Why is John Nolte sugarcoating Civil War?
1 Comments Published by Avi Green on Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:11 AM.
Breitbart's John Nolte commented on film schools becoming more woke, and quite blatantly too at that. The concerns are quite valid as far as moviemaking goes, but then, he dampens the impact with a sugarcoated take on a very dismaying, early form of politically motivated comics crossover, the movie connections here notwithstanding:
It's one thing to decide who's side you want to take in a challenging argument. But it's entirely another to shove established characters who usually were characterized as caring about the wider public's safety into forced and contrived situations that could arguably be out-of-character for all involved. That Nolte may be alluding to the movies does nothing to alleviate that. And if he thinks the woke film schools would care about Cap and IM being mistreated by Marvel editorial, he'd be mistaken.
One of the great joys of movies is trying to figure out what to think about someone and what you would do in the same situation. Woke removes all of that. Remember Captain America: Civil War? That’s how it’s supposed to work. Which side would you take? Who’s right, Captain America or Iron Man?This may relate to one of the older Marvel movies, but what he's doing is still hugely disappointing, because the film itself was based upon one of the worst examples of Marvel's descent into heavy-handed leftism under Joe Quesada's decade as EIC, in 2006. Even if, as a movie, it took certain liberties differentiating from the original comics, it's just no excuse. As far as both Cap and Shell-Head are concerned, I don't want either of them being forced into a role that's against keeping the USA safe from terrorism, for example. I'm not saying either of them should support the government wholesale. But it's insulting to the intellect how Marvel's editorial forced both superheroes into the contrived roles they had there, and additionally revolting is how Spider-Man was put in the position of unmasking just so they could soon put him in the position of selling out to Mephisto, along with his marriage to Mary Jane Watson. But I guess somebody like Nolte, who only cares about movies, can't be bothered to comment on the worst that could happen under Quesada, huh? And what about how Cap was put in death limbo at the time, all for the sake of bringing back Bucky so he could take over, and things became considerably worse when the Falcon was shoehorned into the role for the sake of more wokeness? Why, Civil War itself was a product of wokeness. Didn't anyone consider?
It's one thing to decide who's side you want to take in a challenging argument. But it's entirely another to shove established characters who usually were characterized as caring about the wider public's safety into forced and contrived situations that could arguably be out-of-character for all involved. That Nolte may be alluding to the movies does nothing to alleviate that. And if he thinks the woke film schools would care about Cap and IM being mistreated by Marvel editorial, he'd be mistaken.
Labels: Avengers, bad editors, Captain America, crossoverloading, history, Iron Man, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, Spider-Man, women of marvel
Regarding film schools adopting a more socially conscious approach—which some may find unduly obvious—you've raised an interesting point. The worries expressed concerning the impact on filmmaking are legitimate and show how the business is changing. For those delving into the world of film and media, considering options likedo my class could further enhance their understanding of these shifts. Notably, though, the author offers a nuanced viewpoint by discussing a historical example of politically motivated comics crossover, which counterbalances this discussion. Readers are reminded by this statement that similar tendencies have existed in different guises throughout the history of entertainment media. Excellently stated.