2 items about Captain America: Civil War's directors
In the epilogue of the comics arc Civil War (Captain America, issue No. 25), Captain America is assassinated. Following the schism between the superheroes (in the comics story line, it's because of the Superhero Registration Act), Cap surrenders to the authorities, and then, on the courthouse steps, he's shot — first by Crossbones, and next by a brainwashed Sharon Carter. (The death didn't stick — superheroes don't stay dead for long in comic-book world).Now that's incredible. They decided not to go with the kind of galling path the original crossover took regarding Steve Rogers. Seriously, it was uncalled for, and the biggest problem was that it couldn't escape the publicity stunt mentality; remember that it all stemmed mainly from said crossover, as did the seeds for undoing the Spider-marriage.
This, however, was not the story that the directors Joe and Anthony Russo wanted to tell. When Vulture caught up with them at the Cinema Society and Audi-hosted screening of the film in New York, they said they had discussed the original comics version, but rejected it.
"Here's what it is," Anthony Russo explained. "We were trying to tell the story of a family falling apart. The tragic end of that story is that the family is divided. For us, the emotional catharsis that we were driving at was the difficulty of that kind of ending. We didn't want it to be that the family is divided, and then somebody dies, you know?"
The part about superhero resurrection is interesting, because superheroes have almost always been the ones who qualified for resurrection, but not the co-stars, if at all. Why do the superheroes, costumed or otherwise, get to be revived but not the "civilian" co-stars? I'm reminded of Jean deWolffe, the policewoman who appeared as a recurring guest in Spidey stories for about a decade and was killed off in 1986 just because they thought a co-star's demise would make a great story. But honestly, it's ludicrous in retrospect, and could've been avoided.
And with that told, now for the bad news. I'm afraid there's some hugely disappointing news about the co-directors on Captain America: Civil War. They believe LGBT mentality must be shoved into following movies no matter what:
Joe and Anthony Russo, co-directors of Captain America: Civil War — the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s most politically-charged outing — say it’s “incumbent upon us as storytellers” to put lesbian, bi-sexual, gay, and transsexual superheroes in Marvel’s movies.In what way would it be truthful? In letting know there's bad influences and/or illnesses that come with the practice of homosexuality? How about the way advocates are so obsessed with same-sexuality nowadays, to the point where it's hammered over the head to no end? In fact, if truthfulness is what they're really worried about, then will they admit how Islamic dictatorships routinely persecute practitioners with violence and death?
“I think the chances are strong,” Joe Russo told Collider when asked about the chances of an LBGT character entering the Marvel Universe. “I mean, it’s incumbent upon us as storytellers who are making mass-appeal movies to make mass-appeal movies, and to diversify as much as possible,”
“It’s sad in the way that Hollywood lags behind other industries so significantly, one because you think that it would be a progressive industry, and two it’s such a visible industry,” he added. “So I think it’s important that on all fronts we keep pushing for diversification because then the storytelling becomes more interesting, more rich, and more truthful.”
Russo's claim Hollywood "lags" is just so laughable when you consider how there's various other TV shows and movies for over a decade now that've been pushing this junk down the viewers' throats in various ways. And if so, then he's not being "truthful". Russo's comments also bring to mind how Joss Whedon attacked capitalism just shortly after the success of the first Avengers movie. This is a vaguely similar situation, with 2 guys directing a successful movie and then dampening all the enthusiasm by making statements that insult everybody's intellect. The Breitbart article also says that:
While it’s not clear when or how Marvel films will feature LGBT superheroes, Marvel’s comic books have had same-sex weddings and openly gay characters grace its pages for years.That's not very clear or accurate. It was only in the the early 1990s that Northstar of Alpha Flight was "outed" in a poorly written mishmash by Scott Lobdell, and that was a precursor to what they've been shoving on the audiences since. The sloppy scripting Lobdell was known for isn't something I'd recommend making a movie out of, because the original story from 1992 was dreadful, and precipitated the cancellation of the first Alpha Flight volume. Yet Marvel continued to whack readers in the face with such tommyrot for years to come, and the gay weddings were only recent; apparently Joe Quesada's idea of what weddings should really be all about, not ties of the knot between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson, which were handled far more successfully years before.
And look at how LGBT backgrounds are what they're almost squarely concerned with, but never nationality-based backgrounds like Bulgaria, Croatia or Spain. When homosexuality is all they're willing to talk about, you know they're not being creative, let alone "diverse". As a result, how can we truly appreciate the former news when they knock our heads with the latter?