Thursday, November 02, 2006

Them's fightin' words, Mickey Rapkin!

Most of the comicsblogoball seems to be up in arms about Wired writer Tony Long's bold-faced sneer that a graphic novel isn't good enough to be nominated for a National Book Award. Fie on you, Tony Long. I say, fie on you, and may the full scorn of the assembled bloglegions rightfully wave a fig at you over the vast series of tubes that is the internet.

But my friends, we can't be complacent in merely figging at Mister Long for his narrow-headed view on what makes good literature. Even now other "journalists" for major glossy "periodicals" are spreading lies masquerading as opinion, horrible blind-eyed views that challenge the beliefs we hold to be true and self-evident. Take a big steaming gander at this article from the November issue of GQ:

Superman II actually didn't suck--article from 11/06 GQ


Now, no doubt you're saying "What's the matter, little bull!" (And at this point you would bend over to give me a friendly reassuring pat on the head, possibly accompanied by a cherry popsicle.) "Why, that headline is right! Superman II didn't suck at all! It was one of the best superhero movies of its time! The headline is right! And stop dripping cherry juice on my brand-new shoes!"

Well, to you i would look up and say "You're wrong!! Read the rest of the article! He is saying that Superman II sucked until now." Heresy! How can you say the movie that gave us Superman punching out Phantom Zone criminals in Metropolis's Times Square (golly, they have one of those in every city, don't they?) "sucks"? Take that back, Mister Mickey Rapkin! Superman II was not a "campy mess" or "a crappy sequel." Sure, I'm eager as anyone is to slide that brand-new Richard Donner cut DVD in and watch the alternate version of the movie. But that film, which has brought a lot of delight, joy, and fun to little stuffed Superman fan me (and I know I'm not the only one!) did not suck!

Humph.

But then what should I expect from a magazine that in the same issue takes not one but two gratitious shots at bullkind?:

article from 11/06 GQ


and

article from 11/06 GQ


So, in conclusion, bite me, GQ. Had I actually subscribed to your fashion-laden fishwrap instead of receiving it free in subscription because Cargo went belly-up, I would demand my money back for your yellow journalism that not only slurs the Last Son of Krypton but your Bovine-American readers. I will instead be purchasing Esquire.

Except when they feature those leather jacket fashion spreads.


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The only bad review of Superman II that I've ever saw was by a guy who also said that "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" and "Spawn: the Movie" where good

Anonymous said...

Oh, man. Don't get me started.
Superman II does suck. From the grainy cinematography used to "match" Geoffrey Unsworth's work for the sequel, to the campy "corn-pone" work of the villains taking on rural America...to the scenes between Kal-El and his mother (his MOTHER! Where'd SHE come from?) And I've never seen Superman use his "amnesia-kiss" since in any medium. What'd he do? Suck the short-term memory cells outta Lois' brain? Superman II was a big step DOWN from the first one. But not as much as the step down from II to III and from III to IV.
But I understand your fond memories of it. I have fond memories of "Supercar," but even I have to admit it was just a stupid puppet show that impressed a 5 year old.