The Four Color Media Monitor

I looked at 2 letters and the responses written by Tom Brevoort on his site recently, and was pretty surprised to discover he actually published a letter written by somebody who understood why Donald Trump was elected:

I don't think it going to be apocalyptic as you might think. The American people have voted largely for this election is that they were not happy with the current administration's handling of the economy. A majority of Americans from the regular American family, minorities, and even LGB even turn out to vote for Don. I saw a video where a gays and lesbians were fed up with gender affirming care for underage children. They were okay with the gay marriage but when the Transgenders and others, force that on children to transition it upset them. There is a schism of the LGBTQplus after this election which is now just the LGB who have separated themselves from the Tplus (non-binary times). No rights are going to be taking away. Trump didn't took them away the last time. This Election cycle had 10 states with abortion on their ballot and 7 out of the 10 approved abortion measures. So, I respectfully disagree that the world is going to be apocalyptic. If you want apocalyptic, we didn't have wars in Ukraine or Israel the before Biden and Putin's threat of using nuclear weapons against NATO. I think the defeat of the Democrats was largely the mainstream media who continued to paint Donald J. Trump and his supporters as Nazis and white supremacists despite the fact that he has Black, Hispanic, Jewish, and Asian supporters, like myself (Filipino-American). I find it strange Trump himself have condemned white supremacist since late 1990s and early 2000s but the media and the liberal left continue to paint him as a white supremacist, fascist, and Hitler. The Americans who voted for Trump this election no longer believe that Trump is a racist. I think the fear mongering needs to end. No one's rights is going to be taken away. If you believe that, you just follow what the Leftist MSM tells you what to believe.

Write down the date and time that you said that, Emmanual. I hope that you’re right, but as a longtime New Yorker, I don’t think you really have any comprehension of who and what you’re dealing with. But everybody’s about to, like it or not. Good luck.

Again, amazing he'd actually post this publicly, but, looks like Brevoort still has not changed since the early 2010s, when he was making revoltingly leftist statements on a Formspring site. He takes a know-it-all position, without even providing a shred of evidence to back his standings, and for somebody living in NYC, he's oblivious to the collassal crime wave that's befallen the region over the past decade, particularly since Bill deBlasio was mayor, and that's one of the reasons Trump was elected. And then Brevoort has the gall to lecture his correspondent?

Now, here's the other item, about variant covers spotlighting Rogue:

Tom, can yall please, please, please, please, PLEASE cool it with the Savage Land Rogue variant covers? We get it, she's sexy and she's half-naked. Do we really need to objectify her this much? Do we really need ten billion Savage Land Rogue variants for every comic book she appears in? Can we have her in literally any other outfit?

See the above answer about what sells versus what a particular editor likes, MB. To be honest, I haven’t commissioned a single cover image that has Rogue in that outfit. But plenty of our Retailers are asking for it when they order Retailer-exclusive covers, and as the client, that’s their right. And even internally, we’re aware that those covers tend to sell really well, and will sometimes have our sales team request them when they think they’ll do the project some good. As I want to get the books into as many hands as are possible, I don’t really have a problem with this.

Well it sure is surprising he's willing to defend hot pictures of women like Rogue, considering how bad the artwork inside the comics became in the past decade, as they caved to PC and hired artists with terrible "talent". What occurred under Axel Alonso when he was EIC was nothing short of a fiasco, and it did cost them considerable support, one more reason it's a shame they're still around to market the woke propaganda even Brevoort himself may still be comfortable with.

But while the covers themselves for this new tale may be great, chances are unfortunately possible the interior art will be awful, and that's why, if anybody wants the cover art of Rogue, it would be far better if they just saved copies of them from the web, and not spent only so much money for a story that could be an utter letdown, which won't be a surprise considering how bad the modern Marvel staff are. That's something Brevoort's newsletter obviously won't dwell upon, and no telling if any reviewers who take a look inside the book will make objective points to that effect.

In the end, Brevoort has, if anything, made clear he hasn't really changed since the past decade when he first went overboard with his reprehensible leftism. And no chance he'll change that part soon either.

Labels: bad editors, dreadful artists, golden calf of LGBT, good artists, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, politics, women of marvel, X-Men