The Four Color Media Monitor

No, he didnt quit, he was fired:

McDuffie clarified the situation on his boards later that day. "It was my own doing," posted McDuffie. "I was fired when [rumor column] "Lying in the Gutters" ran a compilation of two years or so of my answers to fans' questions on the DC Comics discussion boards. I'm told my removal had nothing to with either the quality of my work or the level of sales, rather with my revelation of behind-the-scenes creative discussions."

I wouldn't feel too bad if I were him. If Dan DiDio was that rotten towards him, he's better off staying away. It could even have a detrimental effect on DiDio, making him look more like the control freak he clearly is, and damage his own public image even further, which is what he deserves.

The writer who's said to take over is Len Wein. As much as I'd like to feel delighted that a veteran like him is taking up the reins on a book he'd worked on in the mid-1970s, I won't be surprised if he's only going to do as DiDio tells him to, and not muscle for creative freedom. If not, then his ascension is nothing to crow over, and will do little to slow the continuing demise of the pamphlet comic.

Labels: bad editors, dc comics, Justice League of America

The Japan Times runs an article on the history of manga publications, and tells that even there, they've suffered from lesser readership for the following reasons:

Why is the industry experiencing a slump?

Fewer people are reading manga magazines, and therefore fewer are buying manga comic books because people usually purchase comic books after reading the series in magazines, according to Kubo.

The end of "Dragon Ball" in Shukan Shonen Jump in 1995 is also a big reason people stopped reading manga magazines, he adds.

Both Kubo and Nakano also blame the aging society and the falling birthrate for the drop in sales.

Because publishers focused too much on expanding the range of readership to adults in the 1980s and 1990s, there are less interesting comic series published in manga magazines, which have failed to attract younger readers, they say.

"If you have three or four interesting individual manga (out of the 10 or 20 that are typically carried), you buy that magazine, but if there is only one or two, you don't buy it. That's why children don't buy (comic) magazines," Nakano says.

Kubo and Nakano also say children nowadays have other forms of entertainment such as video games and mobile phones and are busy going to cram schools. Some people read comics on mobile phones, they say.

Japan may still have a bigger readership of manga than the US does of comic books. And yet, as this article tells, North America isn't alone in decline of readership because of how publishers sought to appeal to an older demographic at the expense of the younger one.

Labels: Europe and Asia, manga and anime

A contributor to CBR's Robot 6 blog is asking if a new 5-part miniseries called "Reborn" is going to boomerang back on the premise of Marvel's 2003 race-baiting monstrosity, The Truth: Red, White and Black, which claimed the super-soldier project Steve Rogers volunteered for to become Captain America, exploited black soldiers for testing. A miniseries that, lest we forget, bore stereotypical artwork (something I notice that Robot 6 doesn't seem to mention) drawn by one Kyle Baker, which had the effect of making me lose respect for him.

Is it possible that they're going to double back on the ludicrous premise they coughed up those 6 years ago? Sadly, judging from their output until now, it is possible. And if that's what they're planning, nobody should have to waste their money on "Reborn". In fact, if memory serves, Ed Brubaker, who's writing the current mini with Bryan Hitch, said that he's fine with Truth: RWB's premise.

Marvel's been keeping all the info on Reborn hidden underneath a bushel until its debut July 15, so in order to maintain what they're hoping will be their next publicity stunt for short-term profit. But I think no matter how this turns out, it'd be better left unread and unpurchased.

Labels: dreadful artists, dreadful writers, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, politics

Almost forgot about this, but I wonder how Marv Wolfman feels about putting Joe Wilson through an editorial mandate and going along with it, in Vigilante #6.

I feel very sorry for Joey now. First, he's brought back to life for no good reason other than to service Geoff Johns's "continuity porn", and unlike the past days of the Titans, he can now talk, which takes away from what made him really unique. Then, he's turned into a crazy assassin. Now, supposedly to keep him from being a troublemaker, he's been blinded. Truly disgusting. He should have been allowed to rest in peace and not forced to go through the wringer. And if an editorial mandate as bad as this loomed over the production, it makes no difference if even Joey's own creator took the writing job here.

Wolfman says that this'll be built upon in the future, but with editors as bad as DiDio in charge, I don't think I'd want to know what they have in store.

Labels: dc comics, Titans, violence

Wow. So Spider-Fandom actually took to protesting, as the third section of the daily strip shown here tells, that the comic strip writers followed Quesada's lead by erasing the Spider-Marriage back in late December, and got it rightfully restored. Though the newspaper strip pales in comparison to the monthly comics (when they were being written well, that is), fans still saw it something worth fighting for. I'm glad (H/T: Spider-Man Crawl Space).

Even so, it's still going to be a serious uphill battle in getting the marriage reinstated in the comic books, plus solving a lot of other problems Joe Quesada's been heaping upon Marvel ever since he hijacked the editor's chair. But maybe this turnaround in the newspaper strip thanks to fan requests to restore the marriage could be an omen that there's light at the end of the tunnel?

Labels: comic strips, marvel comics, Spider-Man

Dick Grayson becomes Batman. And the LeHigh Valley Express-Times has taken to their usual gushing:

Three months after Bruce Wayne was sort of killed in "Final Crisis," the "Battle for the Cowl" is over and a new Batman has stepped forward.

Richard Grayson, the original Robin and current Nightwing, reluctantly takes over for his deceased mentor in the final pages of "Battle for the Cowl No. 3" from DC Comics and writer/artist Tony Daniel.

Didn't he take over briefly in the mid-90s? Nothing new here then, but certainly nothing surprising, not even Dick's reluctance, nor is it any big deal.

The only hurdle in the way was Jason Todd, the second Robin.

Jason Todd is most famous for being the Robin who was killed by the Joker.

He got better, but became a bit crazy and violent in his misguided pursuit of justice.

Then he didn't get better. Stop obscuring the problems. If Jason is overly violent, then his character hasn't been the least bit improved since the time before his initial demise in 1989.

Along with a new crime boss, Batman also will have to deal with a new Robin.

Taking over for Tim Drake, the third Robin, is Bruce Wayne's illegitimate son, Damien Wayne.

Damien's a spoiled little brat who's the grandson of Batman villain Rha's al Ghul.
With a city in chaos, Black Mask in control and a new unpredictable Robin, Batman hasn't been this interesting in years.

Uh huh. Damien's characterization is so irritating, it's likely to put people in a position where they're going to be driven to voting for his death over the phone, just like with Jason Todd 2 decades ago, even if it's not his fault for how he's written. Correction: Batman hasn't been this badly exploited and abused as a franchise in years.

Labels: Batman, crossoverloading, dc comics, msm propaganda

DCU's Source blog (via Titans Tower Monitor) tells what to expect in TT #72 - that is, more infighting, and even the sight of a coffin, if anything, among other things intended to shatter the team apart. The blogmaster spoke with one of the series editors, Brian Cunningham, who said:

I’m willing to bet my prize 1976 DC calendar that Titans fans will be pretty stoked when they read Bryan Q. Miller and Joe Bennett’s brutal three-issue story for our teen heroes. It’s relentless in how much punishment is dished out. And I’m talking punishment on so many levels — between team members, between good guys and bad, and even between bad guys and bad.

Grueling choices must be made throughout, and all actions have dire consequences. Some, as you can plainly see, are much more horrible than others.

I can guess where this is going by now. More senseless mayhem, and most damaging would have to be the implied infighting between the Titans themselves.

Yep, this Teen Titans series is doomed.

Labels: dc comics, golden calf of death, Titans, violence

According to a writer for the Hollywood-studying site The Wrap, the audience's lack of interest in good morals and justice is what did in the 2006 movie:

So let's break this down into superheroes and its current trend in film. “Superman Returns,” the 2006 Bryan Singer dirge, didn't fail because audiences no longer resonate with a super being that can fly, shoot heat from his eyes and is immune to bullets. It failed because Superman is the epitome of good morals and justice, which today's audience find boring and childish.

No, no, no. The movie failed because the screenwriters' politics overwhelmed much of the script, which resulted in the omission of The American Way from the movie, because they thought that the audience, even on the homefront, wouldn't like it, which is just plain stupid.

If the movie scene reflects the times, it most certainly reflects its audience too. I'm not immune. I don't care to watch Superman pining for Lois Lane for 90 minutes in some “Lois and Clark” retread. I want to see him bust some heads and kick some ass -- but the problem writers run into is how to make a guy that can't die … seem human. We can't identify with something like that and if '00s audiences can't identify with the protagonist then the movie "sucks.”

A guy who can't die? I think that's awfully exaggerated. If they need to come up with a menace who can give the Man of Steel a run for his money, they can look to all the examples of the more formidable opponents he's had in past years, including Darkseid, who's certainly a formidable force without even having to use Kryptonite.

Superman's problems in the movie business today, from what I can tell, are screenwriters and producers who'd rather let absurd leftism get in the way of telling something tasteful.

An article in the Straits Times about a cartoonist/comics writer in Taiwan making waves with the audience over on mainland China.

Labels: Europe and Asia

Mark Steyn, who was a comics fan in his youth, writes in Macleans about superhero movies, and how he feels that they're actually falling short of their potential, because they're not addressing the key enemies of this day and age in reality (via Newsarama blog).

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the upcoming East Coast Black Age of Comics convention, and how comics are being used to teach reading.

Labels: conventions

It's to be expected that some will have to cut back on buying pamphlets. And one of those who've had to is the comics columnist for the Examiner:

Gone from my monthly stacks are "Titans," "Teen Titans" and "Outsiders." After a decade at least of buying "Hellblazer," I've stopped, because, after all, how much more can John Constantine do after more than 250 issues. Despite all the excitement surrounding DC's Batman-is-absent saga "Battle for the Cowl," I'm only buying the main series, not the many one-shots that have accompanied it. And despite my love for Marvel's Avengers, I'm giving very serious consideration towards dropping "Mighty Avengers" (do I really need to buy New Avengers, Dark Avengers, and this week-kneed leg of the stool?)

I gotta wonder why Hellblazer is still burning after all these years, ever since its protagonist, John Constantine, spun off from his first appearances in Swamp Thing. What's so great about Hellblazer I have no idea.

I'll hand it to the columnist of this piece though - he's doing the right thing by dropping both Titans titles and Outsiders, all series from DC that have been deep-sixed in cheap, overblown stunts. And even Mighty Avengers isn't very much like its title; just another in Norman Osborn's ridiculous universe-spanning schemes. And all those one-shots tied in with Battle for the Cowl should tell that it's not worth our time.

Another sign of how pamphlets are dying.

Labels: dc comics, marvel comics, sales

Flash: Rebirth is being extended from the five issues first planned to six. And what does the Newsarama blog say about this:

While there will certainly be fans who cry foul (or “poor planning”) on this, I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing.

But others do. Already, there's good reason to cry foul: namely, because of the tasteless story. Don't try to sugarcoat that case, please.

I looked at that coverscan they give, and gee, it's not often I see something so wretched. For an alleged coverswipe, it insults the Showcase #4 cover far more than pays tribute to it. Yuck.

Labels: dc comics, Flash

Blogoscoped has a short article about a Japanese comic that provides instructions on how to use Google's Chrome version.

Labels: Europe and Asia, technology

Here we go. The Nashua Telegraph gets all gushy about "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" DC's latest publicity stunt:

“Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?” He’s having a heckuva birthday party, that’s what.

Indeed. It's his 70th anniversary, and he's not even here! Some way to cash in on the fame of Bruce Wayne.

“Whatever Happened to . . .” is the title of a remarkable two-part story by the remarkable Neil Gaiman (“Coraline,” “Graveyard Book”) in February’s “Batman” and “Detective Comics.” It’s a story with many parents, but stands uniquely on its own (and will be collected in hardback in July).

It began, kind of, with “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?” That 1986 story, by the also-remarkable Alan Moore (“From Hell,” “Watchmen”), was a heart-tugging wrap-up of the Superman mythos up to that point – before the Man of Steel was re-launched the following year.

Something similar is happening in Gotham City, so the naming convention was re-used. But the story started a little further back – in the last couple of years of “Batman,” where the also-remarkable Grant Morrison (“Arkham Asylum,” “Animal Man”) ran the Gotham Guardian through perhaps his most punishing and brutal adventure yet: “Batman R.I.P.” Fittingly, Morrison referenced dozens of Batman stories from the 1930s to the present, baffling and delighting with esoteric, and often-hallucinatory, Bat-allusions. (Many of them are collected in the “Batman: The Black Casebook” trade paperback, arriving in June.)

Remarkable? No more so than a lot of other publicity stunts of recent. Punishing? Definitely insulting and tiresome, mainly for the audience! Just another excuse to replace the main hero with his protege(?), and then see if that sticks. And fittingly? I won't be surprised if some of the stories Morrison's referenced are better off forgotten.

It’s no accident this dovetailed with DC’s huge company crossover “Final Crisis,” which was also written by Morrison and ended with the world thinking that Bruce Wayne had finally bitten the batarang. Of course, nobody really believes that core characters like Batman can ever die, and to DC’s credit, they didn’t try to fool us – the ending of “Final Crisis” showed a Bruce Wayne very much alive, trapped in the distant past with no way home. But the gang in the present believes him dead, with a corpse to seal the deal.

And I guess in time, we're going to be reading all about "Bruce Wayne: Caveman", right? This is no justification for the current "direction", and anyone who's a true Bat-fan should reject this from the outset.

Which brings us back to “Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?,” a thematic epilogue to Morrison’s epic (available in hardcover already). Like the classic “Batman: The Animated Series” episode “Almost Got ’Im,” we see Batman from the eyes of friends and foes in a series of vignettes. And like “Batman R.I.P.,” it references different eras of Batman, both in story and art. Artist Andy Kubert, for example, renders a 1940 Joker in the style of Jerry Robinson, a 1939 Batman as if drawn by Bob Kane, a 1950s Batman a la Dick Sprang, and so forth.

But, like its Super-predecessor, the ultimate result of “Caped Crusader” is to remind us of why we have long cherished this character. And if it doesn’t bring a tear to your eye, your super power is to be made of stone. And where does that leave us? Well, somehow Gotham City has gotten worse in the absence of The Bat. I know, that doesn’t seem possible. But Two-Face and Penguin are battling for control of the underworld, Black Mask has freed all the super-powered nuts from Arkham Asylum (and blown it up) and the city’s gangs are overwhelming a badly outnumbered GCPD.

This is just sooooo hilarious. If it's happened more than several times in the past, including No Man's Land and War Games, why shouldn't it be possible for Gotham's situation to get worse? And even if Batman isn't dead, these would-be memorials in honor of the fallen hero are getting quite tiresome already because of how repetitive they've become; they've got no impact anymore.

To the rescue has come Batman’s extended family and friends. In all the Bat-books for the last few months we’ve seen the cavalry arrive in the form of Robin, Nightwing, Oracle and the Birds of Prey, Black Canary, Batgirl, Batwoman, Wildcat, Catwoman, England’s Knight and Squire – plus a mysterious Batman wannabe, who may be the homicidal Azrael.

But the real story is found in “Batman: The Battle for the Cowl,” a miniseries wrapping up this month that determines the Dark Knight’s successor. That’s followed in June with Morrison’s return and a mysterious new Dynamic Duo in “Batman” and the new “Batman and Robin”; Batwoman headlining “Detective”; Catwoman, Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn starring in “Gotham City Sirens”; and one of the Bat-proteges continuing the hunt for Bruce Wayne in “Red Robin.”

In other words, more titles that are just part of the publicity stunt, and unlikely to stand on their own merits. I'm not sure who'll be Red Robin, but doesn't this signal that they realize good ol' Bruce doesn't fall down so easy, and needs to be found, whether in past, present, or future eras? It just shows how laughable DC's become. The Batwoman starring in Detective Comics is what signals the publicity stunt in motion, and if that title is being subject to this joke, the other spinoffs are likely to be just as lame.

It’s Bat-bedlam! Which couldn’t happen to a nicer guy – one who happens to turn 70 this year. Yup, the pointy-eared creation of Bob Kane and Bill Finger first appeared in “Detective Comics” No. 27, back in 1939.

And Bruce Wayne, the one true Batman, isn't even here to celebrate his anniversary. This is not a good time to be a Bat-fan.

Labels: Batman, dc comics, msm propaganda

The webmaster of the Flash fansite Those Who Ride the Lightning has reviewed the second issue of Flash: Rebirth on his Speed Force blog, and I find nothing to be relieved by. Geoff Johns makes a supremely silly attempt to explain Barry's bowtie from the Silver Age, which is completely unnecessary from a modern-day perspective, but the real problem here is:

I’m disappointed to see that they have indeed retconned in that greatest of cliches, a tragic parental death to motivate the hero. It’s shown in more detail here, and even mentioned in last weekend’s Blackest Night #0 (alongside Hal Jordan and Bruce Wayne talking about how their tragic parental deaths motivated them). I do think it makes more sense for Barry’s father to have been wrongly convicted, with Barry determined to prove his innocence, than for him to actually be a murderer. Of course, then there’s the question: just who raised Barry Allen, if his mother was dead and his father was in prison?

I'm disappointed too. Because if they really have gone this far, and kept up what they were going with in the first issue of the mini, it means that those several appearances Henry and Nora Allen made back in the day, 2 or 3 of which I own in back issues, have been retconned and trampled on, including the time when Golden Glider tracked Barry and Iris to the Allen's home in Iowa where she endangered them with a radiation generator - that was where she let Barry know that she'd figured out his secret identity as the Flash. So is that now down the memory hole?

And Johns isn't doing much better with what suggestions he's dropping in about Albert Desmond, the sporadic crook who took up roles as both Mr. Element and Dr. Alchemy:

Given Dr. Alchemy’s cameo in issue #1, and the framed story about Mr. Element’s capture that keeps appearing in Iris’ house, it seems likely that this is intended to be Albert Desmond. When the good side of his personality was in control, he was a friend of Barry Allen’s (he and his wife even attended Barry and Iris’ wedding). It would certainly make sense for him to be a scientist as well. If it is him, I’m worried about his line from issue #1: “I wonder if you remember me — and if you’re still angry about what I did to her.” I have a horrible feeling that they’ve brought back Patty just to retroactively stuff her in the fridge. Let’s face it — she’d be at least the fourth character in this miniseries to be dragged out of limbo only to be summarily killed.

Or turned into a gold statue with the Philosopher's Stone? Or raped? I wouldn't put it past Johns after the premise he wrote up for Girder, that metallic villain from early in his run. This is after all the same writer who was willing to imply that the Turtle was a child molestor, contrived a story tying into Identity Crisis where Zatanna supposedly helped to "change" the Top's personality, and even implied that the Rogues were nastier than need be, and that the Top's influence in turn softened that before undoing it again. All replete with holes big enough for a herd of elephants to walk through.

One of the commentors even says:

I can deal with whomever ends up in the suit and his/her secret identity issues. But, let’s get on with it already. This Rebirth story feels like an unnecessary middle step before getting back to the “real” Flash book. This might be more of a reflection on how things have been repeatedly shaken up over the last three years. It makes me wonder if this relaunch will actually stick or if DC will get scared again about sales and throw everything out the window once more.

I think a decline in sales after a superficial press release that this has "sold out" at the retailer's department is certainly possible, especially after people begin to realize that this is the gazillionth book not worth the hype it got in the first place, and start to lose interest. In fact, they'll be doing the right thing by not legitimizing this latest forced darkening of another Silver Age hero whose background was better when it was brighter. Anyone who's really a Barry fan should simply say "no" to any attempt to make his background a horrible nightmare. It's no more creative than it would be to turn Superman's world into the exact same bleak affair that is Batman's. No matter what the outcome of Flash: Rebirth, it should be avoided already due to the cynical, mechanical approach to writing. This might even serve as a wakeup call for anyone who's not sure if Johns is reliable or not.

Update: this review from Comic Book Legacy surely nails the problems with this rendition even better, and notes that for a story about a guy who can move fast, it's pretty slow. And it suffers from a problem that quite a few comics of recent have: being padded and written for trades. It makes me think of how, in a way, Johns shares a few things in common with Brian Michael Bendis, and is just as overrated.

Update 2: The Weekly Crisis cites another problem with the book: nothing happens.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful writers, Flash, violence

Labels: Carnival entries

Broken Frontier says that Marvel is bringing the New Mutants cast back. But with a hack writer at the helm:

It’s during Young X-Men’s run, along with the X-Infernus miniseries, that the stage was set for the return of the original cast of the New Mutants. Of course, the characters have changed quite a bit over the almost three decades, and the writer is Zeb Wells instead of Claremont or Simonson at the helm. So what was so great in the 80s might not work as well in the 2000s. I hope they can recapture some of the magic that made the original series so great. Because, as the new series’ tagline says, the world still needs the New Mutants.

But it doesn't need crummy writers. Isn't Wells one of those hacks they've been hiring to do what the upper management says, including some recent cruddy stories in Spider-Man's Brand New Day? No wonder what worked in the 80s is unlikely to work now, though editors like Quesada are primarily to blame.

Labels: dreadful writers, marvel comics

Progressive Boink has 4 pages featuring some of the most truly awful drawings of Rob Liefeld, including the ridiculous facial lines, twisted bodies, absurdly bent torsos, feet that look like they went through a pencil sharpener, weirdly long fingertips, etc. Man, some of that stuff he drew back in the day sure was creepy!

Labels: dreadful artists

An article in Foster's Daily Democrat about the comics convention they're holding for Free Comic Book Day, which was attended by Peter Laird of Ninja Turtles fame.

Labels: conventions

It looks like 3 years after killing off Connor Kent, pretty nastily at that, DC has brought him back in their new volume of Adventure Comics (via Titans Tower Monitor). I assume that any legal issues surrounding the copyright were settled too.

Good. There's another wrong that's been corrected. But still more remains to be done. Let's not forget the more minor superheroes who were spat on in Identity/Infinite/Final Crisis, shall we?

Update: an expert at the Newsarama blog looks at what legal reasons may be behind this.

Labels: dc comics, Superman, Titans