The Four Color Media Monitor

Just in time for the movie that's debuted (which as I've noticed has been almost universally panned, and with good reason, to be sure), The Washington Times has written about the questions asked on whether the Smurfs are stand-ins for communists (H/T: Hot Air Headlines). Among the key notes:

Now, consider life in the Smurfs’ village: Residents live in identical mushroom houses. Everyone dresses alike. They sing the same group song, over and over. They have no apparent deity.

More to the point, the Smurfs have no economy. Farmer Smurf doesn’t peddle his crops to Wholesaler Smurf, who then marks them up for lucrative resale to Grocer and Baker Smurf. Nuh-uh. Farmer Smurf just farms, the better for the other Smurfs to eat at a communal table.

Similarly, Painter Smurf only paints. Handy Smurf builds stuff. Within the village, societal roles are clear-cut. No deviation is allowed — in fact, a memorable episode of the cartoon saw the Smurfs switch jobs with bumbling, humbling results.

Pop quiz: Who uttered the famous maxim, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?”

A) Karl Marx

B) Papa Smurf

C) Both A and B

The correct answer is “C” — which is one of the reasons Australian essayist and teacher J. Marc Schmidt once referred to the Smurf village as a “Marxist utopia.”

Boy, no wonder I grew so increasingly disgusted with the concept in past years. Why did this, of all European comic strips that could make their way across the Atlantic, have to be the one to find its way onto the American continent? I suppose that, because some showbiz skunks resented the election of Reagan so badly, they thought this could be the perfect way to channel their contempt for conservatism.

Thinking back on the comics and cartoon series, they did have quite a few troubling ideas: there was a story published in early 1970s that depicted the Smurfs trying to establish a capitalist structure for their village, but all they could find in it was corruption. In the cartoon, it wasn't just Gargamel who served as a stand-in for capitalists; almost every villain featured seemed to take this role as well. For example, there was one episode where the Smurfette and another Smurf were abducted by a travelling puppet theater owner and his unpleasant bulldog in hopes of making money at their expense. And what about that ogre who lived in theirs and Gargamel's district too named Big-Mouth? Clearly, he was meant to represent a "greedy capitalist pig" and he certainly was portrayed as all brawn and no brains. In 1984, there was a special episode produced where Gargamel tricked Mother Nature into taking a sleeping potion, and then went to visit some warmonger in a scary fortress with blade-laden traps guarding it to ask for extra help in bringing down the Smurfs, and the villain residing inside seemed like an assault on Reagan. He also carried an archaic shotgun at one point that we could assume was meant to slam the 2nd Amendment. There was even an episode where an evil queen tried to usurp the throne from a crown prince, which we could assume was meant as an attack on women.

The cartoon sometimes did seem to have a nasty undercurrent to it as well, as those aforementioned blade-traps could suggest, and, there was also Gargamel's subsequent obsession with eating the Smurfs for food later on; as seen in that picture, which I personally find revolting. This is what makes for great children's entertainment? When such politics are subtly injected into the show, I'd say no.

If the movie tanks, as looks to be the case, I won't shed any tears. As some of the reviews have already told, it's crude enough already as it is, which doesn't help matters.

Labels: comic strips, Europe and Asia, politics

It appears that Mark Waid's let his leftist side get the better of him again, as, according to this review of the first Daredevil issue's he's written this year, he's taken up the pathetic role of depicting Muslims as "poor, misunderstood". I want to note though that the review has something bothersome about it that may make it necessary to take it with a grain of salt (also, there's at least 2 misspellings):

Then a review often has issues or complaints. Mine is a minor quibble as I know Waid’s politics are few left and his immediately using a poor Muslim person as being slurred and having racial epithets thrown at him by the police being Matt’s client. I personally have grown tired of this incessant need by many of the far left crowd to constantly never portray a Muslim as a bad guy. Radical Muslims were bad guys, are bad guys, just as home grown terrorists and other groups are bad guys. It is not the actually story line itself or even the idea of portraying that Muslims are like everyone else, most decent, some not; it is the fact I can read where the story is going from the jump. I’m against our involvement in the Middle East and fear we have created half of our own problems; I defend the right to the far left and the left to the far right, so it is not the politics it is the “typical” non-inventive nature of that plot point. A minor quibble but if Waid gets to be a little preachy my complaint is making the book predictable for certain plot points.

Now I'm not sure what the blogger means by his opposition to involvement in the mideast, or whether it's positive or negative, but the point is well made and taken that even now, there's still a problem prevalent with major companies wallowing in dhimmitude and depicting Muslims solely as "misunderstood" or even "victims".

If Waid wants to write something that would better suit Matt Murdock as a lawyer, he could take some inspiration from this case lawyer John Stemberger went through, or even what Pamela Geller is dealing with, or even what a lawyer like David Yerushalmi's researching. But Waid must be so far gone by now, he'll never do it.

If X-Men: Schism's premise is any suggestion, the mainstream publishers may finally be starting to conceive and allow storylines that do deal with Islamofascism properly. But if Waid's current storyline tells something, it's that we're still going to have to cope with quite a few more apologist storylines for some time.

Labels: dreadful writers, islam and jihad, marvel comics, politics

The Canadian Daily Gleaner wrote about the reboot of the Spider-movies. It may have been mentioned before, and certainly is here, that this looks like it'll be a lot more bleak:

The Amazing Spider-Man is slated for release in the summer of 2012 and promises a grittier, character-driven look at Spider-Man's years as a late teen.

If that's what they're going for, then I'm not sure it'll work, or if they should even be keeping on with it. Christopher Nolan's 3rd Batman movie will be the last - by him anyway - because he doesn't want to drag things out. Even if this is to be a reboot, aren't they still making the mistake Nolan must want to avoid?

The new Spider-Man will be full of changes. Even Spidey-love Mary Jane Watson is gone, and replaced by Emma Stone as Parker's first comic-book love Gwen Stacy. British actor Rhys Ifans will play Dr. Curt Connors, who is transformed accidentally into The Lizard, one of Spider-Man's archenemies.

I'm not sure Gwen was the first - before her, there were Liz Allen and certainly Betty Brant. The omission of Mary Jane Watson might actually turn some people off, if they suspect this was influenced by the publishing arm's own omission of the marriage.

Marvel Studios CEO Avi Arad said the previous team behind the series felt they had taken their story arc as far as it could go. Marvel made a conscious decision to start from a blank slate.

"There wasn't enough newness," Arad said. "There was no new story to tell. As we started to discussing this movie ... we knew we needed to find stories that were not told before and we needed to find a director who had his own style and, through his style, the movie would totally feel different because directors tend to bring their own vision on the screen.

But if there's no new story to tell, why are they coming up with this one featuring the Lizard? As for the vision, if it's darker, that's the problem here. He even contradicts himself by saying they're searching for what wasn't told before if there wasn't anything new to tell.

Webb said shooting the film in 3-D allowed them to bring fans into the experience of using Spider-Man's powers.

Uh oh, they filmed it in 3D? After the catastrophe of Green Lantern, that might prove a problem: people could be turned off by the FX, and the whole gimmick's been wearing off even faster than the appeal of CGI. Judging from the reactions on this Big Hollywood topic, it doesn't sound like anybody's enthused anymore.

I think this could end up being another case of dragging things out, even as a reboot.

Labels: marvel comics, msm propaganda, Spider-Man

In Hulk #42, the Red Hulk will go on the warpath to the middle east to avenge a close friend's death. But there's problems in the storyline:

Want to know how to really piss off a Hulk? Kill one of his friends. This fall General Thaddeus E. "Thunderbolt" Ross will lose one of his closest allies, setting the Red Hulk on the warpath. Seeking vengeance, Rulk will travel to the Middle East against the wishes of the US government. This rogue action will send General Fortean, his new arch-enemy, on his heels with weapons at the ready. Steve Rogers and the Secret Avengers will also be in hot pursuit, further complicating the Red Hulk's mission. Hulk of Arabia will see if Ross can mete out justice before he sparks an international incident.

I think the problem here is how this is being done at Captain America's expense, ditto the Avengers. Not only that, but it makes Steve look just like what some liberals seem to consider him: a character who unquestioningly does the bidding of his government, and here, the Obama adminstration, at least if the government featured in the story is meant to reflect it. In fact, why must it be the Hulk who'll take up challenging missions like this and not Captain America and the (Secret) Avengers? There can be something wrong when it's the anti-hero who's shown having a better grip on reality than the heroes do.

Labels: Avengers, Captain America, Hulk, marvel comics, politics

In USA Today's coverage of the Comicon, he says the following about Superman:

"Each decade, these characters represent our own best idea of what we'd like to be, our own big idea," says Grant Morrison, a comic-book writer and author of the new book Supergods (Spiegel & Grau, $28), a history of superheroes.

"Superman started out as a socialist fighter for the oppressed in 1938, but that was the time of the Depression. In the '80s, he's a yuppie."

I find both descriptions insulting, no matter what political standing Siegel and Shuster had when they first began. Mainly because socialism is just what helped lead to the Great Depression and such.

Later in the article, he told them that:

Morrison says 9/11 gave heroes in fiction, even the superpowered ones, much more realistic problems to face, sometimes with the bad guys actually winning before the good guys rise again. Yet incorporating human problems into hero-filled stories is something comic books have been doing since the Marvel Comics heyday of Stan Lee, creator of Spider-Man.

And I'm afraid that's very superficial at worst, because since then, there've been quite a few stories where the heroes were presented as the scapegoats (as in Identity Crisis), and the heroes themselves turn out to be the problem (as in Avengers: Disassembled). And either the baddies win too often, or if Flashpoint is any suggestion, the goodies are being turned into baddies themselves.

And at the end, Morrison said about his take on Superman:

"There's a reason why he's dressed in the jeans and the T-shirt and he's Bruce Springsteen Superman," Morrison says. "That was the look I wanted to get back, of a genuine working-class hero."

Except that even most superheroes who stood for the working/middle class years before didn't wear outfits as tepid as what they've come up with now. Superman was dressed like a circus acrobat when he debuted in 1938, not like a construction worker. And the new look does not mesh well with the cape.

Update: I also found an interview with Grant Morrison in the New Statesman from July, related to his weak book, where he blabbers on about his view of Superman as a socialist superhero. Curiously enough, the interviewer began with the following:

His new book, "Supergods: Our World in the Age of the Superhero", opens with the first comic-book appearance of Superman in 1938 and traces his evolution and the emergence of other heroes such as Batman, the X Men (and the ill-advised Captain Britain), through to the darker, satirical tales of Alan Moore and others in the 1970s and 1980s and on to Hollywood's current obsession with film adaptations.

Interesting. Does that mean that in the UK, there's some people who don't have a high opinion of Capt. Britain, regardless of the handling of Brian Braddock over the years? And here, just when you'd think they actually would like to have a fictionalized hero representing their country.

The next part is pretty ludicrous too:

How have superheroes evolved?

They've evolved along with us -- but in a lot of cases, they've also predicted social change. The "soft body" superheroes of the 1960s were almost a prediction of the way LSD would affect the consciousness of a lot of young people; there are "9/11" comics that happened prior to that event but depicted weird and uncanny images of ruined towers and destroyed cities.

So he's insulting superheroes by comparing the ones with more vulnerabilities to bullets to drug addicts?!? Well, that is coming from someone who wasted his time on drugs himself. As for comics that did feature destruction, it can certainly be said some of them were in poor taste, depending on how they were done. But it can't be told from this whether he thinks so.

Is it very different writing for a character with an existing mythology?

I like to go back and work out what the original writer and artist wanted to do with the character and then study as many of the different iterations as possible. Every generation has its own version of Superman and they can often be very different.

At the beginning, Superman was very much a socialist superhero. He fought for the unemployed, the oppressed, he beat up wife-beaters. It's about a man driven by a burning sense of injustice -- there are no monsters or robots, he fights against corrupt council officials! He was conceived as a Depression-era superhero, who dealt with the problems of ordinary people.

By the time of the war ten years later, he'd become like Elvis -- he'd had his hair cut, suddenly he was riding missiles and telling readers to "slap a Jap". He was suddenly very for American foreign policy.

In the 1950s, he became a patriarch -- with a family, surrounded by Supergirl and Superdog. I feel that was representative of men home from the war who'd seen horrific things and were being expected to "act normal". And so on, through the decades. So you have to go back to first principles and ask: how would a champion of the oppressed act today?

Oh please! Since when was fighting for the oppressed, unemployed, and taking on wife-beaters something just socialists did. Actually, since when did socialists ever take on those kind of subjects at all? Such problems, if any, were practically the product of socialist mindsets. Not to mention that what follows in the above about "acting normal" is also pretty slapdash and confusing. And it doesn't get any better with the following:

I wonder what the answer to that would be.

I think he's a much more global, connected character. Truth, justice and the American way isn't relevant any more. We've all seen the pictures of the earth from Apollo 8. The Superman I would write would be a much more international figure.

Okay, I guess that's all we need to know of just how galling he can be. He's apparently got no respect for the best ideas about Superman, and must've really liked the approach used in Superman Returns.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful writers, Europe and Asia, msm propaganda, politics, Superman

I read Kyle Smith's review of Captain America in the NY Post, and his review gives a far different take on the movie than Lou Lumenick's does. And Smith disagrees with Lumenick that it goes soft on nazism. So now I'm wondering, did Lumenick take things out of context or lie? Well if he is, then that was a very dumb thing to do, and is symbolic of the paper's sad tendency to making a living on tabloid-ism that dampens the impact of the more serious stuff they publish too (I recall them even running 2 articles that used an anti-French slur "frogs" a few months ago).

So if the movie does do things right, then I have to feel glad if it's auspicious. I'll try to see it in time, and determine for myself whether Lumenick exaggerated anything for the sake of tabloid stupidity.

Labels: Captain America, marvel comics, politics

The Monterey County Herald has written about the AnimeCon they're holding there this week, but what have we here, someone who thinks the following claim is really a good way to promote Japanese imports:

"Anime is based on realism — something that we can relate to," he added. "Yes, there is some fantasy and science fiction material, but there is always an ethic or moral that we can identify. It keeps you on this roller coaster of emotions. It captivates us."

Just how is that so? Sure, anime can have plenty of awesome stuff if you know where to look. But to say it's truly realism is quite a stretch. I've looked over various examples, and I think kabuki, the name for unrealistic drama in Japan, sums it up more appropriately. Not just in how they can involve a lot of fantasy elements removed from realism, but also in how the protagonists relate to each other, which isn't always plausible on a reality-based level (more specifically, depending on the structure, their takes on violence and sexuality can certainly veer into the offensive).

Biggest problem is that they might be doing it at American comics' expense, suggesting that USA comic storytelling is unrealistic, but Japanese storytelling is. While it's true that mainstream American comics have sadly sunk to worse than that level, that doesn't mean Japanese manga are any different. And just like American comics can feature bad storytelling, so too can Japanese manga.

They can promote the art form from Asia all they want, but shouldn't try to say it's literally better than American comics in every way, shape and form.

Labels: conventions, Europe and Asia, manga and anime, violence

The advertisements for the Captain America movie may be patriotic, but the approach of the movie itself, after reading this item on the NY Post, does not sound promising: according to the writer, the movie goes soft on nazism:

Though the screenplay is safely set in 1943 -- when the country was united against Hitler's Germany after years of debate, thanks to Pearl Harbor -- the film takes great pains to point out that the villain (played by Hugo Weaving) is a rogue scientist whose methods are considered too extreme even by the man who ordered the execution of eight million people.

Not only is the Holocaust nowhere hinted at in this comic-book version of history (something the similarly fantastic "Raiders of the Lost Ark,'' set in 1936, managed to do) Stanley Tucci's German refugee scientist is given a speech rationalizing the German people's embrace of Hitler. [...]

Suspicions that Marvel may be going to ridiculous lengths to avoid offending the German market are sort of confirmed in the press notes.

What?!? Oh, this is just great. When it comes to a movie like this, I wanted to hope it would be done properly in terms of historical allusions and common sense, if anything. Now they're giving me reason to feel very uncomfy about the screenplay and wonder if this too is another victim of political correctness of the most grimy sort.

I think I need some aspirin.

Update: it looks like this NY Post article was bizarre propaganda that lies about what the movie is really like. Here's an update with another, better take on the movie.

Labels: Captain America, marvel comics, politics

Every once in a while, I can find something eyebrow raising from the people who populate the Dixonverse forum, and in this thread, I learned a little something about Geoff Johns' original idea of how to deal with the premise as seen in Green Lantern: Rebirth, and described in the introduction for one of the editions:

Anyway, while I had read Rebirth before, I never read the outline by John's in the trade. It was interesting to me for two reasons.

1. The way to "fix" Hal being dead was to come up with a really convoluted story to make all of the continuity wonks happy, and then never ever reference anything about Hal going nuts or doing anything questionable again, ever. I'm not over-emphasizing this, it says several places that DC should never reference what happened to Hal again after this story and have every one pat him on the back constantly and tell him how awesome a hero he is.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, except to say that I think this approach is being writ large for Flashpoint and the DCnU.

2. I have been accused of being a Batman fan boy in the past because of my stance on this particular issue, but in the original story, I was not thrilled with the scene that I thought kind of killed the effect of the famous "one punch" scene from Justice League between Bruce and Guy, that scene being the pointless scene where Bruce had to play jobber to Hal and have Guy be the one saying "one punch." I'll comp to it, I like Bruce much better than Hal, but I still thought the scene was a little flat regardless of who I might have favored.

Imagine my surprise when I read in the original outline Parallax was suppose to make Bruce his . . . well . . . Bruce was suppose to job to Parallax and pick up a gun and shoot Robin, and later bow and scrape before Hal for ever having anything bad to say about Hal.

I'm really glad that isn't the version that saw print.

It doesn't really make much difference; the approach since then has either been very jarringly violent, or overly self-referential nostalgia, or both. And besides:

It's worth noting that Hal's previous actions were NOT ignored forever after Rebirth, whatever Johns' intention with the outline. Many GLs didn't and still don't trust him, notably most of the Lost Lanterns, and he even tended to give them a wide berth due to his nagging guilt.

Of course, they're mostly dead now....

I'm not surprised one bit they didn't follow through on the idea of ceasing all mention of Zero Hour's most awful traits, and wouldn't expect them to even now. Although this does make me think of how Zero Hour definitely should be expunged from DC continuity altogether, and if needed, replaced with something simpler that even does away with Parallax. There could be a retcon storyline telling about how the GL Corps were shunted away into suspended animation in another dimension, Hal included, and only some time later were rescued and returned to pick up the pieces of their lives.

But they don't ever think of those things, do they?

Johns' original proposal to have Batman fall under the influence of Parallax and attack Robin or even Nightwing brings to mind that he may have signaled some dislike for the Masked Manhunter several years ago (in The Flash, either 210 or 211, he wrote in a flashback scene where young Dick Grayson takes Wally West to tour the Batcave, and the latter tells that the Flash has a negative opinion of Batman, before discovering the Masked Manhunter has crept up behind him and given him a look of disapproval. This had the effect of making it seem as though Batman was a jerk long before he was really depicted that way in the 1990s). How odd that Johns may not think highly of Batman, yet has no problem injecting so much disturbing mayhem that might be more at home in Batman's world into the books that once had more optimistic viewpoints.

One more poster replied to previous message saying:

Yeah, that was an other interesting aspect of the whole thing. From the way the proposal read, they were going to trap Parallax back in the central power battery and never refer to the entity again either, but it does seem that they drifted from the original plan of "Rebirth is over, Hal is back, let's not talk about it."

I won't be surprised if Johns is to blame for that mess too. He has been dominating a lot of the GL franchise these past 7 years.

Labels: Batman, dc comics, dreadful writers, Green Lantern

Buck Sexton at The Blaze reports that one of the worst terror organizations on the globe is exploiting the medium for promoting jihad:

With Zawahiri at the helm, Al Qaeda (AQ) continues to churn out propaganda of all kinds, but this most recent addition is unusual in that its main audience appears to be the very young. Get ready for Jihad cartoons.

These screen capture photos are a first glimpse of an Al Qaeda created comic book that are scheduled for release soon. SITE Intelligence Group reported that on July 17, an AQ member in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) member posted about the upcoming cartoons in a Jihadist forum. [...]

The posting in the Jihadist forum indicated that the comic will be officially sanctioned by AQAP at the highest level. It appeared that the poster planned to go through the AQ hierarchy before releasing the comic, probably to enhance its credentials among the young Jihadist community and thus appeal more to its intended audience.

This is truly abominable. Not only is al Qaeda still around, they're exploiting and shaming the medium for indoctrination for jihad.

Labels: islam and jihad, politics, terrorism

Not only is the Man of Steel's world being rebooted and the marriage erased, but Lois Lane is getting a new boyfriend:

Lane's new paramour, a Lothario who can't seem to keep his shirt on, is a never-seen-before co-worker at the Daily Planet, Jonathan Carroll, the Daily News has learned.

And we're supposed to care why? Over in Spider-Man, both Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson have been given new girlfriends and boyfriends who've been mostly forgotten by the abandoning audience, and this news for the sake of it will likely pass on by the end of the year.

The move is meant to make it easier for new readers to jump aboard without being scared off by decades of back-stories, but some changes -- like Clark Kent's sudden bachelorhood -- have been hard for longtime fans to accept.

I think this argument falls flat on its face too. We've only come 25 years since Crisis on Infinite Earths, when a lot of back story was retconned away at the time. Or does DC think today's audience doesn't care about their archives? And why wouldn't today's audience appreciate Clark and Lois being married?

"It seems very strange that you would get rid of them being married, since it's been an established fact in the comics for 20 years," says Ron Hill, manager at Jim Hanley's Universe, a comic book store in midtown Manhattan.

"I feel bad for the new boyfriend, though. At the end of the day Lois and Superman are supposed to be together."

And the sad part is that DC is likely to act just like Marvel's been doing with the Spider-Marriage here - they'll shut out all disagreement and say this is what they're doing and that's it. But they're right here about something: not many are going to care about the new boyfriend Lois has.

Even Supergirl is going to undergo the reboot, and the following description of how in this interview doesn't sound very impressive:

Supergirl #1 will introduce readers to this new teenage Supergirl from Krypton as she begins her journey toward becoming a hero. But not only is she unsure she wants to be a superhero like her cousin Superman — she doesn't even know if she likes humans well enough to want to help them.

Isn't that brilliant. They just have to resort to an angle where she's reluctant to take up the same career, and thinks being Kryptonian is better in any way than human. I'm not impressed.

Labels: dc comics, msm propaganda, Superman, women of dc

The Hollywood Reporter, in their own coverage of the soon to debut Capt. America movie, is saying that the film is "Sticking to its simplistic, patriotic origins", as though that were a bad thing.

Big Hollywood says in response:

With the MSM , patriotism is always “simplistic” and/or “jingoistic.” You never read reviews that say, “simplistically angsty” or “simplistically brooding” or “simplistically dark.”

Yesterday in the comments, someone quoted someone who said something the effect of “angst is much easier to write than nobility.” And this is very, very true. The same is true with sincerity over irony and inspirational over nihilism.

This approach to patriotism is all a lie, a ploy from the Left to turn what really is simplistic and lazy (nihilism, angst, irreverence, irony) into “art,” when just the opposite is true. What the Left despises about themes that lift the human spirit is that they’re more often than not, conservative themes — themes of self-sacrifice, selflessness, fidelity, manhood, bravery, and nobility. Whereas darker, simpler themes or a complete lack of theme, appeals to the all-about-me, chaotic narcissism that so defines the Left.

That's exactly the case that needs to be made about how the comic books themselves are being handled today! For too long, both Marvel and DC alike have been going out of their way to turn the angle and direction darker in a lot of their series, increasingly refusing to give brightness and optimism a chance, and it's had the effect of ruining everything. This is exactly the problem with DC's direction, as they seem to think everyone who reads Marvel does so because they're "dark" and "brooding". Except that if they do that much of the time, it only makes the story at hand tiresome to read about, and the audience loses interest. As is likely to be the case with Superman if they go through as they are with broodiness.

That said, it's a shame that director Joe Johnston is still carrying on with his foolish act of downplaying the movie's American tribute side. In this interview on Film School Rejects:

You mentioned that you wanted Steve to be that guy next door that everyone can relate to, and I think that idea makes the film not just a big pat on the back to America.

I’m glad you brought that up, because it would be really easy to stray into a version of Captain America that’s almost propaganda, and that was something the Marvel guys and I were very conscious of. We didn’t want to do that not just because it has less international appeal, but because that’s just not the movie we wanted to make. We didn’t want to wave the flag around; we wanted to make the film about this guy’s spirit of determination. He just wants to do the right thing, and I think that’s a character trait you can take and place into any nationality or any country in the world, and still have it be relatable and make sense.

Oh good grief, I wish he'd just shut his mouth already! It's wonderful to make a movie about a hero who believes in selflessness and altruism, but why drag any issues involving America and flag-waving into this? It's trivial, and bringing it up the way he does only makes him sound silly. The movie so far does look to be a success, but if Johnston keeps this up, it could undermine what people think of him.

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

What was first hinted at a few months ago is now official, and unlike Marvel's steps in erasing the Spider-Marriage, DC doesn't seem to be hiding anything:

Superman will be a bachelor again when DC Comics relaunches its entire superhero line in September. He had been married to longtime love Lois Lane since 1996 in comics.

"We just felt there were more interesting, creative stories to mine in that time period of Superman's history prior to him getting married," says Jim Lee, one of DC's co-publishers along with Dan DiDio.

"There was something special and unique about the love triangle that existed between Clark Kent, Superman and Lois Lane," Lee says. "By restoring that essential part of his mythology, we would get a lot more interest in the character and take Superman and Clark Kent in bold new directions that felt more contemporary and modern."

There were once stories to mine, but with people like that around, not a chance it'll be the same. That was then, this is now, under the influence of people who don't have any idea how to deliver tour de force as in the Silver/Bronze Age.

And just how do they know they'll draw more interest in the Man of Steel now? If it didn't work with Spider-Man, why should we expect any different here?

There will be two Superman-centric titles in DC's "The New 52" line.

George Perez's Superman takes place in the present of the new continuity. It features Superman sporting a new costume (red briefs are out, Kryptonian ceremonial armor is in); a new villain who's more powerful than the Man of Steel; Clark Kent as a bachelor; and Lois Lane dating a co-worker of hers and Clark's at the Daily Planet.

And Action Comics No. 1, written by Grant Morrison and illustrated by Rags Morales, will be set five years in the past. This book promises a younger, brooding outsider version of Superman who's still finding his way in the world as an alien from the planet Krypton.

His outfit? Jeans, T-shirt and a cape.

"Does he wear a skintight ballet suit? No, not today, and I don't think anyone falls for it," Morrison says. "And if the skintight ballet suit has to come into it, I want to have a really good explanation.

Just what we need to hear, an insult to the classic costume deriding it as a ballet suit! IMO, those kind of outfits are drawn from circus trapeze outfits. This is almost like a throwback to the time when Morrison took up writing the X-Men, and even if it was an editorial mandate that they wear outfits like in the movie, he still had no problem with it. But it also renders Superman not all that different from the Connor Kent Superboy, who often wears a costume that looks more like regular clothes. Morrison is just tearing down on classic concepts and insulting the original creators who conceived them in the past century.

We've also head the whole story of brooding before, something that affected the X-Men badly, yet Morrison otherwise kept writing them that way when he had his hands on the book years ago. I don't want to read about Superman as a brooder; I want Supes to be optimistic and inspirational.

Action Comics won't flash back to when Kal-El crash-lands on Earth, but DiDio says that when this Superman is introduced, it is after both his adopted parents have died and he is acting as a vigilante working outside the law — a nod to his original roots as a people's hero.

"With him no longer married and the loss of both his parents, he really is an island unto himself and there's a lot more self-examination and understanding of who he is," DiDio says.

And what if that includes overbearing uncertainty in how to act? As the island part also hints, this looks to be about too much brooding.

Making them both single also makes Lois a more dynamic character within the DC Universe, Lee says. "People will be very surprised by not just what's happening with Superman, but also with Lois Lane and the entire staff of the Daily Planet."

Superman will be one of the cornerstones of "The New 52," and Lee is looking forward to presenting a truly different "Man of Tomorrow."

"Maybe as readers and fans, we've grown a little too comfortable with Superman," he says. "Part of the creative changes we've put behind the mythology is to tell people, 'Look, you may think you know Superman, but you don't.' There's a lot of great stuff about the character that we're going to show you that hasn't been discussed or presented before."

I think he's got it backwards: it's people like Lee who don't really know Superman, or forgot because they became so overwhelmed with PC. Some of the things they're going to start telling - or even lecturing - us about, include the following:

Even more potentially off-putting for longtime readers could be the new Superman’s increasing obsession with his alien heritage. The mature hero of the Superman series by George Perez and Jesus Merino, is described as “more Kal-El from Krypton than Clark Kent from Kansas.” The armor that Supes sports on the cover of Superman #1 is “ceremonial” armor from Krypton, hence no more red shorts. While the new post-Flashpoint Superman series have effectively side-stepped the whole Superman renouncing his American citizenship nonsense (see “Supes Citizenship Flap Spreads Like Wildfire”), the character’s increasing embrace of his alien heritage could also tend to render “the American Way” portion of his motto increasingly irrelevant.

And if that turns out to be the case, then clearly it's not like they intend to back off their plans to trash one of the most inspirational ideas added to the mythology. More likely they intend to abandon it through stealth tactics. One more reason why this sounds so unappealing, as they make him obsess about his alien heritage at the expense of his respect for American values.

Here's also the NY Post article about this, and starts with Morrison saying:

"This is a young Superman who still believes a better world for everyone is possible," said Grant Morrison, who'll be chronicling the Man of Steel's days as the world's first superhero in the new Action Comics.

But then they say:

The company described former "X-Men" writer Morrison's take on the character as more brooding, and said it will play up his status as an alien, making him more Kal-El from Krypton than Clark Kent from Kansas. And while he can leap tall buildings in a single bound, he doesn't yet have the ability to fly.

Again, if he's going to brood, I don't see how he can truly believe in a better world for everybody, especially if he doesn't believe in one for himself. Nor am I particularly impressed by reducing his flying ability as they have here. And if he's going to be more alien than human, I'm not sure how exactly they can get really good character drama out of that.

The first "Action Comics" No. 1 - which featured the debut of Superman and superheros in general - is one of the most sought-after comics in the world. A copy of the rare book sold for $1.5 million last March. The series reached it's 900th issue earlier this year,which included a controversial story where Superman announced he intended to renounce his American citizenship to better serve the entire world.

That storyline is effectively nullified by the relaunch.

But if the ICV2 article is any suggestion, the negative theme itself might not be.

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

AWRF2011: Graphic Novels, Comics and Cartoons from Auckland Writers & Readers Fest on Vimeo.

In this video I found on Vimeo, Dylan Horrocks relates how DC's editorial planned and mandated the death of Stephanie Brown, aka Spoiler in 2004, at the Auckland Writers & Readers Festival in New Zealand; it all comes up around 31:00 into the tape. He says it was a very depressing time for him.

Interestingly, he also confirms something many conservatives may have voiced concern over: that the industry is a far more liberal place than need be.

Labels: Batman, conventions, dc comics, Europe and Asia, golden calf of death, misogyny and racism, women of dc

Big Hollywood's John Nolte points to how the soon to be released Captain America movie's poster is all about waving/marketing the American flag, which is good in and of itself.

We have to hope then that the movie will be as good as the posters suggest.

Labels: Captain America, marvel comics

It's possible that, in the time following the punishment cast upon Osama bin Laden, Marvel might be taking a step in a better direction with the recent X-Men: Schism miniseries. Cyclops and Wolverine go to attend an international arms conference, that might be held at a fictionalized take on the United Nations, and featured amongst the adversaries there is an unnamed villain who looks like Ahmedinejad with a balding head, and in the other picture has a ring that looks based on one the Iranian tyrant himself wears on his hand in real life. And the references to Sentinels here may take the place of reference to nuclear arms. The villain's willingness to admit to child-beating could be an allusion to the Iranian regime's torture and rape tactics against dissidents. And, when the other delegates in the assembly start admitting their own sins, that could be a condemnation of the UN for its own corruption and how they've been harboring and tolerating said corruption for many years.

It's still not fully clear, but maybe, following the justice served against bin Laden, the comics companies are starting to get the picture of reality and recognize the evils of jihadism and the corruption rampant in the UN, and are starting to take advantage of the proper story possibilities that could be drawn from these real life issues.

Maybe they'll even think to write an allusion to the Oil for Food Scandal too someday!

Labels: islam and jihad, marvel comics, politics, terrorism, X-Men

Okay, this is getting ridiculous enough already. In this Newsarama item, it's reported that:

This week's issue of Green Lantern offered a pretty big surprise for fans of the franchise.

After years of villainy and dirty deeds against the Green Lantern Corps, Sinestro has been given a green power ring and will now replace Hal Jordan as a member of the Corps.[...]

As DC works to launch the new title and attract new readers, the 'DCnU' will feature one less icon in the form of a de-commissioned Hal Jordan, with Sinestro serving in the title role.

What? After all the problems Sinestro's caused in past decades? Obviously a publicity stunt that only makes it more worthless. This is even dumber than bringing back Barry Allen as the Flash all at Wally West's expense. Are the rest of the Corp members who've also been furious at Sinestro's dirty deeds going to go along with this too, or will they quit? It really doesn't matter, because now, it's clear that in some form or other, DC is following up on Marvel's own stunts with Norman Osborn, to name but one villain who was put in an inappropriate position.

It also puts Geoff Johns' fandom for the GL's world further under a question mark, and is another telling clue to how undedicated he really is.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful writers, Green Lantern

According to this info, if Wonder Woman was initially thought to be wearing trousers in the reboot, that won't be the case.

But it does tell that DC is resorting to more stunts to irritate the audience, and indeed it is. If they weren't going to draw her with pants, then they should have advertised clearly. What, are they suddenly becoming embarrassed? Actually, they have clearly been ashamed of everything in their possessions for a long time now, and it's not a good thing.

Labels: dc comics, Wonder Woman

An article in the Asahi Shimbun about mangakas who are writing allusions to the March 2011 earthquake in their works.

Labels: Europe and Asia, manga and anime

The Blaze has posted a slideshow with a poll asking readers who their favorite superheroes are. There are at least 9 choices listed.

Labels: dc comics, marvel comics

In this CBR interview, hack writer Scott Lobdell, whose resume has little to recommend, lets know that his redo of the Teen Titans is going to go the angsty route, and Mr. Terrific won't be the only one sporting tattoos soon:

With an organization targeting super-teens, Wonder Girl as a thief and a tattooed Superboy, the tone of "Teen Titans" seems darker than before. Are you going for an edgier feel?

It is so interesting whenever I hear that word "edgy," or "edgier" -- anyone who knows me knows there are fewer people on the whole planet that are less edgier than I am! [...]

Let's talk about the changes to the characters on the team. We have Tim Drake leading and Wonder Girl as a thief -- is this Wonder Girl a Cassie Sandsmark gone bad or a new character?

I'd have to say neither. I don't think she's really much different from the Cassie Sandsmark who originally "borrowed" the Sandals of Hermes and the Gauntlet of Atlas for her first adventure. I think some people read the word "thief" and think she's being re-imagined as a female Gambit -- that is not the case at all.

Other than obvious tattoo, how does your Superboy differ from the pre-September one?

He's a work in progress, where the pre-September Superboy was more firmly established. Even when he was first introduced he was pretty much fully defined. The exciting part about this Superboy is we see him honing his T.K. [tactile telekinesis] powers in a way we've never seen before. I love Conner, he's a great character, and Karl [Kesel] and Geoff [Johns] and Jeff [Lemire] have done some great stories with him. I just want to look at him from a different angle and see what that reveals about him to us.

How did we get to the point where punk subculture this tasteless suddenly became such a big thing with these hacks? Even if it's their own logos they're using as tattoos, that's still in poor taste, and if Cassie is being reinvented as even a reformed pickpocket, that's still pretty lame.

And as for looking at Connor Kent from different angles, I'm afraid that's just what they're doing - making him look almost like a biker punk. Instead of making them wholesome kids who can appeal to plenty, it's just more political correctness run amok. On top of all that, Lobdell is a writer who thudded out a decade ago, and is hardly what I'd consider a draw writer-wise.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful writers, Titans

Commentarama Films offers some possible reasons for why some comic book movies have been thudding recently. One of these is that:

Hollywood is trying to appeal both to fanboys and the public at large while also setting up the franchise for future films. This is an impossible task as these three things call for mutually exclusive requirements. The fanboys want more depth than the comic books. The public doesn't want a learning curve. And nobody wants to feel like they're watching two hours of "this will pay off 2-3 films down the line."

We could even add ruthless greed of the top brass to make money at all costs as another reason. In a time when box office receipts are declining, they're clearly so desperate, they're even willing to risk a wretched screenplay under the assumption that everybody will flock to their production regardless of quality, based on the name value alone. But that does not a long-term strategy make.

Here's a press release from the US manga/anime distributor Viz Media about what they'll be doing at Comicon International.

Labels: conventions, manga and anime

Here's a short article on Taiwan Today about the island's participants in the 35th Chambery Savoie Festival International de la Bande Dessinee.

Labels: conventions, Europe and Asia

Alexander Marlow's written on Big Hollywood about Paramount's upcoming Captain America movie, and how it's really just leftists around the world who could or do hate America, something some on the left stateside probably wouldn't be willing to admit. And according to the Hollywood Reporter, a lot of movie distributors across the world actually preferred the official title, seeing better marketing in it that way:

Though it is common for American blockbusters to feature less US-focused titles in foreign markets, Paramount largely decided against the alterations for Captain America, and instead gave foreign countries the choice of two titles, Captain America: The First Avenger or The First Avenger.

Interestingly, most international distributors believed the franchise name was so identifiable that not using “Captain America” in the title could risk losing ticket sales.

Which tells that, contrary to what the PC crowd in Hollywood would have us think, many of the countries where the film is likely to be screened are far from hostile to America and unlikely to bat nary an eyelash over it.

That said, it is a shame and certainly bewildering that South Korea, of all places, might have a problem with the title, something that surprised me even more than the other 2 countries that won't be running it under its official title, Russia and Ukraine. South Korea is having enough problems with North Korea's Kim Jong-Il lurking around the corner, and at the same time are having so much success selling electronics, cars and trucks from Hyundai and KIA, and likely even manhwa, their own version of manga, in the USA, yet they may have a problem with a movie bearing the name of a country where they're selling exports to? I just don't get it.

Labels: Captain America, marvel comics, politics

The Wash. Post's Comic Riffs blog announced that United Media (or United Feature Syndicate, as I'd seen them credited on many of the comic strips under their sponsorship in my childhood) is closing down. Yes, that's right, the company that brought us Peanuts, Garfield and even Dilbert is no more. It's clearly another sad casualty of the slow demise of the newspaper comic strip.

Labels: comic strips

The LA Times Hero Complex section has published another article about Frank Miller's soon to debut graphic novel, Holy Terror. He's even told them:

Miller has said in a way he is going back to the FDR era of comics when heroes and creators amped up their stories with patriotic anger and didn’t mute the color of their work with political correctness.

I certainly hope he remains true to that approach. Which is more than can be said of DC Comics, who no doubt must shoulder some blame for turning down the original vision planned with Batman.

Labels: islam and jihad, politics, terrorism

According to this Newsarama slideshow, they say that not everything's being rebooted post-Flashpoint.

But that doesn't mean they're off the hook yet. What if the effects of Identity Crisis still stand, even after what does get rebooted?

In fact, what if Wally West is still written out of the Flash cast?

Those particular questions aren't answered in their posting, and with Geoff Johns and Dan DiDio still dominant, it wouldn't be surprising if they do keep some of the most awful story effects around while adding new ones to the wasteland they've created.

Labels: dc comics