> I stumbled across a short Reggie Hudlin interview
on Youtube, and a couple of things caught my attention.
> First, the only time I can recall seeing footage of Reggie before was when he was in the background of some shots during a CBS Sunday Morning story on Aaron McGruder. And having seen and heard him now, despite all my problems with his writing, doggone it if he doesn't come across as rather affable and likeable in person. He even reminds me a little of the guy I was buying comics from at the end of high school. All the folks who love to harp about Hudlin being racist just need to watch this video, because it's hard to imagine the guy you see here as some hate-filled bigot.
> Second (and yes, here comes the criticism), among his comments is a mention of the fallout of Civil War, and how that will affect the public perception of the Avengers. He says that in the wake of Civil War, "A lot of people are going to be turning to the Black Panther because the Black Panther becomes sort of the global equivalent of Captain America. He's the embodiment of a certain moral standard."
> Now this interview was posted over a year ago, and Civil War ended nine months ago. So what happened to this stuff about people turning to BP as the 'global Captain America'? He made what amounted to a cameo appearance in Civil War, and he's just been running around with the FF ever since. Heck, he's been off-planet for the last few months, and he'll continue to be removed from the regular MU for the next several.
> So what happened to the story that Hudlin was promoting? Even if BP falls straight into this 'global Captain America' role immediately after the next announced BP arc is over, that'll be nearly TWO YEARS after the above video was made, and almost a year and a half after Civil War ended. And, to me at least, the Global Cap stuff seems a lot more interesting, and a much better use of T'Challa as a character, than month-after-month of zombies and Skrulls and magic frogs.
You actually believed him! *eek*
Only if it came from Priest would it have been true. Priest was like the best writer and most honest person that ever worked for Marvel.
> Only if it came from Priest would it have been true. Priest was like the best writer and most honest person that ever worked for Marvel.
This thread had absolutely zero to do with Priest, but thanks for taking it there. I hate to see someone with whom I don't disagree in theory act so trollishly. Hudlin's faults are his own, and really have nothing to do with Priest. Hudlin's job at Marvel was also not gained as a trade for Priest - Priest walked away from Marvel, and Marvel wanted to hire Hudlin as a writer. That's that. I for one would rather their positions be reversed, but I also realize that their respective careers are not codependent.
If you were to compare the content of the books, that would be more understandable (though done to death by now - sides have all been chosen). But their "honesty" in relation to each other? And based on a plan that could have been mitigated over time by any number of factors in Hudlin's head or his editors' (as often happens in this business and others)? This just reeks of flamebait. I, a noted "Hudlin-basher," want to go on record as not agreeing with this kind of pointless statement at all.
vermin, direct your responses to someone else
Check it out: Shu and I (and FLCL) teamed up!