Sunday, May 28, 2017 

Texas movie theater creates publicity stunt with women-only screenings for WW film

The Alamo Drafthouse movie theater in Austin, Texas decided to arrange a screening of the new Wonder Woman movie for women only, all so they could see if men would react angrily, and some apparently did exactly what they must've been hoping for:
Alamo Drafthouse announced a “women only” screening of “Wonder Woman” for June 6.

“The most iconic superheroine in comic book history finally has her own movie, and what better way to celebrate than with an all-female screening?” wrote the Austin-based theater. “Apologies, gentlemen, but we’re embracing our girl power and saying ‘No Guys Allowed’ for one special night at the Alamo Ritz. And when we say ‘Women (and People Who Identify As Women) Only,’ we mean it. Everyone working at this screening — venue staff, projectionist, and culinary team — will be female.”
Wait a minute. Does that mean only men disguised as women or who turn themselves into Christine Jorgensens are allowed to join the festivity? Okay, I'm not sure what they really mean here then, but under the rules they're setting, this would surely mean William Marston and H.G Peter, among other male contributors from DC's Golden Age would be barred from the screenings too, had they been alive today to see just how out of hand things are getting.

But what really disturbed me, however, was the news that a NY affiliate of the Texas theater, running a similar stunt, decided to donate to a certain nasty outfit:
...The Alamo Drafthouse in New York City has since added a women-only screening of its own, with all proceeds going to support Planned Parenthood.
Ugh! When a theater pulling a stunt like this intends to donate profits to an outfit that's hurtful to women, you know something's wrong. This is utterly shameful, and a slap in the face to any self-respecting women out there. In fact, there was a women in the comments section at EW who said:
Sorry but not cool - as other people have said, if there was a male only screening of a movie, there would be outrage everywhere. And you know what? Women (and yes, I am a woman) complain about being discriminated against - are you not doing the same thing when you have an all female audience? I would love to go to this movie with my husband and I truly think he would enjoy it, however, I wouldn't give money to an establishment that insists on excluding him, even for one or two evenings, and I know he would do the same for me if the tables were turned.

and @ Quirky - not ALL lawyers are soulless. I've been a paralegal for almost 30 years and have worked with a number of wonderful attorneys. Please don't judge an entire profession on some bad apples.
Another said:
What a smug, divisive and hypocritical marketing stunt. Wonder Woman's creator was a man. Most of the behind-the-scene staff who have worked on the WW movie are men. Some of WW's most loyal fans over the years (long before it was popular to do so) are gay men. Let's exclude them all from this screening in the name of "empowerment". Let's turn away all the little boys who have tagged along with their sisters/mothers/aunts to see this movie and call that a triumph of "equality".
And another had something to say about the outfit they're donating to:
Proceeds go to planned parenthood.... Because nothing says pro women like killing little girl babies in the womb...If you flip this script how many fat blue haired angry feminists would be screaming about the evil patriarchy? Hypocrisy thy name is regressive.
And there was another who chimed in on PP:
Just have to say I think it's also stupid that they have an only female showing cause honestly the majority of people seeing are probably going to be females anyway...And for those angry feminists and liberals this does sound hypocritical considering they're always crying "discrimination." I mean honestly, most females today have plenty of "equal opportunity" ie they can vote, work if they want, own houses, and have the same type of insurance and benefits as men. And the fact that sending the proceeds to planned parenthood means I definitely wouldn't go anyways. Planned parenthood is a horrible and nasty business that kills innocent babies just because of people's selfishness and cold-hardheartedness. And btw half of those babies are female...
The PP connection alone is the giveaway to the bad intentions behind this whole stunt. It's honestly not good publicity to have around for a movie that's supposed to be a big deal.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, May 26, 2017 

The Atlantic's right about one thing: the business and sales model is outmoded

The Atlantic's written about how badly the medium's faring today, and Marvel's own collapse in the span of at least 2 years. Predictably, they take the side of anybody who insists politicized diversity at the expense of the established heroes and heroines isn't one of the damaging factors in the terrible sales of their recent publications. But, there are a few things told that make some sense, like how today's sales figures are laughable compared to decades before:
The comics industry these days is much diminished from its heyday. Beginning in the 1970s, corporate comics publishers moved away from selling through newsstands and grocery stores, turning instead to “the direct market,” which allowed buyers to purchase books straight from the publishers. This change both fueled the growth of specialty-comics shops and led to the corporate monopoly held by Diamond Comics Distributors, the middleman between retailers and publishers. In the 1990s, an issue of the popular The Amazing Spider-Man that sold around 70,000 would be considered a failure. The collapse of the comics speculation bubble in the mid 1990s—a bubble partially fueled by Marvel’s own encouragement of the speculator boom and flooding of the market—dealt a blow to the market it never quite recovered from. These days, what counts as a successful superhero book is anything that can sell a regular 40-60,000 copies. Most sell quite a bit less.

As it happens, speculation is an inherent feature of the direct market. Unlike in traditional publishing, comics sold to retailers through the direct market can’t be returned for a refund. So retailers have to preorder comics months in advance, knowing that if they order too many, they’ll be stuck with the overstock. Marvel and DC largely judge sales based on these preorders, and a low number of initial preorders can lead a publisher to cancel a series before a customer ever gets a chance to buy the first issue. There’s an incentive for publishers to push out as much product as they think the market will bear, and a narrow window for feedback. Due to the preorder system, books that might reach out to new audiences—such as those starring minority characters—are at an immense disadvantage right out of the gate. As a result, books like David F. Walker and Ramon Villalobos’s Nighthawk or Kate Leth and Brittney Williams’s Patsy Walker, AKA Hellcat!, and even spinoffs of popular series like Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Black Panther, like rarely last long before being canceled.
Umm, if Coates' BP title is selling at the aforementioned levels, how can it truly count as popular? After all, if 70,000 copies of a Spider-book in the 1990s was considered a failure, wouldn't the same have to hold true for a BP title in this day and age as well no matter how it's marketed? This recent chart shows that the 13th issue of the flagship title actually sold less than the BP Crew title, eyebrow-raisingly enough. The main title sold 30,509 copies (undoubtably at storefront level, which is not the same as customers buying), BP Crew sold 35,604 copies, and World of Wakanda sold 14,547 copies. Hmm. There certainly is a lot they must not be telling us.

The main point, as usual, is that, if the medium's not reaching millions of consumers, then at least from a sales perspective, it's a failure no matter how you look at it. And that's because of something that could've been done long ago, but which the Atlantic's writers are uninterested in stressing: many publishers could've abandoned the monthly pamphlet format and switched to graphic novel format for many of their creations' further adventures in future storytelling, yet they remain solidly glued to the obsolete approach still in effect today. One that's even costing a lot more money for publishers so long as they use it. If Dark Horse is publishing a miniseries that'll also come out in trades, wouldn't it be better to go with the latter format and save money on all those pamphlets that now cost 4 dollars? Or is their faith in their ability to sell a paperback in bookstores so poor, that they can only think to sell according to a test of how well a story sells in pamphlet parts? I'm sorry, it's just laughable.

And it's not just books starring minority characters that're disadvantaged because of the preorder system. Everything today is disadvantaged by the crummy system. Superman sells dismally too, all because of the points I made above. And if I haven't made the following point yet, there's also a marketing approach favoring famous major characters like the Man of Steel and Spider-Man over minor ones like the Atom and Moon Knight, selling entirely according to image recognition instead of story quality. Of course, there's also the problem with selling everything as an ongoing monthly series instead of a miniseries. If marketing and development were any better, there'd be a lot more miniseries than ongoing that'd probably sell better in their own way - and even get better critical reception - than the jokes and excuses we're getting now for monthly titles.

The magazine does raise an interesting point though, when they bring up sales gimmicks:
The uncertainties of the direct market are something all comics companies have to navigate, and sales gimmicks like collectible “variant” covers and special, higher-priced issues are common. Big publishers like DC and Image enthusiastically take part in these gimmicks. But Marvel pursues them at a level that puts other publishers to shame. Their primary trick is the consistent (and damaging) strategy of relaunching books with #1 issues or titles.
Yes, I think they're right; Marvel has gone miles out of its way to make short term sales boosts, with massive variant covers and repetitive relaunching. They've taken steps at times to do everything they could to remain solidly in the numero uno spot as a publisher with publicity stunts pushed to extremes. I think the vicious approach they took to marketing originated with Bill Jemas, who was promoting through a near-sleazy, shameless tabloid-style approach that set a very poor example for a publisher. Today he may be gone, but his influence still remains in the guise of Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso.

Unfortunately, the magazine then fumbles by going the propaganda route with a certain politicized title in the following paragraph:
Marvel’s argument for this approach has typically been that new #1 issues both boost sales and pull in new readers. It’s true that a #1 issue tends to sell quite well on the direct market—but since retailers are ordering inflated amounts sight unseen, it’s an artificial bump at best, and sales drop sharply afterward. In fact, according to an exhaustive and entertaining analysis by the writer and game designer Colin Spacetwinks, this constant churn badly erodes the readership. G. Willow Wilson’s excellent Ms. Marvel, a series starring a young Muslim heroine from Jersey City, debuted at a circulation of roughly 50,000 before holding steady at 32,000; the relaunched version a year later began at around 79,000 before dropping sharply to a current circulation of around 20,000. “Marvel’s constant relaunching ... has been harmful to direct market sales overall,” Spacetwinks writes, “as well as harmful to building new, long-term readers.” With every relaunch, it becomes easier to jump off a title.
It's also become very easy to jump off a title when it gets as dishonest and political as Wilson's book turned out to be. Let's also consider the sales prices at 3-4 dollars (which does come up later on, but remains unsatisfying). Wouldn't that also be discouraging? The magazine's proven they have no ability to at least ponder whether foisting a superficial depiction of a certain religion on audiences could have long term negative effects on the company's reputation. And when they get around to making an argument on rotating artists having a negative effect on books, they say:
Marvel’s editor-in-chief Axel Alonso told an interviewer at March’s retail summit that he didn’t know if artists “[moved] the needle” anymore when it came to sales. The fact that Marvel has trained audiences to regard those artists as disposable doesn’t seem to have crossed his mind; nor does the possibility that buyers—like a few prospective comics fans I know—might be turned off by constantly rotating art teams.
What if it's because the artwork in itself is no more appealing than the scripts? On which note, again, they fail to seriously question whether the current stable of writers succeeds in entertaining or boring. If it's the latter, how can they expect new readers to stick around long term even for the "diverse" cast of characters when the stories they're saddled with are hugely disappointing?

Now here's the part about prices:
Marvel’s instinct with readers who do stick around, meanwhile, has been to squeeze them for all they’re worth. Marvel comics tend to be priced at around $3.99 to $4.99 for 22 pages, and many series ship new issues twice a month. (Digital editions are usually priced about the same.) Marvel publishes around 75 ongoing series, along with miniseries and single-issue specials. (DC, for comparison, made a concerted effort for the last few years to publish around 50 ongoing series and also had trouble making them stick.) April alone saw five “Avengers”-titled books. Then there are the crossover events—four so far this year—which interrupt the storylines of ongoing series and require readers to buy multiple other books to understand what’s going on. Reading Marvel, in other words, gets very pricey, very quickly, and the resulting flood of product exhausts retailers and ends up driving customers away.
So are they suggesting the companies bring down the prices? Because unfortunately, even if they did want to, it could be awfully expensive to do at this point, although they definitely could cease altogether with the crossovers. Yet there's been telling signs they vehemently refuse to do so, and the Atlantic's biggest mistake is that they don't suggest openly that they call it quits with the crossovers. Another mistake they make is perpetuating the exaggerated tale involving the novelist who wrote the recent Mockingbird solo, although they do note something else:
Marvel’s marketing and PR must bear a hefty share of the blame as well. The company habitually places the onus for minority books’ survival on the readership, instead of promoting their product effectively. Tom Brevoort, the executive editor at Marvel, publicly urged readers to buy issues of the novelist Chelsea Cain’s canceled (and very witty) Mockingbird after the author was subjected to coordinated sexist harassment.

The problem, however, is that the decision to cancel Mockingbird was necessarily made months in advance, due to preorder sales to retailers on the direct market. The book itself launched with only a few announcements on comics fan sites; no real attempt to reach out to a new audience was made. Marvel’s unexpected success stories, like Kelly Sue DeConnick’s Captain Marvel, are largely built on the tireless efforts of the creators themselves. (In Deconnick’s case, she paid for postcards, dog tags, and fliers for fan engagement out of her own pocket, for a character she didn’t own or have a real expectation of royalties from.)
Granted, they're correct that practically every publisher's failed to promote their products more convincingly, relying almost entirely on the existing readerships. But their failure to note that the Cain case turned out to lack firm evidence is a big minus and dampens the article further, as does their sugarcoating of the politics/retcons that turned up in the book by calling it "witty" without an in depth description. And wasn't the DeConnick Capt. Marvel title canceled last year? Whether it's being launched yet again this year (with surely another millionth renumbering), it can't be called a success if it did finally sputter. Ordinarily, I'd agree that making no effort to market the books to new audiences or promote with serious fanfare is a big mistake, but with the content of Cain's Mockingbird title, I've got a hunch the lack of fanfare tied in with their likely reluctance to let anybody know what kind of bad ideas found their way in.

Amazingly, they do acknowledge the current writers at Marvel who've given the company a bad name:
It might be argued that Marvel has to be judicious about what books it spends money to promote, and that good word of mouth can make up the difference for free. Again, the dropping sales numbers for Marvel’s books suggests this isn’t the case. But even if it were, the publisher’s word of mouth lately has been abysmal. The past decade has been a parade of singularly embarrassing behavior by Marvel writers and editors in public. The former editor Stephen Wacker has a reputation for picking fights with fans; so does the Spider-Man writer Dan Slott. The writer Peter David went on a bizarre anti-Romani rant at convention (he later apologized); the writer Mark Waid recently mused about punching a critic in the face before abandoning Twitter. The writer of Secret Empire, Nick Spencer, has managed to become a swirl of social media sturm all by himself, partially for his fascist Captain America storyline and partially for his tone-deaf handling of race and general unwillingness to deal with criticism.
Well, I'll have to give them some credit for recognizing why men like Slott and Spencer, among others, are bad omens for a once prolific publisher. It's just too bad they won't criticize them for giving liberalism a bad name to boot. Alas, they fumble again when they say:
What’s frustrating about all of this is that Marvel has recently demonstrated an interest in publishing good, socially conscious books. Ewing’s Ultimates and Avengers work is consistently charming and witty; Ryan North and Erica Henderson’s Unbeatable Squirrel Girl is an unalloyed delight; G. Willow Wilson and Adrian Alphona’s Ms. Marvel deserves all the praise it has gotten and more. [...]
So the Muslim Ms. Marvel title an entirely positive example, and nothing troubling about it at all? Uh-huh. I'm sure those aforementioned Avengers and Squirrel Girl books aren't worth the paper they're printed on either; the Earth's Mightiest Heroes titles have been particularly awful for years now, ever since Brian Bendis took over the writing chores. And when they try to suggest how the publishers might fix things, they say:
A potential example lies in popular series from Image Comics like Robert Kirkman and Charlie Adlard’s The Walking Dead and Brian K. Vaughn and Fiona Staples’s Saga. The former sells fairly steadily at around 75,000 units through the direct market, and the latter sells around 50,000. [...]
Now wait a minute. Even if the above sell that much, it's still nothing to jump for joy about, because they don't sell in the millions, regardless of writing quality. I'm not sure the paperbacks sell much better either, although, as per my prior notes, if the stories in Kirkman's creation are good, why can't they just go exclusively with paperbacks? Again, we have a scene where a payoff is set in motion but never completed. And near the end, they get really galling with a most tasteless suggestion:
Marvel and DC might emulate this model by cutting back on the number of series they publish and the frequency with which they ship them. Both companies could be more judicious in pairing artists and writers for sustained periods, promoting series outside of the usual channels, and warmly engaging with fans. Instead of simply telling people to buy their books, they could instruct new audiences how. And they could listen to what new audiences say they want: diversity not just in racial, religious, or sexual terms, but also in terms of the types of stories told: Is there really any more harm in publishing a comic where Captain America has a romantic cup of coffee with his boyfriend Bucky than one where he’s a Nazi?
Wow, they really think we'll be more forgiving of a story where Steve Rogers is turned LGBT than one where he's retconned into a nazi. Even if it's not as revolting as making Steve the leader of totalitarians, it's still an utterly tasteless idea, and wouldn't be any more respectable of Jack Kirby/Joe Simon than what they've been doing this past year. But what they're condoning pretty much stems from the mentality that led to replacing several other heroes with characters who represent PC diversity, which proves they still don't want to believe Marvel's contrived and rushed efforts had any negative impact on long term sales.

We could also note their curious failure to argue why Marvel would do well to restore Mary Jane Watson as Peter Parker's wife, along with respectable writers to the Spider-Man books, if it would provide any benefit. But that's another topic on which they hugely disappoint, and proves, contrary to what they claim, they're not in favor of diversity.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 25, 2017 

Two political tweets by Dan Slott

Here's one that Slott posted about the terrible jihad suicide bombing in Manchester, England, this week:

Would any of these sick jokers he's alluding to happen to be Islamofascists? Or are they moonbats from the left? If he's really furious at offensive reactions to the tragedy, he'd be calling out all the bad apples on his side of the political spectrum. But he doesn't seem interested in making clear identifications, which only proves he's a coward when it comes to his own. Now, here's another, where he goes off against Donald Trump:

Look who's talking. The man who enthusiastically took part in mistreating Mary Jane Watson in the Marvel universe, and even supported the transgender bathroom mess. It's not hard to guess Slott has no appreciation of Trump's visit to Israel this week, and no admiration for Melania and Ivanka Trump either. Which only puts his respect for Israel under a question mark. And what about Obama's deal with Iran? That certainly happened with a leftist politician, yet Slott shows no concern. The only embarrassment is men like him.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

 

What makes Gizmodo think DC's honoring Jack Kirby better in every way than Marvel?

A writer for the crummy Gizmodo site claims DC's doing a better job honoring the memory of King Kirby than Marvel is now. But there's at least a few signs they're not:
DC Comics recently announced six special one-shot comic books set to release throughout August, the month of Kirby’s actual 100th birthday. Each issue will tell a new story about one of Kirby’s famous DC creations: Darkseid (from Mark Evanier and Scott Kolins), the Newsboy Legion (Howard Chaykin), Sandman (Dan Jurgens, Steve Orlando, John Bogdanove, and Rick Leonardi), Manhunter (Kieth Giffen, Dan DiDio), Orion and the New Gods (Shane Davis and Michelle Delecki), and the Black Racer (Reginald Hudlin and Denys Cowan).
Wait a minute. DiDio is one of the writers for a Manhunter special? Nobody cared or wanted to buy the few books he's written to date, which sold very low as it is, and I doubt many want to now. Anything coming from DiDio is bound to be boring at best and unreadable at worst. As for artists, I wouldn't want to bother about Kolins, recalling how pretentious his work in the past 15 years was already. I certainly don't trust someone like him after the awful work he did on both Flash and Avengers.

It's worth recalling that nearly a decade ago, they published a most insulting miniseries called "Death of the New Gods" (written and illustrated, most regrettably, by Jim Starlin, in a show of artistic bankruptcy), which saw Big Barda, one of Kirby's favorite creations, put into the paganist afterlife almost immediately after it began. And if they don't point that out, then there's no point saying they're doing better now, if past mistakes won't be brought up today.

But, since they're on the subject, here's what they say about Marvel:
Meanwhile, Marvel Comics has been weirdly quiet about anything it plans to do to mark the occasion. Today’s Marvel solicits for August reconfirmed the already-announced special variant cover series honoring Kirby’s birthday, but the only other major thing the publisher is doing is a newly-announced series of $1 “True Believer” reprints of famous old issues featuring Kirby’s input. And that’s it. Nothing actually new, no new series inspired by Kirby’s creations, just some variants and some cheap re-releases.
Well what's the use of anticipating anything with excitement after their repellent mistreatment of Captain America? They've made it difficult for anybody to look forward to any plans for celebration. I don't think variant covers do justice for Kirby either. Only talented writing and respect for his creations does. And since they don't have even that much, that's why it's surely for the best that the Fantastic Four aren't being published as a series now.

However, they do bring up Kirby's legal hassles over his artwork:
...A Marvel Comics without Kirby’s contributions is unfathomable to comprehend, perhaps even moreso than a DC without his creations. It’s also interesting to note, given the tumultuous history Kirby has with Marvel, from his departure in the ‘70s to the only recently-concluded legal battle between the publisher and his estate.
Well sure, that's true. But a Marvel and a DC lacking respect for his creations like Steve Rogers and Big Barda is equally unfathomable to comprehend. So they'd do well not to flatter themselves by acting like they have any more respect for Kirby than the Big Two do.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 24, 2017 

Chinese martial arts novels become online comics

The UK Telegraph tells about a Chinese author named Louis Chan whose martial arts novels are going to be adapted into a series of online comics.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, May 23, 2017 

It looks like Gerry Conway didn't like Roger Ailes

Last week, when the Fox News developer and executive Roger Ailes passed away, Conway went and said:

And what's that supposed to mean? That he thinks Ailes should go to hell? Or that he considers Ailes the devil's organ? Ugh. Or maybe he's jealous because Ailes never thought to interview him about his past career in comics and TV scripting. In his narrow vision, Conway can't bring himself to recognize that if somebody wants to start a right-wing news channel, that's their business and not his. He doesn't have to watch the channel if he doesn't want to, and if that's how he's going to go about, he's only suggesting he's against people's right to choose their channel.

He also couldn't resist writing another attack on Trump:

Straight from keyboard of a guy who's turning himself into an idiot, and doesn't know when to shut his own yap.

Conway needs to know his political drivel is unhelpful to the medium as a whole. And it gets worse:

Okay, now that's crossing the line. What next, will he want to see every innocent woman in Europe in a burka, or worse, a niqab? And does he already consider Iran and Saudi Arabia's oppressive conduct towards women acceptable? By saying he wants to see Ivanka (and even Melania) in a burka, he's condoning an abominable custom that's hurt millions of women living under Islam. Needless to say, Conway's comment is sick, and an insult to tons of women everywhere. Of course, this is somebody who seems pretty comfy with the whole notion of a Muslim Ms. Marvel, so it's probably not very surprising he'd basically contradict what he had to say about Ardian Syaf.

When Conway wants to, he can sure say stuff that's degrading.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, May 22, 2017 

Rich Buckler dead at 68

The International Business Times reports that artist Buckler, whose works include the creation of Deathlok, is now dead at the age of 68.

Update: Aussie Dave at Israelly Cool thought to point out some of the Jewish connections Buckler had in his life and career.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, May 20, 2017 

Two Polygon interviews with Steve Englehart

The crummy Polygon website did two interviews with Steve Englehart, the first one where he talks about the original Secret Empire storyline from Captain America from 1974, which, while questionable in its own way, was at least more readable than what the new crossover is turning out to be, and certainly didn't set out to make Steve Rogers look like a monster for the sake of it. However, when the question of the original story's relevancy today comes up, here's what he says:
Do you think your “Secret Empire” has gained a new relevance in the current political climate?

Englehart: Oh, absolutely, sure. Again, in the seventies the idea that a president would break the law was mind-boggling. I mean, we weren’t all naive, but we weren’t as jaded as we are now and so the idea that the president would do this and try to cover it up was worthy of the congressional investigation and that was worthy of everything that was involved in it. Now, everything that Nixon did has been made legal in America. Well, not breaking and entering but a lot of the stuff he was accused of has now been sort of “legitimised.” Now we’ve got a president who breaks the laws right and left, lies about it and we’re in the middle of a situation where he says “Come and get me if you can” and he’s doing everything he can to keep people from getting to him. I like to hope that we will, eventually. The brazenness of all this, and the lack of concern with flat-out lying to people is another thing, because when asked uncomfortable questions in those days, people answered them. They tried to justify them, but they answered the questions. One of the great lessons of Watergate for American politicians and probably everyone was to start answering questions with “I don’t remember” rather than going on the record for anything. That same general approach has unfolded now. Nixon was in a context where there were rules and it was clear that he had broken them so the politicians’ response to all that was to change the rules and find better ways to ignore them, rather than stop doing that thing. When I wrote that story in the seventies, the idea was “Oh good, we’ve gotten past a blip in history and we won’t do that again” but I’m not a politician so I didn’t get the same lesson they did out of all that.
How about that. Just like the early 70s Cap story didn't name Nixon directly, yet he admits it was all "drawn" from events of the times, he doesn't name Trump directly, yet it's pretty obvious he's alluding to the new president, and already, Englehart makes clear he only sees in Trump what he wants to, just a few months into his term of office. And a fascinating query is whether Englehart, who's more or less a leftist himself, recognizes that a liberal president can break the law too. Or, enable awful things to happen, like the time when Jimmy Carter ignored the Iranian ayatollah Khomeini's takeover of the country that's now gotten to the point where they have nuclear warfare at hand. Because while there may have been negative allusions liberal politicians in the years that followed, I'm not sure there were enough, or as many as there could've been, all because most liberal writers simply won't face reality when it comes to their own side. And what about what Bill Clinton did? Is he parchance disturbed if that was made legal in America? Nixon did do some crappy stuff, I don't deny that, but if only a Republican can worry Englehart and his ilk and never a Democrat, then what good is it to write stories about political corruption?

Interestingly, for somebody who was so big on issues of the 70s, Englehart said he knows next to nothing about what's going on with the Marvel machine now:
How current are you with current superhero comics and do you keep up with the community at large?

Englehart: No, I really don’t. When I got out of comics about ten years ago, I started writing novels so I just sort of turned off comics and turned on novels as far as my reading of choice. Then, with the movies coming out I’m like a lot of people, I get my comics on screen rather than otherwise. I know that there’s been various iterations on the Secret Empire concept for forty years now, and I know that there’s one going on as we speak, but I don’t know anything about it.

That would have been my next question, what have you heard about the current Secret Empire event?

Englehart: I’m aware that the current Captain America is supposed to be a Nazi or something, but that’s all I know. I don’t know enough, I think that’s my entire font of knowledge on what’s going on currently, so I have no opinion on where it’s going.
Too bad, because I'd assume that, despite his liberal politics, he still loves what Steve Rogers was created for enough to care that Nick Spencer's been doing some very revolting stuff with the Sentinel of Liberty, and even if Steve hasn't been turned into a Nazi per se, the way the story's set up is so obnoxious and fan-baiting, it's no wonder sane Cap fans want nothing to do with the 2017 crossover. But even if Englehart was able to check the story, who knows if he'd have what it takes to say the way it's written is in very poor taste?

Now, here's the second interview article, where Englehart says he's dismayed at the portrayal of Mantis in the new movie sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy:
“Well, I was not happy with Mantis’ portrayal," Englehart said. "That character has nothing to do with Mantis. I will say that I liked the film quite a bit overall, they’re doing good stuff and I enjoyed my night at the movies so long as I turned my brain off to the fact that that’s not Mantis up there. I really don’t know why you would take a character who is as distinctive as Mantis is and do a completely different character and still call her Mantis. That I do not know.”
Neither do I, but then, I also don't get why some liberals just can't bring themselves to look harder upon realism when it comes to their own side. Or why they have to become so ignorant of the comics medium once they quit working in it, and make it difficult to offer an opinion on where they think the whole medium's going, which at this point, is down the drain if they keep on with the vicious leftist angles they've been notorious for these past several years.

Labels: , , , ,

About me

  • I'm Avi Green
  • From Jerusalem, Israel
  • I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.
My profile

Archives

Links

  • avigreen2002@yahoo.com
  • Fansites I Created

  • Hawkfan
  • The Greatest Thing on Earth!
  • The Outer Observatory
  • Earth's Mightiest Heroines
  • The Co-Stars Primer
  • Comic book websites (open menu)

    Comic book weblogs (open menu)

    Writers and Artists (open menu)

    Miscellanous links (open menu)

  • GoStats charts
  • W3 Counter stats
  • Click here to see website statistics
  • blog search directory blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory Top Blogs Entertainment blogs Entertainment Blogs
    Entertainment blog TopOfBlogs Israel Blogs
    View My Stats Comics blog Blog Directory & Search engine blog directory eXTReMe Tracker Locations of visitors to this page

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    make money online blogger templates

Older Posts Newer Posts

The Four Color Media Monitor is powered by Blogspot and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Join the Google Adsense program and learn how to make money online.