Stars of Marvel movies are making it hard to watch them in hindsight based on their anti-Israel attacks

Mark Ruffalo's easily the most well known actor to appear in comics adaptations like the Avengers movies (as the Hulk), who's recently been viciously attacking the land of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's ancestry. He's done it again in his attack on Paramount over his opposition to a merger with Warner Brothers, as told in this Jerusalem Post article:

US multimedia giant Paramount slammed Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo for invoking antisemitic tropes in an Instagram post on Friday in which he accused Israel of genocide and apartheid.

The outspoken anti-Israel ACTOR, known for his roles in the Avengers films, accused Paramount moguls David and Larry Ellison of “powering some of the most destructive and inhuman forces in the world” and warned of the danger of David Ellison’s bid to combine Paramount with Warner Bros. Discovery.

A spokesperson for Paramount said the company is “troubled when antisemitic tropes are invoked in purported service of a business dispute. Words like ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid,’ applied to a corporate transaction, aren’t just wrong – they’re a bridge too far, and they cheapen the very real suffering those words are meant to describe. This doesn’t deserve a response in kind – and to be clear, we don’t tolerate prejudice of any kind, against anyone.”

In his post, Ruffalo referred to Larry Ellison as a “classic oligarch,” and he shared a video of Safra Catz, vice chair of Oracle, discussing the technological assistance the company provided to Israel following the Hamas-led October 7 attack.

Ruffalo encouraged his followers to “look how she revels in what we now have come to see as a genocide, which was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle.”

What Ruffalo's been up to gets even worse with his and several other actors' support for a jihadist:

Over 20 actors who have appeared in Marvel films have joined a campaign calling for the release of convicted Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti, according to an Instagram post published on Friday by the group, freemarwannow.

Among the actors who have joined the "Freedom for Marwan" campaign are Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays Doctor Strange; Mark Ruffalo, who plays the Hulk; Ian McKellen, who plays Magneto; and Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, and others. [...]

Barghouti is a former leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a terrorist organization that carried out many suicide bombings and shooting attacks during the Second Intifada.

According to Israel, Barghouti orchestrated or was responsible for, among others, the following attacks between 2001 and 2002: the murder of a Greek Orthodox monk on the road to Ma’aleh Adumim; the shooting attack during a bat mitzva celebration at a banquet hall in Hadera that killed six Israelis; a shooting spree on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem during which two Israelis were killed and 37 people wounded; a shooting attack in Neve Ya’acov in which an Israeli policewoman was killed; the murder of an Israeli at the Bashkevitz coffee and spice factory in the Atarot industrial zone of Jerusalem; the suicide attack perpetrated by Daryan Abu Aysha at the Maccabim checkpoint in which two policeman were wounded; the shooting spree at the Seafood Market restaurant which killed three Israelis.

It's going to be very hard watching these performers from live action Marvel movies playing their roles for a long time now, based on what they've just done in the now, even if they're playing villains. Their ignorance is stunning, and most chilling is, what if they fully know what Barghouti did years ago?

A rabbi writing for VIN News described the whole repellent case as follows:

Imagine that the Superheroes known as the “Avengers” were fighting for the wrong side. Say, for example, for the Nazis. Well, it is not such a stretch anymore. But it is not the Superheroes – it is the actors who play them.

Somewhere in a publicist’s office, likely, in Hollywood – a decision was made. A list circulated. Names were added, one by one, each signatory presumably assured that the others had already looked into it.

Nobody looked into it.

More than twenty actors from the Marvel Cinematic Universe — Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Ruffalo, Don Cheadle, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, and a supporting cast long enough to fill a closing credit scroll — have signed their names to a demand that the United Nations and the governments of the world work to free mass-murderer Marwan Barghouti from an Israeli prison.

The statement voices grave concern for his imprisonment and his treatment inside it. Grave concern. That is the entire emotional range on offer, and it is expended in full on behalf of the man serving five consecutive life sentences for murder.

For the five people he was convicted of murdering, the statement has nothing. No sentence. No clause. No name. Twenty-plus celebrated artists, working presumably with the assistance of professional wordsmiths, produced a document about a quintuple murder conviction that manages never to acknowledge that anyone died.

I'll never be able to watch a lot of these particular movies ever again, realizing just how far into the abyss the twisted perspective of the actors in the Marvel movies goes. They've desecrated the memory of many Jewish comics creators with this abominable act of theirs, and it's stunning they'd even take the roles they did in comics adaptations to begin with. The Marvel live action movies aren't aging well, as a result of what the actors who played the casts in the films have been doing lately.

Update: VIN News announced the Israeli foreign ministry condemns the Hollywooders glorifying Barghouti:

Israel’s Foreign Ministry on Monday denounced a Hollywood-backed campaign calling for the release of Marwan Barghouti, a senior Fatah figure serving five life sentences for directing terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada, saying celebrities cannot rewrite his criminal record.

“Hollywood can manufacture superheroes. It cannot manufacture Marwan Barghouti’s innocence,” the ministry said in a statement posted on social media. “Five murder convictions. Five life sentences. Five victims of his terrorist plots.”

The ministry urged the public to remember the victims rather than “glorify their murderer.”

The rebuke followed a new wave of support for the “Free Marwan” campaign from more than 20 actors linked to Marvel films and television productions, including Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Ruffalo, Don Cheadle, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton and Ian McKellen. Campaign organizers say more than 200 cultural figures — actors, musicians, writers and directors — have signed on since Barghouti’s family launched the effort late last year with groups in the United Kingdom. [...]

The Foreign Ministry’s statement did not name individual actors but framed the celebrity drive as an attempt to recast a convicted terrorist as a political prisoner. “Remember the names of the victims,” the ministry said, “instead of glorifying their murderer.”

An absolutely correct point to make.

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.

The history of Steve Ditko's influences by Ayn Rand

Reason wrote some history of the late artist Steve Ditko's influences by Ayn Rand:

Of all the popular storytelling artists striving to emulate Ayn Rand, the most significant was Steve Ditko.

Ditko, a comic book artist, is most famous for co-creating Spider-Man and Dr. Strange. Rand, in addition to writing novels that still sell hugely seven decades down the line, developed a philosophy she called Objectivism, the politics of which were highly libertarian and highly controversial.

Ditko's commitment to Rand's ideas led him down a curious and troubled path, and made him resemble a real-life Rand character. From developing enduring legends for Marvel Comics in the 1960s to Kickstartering in the 2010s with fewer than 150 sponsors his uniquely and often bizarrely abstract stories, Ditko emulated aspects of both of Rand's most prominent fictional protagonists.

And the place where he may have done this more was with Charlton creations like the original Question, and Blue Beetle (which have since become DC properties):

While no one seems certain when and under what circumstances Ditko became a Rand devotee—Ditko biographer Blake Bell thinks Lee may have been his entrée to her work—his unmistakably Rand-influenced art didn't start to appear until after his first departure from Marvel. In 1967, Ditko debuted a character who would never be owned by any corporation: Mr. A. The hero was named for Rand's core directive via Aristotle: that "A is A" and all reasoning must be rooted in never countenancing contradiction.

Mr. A is a vigilante with no superpowers—or perhaps, as Ditko wrote, his superpower is "knowing what's right, and acting accordingly." In a famous sequence in his first appearance, a woman stabbed by a malefactor nonetheless wants Mr. A to save the crook from falling to his death. Mr. A tells her that "to have any sympathy for a killer is an insult to their victim."

The next year, he vividly brought Rand's aesthetics into mass-market superhero stories in a Charlton Comic starring another of his creations, the Question, allied with an older superhero Ditko had significantly revamped, the Blue Beetle. The pair gets involved in a case centered on two sculptures, one representing man as misshapen and grotesque, the other strong and noble. They fight the artist and forces that want to promote the ugly, and thus anti-man, and thus anti-mind, and thus anti-life, art.

That's certainly interesting, and I'd strongly recommend checking out Ditko's Silver Age stories like those just as much as Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, because there's bound to be plenty to think about in the early Question stories, along with Blue Beetle, that shouldn't be overlooked. Ditko may not have been perfect, and I think it's a shame he had fallouts with Stan Lee back in the day. But Ditko too has admirable work to consider, and that's why it's a good idea to check out these classics as well.

Tim Seeley turns off his social media pages because a controversy erupts over how he portrayed Magik

So it looks like even a few years after Elon Musk bought Twitter and changed the name to X, there's still controversies bursting out there over comics, whether justified or not. And the latest one involves writer Tim Seeley and an X-Men story he wrote. But before we get to that, here's something I noticed written by Tom Brevoort at least a year ago about Magik from the X-Men franchise that requires pondering:

In the past, I haven’t liked Magik pretty much at all. But that doesn’t mean that the character doesn’t have fans, lots of them. And being in the position that I’m in now means that I can prevent her from being written in the manner that used to irritate me. So there’s no problem with using her.

He seems to have laid out quite a double-standard in which, on the one hand, he acts like a fictional character is a real person, a considerable problem still haunting comicdom till this day. On the other hand, he ostensibly admits, though not clearly, that it's the assigned writer who's guilty of whatever he thought "irritating" about Illyana Rasputin in the past. It was surely to be expected from somebody who hasn't been convincing in his dedication to the job he works in.

But that doesn't explain why Brevoort approved of the following story in focus, which leads us to what's come up on the web, as explained by Comic Book Movie. It's a story supposed to be set in a future alternate era, where Magik kills Maria Hill(!) and is killed by Nick Fury in turn, and goes to the depths of hell again, and:

Well, there are sexual undertones in the comic that imply the demons have sexually abused Magik. X-Men: Age of Revelation Infinity #4 doesn't depict rape, but demeaning remarks are made about her body, and two of the hero's tormenters, Belasco and S'ym, were previously revealed to have abused Magik as a child.

When Magik arrives in Limbo, she's in her underwear, and as Darkchild, she thanks her abuser—in an admittedly sexualised pose—for "sating [her] pathetic needs." While some read that as a reference to sexual assault, Belasco is actually making her beg for food.

Sexual assault has frequently been used as a plot device for female characters in comics, so it's easy enough to understand the outrage. It may not have been the intention here, but the issue can be read in that way, and therein lies the problem.

The backlash was so vocal that writer Tim Seeley, who faced abuse and death threats (which is obviously unacceptable), has deactivated his X account and gone private on Instagram. On Bluesky, he wrote, "Welp...I had to finally deactivate twitter because that was just a touch too much death for me and the family. It was a sh*t 16 year run! F**k everybody!"

He may have erased that specific post too, and it wouldn't be shocking if the atmosphere wasn't so clean even there. First, let's be perfectly clear. Of course if anybody reacted that repulsively on social media about this story, it's offensive and doesn't help the cause of anybody who's allegedly revolted by how the story was written up. That said, even if this is supposed to be an alternate future story, it is insulting to the intellect how a character who'd once been built up is reverted back to a denigrating position, as though her status in the regular world had never been. And that only suggests these alternate future titles Marvel's been working on lately have little purpose beyond the settings.

Here's what The Gamer tells about the story:

Specifically, readers claim that the comic depicts Magik being sexually abused until she becomes a villain. This is perceived as a resurgence of the trend in which female characters are sexually assaulted for shock value and receive a disproportionate amount of violence, something Marvel is no stranger to.

While Marvel obviously isn't innocent of concocting tasteless stories alluding to sexual violence, we have DC to thank for really leading us to the sorry state mainstream comics suffered from 2 decades ago, when they published Identity Crisis, the miniseries that minimized sexual violence for the sake of leftist metaphors, and worst, minimized real life victims of sexual violence in the process. Such abominations are why we got to a point where the audience may not be ready for stories in which sexual violence of the worst kind is even alluded to. That aside, one more reason it probably shouldn't be surprising a story like this was approved by Brevoort is because, lest we forget, he was editor of Avengers at the time Brian Bendis mistreated Scarlet Witch in Disassembled. It certainly does make his claim he wants to prevent Magik from being written poorly very bizarre indeed.

Another writer at ComicBook also spoke about the subject, but there's traces in his piece of blurring the distinctions between fictional characters and their real life writers/editors:

Right now, the X-Men books are in the midst of “Age of Revelation”, an alternate universe story whose perception that has mixed, which seems like the watchword for the line since Brevoort took over. This story takes place ten years in the future, with many characters drastically changed. Magik, who has been Cyclops’s right-hand woman in X-Men, has become the Darkchylde again, and an Infinity comic, the books that Marvel puts on their Marvel Unlimited app, told the story of how she got there. However, this comic caused a huge uproar, one that sees a disturbing Marvel trope return, and we need to talk about it.

We may alright, but I'm not so sure the columnist himself is the most qualified for the job, as a certain part of the following suggests:

Marvel Infinity’s X-Men: Age of Revelation #4 revealed the fate of Magik after her death. She was sent back to Limbo, where she met her old demonic masters and they decided that they wanted her back as their weapon. So, the demons sexually assaulted her until she became their slave again. Now, it wasn’t shown on the page, but the book didn’t shy away from telling us what happened to her. It’s such a strange and disturbing choice to make in 2025; Magik has gotten more popular than ever, and to have her abused in such a way is honestly terrible.

I looked at the earlier article from March linked to in the paragraph, and the fellow veers into silly babbling about Magik being great because she's supposedly better than Dr. Strange. Umm, that all depends on how well written she is, and if she isn't, then her power levels don't add up to much of anything. He also says, "Take Doctor Strange’s powers away and he’s just a guy. Take Magik’s powers away and she’s still a formidable fighter." *Ahem*. Around 1989, there was a story in the 2nd volume's 10th issue where Stephen Strange wound up in a fight with Morbius over a misunderstanding, and the Living Vampire assaulted Stephen when he tried to initiate magic spells, cancelling out the incantations, but Stephen didn't back down. Rather, he took to using physical martial arts taught by butler Wong, and succeeded in defeating Morbius that way. What ComicBook's writer says erases that storytelling history. I don't know just now if Dr. Strange was originally established by creators Stan Lee/Steve Ditko as a physical combat practitioner, but by the late 80s, succeeding writers like Peter Gillis certainly seem to have made use of the possibilities. What's the columnist trying to prove with such a puff piece? Which ends with:

Magik was able to summon a massive demon to help her fight Wraith’s mech. As powerful as Doctor Strange is, he wouldn’t have been able to summon a powerful demon to do his bidding. Magik’s history can be quite convoluted, but she’s proven herself as Marvel’s best magic user, making her a unique weapon for the X-Men.

Sorry, but this too hilariously ignorant of the fact that it all depends on what even Lee thought made for a great story, and whether it was plausible enough within the boundaries of science fantasy Lee established in his time. I'm sure that writers with talent could come up with a great Iron Man story where Tony Stark built a giant Japanese-style mech and put it to use in battles against criminals armed with similar weapons, but let's remember that with bad apples like Joe Quesada and his successors being in charge of Marvel, the chances something that spectacular could work well is simply out of the question. If you want to defend Illyana Rasputin as a storytelling vehicle and condemn superfluous use of sexual violence as a storytelling tool, that's okay, but making her and Dr. Strange out to sound like real persons and reducing everything to a whole "my favorite character's better than yours" argument does nothing, and in fact runs the danger of encouraging abuse of the character considered "lesser" by the columnist.

Sure, it's awful if Magik was established as sexually abused by the demons in the new X-Men story; whatever abuse she underwent in the Bronze Age stories where she first appeared was enough. But, chances are the cybertrolls on X and other platforms who attacked Seeley weren't altruistic, nor were they actually against offensive use of a serious issue in an entertainment product; chances are high they were just looking for excuses to attack somebody else over something they otherwise have no issue with in real life, certainly if they never condemn cases like the following in Europe. If the attacks on Seeley were only written for the sake of "fun", it only makes clear no problems are being solved at all.

With that told, there doesn't seem to be much point to these alternate future storylines Marvel's currently turning out, and the hypocrisies surrounding the whole mess are stupefying.

The Conversation confirms One World Under Doom is a political metaphor of the worst kind

The Conversation ran an article about vampires in past comics stories, and also brought up how Marvel's recent directions with One World Under Doom are a leftist political metaphor, with Victor Von Doom a stand-in for a right-wing politician, and Donald Trump:

Vampires in American comic books retained this outsider status – invariably they were European immigrants like Morbius, who was born in Nafplio, Greece. In this way, comic vampires continue the literary vampire tradition of tapping into the fear of foreigners.

Doctor Doom: anti-immigrant populist politician

Comic book writer Ryan North explored a variation of this theme with Doctor Doom, the Marvel Comics’ super-villain, in issues of Fantastic Four released this year. Doom will be played by Robert Downey Jr. in the new film Avengers: Doomsday, due in 2026.

Doom rules Latveria, a fictional European country. He has recently declared himself Emperor of the World, supported by leaders of nations across the globe. Doom also uses Trump-style populism by propagating prejudice and fear-mongering against vampires. [...]

In One World Under Doom #3 (April, 2025) a group of superheroes and super-villains team up against their common enemy and find out how Doom has manipulated the world’s leaders. Using their own powers, they discover that he has not used magic, telepathy or mind control. He has merely negotiated with other leaders to become World Emperor. His populist policies have been embraced by the public.

This, along with the anti-vampire rhetoric and misinformation, creates a powerful allegory of the far-right ideologies that are currently being propagated by politicians across our own world. This current portrayal of Dr Doom as a proxy for public figures and politicians who use anti-immigrant rhetoric, harmful stereotypes and egregious misinformation, strongly suggests that they are the real monsters. Not the immigrants – or vampires for that matter.

And this is supposed to be a bizarre anti-Trump metaphor? What's also bizarre is how a science-fantasy concept is being turned around entirely for the sake of this mishmash, and we're supposed to believe all vampires are "misunderstood" along with the illegal immigrants they serve as metaphors for? Does that mean Mr. North believes the Islamic religion is also "misunderstood"? If that's his position, I hestitate to think what he thinks of Zohran Mamdani's election as New York City's mayor. The part about world leaders and the public supposedly accepting Doom's leadership as a metaphor for Trump is also absurd, because in reality, not every world politician or members of the public have done so.

Since the subject of One World Under Doom came up, Comic Book Club Live announced Scarlet Witch will be taking up the role of Dr. Strange, which was previously taken by Dr. Doom:

Written by Steve Orlando with art by Bernard Chang, the new series will find the one-time Scarlet Witch picking up the mantle left behind by Doctor Doom after the end of One World Under Doom. Leirix will provide main covers for the series, and Russell Dauterman has returned to the character for the new costume design, as well as covers depicting Wanda’s advisory council: Clea, Chthon, Wiccan, and Papa John (for the pizza thing).

[...] This marks the latest in a long line of Sorcerers Supreme in Marvel Comics. Back in 2009, Brother Voodoo took over in New Avengers #53, with Doctor Strange eventually taking back the mantle. In 2017’s Doctor Strange #381, Loki was made Sorcerer Supreme by the Vishanti. Then after Doctor Strange took it back again and then died, Clea took over, then gave it back to Doctor Strange, and then Doctor Doom took over, and now Wanda. Cool!

They're much too late, and this only turns Wanda into another character lacking agency, as the step only makes it look like her role as Scarlet Witch never mattered. Which once again only makes clear the writer wants everyone to care more about the costume than the character. But all this does is make a mockery out of past Dr. Strange tales that were never for the sake of 15 minute media attention, and the artwork for this new book starring Wanda looks so otherwise sexless, it's clear it won't amount to much even on that level. One could easily argue Dr. Strange has become the 2nd most misused superhero after Captain America, based on these publicity stunts for stories that aren't built on plausibility or merit.

Even in Britain, there's specialty auctions

The BBC reports there's an auctioneering company that's selling tons of old pamphlets on the speculator market, just like in the USA:

Hundreds of 1960s comic books are set to be auctioned later this month, with an estimated total value of up to £7,000.

The line-up is made up mostly of Marvel comics and is due to go under the hammer in Lichfield, Staffordshire, on 29 September.

Superheroes featured include Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, the Silver Surfer, X-Men, the Avengers, the Incredible Hulk, Captain America, Sub-Mariner, Doctor Strange, Daredevil and Thor.

There are more than 50 lots - with highlights including the Fantastic Four #48, #49 and #50, which feature the first appearances of the Silver Surfer and Galactus, valued at between £400 and £600.

And they're going to be sold to the highest bidder and locked away in vaults till they're sold round and round again, huh? Unfortunately, even in the UK, that's likely to end up being the case, when here, they have a chance to donate them to a local arts museum instead, and everyone can see these famous old treasures of the 20th century for themselves. This continues to do a disfavor for Stan Lee's resume, and it's tiring decades ago how auctions keep making headlines like these, when the buyers have no interest in purchasing these so they can build up a history display for museums.

Marvel's tired take on WW2 using a variation on Ghost Rider

ComicBook gushed over a new Marvel book called Hellhunters, which is supposed to be set around the 2nd world war, and even features a variation on Ghost Rider in the cast:

World War 2 is always a fun time for Marvel’s super heroes, which makes sense considering characters like Captain America, Bucky, and Nick Fury were born as a result of the conflict. With teams like the Invaders and the Howling Commandos normally being the “go to” examples of super heroes fighting against Adolf Hitler’s forces, Marvel Comics is looking to branch out with a new World War 2 fighting force unlike anything seen before. In the premiere issue, we see the early formation of these Hellhunters, but do we also get a worthy opening salvo for this new Marvel band of heroes?

Since Hellhunters is a series that focuses on Marvel’s old and new heroes uniting under a supernatural banner, it makes sense that the series would have a definitive horror theme. Our issue begins with a band of German forces wandering into a bewitched wood that holds secrets and madness unique to this cursed locale, setting the stage for a threat that will unite this ragtag band of oddballs. The series works as both an origin story for the Hellhunters themselves and for “Ghost Rider ’44”, a new take on the Spirit of Vengeance who recently made his eruptive debut in the pages of The Incredible Hulk. Luckily, Hellhunters delivers on its unique blend of horror and action for its preliminary adventure.

I think this beggars the query whether war itself is "fun", when looked upon in the context of a real war like the 2nd in the 20th century. And the answer to that would be an absolute "no". No matter how justified it was to battle Germany's National Socialists, it's not fun, it's grueling and terrible when one considers the innocent victims, Jewish, Roma or otherwise during the period, and the same can be said about the war Israel's now been forced to go into after October 7, 2023. On which note, it goes without saying that for a long time, much of the comics medium vehmently refuses to tackle the subject of Islamic jihadism, even long after September 11, 2001. So what's the point of a comic set during WW2, when refusal to write about a serious modern day issue in any way only diminishes the impact of the subject from the past century? One more reason why this is not a "worthy" opening salvo for such a story.

Phillip Kennedy Johnson is the perfect choice to helm the writing responsibilities for this series, being the creative mind responsible for WW 2’s Spirit of Vengeance. Having honed a fantastic level of horror to his recent take on Bruce Banner, Johnson brings that same spirit here in creating creepy creatures that add a new level of danger to the worldwide conflict. [...]

Oh, and that's just what the Hulk needs too. Sure, there were past stories where the Hulk had themes of darkness, but it was anything but horror-themed, and decidedly better that way. Even Dr. Strange was never that far into horror themes when it originally ran from the early 60s to the late 90s. This new Hellhunters series is just another tired example of Marvel milking its properties dry. When will they be closing their publishing shop already?

"Marvel Rivals" doesn't feel like a comics video game

A reviewer at AV Club is disappointed with the new Marvel Rivals computer game, which he says doesn't feel like Marvel, yet more like Overwatch:

There’s a fun game you can play while playing the (frequently unfun) new online shooter Marvel Rivals. I call it “Hey, Which Overwatch Character Is This Weird Version Of A Marvel Person Semi-Actionably Ripping Off?” [...]

Weirdly, the one itch the game doesn’t scratch is my love of Marvel. Sure, it’s fun to hear Yuri Lowenthal (Spider-Man), Josh Keaton (Iron Man), and Steve Blum (Wolverine) reprise roles from earlier Marvel games (including my beloved Midnight Sons). But Rivals is so interested in recreating the Overwatch dynamics that it rarely, if ever, feels like the superhero throwdown it should be, either in its fluff—with weird lore, costumes, and a time-tossed array of levels pulled from alternate universes that just happen to look a lot like OW maps—or its play. These don’t look, or feel, like any Marvel fights you might be familiar with from comics, TV shows, or films, and that’s because they’re not trying to be. They’re re-skinned Overwatch, and that’s a real bummer in a universe where a genuine Marvel hero shooter game still doesn’t really exist.

It's really no surprise these newer computer games don't feel like Marvel. That's because of all the wokeness they increasingly adhered to as the years went by, relying on newer stories and how characters were portrayed, and if they rely on how the movies approached the characters, rather than say, how Stan Lee and Roy Thomas did, that's another huge mistake. Why, even the increased focus on heroes fighting each other got way out of hand long ago, and that too makes this whole affair discouraging.

And come to think of it, when one takes into consideration that not many Marvel superheroes use guns, save for Nick Fury and the Punisher, maybe that's why the whole notion of modeling this game after a first-person shooter is another mistake? But the worst mistake of all is assigning only so many "reviwers" who couldn't care less about the classic material to comment on these topics, when they don't really have a proper grip on what originally made Marvel's comics work so well decades before, and no chance they'll ever complain how Marvel lost direction as a publisher under phonies like Joe Quesada and Bill Jemas. As a result, articles like these don't have much impact even to argue why these new computer games aren't worth the bytes they're published on, and don't make a good substitute for the comics.

Doctor Doom takes powers from Doctor Strange, and Lois Lane becomes Superwoman again

A writer at Softonic tells us that a new Marvel event called "Blood Hunt" depicts Latveria's despot acquiring powers from the Sorceror Supreme so that the former can supposedly save the world, not the latter:

In Marvel comics, there are three maxims: Most everyone has been part of The Avengers (about 125 heroes, more or less), dying is only temporary, and the position of Sorcerer Supreme changes from time to time. Although we all have Doctor Strange in mind as the Sorcerer Supreme, the truth is that over the years characters like Doctor Druid, Jericho, Clea, and even Loki have succeeded him in the role. And now it’s time to give it to someone else. Again.

What "truth" are we talking about, exactly? Most of these storylines came post-2000, and hardly count as anything, especially given that they're fictional. Stories like the one where Loki took over Stephen Strange's role were particularly forced. They've added nothing to the history legacy of Strange, let alone Marvel, and have only served as a form of shock value narrative.

Doctor Doom had been ruling Latveria undisturbed for a long time, but now he’s back for ‘Blood Hunt’, the current vampire saga that has the entire Marvel Universe in checkmate. Luckily, Doom can help fight the bloodsuckers, and for that he only needs a lot of magic. A whole lot. So much that Stephen Strange must transfer to him the power of Sorcerer Supreme.

And yes, we know not only that he’ll do it, but also that along the way he will take a piece of Clea’s soul, thus inaugurating the comic ‘Doctor Doom: Sorcerer Supreme’ in 2025. What could go wrong? Additionally, this happens during the same year ‘The Fantastic Four’ movie is released… and by now we should already know that both things go hand in hand. There’s no way to know what Kevin Feige is thinking, but it’s probably going to be pure magic. Time will tell.

Well the wise reader hopefully won't be waiting up. This is little more than another example of putting villains in a "heroic" role their past resume makes them unsuitable for, and if Doom could actually battle vampires, how can't Strange do the same? There were plenty of times he was seen fighting monsters until the late 90s, and now we're supposed to be rooting for a criminal like Doom to be portrayed doing the same? No way. At this point, we're also way past the point we could anticipate a Fantastic Four movie no matter the merit. If memory serves, any FF movie waiting in the wings could end up being as woke as anything else that's been produced of recent. This looks like yet another exercise in pointlessness at the expense of the actual heroes, all for the sake of putting specific villains in implausible roles.

There's also another article at Softonic about Lois Lane taking the role of Superwoman again in the pages of Superman, and this one's quite a puff piece too, with a certain inaccuracy regarding history:

Lois Lane first appeared in a comic book in June 1938, 86 years ago, and, as you can guess, she has experienced all kinds of things and suffered misfortunes over the decades, especially in the “golden age” where she had her own comic book title, which lasted 137 issues and featured some of the most bizarre covers in the history of comics. And the new modern times haven’t exactly forgotten about her…

Sorry, but that was the Silver/Bronze Ages where Lois had her own title (Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane, 1958-74), and when it was cancelled, any stand-alone stories for Lois in the pre-Crisis era continued at least until 1982 in the Superman Family anthology. This is another telling example of somebody who's not a historian misleading us.

The new comic series, Superman, has been announcing for a while that a new Superwoman was coming who would fight alongside our hero, but her identity would be very mysterious…if it weren’t for the comic’s own synopsis revealing that it is Lois Lane. And this is not the first time she has gained powers: in fact, she has already been Superwoman not long ago, in 2016, during the “Rebirth” era.

But hey, the first time the superheroine’s suit was tested was in issue 60 of “Action Comics” and the most memorable one was in the epic “All-Star Superman.” So, it’s not a surprise to anyone that now, suddenly, she has powers again. In the end, in the comics of DC and Marvel, everything changes… to going back to being the same.

But not to being entertaining in a plausible way. Something they won't ever admit. It's just another example from modern times of a civilian cast member being forcibly shoehorned into a superpowered role, and potentially costume too. And put out by bad writers/artists/editors who don't have a clue how to mend the damage done since the turn of the century so things could be plausible and entertaining again. All-Star Superman, IIRC, was a product of the overrated Grant Morrison, and anything he's written is also best forgotten. And why is Lois becoming a costumed heroine such a big deal, when Kara Zor-El serves the purpose far better as Supergirl?

Adding Marvel movie originals to the comics universe is no longer an event

Superhero Hype talks about a character from the Marvel movies making her debut in the Marvel comics as well, though here, it appears to be an issue from a modern volume of the What If? anthology, combined with Venom:

From Agent Colson to Darcy Lewis, there are many MCU creations who were later officially introduced into the comics. Madisynn, the party-girl who befriended Wong in She-Hulk: Attorney At Law just made her first appearance in a Marvel comic… but not where you think!

Rather than appearing in a Doctor Strange or She-Hulk comic, Madisynn’s cameo came in What If…? Venom #3. Written by Jeremy Holt, with art by Manuel Garcia, the comic explores an alternate timeline where the Venom symbiote bonded with other people besides Eddie Brock after separating from Peter Parker. In this issue, the symbiote bonds with Doctor Strange, after he confronts it Chinatown shop.

Even if this had taken place in the 616 universe proper, the time's long past where it could matter. Back in the mid-1980s, Marvel's writers decided to introduce a counterpart for Firestar from the Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends cartoon of the time into the MCU proper, and it did lead later to a significant role for Angelica Jones in the New Warriors. But today, when bad and woke writing's long trashed continuity and character integrity, that's why it no longer matters.

Also worth pondering is that, as John Nolte at Breitbart notes, with the movie sales waning, Marvel studios is scaling back their output:

No matter how you spin it, these layoffs stem from one primary problem… This “reduction in Marvel’s slate of film and TV titles” was caused by lousy products. Almost all of those “film and TV titles” stunk, so Disney chief Bob Iger has called for a slowdown of The Fail.

Marvel movies have started flopping at the box office. Marvel’s streaming shows were always so terrible and did nothing to boost Disney+ subscribers—quite the opposite. Disney+ is losing millions of subscribers and billions of dollars.

[...] Marvel lost the real Black Panther, emasculated Thor, showed us two hairy guys necking in Eternals, and who knows what they were thinking with that Ant-Man movie… But The Marvels is where audience disgust with all this gay/woke/feminist/anti-fun finally had itself heard. Enough! Can we get back to Iron Man’s private jet and stripper pole, please? You know, some fun, some sexiness…? How about going back to making Marvel movies for Normal People?

Sadly, it's doubtful they'll reevaluate how their woke directions have wrecked their prospects. But what's really sad is how Marvel wound up becoming victimized by political correctness as a publisher, and a shame they didn't stop publication in the early 2000s, if that's what could've minimized the damage. Publication of the comics had to continue for this?

Superman/Batman will enter public domain in about a decade (and at least a few Marvel characters too)

John Nolte at Breitbart comments on the entry to come of the Man of Steel and the Masked Manhunter into public domain within the coming decade, and why that's a good thing:

In about ten years, Batman and Superman will enter the public domain. This is good news. When these icons are wrenched from the grasping hands of leftist multinational corporations we have a much better chance of once again seeing both in some decent content.

The Disney Grooming Syndicate lost control of “Steamboat Willie” this year and, by extension, that version of Mickey Mouse.

And now…

“A sad fact of Hollywood is that while superheroes never truly die, all copyrights do,” laments the far-left Hollywood Reporter. “The DC characters are the next major expirations looming on the horizon. Superman and Lois Lane will enter the public domain in 2034, followed by Batman in 2035, the Joker in 2036, and Wonder Woman in 2037.”

There's a typo in the above paragraph - that's Variety he's linked to - but important points are made that if anybody truly cares, they'll take the challenge of producing comics starring these icons with merit once again. It may not be mentioned here, but at least a few Marvel-owned characters for starters should enter public domain in the coming decade, including Sub-Mariner, the Golden Age Human Torch, the Golden Age Ka-Zar, and Captain America. And in 1943, Marvel produced Miss America/Madeline Joyce Frank, co-created by Otto Binder and Al Gabriele, and that's bound to become public domain too in time. Why, back on the DC side, the Golden Age Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Hawkgirl and even the Sandman are bound to enter public domain in the following decade too.

After “Steamboat Willie” and Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain, we were hit with some cheapo horror movies based on those characters. I’m fine with that. Still, let’s hope a serious artist takes advantage of this public domain windfall of Superman and Batman and creates some serious art that honors these characters and creators instead of perverting them into drag queens and post-modern smugs.

Correct. Anybody who's a talented artist who really admires Siegel/Shuster and Kane/Finger's creations is going to have to prove they're willing to pen a tale that doesn't rely heavily upon darkness, which the former has fallen victim to over the past decade or so, and they're also going to have to prove they're not obsessed with emphasizing the LGBT propaganda Tom Taylor did in the past few years in Son of Kal-El.

Come 2034, Superman will be available, but not everything associated with the Man of Steel. Initially, Superman didn’t fly. He could only leap. The genius idea of kryptonite came later. Those things will pop into the public domain one at a time.

Over nearly 50 years, Warner Bros. has delivered a few good movies from these characters, but a whole lot more garbage, especially of late with the crummy DC Universe.

As far as the comics, who doesn’t want to see the rights wrenched from the sickos who made Superman gay?

While it may have only been the son of Superman and Lois who was turned gay, it still casts a terrible pall upon Siegel/Shuster's original creation, and the failure of the editors to apologize for the spite they expressed speaks volumes. Let me raise my hand in agreement here that DC as a whole doesn't belong in the hands of such sickos, and that's why a vital query need be asked here - why wait even ten years for some of the first DC superhero creations - and even Marvel creations - to become public domain? Why not buy out the publishing arms and see what you can do with the material involved even before all that?

Let's also consider there's plenty more famous comic creations who deserve far better whose copyrights won't expire for another 2 decades who could use a better owner, like Marvel's Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Avengers, X-Men, Dr. Strange and plenty more, right down to even the simplest co-stars. Even DC has creations coming much later, like Teen Titans, Swamp Thing, and there's also at least a few characters at both publishers from the 1990s who could use a better owner too, and not have to wait ages until they enter public domain status for a better portrayal. As I've argued before, and will again, it's a terrible shame nobody sensible who may be able to afford buying out these properties is willing to do so. A total embarrassment.

So here again is a plea for anybody who really cares to buy out DC/Marvel, and not put us all in positions where we have to wait ages past our lifetime for promising news to happen. And if it does happen, those who do buy them out will have to prove they can jettison much of what came up in the past 2 decades from continuity, distinguish between the better and the worse, and filter out some of the worst storylines ever produced, like the disgraced Gerard Jones' hack job on Green Lantern from 1990, to name but one of the shoddiest examples. And, there's also Identity Crisis and Avengers: Disassembled to consider as being among the worst, and shouldn't be considered canon. If anybody with a heart who's wealthy and into publishing is willing to buy out the Big Two, that'd be a blessing. They could even buy out the creations of the now defunct Crossgen publisher, which is still under Disney ownership, and work wonders with those too.

So again, when will somebody with common sense step forward and prove they can make more sensible people happy and proud for a change? Until then, yes, it's great to know the Man of Steel and the Masked Manhunter will become public domain. But if the same horror filmmakers who soiled Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh are planning to make cheap "tributes" to these comic superheroes as well when the time comes about, that'll be bad news. So the sane crowd would do well to make there'll be good news to follow in time.

Disney reaches settlement with Ditko estate over rights to Spider-Man and Dr. Strange

Deadline reports the Disney corporation's settled a lawsuit filed by the Steve Ditko estate that sought to end the copyrights to 3 Marvel characters:

After more than two years, Disney and subsidiary Marvel have reached a settlement with the estate of acclaimed comic book artist Steve Ditko. Lawyers for the Mouse House and the Ditko estate filed court papers on December 6 that effectively ended the pricey dispute. A final affirmation of the settlement is expected in the coming weeks.

Represented by pugilistic copyright attorney Marc Toberoff, the Ditko estate in 2021 had sought termination notices on the rights to such luminaries as Spider-Man, Doctor Strange and Iron Man. Other artists’ families and heirs also challenged the rights to characters created by their family members. Those disputes were resolved earlier this year.

As in previous settlements and resolutions that Disney/Marvel have reached with the likes of the Jack Kirby estate and others, the settlement with the Ditko estate is confidential. However, attorney Toberoff told Deadline that “the parties reached an amicable resolution of this interesting case.”

[...] The Copyright Act of 1976 allows heirs to pull the plug on licenses granted or transferred for a copyrighted work in particular situations with a fully executed notice — as the heirs and estates have tried to do here.

Important to note here: Marvel will not lose ownership of the lucrative characters if they came up short in court. The Disney-owned superhero giant would retain a co-ownership that would involve payouts to the other co-owners, among other requirements. Along with that profit sharing, regardless of what happens in the federal courts, these rights only apply to the United States, not elsewhere.

With the way Marvel's going these days - and lest we forget, DC too - it's a shame the estates of late veterans like Ditko couldn't wrest the copyrights away from them, or that they agreed to a residual settlement at all. Or maybe that they wouldn't start any kind of a boycott campaign if that's what could bring down the value of the copyrights, and considering how badly Marvel/DC collapsed in quality by the early 2000s, there's not bound to be much value in their comics publishing, that's for sure.

Eventually, the copyrights will expire, regardless, and become more public domain. But it's a shame how all these years, conglomerates really led to a sad situation that enabled abuse of the creations and properties, and now, here we are, in an era where wokeness has really humiliated the creations of people far better than the gatekeepers who've since taken over.

Gizmodo laments superficially about fanservice in film adaptations

The dreadful Gizmodo's talking about comic movies again, claiming fanservice has become the worst part of the franchises, but curiously, no lamentations about how a certain ideologue and felon of an actor is tarnishing one such movie:

It’s a thought that sprang to mind while watching the first real trailer for The Flash that dropped during the Super Bowl. Seeing Michael Keaton come back as Batman feels like it should have weight beyond having one of the most well-liked cinematic Batmen get back into the suit for a movie that won’t be canceled at the last minute. The Flash was conceived years before 2021’s Spider-Man: No Way Home, and is based on the popular Flashpoint 2011 comic event by Geoff Johns and Andy Kubert. But it wouldn’t be wrong to say that DC’s movie is trying to ride the wave that the live-action Spidey crossover flick turned into a billion-dollar success. The multiverse movie push is something that was begun by Spider-Man and it’s clear that it won’t be going away anytime soon, so WB getting in on that even if only one movie feels done partially out of obligation.

Having DCEU alums Ben Affleck and Michael Shannon on hand only further highlights how weird it is that The Flash movie exists. We’ve known for years that Affleck is done with playing Batman, and Shannon’s General Zod is memorable, but was also treated very weirdly by the DCEU proper. The Flash is trying to deliver fan service of some kind, but it’s hard to say what exactly that is. The fractured nature of the last decade of DC movies work against it here: it’s got Zod, but not the Superman whose inclusion would’ve gotten previously spurned fans excited, nor the Wonder Woman who stood as one of the franchise’s bright spots. It’s adapting the most famous story in modern Flash comics that’s already been done twice—once in animation and again in the CW’s take on The Flash—but is openly a stepping stone to a more unified DC universe whose lead actor may not even be back the next time Barry Allen graces the silver screen. Unlike the more focused Spider-Man: No Way Home or Avengers Endgame, it doesn’t know what fans it wants to court, it just knows that it wants to court them.

This is one of the weirdest, most superficial, to say nothing of decidedly ignorant commentaries I've seen their writers make, when you consider Ezra Miller, the man playing the Scarlet Speedster in this "blockbuster" has a serious criminal record, for which he's regrettably seeing no consequence. Based on this, even if I did try to watch more of the past decade's comic movies than I have, I'd never waste money on Miller's movie, which just so happens to be based on one of the most overrated DC crossovers of the early 2010s, and one that led to a supposed "reboot" of continuity that didn't last, and left nothing appealing in its wake.

It sounds like the writer's not enthusiastic, but was probably bound by his editors to avoid serious negativity, even though it's inevitable, based on the situation, that anybody could feel discouraged by this needless tale.

One must wonder though, if they believe fanservice is the worst part of these blockbusters, they mean sex appeal is bad. Well, they certainly could, yet it's ironic, considering how dumbed down most major movies are these days in that sense.

Since the subject of the Flash movie's been brought up, Sportskeeda's also sugarcoated the news about the movie:

The Flash is one of the most popular characters in the DC Comics universe, and fans have been eagerly anticipating the release of the upcoming Flash movie. The film draws inspiration from the iconic "Flashpoint" storyline, a crossover event in DC Comics that altered the course of the DC Universe.

The storyline was a significant event for comic book fans, introducing new versions of popular characters and exploring alternate timelines and universes.

Given the importance of the Flashpoint storyline to the character and the DC Universe, the upcoming Flash movie is expected to incorporate many of its elements, with some reports suggesting that it will be a loose adaptation of the comic book storyline.

The implications of this adaptation for the character and the wider DC Universe are yet to be seen, but the upcoming Flash movie is sure to be a must-see for fans of the character and comic book movies.

Umm, what if it's as woke as much of the other comic movies of recent? Besides, with Miller front and center of the film, somebody's bound to find it insufferable in light of his crimes. Judging from the underwhelming box office receipts for several previous DC films, it's hard to say whether these movies really have much of an audience at all. I'm certainly not part of it.

On the other hand, a writer at Giant Freakin' Robot believes a boycott of the Flash movie is prefereable, but the writer dampens the impact when he starts using "plural" terminology in reference to Miller:

I am not only a lifelong comic book fan, but my writing career depends largely on keeping current with all things nerd. Regardless, I will not be seeing The Flash in the theater, or in any other format that will add even the smallest fraction to the film‘s earnings, and neither should you.

[...] This isn’t Roseanne Barr being accused of making a racist joke on social media. This isn’t Joss Whedon being a jerk to his cast and crew.

This is someone accused of being a sexual predator of children, potentially for the better part of a decade. This is someone who is alleged to have used their money and influence to hurt children, hurt women, start a cult in Iceland, and — cherry on top — amass more guns than a Central City rogue and reportedly store them with all the care of The Stand‘s Trashcan Man.

[...] If the allegations against Ezra Miller are true, then the money you spend on The Flash will help them continue to do what they’ve already been accused of doing. It will potentially buy them more plane tickets to different states and countries to groom children all over the globe, it could help pay more lawyer’s fees, more guns and ammo, and allegedly more weed to blow into the faces of infants.

And really, the movie is just Flashpoint. We’ve known that for years. If you’ve read the comics or seen the 2013 animated movie Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox, there are no surprises waiting for you in The Flash that will amount to more than an unexpected cameo.

Much as I want to congratulate this guy for awareness of Miller's horrific offenses, his perpetuation of the modern PC narrative of referring to transsexual/non-binary cultists with terminology that doesn't even acknowledge an offender's biological sex ruins everything. Does he realize he's only continuing to reward Miller's bad behavior by calling him something he doesn't deserve to be called by? Now, I've grown disillusioned with podcaster Joe Rogan recently, after he defended anti-Jewish statements by Ilhan Omar, but if there was a valid issue in itself he once brought up, it's why we're turning transsexuals into a protected class. And when the GFR writer continues to refer to Miller with words like "them" he's only giving Miller the satisfaction he's delighted to receive, that somebody actually respects his atrocious "punk" lifestyle, when he's done nothing to deserve such descriptions, regardless of whether his lifestyle is healthy or not.

There was a time decades before when, to refer to a dangerous criminal as a mere entity would've been viewed as deserved punishment. But the problem here is that many of the LGBT ideologues actually want this kind of reception and terminology, and to keep doing it only does something they want being done. If a man claiming to be a woman uses racist slurs, do we actually refer to him with a female pronoun if that's exactly what he wants? Sadly, these PC advocates don't see it that way, in all their regrettable cowardice, continuing as they do to refer to movie actors like Miller that way, and they're likely to do it long after he's washed up in Hollywood. And so long as they keep this up, they're belittling actual women by extension. Which didn't occur to them either, right?

Hopefully, this Flash movie will tank in sales, but speaking as a Flash fan myself, it's certainly shameful a classic creation's been subject to this kind of damage, both moral and artistic. This is exactly why I've long reevaluated whether it was a good idea for comics to be turned into so many live action blockbusters. One of the reasons I avoid these movie adaptations today is out of respect for the source material. And that's an idea everybody who appreciates the original comics up till the turn of the century should consider.

Much too late for a new Scarlet Witch solo series

Collider announced there's another Scarlet Witch solo comic series soon to make its debut, way past the era it could've meant something:

There are things in this world that we should all want and one of those things just happened to be solo runs for the Scarlet Witch and when you ask, Marvel answers! The popular anti-hero who last made her live-action in the film Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness has continued to gain notoriety among fans, and now will star in a solo run by Steve Orlando and drawn by Sara Pichelli.

Now what's this we're being fed here? Or, who are these fans they speak of? Yet another example of misleading the reader outside comicdom into thinking Wanda Maximoff was always some crazy villainess underneath a facade who never reformed and joined the good side instead, as Scarlet Witch and her twin brother Quicksilver did in 1965, when they joined the Avengers. It doesn't improve with the following:

Wanda Maximoff's status as a hero is...murky at best. She goes back and forth between a hero who works with the Avengers to an antagonist who is too consumed by her powers and lashes out with them. In Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, we got a taste of how bad it can get when she's not fully in control and that was nothing compared to comic Wanda's history. So getting to have this new run where Wanda is a hero is amazing!

But this does nothing to alleviate the notion they're making it sound like Wanda's comic history from 1964 to the present was actually a lot of evil personality and scheming. Not so at all, but this magazine predictably obscures anything clear or exact. They're building their whole allegation off of one single moment in Avengers West Coast from 1990 where, after losing the magically constructed children she ostensibly birthed with the Vision - whose romantic feelings for her were erased with a program - she turns into a sobber, and then a crazy schemer who attacks her fellow teammates at one point, all before we find out it was Mephisto's machinations that drove her that way. Also worth considering is that John Byrne, who initially penned the story (and even depicted Wanda going short-haired, something he did with at least 2 other women he'd written in Alpha Flight and Fantastic Four), left before it was completed, and left it to Roy Thomas, following his return to Marvel after working at DC for several years, to finish the story arc. Pure disgrace Collider won't research any of this.

Anyway, the last Scarlet Witch solo book that was worth reading was a 4-part miniseries from 1994 by Dan Abnett, which I own somewhere in my pamphlet collection. These newer takes look so PC, it's no use buying them, and the movies practically cast a pall over the proceedings, based on the negative perception of Wanda they can foster.

The guests featured at Shreveport's Geek'd Con this year

Shreveport's music channel K945 gave a list of creators appearing at this year's Geek'd Convention, but there's really only 2 I'd consider worth taking note of, like Michael Golden:

Golden is best known for being the co-creator of legendary X-Men hero Rogue, who first appeared in Avengers Annual #10 in 1981.

His other comic book character creations include comic book character turned video game star Bucky O'Hare, Marvel's Shadowqueen, Vertigo, Ultima, BUG, Ducktor Doom, and DC Comcis' Wrath, Abattoir, and Blackgate Penitentiary.

He is also well known for his work launching The Micronauts comic series. The series was based on the toy line, but was brought to life on comic book pages by Golden. His other projects include Batman, Spawn, She-Hulk, Doctor Strange, G.I. Joe, Star Wars, Birds of Prey, and others.

Golden's cover work has appeared on numerous publications including Detective Comics, The Walking Dead, The Punisher, Star Wars: Bounty Hunters, and more.

But who today truly respects the guy for the best of his past work? Men like Golden are almost never hired by the majors today for anything significant, or worthy of anyone's time.

The other contributor who's noteworthy is Renee Witterstaetter:

Renee started out as an assistant editor at DC Comics working on Superman comics. Eventually, she moved up and worked as a colorist, editor, producer and writer. Some of the comics she worked on in her career include Superman, The Sensational She-Hulk, Silver Surfer, Spider-Man and The Avengers.

She has been involved in some great key issues in the comic industry as well too. Including Amazing Spider-Man #362, Silver Surfer #34, and Fantastic Four #358 among others.

But not only has she been a creator in the comic book world, but she's even appeared in several issues of the Sensational She-Hulk as a character in the story. With her first appearance coming in She Hulk #40 (a pretty controversial issue).

And there you have a lady contributor to comicdom, who's not acknowledged by the PC crowd today, in all their efforts to make one believe women working in comicdom is an utterly brand new occurance. Her work on Sensational She-Hulk is to be admired, in all its Breaking The Fourth Wall satire, yet who among the PC crowd are willing to do that today? One more reason why it's unfortunate how veterans have been all but obscured in modern times.

Doctor Strange movie sequel has opened a portal to wokeness

According to a writer at the Federalist, Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is laced with what the emphasis on what America Chavez was built upon should make clear, and just as disturbingly, horror-genre elements:

Raimi changed all that in the sequel, as Wanda possesses an innocent mom, torturing and murdering people in gruesome ways. “Doctor Strange 2” gives us all the hallmarks of a stereotypical horror flick, but without the suspense that makes them great, and then leaps back into an incoherent fantasy. This witchcraft keeps the plot afloat, distracting from holes in the storyline. If you’re going to take on a multiverse, you shouldn’t use sorcery as a crutch to hide the parts that don’t make sense. [...]

In short, the film is a trifecta of graphic, creepy, and cheesy. If Marvel wanted to merge with the horror genre, it should have debuted a new series instead of messing with an old one. The jump is jarring.

On this note, I've noticed there seems to be quite a few horror-themed movies turning up lately (including a remake of Stephen King's Firestarter and Crimes of the Future), and it's honestly worrisome, because it symbolizes the bad influence all the concentration on darkness has upon entertainment of recent. However, if the 2nd Ghost Rider movie of the past decade was a dud, putting an end to more such adaptations in a hurry, then there's little point in remaking them now, if a horror film is such a big deal.

Worse yet is the message of the film delivered to us through the hypocritical hands of Strange as he stops at nothing to save the day. Wanda’s insatiable self-deception becomes almost a relief in comparison to the sangfroid of Strange, who breaks no sweat at crossing the very same line that makes Wanda the bad guy.

“You break the rules and you’re the hero,” Wanda says. “I break the rules and I’m the enemy. Hardly seems fair.”

On its face, the film doesn’t seem that woke, and to its credit, it’s not a feminist propaganda piece. There’s just one brief flashback to Chavez’s lesbian “moms,” but nothing more — we think.

But America Chavez is not a Stan Lee creation. She’s a lesbian character from Joe Casey and Nick Dragotta’s 2011 comic “Vengeance #1.”

And all of a sudden, we realize what door Marvel just opened. The sexuality of Marvel’s newest female superhero now has protection in any future production from one of the biggest of the Marvel franchise: “Doctor Strange.” Any pushback to an overtly lesbian character can now be fought with the assertion that she’s already in “Doctor Strange 2,” and she’s lesbian in the comics.

They didn't mention, however, that, as previously noted, the 2 lesbian moms were killed off in a cliched showbiz setup wherein lesbians are killed as plot devices, and that can also be tasteless and reprehensible. But, the reviewer has a point that the politicized structure of this film, relying as it does on characters developed for political points, serves to further woke agendas, and if Disney/Marvel Studios use the global box office gross as justification, it's no wonder we'll be swamped with more of this agenda-driven use of homosexuality in any upcoming films allegedly based on Marvel products. That aside, it sure is ironic how, for a movie as woke as Multiverse of Madness actually is, they had no qualms about victimizing Scarlet Witch's reputation full force, depicting her as a murderous madwoman instead of an admirable heroine fearlessly battling sci-fi criminals in a fictional world. It just shows how even today, many of the writers and editors responsible for bringing down the quality of Marvel's comics to dismal levels are still getting away with it.

I'm as big a Dr. Strange fan as the next person is - and proudly own a big portion of the stories from up to the turn of the century in trade paperbacks - but that's exactly why I don't want to watch movies like these. Because the sad truth is, they do the source material a terrible disservice.

The Marvel movie franchise exploits even leftist creators with insufficient compensation

Hyperallergic wrote an item about the Marvel movie franchise producers getting rich off the creations of writers and artists, both old and new, yet paying little of the box office grosses to the people responsible for bringing about the characters and such they're using in the movies:

Within about 10 minutes of the trailer for Thor: Love and Thunder dropping online, comics fans noted how one shot was identical in composition to a panel that artist Esad Ribić drew for his run on the series Thor: God of Thunder with writer Jason Aaron. Some sites have already lauded this for the “comic book accuracy.” To others, this feels more transparently like an artist being taken advantage of, with Ribić serving as “the cheapest possible designer” for one of Hollywood’s most expensive ongoing projects. Too often, the creators who forged the foundations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are given a “special thanks” credit and little else, and that’s being thrown into sharper relief as these films double down on lifting imagery from page to screen.

It’s even part of the press cycle for these films at this point — Marvel Studios will prove their “loyalty” to the source material by perfectly replicating something from it. The increasing pride with which the studio uses exact replicas of artists’ work leads one to wonder whether those artists are being fairly compensated for that usage, if at all. While it’s not easy to find concrete numbers, the first answer that comes up is often a resounding “No.” The Guardian reported that artists have been receiving “thank you payments” in the range of $5,000, along with invites to the premieres of the movies based on their respective works. Measure that against the billions that Marvel/Disney makes off these films each year.

There's just one thing: as noted, Marvel/Disney are relying upon the work of one of the worst SJWs employed by the former over the past decade, who went out of his way to exploit Thor's title for the sake of identity politics, and that included turning Jane Foster into a pagan deity using the very same name as her male counterpart. You have to wonder why Sif wasn't elevated to such a role, even as it would be equally absurd if she sported a male name out of the blue. It may not be right to cheat these wokesters out of bigger sums, but even so, it's hard to feel sorry, considering all the harm they've done till now. Let's not forget what Aaron and company did with Nick Fury to justify their direction either. Another SJW cited in the article are one who conceived America Chavez, and another who mistreated Captain America:

A more recent grievance came from Joe Casey, the co-creator of America Chavez along with Nick Dragotta. Chavez made her cinematic debut in the recently released Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Casey spoke about receiving an “insult of an offer” from Marvel, which he declined. As noted in a writeup by AIPT, Casey is fully aware of Marvel’s legal ownership of the character (a point defensive fans often argue). But that doesn’t make it right for them to stiff these creators. Author Ta-Nehisi Coates, who wrote the Black Panther comic beginning in 2016, who also speaks of being treated well himself by Marvel, calls it a moral obligation, not just a matter of legality. Speaking to the Guardian last year, Coates said, “it doesn’t seem just for them to extract what Steve and Ed put into this and create a multi-billion dollar franchise … just because it’s in a contract doesn’t make it right. If I have some kind of leverage over you, I can get you to sign a contract to fuck you over.”

Again, I'm wondering why these specific creators are among those we should care about. However, even if there's a valid argument to make regarding whatever they're offered in residuals, this does give something to think about - no matter how ultra-liberal and woke one is, that doesn't mean they won't be cheated by the higher echelons when their creations make it to the silver screen. So why do these wokesters even remain on the left? Either way, it's a wonder somebody like Coates would care, though his reasons don't sound altruistic. If the creators were right-wing, he'd likely turn his back on them entirely.

In any event, this does show how only so many recent creations at Marvel are being introduced solely as a platform for which screenwriters can make movies, far more than in past decades, and today, the biggest problem is how, unlike any prior creations, these new ones are created with political intentions. Which could explain why recent box office receipts for their films seem to be slowly declining, including Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, which as noted earlier, saw a steep drop of over 80 percent in its 2nd week. Hopefully, the public is waking up to how pretentious the Marvel movies really are.

If this is where Scarlet Witch is headed in future movies, it's another reason to avoid the Marvel film franchise

IGN's posted more needless speculations about where the Marvel movie machine could be churning next, and gives some more reasons why this whole franchise should be avoided. First:

Multiverse of Madness ends as a heroic Wanda brings down the Scarlet Witch’s temple onto herself. Eagle-eyed fans noticed a red flash, and that combined with the fact that we didn’t see a body has folks speculating about Wanda Maximoff’s survival. Similar to how Hulk won’t let Bruce Banner die and the Phoenix Force protects Jean Grey from harm, Wanda’s Scarlet Witch persona is unlikely to go down without a fight. Thankfully, the comics could hold the key to how Wanda fits into the future of the world’s highest-grossing franchise.

Or maybe they couldn't. For now, Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness certainly doesn't, seeing how it depicts Wanda murdering people, going far beyond what was seen in Avengers: Disassembled and House of M. Why do they think she's depicted "heroically" in view of that characterization? And on that note, here's where their news turns really sickening, and sums up why this film franchise is best shunned:

Olsen herself has said she’d love to say the legendary “no more mutants” line in the MCU, which is a nod to House of M’s catastrophic events. Even though a lot of that 2005 arc has been adapted across WandaVision and Multiverse of Madness, the depowering of mutantkind that occurs as a result of that line seems like too popular a storyline for the movies to not cover in some form eventually. In terms of dealing with Wanda’s family troubles, House of M is also a way to (re-)introduce major characters including Magneto and Quicksilver into the MCU. Avengers Disassembled ends with a catatonic Wanda being taken to Genosha under the care of Professor X and Magneto, while House of M picks up with the latter warning that her reality-warping powers need to be stopped with a permanent solution.

Well how about that, Olsen is okay with a controversial storyline that didn't appeal to all Marvel fans 17 years ago. Something IGN clearly wants left down the memory hole, and they take no objective view of the storyline either.

One thing is clear: We’re far from finished with Wanda and her potential as the Scarlet Witch. Alongside those continued rumors of a Young Avengers project and a Scarlet Witch standalone, there’s also the Kathryn Hahn-led Agatha: House of Darkness spin-off in the works. WandaVision ended with Maximoff saying she’d know where to find Agatha if she ever needed her, and a role for Olsen or her onscreen sons in that series could neatly queue a riff on The Children’s Crusade. Going with the tried and true trope of “if you don’t see a body,” someone is sure to be digging Wanda out of the Mount Wundagore rubble. It doesn’t take the brainpower of Professor Xavier to figure out the MCU isn’t done with Ms. Maximoff just yet.

I'm afraid the potential was destroyed after the scriptwriters began turning Wanda into a lethal villainess. This is repellent, and IGN's refusal to approach the topic through an objective lens only worsens the affair. Most infuriarating is how they threw away the potential for depicting a serious romance and partnership in crimefighting between Wanda and a boyfriend who's a superhero (or even a civilian co-star, something past writers may never have tried developing to pair with Wanda), all for the sake of depicting Scarlet Witch in a sterile role of a villainess that doesn't need serious work in character development. A problem that's occurred in mainstream comics in several cases before, where, if the writers/editors don't want to depict an honest character in a story where he/she will need the challenge of character growth and focus in writing, they'll instead put them in the one-dimensional role of somebody turning evil. It's a brand of cheap sensationalism that's become a quite an Achilles Heel in mainstream comicdom, if you know where to look (I remember Magenta, a former girlfriend of Wally West when he was Kid Flash, pretty much fell victim to the trope as well), and something that's got to stop.

And with that told, I just discovered another bit of eyebrow raising info about the Dr. Strange sequel that reeks of tasteless moral equivalence. I was reading Wikimedia manager Danny Horn's Superheroes Every Day site, where he posted a review of the movie, and, while I may not agree with him on everything, it seems he's revealed something involving America Chavez that even the most left-wing apologists for the film don't seem dismayed at in their gushy reviews:

On her jacket, America is wearing an up-to-date queer pride flag pin, which nobody remarks upon and is not important. There is no romantic plotline for her; the only romantic story thread in the movie is Stephen and Christine, which they invited me to care about and I declined.

They do mention her two moms, which is nice, but they instantly die and have nothing to do with the rest of the movie, so “kill your lesbians” is still alive and well in our corner of the multiverse.

I read that Saudi Arabia asked Disney to distribute a cut that didn’t include the 12 seconds of America’s two moms, and Disney told them to go pound sand, so they didn’t release the movie in Saudi Arabia. That’s great and I’m happy that they stood up to anti-queer censorship, but the fact that the queerness all took place during 12 seconds that could easily be excised with no impact on the plot is still irksome, and I am irked by it.

Let me guess. Wanda's the guilty party in assassinating the two moms along with various other civilians, right? Next thing you know, we'll discover the filmmakers secretly wrote Wanda as a metaphor for an extreme right-winger. Either way, this part of the screenplay sure reeks of tasteless moral equivalence. Even if the same-sex parenthood emphasized in all of 12 seconds is a poor example, that still doesn't justify wiping out the 2 moms. It reminds me that I'd done studies on tropes and stereotypes in classic TV over past years, and as I've written a few times before, there's entertainment writers who were far more willing to subject lesbians to roles like committing murder (and I still shudder at the memory of an atrocious episode from Nash Bridges where something like that occurred), while male homosexuals, by contrast, were hardly ever depicted in criminal roles since the mid-70s, and if they were, it was very sparing and non-committal. There were some reports several years back about TV shows where lesbians are wiped out, and if this new movie is any indication, a trope that's anti-female is still very prevalent in Hollywood and other entertainment mediums. I get the feeling that, if the same-sex parents in the Multiverse of Madness screenplay had been a pair of men, and a son instead of a daughter, it'd never have made it past the screenwriting committee at Marvel Studios. That's basically "male privilege" for you, here in the form of a studio division producing comics movies and TV shows.

And if they're wondering why it was so common, well gee, why don't they blame the leftists who've greenlighted such a crude bias? They're the reason why there's so many inconsistent standards applied in how certain types of people are portrayed in showbiz, and why women continue to suffer unfair treatment, even long after the Harvey Weinstein scandal made headlines.

And if the steep 2nd week drop in box office receipts is any suggestion, this proves that if Marvel Studios was hoping to please everyone, they failed, because it's impossible to please everyone when you adhere to political correctness.

Actress from 1st Dr. Strange movie convicted of sexual abuse along with her husband while film's sequel drops steeply at box office on 2nd week

Breitbart's reported the UK actress Zara Phythian, who along with her husband were both charged by UK authorities with sexually abusing an underaged girl, was convicted by the British court overseeing the case:

British film actress Zara Phythian – who appeared in Doctor Strange alongside Benedict Cumberbatch – has been found guilty of grooming and sexually abusing a girl in tandem with her husband Victor Marke.

The latter was also found to have sexually abused another girl on his own.

The Times reports Phythian, who is 37, was found guilty of 14 sexual offences at Nottingham Crown Court while her husband, who is 59, was found guilty of 18.

As I'd said before, this won't reflect well on the first Dr. Strange movie going forward, when there's a performer in a notable role there who committed a serious crime in real life, leaving the film tainted by her actions. Come to think of it, this could also look bad for Disney as the owner of the franchise, viewed in context of where they're going today. Not many movies and TV shows end up getting tarnished this fast within just a few years, but this is certainly a standout example of one such film, and comes off far worse than the case of actress Amber Heard smearing Johnny Depp, embarrassing the Aquaman movie with her behavior behind the scenes.

Now since the movies based on the Sorcerer Supreme are in discussion, it's fascinating to discover that, while Multiverse of Madness may have opened with a lot of money in its first week, it appears to have plunged very low in its second, according to the following date from The Direct:

Marvel Studios' Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness grossed $16.7 million on Friday, dropping a steep 81% from the $90.7 million earned domestically during its opening day. This marks the second-worst second Friday drop for an MCU movie. Projections have the film dropping around 65%-69% this second weekend, eyeing a gross of $60-$65 million.

As much as it wasn't great to hear it took in money at all, considering how pretentious it already is, what with the way Scarlet Witch is portrayed, this does suggest audiences are beginning to wake up to how overrated these live action films were to start with. Deadline Hollywood, however, remains superficial in their estimations why it's taken a dive:

Doctor Strange 2‘s second weekend decline simply rests on bad word of mouth; the sequel receiving a back-to-back meh grade from CinemaScore for an MCU movie, B+ to Eternals’ B back in November.

Just that? What about the villificaiton of Scarlet Witch that began with WandaVision and continues here? Surely that's not something to consider? This is but one of the reasons I want nothing to do with these movies. It's not just because, IMO, they're live action films made for people who despise illustrated mediums. It's also because of the corruption heaped upon the source material, entirely at the expense of characters like Wanda, and, lest we forget, her creators, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.