Veteran actor from X-Men films made offensive comments about Donald Trump and his residence

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart says veteran actor Ian McKellan, who played Magneto in the live action X-Men films in the past quarter century, is the latest performer with comics-to-movie connections who's made offensive comments about the USA president:

Disney’s Marvel film star Sir Ian McKellen is boasting about fantasizing about destroying President Donald Trump’s home at his Mar-a-Lago resort during his scenes in the upcoming superhero blockbuster, Avengers: Doomsday.

McKellen will reprise his X-Men role as Magneto, the mutant with the power over metals, in the film set to be released in December. And in comments made in Rome, the 87-year-old actor said that directors Anthony and Joe Russo told him to envision something personal when he was wreaking havoc as Magneto, according to The Guardian.

McKellen told his audience that “they got me at one point to destroy New Jersey.”

The actor then rose from his chair onstage to give a dramatic recreation of his thoughts during the scene, and said that the Russos “told me to look more furious: make it look as if you hate what you’re destroying. So, I stood there and I shouted: ‘Mar-a-Lago!'”

And the filmmakers had no complaints? Well, they have indicated they're leftists, so I guess that explains something. This does not make me look forward to watching whatever new films they're producing any more than anything else, and it says quite a bit more about the actors who were part of the X-Men movies as well. The Marvel movieverse has been on the decline for the past several years, and this kind of PR is not going to improve fortunes by much either.

Ohio Maltz Museum's exhibition for Jewish comics contributions

NPR-WOSU covers an exhibition of Jewish comics contributions at the Maltz Museum in Ohio. It was also organized by a historian who was involved in getting a NYC street named after Jack Kirby:

“Icons in Ink, The Jewish Comics Experience,” on view at the Maltz Museum in Beachwood through Aug. 23, is a revelation and a celebration, albeit with some limitations and questionable aspects.

The show’s core material is conveyed through colorful, large-scale graphic layouts resembling magazine pages that reach from the height of one’s knee to above one’s head. The layouts are filled with text and reproductions of pages from comic books. It’s an eye-grabbing approach that produces visual overload at times. Also, transitions from one section of the show to another occasionally lack continuity and flow.

But when it comes to the core goal of highlighting Jewish contributions to comic book history, the show delivers fascinating and sometimes surprising insights.

Organized by Roy Schwartz, a New York-based pop culture historian, the exhibition opened in 2023 at the Center for Jewish History in New York and is now in the middle of a five-year national tour.

It brims with Schwartz’s zeal to highlight the Jewish roots of what he described in an interview as “a unique American art form,’’ and “the bastard child of literature and art.’’ His expertise includes having written the 2021 book, “Is Superman Circumcised?: The Complete Jewish History of the World's Greatest Hero.’’

For Cleveland, Schwartz and the Maltz expanded the show to highlight the city’s role in the evolution of comic books, in collaboration with Samantha Baskind, the Cleveland State University professor of art history known for her extensive scholarship on Jewish contributions to the visual arts.

Hidden meanings of Superman

Naturally, Superman, the brainchild of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, two Jewish high school students in Cleveland’s Glenville neighborhood who invented the “Man of Steel’’ in the 1930s, is a major focus.

Superman’s birth on the doomed planet Krypton and his parents’ effort to save him by launching him to Earth is a familiar tale. It may not be widely appreciated, however, that the story echoes that of the finding of Moses, and that Superman’s name at birth, Kal-El, is a Hebrew phrase often interpreted as “voice of God’’ or “vessel of God.”

Superman’s powers evoke the myth of the Golem, a massive, Samson-like humanoid purportedly molded in clay by a 16th-century rabbi Prague to defend Jews from pogroms.

As the show points out, Jewish fans have certainly understood such signals.

Somehow, I'm not so sure they do, seeing how some of those who stick with leftism are so hostile to Israel, their country of origin, that it's hard to believe at this point they care about any "signals". Speaking of which, this exhibit features at least 2 comic creators who decidedly aren't worth seeing there:

Also featured in the Cleveland section of the show are printed works and original drawings from Harvey Pekar’s ironic and self-deprecating “American Splendor” series, Peter Kuper’s hilarious “Spy vs. Spy” episodes in Mad Magazine and Terri Libenson’s Jewish-centered narratives in series, including “The Pajama Diaries.”

Cleveland Heights native Brian Michael Bendis is represented by outstanding works including a spectacular 2006 ink drawing for an Avengers episode depicting an explosion on a crowded street in what could be Downtown Cleveland.

When somebody as awful as Bendis is included, despite how overrated and atrocious his writings were on - but not limited to - series like the Avengers, something is terribly wrong. What's so "outstanding" about his cheap approach to science fiction? It's also troubling that somebody like the late Pekar was included, despite his negativity to Israel that he practically wove into a GN titled "Not the Israel my Parents promised me". These are the kind of "creators" whose works we need to see? Nope.

Conspiracists and paranoiacs might see the show as piling on more evidence for the hate-filled fantasy that Jews supposedly control everything from Wall Street to Hollywood.

On this, it's bizarre said conspiracists would want anything to do with Jewish creations, if that's how they feel, and have no interest in producing their own entertainment products that hopefully aren't laced with prejudicial visions. And then, in a very sad hint at where this NPR affiliate really stands, they say it needs an "update":

It’s also striking, given its attention to the social and political context of comic books in prior decades that “Icons in Ink’’ doesn't bring its story fully into the present.

The show’s generally triumphal tone feels oddly off-key amid the recent uptick in anti-Semitism on the left and right, and the post Oct. 7 backlash against Israel.

Debate over Israel’s military conduct in Iran, Gaza and Lebanon, or settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, has inspired authors and pundits of all political persuasions.

“Icons in Ink’’ hasn’t been updated to reflect the turmoil. It could be said that because the show was organized in 2023, there hasn’t been enough time for a significant response to current events from Jewish creators of comic books or graphic novels to warrant attention.

But it seems to be a missed opportunity that the show doesn't mention the conflicted feelings about Israel that Pekar explored in “Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me,’’ published in 2012 as one of his last books.

There’s also no mention of the three-page spread criticizing Israel’s conduct in Gaza published in The New York Review of Books in February 2025 by Joe Sacco and Art Spiegelman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning creator of the Holocaust-related graphic novel “Maus,’’ whose work is otherwise lauded in the show at Maltz.

Such publications and others like them represent an intriguing opportunity to revise “Icons in Ink’’ as it continues to travel. The exhibition argues successfully that the Jewish experience in comics needs to be understood more deeply.

Given that goal, some freshening could make the show even more relevant and up-to-the-minute. After all, as the exhibition demonstrates, Jewish comic book creators and graphic novelists have been pulling no punches for decades in messages both overt and subtly coded.

When they insist Sacco's a recommendation, and no right-wing creators like the late Joe Simon are mentioned at all, or even Will Eisner, that speaks volumes as to where they really stand on this. It's actually amazing Pekar's screed didn't turn up at the exhibit, but even so, he's hardly somebody I'd consider a perfect choice any more than Spiegelman. Also note how the news site omits issues like Jews being murdered by the Religion of Peace, and all they care about is making Jews look like the sole ones responsible for anything bad happening post-October 7, 2023, while obscuring the more serious issues caused by said religion.

I'll give Schwartz and company this: they may have deliberately avoided some of these issues because they realized Pekar's POV was divisive, and it wouldn't do any good post-10.7.2023 to bring something like that into the mix. Even so, if they didn't bring in something that could provide a more positive viewpoint on Israeli issues like a Japanese mangaka's publication, then it's otherwise a defeat, though not in the way NPR wants to frame it. What they say about the exhibit in that context is shameful, and if that's their position, why'd they even bother to cover the project?

What Tom Brevoort says about the JLA/Avengers crossover

Popverse relays what the galling Marvel editor told a podcast interview about the making of the JLA/Avengers crossover, and how fans reacted to Superman besting Thor:

Marvel's longest-serving editor, Tom Brevoort, has a pretty thick skin when it comes to fan outrage. Having overseen decades of big narrative swings come out of the House of Ideas, he'd have to. And yet, there's still one moment of reader blowback that stands out to him, even decades after the choice in question went down. The reason?

Fans asked for it before it happened.

Brevoort was talking about his witness to unpopular decisions at Marvel (which comes with, we should note, absolute libraries worth of popular ones) on the Word Balloon Comics Podcast with host John Siuntres.

"I still hear from people that are angry about Superman [vs.] Thor," Brevoort told him.

Specifically, Brevoort is referring to the confrontation between the Man of Steel and God of Thunder that happened in 2003's JLA/Avengers #3. Krypton's favorite son ended up soundly defeating Asgard's, much to the dismay of Thor fans everywhere, but while people were grumpy about it after it happened, they were foaming at the mouth for it beforehand.

"The funny part for me," the current X-Men editor explained, "Is when we announced the project, Kurt [Busiek, writer] set up a dedicated email address that was like, 'If people have suggestions for what they want to see, email them there. We'll read through stuff and we'll look and see if there's anything.' One of the things that came in by the pound was fans on both sides of the equation saying, 'We want real fights with a real winner and a real loser. No mealy-mouthing about it.'"

I think a better complaint the audience could've raised is whether this represented one of the biggest problems with Brevoort's resume since the early 2000s - heroes clashing with each other instead of uniting against villains. Well okay, I realize that some of the leading villains in the story were Giganto, Fin Fang Foom and Krona, who IIRC, originally appeared in the Silver Age in Green Lantern. Of course, there's other problems with the story too, like retaining the mandate that put Kyle Rayner in the GL role, and Hal Jordan in the Spectre role?!? Based on that, this is why the tale doesn't age well.

That said, if we look at this story as a legitimate match between superheroes and their powers, skills and strategies, why does it matter so much whether Thor or Superman wins a duel against either? That's not what should count as a triumph. What matters far more if if there's a story where two or more superheroes from different universes and publishers can win a battle against formidable villains from either/both universes. But most importantly of all, what matters is the story merit. I think it's been unhealthy for mainstream comicdom in the long run to concoct these crossovers for the sake of pitting heroes vs each other. Why, this kind of event may have been what later led to 2007's Civil War, where fans reportedly told the MSM they were rooting for say, either Captain America or Iron Man, but no word was ever given as to the entertainment value of the overall story (and there wasn't). What's the use of these events if they're built on turning fandom against itself? That's what these crossovers feel like now, and it probably never occurred to anyone before.

All that told, something that needs to be made clear about Brevoort is that he's shameless, considering he's been party to many of the most unpopular decisions at Marvel, including erasure of the Spider-marriage, not to mention "narrative swings". And they have the gall to sugarcoat even that. If all a crossover tale like JLA vs. Avengers can do is present a divisive premise that has the effect of encouraging fans to choose a side as though one hero's less valuable than the other, that's what makes these kind of crossovers tasteless. Which was the case when it came to Avengers vs X-Men. In a time where there was more quality, it would've been far better if there'd been a team-up rather than a versus match, even if it was the villains who were pulling the strings. Now, both publishers have collapsed.

What Tom Brevoort says now about the affordability of crossovers

According to Popverse, one of Marvel's worst modern editors told a podcaster he seemingly recognizes why crossovers have made collectibility too costly:

If you've been collecting Marvel Comics for, say, two or three decades, you've maybe noticed a shift in how the House of Ideas runs its line-wide event tie-in issues. Namely, that they put out less of them. And while there are doubtless a lot of factors that go into that decision (more regular events, a global pandemic, etc.), a deciding factor from within Marvel HQ is simply that, these days, people can't afford to buy tie-in issues.

At least, that's how Tom Brevoort sees it.

Gee, why didn't he consider all that years before? And surely most importantly, why doesn't he consider the vitality of merit-based storytelling? What came as the result of Secret Wars and Crisis on Infinite Earths could've been avoided going forward, but the publishers regrettably came to rely increasingly upon crossovers instead of merit, and that's one of the biggest problems that brought down comicdom in the long run. If Marvel and DC really put out less now, well, they did so awfully late, and after only so much ruination of their cast of characters in the process. As far back as 2 decades ago, DC was the one who first began pandering to woke directions like DEI, and Marvel followed up on that several years later. None of that was merit-based, and coupled with all the line-wide crossovers, made for a very alienating approach going forward.

Marvel's longest-serving editor was recently a guest on the Word Balloon Comics Podcast with host John Siuntres, where the pair discussed Brevoort's storied history of working on line-wide Marvel events. "I've done more of these than anybody," the current X-Men editor said of Marvel's company-wide events, "Every time you try to take the lessons of what you did and apply it to the next one."

Wrong, he didn't, and their discussion of line-wide events proves it. And if we take Avengers: Disassembled and House of M as examples, he let Bendis turn Scarlet Witch into a dishrag. In hindsight, it's sickening, especially now after the WandaVision TV program and the 2nd live action Dr. Strange movie made use of the forced changing of Wanda into a one-dimensional madwoman.

One of those lessons, it appears, is that while comic sales are certainly not crashing, it's less likely that collectors are going to shell out money to collect tie-in issues for every company-wide event, such as last year's One World Under Doom. Although to be fair, you don't have to be an editor at Marvel to know that people's budgets are tighter than they were just a little while ago.

"The reality of the world is different now than it was 20 years ago," Brevoort told his interviewer. "Which is to say: when we were doing something like House of M or Secret Wars, you could do an awful lot of tie-in books and have the expectation that a certain amount of the audience was going to want to read all of those books, and was going to be financially able to read all of those books."

No kidding. The problem is that Brevoort and other staffers like Joe Quesada were counting on the entire fanbase to literally buy these things up completely unquestioned, no matter how poor the story, and no matter how horrific the treatment of the cast of characters was. It's the same with DC under Dan DiDio. This gives a telling clue they were also unofficially relying on speculators to buy these up in hopes they'd be worth a lot of money in the future. But all that did was cause the speculator market to collapse in the mid-90s, and it's only gotten worse since.

"As times have gotten tighter," he concluded, "And belts have gotten tighter, it's maybe not the best idea in the world to go quite that deep, quite that far. If we publish a crossover now and did as many tie-ins as we did in during Civil War, I don't know whether it would succeed or fail, but my guess would be those tie-ins would not perform as well because no one would be able to afford to read them all."

As if we already weren't going to defer to Brevoort's decades of experience in this, our own ailing bank accounts would have us agreeing.

Well why didn't anyone even back then make the point? Better still, why didn't anybody at the time argue that, if they alienated the audience, they can't be surprised if not only sales would decline, but prices would go up as the publishers became desperate to compensate for loss of revenue? This is just another clue what's gone wrong with serial fiction storytelling and publishing, and despite what's told, there's no chance even Brevoort will do anything to mend a horrid situation. After all, what did he do to reverse the severe damage done by erasing the Spider-marriage? Or the maltreatment of Mary Jane Watson and Scarlet Witch, to name but a few examples of Marvel cast members who were wronged? And then they have the gall to talk about company wide crossovers as though it was never a slight to artistic quality. I'm sorry, but despite suggestions to the contrary, this article isn't doing enough to repair the fiasco Marvel and DC became since the turn of the century, and Brevoort should've resigned his positions long ago. If he continues to bog them down with his very presence, it only confirms he hasn't learned any lessons, and if DC hires him despite how clear it is he hasn't or no longer has any talent, that too will make clear they're not learning lessons either. Nepotism is one of the biggest problems in comicdom today, and a leading reason why we still have dreadful figures like Brevoort to contend with, who don't have any genuine remorse over the disaster they turned mainstream comics into.

2 more crossovers coming from Marvel this year

Marvel simply refuses to cease with the endless flood of company wide crossovers, and IGN in turn refuses to take any kind of objective view of how negatively this affects their now sorely lacking creativity:

Marvel Comics took to the Comics Pro retailer convention to shine a spotlight on two of its biggest 2026 storylines, Avengers: Armageddon and Queen in Black. Both of these crossover events will help to define the ongoing direction of the Marvel Universe in the latter half of 2026.

First up, Avengers: Armageddon is a new limited series from Captain America writer Chip Zdarsky and artists Frank Alpizar and Delio Diaz. Aramageddon is being compared to 2004's Avengers: Disassembled in terms of being a major watershed moment for the Avengers franchise that will completely transform Earth's Mightiest Heroes.

Armageddon builds on the fallout of One World Under Doom and ongoing story threads in Captain America and Wolverine: Weapons of Armageddon. As the world continues to reel from Doctor Doom's brief reign, Red Hulk decides to claim the kingdom of Latveria for himself. That sparks a global conflict that draws in the Avengers, Fantastic Four, and Wolverine.

...Meanwhile, Queen in Black is an event spinning out of the pages of Al Ewing's Venom series. [...]

Yup, a crossover based on the writings of one of the wokest writers of the past decade. And two crossovers is simply 2 too many. That this is being compared to one of the worst productions of Brian Bendis - one that degraded the Scarlet Witch - is telling. No matter how this turns out, it's not worth wasting money upon, and its being developed as a crossover at this point is a most serious problem, because of how as time went by, crossovers served to destroy creative autonomy and stand-alone storytelling. This is one of the main reasons Marvel and DC will never recover from the damage crossovers have resulted in long term, so long as they continue to stick with them so casually.

J. Scott Campbell draws Carol Danvers in her original 2nd outfit as Ms. Marvel

Artist Campbell took a most interesting assignment along with colorist Sabine Rich on a Marvel cover featuring a lady who's been wronged for nearly 15 years, all for the sake of being pushed out of her original codename and costume for the sake of a politically motivated direction and character in her stead:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by J Scott Campbell ♠️🎨 (@jscottcampbellart)

This certainly is quite pleasantly surprising on its own, though a title like "Dark Past" is cause for caution, no matter you look at it, based on the people now in charge of Marvel. Indeed, nobody should be foolish enough to trust them not to screw up again, even if they've shown signs and suggestions they're finally willing to move away from the repellent directions they took with Danvers in the past decade. They're also going to have to stop promoting the Muslim Ms. Marvel based on the background they gave her for political reasons, and it would do a lot of good if they'd remake the character into one that doesn't adhere to the Religion of Peace. Until then, it would be best to put the character on the shelf for a long time to help get over the stench they left as a result. That Marvel, under Axel Alonso at the time, went out of their way to produce leftist propaganda like that only wound up increasing the damage, and undoubtably, even now, much of said damage still remains and will continue to be there for as long as they're still publishing under the ownership of Disney.

Campbell's illustration of the real Ms. Marvel is something to appreciate, but let's consider that it is still just a cover drawing, and Marvel's books today can't be judged by just the cover.

What Polygon says about the new Wonder Man TV show

Polygon wrote about the new TV program running on Disney Plus based on Wonder Man/Simon Williams, one of the most notable members of the Avengers in decades past, and what they say about his exact history in the following paragraph is rather confusing:

In the comics, however, Wonder Man’s origins are vastly different from his TV counterpart’s. Despite his deep ties to the Avengers, most notably Vision, his footprint in both the comics and the MCU has been surprisingly minimal. Add in his close friendship with Beast and his broader connections to the X-Men, and there’s a lot to unpack when digging into everything you need to know about Marvel’s next installment.

Oh, please. His presence in comicdom was anything but minor, considering he was cast in West Coast Avengers later on. But, if you want an example of where things went wrong with the use of Simon in past Marvel publication, there's the worthless 1991-94 solo series written by the disgraced Gerard Jones, which, like several other comics he wrote, contained dreadful sexual/political allusions, and that was definitely a stain on the character's publication history. With shoddy stories like those around, is it any wonder such an otherwise impressive creation could end up having minimal footprints? And, there's another problematic moment in Marvel history itself dating back nearly 2 decades ago to consider:

Wonder Man isn’t a mutant in the comics, though. But after he had a falling out with The Avengers over the Human Registration Act (the equivalent of the Sokovia Accords in the MCU) during the Civil War crossover event, he became a de facto homie of the X-Men. During Civil War, Simon vowed to never use his powers again and to use his public relations skills more instead.

One of the most insulting to the intellect crossovers ever produced when Joe Quesada was EIC, built on some very terrible premises making the USA look bad just because of a right-wing government being in charge, and they have the gall to sugarcoat that. Let's be clear. I don't think Captain America - or even Wonder Man - should've been written supporting the Human Registration Act, but neither did I want Iron Man to be depicted doing so. Yet they obscured all that for the sake of asking readers whose side they're on, not whether the story had merit, or was lacking. And to think, the crossover was produced for the sake of depicting WM shunning use of his powers? For shame. That was disrespectful to creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. At the article's end, it mentions:

Now that he’s back, still a pacifist, Wonder Man maintains his X-Men ties: He’s developed a strong friendship with the apelike mutant Hank McCoy, aka Beast, whose extroverted personality complements the more introspective Simon. Wonder Man considers Beast his best friend, a friendship that developed during their time as Avengers. The last time we saw Wonder Man in the comics was in Astonishing Avengers Infinity Comic #30 in 2025, but the character has a self-titled limited series expected to debut in Marvel Comics on March 18.

Which I'd advise all to stay away from. And if Simon's still depicted as a "pacifist" according to what Civil War set in motion, that's very bad and sad, and makes a mockery of what the character was created for, much like Captain America, Iron Man, and even the Beast. Assuming the TV miniseries goes more by the original premise of the past century, that's why it'd only be head-shaking if WM's allowed to be portrayed according to what earlier comics writers set up, but back in modern comics, Marvel's staff won't allow it, resulting in an absurd contradiction. Yet it wouldn't be surprising if the TV show did follow what was set up by Civil War, based on where Hollywood's been going for a long time now.

Regardless of that, because of how bad Marvel comics became under Quesada and Axel Alonso, that's one more reason why I'm not up to watching a lot of these live action films and TV shows at this point, because if the films and TV programs portrayed the characters as they originally were, why aren't comics writers willing to or allowed to do the same? The contradictions only make it a joke, but then, the live action films have become pretty woke regardless in the past several years, so it's not like there's much to look forward to now anyway. But to conclude, I will say that Wonder Man/Simon Williams, as a creation of Lee/Kirby, deserves far better, like many other creations major and minor who've been destroyed as storytelling vehicles by political correctness in over a quarter-century. And it won't happen under the current corporate managements and ownerships.

Update: and as noted here, the TV adaptation is little more than DEI propaganda. So clearly, something did go wrong, as expected.

CB Cebulski hires some very disgraceful choices for writing assignments

Comic Book Club Live announced that Marvel and editor C.B Cebulski have hired and re-hired some of the worst writers to litter comicdom in the past quarter century for new writing assignments:

Hot on the heels of DC’s Superman/Spider-Man, Marvel has announced their half of the crossover with the April debuting Spider-Man/Superman #1. And alongside the reveals of the covers, we’ve also got the creative teams for the book, including Geoff Johns delivering his first Marvel work in two decades, and Brad Meltzer writing for Marvel for the first time ever. [...]

Meltzer will write the lead story alongside artist Pepe Larraz, featuring the title characters. In addition, Dan Slott and Marcos Martin will takcle Spider-Man Noir meeting Golden Age Superman, Geoff Johns and Gary Frank send the Super and Spider families against each other, Jason Aaron and Russell Dauterman bring on The Mighty Thor and Wonder Woman, Louise Simonson and Todd Nauck pit Steel against Hobgoblin, Joe Kelly and Humberto Ramos cross over Gwen Stacy and Lana Lang, and Brian Michael Bendis and Sara Pichelli are back at Miles Morales, and I can’t believe we had him on our live show last night and didn’t know about this. Harumph.

There may have been times when bad writers working at Marvel went over to DC later on (and J. Michael Straczynski certainly did in the late 2000s), but this could be described as the opposite. Either way, it's an utter disgrace that a "novelist" who penned Identity Crisis, one of the most repellent comics minimizing sexual assault and delivering a leftist metaphor for 9-11, is now being hired to work at Marvel on a project, and equally disgraceful that the writer who soiled the Flash, Hawkman and Green Lantern, along with Justice Society, is now returning to work at Marvel, where he also made a shoddy mess of Avengers. Looking at the list, it's certainly quite a Who's Who of horrible, overrated writers, and surely also artists, some who're taking part in a joint project of new team-ups between the Man of Steel and Web-Head. No thanks, I'd rather read the original Spider-Man/Superman teaming from the Bronze Age instead. And how interesting there's at least a dozen variant covers conceived for this project. It does hint they lack faith in anybody taking interest in the brand new special as opposed to the original, if variants are their last trick in the bag.

As for Simonson, there may have once been a time she made a decent scribe, but she's been irrelevant for years now, and it's unlikely she'll deliver anything palatable under Marvel/DC's modern leadership now. Also, is that the original Gwen they're talking about, who was sent to the afterlife in 1973 when the Green Goblin murdered her in Spider-Man? If so, then no matter how you look at this, it clashes with what Tom Brevoort recently said about persuading Joe Quesada they shouldn't revive Gwen. Speaking of which, it may not be surprising if Mary Jane Watson is left out of the new proceedings, but if she is in the story, could anyone be surprised if she gets treated awful?

Based on whom Cebulski's hired, the time couldn't be better to boycott Marvel, and the lineup is certainly an embarrassment.

"Comics accurate" costumes don't guarantee a movie will be successful

Or that they're based on the traditional designs of decades past. The Inquirer wrote about the upcoming Avengers: Doomsday film, which appears to add the X-Men to the Marvel film machine:

When I read comic books, I prefer issues drawn and written by proven artists with an excellent track record. I approach the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) with the same level of scrutiny. Let’s be honest: after some recent experimental phases, we’ve all been longing for that “all-time great story” feeling to return. On January 6, 2026, Marvel Studios didn’t just release a trailer; they delivered a seismic shift with the third teaser for ‘Avengers: Doomsday.’ This teaser alone blows out of the water every other teaser that came before it. This hits hard!

Once I saw this specific teaser, I felt goosebumps because I knew when things were about to change for the better. And if only they had done this long ago, but who are we to bring that point up or even complain? What matters is that finally, and I will be using that adverb a few more times throughout my newest pop culture piece because it is about damn time, they showcase what a true (Jim Lee era) X-Man looks like (the classic blue and yellow costume) and embrace their comic book origins from that specific timeline (early ’90s) in Marvel Comics. It is a sight to behold no matter how fleeting it was for me to see it.

If the earlier teasers featuring the returns of Chris Evans as “Captain America” and Chris Hemsworth as “Thor” were just the appetizers, this X-Men-centric reveal is the main course we’ve been craving since Disney acquired 20th Century Fox in 2019. Finally, they are pulling the trigger, incorporating the best of the X-Men into the fold, and are giving what the longtime fans have been clamoring for, which is to have the X-Men as part of the MCU, because, let us all be honest here with the situation, to have no mutants in the MCU is as dumb as a box of rocks. It is silly, illogical, and senseless because the X-Men are one of the biggest reasons why Marvel Comics became the titans they are in the comic book industry, and why adapting comic book characters from Marvel Comics to the big screen became a thing in the first place.

Umm, even Spider-Man is one of the reasons why Marvel once became a titan...but the columnist is oblivious to how they fell since the turn of the century, dragging their creations into increasingly pointless directions that only served as political statements with no entertainment value involved. He's also oblivious to how Lee watered down his art style in the past decade for the sake of woke points. And the part about the blue and yellow outfits is confusing, because wasn't that the original outfits the first 5 X-Men had in the Silver Age? Within a few years, the artists were drawing them distinctive outfits instead, so I'm not sure what the columnist is lecturing us about here.

And I for one am not clamoring for the X-Men to be incorporated into the Marvel movieverse proper after all the wokeness that ensued in the past several years. Unfortunately, they're awfully late, and the X-Men's addition alone does not a talented movie make. Whether the costumes are verbatim to what was seen in comics in any era is moot. And, how isn't it silly and illogical to force political correctness upon the films that only proves divisive, as the 4th Thor movie did?

Some would-be entertainment writers sure know how to obscure the crucial issues of merit. This puff piece from the Inquirer is no different.

"Feminist" site supports Bendis

I mentioned before that Brian Michael Bendis is sadly returning to Marvel to sully the Avengers and other comics yet again. And perhaps it's not a surprise that a supposedly feminist site, The Mary Sue, is actually giving him their support, this despite any and all steps he took in his writing that were denigrating to women, with Scarlet Witch one of his biggest victims. Their sugarcoated lauding is as follows:

Bendis’ impact on Marvel, particularly in the 2000s, can not be overstated. Not only did he co-create pop culture juggernauts Miles Morales, Jessica Jones, and Riri Williams, but he revitalized the main Daredevil title with a five-year run. And then there’s his original tenure on Avengers, which led to landmark events like Secret Invasion, House of M, and Siege.

In 2017, Bendis made shockwaves across the industry with the news that he had signed an exclusive contract with DC. He ended up writing for the publisher for several years, not only on the Superman family of books with Superman and Action Comics, but on other titles like Checkmate and Legion of Super-Heroes.

There had been chatter, as of late, about Bendis potentially returning to Marvel… which would be noteworthy in and of itself, even if he was just taking on a lesser-known solo or team book. But the notion of him coming back to Avengers is something else altogether, especially given the ongoing reverence that people still have for his time on the book. Regardless of whatever the future holds for the larger Marvel universe, Bendis and Bagley jumping onto a book like that definitely has the potential to be something special.

If they had no complaints about how WandaVision and Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness forcibly turned Scarlet Witch into a madwoman any more than Bendis did to her in Disassembled, that says all you need to know just how "feminist" they really are, and not interested in championing fictional women who could serve as inspirational figures, whether they're heroines or anti-heroines (and I can't recall they ever defended Mary Jane Watson either). Of course, "mary sue" is meant to be a figure of speech in fanfiction, either for writers inject themselves into the story where they imagine themselves in what could end up becoming a sick fantasy, or it means a character with no flaws or depth whatsoever that merely serves a selfish purpose of said writer. There may even be a figure of speech like "murphy stu" in use for similar reasons, but that's another story. For now, the puff piece at the pseudo-opinion site makes clear there's certain "feminists" who couldn't care less if Stan Lee's creations dropped off the face of the earth, competely forgotten. Also, curious how the writer makes no mention of the Disassembled event; it's probably no accident she didn't, because that could undermine the narrative she's pushing here.

Interestingly enough, a writer for ComicBook, by contrast, was not so sugarcoated, though he still has a moment of lenience in the following item. First:

Marvel is in something of a rut right now. The Ultimate Universe was the biggest thing in comics in 2023, but DC was hot on the publisher’s tail, and the 2024 one-two punch of the DC All-In publishing initiative and the Absolute Universe destroyed that. Add in the underperforming X-Men line, no one caring about the Avengers, Spider-Man languishing (despite The Amazing Spider-Man finally being pretty good), the latest volume of Daredevil getting panned by everyone and then cancelled, and the rest of the publisher’s output not impressing enough people (besides Zdarksy’s Captain America and Immortal/Mortal Thor), and it’s a dark time for the bestselling superhero publisher.

It's been a dark situation for over 20 years now, and sugarcoating what became of Marvel and even DC is unhelpful. Besides, what's so great about DC's alternate universe line that's got leftist political metaphors sullying its impact? Predictably, this isn't brought up by the columnist, who even has the gall to downplay the continuing disaster in Spidey, whose marriage to Mary Jane Watson, if still decanonized, is a prime reason - and not the only one - why it won't be good.

Marvel is in a bad place, and rumors have been circulating that a familiar name may be returning to the publisher: Brian Michael Bendis. Bendis was responsible for Marvel becoming an unassailable titan in the ’00s, and was beloved by fans for years. He left the company in 2018, working for DC before going to the indies. The writer could be a game-changer for Marvel in 2026, but there’s no real reason he should come back. In fact, he almost certainly shouldn’t, for several important reasons.

Brian Michael Bendis Is Overrated

Bendis started getting attention at Image in the late ’90s with his crime book Torso, based on a real-life Elliot Ness case. He’d end up writing Sam and Twitch for Todd McFarlane and would start getting work at Marvel. In the year 2000, he was given The Ultimate Spider-Man, and that, combined with runs on Daredevil and Elektra, made him a superstar. Soon, he was writing the Avengers and became Marvel’s go-to guy for just about everything, writing the first event of the Marvel event cycle, Secret War, as well as House of M and Secret Invasion. He wrote the Avengers for seven years, the X-Men for three years, and then bummed around the Marvel Universe until 2018.

Many look at Marvel in the ’00s as awesome, but I believe it’s an overrated era. And frankly, Bendis is a big part of that. His overly wordy style did a great job of setting up drama, but his approach to action is far less accomplished. Hate the drawn-out nature of modern stories? That’s Bendis. No matter how acclaimed it might be, House of M was boring, and so was the vast majority of his Avengers run: stories that should have been three or four issues stretched to six to eight. The less said about his X-Men, the better, and his last couple of years at Marvel were a huge failure, with him writing the maligned Civil War II, which ruined Captain Marvel.

So now somebody tells us the real picture of the mid-2000s, which is when things really went downhill, and let's not forget J. Michael Straczynski's bottom of the barrel run on Spider-Man, another horrid example of what's wrong with that specific era. I seem to recall there was a moment where Bendis made Dr. Doom sound juvenile too, though what's really irritating in hindsight has to be a moment where he wrote Hawkeye insulting Hank Pym by asking "don't you got a wife to beat?" This was at the beginning of his Avengers run, and things got worse from there. But unsurprisingly, nobody at the time was willing to admit Bendis is a bad, overrated writer, and if he were beginning with Avengers today, it's a foregone conclusion they'd continue with the code of silence. Unfortunately, the writer goes soft on criticism with the following:

One of the most annoying issues for me is Bendis’ tendency to not use the character’s individual voices that had been built up by creators over the decades. Let me list the characters he was able to write correctly: Spider-Man, Daredevil, Captain America, Wolverine, Luke Cage, and I guess Spider-Woman. Every other Bendis character was basically just Spider-Man (you could probably count Jessica Jones, but he created her, so that doesn’t count to me). If you hate the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s quippy sense of humor, thank Bendis.

All of that is before we even get to his DC run, where he wrote a few good books, with most of his work at the publisher not landing. Ironically, in my opinion, he was actually a better superhero writer at DC than Marvel, but that’s not saying much. Marvel fans had started getting tired of Bendis during his X-Men run, and only got worse as things went on. Bendis did some great stuff at the House of Ideas — Daredevil, The Ultimate Spider-Man, his work on Miles Morales, Dark Avengers — but he’s not the one that is going to fix the tailspin in quality that Marvel is currently in.

Sorry, but even at DC, he wrote crude, juvenile dialogue, and went increasingly woke in scripting the Legion of Super-Heroes. He also caved to a petty complaint about a Superman story where a villain used a slur, even if it was depicted negatively. And of course, the way Bendis had the Man of Steel cast aside his secret ID was contrived and forced. Come to think of it, even the similar direction Bendis took with Daredevil was the same. One more reason it's actually rather late to be acknowledging Bendis isn't a talented writer, and as the article makes clear, even that's conveyed weakly, which is unfortunate. If Bendis did a bad job at DC, just say so, and don't go soft by saying he wrote superheroes better there than at Marvel. Because if his LOSH work is any clue, he didn't. And it's unwise to say he did good work on DD and the Ultimate line either.

Marvel Needs New Blood, Not the Past

Marvel has a lot of problems right now, but the biggest is their hindbound attitudes. Their editorial is run by the same people that have been running things since the ’00s. Names like Brevoort, Lowe, and Cebulski aren’t exactly favorites of fans. The publisher needs something, but they don’t need yet another person from the ’00s. If the company wants to get some heat back — NYCC was a failure for them, with DC running the show — they need to move forward, not backward.

Brian Michael Bendis hasn’t been a superstar in a long time. He’s a great crime writer, but he was pushed into a place where he wasn’t very good, and while a lot of fans liked him, a lot of his work and writing style is now mocked by fans. Marvel has depended too much on inertia and fans buying by rote. Bendis might do numbers on a Daredevil comic, but he’s not going to be the killer application that makes the company hot again.

Gee, do these propagandists really think that, with leftists like the above editors running Marvel ever still, they'll be hot stuff again? Nope. And the way they say fans "liked" Bendis, and then say they mock his style is also awkward. Especially when he himself insulted fanbases by refusing to acknowledge the reasons any fans don't like his work is because of where he took Scarlet Witch for starters, and that he relied on an irritatingly drawn out form of writing where he'd pad out his stories for the sake of 6-plus issues, which only made his writing all the more boring and lethargic. If Marvel and DC still rely on that kind of approach to storytelling, padding out their scripts ad nauseum, how do they expect anybody to be engaged in the stories?

The writer at ComicBook might admit Bendis was a bad writer, and might admit more than the Mary Sue's more biased article does. But it's still very lenient on Bendis' past mistakes, and leaves room to wonder if the 2nd writer really even wants any improvement. So long as Marvel's run by such dreadful management that since turned to wokeness, nothing will improve. And why not suggest Marvel/DC's time to close down business in their current format might be for the best? Even if they do cease publishing, that doesn't mean they can't be revived one day. And so long as it's under a more reliable ownership, that's why if they close and later reopen, then it'll be worth looking forward to. Certainly so long as they don't hire bad writers like Bendis.

Collider thinks cinematic Peter Parker should be jettisoned for sake of woke casting

Collider wrote a sugarcoated and utterly insulting article about why they believe the most recent cinematic take on Spider-Man should be sent to the grave, and the social justice pandering creations first seen in the tail end of the Ultimate line take his place:

From the very get-go, it should be stated that no one is saying Tom Holland's Spider-Man needs to bite the bullet in Spider-Man: Brand New Day or by the end of Avengers: Secret Wars. By the end of his next trilogy in many years, however, it honestly only makes sense that he meet his heroic end, based on a lot of factors. Not only would it be a great set-up to introduce Miles Morales, but Peter Parker's storyline has always been about sacrifice, so it makes perfect narrative sense.

There is no secret that one of the most impactful Spider-Man comic book stories is the iconic "Death of Spider-Man" from Ultimate Spider-Man (2009). Spider-Man is Marvel Comics' bread and butter, so to kill him—truly kill him for good—would be a huge and incredibly bold move. The confidence it takes to do something like that is huge. Unlike comic books, however, the Marvel Cinematic Universe cannot last forever, and adapting "Death of Spider-Man" is most likely the best route to go.

This is something only somebody who's not a Marvel fan could possibly write. And why do they think the comics could last forever? They certainly haven't survived artistically, and the Spider-marriage may never be brought back. I can't believe how stupid these entertainment sites can be, and they clearly don't care that the biggest problem with the introduction of Morales is that he was an early example of social justice/diversity pandering, without any interest in emphasizing merit. He was also a creation of the aforementioned Brian Bendis, who's regrettably returning to Marvel and the Avengers soon, about a dozen years since he'd last written the title, and based on the bad job he did with Avengers: Disassembled and the equally pointless House of M, that's why the whole notion he's improved is unlikely. He was possibly the first writer Marvel employed at the time who helped them mandate that all stories be at least 5-6 parts long, even if it led to padding out the stories implausibly. And that C.B. Cebulski would be willing to rehire Bendis is just another example of how Cebulski turned out in the long run to be as bad for Marvel as Quesada/Jemas/Alonso.

Collider must realize, even as they don't genuinely admit it, that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is collapsing artistically, but if they really wanted improvements made, they wouldn't have recommended Disney fall back on the woke pandering. Rather, they'd have insisted the studio make improvements to the screenplay and acting/directing. Instead, they only perpetuate the tabloid direction only so many entertainment sites have taken up for years already, even as Hollywood continues collapsing.

Popverse fluff-coats the history of the awful Avengers: Disassembled

Popverse wrote a brief sugarcoated item about how the overrated Brian Michael Bendis got the assignment to write Avengers: Disassembled, which is being alluded to as part of Marvel's next crossover to avoid:

The mention of Avengers: Disassembled in the announcement of 2026 Marvel Comics storyline Armageddon is something that might worry fans of certain superheroes, given the death toll of that earlier 2004 storyline. Turns out that killing off so many heroes — and so many high-profile Marvel characters, at that — wasn’t necessarily writer Brian Michael Bendis’s original plan.

Unfortunately, that he went along with everything as planned, entirely unquestioned, speaks volumes as to how much value he really placed on any of the characters who were subject to such loathsome abuse.

For those who weren’t reading comics in 2004, Avengers: Disassembled was a four-part storyline in which the Avengers have what Bendis described as “the worst day in Avengers’ history” — a day that results in the destruction of longtime HQ Avengers Mansion, the deaths of members Jack of Hearts, Ant Man, The Vision, and Hawkeye, and the discovery that the Scarlet Witch’s mental instability led to her making all of this happen (albeit unknowingly). The storyline ends with the team disbanding.

Don’t worry; a new Avengers formed a couple of months later, in a comic book series sensibly titled The New Avengers. In fact, The New Avengers had been the point all along, with Avengers: Disassembled created as a bridge between the Avengers of old and the new all-star team that included Spider-Man, Wolverine, and other best-selling characters intended to raise the profile of the team. The storyline was pulled together quickly, and intended to have a big impact to get fans’ attention — but even the writer of the comic was surprised how far Marvel was willing to go to make that happen.

I think it was established 8 years later that Dr. Doom may have been behind Wanda's neo-insanity. But it was 8 years too late, and look how the columnist has no complaints over how Spidey and Wolvie were chosen in such a way as to symbolize that the new team was comprised of members who weren't exactly the kind intended for combating the most larger than life villains the Avengers could face in the past, though worst is that these were hilariously cheap selections, shoehorned into Avengers at the expense of established members, Scarlet Witch included. There were stories in the past where Spidey came to the aid of characters like Scarlet Witch, and to think that here, instead of teaming them together in the same group, they wanted to kick Wanda to the curb for Spidey and Wolvie's sake.

What they say about Marvel seeking attention at all costs was also what led to the even more offensive Identity Crisis at DC, and nobody complains about how common sense was sacrified for the sake of scriptwriting that was offensive to women. Nor are any questions asked as to whether it was appropriate to alienate longtime fans, not to mention people who find misogyny repellent. It's absolutely disgusting, and both Marvel and DC have suffered from it since. Now, here's a part where Bendis indicates he never had any qualms about killing any characters the editors would greenlight for the grave:

“I was sitting there cooking my moments and instead of pitching a bunch of deaths, I go, ‘Can I have a list [of characters I can kill]?’ And they came back to me with a list that shocked the shit out of me. I would never have asked for The Vision. Hawkeye shocked me,” Bendis revealed in SKTCHD’s 2024 oral history of Avengers: Disassembled. “These were not asks. They were offers.”

“There wasn’t any debate over [killing] Ant-Man or Jack of Hearts any of those guys for the most part. Even The Vision. They’re not going to be in the new book. They have to go somewhere,” added editor Tom Brevoort. “So, the place that they’re going is potter’s field, and that means it’s explosive. Not to be gauche about it, but obviously death in comics sells. People turn up when superheroes go belly up. And so, the idea that they kill off a bunch of these characters was exciting.”

As a way of grabbing attention, it worked; Disassembled was the start of a significant sales renaissance for the Avengers as a franchise, catapulting the team back into the collective attention of fandom in a way it hadn’t been in decades. All of which should make fans of current day Marvel superheroes a little bit nervous — especially given that there’s now a Macguffin in the Marvel Universe to create new versions of old heroes pretty easily…

This is head-shakingly stupid too, mainly because no sales figures are presented. And to sell comics based on characters getting slaughtered is horrific and offensive, but do these overrated writers care? Even now, when what's alleged has mostly waned - mainly because the audiences were driven away - it's unlikely they'll ever admit death for the sake of it is repellent. Unfortunately, the seeds for this mentality were laid out long ago, with Gwen Stacy's death at the hands of the Green Goblin one of the beginners, and DC's killing off Supergirl, no matter how heroically she was portrayed in Crisis on Infinite Earths notwithstanding, another horrid prominent example. All because the writers either don't know what to do with the characters, or they believe everybody's that fine with casually killing off characters and never cared about the designated targets in the first place. Or worst, because they believe the audience is all that desensitized to violence. I've had the feeling DC's management was even more lacking in confidence in past decades, and it got worse when Identity Crisis came about, minimizing serious issues like sexual assault as it did during the same year Disassembled came out.

I looked at what's available from SKTCHD's interview from last year, and a problem with their MO is that they employ a paywall for a lot of articles, so I can't tell if anything was brought up about Scarlet Witch. But I wouldn't be shocked if anything that does come up is pretty sleazy. For now, I guess I'll highlight some examples of what is available, and they do offer a surprisingly large amount regardless that's quite sugarcoated, to say nothing short of disgusting. For example:

One of the most notable examples of this from the history of superhero comics was published 20 years ago. It was a four issue storyline that featured everything you could imagine from this type of tale. An endless onslaught of villains! A million guest stars! The destruction of an iconic location! Character deaths! A long-standing hero breaking bad! You name it, this comic had it. More than that, it led to a complete status quo change for the franchise it belonged to, helping turn what was already a big moment into something more.

[...] While it was polarizing upon its release, [Personal take: I find it to be an exciting superhero blockbuster.] it led to one of the most creatively fertile and commercially successful periods the franchise has ever seen, starting with Bendis and Finch’s New Avengers #1 that came in its wake. More than that, it was the beginning of one of the most prolific partnerships in Marvel’s modern era, with Bendis and Editor Tom Brevoort’s collaboration helping define an uncommonly strong period for the publisher.

Whatever your opinion of it is, Avengers Disassembled was a massive story. In the events that transpired in its pages. In the conversation surrounding it. In the impact it had down the line. And with its 20th anniversary [Avengers #500 kicked off the storyline with an issue that arrived on July 28th, 2004.] and another of those moments of transition nearly upon us, [One that even shares a key player from this story in Brevoort.] it felt like the right time to revisit Avengers Disassembled and how it came to be.

No matter what the interviewer says, this is insulting the fandom, and perpetuates examples of apologia that're prevalent from then till now. I'm not buying the notion the interviewer's actually an Avengers fan, an X-Men fan, or even a Spider-Man fan. There's no sales figures given here either, and worst is how the interviewer dismisses any questions of merit and morality for the sake of selling at all costs. Something that continues to this day, and nobody's willing to admit sales are dismal. Again, where does he get off lecturing us that Disassembled is "massive" and literally got everybody to buy it month after month simply because it killed characters and gave Wanda a fate worse than death? This is nothing more than tabloid nonsense.

Tom Brevoort (Editor of Avengers Disassembled and New Avengers): When we get to this period, [This was around 2003.] Avengers was not a top 10 seller. But it still sold respectably, and it still carried its weight as an upper midlist title. It had good talent on it, and it was generally well regarded. It just wasn’t as fresh and exciting as what was going on in the Ultimate line.

Brian Michael Bendis (Writer of Avengers Disassembled and New Avengers): (The Avengers) were doing absolutely fine.

Brevoort: Geoff (Johns) had signed an exclusive deal with DC, so we had to replace the writer on Avengers. And this was in the middle of the days when (then-Marvel President) Bill Jemas was at his craziest, so I needed to cast somebody that I could get Bill and (then-Marvel Editor-in-Chief) Joe (Quesada) to approve.

So, we ended up with Chuck (Austen).

Austen’s first issue was January 2004’s Avengers #77, and his run was troubled from the start. As Brevoort said, “almost every story he did wasn’t really the story he originally pitched by the time it got to the page.” The demands of leadership and Marvel’s own universe resulted in necessary adjustments, something that made delivering a quality title a tricky proposition. They still had big plans, though, as Brevoort, Austen, and artists Olivier Coipel and Scott Kolins knew they were on their way to a big anniversary issue in Avengers #500, which was set to arrive later that year. The team was already well into plans for that — and more.

If this was supposed to be a justification for where they went with Bendis' story, it's just as reprehensible as what DC did to the 2nd Green Lantern, Hal Jordan, during Emerald Twilight. Interesting how Brevoort uses the Ultimates, one of the crudest alternate world takes on a Marvel title, as an excuse for where they went with Bendis' shoddy story in Disassembled. How interesting "quality" comes up here, when the finished product was nothing of the sort, and no challenging queries are raised in that context. Yet interesting they bring up Austen, because he was a writer whom some PC advocates were only willing to admit was bad based on how, leftist or not, he didn't meet their standards. This also reminds me of when the disgraced Gerard Jones was writing Green Lantern during 1990-93, and then, simply because he screwed up horribly, that somehow justified Emerald Twilight. It sounds vaguely like the same thinking affected where things went with Avengers too.

Amidst all this, Marvel was going through a bit of a transition, as well. Its focus wasn’t even on its original line of comics but the Ultimate line, a parallel universe that had its own Avengers in Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch’s The Ultimates. Ultimate Marvel was a major point of emphasis for Jemas and Quesada, creating a situation where the “classic Marvel universe” material wasn’t “well-supported” in the moment, according to Brevoort. That was the way things were. But shortly before this story truly begins, there was a change in leadership. Jemas was out and Dan Buckley was in as the new publisher of Marvel. This was big for two reasons, one of which was Brevoort’s own health. He had an “incredibly contentious” relationship with Jemas.

Brevoort: He and I did not see eye to eye and did not get along. My job was not fun at all, to the point I would be thinking to myself on a daily basis, “Is today going to be the day that I’m just going to blow a gasket and keel over, or is today going to be the day that I hurl him down an elevator shaft?”

One of these two things is going to happen eventually.

The other reason it was important was it created an opportunity for the original line of Marvel comics to retake its place in the hierarchy, if only because of where Buckley’s interest lied.

Bendis: The Ultimate line took off in a way that was beyond what anyone was hoping for.

Brevoort: The Ultimate Universe was the new hotness for a couple of years.

Gee, that hints it was wearing thin and turning stale sooner than expected. Mark Millar's take was shameful, right down to how he treated the alternate world Wasp, and to think they'd go the sleazy route in order to compete with his book is atrocious. Including how Tigra was treated. It's certainly surprising to learn Brevoort wasn't comfy with Jemas, yet even after the latter left Marvel, any destructive approach Jemas put to use remained, and Brevoort contributed to much of it over the years that followed, including how, by this time, a lot of the stories he edited emphasized heroes fighting themselves. And when they turn to a storyboard meeting that preceded the official writing, they say that:

Brevoort: The conversation came around to Avengers and it went hot and heavy fast. And the reason it went hot and heavy fast as much as anything was Mark (Millar) and Brian were both there.

Bendis: Mark and I both had strong takes on what team books are and what they should be.

Brevoort: What Mark said essentially was, “When I was a kid growing up, I would buy Justice League of America. The reason I would buy Justice League of America is I would get all the best superheroes in one story. Why is it that the Avengers doesn’t have all the best guys in it?” And this became the conversation that dominated this setup.

Bendis: My bugaboo from when I was a kid was, “Why aren’t Spider-Man and Wolverine on the Avengers? Why aren’t the Avengers the six coolest people in the Marvel Universe?”

And here too is a serious flaw: they're going according to whom they consider their "favorites" (and considering where they went with Avengers, even that's questionable), not by the entertainment value in the finished product. And most of the writers of the past century didn't cast new team members at the expense of the core members. So what's the point? I'm not surprised Millar had no issue with where they were going, since it's not like he was respecting the same characters in his own alternate dimension title. The discussion continues with the following:

Brevoort: Most of my arguments about things like why Spider-Man and Wolverine shouldn’t be in the Avengers had less to do with the Avengers and more to do with Wolverine and Spider-Man. Part of the thing that makes Spider-Man work is he has problems balancing his superhero life and his real life, and those problems typically involve money woes, difficulties being in multiple places at the same time, and the impact that being a superhero has on his relationships. So many of those problems just go away if he’s got the Avengers as his buddies on speed dial.

Bendis: I remember the argument was, “Spider-Man’s not an Avenger.” That was the desk-pounding moment. And I was like, “Yeah, that sounds like a good story about why Spider-Man’s not an Avenger, or why Spider-Man is graduating to be an Avenger.” It just sounded like a good story to me. That was my argument. And if it’s only for a year and it didn’t work…even that’s interesting.

Brevoort: By the end of the day. I walked out of that meeting being like, “This again,” because I’d been through things like this with (Jemas) a lot. I came out of that evening going, “I don’t know what the hell I’m going to do now. This is another kick in the teeth.” But after having the night to kind of settle myself, the thing that made (it better) was, “Okay, Mark is pitching this. Mark is going to write this book. I know Mark. I can work with Mark. This will be fine. I’ll go in, and me and Millar, we’ll be able to do this, and we’ll figure it out.”

Interesting how Millar's backing for the direction persuaded Brevoort to go along. Additionally interesting how Mary Jane Watson isn't brought up, but then, if Axel Alonso was fine with One More Day, it shouldn't be surprising if Brevoort was too. Some of his arguments, however, could just as easily be made about Iron Man and Thor as well, based on what relationships were to be seen in their solo titles. Putting Spidey in a team title isn't the problem, it's just how plausible it is or isn't that's the problem. There were times when Spidey appeared in Avengers, and that itself was okay, but it wasn't based on recognition, but how good a story could be built around him. The same could be said for Wolverine, based on whether a plausible scenario could be written up about whether Capt. America approved of his claws. And if the Black Knight was a member before, blades alone aren't a problem, just the writing merit, or lack thereof.

The promise of New Avengers was why Avengers Disassembled existed at all. It was the path to a new era for a new team. How Bendis got to this squad of A-listers was up to him, Brevoort, and everyone else. What mattered most to the room was the destination. Everyone viewed it as one with great potential — even Brevoort.

Brevoort: As much as I argued, and I certainly was defending my existing creative team and defending my ego and pride, I always knew New Avengers would work. If you put Spider-Man, Wolverine, and the big characters in Avengers, that’s going to work. It was less about that and more about, “You’re trashing this thing that I’ve just been building with this other team and we’re treating them not terribly well.” That as much as anything was the concern.

And here's where Brevoort contradicts any previous argument he may have had that he didn't think it a good idea to put Spidey and Wolvie in the Avengers. Yet how hilarious he claims he'd worried they were deconstructing what he'd built up with previous writers, because on the one hand, he went along with Bendis' cheap vision, and on the other, the writing turned out by the aforementioned Johns was awful, as was Austen's. Kurt Busiek's Avengers run was the last palatable run on the series to date, and it's a shame he's such a leftist wokester. That said, I will say that if Brevoort and company deconstructed the best parts of Busiek's run, that's why it's such a sad affair.

This is about what I could get from what the site didn't put behind a paywall, but one more thing I will add here is what a commentor replied:

I can say, without hesitation, that I was one of the readers Disassembled drove away. It remains (and will remain) a gap in my collection and mind, along with everything else Bendis ever wrote for the Avengers. I appreciate that he and Tom can look back at the warts (some of them), but not enough was made of how odious Bendis was online, including a CBR interview I can unfortunately no longer find where he said that long time readers were just mad that he wasn’t doing “Roy Thomas” type stories and that he could write you “as Roy Thomas-y of a story as you want.” I’ve never forgotten that.

Bendis is no Thomas, nor did he ever turn out a story as good as what Thomas did, though if there's a shortcoming Thomas' writing may have had, it's that he wasn't all that different from some other writers of the times who chose to pair up superheroes and superheroines with each other, rather than developing civilian co-stars who could be paired up with the costumed characters. Now that I think of it, did Scarlet Witch ever have a civilian boyfriend? I do own a lot of Avengers stories in Epic Collection archives now, so I'll have to find the time to read as many of those as possible to make sure I know the exact answer, but if Wanda was never paired up with a mortal man on a long or short basis, that's got to be saying something.

Anyway, it's sad but no surprise how these apologists for Marvel/DC continue to fluff-coat their worst output since the turn of the century, and with people like them still running the department store, that's why even Avengers will never recover, nor will team titles see any talented writing.

Captain America kicked to the curb for sake of Dani Moonstar

This may be a storyline set in an alternate future, but according to this Superhero Hype/Yahoo article, another leftist political metaphor has been turned out by Marvel:

Thus far, the Marvel Comics event Age of Revelation has been largely focused on the X-Men. However, with the United States partially conquered by Mutant separatists, one natural question is what happened to Captain America in this future. The answer lies in a new miniseries, which reveals one Mutant hero has taken up Steve Rogers‘ shield and the task of leading The Avengers.

Written by Jason Loo, with art by Sergio Davila, X-Vengers #1 centers around a new team in the Age of Revelation. As the name suggests, it is made up of former Avengers and X-Men. However, the team line-up is not the only thing that has changed.

All of the Avengers turned X-Vengers were mutated by the X-Virus, which bestows superpowers on those who survive the initial infection. Hawkeye, for instance, grew four extra arms, while Black Widow became a woman made of living water. Steve Rogers, sadly, died in the aftermath of the X-Virus release. However, before he died, he passed on his shield and title to a hero he saw as a worthy successor.

Who is the new Captain America leading the future Avengers?

A flashback reveals that Steve Rogers gave the title of Captain America to former X-Men member Dani Moonstar, aka Mirage. Apparently Moonstar was the only hero present when he made his last stand. Despite this, nobody among the Avengers doubted her word when she said Steve Rogers gave her his shield.

Unfortunately, some Americans were less accepting of Moonstar’s taking the mantle than the former Avengers. However, following an altercation at a memorial for the victims of the X-Virus, the rest of the team are quick to assure her that she is doing Steve Rogers proud. Not only in leading the team in battle but also in giving inspirational speeches whenever one is needed.

Previously, when Steve was marginalized as part of woke diversity pandering, it was for the sake of putting a black man in the Cap costume, despite Sam Wilson have flight powers and going by the codename Falcon. Now, after it became clear that wasn't working, so they concoct a story where a woman takes up Cap's mantle. This despite how even Moonstar's powers are hardly a good fit for how Kirby and Simon created Cap for in the Golden Age, which was an acrobatic fighter, but hardly somebody with more elaborate superpowers like Dani's or Falcon's. And then, they make "some" Americans look like they're hostile to the whole idea of a women or an Indian descendant taking up the role, and the writers continue to obscure pressing issues in real life that could make far better metaphors than this.

ComicBook also sugarcoated the story, and exploited it for the sake of making the USA look totally evil in how it approached Indian inhabitants:

Over the years, we’ve gotten numerous Captain Americas, but there’s something about Dani Moonstar that just feels right in the role. To begin with, she’s Cheyenne, which makes her more American than basically anyone else who has used the shield. The United States’ history with the various Native tribes is monstrous, despite them just wanting to live their lives the way they always had. Giving a Native the shield is something very special, and Dani is the perfect person for it.

This of course ignores that even Indian citizens of the past didn't have a clean record when it came to issues like slavery, and what proof do they have that the USA was inherently evil towards the Indian inhabitants? Wasn't the Dakota War of 1862 a disturbing moment begun by Indian tribes like the Sioux? Sure, there were other tribes like the Apache who may have been decent, if not perfect, but none were saints any more than the white descendants of Europe who populated north America.

Dani has always been a great hero, but has never really been allowed to grow to the level she should be at. This is a common problem with the New Mutants. Nearly every member of that team has basically stayed static for years, despite the best of them being some of the coolest mutants around. Dani was always positioned as the best member of the team, and could have easily become the next Cyclops. However, she always seems to be an afterthought, which is why it’s so great that X-Vengers shows that Cap believed in her. Dani has always deserved better, and hopefully this will be the first step that will lead her to stardom.

Well I'm sorry, but all this doesn't make for a talented story, and the political structure this one's built upon only ruins everything. Even if this story's an alternate reality setting, that doesn't excuse the political biases, and Marvel's continued obsession with far-left propagandizing isn't salvaging their comics franchises at all. Dani Moonstar may deserve better, but so too does Steve Rogers, and even Sam Wilson. If they're not willing to craft a story that doesn't rely on the cheapest of modern political cliches, that's but one reason why this story also rings very hollow.

Tom Brevoort apparently prefers heroes clash with each other

ComicBook talks about the X-Mens latest battle with themselves, which is meaningless, and brings up a most eyebrow raising problem with the stories one of Marvel's worst editors, Tom Brevoort, has been helming for nearly a quarter century:

The X-Men comics have jumped into an all-new alternate universe storyline — “The Age of Revelation”. This is just the latest change to the books, which started with 2024’s “From the Ashes”, a new publishing initiative meant to bring the X-Men comics back to a more traditional X-Men status quo, something that X-Men fans really haven’t gotten since the end of House of M way back in 2025. The X-Men line was given to Marvel bigwig editor Tom Brevoort, an editor who is known for his encyclopedic knowledge of comics, and a love of the old school Marvel Universe. However, there’s another thing that Brevoort loves, and it’s been a part of nearly everything that he’s edited in the 21st century — heroes clashing with heroes.

“From the Ashes” established that the X-Men had separated, with Cyclops leading one team, Rogue leading another, and a young mutant training team led by Emma Frost and Kitty Pryde. Right off the bat, we were shown that there was a grudge between Rogue and Cyclops, as each of them thought the other was making a mistake. “Raid on Graymalkin” pit the two teams against each other, and “X-Manhunt” showed the differences between the teams again. However, Amazing X-Men #1 shows that this grudge is basically meaningless, proving that the Brevoort approach to the X-Men is a mistake.

And that's why Marvel's lost much of their audience over the years. When Brevoort originally began working for Marvel over 35 years ago, whatever he edited then may not have been the forced embarrassment it is now, but anybody who's going to devote their time almost entirely to depicting heroes clashing with themselves far more than villains has certainly brought down artistic quality very badly, and made a joke out of the original premise. Even DC's had examples of heroes fighting each other in the past 2 decades, and that's dragged down the meaning of their comics horribly too. To be sure, if this is how Brevoort's been going about producing stories for the past quarter century, it's dubious whether he really has an "encyclopedic knowledge" and "love of old school" storytelling. Especially when the stories become so meaningless.

Amazing X-Men #1 proves that Brevoort’s pet idea is exactly the wrong one for the X-Men. Two X-Men teams doing different things is a fine idea, but it’s when you get to making the teams fight that fans have a problem. The popularity of the X-Men has always been about the way the X-Men work together despite having different methods and goals. We want to see the X-Men debate their points, fight evil as a family, and then get back to their arguments. They’re family; it takes a lot to make a family fight each other.

When Brevoort was announced as editor of the X-Men books, fans knew it would only be a matter of time before factions of X-Men would end up fighting. However, that’s against the natural state of the team. They may get mad at each other, but they love each other. They know their strengths and weaknesses, and that they’re stronger together. X-Men fans don’t want this sort of thing, and it looks like the creators of the books don’t either. Hopefully, this plot line will end sooner rather than later.

Brevoort used to be an editor of Avengers-related titles, and one could say he helmed preludes to the current situation with series like Avengers: Disassembled, where it came close as the "culprit" turned out to be Scarlet Witch. When the story makes it look like somebody who's written as a reformed crook who became an admirable heroine is far more the problem than even villains like Thanos, something is definitely wrong. There was nothing respectful of "tradition" back then, and no chance the X-Men will ever see a convincing return to it now either, what with the way Marvel is micromanaged these days. Interesting the news site acknowledges the fanbase, but it's important to note many have stopped reading Marvel as a result of these humiliatingly bad storylines.

ComicBook admits stories by Bendis and other modern writers haven't aged well

ComicBook wrote a list of 10 Marvel stories - 8 of which are modern - that they say haven't held up over the years, and it's most interesting they actually admit Brian Bendis' writings really are very poor, in example, along with others written by equally left-liberal writers. For example, one of Mark Millar's writings, though they're otherwise lenient:

“Old Man Logan” is considered a Wolverine classic, but it doesn’t really deserve that moniker. The story, by Mark Millar and Steve McNiven, took place in a future where the villains won, Wolverine killed the X-Men under the control of Mysterio, and has become a pacifist, living in the Hulk’s territory. He’s hired by Hawkeye for one last mission, the money meant to pay his debt to the Hulk Gang, with the two heroes going on a cross-country trip. “Old Man Logan” is a story with awesome art and world-building, but the story itself is kind of cliche. This is the movie Unforgiven starring Wolverine; it’s good, but it’s not this amazing work.

Most stories written by Millar really are that overrated, and maybe it's better they admit it late than never. Even so, chances are high that, if the story went to press today, they would sugarcoat it, and that's what makes this unfortunate. And while the premise may be mind control leading to Wolverine wiping out the X-Men, that doesn't make this tale any less horrific. Next is Spider-Verse, and here, possibly based on favoratism, they're being more lenient:

“Spider-Verse” has become something of a legendary story, mostly because of its place in building the titular Spider-Verse, leading to the excellent movies. However, it’s just not the amazing story that it gets credit for being. It’s basically just a team-up comic, and while it does a lot of cool things, it doesn’t really reinvent the wheel. There are definitely some cool chapters to the story, and the original Spider-Gwen stories are pretty great, but this is just a standard multiversal team-up story. Dan Slott is a great Spider-Man writer, but there are many better Slott Spider-Man stories to read (like Superior Spider-Man, “Big Time”, or “Spider-Island”).

Here, regrettably, they're more lenient than the previous example, and Slott's not the best of Spider-writers at all. Based on how he alienated plenty of Spider-fans with the way he lent his "talents" to demeaning Mary Jane Watson, that alone is reason enough to avoid his writings. And we could decidedly do without the whole Spider-Gwen premise, which does no favors for the history of Gwen Stacy either. Next is a modern X-Men premise:

The Krakoa Era was a fruitful time for X-Men fans, but that doesn’t mean that it was all perfect. The ending wasn’t nearly as beloved as the beginning, but the beginning wasn’t flawless either, which leads us to the first major Krakoa crossover, “X of Swords”. This story pit the mutants of Krakoa against the mutants of Arakko, with the demonic forces of Amenth waiting in the wings. This story is badly paced, with most of the first half being pretty boring, and the second half pulling the rug out from under fans who expected something different. Some fans loved it, but re-reading it reveals that a lot of what people loved about it came from the excitement of the early days of Krakoa and not the quality of the story.

People who read this stuff just based on how it's promoted and not based on merit has been a long running problem, much like people who punish fictional characters instead of criticizing the writers, artists and editors. Now, here's where Bendis books come into focus:

House of M is another major story from ’00s Marvel, seeing the X-Men and the Avengers team together to deal with Scarlet Witch’s madness, which led to the birth of a new world, and the “death” of most of a race. Written by Brian Michael Bendis with art by Olivier Coipel, the story is honestly one of the most boring event books ever. The pacing is terrible, there’s little to no action over its eight-issue run, and it was extremely damaging to the X-Men comics. House of M came about at the height of Bendis’s popularity and was one of the most beloved stories of its era. However, it’s always been a long, badly paced, boring comic.

So they belatedly admit this was one of the worst products of Bendis and his padded-out storytelling approach of the times. We can only hope one day, they'll admit his Daredevil run, which depicted Matt Murdock's secret ID being revealed, was one of the worst moments in modern Marvel history, and a leading example of how overrated the Knights imprint truly was during its run for nearly 8 years. Curious, however, they don't admit it was reprehensible Wanda Maximoff would be subject to the humiliation she underwent for as much as 8 years herself, all because at the time, Bendis didn't want to make positive use of her, and the rest of Marvel's contributors at the time clearly didn't either, and look where it led later, to her negative portrayal in Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Next:

Secret Invasion, by Brian Michael Bendis and Leinil Yu, is yet another example of why Bendis wasn’t a great event writer. The Skrulls’ secret invasion was built up over years of stories, and this eight-issue story was the culmination of that plot, and it failed in most ways (beyond the art, which is great). It has a lot of the same problems as House of M — bad pacing, little action, and storytelling more based on shocking moments than anything else. It feels like it spins its wheel for the first five issues, as the story needs to keep the Avengers out of things until then to make it work. At the very least, the ending is good and sets up the best part of Bendis’s time on the Avengers, but that doesn’t save this mediocre story.

Bendis wasn't a great stand-alone writer either, and the premise of Powers, if memory serves, wasn't any better than the visions of Garth Ennis' overrated comics. And let's be clear. If the majority of the story's that bad, then whatever the pace of the ending, it ruins whatever it's supposed to set up next, which is just more crossover stunts. Next:

Bendis’s New Avengers is generally overrated, and that started with the first story. “Breakout”, by Bendis and David Finch, brought together the New Avengers and it’s a perfect example of the bad things about Bendis’s time writing the Avengers. A breakout on the Raft brings together a group of heroes, who soon discover that there’s more going on than they knew, leading them to the Savage Land and a shocking conspiracy. The bad pacing and mediocre action storytelling of Bendis’ comics are there, and the story goes in so many directions. It also begins one of Bendis’s worst tendencies, where he ends the issue on an action cliffhanger and then starts after the fight readers looked forward to ended. “Breakout” has some good art, and a few cool moments, but it’s not actually a good Avengers story.

Even 2004's Disassembled was overrated and terrible, so why pretend that doesn't matter? If they really think the art is any good, then it's bad it had to be wasted on such pretentious, overrated storytelling, which only got as far as it did because of all the fluff-coating in the press at the time, along with a general failure to make clear to the audience that if they really wanted to make clear they don't approve of where Marvel and DC were going at the time, they had to vote with their wallets on practically everything and anything, and if a line-wide boycott is what's needed to send a message, so be it. Today, sales are worse than before, and certainly no different from the otherwise laughable numbers back then, and all audience members who're avoiding them are doing the right thing. But it's a shame more didn't think to do so at the time, as it could've helped tremendously, and Marvel/DC should've folded in the early 2000s, which could've minimized the damage we're seeing now. One more item listed, interestingly enough, is the very Knights imprint title that began the path to Marvel's modern downfall:

“Guardian Devil”, by Kevin Smith, Joe Quesada, and Jimmy Palmiotti, was a massive success back in the late ’90s, bringing loads of fans to Daredevil’s newest book, thanks to Smith getting to write a Marvel book, and launching the Marvel Knights line of comics. The story saw Daredevil being given a child that might be the Antichrist, and how he deals with that, leading to a surprising twist and a fight that changes his life forever. The art is cool, and there is some prime Smith dialogue, but the story itself is pretty unfulfilling, and it fridges Daredevil’s decades-long love interest Karen Page. “Guardian Devil” is a pretty good story, but it runs in so many different directions that it doesn’t ever really come together. There are a lot of better Daredevil stories to start with than this one.

Glad they at least agree the offing of Page was atrocious, and it took place just a few issues into the volume. But a shame this too is an otherwise lenient viewpoint, because the 3 "creators" who helmed this insult to Stan Lee's creation only brought down comicdom to dismal levels in their time. Smith's one of the most overrated filmmakers as Quesada is one of the most overrated artists. Perhaps we should've seen the degradation to Mary Jane Watson coming with how Karen was wiped out in DD's second volume. If Mary Jane were DD's ladyfriend instead of Spider-Man's it's entirely possible she would've met the same fate as Karen did in this volume. And ComicBook's columnist, unfortunately, does nothing to improve the situation if he won't argue the time's come to reverse Karen's fate. Besides, how do we know Marvel Knights sold any better than the flagship line did? Please provide sales figures before telling us it was all worth a huge Macy's style parade in downtown NYC.

As noted before, the downside of this is that, had these stories come out today, the press, specialty or mainstream, would still have ignored how bad they really are, or just shrugged it off long term, no matter how much worse it got going down the rabbit hole. So while it may look flattering on the surface they'd admit belatedly these are poor tales, the problem is that they're not altruistic.