Friday, July 02, 2010
The "Wondrous" Return of Comic Book Friday
Due to nothing but entropic anomie, an early feature at Ragged Thots -- Comic Book Fridays -- fell by the wayside sometime ago. I'm not sure if this will lead to a more-permanent return, but a perfect moment has arisen to plunge into what was once known as the world of four-color pop culture.
The last time that an event in a comic book garnered newspaper and cable TV headlines was the "death" of Captain America a few years back (yeah, surprise! after being lost in time, Steve Rogers has returned to the Marvel Universe). This week, the character making the headlines shares with Cap a certain propensity to donning the old red, white and blue.
Or so she did until this week!
I speak, of course, of the Amazing Amazon, the Princess of Paradise Island, the one and only, Wonder Woman (and yeah, I know that, in fact, there's more than just "one" Wonder Woman -- don't try to out-geek me here)!. To celebrate the publication of her 600th issue -- and the debut of superstar/multi-field author J. Michael Straczinski -- DC Comics unveiled a brand new costume. Gone is the iconic look of star-spangled hot pants and golden-eagle breast-plate/stylized yellow"WW." To say, the black-leggings/leather jacket combo, designed by artist and DC co-publisher Jim Lee, has generated some controversy would be an understatement.
Deadline Hollywood writer Nikki Finke hates it. Project Runway's Tim Gunn loves it. Fox raised concerns about the cultural implications of a heroine being de-Americanized (right before Independence Day, to boot, uh, reboot)!. More knowledgeable comic fanzines wondered if we haven't seen this movie before. And, indeed, we have -- repeatedly. And, not surprisingly, the controversy has turned issue #600 into a huge hit (two days after it hit the stands).
Now, in all this, the only observation I have to make is: Here you have two iconic superheroes with origins stretching back to the World War II era. Two heroes that are literally wrapped in the flag. One is male; one is female. To generate huge headlines, the publisher of the male character kills him off (for a couple of years). To generate huge headlines, the publisher of the female character changes her clothes. Maybe it's just me, but there's something vaguely, cynically sexist in this formulation. I'm not making a judgment on the costume itself (why bother? as suggested in more than a few of the above links, a version of the original duds will return ere long, maybe with longer pants). I'm just talking about what a publisher uses to "sell" something dramatic about a character. Comic-wise Captain America and Wonder Woman are both supposed to be great warriors. Heck, classically, WW fought a contest among her fellow Amazons to get to be Paradise Island's ambassador to "Man's World." She's a fighter.
But, Cap is the one who dies in battle -- and gets the huge headlines in "the real world." WW? She gets Tim Gunn to comment on her new fashion sense.
Somehow this just doesn't seem right.
On the other hand, I'll be following the new storyline (Wonder Woman caught in an alternate timeline; geez, where have we heard that before?)! So, maybe DC knows what it's doing.
|
The last time that an event in a comic book garnered newspaper and cable TV headlines was the "death" of Captain America a few years back (yeah, surprise! after being lost in time, Steve Rogers has returned to the Marvel Universe). This week, the character making the headlines shares with Cap a certain propensity to donning the old red, white and blue.
Or so she did until this week!
I speak, of course, of the Amazing Amazon, the Princess of Paradise Island, the one and only, Wonder Woman (and yeah, I know that, in fact, there's more than just "one" Wonder Woman -- don't try to out-geek me here)!. To celebrate the publication of her 600th issue -- and the debut of superstar/multi-field author J. Michael Straczinski -- DC Comics unveiled a brand new costume. Gone is the iconic look of star-spangled hot pants and golden-eagle breast-plate/stylized yellow"WW." To say, the black-leggings/leather jacket combo, designed by artist and DC co-publisher Jim Lee, has generated some controversy would be an understatement.
Now, in all this, the only observation I have to make is: Here you have two iconic superheroes with origins stretching back to the World War II era. Two heroes that are literally wrapped in the flag. One is male; one is female. To generate huge headlines, the publisher of the male character kills him off (for a couple of years). To generate huge headlines, the publisher of the female character changes her clothes. Maybe it's just me, but there's something vaguely, cynically sexist in this formulation. I'm not making a judgment on the costume itself (why bother? as suggested in more than a few of the above links, a version of the original duds will return ere long, maybe with longer pants). I'm just talking about what a publisher uses to "sell" something dramatic about a character. Comic-wise Captain America and Wonder Woman are both supposed to be great warriors. Heck, classically, WW fought a contest among her fellow Amazons to get to be Paradise Island's ambassador to "Man's World." She's a fighter.
But, Cap is the one who dies in battle -- and gets the huge headlines in "the real world." WW? She gets Tim Gunn to comment on her new fashion sense.
Somehow this just doesn't seem right.
On the other hand, I'll be following the new storyline (Wonder Woman caught in an alternate timeline; geez, where have we heard that before?)! So, maybe DC knows what it's doing.
Labels: Comic Books, Wonder Woman
Dumbest World Cup Article Ever
In a previous life, Marc Thiessen and I were casual friends in the world of DC politics. While we never worked together, he hosted a few conservative gatherings which I was fortunate to attend -- including an annual black tie event. Anyway, he has gone on to bigger and better things -- speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush, an author, Washington Post columnist and AEI fellow. In these latter careers, he's made a few controversial statements -- including on the nature of torture (he disagrees that waterboarding counts).
Anyway, he decided to weigh in on the World Cup (waiting, it seems, until after the U.S. had been eliminated) and proclaim that soccer is a socialist sport -- explaining why it's never taken hold in America. This is one of the silliest arguments I've seen in some time.
Marc's examples of the socialist proclivities of soccer are rather dubious:
But, more significant is Thiessen's parenthetical aside, "Yes, capitalist sports have experienced labor disputes..." Understatement, anyone?!!? In the last fifteen years, two North American professional sports teams lost their post-seasons to labor strife (Major League Baseball in 1994; hockey in 2006). The only time the World Cup has been cancelled since the first one in 1930 was because of World War II.
And, let's not get started on the collectivist economics of US sports -- salary caps, luxury taxes (MLB), shared TV revenue (NFL), etc.
UPDATE: Congratulations, Flying Dutchmen!!
|
Anyway, he decided to weigh in on the World Cup (waiting, it seems, until after the U.S. had been eliminated) and proclaim that soccer is a socialist sport -- explaining why it's never taken hold in America. This is one of the silliest arguments I've seen in some time.
Marc's examples of the socialist proclivities of soccer are rather dubious:
Soccer is also the only sport in the world that has “hooligans”—proletarian mobs that trash private property whenever their team loses.Right. And the US is a has cities where "proletarian mobs...trash private property whenever their team" -- wins (see Detroit, Los Angeles and College Park, MD)!!
Soccer is collectivist. At this year’s World Cup, the French national team actually went on strike in the middle of the tournament on the eve of an elimination match. (Yes, capitalist sports have experienced labor disputes, but can you imagine a Major League Baseball team going on strike in the middle of the World Series?)The French team going "on strike" has more to do with the French -- and its pampered, bratty, team -- than it has to do with soccer itself. As for examples of similar behavior among American athletes -- see Manny Ramirez quitting on the Red Sox two years ago. Need a team example? Anyone wonder why the NBA has the "lottery" ball instead of a traditional "worst team drafts first" as nearly all other sports do? Because, in the '80s, it became obvious that, at the end of the season, NBA teams were tanking their last games to insure that they ended up with worst record!
But, more significant is Thiessen's parenthetical aside, "Yes, capitalist sports have experienced labor disputes..." Understatement, anyone?!!? In the last fifteen years, two North American professional sports teams lost their post-seasons to labor strife (Major League Baseball in 1994; hockey in 2006). The only time the World Cup has been cancelled since the first one in 1930 was because of World War II.
And, let's not get started on the collectivist economics of US sports -- salary caps, luxury taxes (MLB), shared TV revenue (NFL), etc.
UPDATE: Congratulations, Flying Dutchmen!!
Labels: World Cup
