More examples of too much villain worship in the press
From Batman-News, it's reported that a miniseries starring Poison Ivy has been given one of GLAAD's politically motivated awards, all for the sake of a comic spotlighting a villainess who's been depicted as a lesbian since the turn of the century:
And wouldn't you know it, a Muslim ideologue who helped Marvel develop a propaganda device in the Kamala Khan character was the writer of this new embarrassment with Poison Ivy and HQ. Even though the Religion of Peace abhors homosexuality, and few adherents will appreciate the assignments she's taken.
There's also a list on Study Finds of the best supervillains of all time (at least 5 highlighted), which has fishy lines to spare:
But of course, in this day and age, how can you truly expect talented writing when that's not what the Big Two go by, hiring more according to liberal political beliefs, and those who could be talented are shunned because they're conservative-leaning? And to think we wondered how villain worship could get so bad. In any case, what's clear is that all this gushing over villains in the press, and providing validation for those who believe it's inherently okay, has got to cease. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen for a long time.
This year for the 34th Annual GLAAD Media Awards, that honor goes to G. Willow Wilson’s Poison Ivy. The series kicked off in June of 2022 for Pride Month, and follows Poison Ivy as she travels across the country as she tries to figure out who she really is. One of its major themes has been Ivy’s relationship with Harley Quinn. By focusing so much on one of the most prominent queer relationships in comics, Poison Ivy has become a standout example of LGBTQ representation.Naturally, one must wonder why it matters when a character created as a villainess qualifies for these kind of politically driven farces, instead of one created as a heroine. Yet both Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn have been promoted the most spectacular products for about 2 decades already, and it's long become disturbing, just as it's been with the emphasis the same sources put on the Joker, and even Lobo. Over a decade ago, even Sinestro from Green Lantern got a similar spotlight, despite how he was originally portrayed in the past as a villain who'd killed people.
And wouldn't you know it, a Muslim ideologue who helped Marvel develop a propaganda device in the Kamala Khan character was the writer of this new embarrassment with Poison Ivy and HQ. Even though the Religion of Peace abhors homosexuality, and few adherents will appreciate the assignments she's taken.
There's also a list on Study Finds of the best supervillains of all time (at least 5 highlighted), which has fishy lines to spare:
While the world has become infatuated with superheroes and their stories, no solid comic book novel or movie would be complete without the foil to the superhero’s might – the villain. Mischievous bad guys across the fictional landscape have come in all shapes and sizes. The very best supervillains of all time are unforgettable and sometimes even more popular than the heroes they try to beat. But why do we choose to love villains? They’re evil!Ahem. Of course the stories wouldn't work without adversaries to keep the heroes on their toes. But does that mean we should love the villains, depending on the severity of their acts in the stories? Of course not, yet the whole notion's been a sad staple for years on end. How come no similar argument made that we should love heroes because they're good and delightful, among other positive qualities? This is not helping in the slightest.
Without the bad guys, what’s fun about watching a hero live their everyday life unbothered? More than half (51%) of Americans “always” or “often” root for the bad guy or gal when watching a movie or TV show. In a recent survey of 2,011 U.S. adults, three in five (60%) say they watch a series or movie just for the villain.
Every villain story involves heinous actions and evil deeds. Good storytelling often gives our favorite villains a redemption arc, which people tend to find fascinating. A study conducted by a team at the University of Michigan finds people just can’t help but see some good in the bad guys. Both adults and children surveyed during the study said that villains were inwardly good more often than heroes were inwardly bad. All supervillain origin story often stems from tragedy or unfortunate events.Ugh, ugh, UGH! They're going from worse to hopeless. Whether all supervillain tales stem from tragedy, let's be clear. When a designated crook turns to murder and rape, and even overt racism and sexism, that's not something to enjoy at all. That's simply awful. Murder is something Vader and Joker have both been portrayed doing over past decades, and to say anybody sensible should almost literally enjoy that is chilling. Even Marvel's got a number of supervillains who were depicted committing violent murders, like Bullseye, and we're supposed to root for him too?!? No way. What the sensible writer should expect is that readers root for the heroes to defeat the established villains and see to it they're punished for their crimes. Obviously, that's not easy when both DC and Marvel alike relied on a "revolving door" approach for many of their established supercrooks, but still, maybe that's exactly why the time's come to retire some of these more notorious villains, and if it weren't for how we've reached a point where mainstream superhero fare's been played out and milked dry, I'd say new ones should be introduced, without complaints I've heard in the past that it's hard to create new villains, even though the writing in the finished product is what determines everything.
We might even find villains more attractive at times because we naturally gravitate toward characters who remind us of ourselves. A recent study finds there’s a perfectly scientific explanation for why we’re drawn to evil characters like Darth Vader, the Joker, or Professor Moriarty — we relate to them more!
But of course, in this day and age, how can you truly expect talented writing when that's not what the Big Two go by, hiring more according to liberal political beliefs, and those who could be talented are shunned because they're conservative-leaning? And to think we wondered how villain worship could get so bad. In any case, what's clear is that all this gushing over villains in the press, and providing validation for those who believe it's inherently okay, has got to cease. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen for a long time.
Labels: Batman, dc comics, golden calf of LGBT, golden calf of villainy, islam and jihad, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda
The complaints about Vader aside, I agree with everything you said. This villain worship is getting WAY out of hand (though to be fair, Poison Ivy's technically more of an anti-hero at this point than a villain).
I'm not necessarily against villains getting a redemption arc, though. After all, before he became Saint Paul, we had Saul, who was a notorious zealot among the Jewish faith who persecuted anyone who had even the slightest liking of Jesus, even killed quite a few people in his lifetime. It literally took an event at Damascus to pull a complete 180 for him. Because of that, I can buy villains getting a redemption arc. In fact, in one sense, I see Vader as being a bit like Saul/Saint Paul. Now that being said, that DOESN'T mean that all villains should get that. Vader at least had underlying remorse that allowed it to work in his case. I simply can't really buy it with characters like the Joker or Maleficent, both of whom outright revel in their heinous deeds and thus clearly have zero remorse (well, okay, Joker DID briefly show some remorse in The Killing Joke when offered a chance at Batman helping him to sanity, but even there, he rejected the reform and still firmly believed in relativism in the end). Besides, Vader's unusual among villains in that he DOES in fact firmly believe in a firm and absolute right and wrong, which is generally reserved for heroic types (usually, villains assuming they don't revel in their heinous acts tend to at least claim or even firmly believe morality doesn't even exist). Ironically, with the exception of Luke Skywalker (who DID in fact fit the classical view of a hero in terms of actually believing in a firm and absolute right and wrong), most of the "heroic" cast such as Obi-Wan and Yoda generally seemed to actually believe morality ultimately is relative, which is simply a fancy way of saying it doesn't exist (Palpatine is more of a gray area, as the only time his views of morality came up was when he was trying to subtly convince Anakin to join the Sith and renounce the Jedi in ROTS, and even there it's likely he was simply trying to jujitsu the Jedi's clear embrace of moral relativism rather than an actual believer in relativism himself.). All because George Lucas had to push HIS personal sociopolitical viewpoints into the movies. That's one of several reasons I no longer respect the guy. I personally have more disgust for a hero who doesn't even believe absolute right and wrong exist at all than I do for a villain who at least DOES believe in that concept. If a hero doesn't even believe in a firm right and wrong, how are they any different from a villain even if they fight bad guys themselves?
I'll admit I may have been guilty of rooting for villains (though only the Galactic Empire, no one else, and even THAT is solely because of George Lucas modeling the Rebels, the good guys of the film, after extremely evil people in real life. Note that I don't count as villains people who are otherwise obviously good people who are placed under the servitude of bad guys, like Super's depiction of Broly, since it's clear they didn't actually have much of an actual choice there.), but I usually have a code in place that prevents me from doing that.
Posted by
eotness |
2:57 AM