Millar to Ebert: ‘Kick-Ass Will Knock Your Jaw Off’
With the Chicago Comics and Entertainment Expo coming soon to the shores of Lake Michigan, it seems that the con has been given it’s first scandal. In a back-and-forth flame war posted yesterday on his message board, Kick-Ass writer Mark Millar got into a little wordy wrestling match, when fans started discussing the film’s upcoming premiere in the Second City.
A board member with the handle “Wanted2Vmt” posted, “Can’t wait to see this film flop at C2E2. Who’s gonna see it when they can see Gaiman, a real writer, instead?” Mark Millar, known well for his Scottish rage, was quick to fire back, inciting a war of words with his would-be fans.
“There’s not a way Kick-Ass won’t take over the con in Chicago. Gaiman is a sissy fairy who writes for emo-goths anyways. Let those black boot wearing ninny’s go listen to their goblin king whine about his wee shiters… The rest of the real people will be having their asses kicked by our movie!”
As more fans chimed in, Millar kept firing insults left and right towards those who criticized his work. And when one fan quoted famous Chicago movie critic Roger Ebert’s review of Wanted, it set the Scottsman to a nova-like rage. The quote, “Wanted,… is a film entirely lacking in two organs I always appreciate
in a movie: a heart and a mind. It is mindless, heartless,
preposterous. By the end of the film, we can’t even believe the values
the plot seems to believe, since the plot is deceived right along with
us.”
Minutes later, Millar fired out a salvo of his own:
“First off all, that fat bastard wouldn’t know a good movie if it up and bit him in the goolies. He wrote “Valley of the Dolls” for f#@! sake!” Millar quipped. “And if Ebert can wheel his arse into a theater to see Kick-Ass I promise it’ll knock his jaw clean off!”
Roger Ebert, as shown in his recent Esquire exposé, had bones in his jaw removed due to cancer four years ago. While the cancer has stopped Ebert’s ability to speak, it’s only strengthened his desire to write. And as word traveled fast over the internet, it seemed Mr. Millar’s rants reached the north shore home of Mr. Ebert. Choosing his words wisely, Roger fired back a single post on his own blog close to the end of day:
“It seems without even trying, my mouth and I are at the end of a promised ‘arse kicking’ at the boot of comic book writer Mark Millar. Millar and artist J.G. Jones were the creators of the characters in 2008’s Wanted. Had the writer chosen to actually read my review instead of the pulled quote by one ‘Ben the Obiwomble” … he would have found that I rather liked his creation. Was it mindless? Certainly. But it reveled in it’s mindlessness. Not to jab an angry bear over this matter, but did Millar not think his teflon hide might be scratched a bit for trying to sell his fans on “the Loom of Destiny”? It seems without any reason, Mr. Millar is ready for me to turn a thumb down at his next film before it even comes out. By the looks of the trailers for Kick-Ass, I’m already preparing my suspension of disbelief to super-human like levels, ready to accept pre-teen samurai’s and ski-masked adolescents easily defeating shotgun toting thugs with ease. As far as Mr. Millar’s promise that my surgically removed jaw may be installed once again, if only to be blown off by seeing the film, I simply ask him to take the time to read my entire forthcoming review before firing his words off like so many a curved bullet.”
Millar’s final post of the day was near incomprehensible… demanding something to the effect of a challenge to Ebert in a round of “Whiskey-Eyes”.
Oh that's cool. April Fools, huh? Funny one.
This just goes to show that it is not necessary that a talented artist should have the smallest amount of class. In relatively few words, Mr. Millar has attacked not only Roger Ebert but a far more acclaimed comics writer and at least ten percent of the population. I am an admirer or Roger Ebert, lukewarm on Neil Gaiman, and a sufficiently confirmed heterosexual to have no fear of sissy fairies or emo-goths. It isn't catching, and some of them may have more of a grasp on popular culture than the very manly Mark Millar. Just as one example, Roger Ebert did not write "Valley of the Dolls": That was Jaqueline Susann, who differs from Roger Ebert in at least three ways: She was a woman (This is something manly men are supposed to notice), she wasn't much of a writer, and she has been dead for a number of years. Roger Ebert wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls." Perhaps Mr. Millar has gotten a jump on Mr. Ebert in pursuing whiskey eyes.
I agree..I CANT STAND EBERT…but would never EVER say something to make fun of his disease…and MILLAR is OBNOXIOUS and his work OVERRATED…He wishes he was in the same league as GRANT MORRISON! ALSO MILLAR is wrong…SISKEL wrote BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS SCREENPLAY….idiot….
Looks like Mark Millar is becoming the 21st Century's answer to Rob Liefeld…Pity.
April fools?
This is an April Fools day gag, right?
Whoops, double post. Sorry, I thought the first one didn't register.
I'm beginning to suspect it is an April Fool's Day joke. A few things made that seem unlikely – a great deal of detail and Millar-like conduct; exceptionally poor taste and homophobia; and a total lack of humorousness. So, apologies to Marc Alan Fishman if this is a work of his imagination. Perhaps someone else finds it extremely clever.
Here are my reasons for thinking it is a joke.1) The link to the Millarworld forum is just a general link to Millarworld, not to the conversation being referenced2) When I searched that forum for 'ebert' I didn't find anything recent.3) A google search for "Mark Millar" and "Rogert Ebert" didn't turn up any other stories about this.4) Even though the article says that Ebert responded on his blog, I don't see anything about it on his blog.So either both sides erased all evidence of this happening, or it's a gag.
Mark Millar needs to grow up. He's not in same league as Moore, Gaiman, and Ellis (all of whom crappiest works are better than all of his) he is a good writer but not a great writer. I enjoyed his work on "The Ultimates, The Ultimates 2, Wanted," and "Nemesis" looks good, but IMHO he is the shock jock of modern comics the way he uses controversial subject matter, gory violence, graphic sex, and foul language to sell his books. And having finally watched "Wanted" on Cinemax the book was far better than the movie. I scanned through a TPB copy of "Kick-Ass" and saw the trailer I wasn't impressed by it in either media.
Even if this article is true, it would be Millar's sense of humor to say something like that about Gaiman. And Gaiman would just laugh at it. People just need to stop being so damned uptight.
Yes, Neil Gaiman might laugh it off. That is beyond Roger Ebert's power, as it turns out. There's nothing funny about threatening a grievously maimed man.
It's obviously bogus. I mean, come on, look at the byline: Marc Alan Fishman? Clearly fake.PAD
You might be surprised which names are legitimate and which are not. I had a professor named Clifford S. Fishman; You have a husband who has three traditional forenames and no traditional surname. I can't help it if I conform to the norms: There is no rule that one must, but my parents were traditionalists.I suppose the entry above was by PAD, despite the Kathleen David byline. Comicmix is purported to be unable to tell PAD and Mrs. David apart. I think most of us puny humans could pass that test. He's the one who says non-obvious things are obvious, and then there are the issues of age, gender and appearance. It's obvious!
I wonder if it was so obvious Marc Alan Fishman was a fictional character the first 74 times he submitted articles. The alternative is so painful to consider: Peter David would have to be – mistaken! How likely is that?
Ah yes, obvious. Just as it was obvious to me that the original posting was an April Fool's joke while your reaction was to post one of your typical rants. Snark all you want, but the fact is that it took you an entire afternoon to "begin to suspect" that it was a gag, and I knew it instantly (and then took the additional step of checking the sites in question to verify it, which required about ninety seconds). Whereas you, who routinely decries others for saying thoughtless things, fell right into it.Now I can add Comicmix to my list of sites on which to ignore you.PAD
I was joking, you humorless git. Then again, considering you fell for an obvious April Fool's joke, I should have realized that if anyone wasn't going to realize I was kidding, it would be you.PAD
Just for clarity's sake, I will indicate that the comment that started "I was joking" was in reference to your inability to realize the comment about the byline was tongue in cheek.Seriously, Frawley: You need to grow a sense of humor. Done with you now.PAD
Seriously, David (no, it doesn't flow quite as well as "seriously, Frawley"): You need to learn how to post entries under your own name. I do not think you are doing your wife any good by posting your crap under her byline."I was joking, you humorless git.""…'I was joking' was in reference to your inability to realize the comment about the byline was tongue in cheek."Yes, I hope I will be forgiven for taking moronic posturing and lame attempts at a joke as something other than humor or wisdom. Of course, I don't believe you were kidding: You were being an arrogant little SOB, which is not the same thing.
Not real funny.
"You need to grow a sense of humor" seems to rely on the premise that something you wrote was humorous. I see no reason to accept that premise. It would be more effective if you grew a sense of humor and posted something funny. If you would like to at least show that you were attempting humor, is it possible to indicate just what part of claiming the name "Marc Alan Fishman" is an obvious hoax has anything to do with or is meant to be good or even poor humor? To me, it seems more like obnoxious pontification about something of which you are completely ignorant.
Frawley got taken in by an April Fool's joke and got mad about. Further proof of Fooldom.
Alan Coil kisses his master's ass. Further proof of something or another.
Well, if it is possible to raise this conversation out of the gutter -Yes, I was punked. Yes, I feel stupid. Yes, Peter David may well use his wife's byline to remind me that I am stupid – so stupid that I cannot recognize his infallibility and unfailing good humor. Now, if there is someone whose forcible jaw amputation would make a good punchline, he should look no further than the mirror. I don't think it would be particularly funny, but he's the expert.Anyway, what the hell is wrong with Marc Alan Fishman that he wrote such an intolerably cruel hoax as this and thought it was funny? Branding Mark Millar as the kind of person who would threaten a gravely ill man is defamatory and far from humorous. The fact that Millar has previously spoken intemperately makes the likelihood that some of us would believe this defamatory report makes it particularly harmful. Making fun of Roger Ebert in this fashion is cruel, unfeeling, ignorant and offensive. To those who plead ignorance of the jaw comment: Roger Ebert's condition is quite well know – probably to a much larger audience than that of your favorite recent comic book. If one somehow hasn't heard about it, it is set out in rather elementary English right in the body of the initial post. So, if one is well-informed, or at least knows how to read English, this is not much of a conundrum.
You really have no sense of humour at all, do you?While (if you look up a couple posts) i didn't think the joke was particularly funny, i did understand what was behind it, and i didn't go all sententious-Sam-the-Eagle-Arbiter-of-Good-Taste about it.If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I also understood what was behind it: The man is an evil son of a bitch.
Which man?
Marc Alan Fishman wrote it. He's the evil S.O.B(Yes, mike weber – some things are not primarily the fault of Peter David. He is not omnipresent, so there is room for other disgusting boors.)
Luckily for you.Actually, i wondered if you were referring to Millar.
Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.
However, your lack of concise and accurate English composition skills is.
In reference to the person behind the all this, the writer is the only reasonable answer. It is well established that Mark Millar did not say these things: It stands to reason that the person who did say them is responsible.
Folks, peace. Chill. Take a few minutes and calm down.
Aw. I was having fun. Humourless people with snooty attitudes bring out the worst in me.Okay – i'll be good.
If someone had written something remotely humorous, then we would have something about which to talk. My interpretation of mike weber's posts leans more toward continuing a feud from a different site than toward any interest in deflating pomposity.
Actually, until you reminded me, i'd forgotten encountering you at PAD's site.Unpleasant annoyances tend to slip my memory.(Sorry Glenn – i couldn't let that one slide. At least JF, unlike some people i've known for years, gets my name right.)
I suspect mike weber's motive is continuation of a feud from another site, rather than anything to do with having fun or deflating my ego. I do not wish to bring out the worst in him, because his best is quite distasteful enough.
My apologies for the posts following each other – the first seemed to disappear, and now it is there.