How is Elektra suddenly "scarier" than Punisher and Wolverine?

According to this brief on Softonic about new Daredevil issues, Elektra takes out a whole villainous mob without killing them:

In Daredevil #6 and #7, Stephanie Phillips and Lee Garbett fold Elektra into this new Marvel run by making one thing immediately clear: she’s dangerous in a way that has nothing to do with piling up the highest body count. “Of Moles & Owls” doesn’t sell her as deadlier than the Punisher or Wolverine in the usual numbers game. What’s unnerving about her is something else. She’s so exact, so disciplined, so tactical that she cuts through Mister Negative’s Inner Demons and leaves every last one of them alive. That’s the real point. Elektra decides exactly how much damage gets done, and she never loses control of it.

The issues also have her outplaying multiple factions as she works to secure Wilson Fisk’s ledger during a Hell’s Kitchen war that pulls in Silvermane, Tombstone, Hammerhead’s goons, and the Inner Demons. It makes the city feel like a live-fire chessboard, with Elektra still thinking several moves ahead of everyone else on it. If you’ve been following the noir-leaning, street-level direction Daredevil has taken since Stephanie Phillips and Lee Garbett launched their run in March 2026, these issues are easy to recommend. Even if Elektra’s return reads more like a sharp cameo than a full-blown comeback, issue #8 is already lining up Mister Fear, a drug threat at Empire State University (E.S.U.), and more questions tied to Wilson Fisk’s ledger.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make the story immediately entertaining. There's plenty of other superheroines who could've been written doing the same thing too, like Wonder Woman, Jesse Quick, Spider-Woman, Donna Troy, Invisible Girl, Psylocke, and Kitty Pryde. All that matters is whether it's written well, and at Marvel today, it's much too late for that. Plus, what if it turns out the artwork in this DD run is as terrible as some of the past decade's offerings?

This brief also ignores that there were times when the Punisher refrained from killing in order to appease Spider-Man, and it's not like Wolverine was depicted killing in all instances either. So why does Softonic think this news is going to automatically impress anybody, especially when the article doesn't seem written on merit?

A sloppy article about Frank Miller's work on Daredevil

When it's not the Dark Knight Returns that's the overemphasized focus of so many puff piece news articles, it could be Miller's work on Daredevil instead, and that's what Inverse wrote about recently, since some recent TV shows drew from Miller's stories, but this is yet another news item that's decidedly not interested in maintaining consistency, let alone assuring us that Miller's work, good enough as it was there, isn't the beginning or end of what we could find impressive about Hornhead's original series, in sharp contrast to what came post-1998. First:

Whenever people discuss superheroes who have it rough, there are a couple of names that usually stick out. Spider-Man’s day-to-day life is notoriously bad, so the term “Parker luck” was coined because of it. Batman has had his back broken, several of his sidekicks killed, and consistently fights monstrosities and aliens all while just being a normal human being.

But it’s safe to say that few comic book characters have trials and tribulations comparable to those of Matt Murdock, aka Hell’s Kitchen’s own Daredevil. Those who love him can’t quite seem to stay alive, those who hate him can’t quite seem to stay in jail, and the Man Without Fear himself can’t quite seem to keep a handle on his own secret identity (a problem that has just recently followed him to the MCU in Daredevil: Born Again). But 40 years ago, one of the most celebrated comic book writers of all-time took it upon himself to drag Matt Murdock through hell and back, and in the process wrote not just one of the best Daredevil stories ever but one of the best comic arcs of all-time: the original 1986 Born Again.

Did it ever occur to them that if they describe DD's life as that bad, it could actually become less appealing to the audience? Also, since Batman does come up here, yes, there were a few, but if Spoiler's the one who matters, interesting there's no objective take here on a character who was a more notable recurring cast member of the Robin series begun by Chuck Dixon in 1993. And how Stephanie Brown was initially turned into a sacrificial lamb in the War Games/Crimes crossover, before this was eventually reversed 3 years later, and there were a few other bad directions that came at the time of Identity Crisis that were reversed later as well, though still too late at this point.

Since they speak of lovers, even Batman had at least one who was turned into a forced sacrifice in 2002 for the sake of a shoddy crossover, Bruce Wayne: Murderer?/Fugitive. Her name was Vesper Fairchild, and if there's any way to handle such a curtain call for a character that's less than organic, it's crossovers. So it's not like DD's the only one story-wise who underwent such incidents, whether the writing was good or bad. And of course, even overrated writers like Kevin Smith have turned out some of the worst storylines in DD based on exactly what Inverse unobjectively spoke of: wiping out Karen Page in the Marvel Knights imprint just 5 issues in. And to Inverse's writers, it means nothing. By the way, if any of DD's adversaries were written cheating death, doesn't that make Karen's death extremely hypocritical?

When Stan Lee and Bill Everett first created Daredevil all the way back in 1964, they were responsible for many of the character’s everlasting traits: he’s a blind lawyer named Matt Murdock, his father was a murdered boxer named Battlin’ Jack, and he works alongside Foggy Nelson and secretary Karen Page at a legal firm named Nelson and Murdock. But the original depiction of the character was a quippy, lighthearted Spider-Man-adjacent swashbuckler – it wasn’t until the late 70s and early 80s, when the title was in danger of cancellation because of declining sales, that Frank Miller took over as writer and forever changed the perception of the book. Instead of fighting vampires or villains pulled from science fiction B-movies like Stilt-Man, Miller emphasized the psychological turmoil of a Catholic vigilante and fleshed out the contours of Hell’s Kitchen’s criminal underworld (converting The Kingpin from a Spider-Man villain into a Daredevil villain), ultimately giving the book a hard-boiled, seedy film noir atmosphere that was instantly popular and has influenced other Daredevil writers to this day.

Umm, I think even before Miller came about, it was dark enough. And while it may have come with a bit of a twist, Stilt-Man did make an appearance in DD during Miller's run, though a crook Miller introduced stole Wilbur Day's mechanics so he could make use of them himself. Even Dr. Octopus made one appearance in DD at the time. So let's not think the series ever strayed far from more sci-fi oriented concepts.

What's more, how is it Ann Nocenti, who succeeded Miller in writing later, didn't provide an enjoyable perception too? I think Miller's DD run is good, but I'm not buying that favoratism at all costs. And IIRC, didn't Mark Waid at one point write DD with a brighter perspective in the past 15 years? It may have been at a time when Marvel's artistic quality collapsed, but the lecture Inverse delivers again becomes sloppy. And one more thing about Waid's run: whether he wrote DD bright or dark, he did a terrible disfavor at the time with heavy handed leftism.

After briefly stepping away from the title, Frank Miller returned with what is maybe his greatest narrative contribution to the Daredevil mythos: 1986’s Born Again storyline, which played out from February to August in the pages of Daredevil #227-233. A culmination of everything he'd built up over his original five years writing the character, Born Again opens with the reveal that Karen Page, who had been absent from Daredevil comics since 1969 (she left Nelson and Murdock to become an actor after discovering Matt’s secret), has become an adult film actor and heroin addict. In the throes of her addiction, Karen sells Matt’s secret identity for a fix, and that information ends up in the hands of The Kingpin, who decides that if he can’t defeat Daredevil the vigilante, he’ll defeat Matt Murdock the civilian by systematically destroying his personal life.

Here too, we have quite a flaw in history. Karen made appearances in DD at least until 1972 and issue 86, and afterwards, she made several appearances in comics like Ghost Rider and Marvel Two-In-One (and one more guest appearance in DD 138 from 1976) until about 1978, before going into limbo for 7 years. Inverse has just confirmed ever further they're unqualified for history jobs. Also, notice how they refer to a woman becoming an "actor" instead of actress? I've seen that woke PC tactic in the past few years, apparently their whole sick idea of how to belittle the fairer sex in an era where LGBT ideology was pushed all over the place. One more problem undermining this puff piece. Near the end, it says:

Frank Miller didn’t just write arguably the greatest Daredevil story ever told, but he also changed the way that superhero stories deal with human drama. Matt Murdock is a running joke for comic book fans because he’s a character who can’t escape his own suffering, but over four decades ago, Frank Miller showed us that the reason why Daredevil can handle it is that the hero is the man underneath the costume, not the bright red costum he’s known for.

If Matt can't escape suffering, isn't that a problem? It's also one if Marvel's adamant about keeping Karen in the grave, after what happened to her in the Knights imprint. Supposedly, Aquaman's been a running joke because he could communicate with undersea animals, but I don't recall Hornhead ever been described as a joke. Are they aware the original costume was yellow in 1964, changed after 6-7 issues? You might think that's a joke, but the problems Matt faced as both superhero and lawyer certainly weren't. What's certainly a joke are the inaccuracies in the puff piece, decidedly another example of somebody who doesn't want to say a word in depth about the runs coming before and after Miller's. Seriously, what's so hard about discussing Nocenti's run in the late 80s-early 90s at length? This elevation of one specific run at the expense of others has long gotten way out of hand. There's also plenty about Spider-Man that hasn't been brought up by these tabloid news sites. On which note, maybe early Hornhead was "lighthearted", but "quippy" was something he could've been written as even well after Stan Lee relinquished the job to other writers. I assume they mean DD could be written dishing out wisecracks like Spidey and the Thing, and in the stories I read, Matt certainly came close.

So let's be clear. Of course I recommend Miller's DD run, but I'm not going to say what came before and after wasn't worth the effort and the price you could pay for the reprint archives. Just because there've been TV shows adapting notable Hornhead storylines is also not a reason to focus almost solely upon Miller's run either. The original comics scripts are what should count, far more than any two-bit TV adaptation.

Frank Miller tells more to the Wash. Post

One of Miller's interviewers said in one of the recent articles about him that he's got no intention of slowing down with his career, even as he's reaching 70, and as the following interview from the Washington Post makes clear, he's not done with his current promotional tour yet:

The pages of a Frank Miller work are filled with crooked cops, murderers, desperate men and unhinged dark knights. You might expect the creator behind all that darkness to be a bit gloomy himself. Maybe he would be a recluse, like his hero, “Calvin and Hobbes” creator Bill Watterson.

As it turns out, Miller seems to like people. I watched him sign hundreds of autographs at the Library of Congress’s National Book Festival in D.C. on Saturday. He was gentle, chatty and generous with his time despite the crowd overflowing past its designated space inside the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.

Unfortunately, Miller doesn't seem to like conservatives, and one in particular by the name of Donald Trump. You could reasonably wonder if any attendants are right-wing themselves, and if they let know this, what does Miller think of them?

Miller helped redefine the modern superhero with Daredevil and Batman before creating celebrated original works such as “Sin City” and “300.” Pop milestones like “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” or Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies may not exist without Frank Miller.

His book isn’t a conventional autobiography but a collection of 16 lessons Miller learned while becoming one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Those lessons include knowing your ending, getting your hero into trouble fast and pushing against whatever it is that’s keeping you from what you want to make.

The lessons also include making mistakes: Miller would sketch out many drawings for months before he finally made something that pleased the old master.

But those mistakes don't include apologizing for writing Holy Terror 7 years after its publishing, or blatant attacks on right-wingers, do they? If not, what's his point about trying to stand your ground on the subject of those who'd try to prevent you from developing what you want to make?

“It’s created new opportunities for me to speak more freely to new people who are coming up,” Miller said. “One of the real joys is for me to be looking at drawings and hearing story ideas that people are working on themselves, and to give them some advice on where to go with it.”

I wonder what he'd say to known conservatives? Or anybody who wants to tackle challenging issues? Again, that's not something dwelled upon here.

Miller writes about how his own lessons come from everywhere. He writes lovingly about Adams and his other mentor, Will Eisner, creator of “The Spirit,” but he reaches just as readily toward painters such as Francisco de Goya, Japanese manga writers like Kazuo Koike and music.

If memory serves, he wasn't so loving in his take on Eisner when he produced the American Genius documentary. After "cementing" a putdown in a recording, why now is he suddenly and seemingly talking positively about Eisner again? There was even another certain leftist who came from Israel working in video games at the convention Miller attended:

Onstage, I relayed a question to Miller from Neil Druckmann, co-creator of “The Last of Us” game series and HBO adaptation, who said his story wouldn’t exist without “Sin City.” He wanted to know how Miller selects collaborators, particularly when someone is adapting his work. How does he make sure they won’t abandon the spirit of his stories?

“Friendships,” Miller said. “Most of them come from getting to know somebody … and getting a kernel of an idea that I know would be something both of us could feed each other on.”

Wonder what that left-wing Israeli expatriate was doing there, recalling Druckmann exploited the Last of Us sequel for political propaganda? And to think, that he drew "inspiration" from a series of GNs like Miller's. It makes me think of how, not only does nobody like them seem to consider Superman inspirational material, they don't consider the Fantastic Four inspiration either. Miller may have done some illustrations for at least one story in both of the above, but as the bulk of his work since makes clear, he has a darkness problem, and so do some of the folks who say they're inspired by his work from the 1990s.

In the memoir, he describes learning to respect film and its differences from comics. His early comics success led to work as a Hollywood screenwriter. While he appreciated the medium, he would later write his biggest original book, “Sin City,” as a black-and-white novel, in the hope that it was unadaptable to film. He didn’t want it better known as a movie.

And yet, it was adapted in the mid-2000s, though the sequel was a failure, and it doesn't seem to have been revisited on celluloid since. I do think there's only so much from even standard literature that shouldn't have to be known far more cinematically, so some could wonder if Miller sadly failed to resist the tug of Hollywood influence. And then, a certain matter of defeatism comes up in the discussion again:

Before Miller’s memoir, his comics provided the clearest insight into his mind, but his book makes those thoughts explicit, including his regrets. He looks back on “Holy Terror,” a much-criticized story written out of Miller’s anger after the 9/11 attacks. He now describes it as a rant. Would he ever write another such story?

“I hope I’m never inspired to do so again,” he writes.

Miller urges readers to push walls, especially the ones he helped build. He writes that it drives him “crazy” to see that his version of Batman is now enshrined as foundational.

Once again, Miller, in a way, continues talking out of both sides of his mouth - he urges wall-pushing, but he doesn't want to push it any longer with a GN that took on a challenging issue. But what's this, does he really think it's a shame DKR's vision wound up practically ruining the general take on Bruce Wayne in comics proper? Well he sure hasn't done enough to complain about it. Probably because, as I've guessed before, he doesn't seem to care much about most other takes on Batman save for his own. And to date, I can't even recall him ever chatting about Denny O'Neil and Steve Englehart's writings.

“For one thing, the title ‘Dark Knight’ started appearing in all kinds of comic books,” Miller said in our interview. “Beyond that, he became the unpleasant superhero for a long time. I essentially felt that I was in the business of knocking down walls, and I felt like people had used my work to construct new ones.”

Interesting he should tell this, because again, by the turn of the century, DC editors were practically forcing such a personality upon the Masked Manhunter, and only now, long after Batman's potential was ruined along with countless other mainstream creations, does he have the audacity to tell us this? It's too little, too late.

One more thing I thought of regarding Miller's early writings in Daredevil is the negative take he may have had on the Punisher, and the contrasting take he had when he drew an early Wolverine miniseries co-written with Chris Claremont in 1982. Which would make Miller another scribe with a bewildering double-standard on vigilante-style characters who kill, and it's something else he may not have addressed so far, and probably never will. For now, it's a shame that Miller continues to give signs he sticks with a defeatist position, and some could wonder if his recent positive comments on a movie or two drawing from his writings is another sign of the same. And his continued veering towards the darkness, save for certain challenging issues, is another problem he's got that makes much of his resume since the 1990s so unappealing.

Roger McKenzie passes away at 75

That Eric Alper announced the veteran comics writer Roger McKenzie, who was active mainly during the late 1970s to late 1980s, died at 75 years of age:

Roger McKenzie, the comic book writer best known for helping shape the modern era of Marvel’s Daredevil alongside artist Frank Miller, died on the morning of August 21, 2026, at the age of 75, following months of dealing with heart failure and kidney disease while in hospice care.

McKenzie broke into comics in 1976 with a seven-page short story in Warren Publishing’s Vampirella, going on to write extensively for the company’s black-and-white horror anthologies Creepy, Eerie, and Vampirella through 1982. He also worked for DC Comics during this period, creating the western character Cinnamon and contributing to several of the company’s horror titles.

McKenzie’s most significant professional relationship began in 1978, when he and a young Frank Miller collaborated on a two-page story for DC’s Weird War Tales. That same year, McKenzie took over as writer on Marvel’s Daredevil with issue #151, giving the series a darker tone drawn from his horror writing background. Miller joined him as artist on the title starting with issue #158 in 1979, and the two worked together through issue #166, laying the creative groundwork for the run that would soon make Miller one of the most influential figures in American comics. Their collaborative issues were later collected in the ‘Daredevil by Frank Miller & Klaus Janson Omnibus.’

Here's the annoucement on his Facebook page, and here's what veteran writer Paul Kupperberg's telling about him. I'd read at least a few stories he wrote, and he did have talent for his time, though it's a shame he got his start through the horror genre. But when he wrote issues for a several series from Marvel, I'd say that's where he began to show promise, including on several issues of Captain America, and several issues from Marvel Fanfare. I hope Miller's thankful to McKenzie for providing him with the platform that gave his career its most serious start. McKenzie overall did some good work in his time, and IMO, his work for Marvel is what's really appreciated.

Frank Miller's relations with Jim Shooter

Here's a recent Hollywood Reporter interview with veteran artist Miller, where he continues his otherwise uninspired relay of what his relations with past comics veterans were like, and he even had the audacity to praise a certain overrated movie that unfortunately took plenty at the box office:

Miller has also been catching up on his moviegoing, and had seen Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey, which he calls “extravagant.” The creator behind Spartan story 300 knows his way around an ancient Greek myth or two (he can easily slip into expounding on Corinthian style helmets and their influence on Sparta) and says the movie “really did an awful lot right.”

Well this is a shame, but not all that surprising Miller would ignore some of the wokest workings in Nolan's new movie, which again, regrettably grossed plenty of dough, even if it did eventually go down in sales after 3 weeks. I have no idea if it'll turn the profits the studio's doubtlessly hoping it will, or whether it'll make waves in the USA in the end, but what Nolan's brewed up sounds so unappealing based on its eyebrow raising lack of sex, though I will say I'm relieved if it's not overly gory, although this article seems to indicate it may still have something disturbing. Which is reason enough for me to be discouraged. Maybe the problem is that no distinctions are made between sex that's in good or bad taste. Miller certainly doesn't seem interested in addressing all that. And it actually makes his superficial take on the film almost hilarious.

Your book is part memoir and part lessons in creativity. Why do it this way?

I got my career started by calling up Neal Adams’ office and getting a meeting with him. Neal Adams was the premier artist in comics at the time, and his art had a great effect on me as a child. And he was listed in the phone book. And I got to meet him that day, an hour after I called. And he looked over my drawings and told me they were terrible and sent me off. I redid them and I saw him again and again and again. And he was always a harsh critic, but every time he taught me more and more, sometimes doing drawings over them. And, and as the months went by, he got me my first job and he continued to be a sensei and an advisor to me on things professional and on how to deal with being an artist in the world and many other things. Years passed and I became successful. And one time, Neal and I were at a comic book convention and I just took him aside and I just said, “Neal, how do I thank you for what you’ve done for me? You’ve never asked me for anything.” And he said, “Oh, there’s only one thing you can do. Do the same thing for the next guy.” Well, this book really is my attempt to do the same thing for the next guy. And to commit to paper my experiences, my observations and, and the lessons learned in making comic books.

If that next guy were Will Eisner, he sure hasn't done much to thank him, recalling he spoke about him negatively in the American Genius documentary. Also, what lessons learned? That he should never ever have developed the Holy Terror GN over 15 years ago? Now here's what he says about working with the late Jim Shooter at Marvel:

Speaking of mentors, Jim Shooter (the wonderkid who became Marvel’s polarizing editor-in-chief through the 1980s) was also one. Do you remember the first time you met him?

My first memorable encounter with Jim was at the Marvel offices. I basically came in and was sort of selling my services. I’d gotten some little job, doing some little three-pager of something like Doc Sampson and that had gotten his attention enough to want to keep me around. And, he gave me his lecture on storytelling. Everything was always storytelling with Jim because he felt comics had really lost track of their basic mission, which was to enchant and compel young readers with gripping stories.

He came in on a fairly loose pack of people who were all over the map creatively. And he worked to pull it all together into a more cohesive unit.

There were a lot of writer-editors and little fiefdoms at the time.

Right. He focused more than ever on the concept of a Marvel universe.

How did you guys work together?

He was eager to change things and I was eager to learn. And we both had strong opinions. I think one of the reasons we got along was we were both up for a good argument. Arguments can be a very creative thing and a very good thing.

Be that as it may, Shooter's focus on the concept of the MCU included pushing the whole concept of line-wide crossovers, something that's sugarcoated quite a bit these days without any objectivity, and no questions as to whether it helped Marvel and DC artistically to go galaxies out of their way to turn out repeated crossovers every year, and increasingly, more than one every year, effectively making it increasingly difficult to find any creative autonomy at either company. That's something Miller doesn't dwell upon, even as he tells why he left Marvel, for DC and later Dark Horse:

You left Marvel in a pretty high profile fashion twice. And I say high profile because your profile was very high and you were creatively cresting, twice with Daredevil. What caused you to leave that first time?

Well, I didn’t leave anybody. I chose to take a project to another publisher who was more amenable to kind of freedom I wanted to do it with. The message underneath all this was that it was important to demonstrate that talent is portable. Let me say that. When a publisher is releasing your work, that does not mean you’re saying an oath of allegiance to a military operation. It’s not a marriage.

But again, no in depth mention of but one of the ways creative freedom was turned into a thing of the past at the Big Two. Nor of how horrific it's become ever since figures like Joe Quesada and Dan DiDio originally took over as EICs, and has never recovered even after they left. Why doesn't Miller have the courage to get into any of that? Perhaps because he never had much respect for Marvel and DC's creations to begin with? After all, he only seems to care about his own stories, and few others. He does address something I can't recall hearing about before at Marvel:

Uh, speaking of stories that never happened, what happened with the Doctor Strange run you were supposed to have with writer Roger Stern?

On that one, I really had come to realize that I was just dying to write my own material. And, I couldn’t wait anymore. I had to start writing and drawing my own comics and, you know, start being a cartoonist rather than just an illustrator.

Even back then, I think it's better Miller didn't take part. He may have at least a few science-fantasy themed stories in his resume, but it seems like the stuff less emphasizing of that genre is what he's most known for, and maybe for the best. Somehow, his artwork doesn't seem like a good fit for even the Sorceror Supreme, though I realize he must've been considered based on the dark themed stories he's most known for. As for Stern, he was a talented writer back in the day, but he regrettably has appalling viewpoints too, like his positions on Mary Jane Watson, where he acted like she was a real person, and look what good it did for comics in general ever since. All because people like Stern, much like Joe Quesada, had to be so petty and pointless.

The time of Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen and Maus is looked at like a revolutionary era at this point where comics were reinvented. How healthy is the comic art form now? Is the wall still being pushed?

Sure it is. I mean, it’s easy to look back on that time and say, “Wow, what a sunburst. That changed everything.” But in fact, that was a pretty small amount of work that we’re talking about that caused a big splash and that’s what people remember at the time. Because people tend to remember the stuff that really made a splash when they think back on a given period. We certainly have a pretty wildly diverse amount of stuff coming out now.

Well if there's anywhere the form isn't being pushed, it's at the Big Two. And if Miller meant what he said, why did he all but disown Holy Terror 8 years ago in a defeatist interview with the UK Guardian? It didn't even help prevent him from being shunned by a UK convention. Something he's never seemed to address either.

This year, there was upheaval at Dark Horse Entertainment, the home of your Sin City books. But you announced a new book that you’re writing, Invasive Species, with them. How did you decide to stay at Dark Horse for the new book and not take it elsewhere?

Well, the relationship was a good and strong one, and it served us all very well. I met with the people there. The philosophies of the company seemed to be close enough to what I’d always known them to be, and they certainly had the infrastructure to do a good job at it.

Going back to Sin City, the only thing happening now is the Western that is being drawn by Milo Manara, right?

Right now, yeah, but I’ve got a dozen ideas for new ones. Sin City is my life’s work, more than anything. Milo is well along. I just gotta teach him how to draw girls. (Laughs.)

Gee, I wonder how that'll turn out, and what Miller means? I remember when Manara got censored or cancelled at Marvel over an absurd illustration he did of Spider-Woman's butt, for a series that didn't get much fanfare, and was cancelled and forgotten pretty quickly. What if Miller's gone so woke, he'll want Manara to dumb down his art styles for the wrong reasons? Based on Miller's positive comment about Nolan's Odyssey adaptation, it wouldn't be too shocking if that were the case.

Here's also an extra interview Popverse did with one of Miller's business partners, Silenn Thomas, who oversaw the American Genius documentary, and what he's got to say about working with Miller:

You are CEO of Frank Miller Ink, COO of Frank Miller Presents. What does that entail besides… well… everything?

Thomas: Well, you said it. It entails everything, and as you know well, “with great power comes great responsibility.”

You've been working with Frank for a number of years, even before becoming CEO of his shingle. What have you learned about him as a creator?

Thomas: I met him on the movie 300, and one consistent thing with [Frank Miller] is that he is one of the hardest-working people I have ever met. His dedication to excellence is absolute.

Yeah, and look how that turned out for the adaptation of the Spirit comic strip, and also the Robocop sequels and the sequel to the Sin City movie. Certainly if we take his cinematic ventures into consideration. But if the comics matter, his artwork's long become mediocre, and it's hard to say he's dedicated to excellence based on that.

You directed the recent documentary Frank Miller: American Genius. What did you learn from doing it, and taking it on the road for screenings?

Thomas: I have gained a deeper understanding of comics and its culture. The project gave me an all-access pass. I saw the universe of comics in every corner of the world. Taking it on the road now at festivals, conventions, and schools has been exhilarating. It was a joy to make, and it is a joy to show.

And I guess Miller's regression to a left-wing advocate's also quite exhilarating and overjoying, huh? Such signs turned up in the documentary, and that makes it less appealing.

My editor Chris has told me of how much of a champion and protector you are of Frank in the worlds of comics, movies, TV, and even cons. Where did you learn to be such a carer while also managing the business side of things and standing up for people?

Thomas: At the rebel camp on Tatooine in Star Wars. All jokes aside, what else is there? I believe we are in a creator-driven era. At least, that is the side I’m on.

Trouble is, what if Mr. Thomas is only willing to champion and protect anybody who's as left-wing as Miller sadly remains? Some creator driven era it'll be then. These are yet more examples of why I'm just not impressed with Miller by today's standards, and would rather not work with him if I were in the business myself. And maybe a most prominent reason why, other than his troubling politics is that he's too obsessed with the darkness, and not enough with the lightness. Which has become a very sad staple of modern entertainment as we know it.

More about Frank Miller's now tiresome viewpoints

Here's a few more recent items involving an artist/writer who's got to be one of the most overrated in comicdom. First, in this recent UK Observer interview, he tells who his mentor was:

What prompted you to write this book? It’s not a straight-up memoir.

No, it’s a combination – a guidebook for storytelling and a portrait of the amazing little world I inhabit. I think it has something to do with my most important mentor, the artist Neal Adams, who helped me start my career and played the tough sensei in my life. After I met with some success, I asked him what I could do to pay him back for what he’d done for me. Without missing a beat he said: “Do it for the next [generation].” This book is the product of me trying to meet that pledge.

Wasn't Will Eisner an important mentor of his? Or is Miller deliberately trying to obscure Eisner, because the latter didn't live up to the former's exact expectations? Somehow, Miller seems to have disappointed again, all for the sake of political correctness. Besides, what's he actually doing for the next generation that could have lasting value?

You started out writing for Marvel and DC superhero franchises before branching off to create your own worlds, but was working within those confines a useful first step?

Oh, yes. I was being thrown problems to solve that I’d never been thrown before. I was working under specific instructions with this mythology of characters, many of whom I hadn’t even heard of, and learning to work in a much more disciplined situation.

I've got a feeling that even today, there's quite a few older creations he hasn't heard of, and at this point, not only doesn't care about them, he wouldn't be suited to work on them anyway.

You were still in your 20s when you were tasked with reimagining one of the world’s most cherished superheroes, Batman. It must have been a lot of pressure.

I don’t have any memory of having any fear. I was so full of ideas of where I wanted to take it. It was mostly enthusiasm and a sense of overwhelming joy. The amazing thing about Batman is that it’s so versatile. You can find different ways to make it work. Every once in a while I get a chuckle out of how much of The Dark Knight Returns is still surfacing in [Batman] movies after all these years.

Oh, but of course it was a joyous occasion, wasn't it? After all, he got to do swipes at Ronald Reagan, for ambiguous reasons. As for allusions to DKR in movies, the odd thing is that Miller hasn't found most of said movies appealing, and in another article coming later on the list here, they mention that subject.

Like so many East Coast writers before you, you were lured to Hollywood in the late 1980s.

That was wild. It was a whole lot of fun. I was playing in a much bigger ballpark to obviously a much bigger audience. But it was a very different experience: there were a whole lot more bosses.

You refer to “the fiery fallout of fame” and hitting rock bottom after moving to LA. What happened?

I lost my way. I’m afraid I got more involved with ego than with my mission as an auteur, and I lost track of things. But it’s through telling stories that I’ve been able to come back around to find myself and my purpose.

He sure did. His work on the Robocop sequels, if anything, was such a failure. But even his later adaptation of Sin City to film didn't pan out beyond 2 entries, IIRC, with the 2nd, A Dame to Kill For, thudding badly. It reminds me of a description of some two-season TV shows I once noticed on another blog a decade ago: "first season wonders, second season blunders". A similar description could be thought of for some recent live action comic adaptations.

Something that crops up again and again in your work, not least in Sin City, is the flawed but single-minded crime fighter who will clean up the mean streets against all the odds. What’s at the root of that fascination for you?

I’ve always liked my heroes, from Superman to Batman to Zorro. And I’ve always loved crime stories. The more I discovered film noir, the more I realised that stuff spoke to me like nobody’s business.

What's left out is that he developed a dim view of the Man of Steel, all because Supes in his narrow vision is ostensibly "too powerful". As for crime stories, based on the dark vision he alludes to, that's basically the problem: he seems more interested in honing skills for storytelling that's anything but science fiction, and maybe that's one of Miller's biggest weaknesses.

Somebody once asked you if you’re a conservative and you said “No, I’m a libertarian”. Is that still the case?

Let’s just say I’m an independent thinker. You know, being conservative right now means something very different than it did a generation ago. So I find my own way.

Unfortunately, it's been sadly apparent for years now he just can't bring himself to quit ragging on figures like Donald Trump, again, for ambiguous reasons. I just don't know what exactly Miller wants or expects.

As AI encroaches, do you regard it with excitement or something else?

Something else. At first I thought it was a magic mystery box. Then I thought it was the end of creativity. Now I think that it’s going to be something that everybody will eventually calm down about. Its uses are limited. It’s not a panacea, it’s not a god. It will be much like the personal computer, in that it will change things, but we need not all bow down before it.

I wonder how he'd feel if AI were used to imitate his art style, which has been mediocre for years? More to the point, if any would-be artists try cutting corners by resorting to AI to complete their assignment, isn't that dishonest and a poor approach? It's bad enough much of mainstream artwork's become so mediocre, but that doesn't mean we should approve of AI either, if anybody winds up using it as a way to save on employing actual artists.

Next, when the latest Spider-Man movie came out, how fascinating that Miller saw fit to praise this particular film, according to the Hollywood Reporter:

The comics icon took to Instagram to share his feelings about Sony’s latest Tom Holland adventure, calling the film, “The most Ditko movie yet and with my Hand in it for all to celebrate. This fan’s dream come true. Tom Holland is my forever Spider-Man as romantic as he is heroic. Congratulations to Destin and the whole team.”

Miller, who famously wrote The Dark Knight Returns and Batman Year One for DC, has sometimes been a tough critic of comic book movies over the years. In 2014, Playboy asked Miller about the “lousy” movie adaptations of Daredevil and Elektra. “When people come out with movies about characters I’ve worked on, I always hate them,” Miller said. “I have my own ideas about what the characters are like. I mean, I can’t watch a Batman movie. I’ve seen pieces of them, but I generally think, No, that’s not him. And I walk out of the theater before it’s over.”

When asked if that includes Christopher Nolan’s acclaimed Batman trilogy, Miller replied, “It includes all of them. I’m not condemning what he does. I don’t even understand it, except that he seems to think he owns the title Dark Knight. He’s about 20 years too late for that.”

Oh yes, that's interesting history too. I can't recall now if Nolan ever made use of any noticeable allusions to Miller's writings in his screenplays, but years later, when Nolan produced a woke adaptation of Homer's The Odyssey, which unfortunately grossed quite a bit at the box office, one could wonder if Miller would change his mind. There's another writer, more Hollywood-connected, however, who also had what to say about this:

Longtime Spider-Man comic book writer, J. Michael Straczynski, also had some praise for Brand New Day, writing on X: “To be clear I’ve enjoyed all the Spider-Man movies. But for my money, this latest iteration feels most authentically Peter, and Spider-Man. So many comic movies have fallen into MacGuffin plots, looking for the code, the stone, the box, the sword…this one is all about what William Faulkner called ‘the human heart in conflict with itself.’ It’s a very human story, emotional without being slow or dull or self-indulgent. It feels like stepping into a really good Spidey comic. Well done to all concerned (and even those unconcerned).”

As Toy People News notes, both Miller and J. Michael Straczynski are credited in the film's special thanks listings, "suggesting their comic work may have served as inspiration for the movie." But as the latter's presence makes clear to me, anybody as overrated and contemptuous of Spidey's world as JMS turned out to be is reason enough to skip this film for a long time. He played a part in the dissolving of the Spider-marriage 2 decades ago, and no matter what defense he employed at the time, it was just inexcusable. Also, Miller seems to think he owns the Dark Knight as well, so why complain about Nolan, regardless of where he's been going lately?

Here's also a review on Quillette of Push the Wall, which while mostly behind a paywall, offers the following visibly:

Even outside of comic book circles, Frank Miller is known as a gifted artist and writer who made comics grown up and gritty. From his damaged version of Bruce Wayne to Marv in Sin City (whom Miller pithily describes as “Conan the Barbarian in a trenchcoat”), Miller has created stories that resemble a strikingly original blend of film noir and dark Wagnerian opera. But the Miller who emerges from this memoir—part autobiography, part primer for aspiring graphic novelists—is as much a romantic as a gung-ho rebel.

It's always sad how earlier scribes like Dennis O'Neil and Steve Englehart are obscured in regards to whomever made comics "grown up". And why do they think a scribe who originally lucked out with the Robocop sequels is truly a "gifted" creator? Let's also not forget his only solo directorial effort to date, the cinematic adaptation of Will Eisner's Spirit, which was dreadful.

More importantly, New York was the home of his first great love: “Sure the city was violent, but it was also the hub of comic books and had been since the beginning. Marvel and DC were there, and all my real-life heroes were either still there bent over their drawing boards or they had spent formative time in the city, honing their skills and learning the lessons that only New York can teach you.” Miller was a childhood fan of the medium, and developed a particular fondness for EC comics, which were geared towards adults and “explored forbidden themes such as environmentalism, nuclear disarmament, and the miseries of war.” From EC comics, Miller “learned to always push the walls that others constructed, to challenge the strictures others put in place to stifle and smother.”

How does he feel about the mainstream moving away to Hollywood, apparently because that's how to truly manage a live action adaptation? One could argue the comics industry won't have as much impact as it used to, when DC/Marvel have been taken away from where they began.

Part of EC’s appeal no doubt rested on the reproaches it earned from the Comics Code Authority, which Miller describes as “a crusty remnant of ‘Red Scare’ censorship and the prim morality of postwar America.” The attempt to drum up a moral panic about comics will be familiar to those who have followed similar media and public campaigns to ban and censor video games and “video nasties” in the name of child protection:

And on this, one can only wonder how he feels about modern censorship, which made a comeback in the past decade, and the industry still hasn't recovered from it? Moral panics as we know them turned up again 15 years ago, with video games some of the primary victims, and Miller, unshockingly, seems oblivious to all that, as does the book reviewer.

Next, more recently, the BBC also interviewed Miller, and they perpetuate the whole notion only he succeeded in convincing everybody Batman was more than just kids stuff:

A deadpan do-gooder who wears underpants over his tights, and always carries a can of shark repellent spray.

For a long time, that was Batman – or, at least, Batman as the general public saw him, thanks to the camp 1960s television show and film. In his DC Comics adventures, he was depicted as a more serious and even sinister character, but the average person still saw him as Adam West in a self-mocking comedy with an infuriatingly catchy theme song.

Then came the graphic novel that changed everything – not just Batman, but superhero comics, and the many Hollywood films those comics would inspire.

I guess they too are just too lazy to do any research about Englehart and O'Neil's work in the 1970s. It's just like such an otherwise awful news network to be such favoratists. What's so special about Miller's work that isn't about most other Batman writers? Wasn't Chuck Dixon's creation, Bane, adapted for either the 2nd or 3rd Nolan film? Miller also told them:

"We do not have a Superman in the real world, but we do have huge military forces which can be used for good or evil. We do not have Batman out there, but we do have people's own desire to resist the use of force against them, and so on. I wanted to use the machinery and iconography of a children's story to tell a story for an older audience."

Back at the time, it was sadly intended to feature negative right-wing metaphors, and Miller doesn't seem troubled by how it all went from bad to worse, or that his very own 1986 miniseries was exploited by the editors by the turn of the century for depicting Batman as a mindless control freak. With the biggest irony being that Miller didn't apply the characterization wholesale from the miniseries to the ongoing flagship series when he scripted those.

As he recalls in his newly published memoir, Push the Wall, Miller was still in his twenties when he was commissioned by DC to "breathe new life" into a character who was at the time "emasculated" and "a second-class citizen in comics".

No kidding! That could easily describe what's gone wrong with a lot of portrayals of heroes in recent times: they're either emasculated and even depicted as cowards. Does it also sit well with them if Superman was transformed into a 2nd class citizen in comicdom, all for the sake of the Masked Manhunter? Such balderdash the BBC wrote up.

The idea was that while Batman was absent, Gotham City had crumbled into an urban hellhole, overrun by murderous gangs. The setting was based in part on Miller's own experiences. He moved to New York in the 1970s after a childhood in idyllic rural Vermont, and while he adored his new metropolitan home, "it was really a city in pretty serious decay".

Luckily for Gotham, the Batman of The Dark Knight Returns is no longer a gentlemanly sleuth, but an intimidating, ultra-violent vigilante who takes a grim satisfaction in breaking criminals' bones. He's so brutal, in fact, that it's almost incredible that DC's editors didn't object.

When you notice how ultra-violent modern entertainment's become, their acceptance of even a stand-alone tale set in a future era could be considered a precursor to modern problems. As for what Miller thought of NYC in the past, does that also sum up what he thinks of it today, when it's easily worse?

Most radical of all, Superman became a government stooge, loyal to a president who happened to resemble Ronald Reagan. And the Joker became a monstrous sadist. When the mini-series was first published, these revisions seemed iconoclastic, but Miller maintains that he was looking back as well as forward.

One can only wonder if the Joker was written as a metaphor for conservatives too, and IIRC, Marvel published a story featuring the Red Skull in the past decade that depicted him as one.

Numerous articles were written about how superhero comics weren't for children anymore. And the influence his work had on the comics industry was "pretty obvious fairly quickly", he admits – as were the shameless imitations. "But that's the nature of the beast. If something succeeds, there's a natural inclination by not just the publishers but the talent as well to imitate it. It's certainly nothing to resent or deplore."

At least they admit there's blatant imitations, not the least being some of Miller's own. I'm sorry, but when one looks at how bad entertainment's become today, it is what to resent and deplore. One more reason I'm not wasting time and money on Sin City.

His influence on the film industry was clear, too. Every single modern Batman film, from Tim Burton's 1989 blockbuster onwards, has taken some of its toughness and noirish style from The Dark Knight Returns.

Christopher Nolan's second and third Batman films took their name from it. And Zack Snyder's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice lifted whole sections directly from its pages. Beyond those, it could be argued that Hollywood's current understanding that superhero stories can appeal to all ages, without being dumbed down, can be traced back to Miller.

But he stresses that he was only one of several writers and artists who were revolutionising the genre in the 1980s. And he isn't losing any sleep over the many films that owe their existence to him. "It's better for sanity's sake and blood pressure's sake to take it all with a good nature," he says with a cackle.

Unfortunately, much of modern comicdom's been dumbed down, and all the while, Miller doesn't care about anything but his own writing and art. Also, Snyder's Batman v. Superman film wasn't that successful, so what's the big deal there? At least Miller and the BBC admit he's not the only scribe who "revolutionized" the mediums 40 years ago. Even so, they still insult intellects by refusing to give other artists and writers a spotlight for people to judge, and as a result, it all comes down to another mediocre puff piece that doesn't add anything new to what perceptions we could have of comicdom in general.

A review of Frank Miller's new biography

Open Letters Review looked at Miller's new biography, Push the Wall, which may not be that long a book, and in the beginning paragraph, and the editor reviewing it appears to be disappointed, and certainly makes clear what they think of one project that years ago, I wanted to think was Miller's way of telling he'd found a valid subject to write about, until he sadly went the defeatist route several years after:

Writer/artist Frank Miller is legitimately legendary in the field of comic books, firmly stationed in a company of three dozen or so men and women who did landmark work. Miller was the creative genius behind black, nihilistic oddities like Ronin or Sin City, the genius behind signpost superhero stories like Batman: Dark Knight Returns or Batman: Year One, and the genius behind black, nihilistic masterpieces like 300 or the “Elektra saga” run in Daredevil. Any one or two of these would guarantee a creator immortality in the comic book field, so Miller’s status is secure no matter what sloppy, downright cracked work he might add to that body of work, incomprehensible things like Dark Knight Strikes Again or, God forbid, Holy Terror.

Sounds like the reviewer believes Miller should never have tackled the issue of Islamic terrorism, ever. And that's the problem, past, present or future. With the biggest one being that the reviewer doesn't even have the courage to make himself clear about that.

But with that said, is Miller really that "legendary"? Hardly. His obsession with the darkness - which today apparently stops at the most challenging of issues like the aforementioned - is honestly dispiriting, and if he didn't succeed in screenwriting in the long run, why must we believe he's that much of a legend? Lest we forget, he acted as apologist for somebody who definitely won't be one now, and the way he noticably remains fixated on a certain president for cheap reasons is dismaying and divisive.

This kind of status imbues his new memoir, Push the Wall, with inherent interest. The many thousands of comics readers who’ve enjoyed their work would very much like to see similar memoirs from all the other greats of the comics world. How fascinating and valuable it would be, for instance, if we had honest, grappling, detailed memoirs from figures like Bill Everett or Gil Kane or Jack Kirby.

Finishing Push the Wall, some readers will be thinking about how fascinating and valuable it would be if we had an honest, grappling, detailed memoir from Frank Miller. This sure isn’t that.

If the book's a disappointment, I can't say I'm surprised. When a guy turns as defeatist of recent as Miller has, you probably can't expect him to deliver the best of biographical material either, nor for that matter a good instruction in how to illustrate. And his art style's been so mediocre for years, whereas even Kane's art style was more comprehensive just years before he passed on at the turn of the century. But the reviewer's right about one thing: if we had serious biographies about Everett, Kane and Kirby, that could be a lot more interesting than what Miller has to offer at this point.

Miller organizes the book around 18 “lessons” about both life and working in the comics industry, and he fills in the inevitable pabulum of old-man-imparting-lessons with glimpses from his own autobiography: boyhood in Vermont, formative exposure to gritty New York and specifically the Greenwich Village of bygone decades, the initial scrambling in the comics industry, the burgeoning success after Elektra and Dark Knight Returns. And sometimes some of these memories, though decked out in the hack-purple prose that’s characterized Miller’s writing for fifty years, are interesting, particularly the Horatio Alger bits before he hit it big, when he was wandering around a pre-Bloomberg New York that would be all but unrecognizable to the city’s current wall-to-wall 1% inhabitants. “I arrived wide open to the strange gifts of the city’s seedy decline,” he writes in one such passage, “the Sodom and Gomorrah of Times Square, the hard-up characters hanging around fleabag hotels by Port Authority, the graffiti and urban dross in the subway, the misfits skulking in the East Village parks after dark, the crumbling, uneasy feeling of it all.”

Miller might not be the most eloquent of writers, but he’s articulate and sure as hell prolific; instead of tarping over the subject with something like “the crumbling, uneasy feeling of it all,” he could have written that feeling. His book is barely 200 pages; Saga Press would certainly have sprung for another 100.

Gee, that's not much of a page count. Whether this is a biography or an "educational" book, one would think a lengthier book would serve the goal better. Perhaps this does say something about Miller's otherwise overrated talents indeed. Interesting the reviewer alludes to NYC's current residents as "one percent", since based on where they're going lately under Zohran Mamdani, and reelected the disastrous district attorney Alvin Bragg by a comfortable margin, some could make a reasonable argument something is definitely wrong with the Big Apple today, though wealth surely is the least of the problems.

So what’s left are the lessons, and the bits about Miller’s professional life. But the lessons are mostly things Miller himself has very publicly, very repeatedly not followed. “Sometimes you have to work with others to grow,” he writes, for example. “You have to put yourself back into learning, back into wonder, back into some spooky action.” And the anecdotes from the professional comics world are so bland and sanded-down as to be virtually press releases. About his decision to kill off his massively popular character Elektra, he writes:

Exit Elektra. When it came to my decision to end her life, I have to say, it just felt like the right thing to do. Bringing this storyline to a conclusion was the most dramatic thing I could do for the story: the narrative demanded an exclamation point, so I gave it one, in the most lapel-grabbing way possible.

Not mentioned here, however, is that he actually revived her the following year, perhaps because some readers took issue with this, though afterwards, she was mostly in limbo for at least another decade before being put to serious use again, in Daredevil or other comics. By which time, she was depicted as having fully reformed, more or less. And Miller, to my knowledge, was unhappy about the new use for Elektra by that time. But considering how overrated he is in the long run, that's why his complaint is decidedly not worth listening to. And his favoratism for Batman over Superman has long become a cliche among some writers:

Or this, about his decision in Dark Knight Returns to turn Superman into a fascist lapdog:

At the time, Batman suited my creative vision for a superhero much more than Superman. I grew up reading and idolizing Superman. He was my first favorite superhero. But, truth be told, I had gotten pretty sick of the guy. He was just so ridiculously powerful, and his invulnerability reached the point of limiting him as a character for me.

Obviously, “it just felt like the right thing to do” and “I had gotten pretty sick of the guy” are serious disappointments, especially coming from an author who’s gotten a good deal of profitable mileage out of the crafted public image of a straight-talking maverick. There’s precious little maverick straight-talking in Push the Wall, and we’re unlikely to get a more satisfying follow-up. Although it’s at least theoretically possible that Frank Miller could strike again.

So long as he remains as absurdly biased as he's been for goodness knows how long, he won't deliver anything satisfactory, and probably hasn't for longer than we think anyway. I do recall Ronin had a decidedly mediocre ending where the demon called "Agat" turned out to be a robot who was possibly crafted subconsciously by the main protagonist?!? Seriously, that was pretty underwhelming, and defeated whatever fantasy-based premise the miniseries was supposedly built on. And in the end, Ronin was little more than an empty shell.

But what's really disappointing is Miller's superficial view of Superman, one that completely obscures the weaknesses to Kryptonite and magical energies that were established decades ago, if we go by what's quoted from the manuscript. If Miller wanted to, he could've written up a Superman script building on stuff like that for real, and in the end, all he does is insult plenty of hard-working writers and artists who came before him by practically depicting the Man of Steel as minion for fascism. He did something like that with Wonder Woman too in the All-Star imprint title spotlighting Batman & Robin from the late 2000s that only lasted a few years. Miller's inability to acknowledge that the writers are at fault for Superman being "ridiculously powerful" is telling, and if that's how he approaches the whole matter, he's made clear he comes from a generation that didn't make any proper distinctions between reality and fiction.

Another problem with Miller is that he sounds like the kind of scribe who only cares about his own work, and doesn't give a damn what happens with others' work, or how. That's another reason why comicdom fell into such dire straits; nobody respects the past efforts of previous writers and artists with better resumes from up to the turn of the century, and now we have a whole shambles devoid of consistent continuity and characterization in the mainstream for starters. Of course, even those creators have faults, like not showing the guts to take issue with their former workplaces if they feel something wrong was done, or worse, they practically enabled it by participating in degradation of their own creations, as Kane sadly did when he drew 5 of 6 parts of the first, very repellent Green Lantern story in Action Comics Weekly from 1988, where Carol Ferris as Star Sapphire slaughtered Katma Tui, whose death to date was never fully reversed. I don't think Miller's ever complained about whether his own work on Daredevil was disrespected by successive scribes, and so, even though he may be the kind of artist/writer who only cares about his own stories, there's plenty to suggest he still doesn't put much value on what writings he has that did matter. And those writings are decidedly way too few.

As for this new "biography", I think it's worth passing on. It sounds too short, and like Miller hasn't provided enough to think about. Which has got to be another problem with modern creators in the long run.

Marvel moves from NY to CA, and replaces C.B. Cebulski with Stephen Wacker as EIC

The Hollywood Reporter's announced changes are being made at Marvel, none of them anything to be optimistic about, in both location and staffing:

After calling the Big Apple home for almost 90 years, Marvel Comics is moving out of New York City. And heading to Hollywood.

The relocation was revealed to staff at a town hall Thursday at Marvel’s New York office in Midtown, where employees were informed that its publishing division will be pulling up stakes and transferring operations to Burbank, California, the current headquarters of Marvel Studios and corporate parent, The Walt Disney Company.

Just like DC, right? Considering how artistically and politically bad their owner became over the past decade, this is nothing to take pleasure at learning, unfortunately. Nor is the news of who'll replace C.B. Cebulski as EIC, after he retained the role for nearly a decade:

The development is accompanied by a changing of the guard at the top. Stephen Wacker, a respected veteran comics editor who also earned an Emmy nomination for his work in the company’s forays in animation, has been named Marvel’s new editor-in-chief, replacing outgoing chief C.B. Cebulski, who had steered the division since 2017. Cebulski will still remain part of the family, however, as he will be moving to Japan to spearhead the company’s push into manga, among others things, as editor, Asia originals.

Both changes are meant to reinvigorate the comic book side of the company, which has been overshadowed in recent years by the success of Marvel’s movies, and by a creative slump that saw it lose its position as comics market share leader for the first time this century. Marvel chief Kevin Feige’s installing of the new leadership and the relocation of its comics side to Disney’s Burbank base represents a long-term investment in what he believes underpins the source of Marvel’s storytelling. [...]

Among those joining the Burbank headquarters will be Wacker, who is making his Marvel return after leaving the company in the early 2020s to lead Jonathan Hickman’s worldbuilding project 3W3M and then co-founding the entertainment studio Stone Kite.

A beloved editor with strong talent relationships, Wacker spent over fifteen years at Marvel, overseeing Spider-Man comic runs that included the best-selling “Brand New Day” and “Superior Spider-Man” eras. He was also editor on Daredevil and Hawkeye when those titles won Eisner Awards and was involved in the introduction of Kamala Khan, also known as Ms. Marvel.

"Respected and beloved"? Wacker's the same editor who was part and parcel of the effort to run the Spider-Man franchise into the ground, and they shamelessly gloss over one of the worst editorial mandates Joe Quesada forced upon Spidey when he was EIC. It's just like them to distort and obscure the worst of what was brought about. And all these years, they kept repeatedly dangling carrots as to whether Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson would be reunited as a married couple, which they never did, and Cebulski recently allowed things to become worse by approving a story where MJ's turned into another Venom host. These kind of shock value stories don't improve a dire situation, and that's going to be part of Cebulski's "legacy" going out.

Since Wacker, of course, was party to the degradation of Spidey, he's unlikely to reverse any of Quesada's worst steps of the past quarter century, and unlikely to restore the Spider-marriage. And even if he does, that alone won't make Spidey's adventures readable again. For all we know, Wacker could ramp up the wokeness by galaxies, as though it weren't bad enough already, and he was instrumental in shoehorning Islamic propaganda into the MCU with a character whose instant solo series wasn't marketed on merit, and at least 3 projects translating the Muslim Ms. Marvel into live action films, TV and video were flops, with the Marvels movie becoming a huge dud. Of course, the MSM will doubtless not have anything critical to say about his upcoming run as EIC, and chances are that, much like the now outgoing Cebulski, Wacker won't give many press interviews, if at all. At least that'd be a comfort in a sense, since Quesada gave only so many years ago where he was unendurable. Forbes also addressed the move, and said:

In one way, it is unsurprising that Disney is uniting Marvel’s publishing and film units in Burbank. Comic-based movies, media and games supplanted comics publishing as the economic driver of the business two decades ago. Longtime rival DC decamped from New York to Burbank in 2015, a move also accompanied by a change in company leadership. An internal Marvel company survey revealed that more Mavel creators now hail from the West Coast than from the region nearby New York, and in any case, geography has become largely irrelevant to the production of comics. [...]

Cebulski’s departure was also not a surprise. Though the Marvel editor could claim a range of creative and commercial successes in his decade-long leadership of the company, Marvel’s sales have slipped in recent years, falling behind DC for the first time in a long time according to industry sales data. With longtime Marvel President Dan Buckley stepping down in May, replaced by Brad Winderbaum (head of TV, animation, comics and franchise) and David Abdo (general manager, comics and franchise), it seemed likely that Marvel would get new editorial leadership sooner rather than later.

Wacker will step into the role once held by industry legends Stan Lee, Roy Thomas and Jim Shooter among others. Wacker has been behind some of Marvel’s most interesting and popular comics of the past few decades, including Brand New Day and Superior Spider-Man. He is well-liked within the industry and well-regarded by creative colleagues both at Marvel and on other stops in his professional career including at DC and Jonathan Hickman’s 3W3M.

As surely expected, they too sugarcoat the worst atrocities to come out of the Quesada era at Marvel, and it wouldn't be the least bit shocking if they're fully in the boat for the worst of the overabundant company wide crossovers that're doubtless coming up in Marvel's schedule now. I'm sure there's something to the claim Wacker's "well-liked" inside the industry, since he's bound to be a knee-jerk leftist who could do everything they consider acceptable. But after the Spider-marriage was thrown out so blatantly, do they really think he's popular and well-liked within Spider-fandom? Naturally, the real-life J. Jonah Jamesons at Forbes won't acknowledge that issue.

Anyway, hiring a new EIC doesn't guarantee fortures will improve, if no merit or respect for fandom and past creators isn't emphasized. Sales of mainstream comics have been declining for years, to the point where it's bewildering Marvel and DC are even still in business as publishers. I'd noticed rumors Disney might shut down Marvel as a publisher, but for all we know, they're bound to continue pointlessly for still another decade or so. And within that time, sales, along with "merit", are bound to fall ever further.

Frank Miller makes the mistake of defending Neil Gaiman

Veteran leftist artist Miller was interviewed by the UK Telegraph at the Fastnet Film Festival in Ireland, and he still can't keep himself from pushing all the wrong buttons. First:

It’s hard to overstate Frank Miller’s cultural impact over the past four decades. It was Miller, the artist and writer behind The Dark Knight Returns, 300 and Sin City, who redefined comics from kids’ stuff into something darker and more adult – noirish, dystopian and morally ambiguous. Without Miller, Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan’s Batman films wouldn’t exist; without Miller, the whole movie superhero phenomenon might never have happened at all.

And I guess Denny O'Neil, Steve Englehart and Chuck Dixon don't matter, huh? Only Miller; how nice to know only so many other decent Batman writers don't count the tiniest bit. Predictably, no objective view of "something darker" and "morally ambiguous", as though that's totally above criticism. As for Miller himself, what matters to him? Left-wing "causes":

Still, he’d take that New York, “for all its despair and menace and its degradation”, he tells me, over the one that exists now. The city “in those dark Seventies”, he says, had a spirit of defiance, “a sense of shared safety and, well, there’s no other word for it, love. I don’t believe it does now. We have a militarised police, those horrific ICE agents are nothing less than a Gestapo, and the city itself has been so mismanaged for so long. As scary and grim as things were in the Seventies, there was not the overall stink of totalitarianism that there is throughout America today.”

Is the incumbent president an archetypally corrupt, money-grabbing Frank Miller political villain? “He’s grotesque,” Miller spits, comparing Donald Trump to Darth Vader without his mask. He invokes the characters that the co-creator of Captain America, Jack Kirby, conjured when the Nazis were rampaging across Europe. “Kirby several times recreated Adolf Hitler as a comic-book character. One of them was named Hate-Monger, and that one certainly applies to Trump, because he spews hatred, and he calls on that part of the human spirit in his rhetoric, and you see it on the faces of his followers – the naked racism, the naked sexism, the belligerence.”

It's so sad Miller continues to spew hatred at Trump for all the wrong reasons, and all without clearly backing up his complaints with concrete evidence. And all the while, Miller turns a deaf ear and blind eye to the Iranian ayatollahs, who preached what he speaks of, and Miller's ignorance only dampens whatever impact he must want his GNs to have. That Miller also attacks ICE and refuses, much like his other leftist colleagues he doesn't have the courage to distance himself from, to consider what heinous crimes any illegal immigrants have committed within the USA's borders. The really sad thing is that, if we take Mark Levin's criticisms as an example, there are valid issues one can make when it comes to Trump's managements, yet Miller acts oblivious to all of that. So again, if Miller believes Sin City's a masterpiece, why does he make it look like a joke as a result of his far-left stances? There's also quite a goof in this Telegraph article:

Those early days were exciting. New influences were flowing into Manhattan via the first Forbidden Planet comic-book store, where Miller mainlined the work of Japanese and European masters. His first creator-owned work, Ronin (1983-1984), was a sci-fi samurai mash-up set in contemporary New York that incorporated a wild mix of influences, with manga writ large. Some complain of cultural appropriation in borrowing from other traditions. Miller says, “I welcome any such activity. America is an amalgam of cultures… If we could, I’d love us to learn from Martians.”

Umm, doesn't contemporary mean "modern"? I read Ronin years ago, and putting aside for now that it was overrated, I seem to recall it was set in a future time. Maybe not that far into the future, but it was set years ahead all the same. Gee, what a stupid typo they put to use there. Surprising though, that Miller upheld drawing from foreign cultures, considering how limp his positions are on any subjects involving serious issues like what Sin City may be about. Unfortunately, that's about as far as he may go by now in defense of anything creative and challenging.

There’s a humorous, upbeat quality to Miller that belies the sometimes Stygian darkness of his work. His physical trials – his neck is bent by an undisclosed condition into a position that is visibly limiting – do not daunt him; he declares himself “reborn” as an artist, rather than compromised by his posture. He draws with dramatic vigour, using techniques that embrace the unpredictable. Blood spatters across his pages. Miller achieves the effect by dipping a toothbrush into ink and pulling back the bristles with his thumb to send droplets flying across his creations.

And we're supposed to be utterly impressed and thrilled by his use of bloodletting? What's so "unpredictable" about that? It's actually been quite a cliche for goodness knows how long. That aside, here's what they say about certain other parts of the content:

In Sin City (1991), the men are staggeringly brutal and the women are almost all sex workers. “As far as misogyny goes,” Miller says, “I laugh about it because all you have to do is just read my work. [The accusations] might be because I draw the women as attractive, but in Daredevil, for instance, who’s the most powerful character you remember? It’s Elektra… When it comes to Sin City, yes, I draw the women to be as sexy as possible, but they have their own neighbourhood that they police by themselves. They’re a pack of Amazons.” He is, he insists, not the least bit misogynistic himself.

He’s been accused of Islamophobia, too, after penning Holy Terror in 2011, a graphic novel that he writes “was created in a bloodthirsty rage” after the attacks on New York City on September 11. He had originally conceived it as a story in which Batman simply “kicks Al-Qaeda’s ass”, but instead it “sparked a fire of criticism, some of it warranted”. “It was a howl of pain and rage, and an inarticulate one. I’ll just leave it at that,” he tells me.

On the subject of how he draws women, yes, it's quite possible PC advocates over the years attacked him just for that, but apparently not for the violent content he's decidedly notorious for drawing in the Sin City series. As for the Holy Terror GN, again, it's regrettable he first decided to say 8 years ago that he regrets it, because for somebody who claims he's not a misogynist, he's letting a religious ideology wallowing in just that off the hook. It may have been "inarticulate", but that's surely because he never studied anything about Islam and didn't defend his work based on that. Making matters worse, the same guy who says he's not a misogynist then goes on to defend another writer who was accused of just that:

Generally, Miller is not interested in slanging matches. He says that it would please the media if “I spent half an interview” talking about the embattled writer Neil Gaiman – accused in 2024 of sexual assault by multiple women, which Gaiman denies – “saying, ‘He’s not just a terrible writer, he’s a bad person.’ You know, something crazy like that, when he’s a lovely person, he’s a terrific writer.”

Oh good grief, does he realize he's giving serious detractors a statement to use against him? The same artist and writer who said earlier he's not a misogynist destroys his defense by acting as an apologist for a man who turned out to be scummy. Is Miller doing this because he's worried his recent documentary, American Genius, will suffer in sales due to Gaiman's contributions to it? Well that's partly Miller's fault, as he probably didn't think to vet most of the people who chipped in while preparing the production.

Now the memoir is done, he’s writing a story for the 1,000th issue of Spider-Man in September. Does he still feel affection for those old characters? “Oh God, yes,” he says. “That’s the stuff I grew up on. I’m so fond of it.” And does he think the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been bad for print comics? “I don’t know how good it’s been for movies,” he says with a sly laugh.

What of the prospect of a real “superman” in the near future, as robots and AI continue to advance? “It’s not gonna be that,” he says. “AI is a false god… [and] it’s making for some bad writing.” Meanwhile, this thoroughly human creative engine is still thinking about what he wants to do next – Beowulf, perhaps. Or Der Ring des Nibelungen. “There are an awful lot of stories,” he says.

Well Miller's offering up some very bad commentary ensuring he won't be the most famous creator to come about in the late 20th/early 21st centuries. One of the worst things about modern comics movies is that they did come at the expense of the zygotes, and while Miller may claim to have affection for even Spidey, his failure to address the erasure of the Spider-marriage can speak volumes. It won't be shocking if the 1000th Spidey issue spoken of turns out to be heavily mandated, with C.B. Cebulski prohibiting a reinstatement of the marriage with Mary Jane Watson. So why tell us about the upcoming "anniversary" or even about his new memoir, Push the Wall? After this insult to the intellect from a guy who doesn't seem to understand the importance of consistency, I'd rather not waste my time on either. Miller's problem is that he simply won't keep his mouth shut, and recognize that obsessions like his with figures like Trump doesn't make him a realist. Miller's only proving he's one of the most disappointing artists in comicdom today, and then, if his recent projects were failures, we shouldn't be surprised why. With a few exceptions like Daredevil and maybe Batman: Year One, he is pretty overrated as an artist and writer. And his defense of Gaiman is very troubling.

Back issue bins can turn up interesting items, but why not trade collections?

CTV News wrote about what people find in back issue bins, at conventions like FCBD and the Calgary Expo:

If you’re the right kind of geek, there’s a good chance you’ve spent some time lately rooting through comic book back issue bins.

Calgary Expo and Free Comic Book Day are just freshly behind us.

Maybe you were hoping the next flip would bring you a particular something on your list for a mere dollar or two.

Maybe a successful dive through the cheap reads means getting exactly issues 520 and 521 of Journey Into Mystery.

Or maybe you were flipping aimlessly, and it was by the Comic Book Gods’ good grace you hit on the “fear-filled final issues” of that specific Marvel Comics series that someone else either didn’t want anymore or couldn’t sell at face value.

It was a rescue mission, regardless.

How comic book collectors approach it is what can vary, says Bill Bateman from Alpha Comics in Calgary.

“While some are looking for anything to fill in the blanks in their collections, others are looking for that elusive rare book that may have been missed by the store,” Bateman told CTV News.

“Some people show up with a binder of notes showing what they’re missing, (while) some have apps on their phones that do the job a lot faster, and some just know all of the books well enough.”

Sure, there can be gems to find in back issue bins, but if the same issues have been reprinted in trade collections, why must we hear about would-be collectors zeroing in almost entirely on said bins and not searching for paperback/hardcovers reprinting the very same issues? Why not even whether anybody wants specific issues reprinted, if they haven't yet been? That's what I never seem to see these news outlets bring up, nor do they interview people who do. But trade collections or paperback/hardcovers are what comprise the bulk of my collection now, and I think it's working a lot better that way, because thanks to the Marvel Epic Collections and the more recently launched DC Finest archives, I now own hundreds, perhaps thousands of old issues reprinted through these forms of collections for older comics. And these news companies don't want to talk about how great those can be for everybody who hopes to acquire a complete run of various classic series? That's just the problem here.

Rhiannon Mesler says comic book bin diving “runs on the same machinery that powers a slot machine.”

Likewise, the University of Lethbridge marketing professor and expert in consumer behaviour and decision-making says, “the same machinery social media platforms have spent fifteen years optimizing.”

“What makes it irresistible isn’t the find. It’s the unpredictability,” she says.

“Neuroscientists have shown that the brain’s dopamine system fires hardest not when reward arrives, but when reward arrives unexpectedly.

“And that the dopamine signal actually peaks when the odds are roughly 50-50, when you genuinely don’t know whether the next comic in the box is going to be ‘The One.’”

They make it sound more like a game of hide-and-seek than searching for the best reading material. Another clue the speculator mentality plays a part in this whole affair, which effectively ruins any attempt to sound convincing in their fandom.

In addition to the above, ComicBook also told about a guy who, with aid from his dad, managed to purchase at least 400 of the Amazing Spider-Man issues printed up till around the mid-90s:

Many times, comic book collectors are only interested in building a collection for bragging rights or to hopefully one day make money off of the collectibles. However, there are other times when a collector has a more personal reason for collecting memorabilia, and it has a purer meaning than just looking for the big bucks. In some cases, the idea of collecting comics or other items of memorabilia is passed down through the generations. In those cases, it is more about the relationship between a person and their parents, and that makes completing a collection something that means so much more.

This was the case for a Redditor known as joeltheconner, who just revealed that he finally completed his Amazing Spider-Man run of the first 400 issues. He then added that he has his father to thank for this fact.

In his post, joeltheconner wrote that his dad was a comic book collector and would take him to comic shops when he was a kid. However, he said that he was never as interested in comics until he was nine years old. “At the age of 9. My dad gave me a copy of ASM 300 to read. I was hooked instantly,” he wrote. “From then, we started collecting together. For two years we took our vacations to Chicago so we could go to the big convention up there.”

Around 1998, he said he lost interest and stopped collecting, and then moved on. However, he admitted there was something his dad had said to him before that he thought was cool. They discussed having the full run of a specific comic book title. He chose Amazing Spider-Man and decided he would collect the run of the first 400 issues. That led to a few years ago, when his dad asked if he was still interested in completing that collection. His dad then did something that meant the world to him.

His dad had his “prized” Silver Surfer comics, and he offered to sell those to the local shop to get credit so that his son could work on finishing his Amazing Spider-Man run. “I honestly tried to talk him out of it, but it sounded like a really fun thing for him and I to do together again,” he wrote. “From the first time I stepped back into a shop, it took me right back and I was hooked again. 2 years later, today I bought the last book that I needed to complete the run.”

That book was Amazing Spider-Man #2, which was the first appearance of the Vulture and which was the first book where Spider-Man fought a superpowered villain (Chameleon was the first villain in the debut issue). This man’s dad gave up a prized possession to work with his son to help fulfill a dream. It was obvious that it meant the world to this man. “It’s so hard sometimes for sons to tell their fathers what they mean to them, and I’m going to figure out a way to really tell him,” he wrote. “But thank you, Dad. I owe more to you in this life than I could never repay.”

While it's great for dads and sons to do all sorts of things together, it's simply ludicrous how somebody would like to get as much of Spidey when it mattered in pamphlets, but not in trade collections, which at this point is precisely what I own. As of now, I own, for example, the first 12 ASM Epic archives, and have plenty more coming after that, and hope the ASM run will be more or less completed eventually, so that then, I can try to buy complete sets myself, though admittedly, at this point I'm hesitant to buy those collecting the Clone Saga, which, while it may not be as awful as some other artistic humiliations to come down the pike later, was still very damaging to the Spidey legacy, and certainly the part where Peter assaulted Ben Reilly in frustration and accidentally injured Mary Jane when she tried to get him to stop, after which Peter just ran out of the laboratory in horror instead of doing what he could to mend the damage to MJ. That kind of scene is far more reprehensible than claiming Ben was the protagonist all along between 1975-95 (and it was soon confirmed by writers that Peter was the protagonist within that time frame, not Ben, in their efforts to apologize to Spider-fans they alienated).

And I have plenty more Epic Collection and Finest archives I've bought, including a few dedicated to Superman's series and spinoffs, all 3 for Black Panther, several for Daredevil, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Wonder Woman, Catwoman, Dr. Strange, Justice Society/League, Punisher, Luke Cage, X-Men, Capt. America, Thor, Hawkman, Defenders, Moon Knight and even Excalibur. I also have several omnibuses to boot. And I hope other Spidey spinoffs like the 1976-98 Spectacular will see some Epic archives eventually too. That's what serious "collectors" should really be buying, and considering the back issues are highly likely to become increasingly expensive over time, if they really want to read this stuff, that's why they'll buy the trade collections.

So again, why are we still seeing this otherwise absurd news about people searching for back issues instead of paperbacks/hardcovers? That's another huge letdown with modern news coverage of comidom. Because in the end, it only hints they still don't take the medium seriously, otherwise, they would talk about all these reprint collections and how they can introduce new generations to older classics as a great reading pastime. And this demonstrates how the MSM continues to belittle the medium, by not highlighting a far more convenient approach to collecting notable stories of the past decades by today's standards. Unless something is done to dissuade speculators and collectors from back issues and try trade collections instead, the problem's going to continue for at least another decade or three.

2nd season of politicized Daredevil TV show on Disney channels flops

John Nolte at Breitbart reveals the 2nd season of the far-left influenced Daredevil: Born Again TV show has tanked in ratings:

The Disney Grooming Syndicate’s second season of Marvel’s anti-Trump Daredevil: Born Again is looking like a bigger flop than the first season.

Disney+ is three episodes into season two, and not one of those three have appeared in the weekly top ten chart of original streaming shows. If you look at number ten on that chart, 239 million streaming minutes is enough to enter the top ten, which means Daredevil failed to even earn that much attention.

All ten episodes of the first season of Born Again, which is Disney’s reboot of the popular Netflix Daredevil show, failed to appear even once in Nielsen’s top-ten chart of streaming originals.

Looks like the chickens came home to roost. Less people are interested in being taken for a ride and having hammer-handed propaganda foisted upon them. The new series may draw from Frank Miller's 1986 DD storyline in name only, but all the same, I wonder how he feels that another something that might draw from his resume could be lumped alongside some of the other live action flops he was involved with in past decades? He has sadly remained a leftist, to the point where he'd kowtow to others if that's what it takes to remain within their good graces, and that could explain in part why he may have said nothing about where Disney took this latest venture. Which would only suggest that, despite any claims to the contrary, he doesn't care all that much about what past achievements he did have.

Anyway, it's long past time the live action Marvel adaptations were put to bed. They're not getting anywhere anymore, if at all, and the same can be said for what live action DC adaptations are still being produced. At one time, I'd be impressed if animation made an alternative, but if political propaganda makes its way in there too, that's why so long as it lasts, even animated adaptations are no longer something to look forward to.