Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Marvel Fuck-Up


Marvel Team-Up #24 - After reviewing one issue of Robert Kirkman's Marvel Team-Up awhile back I thought I'd wait until the conclusion of the introductory tale of Marvel's new gay hero before I commented any further.

Kirman crafted a rather quirky character with a very unfortunate name - Freedom Ring. Described as 'mild-mannered Curtis Doyle', he was actually rather flighty, self-centered and ... well a bit of an idiot. The GLA's Joe Palmer didn't like the guy at all, blaming Kirman's clunky writing, and advising readers: "Don't spend your money on this comic!"

But at least Curtis' heart was in the right place... eventually. He took quite a beating learning to be a hero, getting crippled in his first fight with a bad-guy, but with the help of his cosmic-cube derived magic ring he was able to heal himself and returned to the field of battle, picking up a skrull side-kick along the way who also dreamed of becoming a superhero. The two of them trained together and honed their skills as costumed adventurers. It seemed like things were looking up for Curtis as the two of them faced-off against an evil alternate-universe Tony Stark in this issue - the hilariously named Iron Maniac. (What is it with Kirkman and snicker-inducing code-names?)

So anyway, Curtis looks all bad-ass on the cover, doesn't he?

Well, that doesn't last more than thirty seconds before he gets knocked out-of-the sky by the annoying bad-guy, and has to be loaded into an ambulance by Spider-Woman. The Avengers continue trying to subdue or reason-with the ca-raaazy evil Tony and eventually Curtis shows up again, having apparently healed himself off-panel or something. The guy sure is a glutton for punishment, but at least he kept trying to do the right thing. Its just too bad Kirkman was determined to write Curtis as such a moronic twat.

Because Curtis inexplicably decides at that point to try to talk his adversary into submission; launching into a long involved explanation of the source of his power, effectively letting the homicidal maniac know exactly how to disable him. Which he promptly does, in the most graphic manner possible:



But one spike through the skull isn't enough for this stupid fag - some future writer might decide to bring Curtis back-to-life to pollute other Marvel comics with his vile gay presence. There's only room for one homosexual superhero at Marvel - well maybe two - but certainly not more than three, so poor bumbling Freedom Ring has to be put down permanently and decisively:



There, that should do it. Lets just see the queer try and come back from that. Dude! There's even a spike coming out of his ASS!! Awesome!!!!! That's just what the dumb fag deserves!!! He probably loved it too.

So what was the point of this crappy storyline? Was Kirkman trying to say that the superhero lifestyle is just too dangerous for certain people? Was he trying to suggest that in order to be a superhero a person needs more than dedication, heart, the desire to help others, the ability to put the needs of strangers above your own safety - - because as self-involved as Curtis was at the beginning of his storyline, he demonstrated that he possessed all these heroic qualities by returning to the battlefield time-and-time again, regardless of having been injured - and even crippled at one point.

So what exactly was it about Curtis that Kirkman felt deserved such a brutal, graphic death? Was he just an idiot? He certainly didn't act all that bright at times, especially in battle. But many Marvel heroes screwed-up early in their careers, and yet they all survived their first outings. Spider-Man famously let a thief run-away without stopping him because he couldn't be bothered, and that same crook ended-up murdering his Uncle Ben. It was a pretty harsh lesson, but Pete survived it. He didn't get impaled or spiked twenty-to-thirty times just for the crime of being a bumbling self-interested jerk.

So selfishness doesn't doom a superhero to a graphic death in the Marvel universe. Nor does clumsy ineptitude; all of the Avengers come off like stumbling fools against the ridiculous Iron Maniac - Captain America is easily electrocuted and Spider Woman and Cage (who somehow gains the power of flight?!) stupidly get close enough to Iron Maniac at the same time that he bashes their heads together as if this was a Loony Toon cartoon. And yet they all survive the battle.

Is the Marvel universe just too dangerous for new heroes these days? Are all new superheros fated to bite-it in the current Civil-War-torn state-of-affairs?

Nope. Freedom Ring's skrull side-kick wanted to be a superhero as much as Curtis did. He took on the name 'Crusader', altered his appearance to look like a generic white-guy spandex-clad super-dude and faced-off against Iron Maniac in this issue. Despite having been at this game for even less time than Curtis, despite getting his face plastered into a brick wall by Iron ... jeezus, I just can't type that ridiculous name one more time ... I'd rather call him Terrible-Tony. Anyhoo... Crusader also gets a hole punched right through him by TT at one point, so he certainly wasn't any more effective or intelligent than any of the other super-dopes in this story, least of all Curtis. And yet Crusader survives this storyline. Even better: he ends up with Curtis' magic decoder ring at the end of the story! So what makes him less-deserving of a graphic, bloody impalement than poor hapless Curtis?

The answer is spelled-out very clearly on the last page of the story, as the Crusader, having skipped his best-friend Curtis' funeral, is shown basking in the attention of two 'lovely', ring-conjured, extremely subservient Skrull ladies, who are climbing all over him and feeding him by hand. You see boys-and-girls, the skrull is a dedicated heterosexual. As are all the other superheroes and supervillans of this tale, and so they get to survive to fight again, no matter how stumbling, bumbling, sexist, selfish, insane, evil, murderous or downright psychotic they might be.



Curtis on the other hand, regardless of all his positive traits, many of which he developed during his quest to become superhero and do some good with the power that was handed to him ... well he also had the unfortunate and ultimately fatal condition of being a faggot in a Marvel comic book.



23 comments:

Dorian said...

Very well said. And, sadly, very much par for the course at Marvel these days.

The Fortress Keeper said...

I'm afraid you hit the nail on the head. It is also somewhat ironic as only a few weeks before Joe Q. heralded Freedom Ring as proof that Marvel is indeed tolerant of gay characters.

Bill said...

While I can't defend the death of Freedom Ring, I don't think you can read much into the nasty way it happened. Have you read Kirkman's Invincible? It was going along for about a dozen issues of light-hearted fun, had one issue of a graphically brutal super-fistfight and went right back to the light-hearted fun without any ackowledgement of any deliberate change of tone. I could only conclude that Kirkman didn't perceive the violence the way I did (kids these days: desensitized by those darn videogames I figure) Turned me right off of Invincible and kept me from trying anything else he's done.

Joe Palmer said...

Hi, Ray,
Really liked your piece, and well, you know that I agree 100%. Just one point I wanted to make about Skrull guy. He actually is at Curtis's funeral because he has more than one human disguise. In issue #23, Curtis learns that Troy, his friend and neighbor, who Curtis knows as a black man, is the Skrull.

Joe

Michael said...

Wow...I'm glad that I wasn't reading MTU. This makes me want to drop Invincible now as a protest for Kirkman's callous and unthinking treatment of this character and his unwitting message.

Bill, Invincible has had some very violent and bloody battles. Yet they are all in the standard "fist fight" motif. Just as Superman was felled by a big punch-out, so Invincible has been wiped out a few times in the same very masculine and butch manner.

So, yeah, I think you can read a lot into the violent nature of the death, particularly the manner. The guy was impaled. Penetration by a man was for centuries used as a way to humiliate another male opponent and anybody, including women, who are penetrated in society still bears that stigma to a certain degree. I can't recall which homosexual royalty member was punished by having a hot poker rammed up his ass. So the impaling, the penetration, is significant and given that it's multiple points of penetration (usually we see a single sword or spear through the chest of a hero, but rarely multiple stab points (and almost never one through the rear/mid-section)).

Had the heterosexual companion not had such a happy ending, I might give less weight to the character's death, even the manner, but that pretty much clenches the argument for me. I doubt that Kirkman did this intentionally, but he clearly wrote through a culturally homophobic lense in this case.

John said...

I was less offended by Freedom Ring's eventual fate than by his horrific name (hey, how about calling the next homo hero "Leather Flag"?) and that god-awful art of Andy Kuhn.

And hey, how about those 8 or so odd pages of Freedom Ring redecorating his apartment? SENSES-SHATTERING ACTION, TRUE BELIEVER!

Richard said...

What about Hulkling? Wiccan? Ultimate Colossus? Northstar and Ultimate Northstar? Flatman? Do they count for naught?

Is the use of Crusader a reference to the classing Alan Davis/Paul Neary Crusader story which Freedom Fing appears to parallel?

And why do people seem to assume that Joe approved of Robert's death-choice here?

Joe Palmer said...

A note to Michael - the king who was murdered for flaunting his homosexuality was England's King Edward II. The implement of his death was a red hot poker shoved up his butt.

Richard said...

That's one interpretation. Actually, it was his corrupt links to the Despenser family, waging war against the barons that caused his being deposed and subsequent imprisonment. The manner of his death so mentioned is just rumour - there's no actual evidence for it from the time.

Ray said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ray said...

Hm.. I got to start paying attention to the comments area - It looks like I started something. Thanks to everybody who wrote in reply.

-Dorian: Thanks for the link - and the compliment. I wish I hadn't had to write that review at all - I was actually feeling pretty positive about the Marvel universe for awhile there, but not any longer.

-Fortress Keeper: That's what I don't get.(?) Why herald FR in the press as a new gay 'star' of his own series, when you're just planning to butcher him?!

-Bill: I don't normally have a problem with violence in comics - I actually got a big kick out of Marvel Zombies. But this was stupidly over-done. Why bother impaling Curtis any further than that first spike through the skull? Was it just because it looks cool? Why does the gay guy have to be offed in such ridiculously over-the-top manner - and in an all-ages comic of all places? It just reads like a big FUCK-YOU to all the gay readers.

-Hey Joe! oop. Thanks for correction. I didn't recognize the skrull guy at the funeral.

By the way, what's up with all the gay characters in the main Marvel universe only being involved with alien skrulls? Gays don't rate relationships with fellow human beings?

-Michael: Thanks for the further analysis. You hit the nail on the head, and of course Northstar was recently killed off by multiple stab wounds as well, even if it was only temporary. I survived the exact same thing after being stabbed in the gut by a bunch of gay bashers a few years ago - at the time I just thought it was part of the beating - it wasn't until afer they ran off that I realized I'd been stabbed. Luckily the cops and paramedics showed up pretty quickly, or I might not be here any longer.

It a strange sight to see blood pouring out of your own belly; likely that experience has something to do with my strong reaction to seeing a gay superhero brutally murdered in a comic published by one of my favorite comic book companies.

-John: Yeah, I hated that name as well. Didn't the Skrull guy already warn Curtis about letting your opponent know the source of your power in your actual code-name? So why did Kirman have Curtis turn around and immediately ignore that advice? Why did Kirkman write Curtis as such an idiot? Gay = Moron?

-Richard: I'm not familiar with the Crusader story - was that Marvel or DC?

I chose to focus on the story itself in my review and not drag Queseda into it - but he had to have known Curtis' fate when he held him up in the press as an example of inclusivity at Marvel.

The other gay heroes at Marvel still give me a bit of hope, but none of them headline their own title, most of them don't currently star in an on-going series, and except for Hulkling and Wiccan their own relationships/status-quo/state-of-mind aren't exactly all that rosy at the moment.

And I just can't get that image of Curtis being butchered out of my head. That violent over-kill of a gay superhero just over-shadows all the other gay characters that Marvel publishes at the moment. Its hard to see past that image and what it represents.

Joe: Ick. That's awful.

Spex said...

I think you're looking too far into this. Kirman is just the kind of guy who, going by the violence in Invincible, thinks that a bunch of people with superpowers hitting each other and not really getting hurt is ridiculous.

And I mean, if you were a psychopath in an insanely advanced suit of armour, would you settle for just punching out the other guy, or zapping them? I would think not. If you were Iron Maniac, I think you'd skewer hard-to-kill people, too.

I really, really think you're looking a bit too far into this "he was killed because he's gay" thing. The ONLY evidence you have that he was killed because he was gay is the fact that he's gay.

It's exactly the same as someone else saying that Marvel hates heterosexuals because they keep killing them off, or to say that DC hates superheroes because they keep killing them off, too.

And there's plenty of gay characters being portrayed normally in Marvel. Look at Runaways and Young Avengers. And then there's Ultimate Colossus, yes, and as far as I know Northstar is still around.

And by the way, the only human gay person dating a skrull is Wiccan. Karolina Dean is also an alien, in case you hadn't noticed. And even so, Hulkling is half pink Kree, who might as well be human.

So yes, I think you are overreacting a bit. Jeez.

Spex said...

Oh and sorry for the double post, but Skrulls are ridiculously difficult to kill. You see, because they're shapeshifters and have no real solid form, you can blow holes in them and they can just get up. Unless you actually eradicate pretty much every single one of their cells, they can get back up again.

synnerman said...

It has nothing to do with Kirkman for me and everything to do with the public stance Marvel's EiC has taken on the issue.

Not that I don't expect corporate hypocrisy from Marvel, but it's just that it happened so soon after trying to put the character up on a pedastal.

Northstar, has barely moved forward since 1989 when he said "I'm gay." Hell he's been completely defined by it. I like him more as the turbo powered uber killer zombie than before.

Ultimate Colossus is still a cypher to me, why should I care? Oh yeah, he's gay and Nightcrawler does not like it. Maybe he's getting lost in the shuffle in Ultimate, it still smacks of crumbs.

Hulking and Wiccan I see as a step in the right direction, but until I see "The Adventures of Hulkling and Wiccan" as I've seen "The Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix" or "Vision and The Scarlet Witch" I'm leery.

Hell the much vaunted "Rawhide Kid" masked simpering, flip glibness and sashaying as "adult" and a Marvel Knights book has more actually questionable content.

Kirkman was just writing a one off book and got caught in the turgid waters Joey Q stirred up. Then again knowing Marvel, its just the way they like it.

Spex said...

That's just your opinion, I guess, and you're entitled to it.

Still, Ray is overreacting. Hell, Curtis didn't even get impaled in the butt. He got impaled in his entire front side and one of the skewers just happened to exit through his buttock. A fair way to the side, even.

And even though there was a skwere near his butt, there was also one through his face. Oh, and sveral through his arms, and legs, and his pancreas. Several more, in fact.

Robert Kirkman obviously doesn't hate gays! He just hates the pancreas! According to Ray's logic, anyway.

Just because a minority character dies doesn't mean the writer or the company publishing the story has anything against that minority.

And I don't think you know of the Editor-in-Chiefness works. Quesada doesn't really do any editing to the stories most of the time. It's very likely that Joe Q's hailing of Freedom Ring as a hip new superhero who happens to be gay, followed by Curtis's rather gruesome demise due to his own stupidity (he wasn't a very good superhero not because he was gay, but because he never used his head during a fight, and because he got cocky) is just an unfortunate coincidence.

synnerman said...

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2375

Joe Quesada said it.

It's not an opinion. He said it.

Anonymous said...

Gay superhero falls victim to one of the hoariest cliches of the comicbook genre: Comicbook death.

I'm not too worried.

There's an entire entry in Wikipedia on Comicbook deaths. Google the link (linking it here will kill the margins). Bets on when this "Freedom Ring" will be back? Not a clone, not a duplicate, not a new guy - The exact same character. ANY COMICBOOK DEATH - no matter how hoary, gorey or graphic is reversible in comics.

Frankly, I personally think that this Freedom Ring was created specifically to generate just this controversy. Its like the pro-Wrestling business in a sense. No publicity is bad publicity.

Most comicbook readers will understand what it is.

"There are no pearly gates in Superhero Heaven, just a revolving door."
Professor Charles Xavier of the X-Men

Anonymous said...

One comment:

Who made Ultimate Colossus gay?

Robert Kirkman.

Verdant said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Verdant said...

I read about this first on the GLA. I was a bit angry, but after seeing the additional panels posted here, I just feel numb. It was senseless overkill with some really lousy timing given the whole Freedom Ring as "the gay star" of a Marvel series spiel.

Chad said...

One comment:

Who made Ultimate Colossus gay?

Robert Kirkman.


No, he didn't. I'm actually not sure who did write that in - it had to have been either Mark Millar or Brian Vaughn - but I do know for certain that mentions of Colossus' sexuality predate Robert Kirkman's run.

And, at any rate, writing or creating a gay character hardly makes the, to me, blatant homophobic elements of this story any less objectionable.

Anonymous said...

He was killed because he was a badly designed character who was going nowhere fast. Not because he was a badly designed gay character that was going nowhere fast. Marvel doesn't hate gays because Freedom Ring got killed. By that logic, they'd also hate hetero's, blacks, whites, hispanics, aliens, and the occasional android.

sarmigezetusa said...

Very funny post.
I guess that guy was killed cos he didnt work, but, yes, sure Marvel has a fag maximum limit in its agenda ^_^

Well, there still are all those old Batman and Robin around ^__^