|Marvel Universe >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Mark Millar and Steve McNiven CW Commentary in latest Wizard Magazine [SPOILERS]
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 02:05:08 am EDT
Reply Subj: Mark Millar and Steve McNiven CW Commentary in latest Wizard Magazine [SPOILERS]
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 05:42:28 pm EDT
> Just got the latest issue of Wizard, which has a Director's Commentary on Civil War. Millar and McNiven show up to give their commentary on the series post-publication, but unfortunately they don't say much that hasn't been said before on the Internet.
There've been so many online interviews, there probably isn't much new left to say, true.
> Much of the commentary is their defense of the controversial moments in the series, followed by a lot of self-congratulation towards each other and some immature joking about Sue Storm's T&A.
Not that scene with Johnny carrying her in mid-flight?
> ( Of course, this IS Wizard, so they do know their audience. Which is no longer me, since the only part of Wizard that I really cared about-- the TPB reviews-- has been cut out, replaced with a mere laundry list of graphic novel solicitations But that's neither here nor there ).
I'm surprised you still bother, given that most of the news in it gets reported online weeks earlier.
> Anyway some things of note....
> -- The scene of all the heroes gathered to discuss the SHRA in the first issue is based on a splash page by John Buscema, circa Yellowjacket and the Wasp's wedding. In that scene, the heroes are casually partying and sipping non-alcoholic punch. In Millar and McNiven's scene, they're arguing about the Act, with some of them uncharacteristically supporting it. Something seems very wrong about how the original shot was used for this.
Do they identify who the guy in the orange (or was it yellow?) mask who appeared in one panel was? That's still confusing me.
But I'm not sure why the idea of anyone supporting registration is "uncharacteristic". The ones with no secret ID who already work for the government had no real reason to oppose it. Yes, Reed has changed his mind on the subject, but the world is a very different place since last time he had to think on the matter in 1989.
> -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ). He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
Since the event ended, Millar's been pretty consistent in his statements that Tony was right, and that compromise with the government is less-worse than a masked elite standing unaccountable and above the law, and less-worse than a running battle with their own government, less-worse than ignoring the will of the people, less-worse than "we're going to pick and choose which laws we obey".
> -- Discussion of an email Millar got about how Thor is an Aryan Superman taking down one of the few black heroes in Marvel. Millar defends himself by saying that he just wanted to kill off a giant hero. While I don't think that Millar is a racist, I can't believe that he's surprised that someone would read in those overtones.
Well, let's face it, regardless of who or what the method of death is, it's flat-out impossible for a comics writer to kill (or do anything else bad to) any character that isn't a straight white male without getting accused of prejudice or racism by knee-jerk reactionaries.
Millar is known for having a giant-killing fetish, and poor Bill Foster is probably the only giant hero Marvel would let him kill off and have him stay dead (Millar has made the point that he went for killing off minor characters in Civil War so that the deaths would actually stick).
Do they discuss the idea of creating FrankenThor in any more detail? As much as I love the concept, he has so little role after #4, it tends to feel like he only exists for a bait-and-switch shock ending to #3.
> -- Comparison of Cap and the Punisher as " the same guy " because they both represent American wars in the 20th century. Seems rather oblivious to the individual personalities of both characters ( that Cap is the MU's paragon of virtue, and Frank is a serial killer who happens to go after people who arguably deserve it ).
That the Punisher has started going after goofball supervillains who don't really deserve anything approaching a bloody death tends to suggest he's crossed any line of being able to justify his actions.
We've seen Cap/Punisher comparisons before, as the products of America's war's, notably in 'Punisher Kills the Marvel Universe', so it's not like Millar pulled it out of nowhere. And they've managed to work together before, so it's not improbable that Cap would allow him onto the team, and in doing so let in someone who's an even worse killer than any of the criminals that Tony signed up.
And once he realises his mistake, we get the sheer joy of the beatdown.
> -- Close-up on Woody Allen, who makes a cameo amongst the crowds in the final issue.
I can't say I noticed that. I wonder whose side he's on.
> Anyone else read this? I'm not reccomending it, but it is certainly interesting ( if troubling ).
Not worth picking the issue up for, then?
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|