Obsessively putting our comics in chronological order since 1985.
| 1991-10-01 00:11:10 |
| Previous: X-Men #1-3 | Up: Main | Next: Spider-Man #15 |
Punisher War Journal #35
Issue(s): Punisher War Journal #35
Cover Date: Oct 91
Title: "Motivation"
Credits:
Mike Baron - Writer
Ron Wagner - Penciler
Mike Witherby & Jimmy Palmiotti - Inker
Kevin Kobasic - Assistant Editor
Don Daley - Editor
Review/plot:
The editors of the Punisher books had solicited feedback on the Dolph Lundgren Punisher film, and someone writes in to his issue saying it was a "disappointment" and suggesting that Marvel should have the Punisher "chase down and destroy the individual who wrote that movie and then Dolph Lundgren". Whatever you think of the movie (and i actually think it was fine; i just wish the Punisher wore his costume and didn't live in the sewer), i should note that the letter writer seems to have a very specific objection, saying that the Punisher is a "real American-blooded hero" and "I can't believe that a communist pinky like Dolph Lundgren" was allowed to play him (for what it is worth, Lundgren is Swedish).
Anyway, the response to the letter is: "Isn't it chilling... when you find out that you've not only had thoughts identical to those of a stranger..., but that the stranger got money for them and you didn't?"
This is all a roundabout way of saying that this issue is meant to be a takedown of the movie.
I already like this Retaliator movie. At least he gets to wear a costume.
I decided to include the bit from the lettercol because it's not entirely obvious that this is a send-up of the Punisher film. I mean, sure, the Punisher winds up in a story about people that are making a movie that is obviously based on him, but there's nothing in the story that satirizes anything about the actual Punisher film. There is a lot of talk about how the film uses non-union, non-American stunt people, but as far as i know that wasn't a criticism of the original film. And like a lot of Punisher stories dealing with a topic (e.g. flag-burning) it quickly devolves into a situation where there are worse crimes going on.
The fake Punisher tries to stop that but gets killed...
...and then of course the real Punisher gets to kill the director.
So as a reaction to the film, it's really kind of basic. And as a standalone story, it's... also kind of basic.
For what it's worth, the Retaliator looks most like Dolph Lundgren on the cover.
Quality Rating: C-
Historical Significance Rating: 1
Chronological Placement Considerations: N/A
References: N/A
Crossover: N/A
Continuity Insert? N
My Reprint: N/A
| Previous: X-Men #1-3 | Up: Main | Next: Spider-Man #15 |
Comments
So basically, "Punisher kills people! On the set of his own movie this time!"
The Dolph Lundgren was indeed complete shit.
The Thomas Jane was pretty good if rather uneven, though I liked that it at least attempted to keep in the spirit of Ennis if not actually succeed.
It sounds like the Iron Sheik wrote that last comment.
I remember enjoying the Dolph Lundgren Punisher movie for what it was. When the movie was made (late 80s), so little of the Punisher's mythos was seem as entrenched as it would in the 90s. Lots of odd choices, not surprising given the filmmakers, but all in all pretty decent action film for that period.
The cover is a little misleading, isn't it? I don't recall the Punisher actually facing off the Retaliator (who's not really the Retaliator but an incredibly committed method actor, kudos).
Is Dolph Lundgren REALLY a "Communist pinky"? (and did the guy mean "pinko"?) I know Lundgren PLAYED a stereotypical Soviet brute in Rocky IV; someone else besides the Retaliator is blurring fantasy and reality, perhaps? Maybe he assumes every person from a Socialist country is a Socialist, or maybe some Punisher fans are so conservative that just about anyone looks pinko to them.
Lots of Americans in 2018 think Russia is still Communist, and not even all of them are Punisher fans!
