The Four Color Media Monitor

Comic Book Club Live announced that Marvel and editor C.B Cebulski have hired and re-hired some of the worst writers to litter comicdom in the past quarter century for new writing assignments:

Hot on the heels of DC’s Superman/Spider-Man, Marvel has announced their half of the crossover with the April debuting Spider-Man/Superman #1. And alongside the reveals of the covers, we’ve also got the creative teams for the book, including Geoff Johns delivering his first Marvel work in two decades, and Brad Meltzer writing for Marvel for the first time ever. [...]

Meltzer will write the lead story alongside artist Pepe Larraz, featuring the title characters. In addition, Dan Slott and Marcos Martin will takcle Spider-Man Noir meeting Golden Age Superman, Geoff Johns and Gary Frank send the Super and Spider families against each other, Jason Aaron and Russell Dauterman bring on The Mighty Thor and Wonder Woman, Louise Simonson and Todd Nauck pit Steel against Hobgoblin, Joe Kelly and Humberto Ramos cross over Gwen Stacy and Lana Lang, and Brian Michael Bendis and Sara Pichelli are back at Miles Morales, and I can’t believe we had him on our live show last night and didn’t know about this. Harumph.

There may have been times when bad writers working at Marvel went over to DC later on (and J. Michael Straczynski certainly did in the late 2000s), but this could be described as the opposite. Either way, it's an utter disgrace that a "novelist" who penned Identity Crisis, one of the most repellent comics minimizing sexual assault and delivering a leftist metaphor for 9-11, is now being hired to work at Marvel on a project, and equally disgraceful that the writer who soiled the Flash, Hawkman and Green Lantern, along with Justice Society, is now returning to work at Marvel, where he also made a shoddy mess of Avengers. Looking at the list, it's certainly quite a Who's Who of horrible, overrated writers, and surely also artists, some who're taking part in a joint project of new team-ups between the Man of Steel and Web-Head. No thanks, I'd rather read the original Spider-Man/Superman teaming from the Bronze Age instead. And how interesting there's at least a dozen variant covers conceived for this project. It does hint they lack faith in anybody taking interest in the brand new special as opposed to the original, if variants are their last trick in the bag.

As for Simonson, there may have once been a time she made a decent scribe, but she's been irrelevant for years now, and it's unlikely she'll deliver anything palatable under Marvel/DC's modern leadership now. Also, is that the original Gwen they're talking about, who was sent to the afterlife in 1973 when the Green Goblin murdered her in Spider-Man? If so, then no matter how you look at this, it clashes with what Tom Brevoort recently said about persuading Joe Quesada they shouldn't revive Gwen. Speaking of which, it may not be surprising if Mary Jane Watson is left out of the new proceedings, but if she is in the story, could anyone be surprised if she gets treated awful?

Based on whom Cebulski's hired, the time couldn't be better to boycott Marvel, and the lineup is certainly an embarrassment.

Labels: Avengers, bad editors, dc comics, dreadful writers, Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkman and Hawkgirl, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, Spider-Man, Superman, violence

We see more auctioneering mishmash at work with a rare back issue of Action Comics' premiere, which the BBC says sold for a colossal $15 million:

A rare copy of the 1938 comic that introduced Superman to the world has sold to an anonymous collector for $15m (£11.2m).

The private sale of the Action Comics No 1 copy - once stolen from actor Nicolas Cage's home and returned to him over a decade later - was announced on Friday.

The previous record for the sale of a comic book was set in November, when a pristine Superman No 1 fetched $9.12m at auction. Both sales far exceed the original 10-cent price tags - or around $2.25 in today's money.

Yup, as expected, we've crossed the previous record by a considerable margin. And while it was utterly wrong for the criminal to burglarize the back issue from Cage's estate, it's still regrettable we have another example of something being sold anonymously on the market to be kept buried in vaults for eternity instead of going to a museum. There's a lot of potential in setting up a whole exhibition for various back issues of decades past for the public to see, yet everything goes in a cyclical pattern on the market instead.

Soon enough, we'll be hearing that these back issues sold for $20-30 million, and then it'll all become particularly pointless and silly. And neither the mainsteam nor specialty press will question if the speculator market's setting a good example.

Labels: dc comics, history, msm propaganda, museums, sales, Superman

WGN9 from Chicago is adding to the tiresome, unobjective discussion of the collector's mentality, following the not-really-newsworthy story of a Superman comic selling $9 million-plus on the speculator market. What's told here, though, is eyebrow raising if it's correct:

You may still remember your first comic book. Do you remember the last time you saw that comic, though?

Depending on what it is and the condition it’s in, it could be worth something – in fact, maybe a few somethings.

Last month, an issue of “Superman” sold for a record-setting $9.12 million at auction. [...]

Superman was the first superhero to appear in pop culture, and his first-ever comic was a limited print. Of the 500,000 copies ever printed of the first edition, it’s estimated that fewer than 500 remain in existence today, Lon Allen, vice president of comics at Heritage Auctions, told the Associated Press.

Seriously, when the first issue of the Man of Steel's first spinoff series from Action Comics premiered, it only saw less than a million copies printed, no matter how many sold at store level? I'm as big a fan of Supes as the next person, but this, if anything, suggests a lot of Golden Age comics weren't the massive success earlier reports would have us think. So why keep taking such an unobjective position and making it sound like this was all something to celebrate? And then, we're told:

Who is willing to shell out more than what some actors were paid to portray Superman for a comic book?

“People with deep pockets,” according to Griffin.

Among the books sought by those “deep pocket” collectors are the “firsts,” Griffin explained, like Batman’s first appearance in Detective Comics (No. 27, published in 1939) and “Marvel Comics No.1.” A version of the former sold for $1.82 million in 2024, while a copy of the latter garnered more than $2.4 million in 2022. A single page from a 1984 comic, “Secret Wars No. 8,” sold for $3.36 million, all thanks to the first-ever appearance of Spider-Man’s black suit. A debut issue of “Captain America Comics” sold for $3.1 million in 2022.

“They’re always going to be expensive and will probably just continue to be as time progresses because there’s going to be less and less of books like this coming out of the woodwork,” Griffin added. It’s scarcity and desirability that can influence the value of the comic, according to Griffin, though they’re not always a guarantee. If “there’s just nothing going on in it,” for example, or it’s a book “from the ‘50s that nobody remembers,” there may not be much desirability for it. Some titles or issues can fluctuate in value, with interest peaking when there are rumors of a movie adaptation or a TV show appearance for a certain character. But, once the appearance happens, Griffin says the “book will get soft again.”

Well see, that's a problem. If they're going to base it all upon recognizability and what movies are in production, then it's not a long-ranging success at all, and if the movie adaptations eventually do wear off, then for all we know, even the Golden/Silver Age back issues may lose some value. Which is certainly what happened when production of issues more for the sake of the collector's mentality came about:

Also like baseball cards, comic books experienced an era of mass production, in the 1980s and ’90s, leading to a collapse in the collector market.

“They just put out so many of them, and there were so many people buying two copies and keeping one pristine,” Griffin explained. “There’s just a lot of nice books out there from the time period and not many of them are worth that much.”

If by that he means monetary - not artistic - value, then again, this whole report is a farce. Of course, it's disturbing to think of how even some Rob Liefeld monstrosities of the times could sell big among certain speculators, because they actually think the terrible examples he drew up in the Heroes Reborn series of Capt. America, for example, are actually worth something based on how poor they are? Sorry, but that only further compounds why the collect-for-profit mentality's ruined pop culture.

The market has rebounded, with newer material like manga comics and Pokémon becoming more popular among collectors. That, Griffin said, is fueled by those who enjoyed them in their youth now having the buying power to collect.

I have a bad feeling even the manga in mention is only being collected for profit, which should serve as a warning there's a whole segment of "fandom" out there that doesn't care about manga as an artistic medium either, just as a source of financial greed. That's bad news too, for anyone who believes Japan can have potential if the cards are played right. Then, towards the end:

If you’re hoping to get into comic book collecting, you may not have the financial wiggle room to vie for a $9.12 million “Superman” comic. Instead, Griffin recommends finding “something that you like and collect that.”

“That way, even if it goes down, you’re still going to be happy that you bought it.”

Note how, oddly enough, the interviewee doesn't say you should actually make an effort to read it. And if not, then what good is it to collect? Why not recommend buying comics in paperback/hardcover format for reading and entertainment value? So again, we have another article where nobody comments on the comics from a merit-based perspective, and they're really insulting the medium's potential with the way they approach the whole topic. And those "deep pockets" should be ashamed of themselves for what they're doing to the products, hoarding them away instead of donating them to a museum.

Labels: dc comics, history, manga and anime, marvel comics, msm propaganda, sales, Spider-Man, Superman

From eJewish Philanthropy (here's an archive link if it requires registration to read all), some news about non-profit organizations like the Jack Kirby Museum that wish to honor creators like him, among other Jewish figures who were early originators of modern comicdom in the mid-20th century. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they take a sugarcoated view of recent film adaptations:

This year, four of the top 10 domestic blockbuster films were based on comic characters created by Jews — Superman, the Fantastic Four, the Avengers and Captain America — which collectively brought in more than $1 billion.

Was there an Avengers movie this year? I'm not sure, but if we take the Superman, Cap and FF movies as examples, those weren't financial successes individually, so why make it sound like there's something to celebrate, considering how bad the politics in the former was, and quite possibly also in the Cap film? Does that not concern folks who say they respect the background of the creators? If there's no complaints made about abuse of Jewish creations by potential antisemites and anti-Israelists, then what's the point of this?

This Black Friday, the franchises will generate further revenue as parents brave their way to Walmarts and Targets to snag cartloads of action figures, apparel and Lego sets based on their kids’ favorite Marvel and DC heroes and heroines. But that same day, legions of fans will trek to One Art Space in Tribeca, New York City, to celebrate the man who co-created many of these characters: Jack Kirby, the artist behind the Fantastic Four, Captain America, X-Men, much of the rest of the Marvel Universe, who also fully created DC Comics’ New Gods.

Organized by the Jack Kirby Museum, the pop-up event titled “Jack Kirby: From the Ghetto to the Cosmos” runs from Nov. 28-Dec. 7, with an opening reception on Saturday. The heart of the event will be a display of reproductions of Kirby’s only explicitly autobiographical story, the 10-page “Street Code!,” which portrays Kirby’s life growing up in the tenements of the heavily Jewish Lower East Side, a 30-minute walk from the exhibit. [...]

The Kirby Museum, along with The Siegel and Shuster Society, which honors Superman’s Jewish co-creators, is one of the few nonprofits celebrating the Jewish masterminds of the comics medium. Even though these writers and artists’ creations are plastered on nearly every child’s lunch box — not only in America, but around the world — their foundations and museums often lack the financial support of nonprofits dedicated to those deemed “fine” artists. [...]

You cannot take the Jewish out of these creators and their creations, Rabbi Simcha Weinstein the author of Up, Up, and Oy Vey: How Jewish History, Culture, and Values Shaped the Comic Book Superhero, told eJP. His book was one of several on the topic of Jews in comics published in the late aughts after Michael Chabon’s 2000 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, told the story of two Golden Age comic creators modeled after Siegel and Shuster, drawing attention to the Jewish history of the medium for the first time in mainstream media. “It’s impossible not to see [the superhero] journey as a reflection of the Jewish immigrant experience, name changing, the desire to mask the double identity, the wrestling of the outsider/insider.”

When they bring up a writer who's taken political positions hurtful to Israel, I'm less convinced the people doing this coverage are sincere. Chabon also did serious damage to the Star Trek franchise, and based on that, what's so special about him anyway? What if his leftist politics were the reason Jewish history was allegedly taken note of in the mainstream? That's the problem, unfortunately.

Comic characters often mirror their creator’s experiences, even if not implicitly. Superman is the story of an immigrant to Earth whose planet was destroyed — widely seen as a reflection of the Jews fleeing Eastern Europe for America. Captain America can be read as a Golem or a take on assimilation, a character so American that he envelopes himself in the flag. The Fantastic Four’s Ben Grimm, known as the Thing, grew up on Yancy St., a stand-in for Essex St., and his often gruff, sarcastic character was revealed to be Jewish after Kirby died, with many believing the character was based on him.

It would seem somebody chose to parrot the MSM narrative of Superman as an "immigrant" and not a refugee. No doubt, Supergirl and the Martian Manhunter would be subject to that kind of narrative too. Also troubling is how they speak of Capt. America - does that bizarre comparison of Cap to a golem and wrapping himself in the USA flag imply he's portrayed as a "jingoist"? This is weird when you consider that the Thing could've been considered the golem variant, and even the part where they use the word "revealed" instead of "established" is again irritatingly flawed.

Hoppe is not Jewish, but he said that Kirby’s heritage can be seen in everything the museum does. “The whole comic book industry, we wouldn’t have that without the Jews and any of the creative people that were shut out of mainstream publishing,” he said. [...]

Because superheroes are ubiquitous, it’s important non-Jews recognize the characters’ Jewish roots as a way to combat antisemitism, Schwartz said. “One would think that if somebody loves a character and finds out that they were not only created by Jews, but were designed to reflect the Jewish experience, that makes it a little bit harder for this person to hate Jews.”

Unfortunately, if history since is any indication, it's clear that regardless of whether antisemites/sexists/racists read this stuff, they still don't recognize the legitimacy of the creators as human beings. Though you definitely have to wonder why they'd buy and read/watch this stuff if they really don't like Jews, and don't want to put money in their pockets. You could make a similar point about Andre Citroen, who founded the car company that's today owned by Peugeot; why would antisemites want to buy cars and trucks from a company founded by a Jew, or even from the company under which it's owned? It's mystifying. Also note, from the comics-based perspective, that terrible ideologues like Saladin Ahmed are not only allowed by Marvel/DC management to write Jewish-shepharded comics, they seem to do so out of some form of virtue-signaling and spite.

I can't say the article's very convincing when it takes an otherwise superficial, fluff-coated view of the subject, and for a site that's allegedly about philanthropy, it's tough to comprehend why they don't make an argument that Israel's descendants have to reclaim their overseas brethren's creations if they really want to make clear they care. Nor do they make a case why Islamic antisemitism is something that has to be tackled in comics as much as in any other medium. I'm sorry to say, but all this cowardice and selling-out has not helped comicdom in the least. Will Eisner may have been one comics scribe who dealt with the issue, but perhaps unshockingly, nobody else seems to want to follow his examples. Alas, this is another article of its sort that's getting nowhere.

Labels: conventions, dc comics, good artists, good writers, history, licensed products, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, museums, politics, Superman

ComicBook wrote another sugary article where they predictably set about gushing over what they call the "best" of Superman comics in the 21st century, with the writers of their choices being none other than the worst of modern day ideologues, or even writers who've lost their way post-2000. For example:

Dark Crisis on Infinite Earths is underappreciated; it’s much better than it gets credit for and has some certified bangers. The best of them is probably Dark Crisis: World Without a Justice League: Superman #1, by Tom King and Chris Burnham. The story takes place on a “perfect” Earth for Superman, meant to drain his energy for Pariah. He’s married to Lois and Jon has become his sidekick, working as Robin instead of Superboy. However, there’s something amiss with the world that keeps bothering the Man of Steel, which leads him to make a fateful decision. King hasn’t written much Superman, but has proven to be amazing with the character. This issue is no exception, and it’ll bring a tear to your eye by the end. Burnham is fantastic, really bringing the issue to life. This story is an underrated sensation that isn’t talked about enough.

When King's the kind of writer they recommend, you know something's wrong, and that the comic in focus is both overappreciated and overrated. Where does the writer get off lecturing us that such scriptwriters are the best we can find in this day and age? If this story isn't spoken about much, it's just as well. And then, also to be expected:

Geoff Johns and Gary Frank are one of the best teams to work on Superman in the 21st century. Their run on Action Comics is almost completely perfect. “Brainiac” is a wonderful example of why they are so great together. The story brings back the villain Brainiac, revealing the truth about all different versions of the Coluan cyborg we’ve seen over the years. This one is both an action masterpiece with some amazing worldbuilding, and a tearjerker that will break your heart. The action is brilliant, and the art will knock your socks off. This came during that period when DC was bringing pre-Crisis ideas back to the Superman comics, and is a story that is both modern and retro at the same time.

There they go again with the use of the word "revealing", rather than "establishing", but either way, Johns is unsuited to the task, and Frank shouldn't have worked with him. And there's also the following:

Superman: Space Age is a retro masterpiece, and doesn’t get the credit it deserves. The book starts in the 1985, at the end of the world, and tells the story of Superman’s life, his relationship with Lois Lane, the beginning and end of the Justice League, and a look at Crisis on Infinite Earths that we’ve never gotten before. Written by Mark Russell with art by Mike and Laura Allred, this story is the perfect mix of retro DC goodness and amazing Superman storytelling. It’s not a perfect book — the Lex Luthor subplot isn’t as great as it could be — but it’s so very good. We all expected it to be great, but we didn’t expect it to be as great as it is.

Even if a leftist like Russell wasn't the writer here, the Allreds are honestly some of the most mediocre artists since the turn of the century, and alone could be quite a turnoff. I seem to recall reading some of the former's work in the last year of X-Force, and there too, the art was perfectly dreadful. There's even another item by King listed that at least half admits he's not a fan-favorite:

Superman: Up in the Sky, by Tom King and Andy Kubert, was a huge gamble of a story. King isn’t exactly the most beloved writer in DC Comics, and the book was sold in Wal-Mart in an anthology book that combined it with Superman classics. The story sees the Man of Steel fly off into space to rescue one little girl. On the trip, the hero is challenged numerous times, all while wrestling with whether he should be out here in the first place to save just one life. King and Kubert give readers a story that completely understands the character, a brilliant tale that digs into the first superhero in a way a lot of stories don’t. The art is amazing, perfectly bringing the script to life. This story can easily stand with the greatest Superman stories of any generation.

And only because King's the writer, right? Interesting they admit he's not the most admired writer at DC today, but then, none of the new ones really are, so it's nothing new, yet of course King's politics don't improve anything. But that still doesn't explain why they're fluff-coating his writings despite admitting he's not a favorite writer for the core fanbase they already alienated, and to say a scriptwriter who obsessed over storylines emphasizing heavy-handed takes on traumas is one of the most talented you could possibly find is just insulting.

And all this mishmash takes up valueable space that could've been dedicated to spotlighting the most interesting and challenging new creator-owned comics instead. If they'd just admit there's no point wasting time on modern DC/Marvel, we'd be getting somewhere. Sadly, it's unlikely they'll ever explore topics more challenging, and we'll just keep getting more of this gushy nonsense that always goes for the most overrated writers and stories in the modern era.

Labels: bad editors, dc comics, dreadful artists, dreadful writers, history, Justice League of America, Legion of Super-Heroes, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, Superman

The UK Times wrote more about the topic of the speculator market, and the old back issues that're held hostage to the cyclical sales mindset. And in the following about Spider-Man, they say:

More than 60 years on, the world is still marvelling – not just at Spider-Man’s awesome might but at his impressive market value. In 2021 a copy of the same magazine sold in the US for $3.6 million (£2.7 million). It cost 12 cents when it was bought in some suburban drugstore 62 years ago. At the time, that was the highest price paid for a comic book, but since then the record has been smashed on several occasions – a solid indication of the rising global market in collectable comics. Last year, a copy of Action Comics from June 1938, which introduced the Superman character to the world, sold for $6 million at auction. And just this week, a copy of the first comic dedicated entirely to Superman, dating to 1939, astonished the collectibles market when it went for $9.12 million.

I'm afraid it's just at the market value, considering what a joke sales of monthly pamphlets have become. Does anyone truly marvel at how Joe Quesada destroyed the Spider-marriage? And the damage to Spidey didn't stop there. How can anybody consider it a celebration when artistic value's been massively damaged and left unrepaired? Also note how none of these press sources today ever delve into sad moments like those from the past 2 decades, nor anything else that brought down comicdom, and you see how the inflicted damage will continue apace.

Superman’s debut belongs to what collectors and dealers call the golden age of comic books – the pre-war or wartime era when other patriotic, all-American characters such as Wonder Woman and Captain America arrived on the scene and spent their early years fighting Nazi stormtroopers and the Imperial Japanese Army. Spider-Man is a product of the so-called silver age of the 1950s and 1960s, when new-minted superheroes were allowed to be more flawed and personally conflicted, and when they deployed their powers primarily as crimefighters. Batman, though he first appeared before the Second World War, found his métier in the 1950s when he became a kind of masked special constable, constantly at the beck and call of the Gotham City Police Department.

Is that a joke? "Allowed"? Back then, while there were problems with censorship, which tragically made a comeback in the past decade, personality flaws weren't something anybody in the business knowingly objected to. That was something that was up to the writers/artists to decide if they wanted to emphasize. During the Golden Age, most stories were at least half the length of what followed during the 50s/60s, and Action Comics, in example, was more an anthology of several entries, some lasting longer than others, like Superman's. And in those early years, it's not like anybody was immediately interested in emphasizing what became more common in the Silver Age. At that time, working on the kind of publication deadlines that they did, the primary objective was entertainment value, and they succeeded well with that. They make it sound, again, like comics characters are real people instead of fictional figures, and as I've said before, I find that galling. I think that part about Batman being an unofficial "employee" of the GCPD is also exaggerated, because there were times when he'd be seen investigating crimes without their immediate request back in the day too.

It is likely that prices for silver-age comics have been boosted in part by the popularity of the Marvel movie franchises, according to Jamie George, Stanley Gibbons Baldwin’s specialist in collectable comics, trading cards and video games. “It’s difficult to point to a causal link, but there are definitely people who buy comics speculating that when a movie hits, that comic’s going to go up in value,” he says. “The Iron Man movies were great, so were The Avengers, and prices for those books seem to have risen. When an Eternals movie was first rumoured to be coming out, I saw many collectors buying issue one of the comic book – from July 1976 – because they figured they would be able to sell it at a profit.”

Obviously, the movies had some influence on encouraging speculators. But the alleged value went down once the movies' popularity subsided. And it wouldn't be surprising any value the Eternals back issue were assumed to have didn't work out well following the film's failure. Most annoying about this otherwise fluff-coated item is what got one of the interviewees to try reading:

Many comic enthusiasts are men who bought and read the comics as teenagers. “Jonathan Ross is one of the biggest collectors in the UK,” Pace says, adding that Nicolas Cage and Eminem own collections in the US. As middle-aged men, all three are the core demographic. The urge to collect comics is at least partly a nostalgic form of escapism. But Pace also stresses the visual impact of the best comics. “The first book I ever picked up was Batman, The Killing Joke, which was published in 1988,” he says. “I never read as a kid, couldn’t stand it, but that comic had an iconic cover depicting the Joker with a camera held to his face. I just loved the artwork, so read the comic constantly.”

Once again, a very sad situation where somebody was hooked on the medium not just because it was a Batman book, but also because one of the most notorious supervillains in comicdom was on the cover. Of course, if it had been a Superman comic with Lex Luthor emphasized, that too could be dismaying. Same with supervillainesses like Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn, and there are Marvel supervillains where a similar point could be made that villain worship is troubling. That the interviewee would imply a comic like the Killing Joke is literally the "best" is ludicrous at worst, ditto that the reader apparently only got into the hobby because of something like the Joker, and what the comic in question emphasized. It's not difficult to guess he never cared for Stan Lee's creations at Marvel, if at all, unless maybe Bullseye in Daredevil is what he considered delightful. Amazingly, the article does reference a certain issue from the 50s, though in a context that ignores the present, and says:

Still others concentrate on what are known as pre-code comic books. In 1954 a psychologist named Fredric Wertham wrote a book called Seduction of the Innocent in which he argued that comic books were causing a storm of juvenile delinquency. The criticisms in the book spooked some comic publishers who, to reassure advertisers, agreed to adhere to a code of conduct. The code stated, among other things, that “good shall triumph over evil and the criminal shall be punished for his misdeeds” – hence all the depictions of rueful gangsters being bagged up by Batman and Spider-Man. It also said that “females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities” – a bid to censor what were known in the trade, somewhat lasciviously, as headlight covers. Those comics are now, of course, eminently collectable.

Interesting they bring this up, because the past decade had serious problems with mainstream publishers censoring female imagery, making it sexless. Does it concern anyone involved that such a horrid mentality made a comeback of recent, and is still affecting mainstream comicdom in some way or other? If not, there's no point complaining about the past if they don't have a problem with it in the present. And near the end:

But is it art? Should comic books be seen as a sophisticated design genre on a par with other mass-produced ephemera such as, say, interwar adverts for ski resorts, the futurist posters of the Russian Revolution or the postage stamps that have long been Stanley Gibbons Baldwin’s stock-in-trade?

If anybody truly recognized comics as art within the context of entertainment and education value, they wouldn't be reducing it all to a joke of speculation market sales. Nor would they be ignoring modern issues with censorship, destruction of established characters and franchises, and above all, how writing and art in mainstream today is otherwise very bad, and held hostage to the worst editorial mandates, including company wide crossovers. There's also no discussion of how, less than a decade after Jack Kirby's passing, Marvel under Quesada and Bill Jemas spared no expense in humiliating one of the finest icons for patriotism and crimefighting adventures, Capt. America. No one's held accountable for how the Marvel Knights imprint turned the Star-Spangled Avenger into an apologist for anti-American propaganda, and today, it's become farcical how Marvel's editors/writers repeatedly make efforts to replace Steve Rogers under the cowl with diversity tokens, including Falcon and Dani Moonstar. Nor does anybody ask how that alone even so much as amounts to a talented story. So why do these papers even waste time talking about speculator market value? The modern pamphlets definitely won't see the big sums of their Golden Age predecessors so easily, that's for sure.

Labels: Batman, Captain America, censorship issues, dc comics, golden calf of villainy, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, sales, Spider-Man, Superman, Wonder Woman

A classic back issue of Superman, which I think I'd written about before, was sold for tons on the speculator market, per the Hollywood Reporter:

A comic found in an attic has just become the most expensive comic of all time.

A copy of Superman No. 1, the 1939 issue that introduced the Man of Steel in his first solo title and astonishingly in near pristine condition, sold for $9.12 million Thursday at an auction run by Heritage.

That price handily beats the previous record, set only in 2024, when Action Comics No. 1, the comic that first introduced the Kryptonian hero to the world, sold for $6 million. Before that, a copy of Superman No. 1 held the record with a sale of $5.3 million in 2022 while a copy of 1962’s Amazing Fantasy No. 15, the first appearance of Spider-Man, sold for $3.6 million in 2021.

It's nothing to make a big deal about, and besides, chances are it'll soon be making the rounds again for over $10 million. A real reason to celebrate would be if the back issue were contributed to a museum, and to date, the speculators in charge of circulating the back issue are unlikely to ever consider that as a possibility. Exactly why these auctions are such a blemish upon the medium.

Labels: dc comics, history, msm propaganda, sales, Superman

I mentioned before that Brian Michael Bendis is sadly returning to Marvel to sully the Avengers and other comics yet again. And perhaps it's not a surprise that a supposedly feminist site, The Mary Sue, is actually giving him their support, this despite any and all steps he took in his writing that were denigrating to women, with Scarlet Witch one of his biggest victims. Their sugarcoated lauding is as follows:

Bendis’ impact on Marvel, particularly in the 2000s, can not be overstated. Not only did he co-create pop culture juggernauts Miles Morales, Jessica Jones, and Riri Williams, but he revitalized the main Daredevil title with a five-year run. And then there’s his original tenure on Avengers, which led to landmark events like Secret Invasion, House of M, and Siege.

In 2017, Bendis made shockwaves across the industry with the news that he had signed an exclusive contract with DC. He ended up writing for the publisher for several years, not only on the Superman family of books with Superman and Action Comics, but on other titles like Checkmate and Legion of Super-Heroes.

There had been chatter, as of late, about Bendis potentially returning to Marvel… which would be noteworthy in and of itself, even if he was just taking on a lesser-known solo or team book. But the notion of him coming back to Avengers is something else altogether, especially given the ongoing reverence that people still have for his time on the book. Regardless of whatever the future holds for the larger Marvel universe, Bendis and Bagley jumping onto a book like that definitely has the potential to be something special.

If they had no complaints about how WandaVision and Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness forcibly turned Scarlet Witch into a madwoman any more than Bendis did to her in Disassembled, that says all you need to know just how "feminist" they really are, and not interested in championing fictional women who could serve as inspirational figures, whether they're heroines or anti-heroines (and I can't recall they ever defended Mary Jane Watson either). Of course, "mary sue" is meant to be a figure of speech in fanfiction, either for writers inject themselves into the story where they imagine themselves in what could end up becoming a sick fantasy, or it means a character with no flaws or depth whatsoever that merely serves a selfish purpose of said writer. There may even be a figure of speech like "murphy stu" in use for similar reasons, but that's another story. For now, the puff piece at the pseudo-opinion site makes clear there's certain "feminists" who couldn't care less if Stan Lee's creations dropped off the face of the earth, competely forgotten. Also, curious how the writer makes no mention of the Disassembled event; it's probably no accident she didn't, because that could undermine the narrative she's pushing here.

Interestingly enough, a writer for ComicBook, by contrast, was not so sugarcoated, though he still has a moment of lenience in the following item. First:

Marvel is in something of a rut right now. The Ultimate Universe was the biggest thing in comics in 2023, but DC was hot on the publisher’s tail, and the 2024 one-two punch of the DC All-In publishing initiative and the Absolute Universe destroyed that. Add in the underperforming X-Men line, no one caring about the Avengers, Spider-Man languishing (despite The Amazing Spider-Man finally being pretty good), the latest volume of Daredevil getting panned by everyone and then cancelled, and the rest of the publisher’s output not impressing enough people (besides Zdarksy’s Captain America and Immortal/Mortal Thor), and it’s a dark time for the bestselling superhero publisher.

It's been a dark situation for over 20 years now, and sugarcoating what became of Marvel and even DC is unhelpful. Besides, what's so great about DC's alternate universe line that's got leftist political metaphors sullying its impact? Predictably, this isn't brought up by the columnist, who even has the gall to downplay the continuing disaster in Spidey, whose marriage to Mary Jane Watson, if still decanonized, is a prime reason - and not the only one - why it won't be good.

Marvel is in a bad place, and rumors have been circulating that a familiar name may be returning to the publisher: Brian Michael Bendis. Bendis was responsible for Marvel becoming an unassailable titan in the ’00s, and was beloved by fans for years. He left the company in 2018, working for DC before going to the indies. The writer could be a game-changer for Marvel in 2026, but there’s no real reason he should come back. In fact, he almost certainly shouldn’t, for several important reasons.

Brian Michael Bendis Is Overrated

Bendis started getting attention at Image in the late ’90s with his crime book Torso, based on a real-life Elliot Ness case. He’d end up writing Sam and Twitch for Todd McFarlane and would start getting work at Marvel. In the year 2000, he was given The Ultimate Spider-Man, and that, combined with runs on Daredevil and Elektra, made him a superstar. Soon, he was writing the Avengers and became Marvel’s go-to guy for just about everything, writing the first event of the Marvel event cycle, Secret War, as well as House of M and Secret Invasion. He wrote the Avengers for seven years, the X-Men for three years, and then bummed around the Marvel Universe until 2018.

Many look at Marvel in the ’00s as awesome, but I believe it’s an overrated era. And frankly, Bendis is a big part of that. His overly wordy style did a great job of setting up drama, but his approach to action is far less accomplished. Hate the drawn-out nature of modern stories? That’s Bendis. No matter how acclaimed it might be, House of M was boring, and so was the vast majority of his Avengers run: stories that should have been three or four issues stretched to six to eight. The less said about his X-Men, the better, and his last couple of years at Marvel were a huge failure, with him writing the maligned Civil War II, which ruined Captain Marvel.

So now somebody tells us the real picture of the mid-2000s, which is when things really went downhill, and let's not forget J. Michael Straczynski's bottom of the barrel run on Spider-Man, another horrid example of what's wrong with that specific era. I seem to recall there was a moment where Bendis made Dr. Doom sound juvenile too, though what's really irritating in hindsight has to be a moment where he wrote Hawkeye insulting Hank Pym by asking "don't you got a wife to beat?" This was at the beginning of his Avengers run, and things got worse from there. But unsurprisingly, nobody at the time was willing to admit Bendis is a bad, overrated writer, and if he were beginning with Avengers today, it's a foregone conclusion they'd continue with the code of silence. Unfortunately, the writer goes soft on criticism with the following:

One of the most annoying issues for me is Bendis’ tendency to not use the character’s individual voices that had been built up by creators over the decades. Let me list the characters he was able to write correctly: Spider-Man, Daredevil, Captain America, Wolverine, Luke Cage, and I guess Spider-Woman. Every other Bendis character was basically just Spider-Man (you could probably count Jessica Jones, but he created her, so that doesn’t count to me). If you hate the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s quippy sense of humor, thank Bendis.

All of that is before we even get to his DC run, where he wrote a few good books, with most of his work at the publisher not landing. Ironically, in my opinion, he was actually a better superhero writer at DC than Marvel, but that’s not saying much. Marvel fans had started getting tired of Bendis during his X-Men run, and only got worse as things went on. Bendis did some great stuff at the House of Ideas — Daredevil, The Ultimate Spider-Man, his work on Miles Morales, Dark Avengers — but he’s not the one that is going to fix the tailspin in quality that Marvel is currently in.

Sorry, but even at DC, he wrote crude, juvenile dialogue, and went increasingly woke in scripting the Legion of Super-Heroes. He also caved to a petty complaint about a Superman story where a villain used a slur, even if it was depicted negatively. And of course, the way Bendis had the Man of Steel cast aside his secret ID was contrived and forced. Come to think of it, even the similar direction Bendis took with Daredevil was the same. One more reason it's actually rather late to be acknowledging Bendis isn't a talented writer, and as the article makes clear, even that's conveyed weakly, which is unfortunate. If Bendis did a bad job at DC, just say so, and don't go soft by saying he wrote superheroes better there than at Marvel. Because if his LOSH work is any clue, he didn't. And it's unwise to say he did good work on DD and the Ultimate line either.

Marvel Needs New Blood, Not the Past

Marvel has a lot of problems right now, but the biggest is their hindbound attitudes. Their editorial is run by the same people that have been running things since the ’00s. Names like Brevoort, Lowe, and Cebulski aren’t exactly favorites of fans. The publisher needs something, but they don’t need yet another person from the ’00s. If the company wants to get some heat back — NYCC was a failure for them, with DC running the show — they need to move forward, not backward.

Brian Michael Bendis hasn’t been a superstar in a long time. He’s a great crime writer, but he was pushed into a place where he wasn’t very good, and while a lot of fans liked him, a lot of his work and writing style is now mocked by fans. Marvel has depended too much on inertia and fans buying by rote. Bendis might do numbers on a Daredevil comic, but he’s not going to be the killer application that makes the company hot again.

Gee, do these propagandists really think that, with leftists like the above editors running Marvel ever still, they'll be hot stuff again? Nope. And the way they say fans "liked" Bendis, and then say they mock his style is also awkward. Especially when he himself insulted fanbases by refusing to acknowledge the reasons any fans don't like his work is because of where he took Scarlet Witch for starters, and that he relied on an irritatingly drawn out form of writing where he'd pad out his stories for the sake of 6-plus issues, which only made his writing all the more boring and lethargic. If Marvel and DC still rely on that kind of approach to storytelling, padding out their scripts ad nauseum, how do they expect anybody to be engaged in the stories?

The writer at ComicBook might admit Bendis was a bad writer, and might admit more than the Mary Sue's more biased article does. But it's still very lenient on Bendis' past mistakes, and leaves room to wonder if the 2nd writer really even wants any improvement. So long as Marvel's run by such dreadful management that since turned to wokeness, nothing will improve. And why not suggest Marvel/DC's time to close down business in their current format might be for the best? Even if they do cease publishing, that doesn't mean they can't be revived one day. And so long as it's under a more reliable ownership, that's why if they close and later reopen, then it'll be worth looking forward to. Certainly so long as they don't hire bad writers like Bendis.

Labels: Avengers, bad editors, dc comics, golden calf of death, golden calf of villainy, history, Legion of Super-Heroes, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, Superman, violence, women of marvel, X-Men

Animation Magazine announced that the far-left scriptwriter Taylor, who's already earned notoriety for turning the Son of Kal-El homosexual at DC, is getting his Neverlanders comic adapted to a cartoon production:

Australia’s Pixel Zoo Animation Studios has acquired the rights to the award-winning graphic novel, Neverlanders. The studio’s Pixel Labs original content division will adapt the book from fellow Australian creatives, No. 1 New York Times bestselling and Eisner Award-winning author Tom Taylor (Nightwing) and acclaimed illustrator Jon Sommariva (Batman/TMNT).

Neverlanders (Penguin Random House) is a YA graphic novel set in a reimagined world of Peter Pan. The story finds Neverland has become a war zone, and it’s up to a new group of ‘Lost Ones’ to save the day.

Aimed at teens and family audiences, the movie will be scripted by Taylor and art directed by Sommariva. In addition to his work in comics, including Dark Knights of Steel, Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, Children of the Round Table and several Star Wars series, Taylor is head writer and executive producer of the animated series The Deep, currently in its fourth season and airing in 140-plus territories. Sommariva’s additional illustrator credits include Star Wars Adventures, Harley Quinn and Multiverse: Collision Detected; he is also co-creator of Image Comics’ Gemini.

It's long stopped being a surprise when some of the worst modern writers are the ones whose works are adapted to screen. That this was a young adult story is enough to worry what this could really be like, since many of these YA publications are built on PC pandering. As a result, what are the chances it's not suitable for children, or even family readers and viewers? That the artist drew stories about Harley Quinn is also appalling, since he only helped contribute to the marketing of a villainous character who was elevated to insufferably overrated status over the years.

I honestly hope audiences will avoid attending what may now be in production, because if the creators are as overrated and political as the former's been, then their publications are bound to be as well. And the talk of a "war zone" could be enough to guess something's wrong with Neverlanders from a political perspective.

Labels: animation, dc comics, Europe and Asia, golden calf of LGBT, golden calf of villainy, indie publishers, licensed products, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman

Yet another old pamphlet is about to be launched into the speculator market, as reported by the New York Post sans any objectivity:

A comic found in an attic could become the most valuable ever.

A pristine copy of the first Superman comic could fetch over $6 million after three brothers found it stored in their late mother’s home.

The incredible find also unearthed five valuable early copies of Action Comics, the publication that introduced Superman to the world in its premiere issue.

Dallas-based Heritage Auctions said: “Three Northern California brothers taking stock of their late mother’s belongings in their family home during the holiday season last year discovered she had for decades held onto a cache of old comic books, tucked away in an attic beneath layers of brittle faded newspapers and cobwebs. [...]

Heritage Auctions says Superman has long been among the world’s most valuable comics. A copy of Action Comics No. 1 sold for $6 million last year, while a Superman No. 1 went for $5.3 million in 2022.

Experts believe the newly discovered issue, graded 9.0 by evaluators CGC for its sharp corners, bright colours, and near-perfect spine, could surpass both.

Yup, because locking it away in vaults matters far more than putting it on display at museums, right? And none of the speculators want to read it, just sell it in an endless circle for higher bids. This is so boring, just as it's appalling, but at least it serves to make clear the speculator market still poses a serious problem for the industry.

Labels: dc comics, history, msm propaganda, sales, Superman

The Direct says the Supergirl film currently in production is going to provide "clarification" on a very horrific retcon referenced in James Gunn's Superman film, which wasn't very successful, making one wonder why this PC take on the Maid of Might has to be put in production at all:

2026's Supergirl is confirmed to provide clarification about Superman's most controversial retcon regarding the titular Kryptonian's origin story. DC Studios co-CEO and Superman director James Gunn made a controversial change to Superman's origin by revealing the truth behind Jor-El and Lara's message. It turned out that Clark's Kryptonian parents sent him to Earth to enslave humanity and repopulate the planet with Kryptonian children.

While some fans claimed that the message was clear, Superman made it clear that the message was genuine and authentic numerous times, with Gunn putting the final nail in the coffin by pointing out that it was real. The massive twist about Jor-El's message positioned the House of El in a precarious situation because it strongly indicated that Krypton is a society of potential conquerors. Despite that, Supergirl is the best project to provide clarification on that unexpected shift.

One could wonder if the new Supergirl film is also being made just to provide an "escape hatch" from such a repellent premise, assuming that's what'll turn out to be the case. But, if we can understand these pseudo-filmmakers correctly, it probably won't be the case. This is what Gunn's Superman film was all about? Making Kryptonians look horrific, and just as bad as the stand-ins for Israel/USA governments in the movie? Ugh. That's not something a true Super-fan does, and I'm not buying any claims made to the contrary after this embarrassment. It reminds me that almost 2 decades ago, there may have been a Supergirl story where it was implied Zor-El did something monstrous to children, all for the sake of making even Kara's newer origins look sordid, as though that makes her own premise inherently more appealing than the Silver Age origins. The article later says:

While Supergirl will likely not reverse the controversial retcon, it can further clarify the twist through Kara Zor-El's perspective. Superman established that Kara often wants to go to planets with a red sun to get drunk, and the reason behind this could be her resentment toward the House of El's ways.

So here, we're being hit over the head with a premise that the Maid of Might's an alcoholic, and must like to spend time in red sun solar systems because it would make it easier to succumb to the effects of drunkenness? Gee, what makes that appealing? Though maybe it could partly explain why actress Milly Alcock is photographed wearing a trenchcoat, because the planets in said systems she's traveling to are freezing cold. Sorry, but that's as unappealing as Tom King's own stories, and lest we forget that the movie in preparation is supposed to be based on his scripts. And look how they stick with the PC description of "revealing" instead of "establishing". That's equally unhealthy. And what next, will there come a screenplay where Supergirl's depicted as a drug addict?

Once again, instead of offering audiences a chance to be happy without strings attached, the filmmakers only give them reason to be sad, and continue to lecture everybody about what entertainment should be all about. It continues to be a very sad time to be a Super-fan.

Labels: dc comics, golden calf of death, golden calf of villainy, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Supergirl, Superman, violence, women of dc

Here's a writer at ComicBook who's willing, unlike some others in mainstream, to take a look at some Silver Age Superman tales worth consideration:

The Silver Age is arguably one of the best periods in comic book history. Spanning from approximately 1956 to 1970, the era saw the creation of new characters and concepts that would go on to be iconic and important decades later, fantastic art, and the reemergence of superheroes after a time when such stores had struggled, thanks to societal controversy that blamed comics for juvenile delinquency. The Silver Age was also an era of absolutely wild stories, including those that put beloved characters in strange (and often hilarious) scenarios that can only be described as “quirky.”

This is especially true for Superman‘s Silver Age. Full of campy stories that often leaned into sci-fi territory, it’s an era that was often lighthearted, but is also one that deeply expands the Superman mythos. Silver Age stories introduced major concepts about Krypton, Superman’s powers, and even saw some of his classic villains start to coalesce into the threats they are today. It’s a great time to be a Superman fan — and here are seven of the greatest Superman stories from that era.

You can read the list and judge for yourself, and they're hopefully on their way to being reprinted in the DC Finest archive series in time. For now, interesting they also allude to the Fredric Wertham era, because while comics may not actually be blamed for causing delinquency today, many mainstream publishers have since exploited them for far-left propaganda, and simultaneously, there's been censorship occurring that Wertham would doubtless be proud of, for all the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, if such press sources were active during the 1950s, chances are they wouldn't utter a word against what Wertham led to, and they certainly are complaining about wokeness today that's ruined the Superman mythos. Viewed through that perspective, it's not a great time to be a Super-fan.

But when it comes to the older stuff from the Silver Age, yes, that's what makes it great to be a Super-fan. And again, I do hope more of that will eventually become available in dedicated reprint archives covering whole eras consistently. That makes it far easier to judge all the stories from an era where, while obviously not all was perfect, there was still plenty that could be better than what's seen today.

Labels: dc comics, good artists, good writers, history, Supergirl, Superman, women of dc

According to this Popverse article, DC management, led as it seemingly is by Jim Lee, is trying to keep a straight face regarding the entrance of Superman (and Lois Lane) into public domain in less than a decade:

Nonetheless, a Superman will be public domain in 2034… but speaking during an appearance at NYCC 2025’s retailers day on October 8, Lee didn’t seem overly concerned about it happening.

Speaking about problems facing DC Comics in the future, Lee said, “Yes, characters will fall into public domain. It's already happening. We've all seen these unsettling knockoffs of Mickey Mouse floating around online. But here's the truth: the character isn't the magic. The storytelling is. The world-building is. Owning Superman isn't the same as understanding Superman — knowing how he moves, how he speaks, what he stands for.”

He went on, “Anyone can draw a cape. Anyone can write a hero. That's been around as long as comics have been, and it's called fan fiction. There's nothing wrong with fan fiction. It shows how deeply these characters live inside all of us. But Superman only feels right when he's in the DC universe, our universe, our mythos. That's what endures. That what will carry us into the next century.”

Despite what he says, Superman and everything else haven't felt right in terms of talent and merit for a long, long time. Sure, anybody and everybody can draw heroes and heroines. But only if there's merit involved and the publishers don't force a PC vision upon the proceedings will the finished product win over the audience. Despite his rather predictably claims to the contrary, Lee and company obviously don't have the courage to admit they've long failed the test of merit in the past quarter century, and brought the DCU down to shoddy levels, just as Marvel has theirs. And look who's talking about fanfiction. They brought their universe down to just that in the most negative ways possible.

In addition to the above puff piece, The Verge simultaneously reports from the NYCC that Lee's claiming DC won't support AI technology:

DC Comics president and publisher Jim Lee said that the company “will not support AI-generated storytelling or artwork,” assuring fans that its future will remain rooted in human creativity. “Not now, not ever, as long as [SVP, general manager] Anne DePies and I are in charge,” Lee said during his panel at New York Comic Con on Wednesday, likening concerns around AI dominating future creative industries to the Millennium bug scare and NFT hype.

“People have an instinctive reaction to what feels authentic. We recoil from what feels fake. That’s why human creativity matters,” said Lee. “AI doesn’t dream. It doesn’t feel. It doesn’t make art. It aggregates it.”

Even this is awfully rich coming from somebody who had a hand in forcing tasteless leftist politics into the DCU, and largely canned creativity for the sake of PC art designs and storytelling. One more reason their products are unreadable today. Let's not forget they blacklisted conservative writers like Chuck Dixon and Mike Baron in the past 2 decades, and even some liberals obviously weren't immune to the PC excising. If they don't matter just because of their politics, what's that about creativity again?

Also, according to Comic Book Club Live, even editor C.B. Cebulski, in one of his few public statements today, claims Marvel's against use of AI technology too:

Yesterday at the New York Comic Con retailer day, DC Comics Publisher Jim Lee issued a strong statement about the publisher’s use of AI — or rather, firm stance against it. Today at New York Comic Con? It was Marvel’s turn, as Editor-in-Chief CB Cebulski explained that the company also won’t use the emerging technology.

During a Spider-Man panel which Cebulski was sitting in on, the Q&A section opened with a fan asking the Editor plainly whether Marvel will issue a statement on AI, in light of Lee issuing a statement the previous day.

“Yes, we’ve never used AI,” Cebulski said. He went on to elaborate, calling out multiple people in the crowd from Marvel’s office who regularly scan Marvel art for AI discrepancies like “six fingers.”

Continued Cebulski, “They’ve really gone to great lengths to detect AI… We never used it, we will not be using it, and we don’t condone it in the Marvel Comics division.”

But do they condone woke ideologies and other dreadful forms of storytelling? Even they haven't recovered from the woke disaster they've long become, and with the way their stories became so pointless, what's the use of their continuing as a publisher today any more than DC? I get the strange feeling we may one day discover AI was put to use in some of their recent comics, Cebulski's claim notwithstanding, and if that turns out to be the case, Cebulski will also come off looking like a laughing stock.

No questions seem to have been asked about what Marvel's management thinks of their creations eventually becoming public domain, even though they have at least a few that'll enter public domain soon after Superman does. But when that happens, it'll be just as well, though even better when the entire DC/Marvel universes all enter the same. Then, we can only hope somebody with talent and understanding will do justice for all the characters who were slighted since the turn of the century.

Labels: bad editors, conventions, dc comics, history, marvel comics, moonbat artists, msm propaganda, Superman, technology, women of dc

Cosmic Book News says Gunn's Peacemaker series on TV features certain DC characters coming from the Superman film making crude allusions to sexual violence:

James Gunn has said his Peacemaker Season 2 is a direct sequel to his Superman movie.

But instead of building on Superman’s story in a meaningful way, Gunn leans into shock value, crude humor, and political messaging.

[...] The most recent episode highlights Gunn’s controversial taste. Episode 6 features Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor sharing a prison scene with Frank Grillo’s Rick Flag Sr.

During their conversation, Lex casually remarks:

“Meanwhile, I’m in here in Belle Reeve listening to a bear-sized man with dragon skin butt-f—king a glowing twink with cartoon eyes in a cell beside me every night.”

The implication is that DC characters—believed to be Killer Croc and possibly Doctor Phosphorus—are raping each other in prison. Gunn signed off on the line, placing this kind of content directly into what he himself calls the continuation of Superman.

A Pattern of Poor Taste

This isn’t an isolated case. Gunn has already drawn backlash for approving the John Cena Peacemaker emote in Fortnite, which Epic Games pulled after players flagged it for containing Nazi-inspired imagery. That’s in a game played by millions of kids—despite Gunn’s insistence that Peacemaker “isn’t for children.”

Now, the same “Superman sequel” contains casual rape references involving iconic DC characters.

Let's not forget the very publisher whose comics these films and TV shows adapts from coughed out a repulsive 7-part miniseries back in 2004 where Dr. Light was depicted anally raping Elongated Man's wife, Sue Dibny, and now we have a profane TV show in which similar acts are alluded to? It makes little difference whether the acts in the Peacemaker TV show are consensual or not, what Luthor's alluding to is repulsive enough regardless, and just because it's villains in discussion doesn't make it any more acceptable.

This is just another something to make clear why it's better if the new Superman movie didn't fare as well at the box office as they must've hoped. If some filmmakers wanted to write up a scene in which "civilian" villains engaged in revolting acts, that would be one thing. But this is another example of established costumed-style characters from notable comics literature being forced into roles and acts that only make the characters in question insufferable to read about as a result. It was bad enough when comics started doing this so blatantly. Now, even the live action adaptations are going miles out of their way to even allude to costumed villains engaging in repugnant behavior much worse than what was seen up to the turn of the century, and that's only lowering the bar galaxies further.

Labels: dc comics, history, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman, violence

A writer at The Vidette of Illinois State University claims live action comics movies feel like comics again, and while the article's little better than most of these college publications, it does have some eyebrow raising parts:

Other films deserve to be part of that discussion, such as “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Captain America: Civil War.” While many of these films are of high quality, many don’t feel the same as reading a comic book. That probably sounds confusing at first glance, but let me explain.

Yes, these films have superheroes and feature events that are very unrealistic, but they do not make me feel immersed in the world very much. They just feel like regular movies that are carried by sheer star power, with the names of popular characters attached to them. They feel like they are just playing it safe for the general audience.

Don’t get me wrong, the general audience does matter because they contribute the most to the box office success of these movies. However, I want studios to allow directors to take creative liberties and make something as wacky or wild as the comics we love to read.

After all, these films are adapting stories where people who can fly are battling aliens, not exactly the most realistic. As a result, why would you not want to go bonkers with those types of ideas?

Well isn't that a surprise. Somebody admits live action's not the same as illustration and animation, and even I got that feeling at times watching what I did in the past, including the late Christopher Reeve's Superman films (though let me note that only the first 2 are good, and the other 2, along with the 1984 Supergirl film, were sadly botched). But perhaps more surprising is that the writer actually wants creative liberties taken with the movies. Depending how you view that part of the whole discussion, creative freedom, to say nothing of liberties, was all but taken away in the past several years for the sake of PC narratives. For Marvel, this mainly began with the Captain Marvel movie, which was based almost entirely on how Marvel mandated Carol Danvers be written since 2012, and was made even worse by forcing Islamic propaganda into a series starring a contrived successor to the role of Ms. Marvel. It's amazing any attempts to adapt such concepts to live action have largely been failures so far, and even one of the video games featuring the Muslim Ms. Marvel didn't fare so well. That shows the audience is not interested in lecture-laced propaganda.

It's also surprising the writer's okay with unrealistic ingredients, which should make clear that, if it's okay for Japan to do surreal stuff, then it's okay for even Marvel to do the same, and indeed, despite much of the absurd, lecturing propaganda of recent, they did in past decades. All that matters is whether it actually does a disfavor to certain issues and events in real life.

But with that said, here's where the article begins to turn into a farce:

The most recent examples of this are James Gunn’s “Superman” and Matt Shakman’s “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.”

Watching both of these films felt so fresh as comic books were unraveling on screen in terms of action, dialogue and even how colorful the world was. A common critique that I have seen is that these films move quickly in terms of progressing the story.

While that is true, I do enjoy that these films embraced how wacky they inherently are. That element makes them stand out amongst the many comic book films that have been releasing lately.

Well sorry to say, but if the Superman movie for starters was supposed to be surreal, it ruined everything with its appalling political metaphor for real life, and the FF movie ruined everything with both the actor playing Mr. Fantastic and the sex-swap for the Silver Surfer, changed from Norrin Radd to Shalla-Bal. On the latter, let's be clear. If Shalla-Bal matters, it's entirely possible to write up a prominent role for her in a film like this without doing it at Norrin Radd's expense. Instead, the filmmakers discarded Stan Lee's actual creation for the sake of PC pandering that hasn't improved the fortunes of these latest live action adaptations.

Science-fantasy can certainly be a great way to explore all sorts of wacky ideas, but when you let real life seep in without taking an informed and rational approach, everything's ruined. If the studios making these films still intend to go ahead with sequels to Superman, for example, despite the mediocre box office results, that will be almost amusing, in a way, because it shows they don't want to admit they made mistakes. But it certainly won't guarantee what's to come will be any better than before from an artistic perspective.

Labels: Avengers, Captain America, dc comics, Fantastic Four, history, islam and jihad, licensed products, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Supergirl, Superman, technology

Statista wrote another superficial look at the collapse of superhero film fare that refuses to address whether the films in question could be woke:

According to The Numbers, adaptations of comic books and graphic novels accounted for just 15.6 and 3.2 percent of ticket sales at the North American box office in 2023 and 2024, down from 29.9 and 31.0 percent in 2021 and 2022, respectively. While some argue that this is due to “superhero fatigue” after a decade-long overabundance of DC and Marvel movies, others say it’s just “mediocre movie fatigue”, suggesting that many of the latest installments of popular comic book franchises have been lazy cash grabs.

This year’s box office performance of major comic book adaptations such as “Superman” and “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” would suggest that audiences are still open to enjoying a good superhero blockbuster. Both movies received generally positive reviews and are among the highest-grossing films of the year so far.

On the surface, they may seem as high grossing as can get, but the problem is that today, when film and marketing budgets are so staggeringly expensive, it's not always enough to recoup the heavy costs. And again, nobody in the mainstream's willing to discuss in depth whether wokery and even performers who make divisive political statements have responsibility for whatever financial damage the film's suffer. Has anybody discussed whether they believe the sex-swap for the Silver Surfer plausible enough for the Fantastic Four film or not? Or whether the political statements of its star, Pedro Pascal, cost First Steps heavily? Or whether the Superman movie suffered similar problems in-film? If not, then one can't be surprised it all went south quickly.

Sure, the mediocrity itself was a damaging factor, but that's based on the wokeness that overtook much of moviedom over the past decade, and plenty of movies fumbled as a result. Yet the news site won't acknowlege any of that either, so they can't be surprised if there'll be quite a few more films coming up soon that suffer similar problems.

Labels: dc comics, Fantastic Four, marvel comics, msm propaganda, politics, sales, Superman

Polygon's gushing over DC's announcement they're adapting Mark Waid's decidedly overrated 1996 Kingdom Come GN to audio format:

Marc Thompson, who voiced the Man of Steel in DC Comics’ fully-cast audiobook retelling of All-Star Superman, is returning to the role for an adaptation of another of the best Superman comics of all time. Penguin Random House Audio and DC Comics announced Thursday that an audio production of the apocalyptic 1996 limited series Kingdom Come, by Mark Waid and Alex Ross will be releasing on Nov. 18, and gave Polygon an exclusive clip where the end of the world is nigh.

Kingdom Come is set in a dark future after DC Comics’ most iconic superheroes have retreated from public life, leaving behind an overzealous new generation that constantly fights among themselves and doesn’t care who gets hurt in the crossfire. When the highly violent “hero” Magog (Tom Alexander) causes a nuclear disaster in Kansas, Superman comes out of retirement to reform the Justice League and bring hope back to the world.

This second collaboration between DC and Penguin Random House Audio is adapted by BBC Radio veteran Dirk Maggs, who has worked on audio adaptations of Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman comic book series, the ‘90s Batman: Knightfall arc, and the 1993 YA novel Superman: Doomsday & Beyond. The adaptation of Kingdom Come features sound effects and a cast of more than 30 actors, including Edoardo Ballerini as the preacher Norman McCay, who serves as the story’s narrator, and Lorelei King as Wonder Woman.

“I’ve been adapting and directing multicast, award-winning audiobooks of iconic DC Comics Superman and Batman stories for more than three decades, but among them all, Kingdom Come was always the one that got away,” Maggs said in a statement. “At last, thanks to Penguin Random House Audio, I can tell Mark Waid’s epic story, with Alex Ross’s beautiful artwork brought alive through cinematic sound design combined with James Hannigan’s stirring orchestral score.”

Gee, and how's that Sandman audio book doing now that Gaiman's since fallen from grace? That aside, it's head-shakingly sad that once again, news sites like these are gushing over a tale built upon darkness, and the loss of Lois Lane. That Lois was written kicking the bucket in Kingdom Come is a real turnoff at this point, even more so than the dark angle the overrated story leans on. What's so "epic" about stuff like that?

But since Alex Ross is mentioned, I will give him credit for something else amazing he did later - he refused to participate in production of 2004's Identity Crisis, which is easily worse than Kingdom Come, based on how it minimized sexual violence, and when Ross realized what they were doing later, he said he was glad he didn't take any offers for illustrating it. It's possible he understood how darkness can definitely be taken way too far. Even so, I think it's a shame he served as an artist for Kingdom Come, because seriously, what's so inspiring about the premise of such a tale? Today, it's arguably dated, and why this has to qualify for an audio adaptation I'll never know, beyond the likelihood the staff producing it can't think or see beyond such a narrow viewpoint as they're going by. If there's a Superman story out that that's more optimistic that hasn't been adapted to audio by contrast, do they take a dismissive view of the potential in adapting to audio? Sadly, the answer is quite likely that they do, and it's not getting anywhere that way.

Labels: dc comics, golden calf of death, golden calf of villainy, history, Justice League of America, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, Superman, violence, women of dc

Flickering Myth asked what could've gone wrong with recent live action film adaptations that didn't perform as expected, and perhaps unsurprisingly, they hint they're resorting to the excuse that Coronavirus is still the reason:

Hollywood has spent the past half a decade in a post-COVID era, facing an exacerbation of a problem that was already well in motion. Fewer people, particularly younger generations, are buying cinema tickets. The once Golden Goose, known as the comic book movie, seemed like an unshakable money spinner. Even a C-tier comic like Guardians of the Galaxy, that most Joe Publicans had never heard of before the film adaptation, could make over three-quarters of a billion dollars.

In a post-Avengers: Endgame landscape, with furious oversaturation of product, it seemed like audiences were burned out. Was it simply quantity (never-ending, relentless, Homer Simpson eating donuts in hell) quantity? Maybe. Was it the generally massive dip in quality, with many of the films feeling half-heartedly churned out and feeling decidedly like an executive board meeting of barely considered ideas chucked at the screen? Very possibly, but more likely a combination of both factors alongside something more.

Well first, if they're suggesting Coronavirus had anything to do with it, the answer is anything but that. The answer is increasingly poor quality, and divisive political ideologies. On which note, they acknowledge one of the latest films to do so, Superman's newest adaptation, underperformed, and Fantastic Four easily worse:

Superman was a whole different beast, with one of the A-list, top-tier, grand pantheon characters with a long and rich history in comics, TV shows (let’s not mention Dean Cain’s transition from Superman to Ice-man), movies and more. The iconic blue suit, red cape and perfectly coiffed hair is an image that travels the world over, as well as Batman, arguably better. Yet box office expectations felt tempered from the beginning, with the internet descending into a bitter trade of barbs between hopeful new fans, jaded old Reeve fans and (worse) Snyder-bots. They’re nothing if not loyal to his vision and Henry Cavill’s portrayal.

Finally, we had the Fantastic Four, of high standing in pop culture and probably at the lower end of A-tier comic book characters as far as public recognition. In some regards that one had the added luxury of having only dreadful film adaptations to follow. As far as critical response and fan appreciation, the only way was up. [...]

Superman had far bigger boots (and a cape) to fill, though. A much bigger legacy character and officially the DC Universe relaunch under head honcho, James Gunn (who also directed the film). Reviews, as I said, are very good. Fans out the door, who hadn’t already made their mind up before the first set picture, were also largely satisfied. Joy of joys, it opened big and it needed to because the film, all in, cost a fortune (as these things generally do). Everything was right…

So what went wrong? It’s the death knell these days, and it’s that killer drop off. Very rarely, especially at the big blockbuster level now, do films hold their levels. Now, Sinners was deemed a big success, in part thanks to its more moderate budget but largely because it had impressively low drop-offs in those opening weeks. Superman fell hard. Mere weeks later, Fantastic Four: First Steps came out, and Clark and co fell off the proverbial cliff.

Fantastic Four also opened fairly impressively, above rather downbeat early predictions, but again, the drop-offs in week two, three, beyond, were killer. It also seemed to suffer from a real turnaround in public opinion for Pedro Pascal, suddenly deemed to be in too much, to be too odd in media circuits, but worst off (apparently) for expressing left-leaning opinions. Even ones of inclusivity and kindness that mirror the general messages most comic books and characters have promoted for nearly a century. Go figure.

I'm amazed this news source admits these movies have turned out to be financial failures in the long run. But no surprise any mention of ideology is muted, and this could include the gender-swapping of the Silver Surfer in the FF movie, something that may have been all but overlooked. The acknowledgement of Pascal's divisive statements is as close as it gets to giving some clues why these 2 films were failures, along with the Thunderbolts movie (why there's an asterisk in the title is puzzling). If only they'd show the courage to argue whether they think the ideologies Pascal for one was upholding are divisive, but that's bound to take a long, long time, if it's ever debated at all.

Maybe it would do some good to argue for now why moving back to simpler arthouse movies would be a better idea. Maybe even why movies could use a return to more emphasis on "action hero" films. So far, however, nobody seems to be considering that.

Labels: dc comics, Fantastic Four, marvel comics, msm propaganda, politics, sales, Superman

Comic Book Invest looked at what were allegedly the highest selling issues of the past summer months, and the examples they give, in addition to being no surprise, are also delivered without sales figures. For instance:

The highest selling comic book sold in shops (by the end of July) was Absolute Batman #10. This shouldn’t be a shock, as this series has been on fire since release, take the fact that issue one has been reprinted about nine times as an example.

But how many were even "reprinted", a term that might be better suited for trade paperbacks? That aside, it's sad either way that once again, the darkness appears to sell more than the light, though one can reasonably argue it's because the assigned writers for Superman haven't been suited to scripting the Man of Steel for a long time. Yet there are one or two examples of titles that were brighter back in the day on the list, there's the Fantastic Four:

A new number one for the family that launched Marvel into the silver age was bound to sell well, but the release of a highly anticipated movie alongside this new series helped place it as the second highest selling issue in stores last month.

Considering the movie hasn't lived up to financial expectations, how can we be sure this new volume's selling any better? Note how they sugarcoat the pointless tactic of relaunching at numero uno as a temporary boost for sales numbers, even though it's long proven increasingly unsuccessful. Also on the list is Absolute Superman:

Another comic that presumably saw more success due to the release of a new film (of the titular character), but like Bats, Absolute Supes has been selling well since issue one hit the shelves.

And if it didn't sell over a million copies, then what's all the fuss about? That aside, it's sad how something built upon PC is what's being promoted so heavily, and for all we know, its "success" is surely exaggerated even then, much like the new movie's. Then, there's Batman 161:

Next to do well at the LCS is an issue that is a part of the Hush 2 story; a sequel years in the making. This run has seen some delays recently, and has had mixed reviews overall, but it hasn’t stopped it from being one of the top five selling comic books of the Summer.

A sequel to that overrated Jeph Loeb-penned story of the early 2000s? Pass. Most interesting suggestions are given that this might've suffered from delays not unlike at least a few Marvel titles during Joe Quesada's first few years as EIC. What that can prove is that, given the chance, DC can be just as awful with their scheduling and how they employ creators. And one more on the list is "Godzilla Destroys the Marvel Universe":

I wasn’t expecting to see this book so high on the list, as there are about a hundred Godzilla titles currently on the racks, but adding in the Marvel superheroes must have been enough for even casual Kaiju fans to pick it up. Looks like a fun read!

When they title it with the word "destroy", something's terribly wrong, and has been for a long time. And without sales figures, this is as unconvincing as the rest. If their modern flagship universe has some of the worst writing in comicdom today, then it stands to reason even these licensed merchandise adaptations will be no different.

And no chance these new money-wasters will be worth much in the forseeable future on the market either. Not to mention that monetary investment is not a substitute for artistic value.

Labels: Batman, dc comics, Fantastic Four, licensed products, marvel comics, msm propaganda, sales, Superman

According to what's told by Interview Magazine, which spoke with Gunn about his visions for how the DCU in movies will be handled going forward. And at the beginning, they write apologia for Gunn's leftist visions in Superman:

In the weeks following Superman‘s theatrical release, the anti-woke crowd seized on the film for being too political. But if politics are personal, that is James Gunn’s superpower: he imbues his characters—villains, heroes, and everything in between—with a palpable sense of humanity. The second season of Peacemaker, Gunn’s DC Comics spin-off, is no exception. John Cena leads the cast as Christopher Smith, the titular peacemaker who’ll kill anyone who obstructs the path to global harmony. At the end of last season, he began to grapple with the hypocrisy of it all—that his life is at odds with his moral convictions. Gunn, the writer and director, calls the show “a spiritual successor to Super,” the 2010 dark superhero satire in which he directed Rainn Wilson. [...]

I'm not surprised at all they'd concoct such a pathetic defense for the divisive politics Gunn put into his movie. Does "personal agenda" make it okay? Of course not. All they're doing is confirming a big problem with the film - the scriptwriter hijacked it as a platform for his personal politics. And when said politics are as divisive as already indicated, it's just insufferable. And what "humanity" is there as a result? I don't find the premise of Peacemaker appealing either. Now for how they describe the new take on the DCU:

WILSON: What’s it like being a part of this world-building? I imagine that must’ve been one of the most exciting things.

GUNN: I think it’s the reason I agreed to the job. You talk about George R.R. Martin, and he is really one of the guys who I love and look up to. I’m an enormous fan of his and people say, “Oh, the DCU is doing what MCU is.” But I think it really is a lot more to me what the Game of Thrones world is like or what Star Wars is like, because we’re building a universe and then picking out little pieces of it and telling individual stories from that universe.

Comparing it to a TV show and franchise which was built on jarring violence - to the point where even some leftist news outlets seemingly couldn't bear it - is grotesque in the extreme. Game of Thrones isn't the kind of series or novels I embrace, and Martin himself hardly appeals to me as a novelist. One more thing I may as well comment on here is what Gunn says about how he wrote Lex Luthor:

WILSON: What differentiates the DC universe from those other universes that you mentioned?

GUNN: There is not a New York City in our DCU. There is not a Los Angeles in our DCU. There is Metropolis, Evergreen, and Coast City. It’s a different map. It’s a world in which some form of superheroes, which we call Metahumans, have existed for at least 300 years and they’ve been a part of our life. But I think that we’re reaching a point in the DCU where there’s three factions. There’s the Metahumans, the governments, and then the corporations. And the corporations are equally important. There’s Luthor Corp, there’s Lord Tech and Stagg Industries and Wayne Enterprises, which are the four big companies that are vying for another type of domination.

WILSON: Yeah.

GUNN: And they aren’t evil corporations, really. They’re just fucking amoral corporations.

WILSON: Wait, you’re saying that Luthor Corp is not an evil corporation?

GUNN: The corporations in themselves aren’t evil. Corporations are amoral. I guess governments are amoral too. But it’s really more dependent on the morality of the figurehead. In this case, Lex Luthor’s a pretty bad guy, although his corporation has done some great things. Luthor has created a battery, which has made the running of the world a much more efficient process. He has cars that run more efficiently, that are better for clean air. He’s done some really great things for the world, which is the reason for his obsession with Superman. He was considered the greatest guy in the world a few years ago, even though there were Metahumans, and then this guy with dimples and a glint in his eye in a silly costume came in and made him feel like shit, so he’s been sort of obsessed with him ever since and has gone evil. I don’t think Lord Tech is the same. It’s run by Maxwell Lord, who we meet in the first episode of Peacemaker. He’s not the greatest guy in the world, but as far as billionaires go, he’s probably more on the right side of things than Lex Luthor.

What, is Gunn depicting Luthor as a metaphor for Henry Ford, who was a very bad man in his time? Well sorry, but the negative metaphors for Israel/USA and even Trump ruin everything. I'll admit, if Gunn is depicting Max Lord more positively than was seen in the past 2 decades, that's flattering on its own, but it still doesn't compensate for the continued exploitation of these creations to serve the screenwriters' own personal politics. And again, comparing it to Game of Thrones only makes it more discouraging. Besides, today's corporations - certainly in the past decade - were going out of their way to force leftist agendas upon their customers. To say they're amoral isn't enough of a critique. And come to think of it, portraying Luthor as jealous that a guy in costume somehow, according to the film's logic, literally stole the show from the bald crook, wouldn't have worked well in the comics either. What I do know is that by the 1950s, the motivations given to Luthor were that he despised Superboy for supposedly leading to a situation where his hair was damaged by an accident during a scientific experiment, rendering him bald; even that's more of a premise than what we're presented with here. In real life, do celebrity actors literally take all the admiration away from somebody who's not even in the same line of work? Of course not. I'm all for surreal storytelling, but even this is awfully hard to swallow.

When Collider followed up on this, they noted:

...The difference is structural. While Marvel thrives on clashes between heroes and villains, Gunn’s DCU is setting the stage for a world defined by three competing forces: metahumans, governments, and corporations.

Umm, even Marvel's comics in the past could emphasize clashes with crooked corporations like Roxxon, so it's silly to make it sound like even movies couldn't do that. Come to think of it, if Gunn's implying there's no serious clashes between heroes and villains in his take on the DCU, that could be problematic too, as the following also suggests:

...Instead of focusing narrowly on morality plays between good and evil, Gunn is mapping a broader struggle that feels systemic and political as much as it feels mythic. It’s a move that could finally differentiate DC’s cinematic universe from Marvel’s and cement its own identity as something closer to an epic political fantasy.

But again, surely that couldn't end up watering down the expected impact of whatever further films are in development? If this is how they intend to portray each and every film going forward, and not put much emphasis on battling villains, super or otherwise, then they're not doing much to excite the filmgoers who expect a certain degree of action. Let's also consider the politics they have in mind are bound to be far too liberal. And then, Collider's writer says:

This version of Luthor mirrors the anxieties surrounding real-world billionaires. Figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates are celebrated for innovation while simultaneously distrusted for their unchecked influence. Gunn seems intent on leaning into that ambiguity, framing Luthor not as a stock villain but as a cautionary tale of how ego and power corrupt even the most celebrated innovators.

If the Superman movie makes Luthor into a metaphor for Musk, that's all you need to know it's little more than a leftist screed. Sure, it's amazing they're willing to cite liberal figures like Bezos and Gates for their followup report, much like a college paper I'd looked at earlier did, but that's probably meant to serve as a clever cover for what they really think of figures like Donald Trump, who was a big business mogul years before. And if the Superman film comes within even miles of serving as an anti-Trump metaphor, what does that say?

There may have once been a time when a lot of leftists were willing to be critical of corporatism, but today's that changed considerably, and we can't think the directions taken with these films signal they're willing to take an objective approach again. Why else would Gunn say they're merely "amoral"? Also, he's working for one, isn't he?

And again, comparing it to something as repulsive as Game of Thrones is very unimpressive. It's quite possible to find and highlight examples of power play tales without having to bring up graphic horror stories as a way to make the point. Using Martin's gross novels and TV show as an example for comparisons is not a good way to convey what the new DC movieverse is all about. So again, they've only succeeded in making me feel all the more discouraged from wasting time on what they have in store.

Labels: dc comics, golden calf of death, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman, violence