The Four Color Media Monitor

Yahoo/Superhero Hype wrote a puff piece about a special titled Doomed 2099 (apparently a followup to the 1990s line that was titled 2099), and follow the cliche that it "reveals" something that was pretty obvious years before in how the Fantastic Four's leading adversary was characterized:

There is little doubt that Doctor Doom is the greatest villain in all of Marvel Comics. There is some debate, however, as to how evil the sovereign of Latveria truly is. While believing the ends justify the means, Doom also has a strict moral code and many noble traits. However, a battle with his future self in Doomed 2099 #1 confirms that, from a certain point of view, Victor Von Doom is undeniably evil.

Written by Frank Tieri, with art by Delio Diaz and Frank Alpizar, Doomed 2099 #1 sets up a battle for the ages. The Doom of 2099 learned of how his past incarnation had become the Sorcerer Supreme and the events of One World Under Doom. This risked destroying his alternate future, prompting the future Doctor Doom to beat some sense into his past self. Unfortunately, he knew himself well enough to know any persuasive effort was doomed to failure.

Interesting the special in question is written by Tieri, who came about as a writer in the early 2000s when Marvel's quality was deteriorating, and wrote some pretty awful takes on Iron Man and Wolverine. Last I'd heard, he may have moved on to a career in video game production, but if this story is new, it looks like sadly, they've hired him again. He's not a writer I'd recommend, and back in the day, was just one of Joe Quesada's recruits as a writer who helped bring down Marvel, leaving it on a sour note. And what battle for "the ages" is to be found at this point, long after Marvel's artistic collapse, which Tieri precipitated?

And it's stupid to say there's a debate on "how evil" Doom is, instead of how well written the stories are, and whether the level of sinisterity suits his characterization. Also, despite the claim of "moral codes" and "nobility", there have been stories where Doom was portrayed using deadly force, and that's hardly an example of retaining morale. Let's also not forget Mark Waid's 2003 FF storyline where Doom tried using magic as a weapon against the team, and left Franklin traumatized, possibly until the run was almost over. And then at the end of the puff piece, in reference to a 2009 miniseries, the site says:

Rather than destroying Reed Richards, as Selene expected, Doctor Doom wished to rid himself of any sense of guilt. His conscience, Doom reasoned, was a far greater threat to him than Mister Fantastic. Without guilt, Doom explained, there was nothing he could not do. Presuming one without guilt to be entirely evil, this would confirm Doctor Doom as the most evil villain in all of Marvel Comics. He’s certainly the most dangerous, as his ability to shrug off the Penance Stare confounded even his future self.

Gee, that doesn't sound all that different from past characterizations, and Doom's only as dangerous as writers can make him. There have been other supervillains in the MCU's history who've been written as equally formidable, if not more so, and just as cunning and crafty. So, nothing original or logical in this tiresome puff piece, and I wish they'd stop acting like everything modern is an utter celebration. More importantly, I wish they'd stop pushing villains to the forefront of discussion, all at the expense of superheroes. In contrast to this, I haven't seen many articles lauding how effective the superheroes and other similar cast members are, if at all, nor how intelligently written they could be. That's why these shoddy articles about villains are so insufferable.

Labels: bad editors, dreadful writers, Fantastic Four, golden calf of villainy, marvel comics, msm propaganda, violence