A Fantastic Feud: Your Letters

Wow! X-Men #200! This is the first Marvel comic to hit the #200 mark since Spectacular Spider-Man way back in 1993.



And World War Hulk rocks!



...so far. If it ends with Hulk looking around at the damage and surrendering to Iron Man I am so never reading a Marvel comic again.

"...so far. If it ends with Hulk looking around at the damage and surrendering to Iron Man I am so never reading a Marvel comic again. "

Good one!

Seriously though, if it ends without delving into the issue of the damage, loss of life, and breach of rights caused by the Illuminati and the greater issues this can be tied to in our world I will be very disapointed. I want to see Hulk beat the crap out of the Marvel U, but I want substance even more.

FF2 wasn't great by any means, but it wasn't a P.O.S. like the first movie. It was a kids movie. Plain and simple. Sometimes, that's all a director and writer are capable of...

As for DC, I've dropped every title of theirs except for Jonah Hex. If this stupid Countdown to Mediocrity threatens the Hex book, I'll be done with DC completely.

Speaking of Coutndown to Mediocrity, I've been hearing rumors that it's supposed to be taking the DCU back to the pre-crisis stage. Essentially, it's going to be the 1980's all over again. Good luck with that one.

On to Marvel, friends and I are speculating that WWH and Anihilation are going to come together at the end of their respective runs, and it's all going to tie into what was started in Civil War. A lot of stuff is pointing at it going in this direction.

While it would be cool for WWH and Annihilation to intersect, doesn't WWH end probably six months before Annihilation wraps up?

WWH has been good so far. If any of you haven't had a chance to read Annihilation it kicks ass. I've only read the first two books but it has been well worth the money. I think Kurt was right in the article, just listen to this guy:

Marius James writes, “Dude! Lighten up. If every movie had to be an engrossing cerebral standout then, let’s face it, movie-going would be an overbearing event.”

The mindless summer escapism is far outweighing the engrossing character driven stuff; Pirates 3, Shrek 3, FF2, Die Hard 4, Rush Hour 3, Hostel 2. That Marvel Annihilation storyline is just one example that you don't have to sacrifice characters and story to get your fantasy fix. I'm with Kurt, if their were more "engrossing cerebral standouts" I would definitely be at the movies more often, or at least walk out satisfied.

Holy %$#&! Somehow I assumed that my letter would go unread, nevermind unacknowledged. I apologize, Kurt, for such baseless thoughts.

I do agree that we should expect more from our movies, especially from properties like our most beloved comics that we all know have the potential to be something much greater than just "funny books" (God, I hate that term.). But I'm of the belief that much of what Hollywood trowels out is so poor because of their ridiculous business sense when it comes to who runs what and who acts in what. Studios will always produce 90% crap because they hire and cast based on nepotism, regardless of income for past works. Hollywood accountants can skew numbers, especially with international markets being included, to make ANY crap film seem like it was profitable (*cough* Ghost Rider *cough*). But do you think they hired Nick Cage because he was SO right for the part, because his films generally do well in box office, or because his real last name is "Coppola" and he wanted to massacre... I mean, PLAY the role of Johnny Blaze?

I will admit that I'm also biased in recent years by having a young daughter who I look to bring into the comic reading fold with simpler fare at her tender age of 3. As she ages, I'll introduce her to the greats like Kirby, Lee, Miller, and Byrne. But for now, the fact that I have a young girl interested in comics at all is a good start for me (though, to be honest, she hasn't seen either FF movie. But she DOES love her some Reeves' Superman).

And I didn't mean to malign the work of John McTiernan. The man is a fabulous director (with some projects excepted of course), as well as a seemingly good man (I'm biased by having received a personal letter from him at age 14 in response to a fan letter I wrote about Die Hard and Predator). I just meant to refer to movies that are generally regarded by most people as "useless action schlock." I should have chosen better examples of crap summer movies. ;)

I also do think that I failed to emphasize my lack of knowledge about the FF as a comic, as I think that helped lower my expectations for the films - though I should know better than to underrate any title created by Stan. I was always an Avengers fan, personally (try New Avengers again. Mighty Avengers sucks and don't get me started on the Initiative, but N.A. seems to be gaining some emotional momentum after the death of Steve Rogers. Then again, maybe I'm projecting.).

But now I digress.

Anyway, keep up the great work. Thanks again for doing me the honor of acknowledging my uninformed yet well-intentioned letter. ;)

-Dave

P.S. Good call on Predator as Beowulf... I never saw that connection before, but damn if you're not right. Too bad McTiernan didn't stick with that version of the Danish myth and avoid "13th Warrior."

Holy %$#&! Somehow I assumed that my letter would go unread, nevermind unacknowledged. I apologize, Kurt, for such baseless thoughts.

I do agree that we should expect more from our movies, especially from properties like our most beloved comics that we all know have the potential to be something much greater than just "funny books" (God, I hate that term.). But I'm of the belief that much of what Hollywood trowels out is so poor because of their ridiculous business sense when it comes to who runs what and who acts in what. Studios will always produce 90% crap because they hire and cast based on nepotism, regardless of income for past works. Hollywood accountants can skew numbers, especially with international markets being included, to make ANY crap film seem like it was profitable (*cough* Ghost Rider *cough*). But do you think they hired Nick Cage because he was SO right for the part, because his films generally do well in box office, or because his real last name is "Coppola" and he wanted to massacre... I mean, PLAY the role of Johnny Blaze?

I will admit that I'm also biased in recent years by having a young daughter who I look to bring into the comic reading fold with simpler fare at her tender age of 3. As she ages, I'll introduce her to the greats like Kirby, Lee, Miller, and Byrne. But for now, the fact that I have a young girl interested in comics at all is a good start for me (though, to be honest, she hasn't seen either FF movie. But she DOES love her some Reeves' Superman).

And I didn't mean to malign the work of John McTiernan. The man is a fabulous director (with some projects excepted of course), as well as a seemingly good man (I'm biased by having received a personal letter from him at age 14 in response to a fan letter I wrote about Die Hard and Predator). I just meant to refer to movies that are generally regarded by most people as "useless action schlock." I should have chosen better examples of crap summer movies. ;)

I also do think that I failed to emphasize my lack of knowledge about the FF as a comic, as I think that helped lower my expectations for the films - though I should know better than to underrate any title created by Stan. I was always an Avengers fan, personally (try New Avengers again. Mighty Avengers sucks and don't get me started on the Initiative, but N.A. seems to be gaining some emotional momentum after the death of Steve Rogers. Then again, maybe I'm projecting.).

But now I digress.

Anyway, keep up the great work. Thanks again for doing me the honor of acknowledging my uninformed yet well-intentioned letter. ;)

-Dave

P.S. Good call on Predator as Beowulf... I never saw that connection before, but damn if you're not right. Too bad McTiernan didn't stick with that version of the Danish myth and avoid "13th Warrior."

Kurt, sorry I didn't comment last week, but your review of FF2 was spot on for me. I think you pretty much summed up exactly how I felt. Honestly I think the best Fantastic Four movie to date is "The Incredibles." I think the folks at Pixar got the essence of what an FF story was supposed to be about.

I also agree good call on Predator as Beowulf.

“Anyway, a couple of readers that had some harsh words for me also apologized over e-mail. I appreciate that . . .”

I hope the ones who emailed you and apologized were the ones who were actually attacking you personally. Those are the ones who need to apologize.

I was glad that you actually emailed me, Kurt, to let me know that you knew I wasn’t attacking you. It did ease my conscience as I was worried my attempt to qualify your criticisms would be mistaken by you as me dismissing your criticisms. I’m glad to see that you easily saw that I wasn’t.

Now on to criticizing your criticisms. :)

“Above all, I don’t like junk. I refuse to recommend a piece of lighthearted entertainment just because it successfully touches on a few genre hallmarks and keeps my young cousins quiet for an afternoon. I will not recommend a film or comic simply because it’s “fun.” If you can only recommend the film with that single adjective, then I probably won’t find it very fun at all. I hold art to high standards. If walking through a gallery, I will happily bypass a collection of twisted metal masquerading as “modern” or “abstract” on my way to see a portrait by a dead Renaissance painter that had more talent than most of us could ever hope to muster. I expect art to fascinate, to inspire, to move, and, above all, to comment on the human condition – an absurd, frequently sorry, but, occasionally, joyful experience.”

Nobody likes “junk.” Not really. The problem is: who defines junk? The tired, overused cliché is “One man’s junk is another man’s treasure.” ---- I personally think the Godfather films are absolute immoral garbage full of characters that have no redeeming values and a story that celebrates a dangerous criminal organization. I feel that the Punisher comics are red meat for people with anger problems or that wish they could extract violent vengeance with such impunity and get some personal thrill out of seeing people brutally murdered. As far as I am concerned the Grand Theft Auto games can only really be enjoyed if one has at least a desire to do wrong if not an out and out strong sadistic streak. Also, I find any media which has an overt, in-your-face pro-religion (Veggie Tales, Evan Almighty, even Dogma) slant to be not only lacking in cognitive resonance as a result but also that such media loses much entertainment value and in the end simply turns me off. ---- When you look at the above, I’m making personal judgment calls about the quality of said media – the above fail to be entertaining, much of it entering into what I would classify as “harmful” entertainment, because I feel that structurally or thematically none of them should qualify as good or uplifting or cathartic. Obviously many people disagree with me, and that’s fine. ----- My point being, Kurt, that you dismissing modern art as being not being “art” while rushing over to see a guy who emulated the style of the Ancient Greeks (Renaissance was a time of returning to past learning of the Ancient World – the “Rebirth” of Greek Classicism) is just your personal tastes and opinions. Art is completely subjective, and while some “experts” of a certain time may agree on what is good and what is bad, they are not authorities as “art” is not science, there are no “facts” about what is good or bad, what is or isn’t art.

You declaring by fiat that abstract art (metal sculptures, “found” collages, performance art, mime, whatever you decide to mock) is without the quality to “fascinate, inspire, move, or comment on the human condition” does not make it so. It means that it is YOUR OPINION – and this is one of the areas where it isn’t just PC, but actually correct, to say that no one’s opinion is wrong. It might be different than the majority, but consider this – the music you were spinning as DJ? The vast majority of the public and music critics dismiss as “not music.” They are WRONG, of course, but no more so than you dismissing modern or abstract art.


“Neither of the Fantastic Four movies merits your time or money.”

Opinion. Pure judgment call. ---- I felt they were well worth my time and money. I wish I had my money back from X3, from Lost World, from Men In Tights, from going to see The Godfather at a second run theater (even though the pizza and the company was good), and I wish I had the time back from reading Watchmen. The experiences of others will vary.

“Just because one can kill an afternoon with mildly entertaining genre fiction doesn’t mean one should.”

Nor does it mean one shouldn’t. We have to make our own decisions about what we choose to read / watch / listen to. And if one person like Louis L’amour books and another prefers The Outlander series and yet another really enjoys Dostoevsky, none of them are “wrong” or “wasting their time.”

“There are simply too many great books, films, comics, and other works of art left in the wake of human history to say, “Well, it was fun.” While you certainly can’t judge a work until you experience it, it doesn’t mean you should spend any more time than absolutely necessary. I’ve read enough Anne Rice novels to know that she lost whatever virtues – or whatever editor – she possessed as a writer years ago. Hence, I won’t read anymore of her books until I hear reports of remarkable improvement.”

One can NEVER consume all the literature written, let alone entering into discussions of other media. This line of logic is a non-starter. Now, if you meant (as I have often said to people who try to get me to read/watch/listen to something I don’t want to) that there is too much other there that you already want to experience that you shouldn’t waste time on things you don’t want to experience, then I’m with you – you may be missing out on some surprises, but if you are like me with STACKS of unread books, unwatched movies, etc – you really don’t need someone trying to force on top of your piles things that hold little to no interest for you. ---- So what if one of those things someone chooses to “waste their time” with happens to be as “unimportant” or “of little artistic value” as a Rob Schneider movie or a Star Wars novel? That’s the individual’s choice. Not everyone has to read Tolstoy or watch Kurosawa all the time!

As for Anne Rice – I’ve read most of her works. Enjoyed little of it, but I like genre fiction and I read A LOT. A LOT A LOT. Of all kinds of books. From Koontz to Dawkins to Orwell to Shelly to Asprin to Franken to Adams to Hawking. So I’m not knocking someone for READING Rice. I have read her. But I think it’s telling that you’ll talk about preferring moving, meaningful, artistically important works . . . and then at least imply that Rice has, at some point, written something that wasn’t on most levels either homoerotic smut, incestual pedophilia or self-indulgent ego-stroking. Her novels ramble, have little story structure, and then rarely have any sort of real climax as they just end. ---- Just my opinion, sure, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find too many literary critics who’d list Anne Rice as “fascinating”, “inspiring”, “moving” or “commentary on the human condition.” Just saying.


“If I want a great vampire novel, I’ll reread Dracula.”

I can appreciate Bram Stoker. I understand his literary importance, especially in the context of monster fiction, but really – Stoker was something of a hack in his day and Dracula is a hard, often boring, read. Great? Try “I Am Legend.”

“Jack Kirby’s . . . Will Eisner’s . . . Alan Moore’s”

This feels like name dropping. “I read X, so my opinions matter. I’ve read Y, so I know good work.” No, Kurt, you opinion matters because you are the critic for one, but mostly because (when it comes to entertainment media) EVERYONE’S opinion matters. And you only “know good work” by one of two methods – what you yourself deem “good” by your own biases (read interests, likes, etc.) and what you look to a general consensus of some sort (public at large, probably not, but scholars and critics sure) to declare as “good.” Don’ feel the need to pedigree. Seriously, you aren’t listing a range of things that you have yet to read – you picked out creators that (in comic circles) are considered the “high art.” It really comes across as snobbery, as does most of your post. You are free and entitled to your opinion, but you don’t need to declare your opinion in such absolute terms (“Neither Fantastic Four movie is worth your time or money.”)

“With art, as with all things I assess, I ask them to simply be the best that they can be. Asking for anything less constitutes either a sacrifice for convenience or a grave lapse in judgment.”

Do you? I think you said earlier in this same manifesto – “I expect art to fascinate, to inspire, to move, and, above all, to comment on the human condition.” Why does entertainment have to inspire? Why does a comic book need to be moving? Why is a movie required to comment on the human condition? There is a great documentary call Winged Migration – it’s about birds – but I guess it isn’t worthwhile because it isn’t about the human condition. There are the hilarious comedy movies by Mel Brooks, Spaceballs and Blazing Saddles and History of the World Part One (among others), none of which are inspiring or moving, so I guess they are a waste of time. Unless you are into Rosie Perez’s nipples or Samuel Jackson’s voice, there’s nothing fascinating about Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing, so I guess we can toss that into the trash bin of “not worth our time.”

“Even I occasionally eat fast food – or the artistic equivalent thereof – but I rarely seek it out for its own sake. I will die one day having not experienced every worthwhile work of art created in the course of human history. I’d like to think that I didn’t waste what time I had.”

Major judgment call. By fast food I assume the analogy you are aiming for is comparing lack of nutrition and containment of unhealthy elements to lack of positive meaning and containment of empty or negative content (and not the speed at which fast food is delivered (raw veggies are faster) nor the mass production of such (a print of Van Gogh just wouldn’t do then, or one of hundred thousand printed copies of Hamlet),) And yet you’ve read Anne Rice and still enjoy the Punisher – (I know, bad me and my own prejudices – not seeing how homoerotic vampires lamenting immortality really has to do with the human condition, and me not being fascinated, inspired and moved by a psychotic man’s infatuation with criminals and the guns he kills them with) so I fail to see how you can take the high ground as if all that you expose yourself to is “high art.” Maybe, maybe, somewhere in your head the best Anne Rice (what, Interview? Mayfair Witches? Ramses the Damned?) or the best issues of Punisher SOMEHOW qualify as “meaningful” to humanity, but I think you’d have to realize how small a group of people would share your opinion.


Really, to draw a conclusion to the – entertainment, whether music or film or the written word, doesn’t have to be life affirming, nor does it need to be meaningful, nor does it need to answer great moral questions, nor does it need to be inspirational, nor does it need to be social commentary . . . Sometimes all entertainment needs to do is simply entertain. And there is NOTHING WRONG with something being PURE ENTERTAINMENT.

I’d argue most readers of Anne Rice or Punisher (or watchers of Predator) just simply enjoy it.

And they enjoy it because they find it “fun.”

Hey Merin, could you maybe write more next time? That wasn't long enough.

Here's what I have to say: GOD I LOVE IRON FIST. I will gay-marry the crap out of Matt Fraction. For serious.