These are the Freedom Fighters?
Almost overlooked this, but, here's a bit of something to tell just what kind of damage DC's done to Uncle Sam and the Freedom Fighters:
So it looks like the latest to suffer these inside-out turnarounds are the Freedom Fighters, to the point of where you don't know who or what they're fighting for. Instead of writing a story in which they search for and destroy a terrorist gang's base, it has to be a story wherein the US government is the guilty party that the writers come up with. I'm sorry, but this too is nothing more than another insult, and will not draw in the millions of potential buyers out there whom I thought the companies were hoping to appeal to.
Update: hmm, how interesting. From the following site, Comic Pants, while it's sadly a biased review, it does give a clue about where some of the ideas here for the negative attitude this book holds towards the US government and its policies came from:
But one sure thing: whether Batman is depicted as grim 'n gritty, the whole notion that he would join the enemy is insulting at best. And what's this about secular humanism? Is that saying that religion, depending on what belief it is that we're talking about, can't be useful or inspiring? Why does it specifically have to be a secular form of humanity? Please, you can do better than that, Mr. Morrison.
And that leads to some of the other parts that I highlighted. Just what exactly is Morrison trying to do when he talks about "bin Laden against King Kong or Hannibal the Cannibal"? Is he trying to compare Batman to the terrorists? Is he insulting the Masked Manhunter? Ugh, I don't want to have to think about it.
Notice also that the VS abbreviation at the end of the paragraph was printed in quotations, even if they're singular ones. Uh oh, is Morrison implying that the US army is fighting nothing? Or that the al Qaeda doesn't exist? Or both? I don't know, but I do think he's just shown why I won't be spending any money on his current Batman stories.
Open trackbacks: The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Is it Just Me, Mark My Words, NIF.
The government-sponsored Freedom Fighters finally confront Uncle Sam-- but after a good talking to, they swiftly change sides and turn against the corrupt government that brought them together. Yes, there is some veiled Bush-bashing here but the story seems so shallow, it hardly registers-- despite the obvious attempts by the creators to address larger issues."Larger" issues. Ho, I'll bet. And look at what their target is in this 2nd issue of this 8-part miniseries:
The big fight scene, with the Freedom Fighters attacking a government installation, fails to convey the sense of action that is suppose to be taking place.Most likely because they were more concerned about attacking the government than in coming up with something that the audience would appreciate.
So it looks like the latest to suffer these inside-out turnarounds are the Freedom Fighters, to the point of where you don't know who or what they're fighting for. Instead of writing a story in which they search for and destroy a terrorist gang's base, it has to be a story wherein the US government is the guilty party that the writers come up with. I'm sorry, but this too is nothing more than another insult, and will not draw in the millions of potential buyers out there whom I thought the companies were hoping to appeal to.
Update: hmm, how interesting. From the following site, Comic Pants, while it's sadly a biased review, it does give a clue about where some of the ideas here for the negative attitude this book holds towards the US government and its policies came from:
...while the story is in many ways over-the-top, there are also a number of clever moments and intriguing characters in the first two issues of this series, not to mention some lines and concepts so fun and outrageous that the credit of “based on ideas and concepts developed by Grant Morrison” is hardly a surprise.No indeed, it's not. After all, this is the same writer whom Marvel let use the X-Men as a personal playground for pacifism, and who attacked Frank Miller's upcoming Batman project with a bewildering response on Newsarama:
I'd rather Batman embodied the best that secular humanism has to offer - a sour-faced, sexually-repressed, humorless, uptight, angry, and all-round grim 'n' gritty Batman would be more likely to join the Taliban surely?No kidding. If that's what you think, Mr. Morrison, then why don't you set a good example by joining the army yourself and blowing the al Qaeda into the depths of hell where they belong? A leftist statement like what Morrison made is pretty easy to critique; maybe next time, he'll think of a more challenging response?
[...]
And while we're on that subject...Batman vs. Al Qaeda! It might as well be Bin Laden vs. King Kong! Or how about the sinister Al Qaeda mastermind up against a hungry Hannibal Lecter! For all the good it's likely to do. Cheering on a fictional character as he beats up fictionalized terrorists seems like a decadent indulgence when real terrorists are killing real people in the real world. I'd be so much more impressed if Frank Miller gave up all this graphic novel nonsense, joined the Army and, with a howl of undying hate, rushed headlong onto the front lines with the young soldiers who are actually risking life and limb 'vs' Al Qaeda.
But one sure thing: whether Batman is depicted as grim 'n gritty, the whole notion that he would join the enemy is insulting at best. And what's this about secular humanism? Is that saying that religion, depending on what belief it is that we're talking about, can't be useful or inspiring? Why does it specifically have to be a secular form of humanity? Please, you can do better than that, Mr. Morrison.
And that leads to some of the other parts that I highlighted. Just what exactly is Morrison trying to do when he talks about "bin Laden against King Kong or Hannibal the Cannibal"? Is he trying to compare Batman to the terrorists? Is he insulting the Masked Manhunter? Ugh, I don't want to have to think about it.
Notice also that the VS abbreviation at the end of the paragraph was printed in quotations, even if they're singular ones. Uh oh, is Morrison implying that the US army is fighting nothing? Or that the al Qaeda doesn't exist? Or both? I don't know, but I do think he's just shown why I won't be spending any money on his current Batman stories.
Open trackbacks: The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Is it Just Me, Mark My Words, NIF.
Labels: dc comics, moonbat writers, politics
