The Four Color Media Monitor

It may be a month old, but the Times of London's interview with Joe Quesada is well worth picking apart. Let's begin with what Quesada says got him back into comics after losing interest for about a decade:

Turning down a chance to learn from two giants in the field is something he regrets now. “I thought that comics were unsophisticated and way too simple. I didn’t realise that the medium had grown during my absence. So in retrospect it’s like, ‘Aw shucks, that would have been helpful.’ At the age of 25, however, I was reintroduced to comics and it was from those books I picked up — Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns — that my desire to work in comics sprang.”

How is it that the bleaker stuff is what inspires these kind of phonies? What do they have that a good issue of Spidey or Avengers from that time didn't? This serves as an example of how the darker stuff is what they push as the big thing.

Marvel has had a renaissance under Quesada: it’s comics dominate the market, the characters and stories are fresh and Marvel superheroes are huge at the box office — the three Spider-man movies made almost two and a half billion dollars worldwide. In fact, apart from Stan Lee, it’s hard to imagine an editor-in-chief who has had more of an impact. “I see myself as a caretaker, that it’s my job to make sure that the direction the characters take is the proper one, to make sure that the characters are attractive and viable for readers long after I’m gone.”

Perpetuating the lie about sales success again, I see, for the UK press this time. Whatever resurgence they had under Quesada petered out a couple years later. As for direction, appeal and viability, yeah, I'm sure he'll see to that. It could take centuries to repair the damage he does even long after he's left.

Quesada has been helped by the high pedigree of creators he has attracted, writers such as Brian K Vaughan and Damon Lindelof, who produce the TV series Lost, Jeph Loeb, who worked on Heroes, Joss Whedon of Buffy the Vampire fame, J Michael Straczynski, who received a Bafta nomination for his screenplay for the Clint Eastwood movie The Changeling, and Mark Millar, whose comic Wanted was turned into a movie starring Angelina Jolie.

“Sometimes the best way to find like-minded souls is to sit across the table from them and have a conversation. You'll soon realise that they have the same vibe and that they want to do something fun with these characters. For examaple, when [writer] Ed Brubaker came to Marvel I think he really came into his own. He had been at DC for years but at Marvel he found something, his muse, whatever you call it. Who would think that Ed Brubaker, a crime noir writer, would be the guy to reinvent Captain America. This year there are three or four new writers who I'm starting to get that tingling feeling about. These are voices who are definitely going to be changing things the way Mark Millar and Brian Michael Bendis did.”

They sure have, and not for the better. Not mentioned is just how overrated those writers are, and that most of them are hired for the built-in audience they've acquired.

The new formula has not made Marvel’s books any less exciting or adventurous. One of the biggest-selling series of Quesada’s tenure has been Civil War, which pitted hero against hero over the introduction of a superhero registration act and featured the sort of action you’d expect in a summer blockbuster. Beneath the epic scrap, however, was a book that subtly commented on post-9/11 America, the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.

This was daring new territory as political discussion in comic books is a rare thing. Marvel had in the past tackled issues such racism, abuse and drugs but its approach was usually heavy handed. Plots that involve superheroes trying to solve real-world problems, such as when Marvel’s finest banded together to fight famine in Africa during the Eighties, always expose the fairly ridiculous nature of the genre. Some fans reacted angrily to the issues raised by Civil War and lobbied Marvel to sack the series’ writer, Mark Millar, who had publicly criticised America's involvement in Iraq.

The petition didn’t work and Quesada is obviously proud of what the books managed to do — provoke debate: “We used those stories as metaphors for what was happening in the world. We didn’t take a political stance. On Civil War what we wanted to do was pose the argument and let our readers think about what was being said. And that’s exactly what happened. Our readers were vehemently on one side or the other. It would be unfair for Marvel to take a stance because we do have readers who think differently about the issues but I think that it is fair game to talk about the issues in the context of our fun superhero universe.”

So, Civil War was a political allegory after all. No wonder they're so thrilled to be interviewing this pitiful man, who's clearly delighted to have annoyed anyone when he could've avoided it. As for exciting and adventurous, how can they be when they're being submerged in political bias?

I also find their assertion that past political allegories were "heavy-handed" more of a silly put-down of times when, even if they weren't perfect, the writers were usually more sincere, and not as pretentious about what they were trying as the Times is implying. And to say that political discussion is rare is also exaggerated.

Now here's where they contradict the claim that Quesada is trying to make sure that the direction the heroes take is the proper and viable one, when he gets around to discussing the erasure of Spidey's marriage:

Quesada is not one to shy away from controversial decisions nor is he reluctant to defend himself. One story that had the fans raging across the internet was Spider-man One More Day, in which Spider-man makes a deal with the devil — Mephisto in the Marvel universe — to save his Aunt May from death. The price was not his soul but his marriage to his soulmate Mary Jane. No, this wasn’t a quickie divorce the devil was pressing for but a complete removal of Spidey’s marriage from history. At the end of the book Spider-man wakes up single, his aunt is alive and a la Dallas, it’s as if his marriage had never happened (the book’s writer, J Michael Straczynski, humorously has Spider-man reference the infamous plot device used by the soap).

This end result was something Marvel chiefs had been trying to achieve for years. The feeling was that Spider-man’s marriage to Mary Jane Watson in 1987 had limited the character. “Ultimately that was the sole goal of doing One More Day. We knew from the beginning that this story would be a poisoned chalice, that it would cause a tremendous amount of controversy. Since the inception of Spider-man’s marriage, every editor-in-chief prior to me had tried to or thought about undoing it but never had the story or wanted to deal with the slings and arrows that would go with it.

"The marriage was something that had always bothered me, even as a reader. For the longest time I had been thinking, boy I’d really like to undo this, and once I got the story, I said, hey let’s do it, let’s pull off the bandage. I knew that for a year or two we’d be dealing with online chatter but realistically the story hasn’t hurt sales. If anything, Spider-man is a more viable publishing entity today than ever before. But that’s part of the job of being a caretaker of these characters and making sure that they are there for the next generation.”

Quesada said that the idea “came out of a e-mail conversation between myself, Brian Bendis, Mark Millar, Jeph Loeb, Joe Straczynski and Tom Brevoort and Axel Alonso, two executive editors here. We were all batting around the idea of how to do this, and one idea fed into the next and into the next and eventually we came up with the machinations of how to do this. But the story is not done yet. There’s still a lot to tell that we haven’t revealed yet. I think that’s partially one of the reasons why a certain contingency of fans have been up in arms about it. There’s been misinformation put out there that 23 years of Spider-man continuity has been wiped out when in fact that’s not the case. But, as I said before, there’s still some unanswered questions and I can promise readers that the answers to them are coming — they just have to be a little bit patient.”

Unlike many in the top spot, Quesada refused to pass the buck and ended up doing the art himself “because I knew it was something that Spider-man readers were either going to love or they were going to hate. I figured, I’ve gotta be the one who puts himself on the line. It would be a tough thing for any creator to sit there and take, plus it was my initiative to begin with.”

Boy, this certainly tells a lot about just how confused he is, not to mention dishonest in the extreme, and a bit about what went on behind the scenes. He says he's playing caretaker and he forces Spidey to make a deal with the devil. He lies about viability and especially sales. And while the audience just might have the patience for answers, I don't think they have the patience to deal with Quesada. Certainly not me. No matter what they've got in store, it's clear that for as long as he's in charge of Marvel's output, no one with sense should pay their money to fill his pockets.

Quesada has been one of Marvel’s longest-serving editor-in-chiefs and I ask him if he has any plans to step down soon. “I do believe there is an expiration date on this job, that there comes a time to step back and make room for someone else,” he says. “In the past, with the exception of Stan Lee, Marvel has always made that decision for the editor-in-chief. I’m really hoping that I have the wherewithal to say, it’s time for me to move on, either to go back to drawing or do something else within the company. I can’t say that that's going to be next year or the year after.”

It’s heartening to realise that the man in charge of Marvel still dreams of doing other things and that he still hankers for his days of freedom and independence.

I've got a sad feeling there's every chance he doesn't, and is quite happy with the job he's got, for as long as he can hang onto it. That's one more reason why the audience can't keep letting him fool them into buying products that will always be tainted with his terrible recipes for as long as he is there - because the longer they do, the longer he'll remain.

I guess the American MSM must've tired of him, so he's now turning to the British MSM for unneeded attention.

Labels: bad editors, marvel comics, msm propaganda, politics

In the recent Teen Titans issues, the following took place:

In TT #67 a new lineup for the Teen Titans is revealed (Wonder Girl, Aquagirl, Bombshell, Kid Eternity, Red Devil, Static, Miss Martian and Blue Beetle) and odious Dark Side Club survivor The Face is murdered by the Titans Tower security system after falling out with the team. In Teen Titans Annual #1 the new team are attacked by their headquarters as we learn that Cyborg is being controlled by an outside force.

Oh dear. I don't think the Titans have ever resorted to using security devices with deadly force before. That's just one more demerit for this volume.

Now, there is some almost good news: seems that DC has decided to address the case of the now unconscious Wendy, who was beaten to that point by the demonic version of Wonder Dog:

To help him learn more about the team new Titan Kid Eternity summons up the spirit of Marvin, the Teen Titan support member, who was murdered back in Teen Titans #62. Marvin’s ghost takes a look in at his critically injured sister Wendy, whose story is currently being played out in the Oracle: The Cure limited series.

Granted, that they're now willing to address this case is good, but it doesn't excuse the bad plot used to get to this point in the first place. And as bad as the writing's been in Teen Titans, Wendy's situation should still be addressed in that book and not in the Oracle miniseries, where the Calculator is told to be hers and Marv's father! Frankly, it sounds pretty contrived to me, mainly because I'd assume that the Titans would've known that when they first hired the two twins as caretakers for the Titans Tower.

There's been questions asked if Barbara Gordon will be cured of her paralysis and become Batgirl again, but after pondering this info, I'm beginning to wonder if Wendy, if she's cured of her coma, will become Babs' former role, at Cassandra Cain's expense. Frankly, I don't like it if that's what they have in mind, because it'll just signal another cheap stunt at the expense of characterization, especially considering that Marv and Wendy never got much to begin with.

As for Marv, I don't know if he'll be resurrected, but if not, then bringing him back as a ghost is just all the more insulting, just like bringing back Elongated Man and Sue Dibny only as spirits. And it just makes his demise at the jaws of the demon Wonder Dog all the more distasteful.

Labels: dc comics, Titans, violence

Marvel's website published an interview with Ed Brubaker (via Robot 6) about his work there, including Captain America, and when it's something written by the company themselves, you know it's not going to be challenging. One of the questions asked and answered was:

Marvel.com: That's a thing I wanted to ask about because when Steve died, the initial reaction was, "When's he going to come back?" But now that Bucky has really taken that role in a big way in the recent arcs, the discussion has become more of "Well, who needs Steve?" Did that surprise you?

Ed Brubaker: Bucky seems to be the Little Engine That Could. Everyone who was completely resistant to the idea of Bucky coming back totally embraced him as a character after about a year. There's probably one or two that didn't, but most people were like, "Wow! They pulled it off. Unbelievable." And then when Bucky became Cap, it was the same thing. "Oh, this is terrible." But now, the book is selling better with Bucky as Cap than it ever did with Steve as Cap. It's funny. I get more comments now from people where at first it was all, "Bring Steve back! Bring Steve back!" but now the comments are "Don't bring Steve back! We like Bucky as Cap." That's kind of funny. People have really come around to him as a character I think. And that was one of my goals: how to make Bucky viable as a character.

Really? Well what about Steve Rogers? If you can make Bucky viable, I'd think the same can be done with Steve too. Because Bucky with a mechanical arm doesn't seem like an idea with much mileage. And as for selling better, I don't think 62,000 copies is something to crow over.

And as for comments saying not to bring back Steve, I'm not one of those. My comment is, bring Steve back, with more satisfying writing that's got a point to it. And don't kill him off in defeat, as was done following Civil War. Whether or not Bucky is characterized okay does not excuse the bad plot used to kill off Steve to begin with. Not these days anyway. I'm quite tired with their pretending Steve couldn't be written well and acting as though only the successor could.

Marvel and Brubaker can pat themselves on the back all they want, but they may not be laughing all the way to the bank for long.

Labels: Captain America, golden calf of death, marvel comics, moonbat writers

The lefty cartoonist who put together a few anti-war compilations over the years has been let go by the syndicate that employed him (via The Beat). That's good. Because of his abominable military-bashing cartoons, that's why he deserves it.

Labels: dreadful artists, politics

CBS reports that investors reeling from the recession are taking up comics instead:

"You find that a lot of people are taking that money and they are buying a lot of these vintage, what we call "blue chip" comics, and they're sandbagging them, because they know they're not going to lose their money," said Mountain View comic book store owner Joseph Levine. "They'll buy, say the first appearance of Spiderman at a relatively decent grade, and it can cost you upwards of $125,000 to $150,000."

I just hope these investors aren't making the mistake of investing in more recent items that suffer from bad writing, because those are unlikely to maintain any monetary value thanks to the pretentious writing they've suffered from.

An article in the Poughkeepsie Journal about the Dutchess Community College giving a lecture on the relationship of comics with New York City.

Labels: exhibitions

He's drawn up a variant cover for ASM 600 (which shows how they're keeping on with their flimsy stunts for the sake of moneymaking):
Even in black and white, it sure doesn't look very good to me. Spidey looks shriveled and gaunt, and his right arm and leg look crummy. His kneecap looks like it was squashed and there's a bump sticking out, and the bridge of his nose looks wrinkled. And does his mask have eyeholes, or is that a butterfly that crashed into it?

Quesada's proved himself no editor, and now, he's losing it even as an artist. But then, after all the damage he's done, I wouldn't want him drawing any comic I were writing.

Labels: bad editors, dreadful artists, marvel comics, Spider-Man

A short article in the Examiner about the recent Emerald City Comicon, and the Stumptown convention, which is held in Portland, Oregon.

Labels: conventions

Here's an article in the Scotland Sunday Herald about the history and incredible rise of manga. But what really surprises me is when they tell about an effect the influences had on US comics:

American comics, following [Frank] Miller's lead, have adopted manga grammar with its use of cinematic pacing, repetition and jump cuts. If nothing else, the influence of manga killed off the thought balloon.

You don't say. That's why a perfectly worthy concept has become so rare since the mid-90s? It's strange, because I noticed that some anime productions seem to make use of thought balloons in their own way, by depicting the protagonists thinking to themselves. But whether or not manga really did lead to the dearth of thought balloons in American comics, I think that many writers made a serious mistake in dropping them. Why? Because since then, it seems like we may only get focus on the personality of the main protagonist in a solo superhero book, while the supporting cast has insufficient focus. No wonder supporting casts haven't been handled as well for a long time.

Labels: manga and anime

Yet he was willing to take up the job of writing a webtoon based on the famous franchise, and on his blog a couple months ago, he said:

It went like this. Sam Register phoned me up and said, we’d really like you to write a GI JOE animation, at a PG-13 rating, aimed at an older viewer. I said, I’ve never seen a GI JOE cartoon in my life. The closest I got to a GI JOE comic was drinking with Larry Hama. I’ve never even seen a GI JOE. Couldn’t tell you what they look like if you paid me. I know nothing about GI JOE. It is meaningless in my world.

So it's a mystery why they would hire him of all people to write anything related to GI Joe. And what if anti-war leanings turn up in the product that's made its debut yesterday, which CBR's Robot 6 blog has a trailer of? (I can't view it here; Adult Swim is like Hulu, and blocks online broadcasts outside North America.) Those, sadly, mean something to the pretentious comics writer from Britain.

And just what kind of people do they have looking for talent at Hasbro?

Labels: moonbat writers

ICV2 reports that comics pamphlet sales hit their lowest results yet - all results sold below 100,000 copies last month:

For the first time since March of 2001, the month that ICv2 began tracking sales of periodical comics through Diamond Comic Book Distributors, no comic sold more than 100,000 copies in March of 2009. While sales of periodical comics were down 7% in dollars for the month, the decline in units sold was greater, considering the rise in cover prices of key titles versus their cost in March, 2008.

While it's possible that next month, there could be something that will sell above 100,000 units, I think this signals that the sad demise of the pamphlet is drawing ever nearer. The reasons for this should be easy to guess.

I predict the next path for comics of future generations is - and will have to be - along the lines of trade paperbacks. And for those to succeed, good writing and respect for positive values, characterization and continuity will have to be included.

Labels: sales

IGN is asking if Spider-Man is broken, not just as a comic, but as a franchise of movies and videogames. But, I think they're slipping when they say:

Marvel have made it clear they don't intend to undo the changes. Furthermore, they've indicated they fully expect some fans to be upset about the change for another four years. Clearly they anticipated this reaction, and we can only hope they have an ultimate payoff planned.

What the publisher needs to do from this point is focus on telling good stories worthy of the character, without placing too much of a focus on the new status quo. Most readers will agree that high-quality stories have come out of One More Day, but that many of the best avoid dwelling on the changes or going out of their way to explain Peter Parker's revised back story. The best thing for Spidey readers is to simply move on.

They don't have a payoff planned, certainly not with Quesada as EIC, and if they mean that fans should "get over it" and just accept the damage that's been done, I don't think so. There have been no good stories to come out of OMD; it's just been Peter Parker as a slacker, uninspired villains and other guest characters, and the implausible return of Harry Osborn with an earring. Not to mention that the writing staff, Mark Guggenheim included, have had the pure gall to insult the audience for disapproving. If that's how they're going to go about with it, you cannot trust or expect them to improve.

Labels: marvel comics, Spider-Man

Comic Book Resources says that Rags Morales is going to draw the next few Justice League issues, and he claims that he's going to fix some mistakes:

"In this particular arc that I'm working on, the characters I'm dealing most with are Kimiyo, the female Doctor Light; Firestorm; John Stewart; Vixen; a tiny bit of Black Canary and a bit with Superman who talks with Canary at the beginning of #32," Morales told CBR. "But the first four are the main characters I'm dealing with. Those characters, I haven't dealt with too much, maybe John Stewart the most, but they're all kind of new. And because of what I felt were the ill-advised directions in 'Identity Crisis,' I'm trying to get back to drawing superheroes the way people remember them with respect, of course, to making them look slightly different from each other."

I don't think he's being clear enough, and with the Milestone cast now added to the League, I'm not sure people will remember them well enough. The same can be said if the new Firestorm, Jason Rusch, is there instead of Ronnie Raymond.

Overall, those remain Morales' marching orders with his brief "Justice League of America" run: to improve on his past. "The funny thing is that I feel like I'm going back and fixing things that I did wrong in 'Identity Crisis,'” Morales revealed. “If you recall, back in 'IC,' there was a lot of talk of me using model sheets or having someone in particular in mind [for each character], and for me there are parts of it that failed. The feeling with iconic characters like Superman and Batman is that it's smarter to go with 'character' as opposed to 'who should play this character?' There's a different feel with that."

Wait a sec. Does he mean his artwork wasn't good enough? Well no, it wasn't; it was pretty wretched and uninspired. But that's still nothing compared with the filthy, shoddy, misogynist story he co-presented with Brad Meltzer, the real problem with his depiction of the Justice League at the time.

Too bad. For a moment there, I thought Morales had seen the light.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful artists, Justice League of America

An article in the UK Guardian about how Japan is hoping that manga imports/exports can help boost the sagging economy and provide jobs.

Labels: Europe and Asia, manga and anime

The Speed Force blog reviews the Rebirth miniseries, and I feel some disgust coming on at the news of what may or may not be a new backstory for Barry:

Near the end of the issue, Barry flashes back to a childhood memory in which he comes home and finds the police at his house, his mother dead, and his father being led away in handcuffs, ending with him running after the police car and being unable to catch it.

It seems that Geoff Johns is trying to give Barry Allen a traumatic backstory to set up his career in law enforcement, and his obsession with running. I really don’t like this for a number of reasons.

First, one thing that makes Barry unusual among today’s heroes is that he doesn’t — or, rather, didn’t — owe his super-heroics to any sort of trauma. He became a super-hero because, when he gained powers, he just felt like the right thing to do was to help people.

Second, it’s way too similar to the backstory established for Hunter Zolomon, a.k.a. Zoom, whose career in law enforcement was spurred by a desire to find out why his father killed his mother.

Third, it’s a huge change to Barry’s character. This is actually more of a change than the post-Crisis on Infinite Earths retconning of Wally’s childhood from Norman Rockwell perfection to dysfunctional and emotionally abusive. It’s more of a change than introducing a separated-at-birth evil twin. It’s like changing Superman so that Ma and Pa Kent died when he was a child, or changing Batman so that his parents weren’t killed in that alley. (And then there’s the fact that Barry’s parents appeared alive throughout the Silver and Bronze ages, including in stories that Geoff Johns himself referenced recently.)

I did a whirlwind tour of message boards this afternoon, and someone suggested that it might be a false memory picked up from other speedsters, in which case the similarity to Zoom’s origin makes more sense. We’ll see.

Whether or not this is a false memory, I think it's very unwelcome regardless of the outcome. And I won't be surprised if it does serve as a warning of what could come in the next relaunch: darkness in some form or other that doesn't suit the tone. It's indicative of a problem that Johns has of beating the readers over the head with unpleasant elements that don't usually fit the tone of the book he's writing, something he particularly resorted to in the showdown with Zoom 2 at the end of his run 4 years ago.

This also brings up a problem I have with Mark Waid's run on the Flash from more than a decade ago: the Cobalt injection. The story setup there was pretty grisly and uncalled for, and the worst part is that it may still be considered canon. And while Johns could be held accountable for shoving overly violent elements down the throats of the audience, some may have to consider that Waid may have ruined the Flash long before Johns did.

Labels: dc comics, Flash, violence

Labels: Carnival entries

A contributor to Big Hollywood presents an essay veteran artist Steve Ditko of Spider-Man fame has written called "Toyland", which focuses on how popular culture, comics included, have been hijacked by the creatively bankrupt and morally dishonest. One of the examples he cites here is one of Joe Quesada's blabberings from 3 years ago:

“Asked point blank by a fan if things in the Marvel Universe will ever go back to normal after being ‘screwed up’ by House of M and Civil War, Joe Quesada said, ‘These toys are meant to be broken. If we just told stories that kept the status quo, nobody would be in this room, and I’d be out of a job. They’re meant to be thrown against a wall, smashed together, and built back up again.’” (“Baltimore 06: Cup o Joe”, Newsarama.com, 10 September 2006.)

That shows how he's never had any respect for what he was entrusted with to begin with, and that's why it'd be better not to give Quesada an audience anymore. I'd recommend that at the next Baltimore convention, all concerned should stay away from any panel discussion he gives and leave the hall empty.

Labels: good artists, marvel comics

Almost missed this, but as this picture found through here signals, it looks like Loki, Thor's leading adversary, has disguised himself as Wanda Maximoff, and Scarlet Witch has not returned, nor has she been repaired.

And if not, then I see little reason to bother about this new spinoff series, nor do I have any interest in knowing why now, Loki wants the Avengers formed. I can wager a guess though: he's playing a role similar to Norman Osborn's current one, right?

Labels: Avengers, marvel comics

Peter Parker in New Avengers #51. Oh, they're right, the world hates a coward. Namely an editor and writers who'd rather destroy than build. The world also doesn't like bad artwork, and that picture above is just that.

Quesada said in defense of this latest, most meaningless trivia:

“I talked to [New Avengers writer] Brian Bendis about this before the fact, and it’s part of a larger story arc for Peter Parker/Spider-Man,” Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada says in this week’s “MyCup o’ Joe” Q&A. “And the outcome of it … well, I don’t want to give away Brian’s story, but it will go on and weave through New Avengers and Amazing Spider-Man with a specific outcome in mind. Maybe ‘outcome’ is the wrong word, but for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so you’ll see how that plays out in the books. But in all, it was not a decision we entered into lightly.”

Suuuurrrre it wasn't. Just like it wasn't when you did it back in Civil War. This is pure comedy already, and I'm sure the outcome will be just as awe-inspiring as the whole explanation for Jackpot.

There is a comment on the topic that tells something extra I'm not happy to hear:

I stopped reading Spider-man because of this, but the unmasking in new avengers is now well overdue. I’m insulted it was never addressed around secret invasion, but whats more is that Morlun is back, albeit in Black Panther, but still the effect he had on spider-man’s abilities and experience are just forgotten cause Quesada disagreed with Strazynski and pushed the latter into compromising his vision of growth for the character.

Oh great, that's all we need is for Morlun to be back. The pale imitation of Morbius the Living Vampire who just served as a mere plot device, and a very uninteresting one at that. He should've just been allowed to melt away after his assistant shot him. But what really offends me is Reginald Hudlin's disgusting story in ASM 526, one more reason why I dread the use of Morlun in Black Panther, if Hudlin is writing it. Someone send Hudlin back to Hollywood whence he came!

Labels: bad editors, dreadful writers, marvel comics, Spider-Man, violence

The Nashua Telegraph writes about a short-lived comic published in the mid-60s called Blazing Combat, and inserts some subtle lines that attack patriotism:

For those of you who have never heard of it, "Blazing Combat" was a black-and-white, Time-size comics magazine by Warren Publishing in 1965 and 1966. It lasted only four issues, which wasn't because of lack of quality. Its run was truncated because it focused on the human costs and emotional ramifications of war instead of the simplistic jingoism found in regular comics at the time.

Whoops, I think that's going a bit far there to use a word that's a negative translation of patriotism. And why do I get the idea there could be more to this comic than meets the eye, and that it might be an anti-war diatribe of the times?

There is another thing here that raises my eyebrows though:

That ticked off the U.S. military (which denied Warren access to military newsstands) and the American Legion (which pressured distributors to deny access to regular newsstands). Starved of distribution, sitting on loading docks with no destination, "Blazing Combat" died a quick death.

If they suppressed distribution, that was wrong, mainly because it only plays into the hands of apologists and the lefties today. This is a surprising case, I admit, but I suspect there's still a lot more here that's not being told about the story itself. And spinning it as an alternative to "jingoism" is really tasteless.

This same column also brings up a bit more about Mark Waid's Irredeemable, that tells a little bit more and explains why I find the premise so uncomfortable:

"In superhero comics, pretty much everyone who's called upon to put on a cape is, at heart, emotionally equipped for the job," Waid said. "I reject that premise.

" 'Irredeemable' is, in a way, my third and most complex chapter on the cost of superheroics – a pulp adventure tale of horror exploring how the lessons we learn about right and wrong as children can become warped and twisted when challenged by the realities of the adult world."

Why does that highlighted text sound so reminiscent of "the cost of war"? Is this some kind of an anti-war message shrouded in the disguise of a "superhero" tale? If anything, it just sounds like another postmodern teardown of superhero escapism, and almost similar to Warren Ellis' Black Summer.

Labels: msm propaganda, politics, violence

Mark Waid has become the editor of Boom Studios for at least a year now. But one of his first books there as writer, Irredeemable, has a story that makes me feel very uncomfortable, yet the LeHigh Valley Express-Times has no problem fawning over it:

The world's greatest hero has snapped and turned into the world's most dangerous villain.

The Plutonian (a Superman-like hero) has turned on his teammates, killing them in retribution for an unknown event.

Now the remaining heroes are on the run and hunted.

Hurt, scared and wounded, they must piece together what they know about the Plutonian and find a way to stop him before they are all killed.

This is the reality of Boom Studios' "Irredeemable" by writer and Boom's editor in chief Mark Waid with art by Peter Krause.

The comic is on its way to becoming one of the best books of the year.

Waid's Plutonian holds nothing back in his assault of his former friends, including the killing of women and children.

More likely that this'll end up the worst book of year. This sounds disgusting, and not all that different from any of the negative depictions of recent superheroes. Actually, it sounds worse, like an indirect insult to various DC/Marvel superhero teams, whether or not they have families. I guess Waid's lost all his respect for heroism and the superhero books he used to write, right?

And shame on this newspaper for going out of their way to promote this as must-reading for fans. I'm sure they know quite well that this is hardly at all helpful to the future of comicdom, yet they clearly don't have the courage to admit it. And that's why news reporting of their sort is just...irredeemable.

Labels: msm propaganda, violence

The Baltimore Sun writes about Stan Lee's current projects, which includes a new experimental webcomic called "Time Jumper".

Labels: good writers

And it doesn't sound like an April Fools joke either. From this review of Flash: Rebirth #1, it looks like Bart Allen has turned up alive:

The only character with any kind of sensible reaction, which stemmed from the fact he wished Max Mercury came back from the Speed Force, was Bart Allen, who's back in our timeline and alive with no explanation whatsoever. For those out of the loop, he mysteriously came back in Final Crisis: Legion of Three Worlds #3, a series that has since been delayed into oblivion. I assume we'll find out how he returns to the present day / is alive (they just have him show up after using a cosmic treadmill with no explanation). He appears to know he died and was the Flash at one point, so I'm unsure just how he's alive and not deaged to a Kid Flash persona.

That's probably got something to do with how it was established at one point that he's unaffected by time paradoxes. Or does it? Well here's to hoping that this isn't some poor trick on the audience, and that the adult Bart seen 2 years ago was some kind of an alternate timeline version, or a duplicate.

But the reviewer is still not happy, and there do seem to be good reasons for that. For example:

However, Bart's reaction, aside from the anger over no one celebrating his return and his desire to have his mentor, Max Mercury, back, was also flawed. Bart loved hearing stories of his grandfather Barry and always wished to have adventures with him and follow in his footsteps. Having him not care one bit about Barry's return is also a bit odd. Much of Bart's dialogue also comes off as Johns' attempt at quelling the average fan's concerns, fans who have never read any comics featuring Barry and also mirror Bart's take on Barry with the whole 'never knew him' and 'what did he sacrifice if he didn't really die' bits, by showing the one dissenting character as obnoxious and childish. It felt eerily similar to his Superboy Prime, who has been portrayed as a substitute for internet comic fans, except less subtle, to me at least.

This reminds me of the Blitz storyline, where Bart was depicted as sullen and not very excited about Linda Park West's pregnancy. Thinking back on that, no, it was not very well done at all, one more reason why I ended up having second thoughts about Johns over the past years.

Bart's revival is welcome, but the way this book is written doesn't sound the same. And if Barry's death of yore was written decently, that's why his return doesn't sound so either.

But putting aside any malfunctions this miniseries has for now, so that's one more protagonist whose death and misuse has been fixed? That's very good. It leaves just:

Elongated Man
Sue Dibny
Silver Age Atom
Jean Loring
Blue Beetle
Jade
Jack Drake
Hector Hall
Lyta Hall
Firestorm Ronnie Raymond
and even Superboy Connor Kent

whose death, villification and misuse still need to be reversed. Let's not forget them, okay?

Labels: dc comics, Flash, golden calf of death

Newsarama posted a special poll for who the favorite Flash is, and Wally West has so far come out on top.

I think that should be one clue that the editorial mandate to bring back Barry Allen is not as popular as DC's editors must be hoping.

Labels: dc comics, Flash

The Examiner interviewed Chuck Dixon, who brought up the issue of too many company-wide crossovers (via Newsarama blog). First, here's what he says about Robin/Tim Drake's father:

Tim was unique among the other Bat-characters in that he wasn't a total orphan at the time. Was there ever any pressure to kill off Jack Drake?

All the time! I kept Jack alive for years past the point my editors wanted him dead. Their reasoning was always that Tim having a parent with all the limitations of that provided too many complications to Robin’s story. They saw that as a negative. I saw it as a positive. I’ve never made a secret of the fact that I used the first fifty issues of The Amazing Spider-man as a dramatic template for Robin. Those stories got much of their suspense from the dangers Peter Parker faced if his identity were revealed. For Tim Drake, the stakes were even higher. The reveal of his identity would have affected his family and also unraveled the secrets of the entire Bat organization. You don’t throw away solid gold like that.

I can guess what he's hinting at: Jack Drake was vaguely similar in his role to that of Aunt May Parker in Spider-Man's world. And now, look what was done: they killed him off in Identity Crisis, in one of the most tasteless, digusting ways possible. And that's something that still needs to reversed and repaired.

Many Bat-writers have complained that the constant crossovers disrupted things for them and changed plans. What was your experience with this?

Crossovers are the Frankenstein monster created when the direct market became the entire focus of the comics business. The first crossovers had phenomenal sales and the temptation was strong to do more. But they quickly became just anemic stunts designed to give sagging titles a sales boost. They gave up on trying to sell regular comics on a title-by-title, month-by-month basis and went for the easy-peasy marketing ploy of the crossover. Now superhero comics are pretty much all-stunts-all-the-time and the law of diminishing returns has set in.

And some of the worst "story developments" came as a result of these crossovers too, as too many DC titles had elements stemming almost directly from the x-overs forced upon them and were made to build upon that. And now, even Marvel has been affected by this, Spider-Man included, recalling what they did to him in Civil War, and what it led to next.

However, I'm going to have to disagree with the following:

I think Marvel’s succeeded more in this area recently. I say this from a writer’s perspective. Something like the recent Secret Invasion epic. That’s easy to write for but challenging as well because it emphasizes story. You can wring some drama, suspense and humor out of that kind of thing. But when you have a stunt where everyone is reacting to someone’s death, well, where do you go? Where’s the story?

Whoops, I think he's veered off base there, and it doesn't matter if he's trying to be diplomatic. A story where Janet VanDyne is theoretically killed off? I don't think so. Secret Invasion is just one of the pointless overload of crossovers that's sunk recent Marvel output, just like House of M and Civil War. Because of this, any "story" it supposedly emphasizes is nullified. Why, it's actually just the thing Dixon is arguing about! I'm disappointed if he's undermining his whole argument by sugarcoating one of the very crossovers that was written for just what he mentioned: a sales-boost for almost every sagging title involved that has little or nothing to do with good storytelling. A better idea might've been to cite Secret Wars or Operation: Galactic Storm. Not that they're truly better, but the advantage the very first crossover had over many of today's efforts is that unlike some of DC's x-overs, it wasn't intended to set a new direction for the MCU by pointlessly killing off notable characters, big or small, or turning them into villains. It was just intended as adventurous entertainment.

There's one more thing he mentions here that's surprising:

Any stories that you weren't able to tell (Batman, Nightwing, Birds or Robin) that you can reveal? Any stories that originally had a different ending but it went in another direction?

Nothing I can think of right now except that my plans leading to ROBIN 100 and beyond were pretty cool and I regret not being able to do that story. My plan was to have Tim quit as Robin and become the new Blue Beetle under Ted Kord’s guidance. Batman would pick Steph to take on Robin’s role. Tim would then be featured in a six-issue mini as Blue Beetle until events in the Batbooks would bring him back to the fold. The idea coming out of this would be a BB ongoing in which Ted gets the idea to create what amounts to a Blue Beetle franchise. He creates what amounts to Blue Beetle Inc and has a representative in every DCU city. I was shot down on this one over and over. As soon as I left the title they did a kind of pale version of the story I had been proposing for more than a year.

So let me get this straight. Before DC editorial went along and made Stephanie a replacement Robin in a limp 2-issue story that was canned very quickly, Dixon wanted to do something like that himself? I probably would have turned that one down myself if I were editor, but I'll grant him this - he probably would've handled whatever possible in a much more plausible, tasteful fashion than the writers of War Games, Identity Crisis, and Countdown to Infinite Crisis did.

Labels: crossoverloading, dc comics, golden calf of death, marvel comics