The Four Color Media Monitor

CBC News reports on the Superman-giving-up-citizenship publicity stunt, and says:

His proclamation, though, is somewhat doubtful since Superman came from the alien planet of Krypton and was "adopted" by a Kansas family.

Publishers Jim Lee and Dan DiDio released a statement about the issue that did not clarify much: "[Superman] remains, as always, committed to his adopted home and his roots as a Kansas farm boy in Smallville."

They also reiterated in their statement Friday: "As a character and an icon, he embodies the best of the American Way."

Sorry, but if Superman does remain committed to the country he grew up in, then he wouldn't go to such lengths to make any announcements suggesting the contrary at the United Nations. A better idea would be to make clear that he represents peoples and ideas, not governments and policies. And more specifically, if DC really wanted to prove they respect American values, they wouldn't go to such lengths to create publicity stunts that draw attention for the wrong reasons. They haven't done much to clear up anything.

In fact, what if this has a negative impact on their movie-related biz to boot? The Portland Mercury said:

If the right-wing blogs get a hold of this one, there's gonna be hell to pay, especially when somebody realizes that David Goyer, who wrote the story, is also the screenwriter of the upcoming Superman movie directed by Zach Snyder and starring a British person as Superman. So they're neutering America's greatest superhero and turning him into a thug for the United Nations? This could make the Captain America mess look tame in comparison.

That's something to think about - those who put 2 and 2 together, realizing that David Goyer is scriptwriter for the movie (still in pre-production so far), could be too insulted to bother about that or any other comic-based movies they've got coming out. Lee, DiDio and Goyer may have unwittingly scuttled chances for the movies to have a serious impact. And for all we know, if failure follows this worthless publicity stunt at the movies, Time Warner may have done what to deserve it by not maintaining any true respect for the properties they're in charge of.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful writers, politics, Superman

If there's any writer for the Weekly Standard who's really disgusted me, it's Jonathan Last, who's given his support for Identity Crisis. He's written about Superman's giving up his American citizenship, and sabotages everything when he says:

Or in Darwyn Cook’s New Frontier, when Superman is fighting in Vietnam as an agent of the U.S. government. He is partnered with Wonder Woman, who shares none of his fealty to America. At one point, Wonder Woman goes AWOL and when Superman finds her, she has taken control of a Vietcong prison camp and turned the female captives loose on their jailers. While Superman is startled by the carnage, Wonder Woman—who is, after all, a warrior princess—rejoices in it. As Superman wrestles with the moral contradictions, Wonder Woman says icily, “Go home, spaceman.” Heck, in Brad Meltzer’s fantastic Identity Crisis, Superman barely has ten lines of dialogue. But the story is shaped largely by the other heroes tip-toeing around Clark, because they know he wouldn’t tolerate their morally questionable actions.

Tragically, that's the stand he's taken, in support of DC's insult to women's rights, and clearly, he hasn't learned anything since. His shocking double-standard practically discouraged me from appreciating any of his alleged comic book fandom, and does he really want the heroes of the DCU to be considered the wrongdoers instead of Dr. Light after he raped Sue Dibny? As inappropriate as it was to depict Dr. Light that way, it's even worse if Last considers the rape trivial and the "lobotomy" the real problem in its stead. Just what kind of conservative does Last think he is anyway, and does he really see nothing wrong with destroying popular fiction for the sake of such a grimy story? Did he even think the punch to Zatanna's tummy and the near asphyxiation of Black Canary was "fantastic"? Shudder.

And did it ever occur to him that Identity Crisis could be a variation on 9-11 Trutherism? It certainly is a variation on blaming the victim. How is it he couldn't comprehend that?

This is exactly why, if there's any conservative I can't recommend on issues like these, it's Jonathan V. Last.

Update: for a better take on the subject, here's James Hudnall's posting at Big Hollywood, where he certainly avoids making the same kind of mistake Last did.

Update 2: I decided to really let Last have it - specificallly, I answered a post direct on his blog, and will also recopy the text of my reply right here:

Mr. Last, it’s sad that I have to do this, but there’s a conservative here who finds something very distasteful hidden in your piece. Something that detracts very greatly from what impact it could have.

First, if it matters, I’m an Israeli citizen. I live in Jerusalem. And I’ve read plenty of comic books too for many years. And I was very, VERY angry to discover, that you actually condone DC’s grimy little misogynist screed called “Identity Crisis” (and I read those 2 earlier posts you did nearly 4 years ago), which, as people like Peter Sanderson have noted, is almost exclusively male in its viewpoint, tarnishes several characters both major and minor, and even resorts most disgustingly to shock tactics.

What exactly do you consider “fantastic” about that POS? I assume you consider Deathstroke’s causing Zatanna to vomit fantastic? Do you think Slade Wilson’s cuffing and near asphyxiation of Black Canary is fantastic? Is Slade’s stabbing Flash fantastic? Do you think the humiliation of Sue Dibny is fantastic? Do you even think Jean Loring’s inviting her ex-husband to hit her, and the suggestion that she was molested in prison was fantastic? And, do you even consider making the Justice League into scapegoats – shades of leftist Blame-America tactics – while trivializing the crime committed by Dr. Light, fantastic?

But even if the story didn’t have such disturbingly subtle left-wing allusions to 9-11 hidden underneath, would the misogynist manner it’s written in alone be legitimate? No way jose. And that just underlines how irresponsible you are even on that level. What you did there doesn’t just clash seriously with your concerns about Superman and American citizenship, it’s also an insult to victims of rape and wife-beating. Have you ever considered what a woman who was raped by Islamofascists, whether in the middle east or Europe, might think of you if she found you endorsing a sick book with an approach that was offensive to their plight? What would even Lara Logan think?

As for the minor players misused in Identity Crisis, do you really see them as so expendable that you’re even willing to applaud as they’re disgraced in such an awful manner? And if Lois Lane were the victim or culprit, would you have stood for that? I don’t make a difference between superheroes and supporting casts based on popularity rank, I base my view on the story quality, and my fandom for one doesn’t come at the expense of another.

Mr. Last, I’m sorry to say, but you’ve done a grave disservice just as bad as Bill Kristol himself after he attacked Glenn Beck for his concerns that the Islamofascists in Egypt intend to establish a modern day caliphate. And I question whether you’re really a comics fan, if you have such a low opinion of the DCU that you’d be more than willing to stand by idly as they maim what’s in their ownership. Not to be a curmudgeon here, but let me ask you something: if Dr. Light were depicted in that book as a racist, and Sue Dibny and Jean Loring were members of minority groups, and Light attacked Sue out of a hate crime, and that too were trivialized while the “lobotomy” was deemed far more important, would you have stood for that? Would you have even approved if the white DC heroes and their supporting casts were called “white crackers” by the villains?

Maybe that’ll give you something to think about. I hope you’re happy at how Dan DiDio and company destroyed other people’s childhoods and worse, insulted women’s rights with their grimy, perverted miniseries. If that’s the kind of stance you’re going to take, regardless of whether there’s moonbat messages hidden inside it or not, you are not qualified to make an argument on Superman’s giving up US citizenship.

That's what I told him, and I'm not sorry I did. If he's going to tarnish his argument by trivializing and even embracing another form of prejudice, then he deserves to be panned in full.

Update 3: sad but no doubt predictable: on July 21, 2011, Last reviewed Grant Morrison's "Supergods" in the Wall Street Journal, and has he ever made my teeth gnash in disgust:

Comic books aren't what they used to be. Begun as pulp mythology, the medium has matured in recent years. A comic such as Greg Rucka's "Whiteout" (1998), about a U.S. marshal solving murders in Antarctica, has more in common with Donald Westlake than the Archies. Sometimes the genre reaches even higher: Brad Meltzer's "Identity Crisis" (2004), about how superheroes deal with a horrific crime, combines classic noir with genuine analysis of the liberal order.

It's sad but not unexpected that he would remain unchanged, and continue to embrace that misogynist screed. "Classic"? And if he's trying to cover his tracks by suggesting that a book that's basically a metaphor for blame-America tactics is some kind of critique of liberal order, my advice to him is to just stuff it. Mainly because, how can it be any kind of analysis if it floods itself with an exclusively male viewpoint and trivializes rape, and tampers with established characters?

I'll put this as simply as possible: Jonathan Last really disgusts me as a human being.

Labels: dc comics, misogyny and racism, politics, Superman, violence

An article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin about the Hawaiian anime convention called the Kawaii-Kon, which is beginning tomorrow.

Labels: conventions, manga and anime

I'm not sure he actually has one - that is, I don't think Clark Kent carries an ID in his Man of Steel guise - but in another absurd turn following the "Grounded" storyline, he's renouncing his US citizenship in Action Comics 900:

Superman announces that he is going to give up his U.S. citizenship. Despite very literally being an alien immigrant, Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of "truth, justice, and the American way," from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the iconic red and blue of his costume. What it means to stand for the "American way" is an increasingly complicated thing, however, both in the real world and in superhero comics, whose storylines have increasingly seemed to mirror current events and deal with moral and political complexities rather than simple black and white morality.

The key scene takes place in "The Incident," a short story in Action Comics #900 written by David S. Goyer with art by Miguel Sepulveda. In it, Superman consults with the President's national security advisor, who is incensed that Superman appeared in Tehran to non-violently support the protesters demonstrating against the Iranian regime, no doubt an analogue for the recent real-life protests in the Middle East. But since Superman is viewed as an American icon in the DC Universe as well as our own, the Iranian government construes his actions as the will of the American President, and indeed, an act of war.

Superman replies that it was indeed foolish to think that his actions would not reflect politically on the American government, and that he therefore plans to renounce his American citizenship at the United Nations the next day -- and to continue working as a superhero from a more global than national perspective. From a "realistic" standpoint it makes sense; it would indeed be impossible for a nigh-omnipotent being ideologically aligned with America to intercede against injustice beyond American borders without creating enormous political fallout for the U.S. government.

So let's see if I have this right - Superman turned up in Tehran, and in sharp contrast to the stories written by Marv Wolfman & Jerry Ordway in the late 80s where he raided the more suitably fictionalized country named Qurac and wrecked their weapons arsenal, he makes no attempt to do the same here. But the real problem is why they would even write a story like this at all, if it doesn't make sense to smash Iran's Big Brother mechanics in fiction while the regime is still standing in real life. I hesitate to think of what this story would be like if he didn't even search out their nuclear weapon development facilities and at least destroy those.

The worst part is that he's renouncing the citizenship he doesn't officially have as the Man of Steel at the United Nations, which has been coddling Iran for plenty of time, and technically recognizing their own corruption. David Goyer, the writer of this storyline, seems to be another one of the fools in showbiz who thinks there's nothing wrong with "globalism" and shunning identity.

And is the claim that his penetration of Iran is "indeed, an act of war" supposed to suggest the Iranian dictatorship is legitimate?!? Shudder.

It reminds me of the Captain America story from the early 70s where Steve Rogers became Nomad and parted with his identity over the shady actions of one mere president/administration. That was not such a good story, but if he didn't go to the UN to renounce, at least they weren't going out of their way at the time to act as though they're literally better in every way. How exactly is being American supposed to get in the way of doing good for the rest of the world? Especially when the chances are that Superman might not even do anything even to help fictionalized countries in allegorical storylines in any stories that follow.

Stories like these where nationalism is dragged pointlessly into the mix are only a recipe for alienating the American public even further. I wonder if this is Time Warner's revenge upon the Siegel & Shuster estates for filing suit against them? They're not helping any by taking out their anger on what they've still got left and potentially giving anyone who supports the heirs' position another reason to view loss of copyright as justified. This is just downright embarrassing.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful writers, politics, Superman

This article on IO9 tells that in the past 4-5 months since the last Wonder Woman teleplay was revealed, David E. Kelley's done some rewrites. But after scanning what's described, I'm still not sure this'll pass muster. On the plus side, they may have responded to criticisms of Diana being too self-pitying. However, in the following:

There seem to be a bunch of these, that were added just so we could see Diana throwing her weight (so to speak) around. At one point, she confronts a pair of security guards, whom the script calls Frick and Frack. They tell her she can't go up to the roof of a hospital, and she says, "I'm Wonder Woman. How do you think this ends?" And then she lifts one of them into the air by the throat and the other one by the chest, until they admit they're goons working for her nemesis, Veronica Cale.

There's also a hilarious scene where Diana is driving, and a male driver cuts her off in traffic and makes an obscene gesture. She gives him the finger, and he pulls in front of her, blocking her. They both get out of their cars, and he says his obscene gesture was "implying something that might be good for her." He grabs her arm and says, "Maybe I should teach you some manners."

Diana keeps saying things like, "Let go of me, sir" and "I'll ask you again to remove your hand." But he responds that he'll let go of her arm when he feels like it, and calls her a "Prada bitch." So she lifts him into the air by his throat.

As far as I can tell neither of these scenes advances the plot, they just let us see Wonder Woman lifting guys by their throats.

I'm not sure these are even suitable by TV standards. If she's going to grab villains by the neck, that's questionable enough already. But equally so are the b-word and definitely the obscene finger slangs. What's so hilarious about that?

In the following description of a fight scene:

And the actual fight scene is a lot longer and more detailed — at one point, the December 2010 draft just says "A SERIES OF FAST CLOSE UP CUTS — LEGS, ARMS... DIFFICULT TO TELL WHO'S WINNING AND WHO'S LOSING." But the revised version dispenses with that ambiguity and gets down and dirty. A whole new sequence is added where one bad guy gets a knife to Wonder Woman's throat, and she jams her thumb into his eye. Another guy, she deals with by getting on her back and using both legs to kick him into the air. The final bad guy chooses to surrender, so she knocks him out.

It's getting pretty lurid now, and sounds like it's aimed for 10:00 PM broadcasting, where the more adult programs usually end up.

And what of the plot involving Veronica Cale?

The original pilot script starts with a young African American man, Willis, finding out he's been accepted to college — and then keeling over with blood coming out of all his openings on his face because he was given some harmful experimental steroids. I'm pretty sure we never see Willis again in the December 2010 draft. But in the revised version, Wonder Woman goes to visit him in the hospital, and spends a lot of time with him — even promising to give him a ride in her plane if he gets better. And she convinces Willis' mother not to seek vengeance on the people who did this to her son, because the mom has other kids who need her. Getting vengeance is Wonder Woman's job, instead.

The good news is the guy wasn't killed from the poison. The bad news is that the politically correct cliche is still intact.

To make matters worse, they seem to have insulted WW's creator:

And in the revised version, we meet Diana's neighbor, William Marston — yes, named after her creator — who finds her cat, Robin, which has bitten him. So to make it up to William Marston, Diana goes out on a date with him — which ends badly, after William tells Diana he thinks Wonder Woman is a fascist. Ouch. Diana says, "This woman spends her whole life fighting for justice, and the idea that people think of her as a Fascist..." She is now glad that her cat bit this guy.

If it hadn't been for what reeks of an insult to Marston, that part might've worked. But they sabotage even that by giving a slap in the face to the guy who created Princess of Power back in 1941, and probably don't consider that, it it hadn't been for him, WW might never have come to be. Just what are they thinking?

They're going to have to do much better than that if they want the audience to embrace their take on the classic superheroine. The current rendition still doesn't give much reason to be upbeat.

Labels: dc comics, politics, violence, Wonder Woman

Big Shiny Robot writes about the origins of Sam Sterns, the ordinary laborer who became the Incredible Hulk's main nemesis following his own exposure to gamma radiation.

Labels: Hulk, marvel comics

Roger Langridge, the New Zealand cartoonist who wrote Thor: The Mighty Avenger, was interviewed by Mother Box Ping about how today's industry is going, and he's another guy who's got the guts to tell that the big two are not handling things the right way:

[...] do you feel the industry as a whole is doing enough to court a new, younger generation of readers?

As a whole, no. I really don't think Marvel and DC are helping things by having gritty, R-rated versions of their superheroes in their main comics - what they sell as the "real" versions - while simultaneously selling those exact same characters in kids' comics and plastering them all over lunchboxes and animated cartoons. Only a parent who actively follows the comics - which most don't - has a hope in hell of knowing which Batman comic is okay for their kids and which ones they shouldn't be allowed to touch with a ten-foot bargepole. Casual readership by kids, or by parents for their kids, is effectively impossible the way things are currently structured. And I think the waters are muddied too far now to claw that ground back. I think it's insane that DC have spent 70 years making Superman as big as Mickey Mouse, and branding him to be understood by parents as being pretty much as kid-friendly as Mickey Mouse, only to piss that brand away in a decade. Nothing wrong with doing mature content in comics - in fact, it should be encouraged as often as possible - but doing it with characters who are on your kids' lunchboxes is kind of moronic. Take a lesson from Watchmen and come up with new characters for that stuff. And then go back to Superman and Batman and put the same kind of love and effort and craft and intelligence you've been putting into all those rape scenes and body mutilations into something kids can read, and adults can also be proud to read because of all the love and effort and craft and intelligence you've put into it, and make those the "real" versions.

Well said. Another problem with the big two is that they and their contributors, as mentioned here, refuse to learn or admit their mistakes, with very extremely rare exceptions, if at all. I think it's possible to make a repair by doing away with a lot of the storylines that have clogged up comicdom for the past decade, nullifying them out of existence, and then of course, there's turning to different formats than monthly pamphlets, which are clearly becoming too difficult to manage now. All that's needed is a different ownership with more responsibility that would take over the reins of both companies and work on these ideas. And sadly, that may never come to pass.

Labels: dc comics, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, violence

This is disgusting. Image Comics is publishing a comic called "Marijuanaman" that was co-written by a singer named Ziggy Marley with Joe Casey and Jim Mahfood, and running the risk of tarnishing their reputation much worse than they did when they published Liefeld books:

At Wondercon, we had glimmers of hope for the Green Lantern movie — but there was another green superhero being unveiled. We were lucky enough to spend some time chatting with Ziggy Marley about his new superhero, Marijuanaman.

[...]

It's the story of Sedona, an alien who travels to Earth from the planet Yelram. Sedona finds that he has a particular affinity with Earth's biosphere, and then he makes a connection with one plant in particular. But he's faced with an evil corporation that wants to sell a synthetic marijuana substitute called GanjaRex — and the corporation sends a deadly monster named Cash-Money to destroy Marijuanaman and his nature-loving friends.

Oh, let me guess, this is some sort of greenie propaganda, is it? And, I suspect, a marxist stealth assault on capitalism to boot. Another something really galling about their character design is that the protagonist's costume looks almost like Green Lantern's.

The idea of Marijuanaman came from learning more about cannabis, and the fact that this plant "has millions of uses beyond just smoking," says Marley. And he started to wonder why the world isn't taking advantage of this versatile plant. "It's beneficial to the environment and less destructive than some of the things we're doing now," he adds — for example, you could use hemp-derived products in place of a lot of oil-based plastics and other stuff.

Oh please. He sounds just as deranged as Carl Sagan.

It's very important to Marley that Marijuanaman gets his power from marijuana without smoking it — he's not a smoker. "His friend [Smokestack] smokes and he gets a contact high." Marley stresses: "Nobody can say he's a bad influence because he smokes. He doesn't smoke. But he still gets his power from marijuana anyway."

When Marijuanaman encounters the plant, it empowers him and "his connection with it is immediate." But even though he gets superpowers, he's not violent — he has a philosophy of pacifism, "that sometimes is contrary to what we here would want him to be. We would want him to just beat the bad guy all the time."

Marley says there are a lot of industries out there that don't want marijuana to be legal — including pharmaceutical companies like the one in his comic book that are trying to sell "fake marijuana" and synethetic cannabinoids.

Not to mention the alcohol and tobacco industries, which don't want the competition. Marley is very passionate about the potential of cannabis to transform the environment and the economy, and replace oil-based byproducts.

Keep the pathetic excuses coming please. It makes no difference whether the character actually chuffs that crap or not; writing their protagonist taking his power from cannabis is no more tasteful than if he were to gain power from flammable acid or poisonous gases like sarin and mustard gas.

And are they saying he doesn't always battle criminals? Well clearly not dope dealers who laugh behind the backs of the people they victimize by furthering addiction.

Some of the "industries" who don't want crappy drugs legalized include family groups, who aren't going to be particularly happy with what the official author says at the end:

Adds Marley: "I want him to be a hero just like Superman, Batman, [or] any one of those guys. Everybody can love him. Kids can love him. Just because he's called Marijuanaman doesn't mean kids can't love him."

But it does mean parents who have every right to stand up for the best interests of their children can be quite disgusted that he's suggesting youngsters read this propaganda junk. And I thought the weakly written adventure comics Image published in the 1990s were bad enough; now they're willing to publish a sensationalized pro-cannabis moonbat atrocity like this and give themselves a continued bad name. Joe Casey, who's co-writing this, may have once had drug problems of his own more than a decade ago, and sure isn't helping himself by lending his services to that screwball musician. And to see prominent websites like MTV promoting this shows that they too are on the way to ruin.

It's bad enough that in past years, there have been leftist propaganda books aimed at children, including but not limited to promoting cannabis. Now these mindless nuts are making inroads into the comics biz. What will happen next, will these leading companies like Image start publishing books openly endorsing marxism?

Labels: conventions, indie publishers, moonbat writers, politics

In Marvel's latest dopey publicity stunt, they've done to the Ultimate line something not unlike what they've been doing to the main line:

Marvel Comics' most popular character is getting a hip new look - and a new person wearing the webs.

"That's not Peter Parker," Marvel editor-in-chief Axel Alonso told The Post. "There's going to be someone new wearing the costume."

Then why should we care? A big problem nowadays is that we're being asked to care more about the costume than the character. So instead of trying to make us to care about the classic protagonist, they replace him/her with a different one whose own characterization and depiction may not be any better than the predecessor's.

The new webslinger and the new look - a sleek black and red costume revealed here for the first time - will make their debut at some point this summer, after the conclusion of the ominously titled "Death of Spider-Man" storyline in June's Ultimate Spider-Man No. 160.

The comic will be polybagged, and will shake the comic book world to the core.

"It's unlike anything you've seen before," Alonso said.

But that boring cliche statement most certainly is. Will it shake the comics world to the core though? In the sense that it'll discourage more people from reading the Ultimate line, I guess the answer is yes. There's no need to even pull open the polybag to see what's inside.

The shakeup marks the first time someone else will be catching thieves just like flies in the "Spider-Man" titles besides Peter (or a clone of Peter - don't ask) in the character's almost 50-year history in either the traditional "Marvel Universe" or the more recent "Ultimate Universe."

Alonso wouldn't reveal much more about the new wallcrawler - "there's significance in the color scheme," he teased - but the image's release is another bad sign for Peter Parker, who in the ten-year-old Ultimate line of comics is still a Queens high school student.

The perpetually hard luck teen was shot through the gut by anti-hero the Punisher at the close of last week's issue while trying save Captain America. Comic fans have been burning up the internet speculating whether Peter might survive the storyline, even if his web slinging days are over. Alonso wouldn't reveal his ultimate fate, but said, "We did call it 'The Death of Spider-Man' for a reason."

I hesitate to think of how the Punisher is portrayed in this lame stunt. Whether or not Ultimate Peter Parker is dead, we probably can't be surprised if they intend to make his replacement permanent. The Ultimate line's had at least a few characters who were killed off altogether, and unlike the main line, they haven't bothered to revive them, though it could change. But if the story at hand is only being done for stunt sales, then there's little chance it'll be worth reading.

An adult Peter Parker will still be manning the role of friendly neighborhood wall-crawler in the regular Marvel Universe "Amazing Spider-Man" title.

Too bad the writing there remains bad, the Spider-marriage erased, and the editors/publishers the same ones who've been running the whole scene for a decade now.

Labels: bad editors, marvel comics, msm propaganda, Spider-Man, violence

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writes about this April's Comicon in Monroeville, which has been taking place since 1994.

Labels: conventions

Broken Frontier has an interview with pretentious Matt Fraction where he sugar-talks about Fear Itself, and goes all boasty about it. For example:

BF: You don't want the readers to read it and say “nothing happened in this big event”.

FRACTION: Exactly. I guarantee you you won't think that about Fear Itself. Much like Civil War, when it's done you'll be able to look at each issue and put a pin in some shock, some twist, some revelation, it's a doozy of a story. There's some huge stuff that pops in every single issue.

Did he say that part accidentally? Because by now, plenty of people could estimate it'll be a doozy. And they'll also be spooked by the price, which may still be nearly $4. And it's not a matter of whether they'll say nothing happened, it's a matter of whether anybody cares what'll happen, since everyone's been increasingly tired of their blatant events for the past 7 years.

BF:So, there's going to be lasting changes to the Marvel Universe because of Fear Itself?

FRACTION: Yes. Yes. Sincere and profound changes. We have a roadmap, a gameplan, creatively that's what we do. Much like the way we had a plan coming out of Civil War, we have a plan for the aftermath of Fear Itself. Our readers and our fans have said again and again “we want the stories that matter, we want events that matter”. Well bro, sit down and buckle up: this matters. This is the Marvel mothership right now. This sets the tone, timbre and tempo of where we are going for the next year, two, or three to come.

BF: Like how Civil War led into Secret Invasion and Dark Reign?

FRACTION: Yeah, there's a massive roadmap that we're starting to work towards. I can't wait for it to get out into the world and for it to stop only existing in my head.

If only it did just exist in his head, but unfortunately, the crossovers he's alluding to have been commonplace for 7 years now. That's the lasting change they're talking about, and the giant roadmap.

If anything does happen in Fear Itself, it'll most likely be a lot of unpleasant leftist political allegories. Blogger Douglas Ernst guessed a few months ago that it would be that bad, and found at least one very galling example of Fraction's own leftism, worn on his sleeve. That's what makes him all the more dismaying.

Labels: crossoverloading, dreadful writers, marvel comics

The Denver Westword wrote about the no-longer-a-big-deal Grounded storyline by J. Michael Stracynski, which is still going on interminably, now detailing Superman's visit to Boulder, Colorado, where the Flash is suffering from the dreadful influence of a Kryptonian gemstone and draws the Man of Steel's attention by dressing the public in planetary outfits. And during the story, this comes up:

Superman ultimately manages to catch up to the Flash (because the Flash let him, the lightning-bolted one later insists), removes the headband, and restores Boulder, even removing the Kryptonian outfits that wound up on locals. "I'm glad that Flash put these costumes on over these people's clothes," Superman says to himself. "I'd hate to see the headlines if he hadn't. 'Superman and Flash Strip Town Naked!'"

Really, that line occurs during the issue? Well if it's supposed to be funny, it just falls flat, like practically anything else Straczynski's ever written that tries to be comedic.

Some of these papers try to make it sound like it's a big deal the Man of Steel came to visit certain hometowns, but, as sales estimates should tell, nobody cares, and if JMS is still writing this, it's no wonder.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful writers, Flash, msm propaganda, Superman

Here we go again witnessing the sad but understandable demise of the great world of comics. In this ICV2 article, they tell how graphic novels are becoming a casualty just as much as periodicals:

Year-over-year dollar sales of periodical comics through Diamond Comic Distributors declined 2.43% in March, while sales of graphic novels plummeted 10.01%. For the first quarter of 2011 comic sales were down by 8.57%, while graphic novel sales dropped 7.24% and combined sales of comics and graphic novels were down 8.14%.

The March year-over-year drop in comics was worse than in February when the decline in comic dollars was just 1.7%, while graphic novels, bolstered by the release of a number of popular higher price books, were actually up 6.92% in February. While the actual sales of comics and graphic novels were up for March of 2011 versus February of 2011, the more important and telling year-over-year trend is not good. The double digit graphic novel sales decline in March is emblematic of the market’s Q1 struggles overall, which are largely the result of a lack of “hits.”

And this one says:

Top 300 numbers for the first quarter were bleak for both comics and graphic novels. Comics were down 9.37%, while graphic novels were off by 10.67% and combined sales dropped 9.66%.

There's plenty of good explanations why this has affected GNs to boot: if the story was bad when first seen in periodicals, or just plain boring and dull, what's the point of buying it even in trades? Is it any wonder that, even with the cutback to 3 dollars, it's not helping much? Nor did the loss of at least 2 pages of story, apparently. On the charts, some of the titles at the lower ends were very stagnant, and the ones higher aren't far behind.

They might be able to change things by a]distancing themselves from Quesada and DiDio, b]reversing the effects of Identity Crisis and Avengers: Disassembled, c]ceasing all the crossovers, and d]going for better publishing formats, but still, no chance of that in sight.

Labels: crossoverloading, dc comics, marvel comics, sales

MSN's movies site talks about Marvel and DC's upcoming crossovers and how comics sales have shrunk drastically (H/T: Soccerdad). They ask if Marvel's newest event will save comics, but if recent results say anything, the answer is no.

With the eyes of fans focused on the four major comic book-based movies coming out this summer and how well they may or may not do at the box office, there is other news that should concern hardcore readers: The sales of comic books themselves have been sliding for some time now. According to the widely read Mayo Report at Comic Book Resources, February 2011 was the fourth-worst month in comic book sales since hard data began being reported in 2003 by major distributor Diamond. February also set a new low for sales of the month's top-selling book, "Green Lantern," which moved just under 72,000 copies.

As John Mayo points out, those figures aren't necessarily final: They are based on direct sales (through comic book shops) and don't take into account sales from newsstands, bookstores and other outlets. Yet since most comics are sold through specialty shops, those do represent a large percentage of the total sales. And those sales have been steadily decreasing over time (it's not just comic books, of course; people are reading less overall, part of the dumbing down of our society itself, but that's another conversation).

Bad storytelling is another reason why people could be reading less, and the decline of Marvel and DC's quality is evidence why they're the big losers in sales.

It's worth noting that the whole book selling business has suffered badly too: Borders has filed for Chapter 11, and there may be other book chains facing the same problems.

The comic book industry tends to combat sales slumps -- and there's no telling whether this one is short-term or permanent -- with publishing events that are the equivalent of summer blockbusters at the movies. In Marvel's case, the company's big 2011 event kicked off on Wednesday (April 6) with the arrival of issue No. 1 of "Fear Itself," a seven-part epic written by Matt Fraction (the man behind the current, award-winning run of "The Invincible Iron Man") that deals with the God of Fear, a malignant nemesis that confronts the superheroes of the Marvel Universe -- Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Cyclops, etc. -- with their worst nightmares.

"Fear Itself" is the company's first crossover event -- meaning it spans not just the core series, but a number of tie-in books -- since 2008's "Secret Invasion," but Marvel has promised that you can just read and enjoy the main seven "Fear Itself" books without having to track down all the tie-ins. That immediately makes it more attractive to us: Feeling like we had to read every offshoot of Marvel's "Civil War" or DC's "Infinite Crisis" had the curious effect of making us want to give up reading comic books entirely. We weren't that interested in picking up "Fear Itself" as a result of this, but knowing of Fraction's involvement and hearing Marvel's promise that the story will be relatively self-contained has tempted us to pick up the first issue this week.

Oh good grief. That's why they're wasting precious time and money on Fear Itself? Because it's supposedly self-contained? If there's more miniseries connected, and even flagship series themselves, it's not as self-contained as it may look. Most importantly though, what if the story is awful as plenty can predict it will be? And Fraction is not as good as they must think.

DC, for its part, is unveiling "Flashpoint" in May, a five-part limited series in which Barry Allen, the Flash, wakes up to find that the entire universe and timeline has been altered somehow and that he is the only one aware of it. Beyond the five-part main event, "Flashpoint" will tie into 16 three-issue offshoot stories and at least four single-issue tales. As far as we can see, DC has not made the same promise that you don't have to read all the tie-ins to enjoy "Flashpoint" on its own -- a mark decidedly against it. There's just not enough time in the day, except if you're the Flash himself and faster than anyone else alive.

Okay, so they recognize that DC's own plans are a disaster in the making, but it shouldn't have to just be based on whether the story is "self-contained" or not. The real question is whether the story will turn out to be good or bad.

And speaking of Fear Itself, the following description on the Dixonverse forum may tell it's the latter:

So, I picked up Fear Itself #1, pretty well written, but, once again the villians are Nazis. Seriously, at this point in history why can Nazis and Neo-Nazis still be dredged up, but, Communists and the current Nazis, the Islamic Fascists, not even remotely appear in comics? Well, In the side 'event', which, comics giants love to do now, Fear Itself: Homefront, puts the extremism against terrorists in perspective. Yes, Speedball, and superheroes, still, being blamed for causing the deaths that led to the superhuman act, 'Civil War', and the Death of Captain America, tries to make amends. He goes undercover to try to help folks only to be confronted by a 'hateful' and 'intolerant' mother of someone killed in the attacks. The mother a cross between Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin finally uncovers and confronts Speedball with an angry mob who try to kill him, continued in the next issue, I also will not buy. Neo Nazis abound in the next story in this issue which informs us of over '600 groups' of Aryan Supremecists, etc.. who bomb synagoges and African-American churches.. blah, blah, boo, boo. OK, I put Fear Itself: Homefront, back on the shelf.

The writing is left-wing fantasy land. But, the sad reality is that many on the real left and even liberals, really believe this fantasy. This is why the Tea Partiers are called 'hateful' and even 'Terrorists' at the drop of an Obama/Hitler sign and the real terrorists are excused and even shown in sympathy. This is now approaching sheer insanity in it's total abscence of reality, even as it is a comic. The allegories are clear, the enemy is other Americans, while the real enemy is to be pitied and even protected. Shame on Marvel for putting out this propaganda. Fear Itself: Homefront, should be feared and shunned.

I would note that years ago, there were communist villains, with Marvel and DC contributing allusions to the Cold War during the 60s, 70s and 80s, and there were even some supervillains whose origins and backgrounds had ideas drawn from communism, like the Crimson Dynamo, KGBeast, The People's Heroes, and even Iron Man's leading nemesis, the Mandarin. And Black Widow was a defect from commie Russia who became a goodie working for S.H.I.E.L.D in the Bronze Age, and an ally of Daredevil. The question is whether communists are still being used as baddies, if at all. And if recent history is any suggestion, the answer is...no. At a time when Russia is sliding back slowly into an autocracy, you'd think Marvel and DC would think of reviving the use of their villains who allude to communism, but in an era when self-esteem is lost, they show no interest in any challenging stories like those. Only publicity stunts for short-term sales boosts that decrease with each consecutive story.

And with a conservative-smearing story in Fear Itself like the what the above describes, I'd say the real scare is that very miniseries and the pretentious writers and editors involved.

Labels: crossoverloading, dc comics, marvel comics, politics, sales

Movieline reports that General Zod will be the leading villain in the upcoming Superman movie. It's an interesting story strategy, since Lex Luthor would be too obvious a choice by now. First played by Terence Stamp in 1980's Superman 2, Zod will be played this time by Michael Shannon.

Labels: dc comics, Superman

A short article on ABC North Queensland about a manga teaching class being held at Townsville's youthfest this week.

Labels: Europe and Asia, manga and anime

I found this news that IDW is running a series of reprints of Marvel publications, beginning with Walt Simonson's run on Thor, though this one is in black & white. It got me to thinking: could this be a sign that Marvel Entertainment, as it's officially known today, might be willing to sell ownership of the book publishing division to another owner?

For now, there's no way to tell, but if they did, I've got a feeling IDW might be able to turn things around. If they went with a different approach to format and marketing, that is.

Labels: indie publishers, marvel comics

In another example of a writer who lets his political standings overwhelm himself, Ron Marz, while having a quarrel with Bluewater Productions about a week ago, attacked Ayn Rand on his Twitter account (Bluewater is working on a project about her), and said:

If there's a better pairing than horrible, selfish nutbag Ayn Rand and Bluewater, I've yet to hear it

Now I'm not going to comment on any dispute Marz has with Bluewater over whether they're paying him properly for any work he might've done for them. What saddens me is that Marz is letting his political leanings get the better of him, dragging Ayn Rand into this whole mess unnecessarily, and demonizing an author and playright who was anti-communist, a position many comics workers of yesteryear, including Stan Lee and the late Julius Schwartz, held too; they had their own share of works with anti-commie themes. What next, is Marz going to attack Steve Ditko for reading her works and even attack Lee and Schwartz if they respect her?

It's too bad, really, but this is the sad reality of how some contributors in the field, if not all, are losing themselves in too much leftist politics. That aside, Marz is a writer who's probably more known for some of the really bad ideas he undertook in his early days - killing off Frankie Raye in the Silver Surfer's series, and more notoriously, Green Lantern Kyle Rayner's girlfriend, Alexandra, who lasted just barely a year before she was obliterated (and editorial mandate apparently decreed that he could not create a new girlfriend for Kyle, and could only use a lady already around, Jade. This was one of many signs how Green Lantern was one of the most editorially mandated comics of the 1990s). It was when he worked with Crossgen under its initial ownership that he began to show some promise, but when working at the big two, it was mediocre; he did his work there mostly as a hack and showed little sign of standing strong on maintaining free reign in scripwriting.

Now, we have to see this kind of terrible quarreling go down between a writer and company officials on Twitter, and degenerate into something perfectly dreadful.

Labels: dc comics, marvel comics, politics

Marvel is going to reinstate Steve Rogers in his rightful role as the Sentinel of Liberty. However, it appears they're not doing it because it's right, but because of the soon to be released movie, and once again, they're even blatantly relaunching in yet another new volume:

The original Cap is coming back.

Marvel Comics said Monday that Steve Rogers, the young man who tried but failed to join the Army during World War II only to take a super-soldier serum that turned him into the agile, strong and daring Captain America, will return to the role in "Captain America" No. 1 in July.

Nearly four years ago, Rogers abandoned the costume, and the job, after he was gunned down on the steps of a courthouse and thought dead. Since then, his former sidekick, Bucky, has been sporting the shield and a sidearm, too.

But with a new film this summer from Marvel Studios - "Captain America: The First Avenger" - it's unthinkable to have someone else wearing the costume and throwing the shield other than Rogers.

That's why they're reinstating Steve with his famous costume and shield? On the one hand, they didn't really replace Steve with Bucky because it was plausible, nor was Bucky brought back from the limbo of death for such reasons either. On the other hand, it appears this is more of a business-driven decision than one done to actually fix a weak publicity driven stunt. Another problem is that the same writer who villified the Tea Party movements is continuing to helm Cap's books:

Marvel is keeping mum about the new series' story but said it is being written by Ed Brubaker, who has been guiding the character for years, drawing critical acclaim for the gritty realism of the character. Rogers himself returned to the Marvel Universe in 2009 and, not surprisingly, wasn't dead, but lost in time. Still, Rogers operated on the sidelines while Bucky continued to serve as Captain America.

"I've really missed Steve in the role, since he hasn't been Cap for about 50 issues now," Brubaker told The Associated Press. "So I have big plans to really explore his character and history and bring in new villains."

Part of that will include meeting the challenge of keeping the character fresh and poignant for longtime fans and readers, and also making him accessible to new readers who may pick up the comic book for the first time after seeing the film.

What if those readers happen to be ones turned off when they first learned the news that Brubaker insulted the Tea Party organizations unfairly? I don't expect him to explore challenging subjects like taking on Islamic terror organizations, if at all, nor do I expect even a convincing story from Brubaker where Cap takes on Hydra and AIM as a metaphor for such subjects either. And just who will those new villains he speaks of be? We can only hope they won't be modeled after decent conservatives, but recalling Marvel's track record, the chances they will pull such a stunt is sadly possible. So too in fact is the chance that Cap will be caught up in Fear Itself.

And if the writer for the new volume relaunch is the same one who scripted the series before, then that's not exactly how to keep the stories fresh if they don't bring in a new writer, and can only maintain the same one as before. Not that I would expect better of them regardless under Quesada and Alonso, given their track record.

That aside, it remains to be seen what will happen to Bucky now that Steve is getting his costume and shield back. Will he become Winter Soldier again, or, will Brubaker decide to send him back to the grave? Or, will he reveal Bucky to be some kind of a clone? I don't know, but whatever they decide, I can't see what their point was of bringing back Bucky from limbo.

Labels: Captain America, marvel comics, msm propaganda, politics

Comics Buyer's Guide has published a pretentious column scheduled for print in the May 2011 issue (#1677), that does little other than to puff-piece the whole subject of Human Torch's demise. It gives 5 ideas of why this was done, but doesn't ask if this is the right or wrong way to go about it. For example:

As to why, how about ...

II: To shake things up
Like most businesses, Marvel likes money. And Fantastic Four wasn’t making much.
While Spider-Man, X-Men, and (especially) Avengers have become quite the franchises lately, poor ol’ Fantastic Four — Marvel’s first and once-most-important title — languished in ignominy. In January 2010, Diamond reported Fantastic Four selling a measly 41,284 copies. It came in at #35, below even Dark Wolverine and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
But what a difference a year (and a death) makes! Fantastic Four #587 was January 2011’s top-selling issue, with numbers that will continue to rise as orders for variant covers and additional printings come dribbling in, followed by more ka-ching from trade paperbacks and the like. Death is boffo box office!
Cynical? Yes. But also a successful publishing strategy.

Yawn. I guess they haven't seen the sales charts lately, have they? They certainly haven't cited any receipt numbers. The issue with the death scene sold only 115,000 copies, and the following one dropped like a stone soon after. And valuing variant covers, trades and multiple printings over story quality? Short-lived strategy, and not something deserving of such sugary praise. It doesn't get any better with the following:

III: Johnny needed a vacation
Let’s put aside cynicism for a second and consider that Hickman might have thrown Johnny under the bus for a good story. [...]

No, you put aside the cynicism and contempt that you happen to have for the audience and consider that your argument bears no more weight than the idea Marvel and DC threw a considerable number of characters under the bus this past decade for a "good" story, Scarlet Witch being one of those. In fact, "throwing under the bus" has a negative meaning to it, like betrayal and apathy, exactly what's driving the people in charge. If they hadn't relied so heavily on death and demonization in the past 2 decades, whether to get rid of major/minor characters who were supposedly a burden, or as a sales ploy for short-term bucks, this might not have seemed so cynical. But this almost all they've been doing lately, becoming increasingly vile and vulgar as they go along, and there's no impact in it anymore.

Plus, if they wanted to, they could find an excuse to send Johnny on sabbatical without "killing" or being even the slightest bit sensational.

The excuse they seem to have for why Johnny must go is:

Every member has been absent for lengthy sabbaticals, where he or she was formally replaced on the team — every member, that is, except for Johnny Storm.

And that justifies even a faux killing? Please. Then they admit down the line that:

Johnny Storm has left the team on occasion, notably in Fantastic Four #3-4 (Mar-May 62), when he found the amnesiac Sub-Mariner in New York’s Bowery district, and in 2007, when he was hospitalized during “Civil War.” And Ghost Rider, Hulk, Spider-Man, and Wolverine briefly replaced the whole team (Fantastic Four #347-349, Dec 90-Feb 91), but that turned out to be a hoax.

Well gee, then he has left the FF at times. It may not have been for an especially long one, but he has taken some R&R on occasion. Regarding faux killings of the FF members, it only really began with Mr. Fantastic's going MIA in FF #384-412 between 1994-96, at a time when Marvel's story quality was beginning to deteriorate, and later the Thing died briefly in 2003 in Mark Waid's run, and Sue Storm might have gone through vaguely similar circumstances in J. Michael Stracynski's far more disastrous run in 2005. Their mistake: they could've spared Johnny these missteps, and instead of this publicity stunt, they could've written a story where he meets a girl who for better or worse, could've come from a wacky background not unlike Frankie Raye, and written that he wanted to take some time off to be with her before discovering her amazing power. Sadly, they didn't.

The whole argument really begins to unravel, however, when they say that Human Torch was sent into death-land because:

And if those aren’t reasons enough, let’s address the giant village idiot in the room ...

V: Johnny Storm is a full-blown moron
Of all the Torches, Johnny Storm is obviously the dumbest. His career is punctuated by bad decisions, puerile behavior, adolescent temper tantrums, and just plain stupid moves. There are so many head-slapping Johnny moments, a comprehensive list is out of the question.

Well what have we here but bad example one million of idiots who criticize the characters instead how they're written, and instead of telling unambiguously what they thought of the quality of the stories he starred in. If they think any particular story effort by Stan Lee, Roy Thomas, Gerry Conway, Marv Wolfman, et al, was a botch job, just say so! There's no need to reduce the whole issue to a juvenile notion of how to "critique" the books. After giving a list of stories that weren't Johnny's fault no matter the quality, including FF #99 from 1970, we're even told about how:

Johnny Storm is the only member of the original Fantastic Four who has never been accepted as an Avenger. The Thing joined in West Coast Avengers #9 (Jun 86) and the Richardses in Avengers #300 (Feb 89). Heck, even most of the substitute members mentioned above — Ant-Man II, Black Panther, Crystal, Luke Cage, She-Hulk — are Avengers, but not Johnny. And this is a team that accepted Demolition Man!
When you add it all up, the question isn’t why Marvel is benching Johnny Storm — the question is why it took so long.

I guess they don't want him to ever be a member of the EMH, or to even learn what it takes to satisfy the Avengers leadership, whether his becoming an Avenger or a Defender is a good idea or not, because they really think it's his fault for being such a clown. What can be said is that under the contempt-ridden reign of Quesada, Bendis and Alonso, Johnny Storm being an Avenger would never work. Mainly because it would likely be more of a sales stunt like it was by adding Spider-Man and Wolverine to the cast.

If they think there's a problem with Johnny's personality, what they'd really do is ask that it be modified and matured, just like Claremont and Byrne did with Wolverine in the late 70s/early 80s. Instead, they beclown themselves by justifying Johnny's demise at all costs, and all because they don't want to irk Quesada and Alonso and lose the chance to get all those review copies they don't need. Johnny Storm is dumb, a moron and a giant village idiot? They should really take a mirror check.

And with the gazillionth crossover from Marvel, Fear Itself, soon to debut, that's another sign to suggest Johnny Storm's termination wasn't done for good storytelling.

Labels: Avengers, crossoverloading, Fantastic Four, golden calf of death, marvel comics, msm propaganda

Toon Zone writes about how there's only so many anime productions from Japan that only find their way to American shores in DVD, and why this could be.

Labels: manga and anime