|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 18, 2024 12:43:01 GMT -5
Yes. Shooter has an odd duality where he, on the one hand, seems to think he is a champion of female empowerment, and on the other does some really cringe-worthy stuff, both in comics and in real life (at least, if you take Ann Nocenti's word for it). I remember a graphic novel he wrote featuring an impromptu team-up of bunch of superheroines. One of the civilian characters in the story was an adolescent girl, and a caption at the end talked about what her future might hold; going from memory, the options were like ... "nurse, housewife, or superheroine." Um ... He's not alone in that. A lot of the writers of his generation talked the talk of gender equality; but, then you read a lot of their work, they tend to fall right into the same cliches of damsels-in-distress, assertive means "bitchy," overly emotional, traditional work roles, etc, etc. They were still products of their time and upbringing and not as enlightened as they professed. I think a certain percentage of it was them following the time-honored tropes of comic books, another percentage was generational, and the rest was down to probably never really having deep conversations about women's issues, with women, for any significant period of time. There are degrees, though, and Shooter and Michelinie, to me, always came off more on the neanderthal end of things. Well, maybe cro-magnon. Not every story or every character; but, more than many high profile contemporaries..
|
|
|
Post by Yasotay on Sept 18, 2024 12:50:28 GMT -5
Maybe Ling wasn't trying to shoot the gun out of Big Jim's hand. Maybe she was aiming at his head but missed her shot because she was distracted by the others. Or maybe she's just bad with guns. Cei-U! I summon the miserable markswoman! Then she probably shouldn't have done the fancy forward roll before shooting!
Honestly, I think Layton felt he was making her look impressive in that sequence by skillfully shooting his hand. But in actuality, it makes her look incompetent. If she had killed the guy and a couple of others, she probably would have won.
|
|
|
Post by Yasotay on Sept 18, 2024 12:52:19 GMT -5
This was still in a world where people actually thought you aim for the hand with the gun. They still do today. When there's a police involved shooting, I always hear someone say, "Why didn't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?" TV, movies and comics have completely distorted people's perception of reality.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 18, 2024 12:52:55 GMT -5
Jim Shooter has had no problem with violence towards women, in comics, or mind control, or impregnating with babies that grow into adults Yes. Shooter has an odd duality where he, on the one hand, seems to think he is a champion of female empowerment, and on the other does some really cringe-worthy stuff, both in comics and in real life (at least, if you take Ann Nocenti's word for it). I spoke with Shooter once online. At the time, he was several issues into his Gold Key relaunch for Dark Horse and I was a massive fan. I dared to ask him about his treatment of the main female character in Dr. Solar, an uber-supportive romantic partner with no personality of her own, being serially raped by the villain as a plot device for the protagonist. He was incensed that I dared to even suggest there was something questionable about this. I find that very easy to believe. Between his own writings and interviews and those of others who worked with him and under him, I get the sense that his self-image is vastly different than how others perceive him. That's true for many people; but, I think he and others are very far apart, indeed. Rape is a touchy subject, for storytelling. It is a horrific act, which gives it great dramatic effect, which also makes it tempting to use in adventure and horror stories, both as a threat and a violent act, to shock and horrify the reader. The problem is both in how it is depicted and the aftermath. If it is sensitive to the survivor, what they are going through, how it affects them, their recovery and coping, then it can be a positive story. Too often in comics and film, it is about the male partner getting revenge for the act. Little thought is given to the woman, after the event, other than for them to demonstrate trauma to their partner, who then resolves to make the rapist pay. It ceases to be about the survivor. Kind of the same problem with Barbara Gordon, after Killing Joke, until Kim Yale and John Ostrander decide to tackle it straight on. Not just the physical aspect, but the psychological and emotional. John said Kim was incensed but how Barbara was handled there and after, and determined to show Barbara dealing with it and triumphing over it, like the hero she always was. Best reclamation of a bad decision, ever!
|
|
|
Post by Yasotay on Sept 18, 2024 12:56:02 GMT -5
Jim Shooter has had no problem with violence towards women, in comics, or mind control, or impregnating with babies that grow into adults Yes. Shooter has an odd duality where he, on the one hand, seems to think he is a champion of female empowerment, and on the other does some really cringe-worthy stuff, both in comics and in real life (at least, if you take Ann Nocenti's word for it). I spoke with Shooter once online. At the time, he was several issues into his Gold Key relaunch for Dark Horse and I was a massive fan. I dared to ask him about his treatment of the main female character in Dr. Solar, an uber-supportive romantic partner with no personality of her own, being serially raped by the villain as a plot device for the protagonist. He was incensed that I dared to even suggest there was something questionable about this. I've heard a lot of the criticisms about Shooter and I'm sure many of them are true. But, like Icctrombone, as a kid I loved his early work on Avengers so much, I admit to having a soft spot for him.
|
|
|
Post by Yasotay on Sept 18, 2024 13:04:39 GMT -5
I remember a graphic novel he wrote featuring an impromptu team-up of bunch of superheroines. One of the civilian characters in the story was an adolescent girl, and a caption at the end talked about what her future might hold; going from memory, the options were like ... "nurse, housewife, or superheroine." Um ... He's not alone in that. A lot of the writers of his generation talked the talk of gender equality; but, then you read a lot of their work, they tend to fall right into the same cliches of damsels-in-distress, assertive means "bitchy," overly emotional, traditional work roles, etc, etc. They were still products of their time and upbringing and not as enlightened as they professed. I think a certain percentage of it was them following the time-honored tropes of comic books, another percentage was generational, and the rest was down to probably never really having deep conversations about women's issues, with women, for any significant period of time. There are degrees, though, and Shooter and Michelinie, to me, always came off more on the neanderthal end of things. Well, maybe cro-magnon. Not every story or every character; but, more than many high profile contemporaries.. I hadn't noticed that in Michelinie's work before and, honestly, absent further evidence, I would have to lay most of this at Bob Layton's feet. I'm assuming the decision to have Ling not actually shoot anyone but to show Stark shooting people and to graphically show Ling's beating were all by him given what I know of the "Marvel method." I have no idea what his history is or if he's done this before. But I'd say you're right in that he was a product of the era and it never occurred to him that he was depicting any kind of double standard here. And I might not have even noticed any of these things individually but taken as a whole, I think they kind of reflect the thinking (or lack of thought) by comic creators in that era.
By the way, is there a way to quote multiple posts in the same reply, besides just copying and pasting? I didn't want to clog up this thread with separate replies to every single post. But good comments by everyone who chimed in.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 18, 2024 13:05:43 GMT -5
This was still in a world where people actually thought you aim for the hand with the gun. They still do today. When there's a police involved shooting, I always hear someone say, "Why didn't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?" TV, movies and comics have completely distorted people's perception of reality. Anyone who is trained with firearms is trained to aim for the center of the chest. It's way easier to score a hit and take down an adversary. Forget the head shot BS, that's for expert marksmen, with specialized weaponry. With a pistol, at a range less than 50 yards, you are aiming for center mass. Even with body armor, it will slow an opponent down, from the kinetic energy. That's also often what you don't see, in film and tv; it still hurts to be hit in the chest, by a bullet, even when the ballistic vest stops it from penetrating. Broken ribs, severe bruises, impaired breathing, etc. Shooting the hand, even compared to the head, is trick shooting and would probably have a less than 50% success rate. Unless they are The Lone Ranger.
|
|