After watching the FIRST fantastic fiasco to be played out on the silver screen and leaving the theater grousing and shaking my fists at the sky, lamenting the film’s greatest sin, the grave disservice it had done to Doctor Doom, my lovely better half, not as up on her comics culture as you or I, asked me, “What’s so great about Doom, anyway.” This launched me into a fifteen minute diatribe on Marvel’s greatest villain.

First, I explained that Doom is only a villain in that he frequently tussles with superheroes. His motivations, though, are ultimately noble. Doom wants to save the world. He wants to see an end to the sufferings brought about by human frailty. It’s just that he’s such an egomaniac, he believes the only way he can save the world is to conquer it and impose his inflexible will upon it. The only way he can protect the human race is to rule over it. But Doom isn’t motivated by hate (except his hatred for Reed Richards). The Fantastic Four are passé and have been for quite some time, but Doom is as vital as ever. Marvel needs him.

And my lovely better half, after hearing me extol Doom’s virtues, began to shake her fists at Hollywood, as well. To know Doom is to love him.

source: www.vox.com

I’ve spoken previously about my concerns for the NEW new Marvel Universe, now that so many of their top-level writers, including former “architects” Ed Brubaker, Matt Fraction, and Jonathan Hickman, along with fan favorites like Rick Remender and Kelly Sue DeConnick, have all departed for greener pastures. (Double entendre alert!) I expressed optimism, though, in that Brian Michael Bendis and Jason Aaron were sticking around, and that talented scribes like Charles Soule, Mark Waid and Al Ewing would be stepping up to fill the vacuum left by the departed. And, while not crazy about the current reshuffling of major players—the Hulk is now Aamdeus Cho; the Falcon is Captain America while Captain America is now an old man; Wolverine and Thor are both women; Peter parker is now Tony Stark and there’s a pretender posing as a second Spider-Man—I’m content to wait it out.

I’ve read the first issues of books like UNCANNY AVENGERS (hate the artwork, but good story), DOCTOR STRANGE and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, and the first couple of issues of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and INVINCIBLE IRON MAN. So far they’re good. Up to the level of quality I’ve come to expect and demand of Marvel good. Even Spider-Man. I was initially worried that Spidey wouldn’t fly away from his urban NYC roots, but so far . . . Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

I heard again this past weekend how Zack Snyder’s MAN OF STEEL “ruined” Superman because of its ending. “Superman doesn’t kill,” this person said. “EVER!” I agreed, with the caveat that for every rule there is an inevitable exception. A fanboy might complain that he prefers his Superman painted in lighter tones—and I don’t just mean the color palette used for the movie—and this is a legitimate opinion. Some fans enjoy goofy and silly instead of dark and gritty where certain characters are concerned. However, within the context of this particular movie, Snyder put the Man of Steel in a situation where there WAS no other choice. Either Superman killed Zod, or Zod killed innocent people. Under those circumstances, what else could he do? Had he placed his ethical stance against killing above those people’s lives, would he not then have been complicit, to some extent, in their deaths?

It’s a much larger debate than superhero morality. Does perfect pacifism work? Had the world followed Gandhi’s suggestions NOT to violently oppose the Nazis in WW2, would the Nazis not have conquered the world, murdering hundreds of millions of innocents? There are some gripes where MOS is concerned that carry weight. (I for one thought that fight scene with the other two aliens went on too long—and this coming from a guy who loves fight scenes.) But Superman killing Zod isn’t one of them. Superman did the moral, conscientious thing. Ugly as it was, it was necessary.

A good Batman story can be told without Batman even appearing in it. I actually quite enjoy those rare stories that focus on Gotham City itself, on the everyday citizens who live there, and on the mythic, ever present effect that Batman has on it and them. Batman’s PRESENCE can suffuse a story whether or not he is there physically or not. Granted if they tried to serve up too many stories like that it wouldn’t work. People buy Batman comics because they want to see Batman. That’s the problem I’m having with Scott Snyder’s new story arc in the main Batman comic.

Here’s the thing: Snyder’s story is good. The idea is good. And it’d be a welcome change of pace. IF. If DC hadn’t ALREADY spent the past several years screwing with their most popular character. Playing switcheroo with the cape and cowl, experimenting just for the sake of experimenting. Either that, or the writers have just been too lazy or not creative enough to come up with some original Batman stories THAT ACTUALLY HAVE BATMAN IN THEM. Snyder was doing that for awhile, and doing it well. Is he out of ideas now, too?

source: www.theverge.com