Daily Wire guest writer goes too easy on Tom King

Comics artist Matt Battaglia wrote on the Daily Wire about the Lanterns TV show the overrated leftist Tom King worked on, and while Battaglia may express disappointment with the TV program itself (and even that's very soft), he regrettably takes a lenient view of King as a writer himself, making it sound as though King literally has talent, which he doesn't:

HBO’s new television series “Lanterns” is revealing to a broader audience the limits of the superhero genre. The show tries to capture the spirit of the first season of “True Detective” (perfect television) while being shackled to Green Lantern’s expectations. Put those aesthetics on Batman or The Question, and it would work; slap them on a cosmic superhero whose power is fueled by imagination and a magic ring, and they begin to break under the weight of expectation.

The show is dour, but uplifted by a cast whose charisma tends to break what the script asks the viewer to believe and think. Kyle Chandler is obviously magnetic and shakes off any negative connotations some writers wanted to saddle the character with (old, racist, privileged, etc.; roll the clip). John Stewart is played well by Aaron Pierre and is given the reverse problem from Chandler: we are told he’s going to be great at the job, but his actions tend to say otherwise. It’s an odd framing for a story ostensibly about a superhero who comes with lots of baggage and expectations. Nathan Fillion’s Guy Gardner at least feels like he’s playing in the same sandbox his source material requires.

Umm, the politics they're forcing onto the material here wouldn't suit Batman and the Question either, and it's sad Battaglia wants to downplay the whole problem. No matter how good the performances seemingly are, the far-left leanings ruin everything.

This problem of missing expectations and weighing down heroes with such bleak, morally dubious problems and decisions is something of a hallmark of Tom King. Since his rise to prominence in the comics scene, he has been handed the reins to many a superhero property. King is a good writer; his stories are generally well received (except, of course, from his extremely vocal critics who think he single-handedly waged the war in Iraq); it’s just that his stories tend to be ill-suited to the expectations of the superhero genre.

Well isn't this an insult to the intellect. Who gives King's stories a good reception? Only the most loyalist of the critics and leftist audiences. This doesn't make a clear distinction between superhero fare and the indie comics King's written, and if his superhero stories are that bad, why should we think his independent comics are any better? Also, what makes Mr. Battaglia think we actually believe King fought singlehandedly in Iraq? Of course I don't think that's the case, and Battaglia sounds like he's trying to put down King's detractors despite how poor his writing is. Battaglia's downplay continues:

The issue with King’s writing and themes in the TV world is that his styling is finally running up against budget limitations. When paired with artists like Greg Smallwood on “Human Target,” Doc Shaner and Mitch Gerards on “Strange Adventures,” and Mitch Gerards again on “Mister Miracle” (these three being the closest analog tonally to “Lanterns”), the dour writing is buoyed by colorful, exciting visuals, even when the staging can become mundane (see the relatively low dynamics in “Mister Miracle” compared to the Jack Kirby high dynamism source material). Those visuals are entirely absent from “Lanterns”, the suits are drab, the power use is limited, this isn’t the big space opera stuff that is expected from the character.

King tends to mine the hero for guilt and regret, rather than heroics. His take on Adam Strange is a compromised man who ended up in over his head, making sacrifices that he couldn’t handle; His Mister Miracle is suffering from crippling depression and anxiety; Christopher Chance in “Human Target” is dealing with a terminal poisoning and trying to solve his own pending murder (spoilers: his murderer shares a good deal with Hal Jordan’s in “Lanterns”). His DC series “Heroes in Crisis” places all of the superheroes in therapy, and one of them is unable to handle all the pain that they are holding onto, thus creating a murder mystery.

He also leans on female leads who dominate their male counterparts. Mister Miracle and Big Barda at least veer into showing a supportive marriage, whereas Adam Strange’s marriage with Alanna is fraught with lies, similar to Chance’s relationship with Ice, which plays on the classic femme fatale trope.

Sorry, but from the art samples I've seen from King's books, it's uninspired, and telling us it's dour is actually putting it lightly. And if King's take on Human Target has anything similar to what occurs in Lanterns, that's just one more reason to stay far away from his comics. As for ladies dominating their male counterparts, let's be clear. It's not like Barda was ever written literally bossing around Scott Free. If memory serves, she was based partly on Jack Kirby's wife Rosalind, and a way for Kirby to express his love and respect for her.

None of these decisions are bad in and of themselves, and they’re all well done for the choices being made; they just tend to undermine the superhero genre to the point of crumbling. He dealt with many of these themes in his breakout book “Sheriff of Babylon,” which, I think, is a fantastic read dealing with the Iraq War. All the themes King keeps mining in superhero properties were present there, and they fit well. It’s a powerful book that remains relevant. The key difference is that “Sheriff of Babylon” deals with regular people; his other work deals with superhumans and the decision to reduce them to normal, flawed people, pushed to the breaking point and morally compromised to the point where they are indistinguishable from evil. Which may very well be his point – and it’s a point that Alan Moore makes in “Watchmen.” However, with “Watchmen,” Moore is using analogs of other heroes, while King is using the actual characters themselves and all their accumulated baggage. His stories would play so much better unchained from these legacy characters and all their weight.

Sugarcoating even creator-owned comics by folks with left-wing bents is no improvement. There's only so many creator-owned comics that unfortunately are built on divisive politics, and while it may be better if the themes King keeps relying upon were employed in indie fare instead, that still doesn't mean they're palatable even in independents. At least a vital point is made as to what's been common for years now - tinkering and tampering with established characters in ways that does not suit the personas they're usually known for, and certainly doesn't make them look admirable as they were created to be. But to say the heavy-handed trauma themes are "well done" still risks being too easy on the scriptwriters, and that's what's enabled them to all but get away with some of the worst things they've done all these years. We could do without that kind of lenience.

It's a shame the Daily Wire's taking an article from somebody who follows a predictable but still very sad playbook of "diplomacy". If Mr. Battaglia can't deliver a tour de force critique, he also obscures all the worst errors made over the past 20-30 years. That kind of soft approach can't continue.

Lanterns TV series villifies both police and policewomen, and even pulls an Identity Crisis

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart lets know what the finale for the James Gunn-produced Lanterns series is, and who was written killing Hal Jordan:

DC Studios’ HBO Max series Lanterns revealed who killed superhero Hal Jordan in the season finale this week and several many fans are shocked and disgusted over who the writers turned into a killer.

***SPOILERS***

The series, which holds an estimated $130 million production budge on eight episodes that took more than three months to shoot, has taken a lot of criticism since its debut for the massive amount of wokeism it has forced on viewers. The finale, however, revealed who shot the original human Green Lantern in the head and incensed many fans as it turned out that Hal’s purported love interest, Sheriff Kerry Kane (Kelly Macdonald), was the murderer.

Most of the detractors are confused over the reveal because it does not seem to make any logical sense. Not only was Sheriff Kelly portrayed as a love interest for the man she murdered in cold blood, but the scene depicting the murder does not contain any threat to Kelly (or her son) being posed by Hal Jordan, who she then ruthlessly shot to death.

Without getting too far into the comic book weeds of this storyline, the plot of the season maintains that Kelly’s son is actually part alien (a Martian Manhunter), a fact that Kelly has tried to keep hidden from the world. In the controversial murder scene, Jordan reveals that he knows that her son, Noah Macon (Shea Pritchard), is part alien and that he wants to help her keep the boy’s secret and to protect him from danger.

But, in a shocking split-second decision, Kelly whips out her sheriff’s service pistol and shoots Jordan in the forehead, killing him, despite the fact that he was not acting belligerently or threatening her or Noah in any way.

The producers pulled an Identity Crisis, in reference to the abominable 2004 DC miniseries that degraded women, made heroes look bad, and was a left-wing metaphor for September 11, 2001. And here, in Lanterns, you could say they villify not just simply law enforcement, but a policewoman/mother too. WB's spending only so much money on something this repugnant? I hesitate to think what they'd do if Carol Ferris were the co-star.

I think audiences who care would be strongly advised to turn off the TV set. If there's a 2nd season in the works, it's better to avoid it entirely. This is one of the most horrifically forced and contrived programs supposedly based on classic comics characters, and compounds the damage that GL first seriously experienced in Action Comics Weekly back in mid-1988, marking its downhill collapse that continued for many years, and has never recovered from to date.

Batman's Knightfall becomes an animated cartoon

Inverse told some history of what may be one of the better offerings of the 1990s, the time when Batman's Knightfall event introduced Bane, the hefty villain whose main achievement at the time was breaking Batman's back. A story that's now subject of animated films. The writer spoke with the animation producers, but strangely enough, neither Bane's co-creators Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan, nor any other connected writers and artists of the time are named for their jobs here. For now, let's take a look at the beginning paragraphs:

Without a doubt, the 1990s were a period of extreme transformation and experimentation for the comic book industry. And depending on who you ask, it wasn’t exactly a great one. The era was dominated by gimmicks like foil and glow-in-the-dark covers, murderous edgelord antiheroes with big guns, hundreds of pockets, and odd things strapped to their legs. This was also the era in which both DC and Marvel became increasingly aware of the spectator market of comic book purchases. DC’s 1992 stunt, The Death of Superman, was designed to sell a special edition comic book, just as much as it was designed to shake up internal narrative continuity. Similarly, in 1994, Hal Jordan went mad with grief after the destruction of his entire city and became the villain Parallax, slaughtering most of the Green Lantern Corps in the Emerald Twilight storyline.

And yet neither event was as daring and complex as the most iconic destruction of one hero from that decade: the breaking of the Bat in Knightfall, a trilogy of storylines that played out over the course of 1993 and 1994 and across no less than seven distinct DC titles. Now, 33 years after Knightfall began, and 14 years after the live-action film The Dark Knight Rises adapted aspects of the storyline, an animated DC film trilogy is faithfully bringing Knightfall to life.

If there's any problem with the 2nd paragraph, it's that it has the effect of making you wonder if the writer really does find what's told in the 1st reprehensible. And Emerald Twilight definitely was. Amazing they admit the Death and Return of Superman was a stunt, because not every mainstream news site's willing to clearly admit that. Also disturbing is that it served as a lead-in to Emerald Twilight, based on how the destruction of Coast City took place in a connecting tale.

It’s impossible to understate just how shocking Knightfall was at the time of release and also how much it permeates Batman media. It’s referenced in the Arkham games and, again, is the partial basis for 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises.

Krieg remembers working across the street from New York’s Forbidden Planet Comics, going in so broke that he’d “just read the comics from the stands.” Morales, somebody who “grew up with the story and was a fan as it was happening,” describes his reaction to joining the project as one of “amazement.” Knightfall was a turning point for the industry as much as it was a turning point for the character of Batman himself – it depicted a vision of the character on the verge of extreme burnout and exhaustion, working beyond his limits while ignoring the lingering trauma of Jason Todd’s murder and Superman’s death.

Neither of which examples are very good, because the former was a cheap way of jettisoning a character based on that he supposedly sent a rapist to his death for scaring an innocent woman into committing suicide. And the latter was just a cheap way of getting short range attention for the Man of Steel, in a year long storyline that later saw the Toyman murder Cat Grant's son. We certainly didn't need the latter example put into effect, mainly because it does leave a bad aftertaste.

If there was anything peculiar about the death of Jason Todd, it's that, if he was trying and failed to defuse a bomb left by the Joker, it didn't disintegrate Todd at all. His body, though badly scarred and dripping with blood, was still largely intact, considering that in reality, it could've been blown to smithereens if struck at close range by an explosion. Batman comics can be as surreal as their more science-fantasy emphasizing couterparts, but if "reality" is really a big deal to the higher echelons, they sure didn't follow through with it there. Though it's decidedly fortunate that, when Bane broke the Bat's back in 1993, it wasn't portrayed graphically. Today, in the Geoff Johns-influenced era, that could all turn out much differently. And back to the cartoon adaptations, there's a notable character who's also making an appearance in them:

Even with those concessions, Batman: Knightfall – Part 1 is still extremely accurate and retains a key part of the original storyline overlooked by most adaptations: Jean-Paul Valley, the replacement Batman who gets a high-tech Batsuit as an upgrade but degenerates into a savage, vicious killer in the mantle. The character debuted two years before Knightfall as an unassuming college graduate, unwittingly raised since birth by the mysterious Order of St. Dumas to become the assassin Azrael. While Bane is the villain with all the pop culture recognition, Azrael was always intended to be the storyline’s final antagonist, an ideological battle between Batman’s strict moral code and the amoral ruthlessness of the antiheroes like Spawn and Cable popular in the 90s – and the movie sets up that conflict firmly by making Jean-Paul the saga’s third main character.

Azrael is introduced in a brutal cold open where Batman catches him in the middle of murdering a gang of criminals and offers him psychological help when he realizes his troubles. According to Morales, that opening “gives you a sense of Azrael and how violent he can be, how he’s not Batman but a darker version that kills. Then it shows you Batman in his peak form before we start to take him down later. I thought it was valuable to establish that this is how good Batman is, and this is how good Azrael is.”

Wow, that's their whole idea of an achievement, huh? Interesting that Azrael's the character who kills more noticeably, and unlike Jason Todd, Valley wasn't bumped off like Todd was, though at the end of the solo series created for Azrael, Valley was put to an end, and his role was later filled by a character named Michael Lane in the mid-2000s. Some could probably wonder if the arguments against killing violent criminals symbolized with Azrael is what led to the leftist hostility against the Punisher years later, even as Wolverine continues to get a free pass on the same acts Frank Castle was depicted performing. It hasn't done mainstream superhero comics any good, of course, and we've seen the effect it's had on readership and sales since.

Much as I think Dixon and Nolan turned out a significant addition to Batman lore of the time, it doesn't sound from this interview like the cartoon producers are truly grateful to the aforementioned twosome, and at this point, what's the use of a cartoon adaptation anyway, in an era where the zygote was ruined by PC and bad management?

Brand new Green Lantern stories are considered the "best"

Comic Basics listed several runs of Green Lantern from the past decades, only one of which is worth considering (Denny O'Neil's early 70s run), while some of the others are predictably fluff-coated takes on modern runs. For example, there's Geoff Johns' run:

Writer Geoff Johns revitalized the franchise by returning Hal Jordan to the spotlight in the miniseries ‘Green Lantern: Rebirth’. The overarching narrative expanded the lore by introducing the Emotional Spectrum and creating diverse new Lantern corps across the cosmos. Major comic crossover events such as ‘Sinestro Corps War’ and ‘Blackest Night’ elevated the title into a cornerstone of the DC Universe. Johns collaborated with prominent artists like Ethan Van Sciver and Ivan Reis to deliver high-stakes cosmic action and deep character development. This nine-year run transformed the mythology and established the modern foundation of the Green Lantern mythos.

Some "revitalization" alright. There were several jarringly violent moments in the run, and most particularly telling was when Johns exploited the title for forcing Islamic propaganda into it, in the decade following September 11, 2001. The story introducing Simon Baz even resorted to the cliche of a white supremacist being the actual culprit. This is what Johns cares about, not actual victims? What he did was definitely telling.

Also note how conservative-leaning artist van Sciver was part of the GL project at the time, and a case can be made that some would-be right-wingers have blame to shoulder for bringing comicdom down to such an awful level. Plus, when there's the totally uncritical take on company wide crossovers, you know something's wrong. Another reason this run can be considered worthless is that it hinged on Identity Crisis, and thus came at a time that was simply too late for bringing back Hal. Another example listed here is the 1994-2004 run:

Ron Marz drastically altered the franchise by penning the controversial ‘Emerald Twilight’ arc, which saw Hal Jordan fall from grace and become the villain Parallax. Following the destruction of the Green Lantern Corps, Marz introduced artist Kyle Rayner as the torchbearer of the final functional power ring. The decade-long run focused on Kyle learning to become a superhero while maintaining a relatable civilian life in New York City. Notable storylines introduced supporting characters such as Jade and examined the legacy of previous ring-wielders. This era redefined the mantle for a new generation of readers and established Kyle Rayner as an essential DC hero.

Gee, a run starring a character who came off little different in the end from how Hal's characterization was perceived - as a cipher lacking in genuine personality. Also note how the writer doesn't acknowledge the heavy editorial mandates that defined this run, coming as they did before Spider-Man was subjected to much of the same the following decade. These mandates included that Rayner could not have a "civilian" girlfriend at the time, only an established superheroine like Donna Troy for starters, and Jade afterwards.

Interesting how no objective view is provided for whether it was in good taste to turn Hal into a murderous villain, nor any mention of the notorious fridging scene for Alexandra deWitt, the girlfriend who was introduced only to be murdered by Major Force about 6 issues in. These kind of steps are exactly what ensured sales would otherwise plummet in the long run, and I'd seen legitimate arguments made over the years that the Rayner stories weren't the big deal some wanted all to think they were. If the fridging of deWitt was retconned away of recent, that in itself is miraculous.

Oddly enough, the paragraph is accompanied by a coverscan of the 3rd volume's premiere issue from 1990, which was written by the disgraced Gerard Jones. Do they realize that could haunt the Rayner run for a long time, and only compounds why the 3rd volume is so otherwise obsolete?

Next, there's one of the spinoff series, GL Corps:

Running alongside the central flagship series, Peter J. Tomasi penned a critically acclaimed ensemble title focused on the wider Green Lantern Corps. The narrative centered on veteran Lanterns Guy Gardner and John Stewart as they led the cosmic police force through galaxy-wide conflicts. The series provided essential perspectives during major events like ‘Blackest Night’ while highlighting the camaraderie and sacrifices of alien ring-bearers. Artist Patrick Gleason provided distinctive, kinetic visuals that brought life to massive space battles and alien civilizations. Tomasi’s work added emotional depth to secondary characters and proved that the franchise thrived beyond Hal Jordan.

Oh, do tell us about it. I've long learned not to be fooled by such balderdash, and look where things have arrived today, with a TV show that practically throws Hal under the bus for the sake of DEI ideology. And why are we being lectured that a series with connections to company wide crossovers was "essential"? Yawn.

When stuff like this is all they can think of highlighting, and not the Golden/Silver/Bronze Age stories other than O'Neil's, something is definitely wrong. But I guess that's what to expect when the whole franchise plummeted into the abyss beginning with the Action Comics Weekly run, and nobody in the press is willing admit severe mistakes were made. That's how both DC and Marvel have been able to get away with their worst acts for decades now.

Gal Gadot on being dropped from WW movies

The Times of Israel told about actress Gal Gadot's exit from playing the role of Wonder Woman on the silver screen:

Gal Gadot revealed in an interview aired Monday that she was cut from the next Wonder Woman film, although the project was already in development.

Gadot told the “Happy Sad Confused” podcast that she was slated to star in a third installment in the franchise, under director Patty Jenkins, but the project changed when new management took over at DC Studios.

CEO James Gunn took over the ailing studio in 2022, and at first assured Gadot that she would star in the next Wonder Woman film.

“No, they told me the opposite,” said Gadot on the podcast when asked about the circumstances surrounding the cancellation. “They were like, ‘We’re going to develop it with you [Wonder Woman 3], but I saw the way everybody else was handled, right?”

Considering how everything collapsed artistically with the 2nd movie, what exactly are we missing? Some could also argue that, with Gadot now reaching her 40s, she may be past her prime for a character who's meant to look early to mid-20s.

Based on the woke politics that clogged the 2nd film, what's the loss? There've been at least 3 adaptations of comics owned by DC so far that were screwed up - WW, Shazam and Aquaman, to which we could add this year's Supergirl film as the sequel to Gunn's Superman - where the 2nd entry wound up a serious dud, and there have been other examples that were even worse, like Dwayne Johnson's Black Adam film and the Birds of Prey film, that got nowhere. So what have they truly got to show for it in the end? Also noted is that:

According to media reports, Ana Nogueira, who wrote the upcoming “Supergirl” script, is penning the script for the new film. A new director hasn’t yet been named.

Gunn’s own position as CEO is reportedly in question as DC Studios is part of Warner Bros. Discovery, the media company being acquired in the $110 billion merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery that is expected to close in late 2026.

If he leaves, he won't be missed. The Lanterns series he's producing is already woke, and if the same screenwriter who penned the Supergirl movie is assigned, we can't expect them to draw from worthy material for a story on the silver screen. And even the Superman film from the past year had some very distasteful metaphors shoehorned in, one more reason why it doesn't seem to be spoken about much now, any more than countless other films from the past decade that weren't worth the hype and dollars spent to make them. Oh, and the Peacemaker TV program also reeks of revulsion. So what are we missing?

All that aside, as I once said before, I don't think Gadot has much of a film legacy, and if she's worked on TV, probably not much of one there either. So it's not like, in the end, her role as WW was something to celebrate.

Lanterns TV series is little more than a "white privilege" lecture

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart says the James Gunn-produced TV show supposedly based on Green Lantern has unsurprisingly turned out to be quite an outmoded political lecture:

Director James Gunn’s executive produced DC comics streaming series Lanterns has become one long lecture on “white privilege” and racism in America and fans are lashing out.

The HBO series is based on DC’s Green Lantern universe of characters, which features the Green Lantern Corps, a multi-species policing organization that patrols the universe to keep the peace. The first human Corps member was Hal Jordan, a character introduced in 1959, who was given the Lantern Corp’s power ring, which allows him to manifest a green energy that can be used in many ways as a weapon to fight enemies. The Corps was created as an extension of the original Green Lantern stories introduced in 1940 with character Alan Scott wielding the power ring.

Lanterns, though, seems to be following the codes of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and black victimology instead of the heroic Green Lantern Corps oath about fighting evil. And after only three episodes, fans are pushing back on the leftist political agenda interwoven throughout the third episode.

Why isn't it surprising that a character like Hal could eventually be subject to some of the worst PC possible, if he hadn't been before? But here we are, and the destruction of GL nobody's willing to admit occurred as far back as mid-1988 continues, this time in live action. The first 3 episodes feature the following:

Lindelof is apparently already indulging his penchant toward “revisionism” with this Green Lantern series, too. In the first episode of the new Lanterns series, we meet the once heroic Hal Jordan (Kyle Chandler), who has become a cynical, disheveled, drunk who no one likes and who is murdered at the end of the episode. Then in episode two we get a woman telling Jordan’s protege, black American John Stewart (Aaron Pierre), all about white privilege.

In the “white privilege” scene, viewers are told that white men have the “luxury” of being able to be “eccentric,” and “white men with money can do whatever the fuck they want.”

This may be cable TV, but wow, they went that far to fill it with expletives to boot? Ugh. I remember there was once a time when profanity on TV was kept mild, and even most cable programs I watched weren't that heavy-handed. What this additionally makes clear is that Gunn, as the overseer of the production, is quite fine with forcing vicious leftism down everyone's throats. If his Superman movie hadn't had subtle metaphors, this show would've. I don't see any need to tune for something that doesn't even put the word "green" alongside the Lanterns. It's also telling their contempt for Hal isn't all that different from what the writers of the Zero Hour crossover in 1994 expressed. If they don't respect Hal Jordan, there's no point in viewing any further.

Since we're on the subject, several weeks earlier, Tom King, who was one of the production staff, was interviewed by Inverse, and what he tells is quite laughable as it's predictable:

Talk to me about how the story of Lanterns became what we see in the show.

It started with me. I sort of had it first. And then we brought Damon [Lindelof] and Chris [Mundy] on. We threw out everything I had and started over — I mean, except for the theme. The three of us built a show. And then when we hit the ground with the three other writers, we were like, “Here’s what we have.” And they’re like, “Throw that all out, because we have ideas.” It was built organically that way, by listening to each other and to each person’s personal experience. We had these big ideas, and Vanessa [Baden Kelly] built that from her experience and made it sing. She gets all the flowers for that.

Some organism, I'll say. Even Denny O'Neil's run on GL was never as forced as appears to be the case here, and the difference is that back then, stories like O'Neil's reflected the times legitimately enough. Also, what's the point of their listening to each other if they're all left-wing? The "biggest" idea would have to be sending Hal once again to the afterlife, this time in live action.

Did you always know it’d be Hal training John to be his successor?

The central mystery we started with is, “Why does Guy Gardner have the ring? There’s these two other Lanterns. Why is he the one you only see in the Superman movie? How do we kind of explain that, where that starts, and where Hal is in the picture?” It was always, from the beginning, John Stewart and Hal Jordan, because those are the quintessential Green Lanterns. Due to two people, I think: Gil Kane, who created our ’60s Hal Jordan. That “Paul Newman” Hal Jordan — which is so embodied by Kyle — that’s very much [from] Gil Kane and John Broome, who invented him as kind of this ideal, ’60s masculine guy living on the edge.

And for John, Neal Adams. Neal was this total outsider; he was, like, a rebel. He’s like, “I’m not going anywhere where I’m not changing the game for the better.” He took hits for that in the comic industry. But he’s the one who got us paid and got us the first whiff of health insurance and got the old guard their art back… And that’s all in John Stewart. And then Dwayne McDuffie was the guy. Dwayne McDuffie had such control over his art. He’s the one who brought that Marine to [John] and brought that creativity to him — and brought that to children. A whole generation’s like, “Who’s Hal Jordan? John Stewart’s my Green Lantern.”

When exactly did McDuffie have anything to do with GL? I don't know of any involvement he could've had. I thought it was the overrated Geoff Johns who retconned John into a Marine, and when somebody as awful as Johns is the one doing the scripting, it's only bad news. But far more telling has to be the way King puts down Hal for the sake of John. Sounds like he doesn't want anybody reading the Silver Age archives and judging for themselves at all. One more reason not to be taken in by King's propaganda, which even goes so far as to hint he dislikes what Broome and Kane created Hal Jordan as.

Lanterns does take some big swings with that premise right out the gate. This series takes place after Sinestro breaks bad and is defeated by the Green Lanterns, which is a huge comic story that hasn’t really been adapted on-screen. Did that ever feel like a risk?

I was at the first architecture meeting [for the DCU], when we’re just sort of all these writers sitting around the room. James Gunn’s first — and it was so instinctual to him that he didn’t realize what a revolution it was… But he started that first meeting by pitching us what his universe is going to be. As he’s pitching us Superman, the thing that he was saying is, “This is not an origin story. We’re not starting with Day 1. This universe has started. We’re on Day 20 of this universe. We’re on Day 80. We’re on Year 80.” He’s like, “People are tired of origin stories. People are tired of seeing that stuff over and over again. Let’s give them quality over explaining. They don’t need to be lectured at. They need to be entertained.”

Starting in the middle was always James’ way of saying, “Get to the meat.” You’re in a universe that lives. It’s like picking up a random comic book. And the Sinestro stuff, I love that because what separates DC from Marvel a little bit — at least in the comics I’ve been doing so much — is the idea of legacy, the idea that what you do affects the next generation. Who your father is affects who you are as a son, affects who you are as a father. It’s the idea that Sinestro was Hal’s coach, and Hal is John’s coach. Both of them have passed on the good and the bad to each other. Watching that flow the way we watch both our trauma and our greatness flow from our grandparents down to us was a wonderful part of that show.

Oh, so they followed up on the shoddy premise that began in the 2 worthless Emerald Dawn miniseries that were both quite jumbled in their consistency with one another? Let's also recall the disgraced Gerard Jones was one of the writers of those awful stories, which forcibly reduced Hal to a drunkard who spends a few months in prison for causing an accident. Indeed, what was so special about those miniseries that DC had to reprint them in trades for some time? After Jones was found out, they've gone out of print, and deservedly so. And what's told about Gunn's statements are just so hilarious, since despite what's claimed, he did lecture, and Lanterns is now proof of that too.

You also get some of that in the way this tweaks John’s origins, examining this idea of legacy in his relationship to his parents, and the privilege of being considered for a ring.

John’s origin has been fudgeable a little bit. Different people have done different things with it. It’s not like Batman’s “My parents were killed.” It has changed. We tweaked his origin story to give him that thing that Batman has, that thing that Spider-Man has: a hook. They can be like, “Oh, I understand this character because he deserves that, because a hook makes a great superhero.” And John’s one of the greatest we’ve ever had.

We played with this idea in the room, the odd idea that, with the ring — and Vanessa wrote this so well — sometimes you have to raise your hand. I remember reading that the first time, and I was like, “Oh my God. That’s the show.” That the ring chose Hal and he doesn’t think of the privilege of that, like, “Yeah, of course I deserve all this.” But John’s like, “There’s a difference between him and me. I know it’s not fair. That’s the way the world is.” A lot of parents have that conversation with their kids, and it’s a hard conversation to have.

Let me guess. Their idea of a "hook" was that John lose a parental figure too? I recall that it was established his mother was still alive in the last few years of the 2nd GL volume, though she was incomprehensibly dropped from the proceedings when the unbearable Action Comics Weekly feature went to press, and Katma Tui was repulsively slain, forcing Carol Ferris into a role she shouldn't have been in. They also seem to have built on a premise with the ring coming from the writings of Geoff Johns, who IIRC depicted the rings as choosing their hosts, instead of the original wearer, which for the GL Corps was the late Abin Sur. One more reason we could do without this TV mess.

Just before Lanterns, DC released Supergirl, based on your Woman of Tomorrow series. Did you work with [screenwriter] Ana Nogueira on that adaptation at all?

I was very purposefully hands-off on that project because, number one, I was in Lanterns. So that was my focus, supporting Chris to make Lanterns. And number two, I was so close to that material. I love that book that I wrote that I wanted to give them the freedom to create something. Because if I’m in there, I’m going to be like, “Let me tell you how it’s done.” And that wouldn’t have helped anyone be creative. I hate when people are doing that to me, so I wouldn’t want to do it to somebody else. Instead, I was like, “Beautiful people make beautiful work. Go forth and do your thing. I’ll be over here.”

Oh, some "beautiful" people they are alright. Also notice how King predictably remains oblivious to the catastrophe the Supergirl movie became, and won't ask whether his work was really any good to begin with. Is he also claiming there'd be no freedom to create something drawing from Golden/Silver/Bronze Age material, and only if it's based on his work, there is? That is just so dumb.

Nogueira’s working on a Wonder Woman movie as well. Have you gone hands-off with that, too?

For a while I had a job where I was a consultant — like a nerd consultant — so I worked on a lot of different sort of [DC] projects. But between Lanterns and Mister Miracle… I’m not involved in Wonder Woman except to say I hope it’s going to be utterly brilliant. I hope the people who are building it stay true to who that character is, because she’s just one of the greatest heroines ever created.

With the same screenwriter assigned, I doubt it. And I don't think King means what he says when he claims he hopes they'll remain true to what WW was built upon, seeing what a mess he made already in the comics proper, all for the sake of leftist agendas.

Even if Gunn hadn't been the executive producer of Lanterns, King's involvement is enough to avoid it, and the woke politics it builds on are so revolting, they make even the most questionable moments from O'Neil's writings look tame by comparison. It would be best if TV viewers would just change the channel, and read the earlier comics of GL from up to mid-1988 instead. And it's a shame many pseudo-historians won't admit much of GL's potential collapsed after that period.

DC desecrates Wonder Woman for "pride month"

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart informs that for their latest, pointless "pride month" special, DC's included a transsexual pseudo-Wonder Woman, using a previously created character to put in the costume:

DC Comics has announced the introduction of a transgender version of Wonder Woman for Pride Month.

The plot of the upcoming Justice League Dream Girls – A DC Pride Event #1 comic follows the company’s transgender character, Nia Nal, aka Dreamer, as she and several other characters enter into an alternate reality where Nia, not Diana Prince, had become Wonder Woman. [...]

The character first appeared on TV in 2018 — but not in the comics. Transgender actor Nicole Maines first portrayed Dreamer on the CW’s Supergirl TV series that aired from 2015 to 2021. The character finally made the switch to comics in 2021 — also in a DC “Pride” event issue — after Supergirl was canceled. [...]

Along with comics writer Jadzia Axelrod, actor Maines also helped to write the Wonder Woman switch issue, according to reports. [...]

DC has turned several of its top stars into queer characters over the last decade.

In 2023, DC issued a line of comics in which Alan Scott, who is the Green Lantern, turned out to be gay. But the comic flopped hard and sales were dismal.

The year before that, DC’s attempt to make Superman’s son, Jon Kent, into a randy bisexual character also flopped and was cancelled after only 18 issues.

DC has also pushed a list of their long-standing character into the LGBTQ+ theme, including Midnighter and Apollo, Batwoman, Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, and the Tim Drake version of Robin.

Well this is more than enough reason to practically avoid advertising in their comics, based on how they're desecrating even so much as the costume of an iconic figure, putting a politicized, badly created character in the outfit. And they keep doing it despite how rock bottom sales have been for all these repeated shovings down the throat, which they also refuse to stop keeping canon. Some can reasonably ask if the new Paramount ownership intends to let DC keep receiving funding if all they care about is wasting it on propaganda that's not selling. But chances are just as possible they won't take any steps to make DC quit, so we can only hope. The best to hope for at this point is if Paramount ownership will close down the publisher, which would probably be the best thing to do for now. And even then, they don't belong under a conglomerate ownership.

The whole pride month propaganda's been going on too long, and what's also aggravating is how this is what they consider a big deal, not holidays from foreign countries like Thailand's Yi-Peng lantern festival. All this LGBT propaganda only underscores the stunning lack of creativity now dominating the mainstream.

2 old interviews regarding the JSA

I found 2 interviews, one with the overrated David Goyer and the other with the late Len Strazewski, from an old Geocities JSA fansite that's now archived. First, here's the interview with Goyer:

Q2. How did you choose what storyline to start the new series with? Was it always intended to deal with the death of Sandman, and the rebirth of Dr Fate, or were there other ideas?

We always intended to begin the new book with the death of Wesley Dodds, but originally, this was going to be tied into a story involving the old Paul Kirk Manhunter clones. We shelved that (we'll be bringing it back later on) and decided to go for something much more epic -- the birth of a new Dr. Fate.

And that new Dr. Fate was Golden Age Hawkman and Hawkgirl's son Hector Hall, aka the Silver Scarab, who about 5 years later, was put back in the grave along with Lyta Hall/Fury, by none other than Geoff Johns himself when he took up the writing chores almost entirely solo. So what was the whole point of bringing them back into the fold? And what's so wrong with Kent Nelson and Inza Nelson that they wouldn't reverse their atrocious fate in Zero Hour?

That aside, while it may be one thing to write up a demise for Dodds, the way he was depicted committing suicide to prevent a hefty villain from possibly assaulting him to get more information out of him was disgraceful and forced, as were the other deaths depicted early in the series' run. The problem with how they did it is that they seem to think these other characters were some sort of a burden with no storytelling value to build around, and in the end, instead of just quietly letting them be dropped into limbo, they can only think of putting them to death through murder. Even suicide's very appalling. Yet they resort almost exclusively to such fates instead of death by natural causes and auto accidents, just to show how uncreative they actually are.

Q5. How has the reaction to the new JSA comic been in the DC offices? Positive?

Generally, DC has been very happy with the book. Sales are quite good and they like the way the fans have been responding. They've given us fairly free rein to do what we want.

Q6. What did you think of the 1992 JSA series by Len Strazewski and the late Mike Parobeck?

I enjoyed the short-lived '92 JSA series, but I thought it lingered a bit too much in the past, recycling the same (quite small) JSA rogues gallery, etc.

That was one of the reasons we introduced Mordru and (in issue #6) Black Adam. Later on, we will see a new Injustice Society. We wanted to expand the JSA's rogues gallery.

Oh, so here he's stealthily putting down Strazewski's work, which was cut short by editor Mike Carlin, yet when somebody like Goyer comes along, suddenly there's no complaints. Funny Goyer says Strazewski's work lingered in the past too much, when Goyer/Johns/Robinson's JSA wasn't all that different, despite what they say. And a big problem was how it didn't built legitimately or organically, based on how it stuck with the status quo set by Zero Hout, and there were at least 3-4 series at the time introducing new characters to replace the older ones, including how Oliver Queen was replaced as Green Arrow by a newly created son. In retrospect, none of the replacements aged well.

Q8. Why did you decide to explore the return of a new Dr Fate, and not the return of another JSAer, for e.g, a new Hawkman, new Spectre or new Sandman?

We decided to bring Dr. Fate back because the Spectre issue was already being dealt with in Day of Judgement.

Hawkman was a larger issue which is being worked out as we speak -- but at the time we were pitching the series, DC still wasn't ready to give us the green light on a Hawkman resurrection.

As for Sandman -- well, Sandy needed to be in the book from the beginning for obvious reasons. And we were prohibited from actually naming a new character Sandman by Gaiman and the Vertigo folks. In the DCU, that name is exclusively Morpheus' now.

Well at least this tells something. To think that a so-called called auteur who was since accused of serious sexual abuse would have that kind of "creative control" at the expense of the flagship DCU would even have veto power over what characters could retain the Sandman codename. Of course, one can reasonably wonder how Goyer and company feel now that a guy they possibly looked up to as a genius was discovered to be quite the opposite? Do they still consider what he did with Lyta Hall throughly acceptable? I don't know, but the next part of the interview certainly makes clear what kind of woke advocate Goyer really is:

Q15. Some fans have claimed that Dr Midnite (Charles McNider) was possibly gay. What is your opinion on this situation?

It is my personal belief that McNider may very well have been gay. If we have the opportunity, we may address it one day in a story.

It's definitely eyebrow raising when somebody blurs the differences between fiction and reality that blatantly. The Golden Age Dr. Mid-Nite is a non-existant person, and like various other characters of the times, was written as a cypher, so how and why do phonies like Goyer jump to these conclusions? And who are these fans they speak of? Not me. Talk about putting words in the fanbase's mouth! Some could say the way McNider was written might make him look gay, but since he's a fictional character, there's nothing to prove, period, except for that some overrated modern writers are some of the most shameless people around. And Goyer did go pretty woke in later years to boot. And what he said about She-Hulk and did with Superman was inexcusable.

Now, here's the 2nd with Len Strazewski, and some of what he tells is far more impressive what Goyer had to say, and tells quite a bit about what went wrong at the time when the editors decided they didn't want to sell according to merit in the early 90s. This is about both the 1991 miniseries and the regular series the followed the next year:

Q4. Was this series received well by fans, and DC alike?

Fans liked the 1991 series and most DC editors ignored it.

Q5. And what about the 1992 series? What's the story behind that?

(After the 1991 series,) Brian and I proposed the 1992 continuing series set in the present. Mike Parobeck worked with me on THE FLY and also on the mini-series, and the 1992 series was created with him in mind. He designed the look of all the characters for the series.

Q6. And was the 1992 series well-received?

Fans universally loved the 1992 series and DC editors hated it because they (as a group) had convinced themselves that no one was interested in older heroic characters. History has proved them wrong, of course.

What's additonally ironic is that at least a few of the older characters who weren't slaughtered during Zero Hour were put to use in JSA, and when that occurred, no complaints were made, and the editors didn't balk at Goyer/Robinson/Johns making use of them. One could validly wonder if Strazewski wasn't PC enough for their tastes that Carlin for one had to be so petty. There is one part here that's unfortunate, however:

Q9. Regarding the lineup of the 1992 series, why were characters such as Dr Fate, Power Girl or the Star-Spangled Kid not included? Were there plans to have them appear in the future?

No special reason not to include them. Dr Fate would have shown up eventually. Power Girl and Star-Spangled Kid never interested me much.

With all due respect, it's ludicrous to say they "never interested" you much when it all depends what talent you can bring to the table and what stories you can build around them. Although, the reason why Power Girl wasn't in those 10 issues was because the disgraced Gerard Jones was holding her hostage to his repellent stories in JLA. As for Star-Spangled Kid, a creation of Jerry Siegel, the only problem there was that Roy Thomas had already put Sylvester Pemberton to death towards the end of Infinity Inc, though if anybody talented enough wanted to, there were zillions of decent ways to resurrect the guy from the grave (and Thomas himself may have once said he'd regretted what he did with Pemberton). Instead, DC editors allowed Johns to exploit the role for his female counterpart creation, Courtney Whitmore, and for some reason, if there was any character in the past decade whom editors didn't demand be given a PC costume design unlike what Starfire sadly got, it was Johns' creation, who wore a tank top outfit, begging the question, why does he get a pass while other writers/artists don't on such issues? Now, here's what Strazewski addressed in regards to the late Mike Parobeck's art:

Q12. Some fans have stated that Mike's JSA work was "too cartoony". Personally, I thought it fit perfectly, but do you have an opinion?

As noted above. He was brilliant and his style is now the most copied style in comics. Among others, DC Executive Editor Mike Carlin said Mike's work was not appropriate for super-heroes and that was one reason why the JSA series was cancelled. Carlin also said he didn't like my writing. He was mistaken.

Again, Carlin was clearly a bad omen for comicdom as an editor, if anything, and some of the later projects he worked on certainly played quite a part in draining all that made DC/Marvel work in the first place. And as I may have noted before, if older characters like Dr. Strange and Mr. Fantastic could be loved by so many readers back in the day, then it's false to say nobody liked reading about older heroes.

Q13. Have you read the current JSA series, by David Goyer and Geoff Johns? If so, what is your opinion?

I haven't read it and probably will not. It would be unfair, I think, to do so. If it is really good, I'd be jealous. If it is really bad, I'd be angry. If it was mediocre, I'd be sad. I've met the creators and they seem like bright, creative, young guys. I am sure they are doing as well as their editors allow them.

Hopefully, he didn't read it and years afterwards, I myself reevaluated whatever I did read from Goyer/Johns/Robinson and realized it was grossly overrated to begin with, and otherwise insulting to the intellect. And Johns later willingly took part in the time-altering crossover Flashpoint, which led to the New52, and in the process, erased his stories from continuity for the sake of a new one that led nowhere fast, and was eventually reversed along with at least a few other horrible mistakes like Identity Crisis. But by then, it was long too late, and the damage Johns in particular engineered on his part was truly reprehensible.

As far as I know, Carlin's never apologized for being such a hypocrite, and of course, neither have Goyer/Robinson/Johns. If Strazewski got alienated from comicdom because of all that, it's understandable. Some PC advocates for decades have really brought things down to insufferable levels, and repairing all that will take an epoch. For now, I hope Strazewski's JSA stories will be reprinted in the DC Finest archives, and as for the later JSA, that's best avoided and forgotten.

After nearly 3 decades, Newsarama is closed down

Popverse, which, ideologically speaking, isn't all that different from Newsarama, announced the latter site's been closed down by Games Radar, the last to maintain ownership:

The storied comic news site Newsarama is seemingly defunct, after a series of layoffs by parent company Future PLC resulted in the elimination of the last dedicated person working on the website. Long-time Newsarama staff writer George Marson announced earlier this month that they had been laid off earlier this month as part of a broader round of cuts across the journalism & events corporation. [...]

Newsarama was formally launched in 1998 and quickly became one of the primary places to get news, interviews, and commentary on the North American comic book industry online. The site changed as the comics industry and the digital industries changed, and following a series of acquisitions, it was folded into the comics vertical of the website GamesRadar.com by 2018, while keeping the Newsarama branding, alongside other publications including Total Film and SFX. In the past 12 months however, the Newsarama branding on the GamesRadar.com website was largely eliminated, with the comics coverage remaining left as a secondary vertical and writing efforts minimized to focus primarily on games, film, & TV related to comics.

At its peak, Newsarama had a full-time staff of three with various additional writers, videographers, and others working in a freelance capacity. That was cut down to two by 2022, and, following his abrupt departure, co-founder Mike Doran was replaced by a general 'comics editor' that was shifted soon after to focus (in title and in work) on streaming TV & film, leaving Marston as the sole remaining Newsarama staffer until now.

Considering how biased they were towards the worst of the industry's leftists, their closure is no big loss. Unfortunately, Popverse is little more than a continuation of the same MO, perhaps even worse, and it's not like the writer's pointing out whether they made mistakes that need to be mended.

A writer at First Comics News, who used to work for Newsarama, tells the following:

Launched in 1998 by co-founders Matt Brady & Michael Doran, Newsarama quickly became a must-read destination during the early days of online comics coverage. It delivered breaking news, in-depth interviews, convention reports, and thoughtful analysis at a time when the internet was still finding its footing as a journalism platform. [...]

I had the privilege of contributing to Newsarama during its vibrant early online years. In 2004, I began producing interviews for the site. By 2005, I was regularly writing for both Newsarama and Comic Book Resources (CBR). Those were exciting times; the comics internet was exploding with new voices, and Newsarama sat at the center of it all.

Interviewing creators, covering trends, and helping to document the industry during a period of rapid change remain among my fondest memories in comics journalism. Newsarama wasn’t just a job; it was part of a community that connected fans directly with the people making the comics we loved. My time there bridged my earlier work at Silver Bullet Comic Books and led to my role as Public Relations Coordinator at Archie Comics starting in late 2005.

For close to three decades, Newsarama set the standard. It broke major stories, platformed emerging talent, and provided a professional home for writers who truly understood and cared about the medium. Many of us who built careers in this space, whether as journalists, publicists, or creators, passed through its virtual pages.

Yes, please tell us about it. There's quite a few who don't, no matter what they say. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the embarrassments seen since the early 2000s, like Avengers: Disassembled, Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, Civil War, One More/Brand New Day and Forever Evil. They never argued whether fandom should ask if it's time to boycott the Big Two, if company wide crossovers, forced villifications, forced leftist politics and forced erasure of the Spider-marriage signaled they were going way too far at the expense of talented writing and artwork.

The comics community is resilient. New voices and platforms will rise to fill the gap, First Comics News among them, where I continue the work I started decades ago. But we should take a moment to honor what Newsarama accomplished and thank the journalists, editors, and contributors who made it special.

There was nothing special in it, since the writers never took objective stances on what Marvel/DC were doing wrong. Not even Dark Horse and Image. In past years, they fluff-coated the topic of deaths in company wide crossovers, they even gushed over the worst of Green Lantern stories, sugarcoated the forced replacement of Dr. Strange with Clea using his codename (and IIRC, she was later replaced too), and made no distinction between best and worst Spider-Man writers. Some of those examples may be more recent forms of tabloid nonsense they wrote up, but with that kind of propaganda being put out, is it any wonder if nobody liked their news in the end? Yet the former contributor saw fit to fluff-coat the site's MO, serving as little more than an apologist, and if that's how it's going to be, he can't be surprised if nobody cares in the end.

Newsarama won't be missed. But it's clear Popverse and First Comics News won't be good successors, if their sugary tales say anything. I have no thanks to offer, so long as they don't focus on how it's possible for propagandists like them to make serious mistakes, much like the industry insiders.

The Golden Age Green Lantern's co-creator gets no true respect today

The Vidette recently wrote about the late artist/writer Martin Nodell, who co-created Golden Age Green Lantern Alan Scott with the late Bill Finger (who also co-created Batman with Bob Kane), and is still a topic at some modern conventions:

Although renowned comic creator Martin Nodell died, his presence is still felt at comic conventions.

The Green Lantern has gone through many iterations in the decades since its inception. The first version, created by Nodell in 1940, was Alan Scott. When he died in 2006 at the age of 91, his son, Spencer Nodell, and great-grandson, Quinn Nodell, took it upon themselves to continue sharing his work.

According to Spencer Nodell, Martin Nodell spent many years renouncing the comic industry due to a lack of stability. By the time Spencer Nodell was born in 1947, he was trying not to associate himself too closely with the Green Lantern character. It was not until the 1980s that Martin Nodell began to embrace his connection to the character.

Although Martin Nodell renounced the Green Lantern legacy in his early years, Spencer Nodell said that the family was friends with Stan Lee, a renowned creator at Marvel Comics. According to Spencer Nodell, Lee offered Martin Nodell an illustrator position at the company that would become Marvel Comics.

Spencer Nodell explained how his father came to accept his place in the comic book community.

"In the 1980s, when Gary Colabuono, who ran the Chicago show and also owned several comic book shops in the Chicago area, said, 'Oh, you gotta come out to the shows. People wanna see you. They think you're dead,’” Spencer Nodell said.

Martin Nodell spent several decades late in his life attending conventions, leaning into his association with the Green Lantern. Spencer Nodell said that as Martin Nodell grew older, it became harder for him to sign items, so he began signing and stockpiling Green Lantern books in advance to sell to fans.

While it's great the senior Nodell re-embraced his connections as a co-creator with what he first conceived in the Golden Age, one can only wonder what he'd think today if he knew that 6 years after his passing, DC would corrupt his hard work by changing Alan Scott into a gay man, something they unshockingly still stick by till this day, much like how the disgraced Gerard Jones did something similar with Roy Thomas' creation of Obsidian from Infinity Inc? And let's not forget Marvel went a similar route with Iceman, undoubtably encouraged by where DC was going with their stable of characters. When they speak of "many iterations", it's sad but unshocking they won't bring up any of the PC pandering that's brought down charaters like Alan Scott any more than the rest of the comics industry.

In fact, do Nodell's children realize what's happened, and does it sit well with them the retcons by James Robinson tarnish the legacy of their dad's creation even more? If they do, yet choose to remain quiet lest they offend the leftist cultural hijackers, they've only failed their dad's legacy in the long run. Come to think of it, even Thomas, who created the 2 children of Scott in the pages of All-Star Squadron/Infinity Inc, is failing his own legacy if he never spoke out against the harm Jones led to over 3 decades ago when he forced his woke beliefs upon somebody else's creations, effectively encouraging abuse and exploitation of past veterans' creations for the sake of politicized agendas.

I highly appreciate Nodell for his contributions to comicdom, but it's regrettable nobody's willing to admit the GL comics themselves have been largely destroyed as reading material, due to all the bad storytelling decisions and editorial mandates that came down the lane after mid-1988. And Alan Scott, much like Hal Jordan, was one of the biggest victims of all the abuse. Anybody who continues to make a shambles of past writers' work is not respecting Nodell's memory.

So-called columnist at ComicBook goes much too far with entry about DC superheroes who allegedly were portrayed killing

Here's a writer at ComicBook who, in his sad attempt to make defamatory smears about 7 superheroes at DC who supposedly killed enemies, he went way overboard in his descriptions without even providing any concrete evidence to prove some were portrayed doing so, and on the other hand, doesn't even criticize one example of writing where this did happen. It begins with the following:

DC Comics molded the concept of superheroes into the unbreakable symbols of morality and hope they are today. Many of the tropes associated with the genre can be attributed to DC Comics, including the no-killing rule. Even when faced with certain death, superheroes will oftentimes refuse to take a life because it sets a bad precedent for how criminals should be dealt with and violates fundamental human rights. However, even in the ideal world of DC Comics, some superheroes are willing to kill their enemies. The reasoning behind these killings can range from the hero having no other choice to their corruption and becoming supervillains. Many of these heroes have racked up high enough body counts to rival or even surpass the deadliest of villains.

Although the idea of superheroes committing genocide sounds unbelievable, it’s happened several times in DC Comics. Sometimes those killed didn’t even deserve it and were instead innocent victims of a hero who turned to the dark side and unleashed their full power. Deaths that were undone or retconned will be included. With heroes like these running around, it’s no wonder that Batman has contingency plans to take down every member of the superhero community.

It's no wonder the columnist wouldn't take an objective view of something so tasteless. Anybody who takes such a casual view of mass murder certainly can't be expected to deliver a perceptive view from a critical perspective. But why, decades after the Phoenix story in X-Men at Marvel, does the columnist think it's "unbelievable" anybody at DC would go miles out of their way to try and ape it? Because in a way, that's exactly what they've been doing all these years themselves, or, even if the body count an individual character's had forced upon their reputation isn't as big, they certainly go out of their way to write up shock value stories where a goodie is forcibly turned into a baddie. That's what they did with Jean Loring, girlfriend/wife of the Atom, in Identity Crisis from 2004, and even before that, they did it with Carol Ferris in the Green Lantern stories from Action Comics Weekly in 1988. Absolutely sick. Now, here's an example proving they're not fans of the characters in focus, starting with Hawkman:

With a hero as long-lived and brutal as Hawkman, it’s unsurprising that he’s racked up an impressive kill count. Whether as a Thanagarian soldier or throughout his numerous reincarnations, Hawkman has killed numerous opponents in battle. Almost every villain Hawkman has fought has had their skull bashed in with his mace. The Justice League still must constantly try to keep the winged hero from killing more enemies. Hawkman’s most egregious act of mass slaughter was when he triggered an avalanche to bury an entire army of sentient undersea monsters before they could attack the surface world. Over his many lifetimes and countless battles, thousands of people have been the victims of Hawkman’s savagery.

Wow, they sure love making clear they're not fans of the Winged Warrior, seeing how they make it sound like he was created from the very start as some kind of serial murderer, infinitely worse than the villains he took on. Carter Hall never smashed skulls with his mace or any other weapon in the Golden Age stories I read, and neither did Katal Hol in the Silver Age stories I read. I don't think they were depicted so horrifically in any stories published up to the turn of the century. And even if they were, whose fault is that? The writers/artists. But again, creator Gardner Fox never did what they claim in the stories he wrote, so the above paragraph is a blatant lie, giving specialty news sites a very bad name. Now, here's their hints they're not Green Lantern fans either:

Hal Jordan’s descent into madness is one of the most infamous instances of a superhero becoming a genocidal monster in comic book history. When Hal’s home, Coast City, was destroyed, the embodiment of fear known as Parallax took advantage of the hero’s grief and corrupted him, turning him into an intergalactic supervillain. Hal then proceeded to slaughter thousands of his fellow Green Lanterns to claim their power for himself. By the end of his rampage, Hal had killed almost every single Green Lantern in the universe. Although many of these Green Lanterns would eventually be resurrected and Hal would be redeemed, many people never forgot what Hal had done.

So Hal's guilty, but the writers/artists/editors (Ron Marz, Darryl Banks and Kevin Dooley) who forced this repellent story upon him have no responsibility to shoulder, and don't owe GL fans an apology? Gee, how considerate. No mention of how Katma Tui, though briefly resurrected in 1993, was put right back in the intergalactic grave soon after (assuming she'd ever actually been revived in the first place), and I can't recall Jim Owsley (Christopher Priest) ever clearly apologizing for being party to that atrocity either. So what's their point? (Saddest part about the ostensible brief revival is that it took place in the unbearable Gerard Jones' short-lived spinoff, GL: Mosaic. So maybe it doesn't count?) Next comes some drivel about the Spectre:

As the embodiment of God’s wrath, the Spectre has punished sinners in biblical proportions. With his infinite reality-warping abilities, the Spectre has inflicted numerous ironic and cruel punishments that killed many criminals or left them praying for death. The Spectre has been delivering this type of divine punishment throughout human history and is even responsible for the destruction of Sodom and the deaths of the firstborn sons of Egypt. The Spectre’s nation-level acts of genocide aren’t exclusive to biblical times either, as he once leveled the entire country of Vlatava, killing millions because he believed that they were already doomed to die soon of war and famine. Even for the personification of vengeance itself, that was egregiously cold-hearted.

On this, I think it can be said the columnist's not a fan of Jerry Siegel or even artist Bernard Baily, who co-created the Ghostly Guardian in the Golden Age. I hesitate to think what they'd say about Percival Popp, the bumbling would-be detective who was added in the middle of the 5 year run as a comedy relief character. Next, here's what's told about Dr. Fate:

Even as far back as the Golden Age, the Sorcerer Supreme, Doctor Fate, has wielded cosmic levels of power, resulting in numerous deaths. After destroying a series of nebulae that were threatening Earth, Doctor Fate traced them back to their source and discovered that they were created by an alien race called the Globe Men. To stop the Globe Men’s continual attempts to destroy the Earth, Doctor Fate used his magic to throw their planet into the sun. In just the blink of an eye, Doctor Fate exterminated an entire civilization and its billions of inhabitants without a shred of remorse. Thankfully, over time, DC writers eased up on Doctor Fate’s genocidal tendencies.

I've read a lot of the Golden Age tales, and I don't recall seeing those "genocidal tendencies" they speak of. Where do they get off fabricating such lies? Is this an allusion to post-2000 atrocities? Either way, this is disgusting how they even employ a bizarre double-standard: they seemingly acknowledge writers are accountable for what a fictional character's written doing, yet they still make it sound like said character's a real life person. The repulsion continues with this drivel. And then, there's Captain Atom:

Captain Atom is one of the strongest and most ruthless members of the Justice League, whose near-limitless power makes him a serious threat. After suffering from life-threatening injuries that warped his mind, Captain Atom went mad and became the supervillain Monarch. With his immense power, Monarch killed everyone in the city of Bludhaven before making plans for multiversal conquest. To build an army, the Monarch kidnapped numerous heroes from across the multiverse and forced them into gladiatorial death matches, where he recruited the winners. Monarch’s rampage was only halted during a battle with the Monitors and Superboy-Prime that ended with Earth-51 and its billions of inhabitants eradicated. While Captain Atom has since regained his sanity, his time as a villain cost countless innocent lives.

This may have happened years after the Armageddon crossover from 1991, possibly around the time Infinite Crisis was published, but once again, their continued remaining with the shoddy cliche of failing to take an objective view of what they describe is despicable. So too is their take on Doctor Manhattan from the Watchmen, whose cast was actually revived in the past decade, presumably to prevent Alan Moore from ever regaining the rights to the overrated 1987 story:

The power of godhood and a complete disconnection from humanity is a dangerous combination. In Doomsday Clock, after leaving the Watchmen universe, the omnipotent Doctor Manhattan traveled to the DC Universe and sought to make changes there to satisfy his curiosity. After killing Pandora, Doctor Manhattan arranged for Alan Scott’s death so that the Justice Society and its members would never exist. Doctor Manhattan also orchestrated the deaths of Superman’s adoptive parents in a car crash. Finally, he erased the entire Legion of Superheroes’ timeline, making it so that trillions of people were never born. Doctor Manhattan’s machinations threatened to cause the DC Universe to tear itself apart. Luckily, Superman managed to convince Doctor Manhattan to undo all the damage he caused and restore everyone he killed or erased.

Be that as it may, this is still just as insufferable as any of the other examples, and downright boring. Lastly, there's Superboy-Prime, presumably the one seen circa Infinite Crisis:

There was a time when Superboy-Prime was the greatest threat the DC Multiverse has ever encountered. However, in recent years, he’s undergone a significant redemption arc, bringing him back to his heroic roots. Still, even if he’s acting as the new Superman and guardian of Metropolis, the blood on his hands is incalculable. On top of having previously killed Superboy and Earth-2’s Superman, Superboy-Prime is infamous for his multiversal rampage that saw numerous universes destroyed and trillions of people dead. If all that wasn’t enough, Superboy-Prime also killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Green Lanterns. Even with his reformation, Superboy-Prime still struggles with his darker impulses while trying to be a real hero.

This, if so, was doing little more than turning another cast member into a sci-fi variation on the Joker. And again, no questions as to whether this story was ever in good taste to begin with. That's why it's sick, sick, sick.

If there's anything that can be learned from the above drivel, it's that the specialty press has quite a few phony fans running amok, who don't appreciate what prior generations of writers and artists did for entertainment, nor any consideration given that their livelihoods practically depended on the hard work they did. Why does anybody even advertise on these awful news sites, let alone read their "contributors"? What ComicBook posted to their site is some of the most loathsome forms of contempt for the works and creations of classic veterans, and it's stunning they're still in business after all the humiliating columns they've written in tabloid style.

Why I hope Green Lantern's run in Action Comics Weekly isn't reprinted in the same DC Finest volume as the last few issues of the 1960-88 solo series

I recently thought of doing some more research on Jim Owsley (Christopher Priest)'s bottom of the barrel run on GL in Action Comics Weekly, and while I was at it, I found this superficial item on Biff Bam Pop:

Green Lantern, written by comic book hall-of-famer James Owsley and drawn by the legendary Gil Kane, picked up right where the character’s series had ended, only now, in the first chapter of the serial, the exploits of DC’s favourite science fiction space-cop was narrated by his ex-lover, now turned adversary, Carol Ferris, the Star Sapphire. The story traveled from deep space to planet Earth, the first chapter ending with the mutilation and murder of ex-Green Lantern Corps member, Katma, who also happened to be Green Lantern John Stewart’s wife, at the hands of the evil narrator. Quite the cliff-hanger.

Oh for crying out loud. Pathetic posts like these are exactly what enabled DC to get away with that in the long run. And unless DC made a serious effort of recent, then as noted before, they've never taken any steps to reverse the horrific damage left by where they put Katma Tui.

What's most devastating about the starting storyline is that it was illustrated by none other than Hal Jordan, Carol Ferris and Katma Tui's own original artist, Kane. And the atrocity was compounded when, in issue 603, GL smacks/punches Carol in the face/head. If you have a strong stomach, the horror can be seen here and here, in some panels from the issue, which are chilling even for their time in how they emphasize depicting a man hitting a woman. They're so horrific I decided not to post the images directly, so view at your own risk. It's angering because no doubt, the editors and publishers exploited Kane's willingness to participate as a shield for the loathsome storyline that resulted. Though Kane may have realized he was contributing to a terrible direction, and quit after issue 605, the damage was done. This was at least 15 years before Identity Crisis did something almost similar, when Brad Meltzer wrote Jean Loring inviting the Atom to hit her, and miraculously, we were spared the sight of a man hitting a woman in that abomination. But the whole notion a woman would be depicted inviting a man to assault her is still equally offensive, and one could argue that Owsley's story played a part in leading to the later situation. It certainly did not reflect well on whatever talents he had in writing.

I also noticed this troubling thread on Reddit about what Guy Gardner was written doing indirectly. That is, when Hal called him about the terrible news, Guy laughed. As though the writing couldn't have been worse. Even if Guy was written as a jerk at the time, that's still no excuse. It makes no difference whether it was editorially mandated; that Owsley would take the job to start with was abominable, as was Kane's willingness to illustrate it. One respondent said:

That run in Action comics was so bad it ranks as probably the worst I've ever read. Hal's old friends turn on him, Katma dies unnecessarily, everyone is out of character and the art is the only saving grace.

No, the art is wasted on something heinous, and one of the oddest things about the run is that it didn't seem verbatim to continuity in other flagship comics DC published at the time. Stunningly, this was edited by Denny O'Neil, around the same time he arranged for a phone poll to determine if Jason Todd, the 2nd Robin, should live or die in Batman. There were plenty of impressive moments in O'Neil's career as a writer, but as an editor, he certainly didn't get off on the right foot. And I don't think he ever expressed serious regret for either mistake. As far as I know, he certainly never commented on the topic of Katma Tui.

Anyway, I recently looked for updates on what the next DC Finest reprint archives would be coming along later in the year, and noticed that one of the volumes is for Green Lantern from around 1987, and it looked like the issues reprinted go up to 219, leaving off just 5 issues before the series' cancellation in 1988. If the final issues are eventually reprinted, what do they intend to add afterwards in the volume to come? If it's the Action Comics Weekly stories and 2 specials also written by Owsley, I would rather not spend money on those like the terrible "quality" of the tales doesn't matter. What I might find acceptable is if they decide to reprint the New Guardians spinoff that lasted 12 issues under the "New Format" imprint, along with possibly the Millenium miniseries that served as a hub for the crossover (which had some connections with GL), even though the former was very weak, though nowhere as horrific as the ACW stories. If they want to reprint the ACW stories, so be it; I just hope they don't intend to reprint them in virtually the same volume as the last 5 issues of the 1960-88 GL series.

But I have a bad feeling that, unfortunately, DC has already made their decision on what'll be archived alongside what else when it comes to GL, and if so, that'll be another humiliation for GL fans who recognize that what came after the 2nd stand-alone GL volume ended was largely awful, and then will have to hope a separate, alternate compilation of the last issues will be printed they can buy instead. On which note, I recently had the fortune of buying something similar with Hawkeye from 2012, reprinting a 1994 miniseries written by Chuck Dixon along with some stories from Marvel Comics Presents, because the 4th Epic Collection starring Clint Barton also contains stories written up to 2008, including a series that I once was unlucky to read in the early 2000s that was awful. I so did not want to buy an archive for what I consider worthy stories starring Hawkeye with "strings attached", which is what the 4th Epic Collection unfortunately does, and thankfully I won't have to now. But what about GL? If DC avoids reprinting the remaining issues in Finest archives alongside the ACW abominations, that'll be a relief. But if they do reprint said issues alongside said abominations, they'll be adding another insult to the GL legacy alongside some of the worst that came afterwards, like the awful run of the early 90s. And that'll be a shame, mainly because, who knows if said remaining issues will ever see a separate, independent archive that can serve as an alternative for anyone who'd rather rightfully avoid the ACW atrocities?

Alexandra DeWitt's 1994 death in Green Lantern may have been retconned away

Superhero Hype lets know that DC, surprisingly enough, appears to have done one thing decent of recent, and that's abandoning the original premise used for setting up Kyle Rayner as the forced replacement for Hal Jordan during Emerald Twilight. More specifically, what originally became of his first girlfriend, Alexandra deWitt, who was repellently murdered by Major Force in 1994, when he throttled her and stuffed her corpse into a refridgerator:

The possible retcon came in “City of Angels,” by Jeremy Adams and V. Ken Marion. The story centers around Green Lantern Kyle Rayner, as he returns to Earth and his hometown of Los Angeles. Joining him is Odyssey the Time Bandit, who is assisting him in tracking fugitive aliens as part of her parole.

While stuck in traffic, Kyle begins to relate his life story and how he became a Green Lantern. He speaks of being raised by a single mother and how art was his only outlet. However, one key event of Kyle’s history goes unmentioned in his recollection.

While discussing his youth, Kyle mentions his first love, Alexandra “Alex” DeWitt. Kyle tells Odyssey of how his sketches of Alex got him a job as a comic book artist. However, Alex grew tired of supporting them both, as Kyle’s dream job didn’t pay well. She also disliked Kyle’s becoming a shut-in, as he stayed home to meet his deadlines instead of going out with her. Both issues led her to dump him.

What Green Lantern death did DC retcon?

In the new story, Kyle tries to impress Alex by showing up at her favorite club. However, this doesn’t work. She doesn’t believe he’s really changed his ways. However, this trip wound up changing Kyle’s life in another way. After the awkward artist stepped outside to get away from the crowds, he was entrusted with the last Green Lantern ring.

[...] Green Lantern #33/#600 seems to change this history. When Odyssey asks what happened next, Kyle does not mention Alex’s violent death. Indeed, he does not mention her at all. Instead, he talks about how becoming a Green Lantern taught him that “sometimes your dreams aren’t just one thing.”

If they really have produced a story retconning a cheap, obnoxious setup - one that was entirely unnecessary for "defining" Kyle - that is admittedly amazing, because it was uncalled for to begin with, one of the worst things the then editor Kevin Dooley oversaw (and also writer Ron Marz, and artist Darryl Banks), and most tellingly, what occurred going forward was held hostage to economy writing, since the only girlfriends they'd give Kyle at the time were Donna Troy, and then Jade. Editorial mandates of that sort never work out well, and that kind of approach is what otherwise brought down superhero comics, since in terms of character growth, they were written into a corner by that kind of character casting, which was increasingly forced. As a result, while this new approach is laudable, Kyle Rayner still doesn't stand as his own character, because he was the product of a mindset that, despite what might seem to be the case, demands that the reader care more about the costume than the character wearing it. Also note that much of the "characterization" Kyle received was contrived and forced, and despite what the apologists might claim, he bore no more personality in the scriptwriting than Hal Jordan allegedly lacked.

Also interesting about this possible retcon is that, as seen in the panel, Alexandra's drawn pretty hot, and the artist wasn't held hostage to the kind of wokeness that Donna Troy was subjected to of recent, and come to think of it, Starfire too. That said, this still doesn't excuse how Hal was forced into the role of a deadly villain back in the day, depicted murdering at least a few other GL Corps members, and then sent into the grave for a time, and later being shoehorned into the role of the Spectre, replacing Jim Corrigan. And that's just another example of how even classic cast members had their personal agency revoked by blatant editors and writers.

Does this mean Alexandra DeWitt will turn up alive later, in whatever they're planning for publication? I don't advise buying DC's modern output so long as they continue to be held hostage to far-left ideologues, but it will be interesting to see if current writers are trying to mend some mistakes as an apology to GL fandom. The premise of Emerald Twilight, along with the maltreatment of Hal in 1994's Zero Hour, will have to be jettisoned as well. Why, it might be more beneficial to rework Kyle and Alexandra into non-superhero cast members, and also non-costumed protagonists. Mainly because even Alexandra had no agency in the handful of issues where she appeared back then, when she served as nothing more than a plot device to be slain by Major Force just to serve as "motivation" for Kyle. There's a lot of things that went wrong with DC around the time of Zero Hour that writers involved with it won't admit, but aren't impossible to mend. And the best way to do that is simply to jettison some of the bad ideas from canon. If writers who care would like to hear what could be done, I'm always open to offering them ideas how to work things out.

Green Lantern in live action is now adapted by producer who despises the color

John Nolte at Breitbart addresses the subject of how a TV producer who apparently dislikes comics is in charge of a new show simply titled "Lanterns":

It has been revealed that HBO’s upcoming Green Lantern series is run by a guy who hates … green.

Executive producer Damon Lindelof (pictured) hates green so much that instead of calling the series by its legendary comic book name, Green Lanterns, he decided to call it … Lanterns. [...]

Lindelof has made no secret of his contempt for the color green. “It’s called Lanterns, because we all agreed that the ‘Green’ was stupid, so now it’s just Lanterns,” he said on a podcast.

Also, as you can see in the trailer, Lindelof’s Lanterns is a neo-Western, but in the comic books, the Green Lanterns are space cops.

Why?

Well, DC Studios co-chief James Gunn thinks that whole space concept is absurd. “It’s a very grounded, real show,” he said of Lanterns. “It’s taking this outlandish concept of space cops with magic rings and putting it in as close to reality as it can possibly be.”

Why does Hollywood continue to hand beloved franchises over to people who hate the franchise?

You could also ask why nobody cared about the abomination called Zero Hour that Hal Jordan was forced into over 3 decades ago, turned into a deadly villain for the sake of replacing him with a younger counterpart who was badly written and characterized at the time, that being Kyle Rayner. And things became worse even after Hal was resurrected, no thanks to Geoff Johns.

I wouldn't be shocked if the produers of this new Lanterns TV show didn't like Marvel's most surreal comics either, like Excalibur. "Grounded in reality" is exactly what's gone wrong, and become far too commonplace in how entertainment is crafted these days. Science fiction's been ruined by such hysteria. Nobody knows how to balance these things out at all.

I'll be staying far away from this new TV show, and this news is certainly telling as to what's wrong with filmmaker Gunn by extension. Which could explain why his takes on Guardians of the Galaxy won't age well, and why it's better to read the original comics instead.

Specialty store manager in Ventura County "contracted" to sell classic comics

The Ventura County Star tells about a man in the region who's making a living selling classics like the Action Comics premiere from 1938 "under contract":

The Ventura County comic book store owner sat in economy on a flight to Sarasota, Florida. In the backpack, sheathed in a hard-cased shell insulated by bubble wrap, was an original Action Comics No. 1. Heague is contracted to sell the 1938 comic book that features the first appearance of Superman and also marks the introduction of superheroes.

There are maybe 125 copies in the world. One in near-mint condition, once owned by and stolen from actor Nicolas Cage, sold at auction for $15 million in January.

Action No. 1 is not just a big deal. In the world Heague has been obsessed with since he bought Web of Spiderman and Green Lantern comic books at the age of 8, it is the biggest deal.

“It’s a unicorn. It’s such a rare thing,” Heague said. “What I have – the stores, my very existence – it wouldn’t exist without Action No. 1.”

Heague, the personable architect of a social media network that includes 22,000 Instagram followers and 9,000 on Facebook, owns Arsenal Comics & Games in Newbury Park and Ventura.

Four years ago, the Ventura native negotiated with Marvel for 6,000 copies of “Amazing Spiderman” to be published with a cover featuring the Ventura pier and the landmark two trees that once sat on a hill atop the city. It was his store's biggest-selling book ever.

He writes comics too in genres ranging from horror and superheroes to humor and romance. An Archies book he wrote with co-authors that include actor Patton Oswalt sits for sale in his stores.

With ties across the comic book industry, he's also developed a reputation for selling big-name books, like the publications that marked the first appearance of Spidermen, the X-Men and the Avengers.

A friend connected him to a man who lives outside of California and owns some of the most valuable comics in the world. The collection included an Action No. 1. The man was looking for someone to sell it for him.

Heague, 33, flew to the man’s home. They talked. Heague, who sells facsimiles of Action No. 1 for $9.99, held an original version of the comic book for the first time.

Just so insulting to the intellect how this is a big deal, but not the reprint archives of Superman's past publication history. Instead of talking all about what the Man of Steel was like in the past century, both good and bad, all they can discuss is owning back issues they'll never read, and keep in plastic "slabs" for ages on end. Even fascimiles are nothing to celebrate, seeing how expensive they are at nearly 10 dollars, and the money spent on those could also be reserved for printing more paperback/hardcover archives too.

I'm also not impressed that the merchant went out of his way to arrange for variant covers of Spider-Man boasting the sight of a Ventura location, but wouldn't negotiate for wall paintings that could feature the same scenario to sell at his store. No doubt, the guy doesn't see any problems with increasingly expensive pamphlets either, and if not, that's another serious letdown. And some specialty store owners even do contract work for all this? That too is ludicrous.

In addition to the above news, The PRP also highlighted a musician who's also making a big deal out of owning a back issue of the Action Comics premiere:

System Of A Down drummer John Dolmayan hasn’t only pursued a life-long passion of music with the aforementioned Armenian-American nü-metal stars, he’s also spent decades in the comic books industry. His Torpedo Comics shop in Las Vegas, NV has been featured on ‘Pawn Stars‘ and he’s worked conventions promoting the business, while also creating and launching comic books of his own.

Over the weekend, Dolmayan showcased what may be his most valuable comic, a copy of the 1938 Action Comics #1. That book marked the first appearance of the iconic DC superhero Superman. An 8.5 graded copy of that book sold for $6 million at auction back in April of 2024.

In other words, this guy's the next speculator to buy these classic back issues in circles on the market, just because owning one is such a big deal, and won't be selling it to a museum at all. That's what's wrong with the whole picture here, and again, it's hugely disappointing how the speculator market continues to be fawned over at the expense of merit-based storytelling in the present.