a good story, but most of the time, death is just used as a cheap gimmick to make a story seem important and actually writing a story that has depth or impact in universe when someone dies is of secondary concern.
Most super hero comics only wish they were as smart, moving and heartfelt as Kermit the Frog.
there’s a big difference between “i’m sad because a character i was emotionally invested in was killed off” and “this character’s death served no purpose, was used for shock value, and is the product of bad writing and i’m upset about that”
people talk a lot about joss killing characters but that’s not, in itself, what annoys me so much
it can get gratuitous, yeah, and that’s irritating, frustrating, tiring
but the thing that gets ME is the general trend of how his male characters die vs his female characters
there are exceptions, of course, but laying it out -
doyle, spike, and wesley die as heroes
tara, anya, fred and cordy die as victims
also kendra and jenny calendar — ESPECIALLY JENNY, who dies as fodder for giles’ manpain
Ugh, I forgot that too, which is ridiculous because Jenny was my favourite. Her death was incredibly effective, too - well written, well done. It established Angelus unequivocally as something to be hated and feared. But as part of the trends in these shows, and media at large…ugh.
(Worse is she’s barely mentioned afterwards.)
i actually had this conversation today
That’s it, WE CAN ALL GO HOME NOW. There won’t ever be a better graphic that summarizes sexist double standards in today’s geek culture.
THIS IS OUR CULTURE IN A NUTSHELL.
sosungalittleclodofclay said: So I take it you've never: ever heard of cartoon porn before bronies existed, and you don't know the term 'safesearchwrapup'?
I thought about this ask a LOT while I was away from my computer today. A LOT. Because I have always tried to be calm and cool and answer your questions respectfully, and this bothered the shit out of me.
So I am not going to be calm, and I am not going to be cool. This is your only warning.
First off, cartoon porn has always existed. Google “Tijuana Bible” if you’re curious. You, too, can see Mickey Mouse fuck Olive Oyl in the ass while she sucks off Popeye and Goofy masturbates in the background. The art’s not as good as some of what we have these days, but hell, standards change. When I was in high school, I and a bunch of other kids in my art class had what we called the “porn sketchbook,” which was full of EXTREMELY explicit cartoon porn, showing lots of popular characters fucking each other’s brains out.
Guess what we didn’t show to six year olds? Gosh, you’re a good guesser. And guess what most six year olds don’t know? Terms like “safesearchwrapup.” The post that I reblogged, that you are now addressing me over, OPENLY EXPLAINED the search standards. That “safe search” was on. That the pictures showed up anyway. And that sometimes kids will get on the internet without supervision.
I have NO FUCKING PROBLEM with cartoon porn. I may find some of it to be in questionable taste, and I cheered when Princess Molestia was removed from the internet, but whatever. Your kink is your kink, and your kink is okay, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. When your kink literally pushes little girls out of their fandom, IT IS HURTING PEOPLE.
Let’s look at a word. The word “brony.”
I am a My Little Pony fan. I have been since I was four. My first ponies were Cotton Candy and Minty. I still have them, and more than two hundred others. I have the original cartoon on DVD. Some of my earliest works of fiction were stories in which I got to travel over the rainbow and live in Ponyland. I am not a newcomer to this fandom.
My Little Pony is a “girl toy,” so yeah, most of the fans I knew were girls. But there were boy fans. You know what we called them? FANS. We didn’t give them a special, gender-specific name that proved how cool they were for liking something that wasn’t made specifically to appeal to them. WE CALLED THEM FANS.
The very term “brony” is a statement of conquest. “This was made for girls, but we’re too cool to like it unless it’s on our masculine terms. Our bro-terms.” So we’re once again belittling men, because they can’t love a thing unless it’s somehow masculized. And we’re excluding girls, because seriously. We teach little girls FROM DAY ONE that boy things aren’t for them, and you don’t get more “this is for men” than a name that includes “bro.” (And no, saying I can be a “pegasister” doesn’t help. I AM NOT THE PROTAGONIST’S SISTER IN MY OWN FANDOM.)
Cartoon porn is fine in its place, but it should not be so prevalent and so poorly tagged that it takes over the search results for a children’s property. The way the brony community has said “MLP is for us, always us, us above all others, little girls don’t count, the intent of the brand doesn’t count, the people who have loved this property since 1982 will never love it like we do, because they don’t have a special name” feels like the fannish equivalent of that old Eddie Izzard sketch about “Do you have a flaaaaaaag?” I don’t need a flag. I LIVE HERE.
I always have.
rainbowsquidpunk said: In what way was Guardians sexist?
under the cut for spoilers and probably unpopular opinions
Let’s face it, if Marvel owned Wonder Woman she’d have two movies by now.
Yeah, just like Black Widow and Captain Marvel right ? :)
black widow and captain marvel don’t have the following or name recognition that wonder woman does. not saying it isn’t complete bullshit that black widow and captain marvel don’t have their own movies (and if you know me you know how pissed at marvel i am for the lack of a wasp movie) but there’s still a very, very good chance wonder woman would have her own movie by now if she were a marvel character
There’s also a very good chance Wonder Woman would have to wait her turn after all the white dudes get their respective movies.
Do you really think Marvel gives that much of a damn about recognition? Looking at how they’re handling their cinematic franchise now says otherwise. Pretty much everyone knows Black Widow after IM2, Avengers and CA: TWS. Do you think the same number could be said for Doctor Strange? Hell no, yet he’s the one with a confirmation from Kevin Feige to have his own movie in Phase 3, he’s the one who has a director, a script in writing, AND a release date.
Heck, let’s take a look at Phase 1 itself. Phase 1 of the MCU focused on Marvel Comics’ Big Three — Capt, Iron Man, Thor. (And it appears even that is quite debatable, considering some also consider the Big 3 to be Capt, Spider-Man, Wolverine, or a variation of the two. But in any case, Spidey and Wolvie aren’t owned by Marvel Studios.)
So, that makes sense right? They are the Big Three. Hmm, all dudes. Who’s the most prominent superheroine in Marvel around then? Carol Danvers, most likely. Maybe Ororo Munroe, Jean Grey or Sue Storm could be in the running, though they’re more associated with their teams (and as a side note, aren’t owned by Marvel Studios). The question is, why hasn’t there been a lady in Marvel’s Big 3 the way WW is counted in DC’s Big 3? If WW was owned by Marvel, would she even enjoy the same brand and recognition as the other men in the Big 3? Would she even BE in Marvel’s Big 3?
So if that’s the way it could (hypothetically) be in comics, and that trickles down to Phase 1 of the MCU, WW wouldn’t get her own movie then. Phase 2 and beyond? Well we saw what happened with Black Widow. Frankly, if WW was owned by Marvel, it may not be necessarily be better. We’d be getting the same excuses. That “it’s not the right time”, or Marvel has “too much
white dudeson their plates”.
Anyone from Marvel (ever) on why they aren’t making a film starring a female superhero (ever). (via westerlingss)
Spoiler alert: the answer is sexism. But let’s look at the alternatives. Again and again. Every time a female-led Marvel movie is mentioned, these same tired lines get dragged up.
It’s all about timing.
I seriously am not even sure what this means, but Kevin Feige says it a lot. Presumably if you release a female-led movie in the wrong moon-cycle, you risk the wrath of the gods? But more often it’s…
The movies are all planned out. There’s a creative vision to be followed, an extra movie can’t just be shoved in.
This is weird, because other movie studios are in charge of their own schedule. Are we seriously supposed to accept “We aren’t ignoring women now, we’ve been ignoring them this whole time!”? That’s not an excuse! That’s basically the opposite of an excuse! There is no “timing” or “planning” reason Marvel couldn’t have chosen Captain Marvel, instead of Guardians of the Galaxy, and Ant-Man And The Wasp, instead of Ant-Man And Older Ant-Man.
A female-led film would be a big risk.
Guardians of the Galaxy. I’m serious. You can’t tell me a Black Widow movie, with an established character played by a box-office-draw actress, and a good advertising campaign, is more of a risk than “those dudes no one’s ever heard of, in space, with two fully-CGI characters, fronted by That Parks And Rec Dude Who Used To Be Chubby”.
And it’d be soooo expensive. Scarlett Johansson would want lots of money, and Marvel is really cheap with its acting talent.
Marvel has had a tradition of casting relative unknowns in major roles, presumably because it’s easier to get them to sign multi-picture contracts and not have to drive dump-trucks full of money up to their houses. Robert Downey Jr is the exception, he was paid $50 million for Avengers, while Scarlett Johansson took home one-tenth that amount, and Chrises Hemsworth and Evans got even less. (I say “even less”, these numbers are ridiculous!) Even if they had to pay Johansson $25 million, Guardians opened at almost $100 million for its first weekend. Plus, a Widow movie, probably a spy-action thriller type deal, is going to be much cheaper to make than the likes of Avengers or Guardians. They’ll need a couple of million for a Nick Fury and one other Avenger (probably Hawkeye), they’ll probably cast one other big name, and then it’ll be all unknown Russian actors.
Plus, Scarlett Johansson doesn’t even want to do it.
I dunno. I haven’t spoken with her in person on this topic. But she seems as up for it as any of the others do. For a studio that doesn’t want to pay them much, they sure have a bunch of enthusiastic actors! Anyway, Johansson has said she’s up for it, if they wanted her and there was a good script.
Anyway, Black Widow was a huge part of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. That’s practically like having her own movie!
Seriously, people say this. For maybe a year and a half, Kevin Feige’s go-to answer for “can has woman movie pls?” was “Wait for Captain America 2, wink wink!”. A normal person would interpret this as “We’re setting up a Widow movie to spin off from Cap 2.” but apparently he meant “Look, she gets to have a decent part in a properly dude-fronted movie. Compromise!” No. In case it’s not clear, having a good female character in a movie that takes place in a world closely resembling our own, where women make up a slight majority of the population, is a baseline!! It would be outrageous NOT to have an important female character! As it turns out, the heroes in Cap 2 are Cap, two women and two black guys, so that’s pretty cool. But it’s still Cap’s movie. How is it that grown-ups cannot understand that being allowed play with someone else’s toy is NOT THE SAME as owning your own toy?!
A new property like Captain Marvel would be too risky. No one knows who she is.
GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY. I am really glad that they made Guardians. Not because it’s perfect (it’s not), not because it’s funny (it is), but because it is undeniable proof that they will gamble on anything, provided it doesn’t upset their Straight White Male Protagonist (preferably played by a buff blonde guy called Chris) streak. Marvel are currently on track to put out TEN WHOLE MOVIES where the main character is a white guy played by a buff Chris before it puts out a single movie fronted by a woman or someone who isn’t white. (It has yet to even feature a significant character who is both a woman and not-Caucasian, and only one major actress isn’t white. She’s a green-skinned alien, though, not a black chick.) Anyway, now that they’ve made Guardians and introduced the Kree, Captain Marvel would be the perfect link between the Avengers and the Guardians.
Marvel is better than DC! Marvel already has so many awesome female characters. It’s mean-spirited to hate on them when they’re doing better than the other studios.
I think there’s a pretty good chance Marvel gets more ragging on this because (a) they seem like they should know better, while DC seems to mess a lot of stuff up, and (b) more women watch Marvel movies, so there are more women to complain. Guardians had an audience of 44% women. But anyway, just because someone else is worse doesn’t make you good. Marvel has proven that it is capable of delivering well-rounded, interesting, important female characters … and then sidelining them and refusing to give them their own movie. We’re halfway there, that’s why it’s important to keep pushing!
Ugh, you’re being so PC. Do we have to have quotas now? It’s just some sci-fi movies! Don’t take it so seriously.
(This isn’t really an excuse, it’s an attempt to make the conversation go away.) Um, no. I find it hard to believe that anyone following this stuff was not themselves influenced as a child by sci fi or fantasy or comic books. I do find it easy to believe that anyone saying that always found it really easy to find lots of cool characters who looked like them, to pretend to be and to look up to. No, it’s not the biggest deal ever. But it sucks, if you’re an eight year old girl, and you want to play Avengers and you ALWAYS have to be Black Widow even though she’s kinda boring to play and you’d much rather shoot lightning or fly. Or there’s two girls, so one of them gets to be an Avenger and the other one has to be a girlfriend and get rescued all the time. Also, we’re not supposed to take it seriously that Wasp seems to have been written out or maybe fridged, even though she’s a founding Avenger and named the team, but any deviation from white-maleness has fanboys bursting in from every direction with the battle cry of “But in the comics….!” Anyway, to hell with hypothetical 8-year-olds. _I_ want this. Marvel are growing a female audience, they should step up.
(Bonus round: Black Panther is too complicated. Wakanda would be difficult to explain or show.
(a) Guardians of the Galaxy.
(b) Use a real African country instead.
(c) Just say Wakanda is a little-known region of, I dunno, Tanzania. Tanzania’s pretty big, and the MCU is clearly in a slightly different universe than ours, what with the aliens.
(d) Guardians of the Galaxy was in imaginary space-land, and that looked pretty good. Probably we could manage Africa.
(e) Not that we’d have to spend much time there, if we didn’t want to. T’challa could always show up in New York or whatever. He could be an exile. Or looking for something to save his people. If Tony Stark creates Ultron and Donald Blake was Jane’s ex and Bucky and Natasha didn’t train together, then apparently we’re allowed make changes to the comic mythology.
(f) Have you even SEEN Black Panther?! He’s awesome!)
It’s sexism. Marvel doesn’t want to do a female-led movie (or one led by a black guy). And they do not have a good reason to provide us. And that’s not good enough.Awesome post. Also want to point out that a Black Widow & Hawkeye movie NEGATES the idea of a solo movie and essentially turns the movie into a female character NEEDING a male even in the damn title to do well. Love Hawkeye, but he can fuck right off in this instance. Black Widow needs to be the sole name on the marquee.
Tsk. Kids today.
No but legit this is a real problem in comics. Kids need more intermediate titles, more introductory titles, more like Takio and stuff that they can READ and ENJOY and LOVE without being fucking scarred for life. We’ve got all these forty-something year old men complaining about certain Marvel NOW! comics being, like, “too childish” or whatever, and it’s like, y’know what? Fuck off. Fuck. Off. There are so many more adult comics with adult content and they’re so easy for you to find and read. Most comics cater to you. To adults. And that’s understandable, I suppose…publishers know what their audience’s biggest demographic is and all that jazz.
But they need to put out more titles aimed at and safe for children—not teens, who already have stuff, too—CHILDREN. Six-year-old children who come in from seeing the Avengers and want to read about more of Cap and Nat and Hulk’s adventures. Nine-year-olds who love watching Young Justice. Ten-year-olds who’ve fallen in love with the Green Lantern TV series. And these kids deserve to be able to read about them without exposure to massive amounts of sexual content, terribly graphic violence, and ridiculously dark storylines.
I’m not saying comics currently out there should be censored or dumbed down, I’m saying there needs to be a bigger variety. Some titles already out there are aimed at kids—not a lot, but some. We need more.
And if the publishers do put out titles like that, older fans need to be supportive and accept that not all comics are specifically aimed at them…or stfu. Comics are for everyone, and there should BE comics that are safe. For. EVERYONE.
All those things about not really loving the source material and “just watching the movies” or only reading the one book that everyone has read. That—all of that—applies to me.
But here are some things that have never happened to me. I have never been quizzed about who Data’s evil brother is to prove I like Star Trek. I have never had to justify my place in a midnight line to see Spider-man II by knowing who took up the mantle of Spider-man after Peter Parker’s death. (Peter Parker dies? Really? That’s so sad!) I have never had to explain who Nightwing is in order to participate in a conversation about Batman. (Nightwing is like….Robin on steroids, right?) I have never been asked how battle meditation works in order to voice my opinion that Enterprise shields would probably make a fight with Star Wars technology one sided. (Battle meditation is something that was in that Jedi role playing game, wasn’t it?) I have never had to beat everybody in the room (twice) at Mario Kart to prove I liked video games. I have never had my gender “honorarily” changed by having enough geek interests to be accepted (“you’re one of the guys now”). No one has ever insisted I tell them the difference between a tank and DPS in an MMORPG before allowing me to discuss raiding Molten Core. I have never been dismissed as a faker at a prequel screening because I didn’t know which admiral came out of light speed too close to the planet’s surface in The Empire Strikes Back. I have never been quizzed about Armor Class in order to get past someone who was blocking my path to the back of a game store where my friends were waiting at the tables. I have never been told I’m not a real fan. I have never been shamed for coming to a convention despite my lack of esoteric knowledge. And I have never, ever, EVER been invited to leave a fandom because I didn’t like [whatever it was] enough.
Every one of the things I have listed, I have personally witnessed happen. To women.
That’s not elitism. That’s sexism.
I’m geekier than this guy, I think, but only in certain contexts. I write part time for a role-playing line, but I don’t play video games, I’ve never seen an episode of Game of Thrones, and…well, I won’t go through an exhaustive list. But to be clear: if I’m at a comic book event? I’m the fake geek. I’m there for the sake of a member of the opposite sex who knows more about that stuff than I do. And nobody’s ever going to call me on it because I’m a dude and I wear the uniform (small beard, nerdy t-shirt). And, yeah, that’s sexism.
AU where Kitty Pryde goes back instead of Logan and saves the world
wait did I say au I meant actual canon
I still think they did a good job.
Of course they did a good job with the movie. It’s the best X-Men movie they’ve ever graced us with. Competing with Captain America 2 for best Marvel movie of the year. I can’t even decide.
But this isn’t about whether they did a good job or not. I know you saw High School Musical, this is about, stick to the status quo. We had the opportunity for the first female led Marvel movie
since Elektra lulzand they chose to diminish Kitty’s role in her own goddamn story. Days Of Future Past was the first time Kitty Pryde had a big starring role in X-Men comics. So. Did this movie work? Well fuck yeah. Obviously. Would I have liked to see them sticking to actual canon? Well fuck yeah. Obviously.
Okay I agree it would have been awesome to see Kitty as the lead, but you also have to look at the cinematic structure they created for the X-Men universe. If these last two films were reboots, and not within the same universe, then Kitty could have gone back because they could have rectified the timeline. But based on what they were given, she would have been negative 20 years old and thus her conscious self would be unable to transport that far back in time. They still had a very strong female presence, and while Kitty wasn’t the lead I feel they did put the lead role largely on Mystique and her character growth.
idea: change method of time travel to allow kitty to be the logical choice to go back into the past
correction: female presence in dofp was awful. mystique was the only female character with considerable screentime, 80% of the screentime was white male characters. the leads were charles, hank, logan, erik and mystique who were also the antagonists. quicksilver got more screentime than kitty, who was basically relegated to the hodgepodge of side characters (who were largely women and poc and had about 2 lines each… imagine that). kitty replacing logan as the lead would have only just barely balanced it out imho and without that consideration it was skewed waaaay towards the men
look. look. the very best thing you can say about dofp is that it didn’t have ZERO female characters. there is no argument you can make for it having a strong female presence (much like the new hobbit films). having one speaking woman in an ensemble of 5-10 is not a “strong female presence”.
And it’s not like they didn’t change the method anyway. Since when can Kitty send people back in time? It would have been just as easy to change it so people travelled physically.
Why not send Charles or Erik, then? It’s pretty common, in time travel, that meeting yourself is a bad fucking idea. Even if they’re trying to alter time, they could say that, specifically, is dangerous. It would have worked fine, because time travel isn’t real and they make the rules.
Logan wasn’t the protagonist because it was the only way the movie could have worked. Logan was the protagonist because he’s a straight white dude.
Nothing changes the fact that they took a story about oppression, persecution, and genocide which starred a Jewish girl and gave it to him instead.
You just have to say the word. Just say it and claim it for yourself without any kind of tempering or any stipulations to soften the blow.
All you have to do is admit that you’re a feminist and you will be treated to some of the most degrading, insulting and abusive insults you can imagine. “Bitch” and “feminazi” are the low end of the spectrum. And it goes all the way up to threats of rape, physical harm and even death.
Not because you’ve done anything. You’ve hurt no one, you’ve espoused no hurtful views. You’ve simply said you were a feminist. That you support the idea of equality between the sexes.
There are people who will hunt down women on the internet who apply that label to themselves specifically to throw those insults at them, to “put them in their place,” to frighten them. To make them take back that one simple word. They’re not even necessarily attacking the goal of equality, but they don’t want you to say “feminist.”
It works. Over and over again you see or hear women say things like “I’m not a feminist, but…” and go on to express a staunchly feminist view point. Women fervently declining the title over and over. Don’t you call me that, don’t you say that word, they’ll hear me, they’ll hear you, they’ll make us pay for it. Women who may want the title, who will own it in their mind are told by those around them not to dare apply it to themselves. Don’t say that’s what you are. You know what they’ll think of you. You want to be liked? You want a career? You want good things? Then don’t say THAT WORD.
Diana of Themyscira, Wonder Woman, is not a woman to give into fear.
Wonder Woman would not reject the term “feminist.”
She would EMBRACE it.
Introduced to a culture that embraces the ideas of equality, but rejects a term that applies to those who fight for it, she would be confused. She would possible be horrified by this kind of thing in Patriarch’s World. And I do not believe for one moment she would allow it to stop her.
She would have studied logic, I’m sure. Feminists believe in equality between the sexes. I believe in equality between the sexes. Therefor, I am a feminist.
If you attempt to tell me that Wonder Woman would say she was not a feminist, that she would qualify a statement with “…not really a feminist, but…,” then I will tell you the simple truth. You do not understand Wonder Woman, what she stands for, who she is.
You dishonor her.
She is a feminist.
I am a feminist.
End of story.
Ever hear the term “SJW”? It means “social justice warrior,” and it refers specifically to people who point out racism or sexism in movies, video games, and other pop culture. Those people are considered worse than other types of critics because instead of just pointing out that a movie has flaws, they’re accusing people who like it of being awful.
Except they’re not, of course. If someone points out that the alternator belt in your car is slipping, they’re not accusing you of being some kind of mustache-twirling, white cat-stroking supervillain for having car problems. They’re not accusing you of anything. They’re talking about your fucking car.
J. F. Sargent, “5 Human Flaws That Prevent Progress and Keep Us Dumb" (Cracked.com)
I don’t know what’s been happening over at Cracked lately, but damn.