Critical analysis of logical fallacies in Wolverine fandom argument

¶ … superheroes in comic books and movies. The writer apparently is fixated on Marvel Comics' Wolverine character because he blasts all other comic books and raves about Marvel and the Wolverine character plus another Marvel feature, X-Men. His conclusion is that spending money on any action movie -- or "summer blockbuster" -- other than the Wolverine or X-Men is wasteful. His basic theme throughout his presentation is that all action figures in comics and in movies pale in comparison to his favorite, Marvel (the Wolverine and X-Men).

What are the reasons?

The reasons that this writer raves about the Wolverine and other Marvel characters is that if his cousin Vinnie says the Marvel Comics characters are by far the best, it must be true. Of course his justification for taking the positions he takes is loaded with hyperbole but his reasons are clearly to make it known his favorite action comic and character.

Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?

There are many fallacies in the reasoning. Calling anyone who disagrees with the writer "an idiot" is an outrageously fallacy. The writer insists that Wolverine is a character that "will never be topped"? That is a huge stretch, and moreover, saying that Batman and the Watchman have "complex, depressing plots that make you have to pay attention to figure out what's happening" is absurd and a fallacy. Batman has an enormous following and has raked in millions upon millions of dollars. Is the writer saying that with the Wolverine moviegoers don't have to pay attention to figure out what's happening? That's a huge fallacy in reasoning. And Superman has been a monster superhero going back many years in comics and movies. Calling Superman a "kryptonite-impaired has-been" is like calling the Statue of Liberty an ugly old rusted relic of a woman in New York harbor.

Identify a value assumption and explain why it is a value assumption.

The assumption the writer makes throughout the piece is that nothing compares to the Wolverine. The writer gives value to something he appreciates and assumes that nothing can compare to it -- a value assumption. An example is the writer's assumption that spending "hard-earned cash" on any action movie or blockbuster movie that he doesn't like is a waste of money. Also, assuming that only Wolverine movies have "state of the art special effects" is absolutely absurd. The writer is tossing all his eggs in one action figure basket, and attacking all other action movies as unworthy -- a value assumption that doesn't stand up to close examination.

How good is the evidence?

Frankly, the evidence does not exist. It is all a rambling, opinionated juvenile bit of writing by someone that has a narrow view of action characters and action comics. To put down Batman and Superman as pretenders that no one wants to see is frankly unworthy of those franchises.

The way in which the writer goes about promoting his favorite character is borderline ridiculous. Any objective person knows that there are many good movies that aren't X-Men and Wolverine, and also, while it is the writer's perfect right to attack other characters than his particular favorite, it sinks pretty low on the totem pole to take cheap shots at characters and movies that aren't his personal favorite.