Tweet
Tea Party *****es about Captain America movie.
I stumbled across this and thought I'd share.
Big Hollywood.
I actually couldn't decide whether or not to make a new thread or put it in the "Political discourse in America is a joke" thread. 
I will say that:
(1)I don't think the right honorable Mr. Breitbart has been reading much of Captain America over the past several decades if he thinks that being a "jingoistic flag waver" is in keeping with the charecter.
(2)I don't think the Right Honorable Breitbart realizes that Hollywood will not be looking for a way to make the movie less appealing on the global market. This is more marketing than an insidious liberal ploy. At least that's how I would view it were I a studio exec.
(3)No matter what, I still better see Captain A drop the "Surrender? Surrender??? Do you think this A on my head stands for France????" line.
After being exposed for lies & misinformation, Andrew Breitbart & his crew are now going after Captain America. And I wish I was joking, but I'm not kidding.
Created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby in 1941 for Timely Comics, Steve Rogers/Captain America was a patriotic superhero created during World War II to bolster morale. The character has been a staple within Marvel Comics for the past half-century. As part of Marvel Studios' plan to link their characters (Iron Man, Thor, Cap, Hulk, etc.) for an 'Avengers' film (to be directed by Joss Whedon), next year will see the release of 'Captain America: The First Avenger' & 'Thor' movies.
However, it seems Conservatives are upset over a comment made by 'Cap' director Joe Johnston in today's Los Angeles Times, in which he said the movie version of Steve Rogers will not be a "jingoistic flag waver". In a previous diary, I mentioned how some Conservatives are like Fanboys who love their "precious" the way a five-year-old loves their Mommy ("Mommy can never do anything wrong, because she's Mommy.") This seems to be the story that proves it.
Except, if these Cons were comic-book Fanboys, they would know that Johnson's description of the film version is in keeping with the comic-book representation of Steve Rogers/Captain America that has existed since at least 1964 (The Avengers #4, March 1964). For those who might be unfamiliar with the character, Steve Rogers was a sickly & frail young man who would be changed by World War II-era bioengineering. After being rejected as unsuitable for enlistment in the Army, Rogers is given the chance to be a test subject of a Super-Soldier Serum that gives him peak human abilities. Armed with a virtually indestructible shield, Rogers becomes the United States' best & last line of defense, and goes on to fight Nazis, Aliens, Gods, and almost every other supervillain in creation.
Created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby in 1941 for Timely Comics, Steve Rogers/Captain America was a patriotic superhero created during World War II to bolster morale. The character has been a staple within Marvel Comics for the past half-century. As part of Marvel Studios' plan to link their characters (Iron Man, Thor, Cap, Hulk, etc.) for an 'Avengers' film (to be directed by Joss Whedon), next year will see the release of 'Captain America: The First Avenger' & 'Thor' movies.
However, it seems Conservatives are upset over a comment made by 'Cap' director Joe Johnston in today's Los Angeles Times, in which he said the movie version of Steve Rogers will not be a "jingoistic flag waver". In a previous diary, I mentioned how some Conservatives are like Fanboys who love their "precious" the way a five-year-old loves their Mommy ("Mommy can never do anything wrong, because she's Mommy.") This seems to be the story that proves it.
Except, if these Cons were comic-book Fanboys, they would know that Johnson's description of the film version is in keeping with the comic-book representation of Steve Rogers/Captain America that has existed since at least 1964 (The Avengers #4, March 1964). For those who might be unfamiliar with the character, Steve Rogers was a sickly & frail young man who would be changed by World War II-era bioengineering. After being rejected as unsuitable for enlistment in the Army, Rogers is given the chance to be a test subject of a Super-Soldier Serum that gives him peak human abilities. Armed with a virtually indestructible shield, Rogers becomes the United States' best & last line of defense, and goes on to fight Nazis, Aliens, Gods, and almost every other supervillain in creation.
Big Hollywood.
America’s great ... the world’s great ... and therefore there’s no American exceptionalism. See how they do that? But why not remain true to this morally illiterate vision and rename Captain America something like Captain Earth? After all, why would someone who sees nothing special about America name himself Captain America and wrap himself in the red, white and blue?
Johnston can spout all the talking points off he wants about artistic imperatives, but from an artistically imperative point of view the main motivation of his protagonist now make absolutely no sense.
We should also give Johnston credit for not attempting to spin this decision into the Big Lie Hollywoodists spread in order to hide their own loathing at the very thought of portraying their own country in a positive way.
Johnston can spout all the talking points off he wants about artistic imperatives, but from an artistically imperative point of view the main motivation of his protagonist now make absolutely no sense.
We should also give Johnston credit for not attempting to spin this decision into the Big Lie Hollywoodists spread in order to hide their own loathing at the very thought of portraying their own country in a positive way.
I will say that:
(1)I don't think the right honorable Mr. Breitbart has been reading much of Captain America over the past several decades if he thinks that being a "jingoistic flag waver" is in keeping with the charecter.
(2)I don't think the Right Honorable Breitbart realizes that Hollywood will not be looking for a way to make the movie less appealing on the global market. This is more marketing than an insidious liberal ploy. At least that's how I would view it were I a studio exec.
(3)No matter what, I still better see Captain A drop the "Surrender? Surrender??? Do you think this A on my head stands for France????" line.
Comment