« Home | The filmmaker who adapted Valerian & Laureline to ... » | Paul Levitz predictably sugarcoats Brian Bendis » | West Coast Avengers title relaunched, only to serv... » | Unprofessional "pros" can hurt the business » | GL's Jessica Cruz is being made the easy target » | 3 political tweets by J.T. Krul » | What are some creators saying about the Meyer/Waid... » | Twitter suspended Bosch Fawstin again, for daring ... » | It certainly is time Waid retired » | Kevin Feige says the Marvel movie-verse could add ... » 

Monday, May 21, 2018 

Comicsverse favors the Muslim Ms. Marvel, and takes a negative stance on WW film star Gal Gadot

I just found a most disturbing contrast on the far-left-leaning Comicsverse site, in regards to two subjects. One is an interview they did with a BBC representative, following up on film producer Kevin Feige's troubling comments, and they're gushing even worse than some other favoratists did:
BBC News: Kat Vendetti of ComicsVerse, which uses the high art of comics, as their website puts it, as a platform to discuss issues that promote positive social change told me first what she knows about the possible movie in the possible pipeline.

ComicsVerse: Kevin Feige from Marvel studios has said that she’s going to be appearing in a future movie. I think that’s the most logical trajectory, given how the movies have been going.

BBC News: And she already exists on paper as an identifiable character. As Ms. Marvel but also as Kamala Khan?

ComicsVerse: Yes, and she’s fairly new. She debuted, I think, in 2013. Since she made her premiere in the comics, she’s been hugely successful. Her series has made so many bestseller lists, has gotten so many reprints. She’s made animated appearances. So it was just a matter of time before she would make her big screen appearance as well.
Yep, keep up the comedy please. No sales figures, no nothing. Just a lot of hot air, bias and favoratism, is all. But what's telling besides that is the site rep's "I think", strongly hinting she's not as well-versed in the medium as the site's supposedly meant to be. The reason they may be pushing a character with an Islamic background into the movies has what to do with their horrid politics and belief it's better than anything else, and the quest to indoctrinate the audience into believing this is a valid form of culture.
BBC News: We’ll talk about the specific cultural implications in a moment, but I guess it’s fair to say that BLACK PANTHER was a monster hit, way beyond the African-American community, and therefore, this could be this could be a monster hit way beyond the Muslim American community.

ComicsVerse: You know, speaking to the success of Black Panther, it just shows how needed these movies are. I’m a white woman, so I’ve had plenty of characters myself that I can look up to with Wonder Woman and with Captain Marvel coming up, which isn’t a whole lot to say. Given my experiences watching Wonder Woman and the excitement I feel for the Captain Marvel film, I can only imagine how others might feel getting to know Kamala Khan in a MS. MARVEL movie.
Well from what I once learned, the Captain Marvel movie with Brie Larson may not have gotten a great behind-the-scenes reception as hoped, and so there's no telling if the finished product will either, seeing how it's already shown signs of being the first standout social justice-influenced movie in Marvel's stables.

And can she imagine what victims of Islamic terrorism anywhere in the world - including 9-11 Families for a Safe America - might feel whenever they learn the religion that led to the deaths of their beloveds is whitewashed and depicted in positive terms unquestioned? Doesn't look that way from what I'm reading. Comparing ideology to race/nationality is also very degrading.
BBC News: Do you think it’s a boost for Marvel’s intentions or maybe a slightly worrying element that there will be a lot of responsibility on the studio … on the filmmakers because there’s so much anxiety in the Muslim American community about discrimination. They need to see a positive role model.

ComicsVerse: I don’t know if I have much authority to speak on that a whole lot. What I can say is that when Kamala Khan first made her debut in the comics, there was a lot of backlash and criticism.

ComicsVerse: G. Willow Wilson, I think, has said before that she wasn’t sure what kind of success her character would have, but Kamala has been hugely successful for a variety of reasons. She’s incredibly relatable as a character. Anybody can see themselves in her.

ComicsVerse: The idea of the modern American hero is not Peter Parker or Captain America anymore. It’s a character like Kamala Khan. She’s more reflective of the experience that you can have as an American.
Ah, how fascinating. So Spidey and Cap aren't ideal US heroes any longer. Any particular reason? Most likely, it's political correctness and a disrespect for Kirby/Lee creations that, until recently, most commentators didn't even have the courage to admit they harbored. As for the Beeb, it's just like them to back up the victimology stance, and not admit the ideology itself is a negative example. Furthermore, what can anybody see in the Khan character the sales figures - which are down to around 13,000 by now - prove they're not?

The next example is their comments on Israeli-born Wonder Woman movie star Gal Gadot, asking if her winning a spot in Time's list of 100 most influential people is the right decision. It's not too difficult to guess they believe the answer is no, and their op-ed gets more irritating as it goes along:
This year’s TIME 100: Most Influential People of 2018 is a who’s who of progressive, feminist icons. The list includes #MeToo movement founder Tarana Burke; queer writer, producer, and actress Lena Waithe; West Virginia’s first female fire chief, Jan Rader; trans rights advocate and author Janet Mock, and many others.

On the other hand, the list also includes its fair share of conservative figureheads like Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity. The jarring combination ranges from every side of the political spectrum and places misogynists in the ranks of revolutionary social justice advocates.

Indeed, like 2018, the TIME 100 list is full of surprises. In the middle of these names, Wonder Woman inexplicably appears. Or, to be specific, the woman who plays her on the silver screen, Gal Gadot.

The inclusion is perplexing, not because Gadot isn’t influential, but rather because WONDER WOMAN is so 2017. Moreover, Gadot deserves only partial credit for bringing DC’s most recognizable female superhero to life. Director Patty Jenkins is largely to thank for the overwhelmingly female-centric focus of the film.

So, why didn’t Gadot or Jenkins make the list back in 2017? In fact, Patty Jenkins was one of the 2017 runners-up for TIME’s Person of the Year. Again, the question remains: Why Gal Gadot, and why now?
What kind of ambiguous query is that anyway? Is that supposed to mean the jerk who wrote this puff piece doesn't think Gadot deserves any credit? Why not equal credit with Jenkins, and why not "better late than never"? Something fishy there alright.
Gadot earned her stripes as a performer in the first WONDER WOMAN movie. Since then she joined forces with other heroes in the JUSTICE LEAGUE film. Naturally, Gadot is also slated to appear in the 2019 WONDER WOMAN 2. Among these accomplishments, Gadot also embodied Wonder Woman to help promote the character’s controversial position as an Honorary U.N. Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls.

Nonetheless, her appearance on the 2018 TIME: 100 list does not completely add up. Next to the numerous radical, queer, and/or people of color who made the list, the former Israeli Defense Forces member is a conservative choice. Next to the conservative, however, Gadot is a highly palatable icon of female strength. I suspect that Gal Gadot not only saved the DC universe as WONDER WOMAN, she strategically saves the TIME: 100 list as a politically-moderate choice for an influential female artist, however delayed the pick may seem.
And I can only guess - conservative choices are a crime, in the writer's view? Why do I also get the vibe they actually side with the UN on the issue of "controversy"? They do admit that "Gadot does live up to the praise", but soon fall back on more of the same shady commentaries:
Ultimately, why Gadot made the TIME 100 list might not really have much to do with Gadot at all, but rather what she symbolizes. Gadot is just progressive enough to appease progressives, and she’s just beauty queen/mother enough to please conservatives. For example, unlike Wonder Woman, Gadot is not queer, but she’s comfortable playing it on screen.
Umm, what absolute proof do they have that WW is lesbian per se? Or, better still, why does the buffoon consider being a beauty queen and a mom something that pleases only conservatives? That's a telling clue how what we have here is a hardcore progressive who thinks a woman being hot or a parent or both is garbage. But here's where it really begins to stink:
Her controversial support of Israeli nationalism is chalked up to “serving her country” (see Carter’s description). Moreover, Gadot’s real military experience makes her more credible as a feminist warrior princess because she is serving a traditionally male role. However, while she looks progressive for supporting Israeli women’s equality, her role directly harmed others, including women.

Mostly, however, American fans push Gadot’s involvement in Palestinian oppression aside. As a result, fans can believe that Gadot can kick ass in a mini-skirt and make it sexy, all while espousing moderately (white) feminist values. As delightful and palatable as Gadot is to most audiences, it is unclear if she deserved to be on this year’s list of the most influential people.
Ugh, ugh, UGH! So she buys into the whole "palestinian Arabic people" hook, line and sinker. And no willingness to admit that not only is it all a lie, but that both the PLO and Hamas are responsible on their part for brainwashing and indoctrinating many men, women and children alike to be monsters for the sake of jihad, first against Israel, then against anybody else considered a kuffar. Oh, is she implying Arabs aren't white? Guess so, and I've seen that flaccid tactic before. So, this is the most telling clue the writer doesn't think Gadot should be allowed to get an honorable mention because of her politics. We can only guess where the writer stands on the USA embassy's move to Jerusalem (along with Guatemala and Paraguay), and the fact that several Islamic countries banned the WW movie from local screenings.
Although Gadot lovingly embraces her role as Wonder Woman, embodying the character’s best traits in the real world, Gadot simply does not push the envelope. Instead of recognizing her for her influential role in 2017, TIME 100 simply uses her to fill a white-feminist sized gap.
And that's all you need to know that somebody's writing off whites as inferior, undoubtably without even praising any black Africans who made the lists, or recommending those who should. She doesn't even seem concerned about slavemongering by Islamofascists in Mauritania. I don't see why they even bothered to review the X-Men Wedding Special if this is their position. If they don't like Gadot because she's a proud Israeli, it's illogical they should appreciate even a fictional Jewish character like Kitty Pryde, let alone any of the Jewish creators/publishers who made it all happen. Comicsverse's bias is a pure disgrace and unworthy of representing the medium. It's a lucky thing for Gadot that Time would choose her for a place on their top 100, a list which, I'm guessing, happens to cover nearly a year, but Comicsverse makes it sound more like it all pertains to this one, which is fairly dishonest too. If that's their take, then maybe they shouldn't go to see the WW movie sequel, if it's in the works.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

I suspect that there would have been "a lot of backlash and criticism" if, in 1943, Timely (Marvel's forerunner) had published a comic book starring a Nazi German heroine, or an Italian Fascist hero.

AFAIK, Gal Gadot is not particularly a political conservative, at least by American standards. My impression (from her social media posts) is that she is a moderate liberal. Of course, I could be mistaken.

And SJW's definitions of "white" and "Semite" seem to vary according to what serves the agenda. Native Israelis are obviously just as Semitic as Arabs (in fact, in common usage, when someone says "anti-Semitic," it usually means "anti-Jewish"), but somehow Israelis are considered "white," while Arabs (Mediterranean Caucasians, like the Jews) are considered "brown," or "people of color." So if you criticize Muslim terrorism, you are a "racist." (Even though Islam is an ideology, not a race or ethnicity at all.)

American leftists have such a convoluted world view that they see Hamas terrorists as peaceful protestors. They see aggressors as victims, and vice versa. (And not just when it comes to the Middle East. Look at the riots whenever a cop in the US justifiably shoots a violent criminal in self-defense. And now they say that MS-13 gang members have "dignity and worth.") They hate people who work and support themselves, and they exalt able-bodied young adults who demand pensions, free housing, and free internet service.

The Israelis took a wasteland and built a modern, stable, democratic country that has a high standard of living. If it were the opposite-if "Palestine" had been a paradise, and if the Jews had moved in and turned it into a slum-then every coffee shop intellectual in New York and every limousine liberal in Beverly Hills would be a militant Zionist.

The far right, the KKK and the alt-right and the white nationalists, does not consider Israelis, or Jews in general, to be white.

Jewish Israelis range in color from white European types, to Sephardic Jews who look like other Middle Eastern peoples, to Africans from Ethiopia. About one fifth of Israelis are Muslim Arabs; that is why Israel has sharia courts and why it started off with Arabic as an official language of the country.

In 1943, the US was at war with Italy and Germany. Right now, the US is allied with or on friendly terms with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and a host of Muslim countries elsewhere. Even in 1943, the US government did not stigmatize American-born people of Italian or German descent as such (although the Japanese were another story).

Post a Comment

About me

  • I'm Avi Green
  • From Jerusalem, Israel
  • I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.
My profile

Archives

Links

  • avigreen2002@yahoo.com
  • Fansites I Created

  • Hawkfan
  • The Greatest Thing on Earth!
  • The Outer Observatory
  • Earth's Mightiest Heroines
  • The Co-Stars Primer
  • Comic book websites (open menu)

    Comic book weblogs (open menu)

    Writers and Artists (open menu)

    Miscellanous links (open menu)

  • GoStats charts
  • W3 Counter stats
  • Click here to see website statistics
  • blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory Entertainment Blogs
    Entertainment blog TopOfBlogs
    View My Stats

    AmazingCounters.com

    Blog Directory & Search engine blog directory eXTReMe Tracker Locations of visitors to this page

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    make money online blogger templates

Older Posts Newer Posts

The Four Color Media Monitor is powered by Blogspot and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Join the Google Adsense program and learn how to make money online.