What the Comics Journal says about Gerry Conway

The Comics Journal wrote about the history of the late Gerry Conway's career, and among the subjects in focus, it includes the death of Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man during 1973, and a most interesting part that came afterwards, which hasn't always been noted clearly in history items coming in later decades:

A year into Conway’s run, that push toward adulthood took its most celebrated and controversial form with “The Night Gwen Stacy Died,” in which Conway and co-conspirator John Romita killed both Peter Parker’s long-running love interest Gwen Stacy and longtime arch-nemesis Norman Osborne. The book became an immediate sensation: so shocked and distressed was the fan response that Stan Lee would briefly demand Conway bring back the character from death immediately (he did, kind of, in the form of a clone), and decades later it was still being used as a kind of critical shorthand for the moment Silver Age innocence in comics gave way to 1970s angst. But the scene that has always haunted me from that story isn’t about Gwen Stacy or the Green Goblin at all: it’s of Peter’s roommate Harry Osborne, delirious and desperate as he recovers from a drug overdose, begging his best friend not to walk away.

While TCJ may be one of the most left-wing periodicals around, it's amazing the writer would point out something most mainstream newspapers didn't: while Gwen wasn't resurrected, they did compromise with a clone. Strange why some MSM sources don't clearly acknowledge that. But the article fails to be clear about something else:

His output at DC was vast, peppered with an endless supply of new characters, from the successful (Firestorm, of TV’s Super Friends fame) to the less so (the streetwise era of the Justice League Detroit). “He was just always creative,” Harris said. “I remember in our plotting sessions, he would say, ‘Well, we could introduce a new character at this point.’ And he always had something in mind. I don't know if he had a backlog of them in his head, or if he created them on the spot. But it was fun to watch him come up with something.”

Wonder why they didn't discuss how Vibe and the Steel character created at the time were thrown under the bus by 1987 because George Perez didn't like the absurd accent applied to the former, in effect punishing the character instead of the writer? That was a very sad example of placing blame squarely on a fictional character, and it's one of the leading ways and reasons the industry's been brought down. And then, here's where, sadly enough, political bias shows up when the Punisher comes into focus:

Oddly enough, the Hollywood caste system being what it is, Conway was seldom involved with movie and TV projects based on his own comic book creations — one of whom in particular had been growing up without him. In 1974, Conway, along with artist John Romita, had created the Punisher as a vigilante antihero in the model of Don Pendleton’s Executioner novels. The Punisher appeared initially as a recurring foil for Spider-Man, and in later years Conway would maintain that the character was imagined as a one-off villain, and certainly not a hero in his own right.

To be sure, this wasn’t entirely ingenuous. The Punisher as originally conceived wasn’t a moral paragon, but he wasn’t a villain either, and when the character showed enough success to warrant a spinoff stories in Marvel’s black-and-white magazines, Conway obliged by writing him with the kind of hard-bitten grittiness that had made Dirty Harry a hit at the box office.

But during the early 2000s, the Punisher took on a second life of his own, becoming a kind of mascot for the American far right: “American Sniper” Chris Kyle boasted of putting the Punisher’s skull logo on his unit’s gear during the Iraq War, and by the time Donald Trump was in office, the image and character had become a meme on military and police-centric kitsch. By 2025, Kash Patel was putting the logo on challenge coins handed out to agents at the FBI.

Conway, whose own politics by then skewed toward the left, wanted none of it. “It’s as offensive as putting a Confederate flag on a government building,” he said. In 2020, amid the wave of protests following the murder of George Floyd, he decided, vigilante-style, to take matters into his own hands, selling a line of shirts bearing the logo with all proceeds donated to Black Lives Matter. A few decades earlier, it might have been different. Roy Thomas recalled that in the early ‘80s, Conway was something of a “definite Reaganite, not unlike myself.” In a field not always known for the capacity of its creators to grow and change with the times, Conway was a model of graceful evolution.

It is surprising if Conway supported Reagan back in the day, but sad then that he changed considerably, and sadder still that the writer's gushing over all that, and sugarcoating the whole Floyd affair. But of course, not surprising.

As for what's said about how Conway approached the use of the Punisher - both character and symbol - in later years, that's nothing new by now, but that the magazine would gush all over his pivot to the far-left is appalling. As I've said before, there were positive and decent moments in Conway's writings up to the early 90s, prior to the time he shifted to TV scriptwriting, and that's why it's a shame he had to go out of his way to follow an increasingly far-left narrative that did more harm than good for comicdom, and also Hollywood. At least now that he's gone, it's easier to separate art from artist, and perhaps to attribute the Punisher's creation more to Romita than Conway. In any case, it's a shame that even years before Conway disowned Frank Castle, writers and artists like Frank Miller and Bill Mantlo weren't doing any favors with the questionable way they approached the character, no doubt with Conway's approval. Yet all the while, Wolverine gets a free pass on what the Punisher didn't. Come to think of it, even Jason Todd, the 2nd Robin in the Batman books, didn't get a free pass on supposedly killing a sexually violent criminal in 1988. Todd, IIRC, was also created by Conway, and his apparent acceptance of what DC and Jim Starlin did to that character could easily say something about whether he really cared about his creations too. Even if certain fictional characters are created for corporate ownership, does that mean a creator should remain quiet? Of course not.

So it's regrettable Conway had to follow a position even Stan Lee did, and not speak negatively about the places he worked for. Now, we're long seeing the terrible results of all that silence.

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.

Gerry Conway dead at 73

Conway, one of the most notable comics writers to come about in the past 60 years, yet also sadly one of the most vehemently leftist, has passed on at age 73. According to ArtThreat:

Gerry Conway, the legendary comic book writer who created the Punisher and penned the iconic death of Gwen Stacy, has passed away today at age 73. The Brooklyn-born icon shaped Marvel’s entire narrative trajectory over five decades. [...]

At just 19 years old, Conway took over The Amazing Spider-Man series, replacing Stan Lee himself. He wrote the flagship title for over three years, producing some of the most consequential Spider-Man stories ever published. During his run, Peter Parker matured from a teenager into an adult grappling with real emotional stakes and devastating losses. Conway understood that superhero stories worked best when characters suffered authentic consequences.

His masterpiece came in Amazing Spider-Man #121, where the Green Goblin murdered Peter Parker’s beloved girlfriend Gwen Stacy after discovering Spider-Man’s secret identity. This moment became the defining tragedy of the Spider-Man mythos, influencing the character’s psychology for decades. Conway didn’t shy away from showing that heroism carries costs.

Be that as it may at the time, this glosses over how, according to author Sean Howe's history book from about 15 years ago, Gwen Stacy's death did cause controversy with some circles, as Stan Lee attended a college convention at the time, and some of the audience was furious. Conway said that after Lee "threw him to the wolves", Conway wasn't up to attending conventions himself for a while. This led to a compromise where Conway himself, IIRC, wrote up the story in 1975 where a clone of Gwen Stacy was developed by the Jackal, and in what became more notorious 2 decades later, the Ben Reilly clone of Peter Parker himself. But was Stacy's death really the most defining tragedy in Spidey history? What about uncle Ben Parker's? Stan's premise was that Peter felt so guilty for not stopping the burglar at the studio building earlier, he decided to become a dedicated crimefighter to try and prevent similar tragedies from occurring. He may have failed to save both Gwen and her dad George later, but the whole notion Gwen's murder at the hands of the Green Goblin was what literally or solely defined Spidey, is an unsurprising exaggeration.

Gerry Conway, working with artists John Romita Sr. and Ross Andru, introduced the Punisher in The Amazing Spider-Man #129 in February 1974. What began as a one-off antagonist evolved into Marvel’s most iconic anti-hero. Frank Castle was originally hired to kill Spider-Man, but Conway gave the character moral agency and a tragic backstory. Later, with artist Tony DeZuniga, he fully developed the Punisher’s origin story in Marvel Preview #2.

The Punisher became far more than a Spider-Man villain. Today, the character anchors multiple film and television franchises. Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige highlighted how the Punisher inspired Daredevil and other MCU projects. Conway’s willingness to create morally complex characters transformed how comics approached storytelling.

But this glosses over how Conway, in all his regrettable far-leftism, later disowned Frank Castle and condemned anybody who appreciated the justice-dedicated direction Frank stood for. More on which anon. For now, here's something very awkward that comes up:

Conway brought unprecedented emotional maturity to mainstream comics. He didn’t treat superhero stories as simple escapism. Instead, he explored how ordinary humans cope with supernatural power, loss, and moral responsibility. His work on Tomb of Dracula (which launched Dracula into Marvel canon) and supernatural tales proved comics could handle darker, grittier storytelling. He elevated Carol Danvers in Ms. Marvel #1, laying groundwork for her eventual transformation into Captain Marvel. Conway fundamentally changed how heroes were written across both Marvel and DC Comics, where he co-created Firestorm and wrote Justice League of America for eight years.

And this is where they really make a clumsy claim. Conway never wrote Carol up as the kind of sex-negative figure "feminist" writers of the past 15 years forced her into for the sake of a woke agenda, while appropriating the role of Ms. Marvel for the sake of Islamist propaganda. Conway, galling leftist though he was, did at least depict Carol with dignity as a woman, and artist Dave Cockrum on his part made her beautiful. That's the real way to respect women, though I do wonder if Conway himself changed drastically in the decade before he passed on. And if so, that's a terrible shame. His kowtowing to a woke position on the Punisher certainly suggests what else he might've thought of his own past writings and creations by extension, and that includes Power Girl from 1976 in the DCU.

Now, here's what Comic Book Club has to say, and at least 2 parts to take issue with here:

Along with co-creating The Punisher, Conway is likely best known for his work on the notorious Clone Saga, where he created Ben Reilly and the Jackal. However, a far more impactful story for the publisher was writing the story “The Night Gwen Stacy Died” in The Amazing Spider-Man. He’s also credited with launching Carol Danvers as Ms. Marvel, and pursuant to the recent DC/Marvel crossovers, is responsible for writing what is considered the first ever: Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man. [...]

More recently, in 2020 Conway spoke out about the misappropriation of The Punisher emblem, helping launch a drive to take back in the symbol during the prime of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Wrote Conway, “For too long, symbols associated with a character I co-created have been co-opted by forces of oppression and to intimidate black Americans. This character and symbol was never intended as a symbol of oppression. This is a symbol of a systematic failure of equal justice. It’s time to claim this symbol for the cause of equal justice and Black Lives Matter.”

When leftists want to, they can sure retain some pretty selective memories about what they believe makes a great political position to admire a writer for. And while Conway did conceive the premise that led to the 1995 Clone Saga storyline, he wasn't actually part of the writers group that did all that mess years later. Terry Kavanaugh was one, and Tom deFalco might've been another, though he was certainly EIC at the time that embarrassment came around. What Conway did was very sad, considering how the BLM movement did more harm than good for everybody, yet some in the medium went miles out of their way to apologize for it, Conway included. And that wasn't just remaining "stuck in the past". It was also a show of contempt for many decent Americans.

Deadline says:

His work on Ms. Marvel in the late ’70s launched the series that repositioned Carol Danvers as her own cosmic hero. It established Danvers as one of the most powerful forces in the Marvel Universe and laid the groundwork for her to eventually become Captain Marvel.

I don't think he ever portrayed Carol as powerful as Thor or the Hulk, let alone Superman. Nor did Chris Claremont, who took over the writing shortly after. So what're they trying to prove?

The Hollywood Reporter says:

He had already been working on the Spider-Man-centric Marvel Team-Up when Stan Lee put him in charge of Marvel’s flagship Amazing Spider-Man. He was only 19 at the time. A year into the job, he wrote the two-parter “The Night Gwen Stacy Died,” which killed off Peter Parker’s girlfriend Gwen Stacy and the villain Green Goblin, too. It is considered by many to be one of the most important stories ever published by Marvel, one that still resonates today. A few months later, Conway introduced Frank Castle, aka the vigilante The Punisher, as well as the villain the Jackal. He was so prolific in the 1970s that if you read a Marvel or DC comic back then, there was a very reasonable chance it was written by him.

Oh, he wasn't the only one. There was also Marv Wolfman, Len Wein, Steve Englehart and Roy Thomas, and the former told the following:

Wolfman was at first a competitor for writing assignments opposite Conway, later becoming a friend. Posting on Facebook Monday, Wolfman recalled struggling to break into comics and getting work and said it was Conway’s feedback that turned things arounds for him. But accepting feedback from a young teenager was a hit to his ego.

“I was like 19 or 20. Gerry was like 14,” Wolfman wrote. “Why should I listen to this kid? Putting aside ego the answer was simple. He was getting lots of assignments and I wasn’t.”

Wolfman would later become not only a key Marvel writer, working Tomb of Dracula and Fantastic Four, as well as also acting briefly as an editor in chief, he in the 1980s was DC’s top writer, creating New Teen Titans and Crisis in Infinte Earths.

After his unsatisfying stint as Marvel’s editor-in-chief, Conway bounced between Marvel and DC, eventually doing more and more work at the company where he began his writing career. At DC, he wrote for its flagship title Justice League of America for eight years and co-created the heroes Firestorm and Power Girl, the latter Superman’s cousin from an alternate universe.

In 1983, he introduced Jason Todd, a character who took over the mantle of Batman sidekick Robin from the original Dick Grayson. Todd was later controversially killed off after fans voted to off him in a telephone poll, though the character was resurrected in the early 2000s.

Yes, but it wasn't with the best intentions, recalling the onetime writer Judd Winick, also a big leftist himself, admitted he lied about supposedly supporting Todd's survival in 1988 some time after Infinite Crisis went to press in 2005. And if memory serves, not only did Todd see a retcon to his origins before being offed, Killer Croc also underwent something similar - he may have been written as the murderer of Todd's parents pre-Crisis, but post-Crisis, this was changed to Two-Face.

But back to Conway, it's a real shame he had to be such a vocal leftist on social media, because decades ago, he did offer some impressive stories throughout his comics career, and unlike say, Bill Mantlo, I can't recall Conway ever being as heavy-handed with what political allusions he did put in, although when he went on to become a TV writer, I vaguely recall viewing an episode of a TV show where he did inject an allusion to the leftist standings he went by. That aside, while again, he may have proven an impressive comics writer in the time he originally worked on various Marvel/DC series, it could be said that, in a way, he disowned some of his work, and never spoke out against the modern editors like Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso, who took apart much of what even he worked hard to write up. Did it sit well with Conway how J. Michael Straczynski humiliated both Gwen and Mary Jane Watson? I can't recall him ever publicly addressing that badly-aged run on Spidey by JMS, and if Conway wouldn't defend Lee's hard work, or even Jack Kirby's, that says all you need to know how defeatist Conway proved to be in the end. And some could reasonably wonder if it's because Conway's ultra-leftism got the better of him.

All that said, it is sad Conway's gone now. And I wish he hadn't employed social media just so he could take divisive positions better left at the door. Although, in the past year or so before he passed away, Conway did seem to have stopped posting on any social media site. I suppose now that he's gone, it'll be easier to read the comics he left behind, and no longer worry about the Punisher being tainted and made a mockery of by Conway's boilerplate leftism. If anything, I would hope future generations of creators will at least learn from Conway's mistakes, and not take divisive political positions in the forseeable future.

What Tom Brevoort says about the JLA/Avengers crossover

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

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

Fans asked for it before it happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Lee regrets drawing Aquaman with chainmail outfit, but not his role in damaging the DCU's coherency

Popverse says artist and DC executive Lee told at one of the recent conventions he didn't like drawing Aquaman with a chainmail costume, something Captain America was drawn with at times:

Every artist has their pet peeve, and for Jim Lee it’s chainmail. The superstar artist, who is also the publisher of DC Comics, isn’t a fan of chainmail on superhero costumes because they’re a pain to draw. When asked about the hardest characters to draw, Lee didn’t hold back.

“Anyone that has chainmail on their tunic,” Jim Lee says during a spotlight panel at MegaCon 2026. “Unfortunately, when I was drawing Justice League for the New 52, I decided to draw chainmail on Aquaman’s tunic. I regretted that.”

If he's never drawn Red Sonja, whose bikini-style outfit was often drawn as chainmail, that's decidedly a good thing. Besides, if memory serves, Lee watered down his character designs for the ladies in the past decade, and since the turn of the century, he's wasted whatever artwork he's done on the worst directions DC could go in.

On which note, he's never expressed any regret for the role he played in destroying the DCU's coherency, and that take on the Justice League from nearly 15 years ago was little more than a pathetic continuation of that. They mostly abandoned their "New 52" direction after something like 5 years, along with the status quo set by Identity Crisis, but much damage still remained, and till this day, we're still shaking off the negative effects it left. There's no telling if any of this will change under WB's new ownership through Paramount. It's precisely why it'd do a lot of good if the publishing arm of DC could be bought out, along with Marvel's from Disney.

Sometimes, I think Lee's one of the most overrated artists in history, and he certainly didn't put his art talents to good use in the past quarter century. So, why must we care if he doesn't like chainmail designs? What really matters is if he cares about the moral integrity and cohesion of DC/Marvel. Judging from his conduct over the past 25 years, he sadly doesn't. When will he resign and move on already? He's just not a good fit for them in the end.

ComicBook fawns over post-2000 Superman comics

ComicBook wrote another sugary article where they predictably set about gushing over what they call the "best" of Superman comics in the 21st century, with the writers of their choices being none other than the worst of modern day ideologues, or even writers who've lost their way post-2000. For example:

Dark Crisis on Infinite Earths is underappreciated; it’s much better than it gets credit for and has some certified bangers. The best of them is probably Dark Crisis: World Without a Justice League: Superman #1, by Tom King and Chris Burnham. The story takes place on a “perfect” Earth for Superman, meant to drain his energy for Pariah. He’s married to Lois and Jon has become his sidekick, working as Robin instead of Superboy. However, there’s something amiss with the world that keeps bothering the Man of Steel, which leads him to make a fateful decision. King hasn’t written much Superman, but has proven to be amazing with the character. This issue is no exception, and it’ll bring a tear to your eye by the end. Burnham is fantastic, really bringing the issue to life. This story is an underrated sensation that isn’t talked about enough.

When King's the kind of writer they recommend, you know something's wrong, and that the comic in focus is both overappreciated and overrated. Where does the writer get off lecturing us that such scriptwriters are the best we can find in this day and age? If this story isn't spoken about much, it's just as well. And then, also to be expected:

Geoff Johns and Gary Frank are one of the best teams to work on Superman in the 21st century. Their run on Action Comics is almost completely perfect. “Brainiac” is a wonderful example of why they are so great together. The story brings back the villain Brainiac, revealing the truth about all different versions of the Coluan cyborg we’ve seen over the years. This one is both an action masterpiece with some amazing worldbuilding, and a tearjerker that will break your heart. The action is brilliant, and the art will knock your socks off. This came during that period when DC was bringing pre-Crisis ideas back to the Superman comics, and is a story that is both modern and retro at the same time.

There they go again with the use of the word "revealing", rather than "establishing", but either way, Johns is unsuited to the task, and Frank shouldn't have worked with him. And there's also the following:

Superman: Space Age is a retro masterpiece, and doesn’t get the credit it deserves. The book starts in the 1985, at the end of the world, and tells the story of Superman’s life, his relationship with Lois Lane, the beginning and end of the Justice League, and a look at Crisis on Infinite Earths that we’ve never gotten before. Written by Mark Russell with art by Mike and Laura Allred, this story is the perfect mix of retro DC goodness and amazing Superman storytelling. It’s not a perfect book — the Lex Luthor subplot isn’t as great as it could be — but it’s so very good. We all expected it to be great, but we didn’t expect it to be as great as it is.

Even if a leftist like Russell wasn't the writer here, the Allreds are honestly some of the most mediocre artists since the turn of the century, and alone could be quite a turnoff. I seem to recall reading some of the former's work in the last year of X-Force, and there too, the art was perfectly dreadful. There's even another item by King listed that at least half admits he's not a fan-favorite:

Superman: Up in the Sky, by Tom King and Andy Kubert, was a huge gamble of a story. King isn’t exactly the most beloved writer in DC Comics, and the book was sold in Wal-Mart in an anthology book that combined it with Superman classics. The story sees the Man of Steel fly off into space to rescue one little girl. On the trip, the hero is challenged numerous times, all while wrestling with whether he should be out here in the first place to save just one life. King and Kubert give readers a story that completely understands the character, a brilliant tale that digs into the first superhero in a way a lot of stories don’t. The art is amazing, perfectly bringing the script to life. This story can easily stand with the greatest Superman stories of any generation.

And only because King's the writer, right? Interesting they admit he's not the most admired writer at DC today, but then, none of the new ones really are, so it's nothing new, yet of course King's politics don't improve anything. But that still doesn't explain why they're fluff-coating his writings despite admitting he's not a favorite writer for the core fanbase they already alienated, and to say a scriptwriter who obsessed over storylines emphasizing heavy-handed takes on traumas is one of the most talented you could possibly find is just insulting.

And all this mishmash takes up valueable space that could've been dedicated to spotlighting the most interesting and challenging new creator-owned comics instead. If they'd just admit there's no point wasting time on modern DC/Marvel, we'd be getting somewhere. Sadly, it's unlikely they'll ever explore topics more challenging, and we'll just keep getting more of this gushy nonsense that always goes for the most overrated writers and stories in the modern era.

Kingdom Come adapted to audio

Polygon's gushing over DC's announcement they're adapting Mark Waid's decidedly overrated 1996 Kingdom Come GN to audio format:

Marc Thompson, who voiced the Man of Steel in DC Comics’ fully-cast audiobook retelling of All-Star Superman, is returning to the role for an adaptation of another of the best Superman comics of all time. Penguin Random House Audio and DC Comics announced Thursday that an audio production of the apocalyptic 1996 limited series Kingdom Come, by Mark Waid and Alex Ross will be releasing on Nov. 18, and gave Polygon an exclusive clip where the end of the world is nigh.

Kingdom Come is set in a dark future after DC Comics’ most iconic superheroes have retreated from public life, leaving behind an overzealous new generation that constantly fights among themselves and doesn’t care who gets hurt in the crossfire. When the highly violent “hero” Magog (Tom Alexander) causes a nuclear disaster in Kansas, Superman comes out of retirement to reform the Justice League and bring hope back to the world.

This second collaboration between DC and Penguin Random House Audio is adapted by BBC Radio veteran Dirk Maggs, who has worked on audio adaptations of Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman comic book series, the ‘90s Batman: Knightfall arc, and the 1993 YA novel Superman: Doomsday & Beyond. The adaptation of Kingdom Come features sound effects and a cast of more than 30 actors, including Edoardo Ballerini as the preacher Norman McCay, who serves as the story’s narrator, and Lorelei King as Wonder Woman.

“I’ve been adapting and directing multicast, award-winning audiobooks of iconic DC Comics Superman and Batman stories for more than three decades, but among them all, Kingdom Come was always the one that got away,” Maggs said in a statement. “At last, thanks to Penguin Random House Audio, I can tell Mark Waid’s epic story, with Alex Ross’s beautiful artwork brought alive through cinematic sound design combined with James Hannigan’s stirring orchestral score.”

Gee, and how's that Sandman audio book doing now that Gaiman's since fallen from grace? That aside, it's head-shakingly sad that once again, news sites like these are gushing over a tale built upon darkness, and the loss of Lois Lane. That Lois was written kicking the bucket in Kingdom Come is a real turnoff at this point, even more so than the dark angle the overrated story leans on. What's so "epic" about stuff like that?

But since Alex Ross is mentioned, I will give him credit for something else amazing he did later - he refused to participate in production of 2004's Identity Crisis, which is easily worse than Kingdom Come, based on how it minimized sexual violence, and when Ross realized what they were doing later, he said he was glad he didn't take any offers for illustrating it. It's possible he understood how darkness can definitely be taken way too far. Even so, I think it's a shame he served as an artist for Kingdom Come, because seriously, what's so inspiring about the premise of such a tale? Today, it's arguably dated, and why this has to qualify for an audio adaptation I'll never know, beyond the likelihood the staff producing it can't think or see beyond such a narrow viewpoint as they're going by. If there's a Superman story out that that's more optimistic that hasn't been adapted to audio by contrast, do they take a dismissive view of the potential in adapting to audio? Sadly, the answer is quite likely that they do, and it's not getting anywhere that way.

Superman Homepage admits it was a mistake to write the Man of Steel revealing his secret identity

The Superman Homepage specialty site's listed at least 5 examples of story failures from the Big Blue Boy Scout's publication history, and amazingly enough, they admit Brian Bendis' storyline where Clark Kent reveals who hides behind the glasses was a bad tale, and there's more to ponder as well. First, from 2019's sans-adjective Superman 19:

In 2019, writer Brian Michael Bendis made the shocking decision to have Superman publicly reveal his secret identity to the world. After decades of Clark Kent carefully protecting this vital secret, Bendis had Superman announce his dual identity during a press conference, eliminating one of the most foundational elements of the Superman mythos.

Why it matters: This controversial storytelling choice effectively eliminated decades of storytelling potential. The dual identity had been central to Superman’s character since 1938, creating the essential tension between his extraordinary abilities and his desire to live as a normal person. The reveal dismantled numerous supporting character dynamics, particularly at the Daily Planet, where colleagues suddenly had to reconcile that they’d been deceived by Clark for years. Many fans and critics argued that Bendis fundamentally misunderstood what made Superman compelling—the relatable human struggle to balance his extraordinary responsibilities with his desire for normalcy. Despite editorial promises that the change would “stick,” many readers correctly predicted it would eventually be reversed, making the entire storyline feel like a temporary gimmick rather than meaningful character development.

Certainly, what's wrong with how it was handled is that Bendis, one of the most overrated writers of the century, was going by the PC notion that in a modern age where the web could reveal everything, so Superman's secret ID approach is literally outmoded. Not so at all. If a writer knows how to be creative enough, it's possible to write surreally enough to get around any such issues. Shortly after Bendis left, as noted, his changes were reversed, but the damage had long been done regardless, and until DC, along with Marvel, are ever sold to a separate and more responsible business, no chance it'll ever be mended.

But if Bendis misunderstood what worked for the Man of Steel, do those same fans and critics acknowledge he misunderstood only so much about any and all Marvel characters he wrote? And even the Legion of Super-Heroes? It still remains very unclear. Next, from Superman 32 and Action 987:

In a twist that bewildered many fans, DC revealed that the mysterious villain Mr. Oz was actually Superman’s father, Jor-El, who had somehow survived Krypton’s destruction. The revered scientist who had sacrificed everything to save his son was reimagined as a disillusioned, somewhat antagonistic figure who had been observing Superman from the shadows and harbored dark views about humanity’s worthiness of his son’s protection.

Why it matters: This storyline fundamentally undermined one of the most poignant aspects of Superman’s origin: the noble sacrifice of his parents. Jor-El had always represented scientific rationality and selfless parental love—the foundation upon which Superman’s moral code was built. Transforming him into a morally compromised character who survived Krypton’s destruction (via convoluted plot devices) cheapened the emotional impact of Superman’s origin story. The revelation also created logical inconsistencies with numerous prior storylines where Superman had encountered images or echoes of his father. Critics noted that this storyline seemed driven more by shock value than by any meaningful exploration of Superman’s character, and ultimately the development was quietly abandoned in subsequent storylines, highlighting how disconnected it was from the core Superman mythology.

If Lara didn't reappear by contrast, that can sum up more of what's really insulting to the intellect about the MO of the writers, modern or otherwise: that a woman is somehow sacrificial in sharp contrast to the menfolk. If memory serves, this is a problem that affected Elasti-Girl of the Doom Patrol to boot, since from what I know about the characters from that title, the menfolk who weren't mechanical like Robotman were resurrected, but Elasti-Girl remained solidly in the grave (save for a forced "reboot" by John Byrne in the mid-2000s). And no explanation to date why the lady must remain a sacrificial lamb but the menfolk can be revived anytime the writers/editors see fit. A similar problem came about when Marvel inexplicably revived Harry Osborn in Spider-Man in the late 2000s, but not Gwen Stacy. Again, why is a male character such a big deal, but not a female character?

I'm also quite tired of seeing these news sites say "revealed" when it's only "established" or "claims". They know it's all fiction, and they could do a favor by acknowledging it with logic. Now, from the recent Superman 6 and 7:

In one of the most criticized recent Superman storylines, Jonathan Kent—Superman and Lois Lane’s young son—was abruptly aged up from a child to a teenager. After being taken on a space adventure with his grandfather Jor-El (during the controversial Mr. Oz storyline), Jon returned only weeks later in Earth time but several years older due to relativistic time dilation near a black hole.

Why it matters: This decision abruptly ended what many readers considered one of the freshest and most compelling recent additions to Superman’s mythology: his role as a father to a young child. The “Super Sons” dynamic between Jon and Damian Wayne (Batman’s son) had developed a dedicated following, and stories exploring Superman’s paternal side had added new dimensions to the character. By aging Jon up, DC eliminated years of potential storytelling about Superman raising a superpowered child and learning to be a father. The accelerated aging felt like an artificial attempt to push Jon into the Teen Titans demographic rather than an organic character development. Many critics noted that the decision seemed driven by marketing considerations rather than storytelling possibilities, sacrificing a unique father-son dynamic that had rejuvenated Superman’s character after years of uneven storytelling.

What about when Tom Taylor changed the son to a bisexual, or full-fledged homosexual? Certainly the above argument is valid, but even so, the increasingly forced injection of LGBT ideology into mainstream comicdom has long gotten way out of hand. As for Superman as a superdad, sure, the idea has potential, but it should wait until they actually decide to draw the whole DC continuity to a close. Something the upper echelons to date are obviously unwilling to do, even if it helps minimize the damage they've long inflicted upon the DCU. And "uneven" storytelling? Umm, it's been worse than that for 2 decades now. Next, a most troubling point in recent Superman writing history that was bad, and pretty amazing they're willing to acknowledge the following as being a divisive direction:

In 2011’s Action Comics #900, Superman declared that he would renounce his American citizenship, stating: “Truth, justice and the American way—it’s not enough anymore.” While not necessarily a failure, this controversial storyline suggested Superman would work through the United Nations rather than unilaterally, to avoid his actions being seen as expressions of U.S. policy.

Why it matters: This storyline created massive mainstream media controversy and alienated many longtime Superman fans who viewed his connection to American values as central to his character. While the writers intended to position Superman as a global hero transcending national boundaries, many readers saw it as a rejection of core aspects of the character’s identity. The timing—during a period of heightened political tensions—made the storyline feel unnecessarily divisive. Perhaps most tellingly, DC quickly backpedaled on this development, never substantively following through on this dramatic declaration in subsequent issues. The entire controversy exemplified the risks of using Superman to make contemporary political statements without fully considering the character’s complex symbolic importance to diverse audiences. The fact that this storyline is remembered more for the controversy than for any meaningful character development is a real shame, because for many, Superman should be a hero who represents all of humanity rather than one particular country.

Yes, humankind is an important approach for whom Supes should represent, but that doesn't mean the writers (mainly David Goyer, IIRC) should concoct such a tale at the expense of more positive USA values. Besides, one of the most irritating things about what was published is that, if they were writing up a metaphor for the regime in Iran at the time, they just had Superman levitate there in midair, not taking down the autocracy, and not actually giving any backing to the demonstrators either. Such moral equivalence only made things worse ever since. Now, here's one more interesting example they chose to add:

In the highly anticipated JLA/Avengers crossover (2003-2004), fans were treated to various hero-versus-hero battles, including Superman defeating Thor in individual combat. However, later in the story, the combined might of the Avengers managed to overwhelm Superman, with Captain America in particular standing his ground against the Man of Steel.

Why it matters: While this crossover was generally well-received, many Superman fans felt this particular sequence betrayed the character’s established power levels for the sake of preventing either publisher’s heroes from appearing definitively superior. After establishing Superman could defeat Thor (Marvel’s strongest Avenger), having him then be overwhelmed by ostensibly lesser threats like Captain America struck many readers as inconsistent and politically motivated. The sequence highlighted the inherent challenges in crossover events between competing publishers, where creative decisions often reflect corporate compromises rather than logical storytelling. This failure matters because it exemplifies how external publishing considerations sometimes override character consistency and internal logic, even in otherwise celebrated storylines. The controversy continues to fuel debate about Superman’s power levels relative to other comic book universes, demonstrating how such narrative choices can have lasting impacts on character perception.

If this is supposed to imply there's something inherently wrong with a guy dressed in stars and stripes scoring a victory over a superhuman being with much higher power levels, let's consider that there are stories where Cap was pitted against sci-fi figures who could also have formidable powers, and even Dr. Doom makes a most challenging foe for a character like Cap. So I think this 5th example is pretty petty, and besides, what about any and all stories where Batman could've bested the Man of Steel? Surely those weren't forced? The one that really turns me off would have to be filmmaker Zack Snyder's Batman vs. Superman from the past decade, and of course, those films today are anything but well remembered.

And say, wasn't this the same news site that just a few entries back, discussed the topic of Superman jettisoning his USA citizenship in a politically motivated tale? So why are we being lectured suddenly about JLA/Avengers being politically motivated in regards to Cap? A much more valid complaint can certainly be made about modern mainstream scriptwriting, where only so many ideologues are chosen for assignments based on their leftism. But, don't expect the Superman Homepage, an otherwise woke site at this point, to dwell on any of that. Nor can you expect them to admit that under the current corporate structure dominating mainstream superhero fare, neither the Man of Steel nor any other DC heroes will find good writing, and maybe not even artwork.

Of course comics are a form of literature, but where this columnist began his reading doesn't make the best starting points

A writer at the Daily Aztec argues that comics are literature, though where he drew his own encouragement from for taking up the medium as reading material is hardly the best:

The first comic book I read was a single issue of “Iron Man,” a billionaire tech-head turned superhero. This comic tied in with the Marvel cinematic Universe film “Iron Man 2,” and it was given to me and a handful of other guests at a family birthday party. As fate would have it, that wouldn’t be my last comic book.

I grew up watching Marvel and DC cartoons like “Batman: The Animated Series,” “Justice League Unlimited,” and “The Spectacular Spider-Man.” These shows began my interest in the superhero world.

Stories coming from Marvel around 15 years ago were not worth the paper they were printed on, not even movie connections. It's decidedly a shame when anybody and everybody thinks the best gift you should give your children for reading is the very brand new items, when here, there were Marvel Masterworks archives available back then, and today, Marvel Epic Collections make it even easier to obtain far better stories pre-2000. The same can now be said about DC Finest, a similar archiving project that began just a year or so ago, and will hopefully be put to serious use more than previous archiving projects were.

Reading their best stories or the classics intrigued me. With stories like Spider-Man’s, I learned that if Peter Parker, the character’s alias, can manage his hero life and academic life, then I could take on any challenge that college presented me with.

What about leftism that's ruining the college system? Because there's some of that in this article too, unsurprisingly. If partisan politics can't be challenged, nor some of the worst results of leftist indoctrination, then the writer hasn't learned much of anything from reading Spidey.

With every comic I read, I was introduced to the grand world of superheroes that captivated me with each panel showcasing them in beautiful colors, portraying them with vivid art. It got me thinking, all the way to coming up with the essential question:

Can comic books qualify as literature?

Literature is commonly defined as “Written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit. Books and writings published on a particular subject.”

Now, I like the first definition because it talks about how a written work leaves a lasting mark on the reader and the audience. Novels such as Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë, Animal Farm by George Orwell, and many many more. These pieces of literature are frequently recognized for their timeless messages and use of language that captivates readers in every read-through.

Yes, comics can count as literature in their own way, but like any other medium, they too can fall victim to political correctness and propaganda of the worst kinds, and have their best messages turned inside out. A similar point could be made as to how the artwork fell into mediocrity over the past decade in the mainstream, and no telling how easily it'll recover, if at all. What the past 2 decades have had to offer definitely isn't of lasting value, nor is it "superior". Certainly not if it happens to be something like "Superior Spider-Man", which was just a tired excuse to depict Dr. Octopus switching brains with Spider-Man. The writer then cites 2 items, one with more positivity, oddly enough, but another that's lacking:

Less known but just as valuable are the retelling of classic fairytales in Fables by Bill Willingham. Or Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Novel Adaptation by Ari Folman. [...]

“The graphic diary is the perfect solution for the next generation. To reach the readers of the diary you also have to find their language-more people will get to know the story,” Folman said as his reason for using the comic medium.

While it's admittedly surprising to see the writer cite Fables as a comic making for valueable reading, given that Willingham is a right-winger, this is soured when the work of an actual leftist is put alongside, one who exploited Anne Frank's history for writing up a crude, contrived rendition where homosexuality is shoehorned into the mess. I get the feeling the writer would never cite GNs like those written by Arnon Shorr as recommended reading. And if not, that's telling just how narrow a university paper's viewpoint can really be.

The Handmaid’s Tale, a novel known for being set in the dystopian Republic of Gilead, a theocratic regime that has replaced the United States, was also adapted into a comic book by Renee Nault.

“Although the subject matter is bleak, I wanted the art itself to be beautiful, and for each page to stand as its own work,” Nault said when commenting on her motivation.

If memory serves, Margaret Atwood's novel was written as a left-wing feminist story, with conservative/Christian-like figures as adversaries, so what makes this a great item for adaptation into comics? I can't say I'm surprised it would be adapted though. But, if the Handmaid's Tale were a critique of Islam, it would never be embraced by the leftist crowd.

Anyway, this pretty much sums up what you can expect to come from a university rag. The only thing that's really accurate here is that yes, comics can be literature in their own way. But what predictably goes undiscussed is how comics can also be exploited as propaganda for bad politics, and while it is amazing the Daily Aztec would cite Fables as a comic of interest, they ruined everything with the tasteless leftist items that were also brought up.

Mark Waid brings back Gorilla Grodd long past the time it might've once worked

In this Newsarama interview on Yahoo Entertainment, Mark Waid talks about DC's new variation on Marvel's "One World Under Doom", here being a Justice League story spotlighting Gorilla Grodd as a prime adversary:

The past and present of the DC Universe are colliding in the upcoming story We Are Yesterday, in which Justice League Unlimited and Batman/Superman: World's Finest will crossover as heroes of multiple eras take on Grodd, the psychic gorilla warlord, and his new/old incarnation of the Legion of Doom.

Mark Waid is writing both titles, and along with artists Travis Moore, Clayton Henry, Dan McDaid, and Dan Mora, he's crafting a four part event that brings the underrated Grodd to the forefront, pulling together threads that have been dangling throughout his Justice League Unlimited run as well as World's Finest.

Well he's doing so far too late, though it's worth noting Geoff Johns' take on Grodd from the early 2000s was very poor, and made the anthropomorphic ape look more like a violent brawler - and potentially carnivorous - than a cunning master planner for world conquest. That told, a company wide crossover spanning issues from every possible title is not the way to go, and if that's the case here too, they're only perpetuating a bad farce by keeping on with something they know perfectly well only makes it harder to afford on the one hand, and takes away stand-alone storytelling value on the other. And as for "underrated", even there, writing merit must apply before making the argument.

Newsarama: Mark, We Are Yesterday is the first big Justice League crossover of the current era of the DC Universe. Contrasting that with the final event of the previous status quo, Absolute Power, this story feels like a much more straightforward hero vs. villain story with the League taking on Grodd. How did you come to this concept as the way to go for this story?

Mark Waid: It actually began with the fact that World's Finest #38 and #39 and Justice League Unlimited #6 and #7 needed different artists to give the regular artists time to catch up. So I said, well, let's make it special. Let's do something where those four issues don't feel like fill-ins in their big events.

It sprang from that, and then I realized, OK, I need a menace big enough. Who can we get? Well, the Legion of Doom makes sense… Except they're not around in the current day. So how do we fix that? Everything became a domino toppling over another domino. And when it's all said and done, we've got a story.

Well gee, isn't Darkseid from the New Gods a pretty good example for a formidable warlord? I'm sure the Legion of Super-Heroes has some examples too. But again, under the kind of management DC's had for too long, corporate or otherwise, this just won't work out, and won't be as "special" as Waid wants it to be.

You've done stories that connect the past and future of the DC Universe before - I'm thinking of the Devil Nezha arc that led into Lazarus Planet, for example. In the case of We Are Yesterday, the connection is even more direct between past and present. What led you to want to bring these two timelines together in such a tangible way?

Well, like you said, I like doing that with World's Finest to remind people that it is not an Elseworlds. It is not, you know, it is not out of continuity. Even though it takes place a few years ago, we remind you every once in a while that it has a place in the DC Universe. So that was my starting point. But then I started thinking about Grodd and his motivations and his goals. You know, Grodd wants something big. I mean, he's got to take on the entire Justice League Unlimited. So to do that, he really wants to put the band back together, right? But he can't really. Luthor's reformed. Sinestro is off planet. You know, Joker is god only knows where - there's no way to put them together the way they are today.

But he, with the help of Airwave, he realizes he can put them back together, back in the day, go to them and say, "I got news for you. I'm from the future, and not much happens in the next five years. You know, you don't make a whole lot of headway. As a matter of fact, you lose a lot of ground. So why don't you come with me to the present day, and we will shake things up."

And here's something very sad about this story: Airwave, the hero whom, IIRC, is a cousin of Hal Jordan/Green Lantern with a similar name, is being turned criminal, just like GL himself was in 1994. More on that soon. For now, let me note it's obviously laughable if they want to depict Lex "reformed", because that was already done with the Green Goblin 15 years ago in one of Marvel's crossovers (Siege), and was nothing more than a forced storyline for the sake of suddenly depicting a scummy villain as a goody.

I'm glad you brought up Grodd, because I feel like he's such an underrated villain, with so much potential to be this kind of mastermind at the heart of a threat to the entire DC Universe. I just want to talk a little bit about Grodd and how you came to him as the main threat here. Obviously you have a long history with his arch-enemy the Flash.

Well, I mean, it made sense to me, in that I like Grodd's motivation. Grodd's motivation is, humans keep screwing up the world. So why do we have them? Let's make it not just Gorilla City, but Gorilla Planet.

I'm also reflective of the fact that he was Flash's first really big villain. People don't remember that he appeared in three consecutive issues of Flash. When he first appeared, Mirror Master was showing up like every five issues, and you know, Captain Boomerang is showing up every 10 issues, but Grodd right off the bat was meant to be his arch-enemy, and that's kind of fallen by the wayside over the years.

So let's get that back on the table, because he is a lot more powerful than most people give him credit for, especially now that his powers have augmented to the point where he is now the most powerful telepath and mentally powered character in the DC universe.

Ahem. There is potential to depict Grodd as a formidable villain in such stories, but not if the writing is terrible, and Waid hasn't exactly proven himself the best writer in years already. And as for claiming "nobody remembers"? That's not the case. Rather, it's if nobody knows the history or does the research. I have some Silver Age Flash archives (and someday, might be able to replace them with the new DC Finest archives), so I'm familiar with some of this history. Perhaps if Waid were to encourage audiences to look for reprint archives, then we could be getting somewhere in terms of story knowledge, but I guess he'd rather everybody pay more attention to his modern writing than that of the past, including his own 90s Flash stories. And as for augmentation, I assume that's alluding to a more recent storyline, but again, DC's output has been worthless for 2 decades now. And now, here's the sad part about where Waid took a certain minor player, whom I think was created by the late Denny O'Neil in the late 70s:

Back to We Are Yesterday, this story is happening in part because the Justice League were betrayed by someone they trusted. Airwave.

Sadly true.

Yes, sadly true and sad for Airwave. I like that character. I hope it's not the last we'll ever see of him here.

That's really a shame, isn't it?

Grodd was pretty ruthless.

Yes.

What I want to ask though is, how will what's happening in this story and what happened with Airwave affect the Justice League Unlimited mission going forward, with this massive roster and the way they've been approaching heroes and building out the ranks?

They are going to have to re-examine their protocols, and they are going to have to be a little more judicious about vetting the candidates. At first it was, let's throw the doors open to everybody, which was a good instinct. But Superman trusts everybody. You know you have to earn Superman's mistrust, whereas Batman is the exact opposite. You have to earn Batman's trust. And Wonder Woman is somewhere in the middle. So this is going to spill out into a confrontation between all three of them, which, by the way, gives me the idea for issue 10, which is great. I should write this down real quick.

This is another example of a "hero gone bad" story that's become very irritating, mainly because of how obvious it is that, because Airwave's a minor character, they think that alone makes it instantly okay to exploit him like tissue paper and turn him into a criminal, all because they believe not a single person who reads this will give a damn. It's also supremely silly at this point how Superman's depicted as more naive than trying to judge by personal character, and couldn't his superpowers make it possible for Kal-El to detect whether somebody's lying, or couldn't there be a story written where he builds a lie detector? Or, where WW uses her enchanted lariat to determine anything? If I'm correct, her creator William Marston invented an early version of polygraphs in his time. For now, what matters is how writers like Waid keep sticking to some very absurd traits for the heroes in focus, all for the sake of shoving them into a conflict, and if memory serves, this kind of insulting direction was also taken during the Infinite Crisis crossover too, in an example of forced storytelling where heroes are clashing with each other, with the worst part being that at the time, it had what to do with the repulsive Identity Crisis. At the interview's end:

On that note, how will We Are Yesterday kind of set up what's coming next in the DC Universe? We've heard about a crossover with the JSA, the next stages of what's going on with the Omega Energy. How is We Are Yesterday a key to that?

How do I answer this? I mean, it's absolutely key to this. The events of We Are Yesterday are a complete story. I don't want to give anybody the impression that we're only giving you part of a story that leads into the next part that, leads into the next part, like you're never getting a sense of closure. It is a complete story, but there are consequences to it that will very much, starting with Justice League Unlimited #9, lead out into the next big happening in the DC Universe. So there is a definite connection there.

They vehemently refuse to stop relying so heavily on crossovers, and that's saying all one needs to know about what's long gone wrong with corporate-owned universes and their storytelling efforts. The interviewer, predictably, raises nary a query about whether this is a healthy practice, and indeed it's not. That Waid so willingly participates even remotely in these line-wide crossovers is telling too, explaining why he's long become irrelevant, and that this story with Grodd is in any ways a crossover is why it won't age well either.

What Mark Waid's responses were to queries at Wondercon

Comic Book Club Live listed 54 questions asked to Mark Waid at this year's Wondercon, and here's what I thought could be pondered:

Has he read every DC comic ever? He’s read every Superman comic ever, and most Batman comics. “Wonder Woman, yes.” Also Flash, Green Lantern. “Have I read any good fiction books in the past twenty years? No.”

Interesting he should say that, because if we cite DC/Marvel as the example, they collapsed artistically within the last 2 decades or so, and there were some comics and series that fell down even earlier. The list could even include Waid's own writings since that time, because his Daredevil run was pretentious.

Characters sold their so[ul] in Underworld Unleashed, will they ever get it back? “Not my responsibility.

Perhaps it is? The biggest victim of Underworld Unleashed had to have been Blue Devil, who was depicted asking to be changed to a real devil or anthropomorth(!), rather than ask if he could regain his human form. And his assistant, Marla Bloom, was killed in the crossover, and today has been practically obliterated from memory. I'd think that, if Waid wanted, he could demand all those embarrassments from UU be reversed. And maybe someday, he will. For now, his answer was certainly disappointing.

The big chunk of kryptonite being introduced in Superman Unlimited? “That’s a question for Dan Slott.”

And if Waid's got no complaints about Slott's bad writing, that's very disappointing.

Favorite issue of 52? The issue where they introduce Blood Kryptonite, though only because that’s the first one he could remember.

He never reversed anything bad that took place in Identity Crisis when he wrote the 52 weekly, so I think the citation of that comic is tasteless.

Thoughts and feelings on Bart Allen? “What? I created Bart Allen.” He has the original design sketch for the character on his wall.

I wonder how he feels about the mess and the joke Geoff Johns turned Impulse into over 2 decades ago when he wrote a new volume of Teen Titans? Something Bart Allen's never recovered from since.

Top three books that have made you cry? Death of Jean Grey; Superman #148, which he read as an adult and is called “Superman Owes A Billion Dollars,” where an IRS agent realizes Superman owes a billion dollars in back taxes; and the third one was a Superman novel titled Miracle Monday.

But does he find it sad Jim Shooter even allowed Jean to be changed into a monster? Or that Stan Lee did nothing to prevent it himself? Sure, it was reversed a few years later around 1985, but even so, I myself find it appalling they wouldn't create a new character to serve the role in the late 70s. That kind of conduct served as a precursor to some of the more woke directions seen since the mid-2000s.

The biggest continuity twist to deal with in New History of the DC Universe? He notes that the previous history had 100 pages in 1986, he has 120 pages for 80 years. “I’m doing my best,” says Waid. “The hardest one to wrangle, besides Hawkman — nobody understands Hawkman,” is Wonder Girl. He also notes it’s the current DC Universe, not any of the pre-Crisis continuities, which helps a little bit.

Well if he realizes even Geoff Johns and James Robinson didn't know what to do with Hawkman, at least that's getting somewhere. But as I mentioned before, it was at the dawn of the 90s when the Silver Age Hawkman was turned into a shambles.

Favorite memory of the DC implosion? In 1978, DC was doing a big expansion of the line with more books, which cost more money. None of the books were on the stands, but his neighbor’s cousin filled him in on what happened — that DC had to actually cut back because of lack of faith from Warner Bros. “That sucked.”

Gee, that could also describe recent times, where they obviously don't have faith in something they only continue to own for the movie prospects. For all the good it's been doing lately, of course.

How involved are you in the new Superman movie? He’s not involved, but “Everything I’ve heard gives me confidence.”

Except James Gunn, IMO, and there are signs wokeness affects this new screenplay too.

Do you ever get bothered when someone doesn’t follow your canon? Yes, but “it’s just the rules of the game, you have to live with it.”

Whether or not his canonizations are followed, it's nothing compared to when characterization is corrupted as horrifically as it's been since the mid-2000s.

What’s the most important thing about a comic book script? “They have emotion, they have heart, they have human moments because that’s all people care about.” He notes that early on he made the mistake that plot was the most important part, when it’s actually the emotion.

Unfortunately, even emotion can be twisted into something implausible and phony, and that was definitely the case with Identity Crisis in 2004, a miniseries that seemed to appeal to people who hated superheroes and the themes of heroism they're built upon. But, it's also true that at the same time, the main problem with said miniseries is that it was plot-driven, not character driven. And the minimization of serious issues like sexual violence was the most utterly offensive part of the whole shambles.

You ever miss working in comics journalism? “I really… Don’t? I enjoyed it at the time.” It helped him network with comics people, and the other thing that helped him was he was the gofer at conventions.

I had no idea until he ever worked in journalism until now, but it's decidedly enough to wonder if he ever had an issue with how J. Jonah Jameson was meant to serve as a metaphor for news writers who can do bad things. I've never understood how journalists who take bad positions, political or otherwise, never seemed to have a problem with what Jameson represents in the Marvel universe, yet they continued to read Spider-Man and other Marvel books he could appear in anyway. Most bewildering, if you ask me.

Favorite person he picked up at the airport? Dave Sim, one day after he divorced his wife, which “he wanted to talk about, a lot.”

Is that the Canadian cartoonist who drew Cerebus, and had a record of behavior considered offensive to women? Whatever anybody saw in Sim, I'll never know, but here we are years later, and only in the time after Cerebus finally ended did anybody on the left have the audacity to distance themselves from such a pretentious artist. Yet Waid still speaks favorably of him? Well that's sad.

Favorite JSA character? Original Mr. Terrific.

Odd he should bring up Terry Sloane in that sense, because I think the original Mr. Terrific only appeared once or twice in the Golden Age Justice Society tales (same with Wildcat, IIRC), even if he did appear with them again in the Silver Age another time or two.

What does the Fantastic Four movie has to nail to get it right? “They have to find a balance between adventure and comedy… They need to do something truly imaginative that you have never seen before?” Matt Fraction told him, “you’re going to love this.”

When he cites left-wing ideologues like those, that says all you need to know something's wrong, and besides, when an ideologue like Pedro Pascal is cast as Mr. Fantastic, that's another indication something already has gone wrong. It's a shame, obviously, but points to a sad situation where the FF, of all Marvel creations, has possibly been the most mishandled ever since being adapted to live action.

Favorite Superman villain and why? Lex Luthor. “I like the idea that Lex and Superman were friends as kids,” because “a core element of Superman is his loneliness.”

Let me get this straight. Superman is that much of a loner? As though it weren't questionable enough already Waid's talking about villains as favorites, we're told that a guy who was written as having relations with girls like Lana Lang as much as Lois Lane (and even Lori Lemaris makes a great citation) is "lonely"? Wasn't the character of Pete Ross also written in the past as a buddy of Clark Kent's in the Silver Age? And unlike Peter Parker's relations with Jameson in Spidey, Clark was usually on good terms with Perry White in Superman.

There's more questions that could've been asked of Waid, like whether he believes Marvel should restore the Spider-marriage, and DC should fully reverse any bad direction taken since Dan DiDio got his foot in the door, and even earlier than that, but apparently that wasn't the case at Wondercon, though it's hardly a surprise, obviously. There's only so many would-be specialists who regrettably won't show the courage to ask challenging questions for real.

Video game adaptation of Wonder Woman cancelled as part of WB's closure of game studios

The BBC reports that a video that was in development for some time based on Wonder Woman has been scrapped altogether, and the company working on it, Monolith, has been shut down by owner Time Warner:

Warner Bros Discovery has confirmed plans to shut three of its gaming development studios.

The decision means the anticipated Wonder Woman game, which has been in production for three years at one of the affected studios, Monolith, will not be released.

Player First Games, which made MultiVersus, and Warner Bros. Games San Diego will also be shuttered.

The announcement comes after a difficult time in the industry, with widespread job losses since a boom during the Covid pandemic.

A spokesperson from Warner Bros told BBC Newsbeat the "difficult decision" was aimed at boosting profitability.

On Wonder Woman, they said: "Our hope was to give players and fans the highest quality experience possible for the iconic character, and unfortunately this is no longer possible within our strategic priorities."

Last month, MultiVersus said there would be no more updates for the game, which would have to be played offline "for the foreseeable future".

Warner Bros said it will instead focus on developing its core franchises including Harry Potter, Mortal Kombat, DC and Game of Thrones.

Ugh, they still consider Mortal Kombat a series worth continuing with, despite all the repellent gore it emphasized in over 3 decades, and even Game of Thrones? Well that says all that's wrong with WB's conduct. Harry Potter's a decent choice, but their reliance on the grossest monstrosities for video games only embarrasses the medium all the more. BBC also notes:

Warner Bros Games had big expectations for Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League but the game was panned by fans and critics.

Updates for the game ended in January after weak sales and poor reviews.

With a title like that, what can you expect? The emphasis on villainy is taking its toll, and thankfully, it turns out the video game community has common sense members who don't want anythng to do with a game where villains target heroes, and it makes little difference whether the game followed the premise of John Ostrander's 1987-92 series, with the crooks forced to do government service. It's also pretty weak to just blame the Covid pandemic for the Suicide Squad game's failure, because wokeness has played a role in recent video game development, and it remains to be seen if corporations will let it go. For all we know, even the WW game could've been subject to wokeness, but since it's been kiboshed, we might never find out the exact details.

The Verge also notes:

The cancellation and shutdowns are yet another rough spot in Warner Bros.’ gaming efforts. Player First Games recently announced that MultiVersus will be taken offline, ending a development period that has already included a long hiatus and a relaunch. Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League was a flop, with that game receiving its last season less than a year after launch. A previous report from Bloomberg said that WB’s gaming division suffered $300 million in losses last year.

It's interesting to note there was a certain very far-left writer who was hired by Monolith as a consultant, according to IGN:

Comic writer Gail Simone has revealed she worked on Warner Bros.' beleaguered Wonder Woman game before it was shelved yesterday.

Simone, known for being the longest running female writer on Wonder Woman comics to date, praised the "dream team" working on the video game, insisting everyone she worked with from the now-shuttered Monolith and Warner Bros. was "enthusiastic and supportive."

"I was asked to do long-term consulting on the game, and I was thrilled to do it, it was a perfect storm of stuff I adore," Simone wrote on social media. "Wonder Woman, video games, and one of my favorite games studios: Monolith, who produced the Game Of The Year Mordor games, that I was completely addicted to.

"The game was gorgeous and expansive. It was beautiful to look at. I am not going to give details for a number of reasons, but every effort was made to make this not just a great game, but a great Wonder Woman game. A showpiece epic.

"And all of that was because of the team. Everyone who worked on it brought their A-game. Programmers, artists, designers, everyone. I don’t know that I have ever worked with a team that cared more about making sure the end product was perfect."

"It was a dream come true. Wonder Woman had a dream team and they put their all into it," Simone concluded.

"They made sure it had WW and DC lore on every aspect of the game. It was a thrill and honor to work with them. I know there’s a lot of finger-pointing going on, but everyone I worked with from Monolith and WB both was enthusiastic and supportive. Everyone wanted to make the best game ever."

With somebody that cynical and far-left, as she turned out to be, working with them, I'm not sure there'd be much to look forward to. What has she actually done to improve women's status in the long run? Not enough, that's for sure.

Since we're on the subject of WW, Polygon told why the writers of Absolute WW made her more like a witch, and:

Like her Gotham City counterpart Batman, Wonder Woman leapt into DC Comics’ blockbuster Absolute line — a starting-from-scratch setting where the odds stacked against DC’s classic superheroes are higher than ever — with a striking new look. Astride a red-eyed skeletal pegasus, Diana sports tattooed arms, a buster sword, a black-and-red color scheme, and (perhaps most controversially) pants.

One must wonder why these PC ideologues have a problem with a lady's legs, because this is getting absurd already. I suppose they'd also use Donna Troy's pants-built costume as justification to boot, which decidedly begs the question: did even Donna's costume have to be that way just to differentiate her from WW back in the day? Also note how any allusion to the colors of the USA flag have been muted, and you can guess where this is going too.

“She still has all these very superhero-y, classic powers,” Thompson told Polygon over video chat, “but they feel different now because they have this base of her being a witch. That’s how she was raised, and this is what she knows — even though she’s never going to be a sorceress the way Circe is, and she’s throwing around this huge magic. And then she’s saying to people, ‘Well, I’m not much of a witch,’ and you’re like, Really? What you’re doing is pretty huge.”

The way they put it obviously sounds like the negative connotation of the word "witch", and that's a problem. It's just embarrassing, right down to the mediocre artwork samples, and making matters worse:

Among the huge things Wonder Woman has done in Absolute Wonder Woman’s first four issues? Casting a spell to deafen an entire city — but first broadcasting a comforting, hopeful explanation about how it will keep them alive. Cutting off her own right arm to fuel an arcane ritual — freely given so Steve Trevor, playing his traditional role of catalyst to her hero’s journey — could escape hell. And in the latest issue, Absolute Wonder Woman #5, Diana musters a very different weapon than her traditional Lasso of Truth: Circe’s own Lasso of Transformation.

So this comic is another modern monstrosity built upon gore. That Absolute WW does the ritual just to enable this take on Steve to escape hell is no excuse. And what does writer Kelly Thompson think of the golden lasso?

Thompson said that the reason she wanted to show the full origin of the Lasso of Transformation here is precisely because of how big of a departure it is from the usual Wonder Woman canon.

“This lasso is not very Diana,” Thompson said. “It’s not who she is, in a lot of ways. […] You can be raised by someone and really believe in their ideals and believe in them — whatever Circe thinks about herself, Diana sees her mother as a heroic figure, for sure. But that doesn’t mean they agree. Even though Diana was raised in [hell], there’s just more darkness in Circe than there ever has been in Diana. That’s a wedge between them, a little bit, but it’s also a way for them both to learn. […] Diana recognizes that she’s an incredibly powerful character with an incredible amount of knowledge, but she’s also very aware of how little she knows, of how much she has to learn. That is a template for a great character, as opposed to a closed-off one that cannot move forward.”

Well if that's what Thompson has to say, it just compounds more of what's wrong with their approach. No doubt, for them, the lasso represents brightness more than darkness, and for them, that's another sad excuse to shove the vicious direction they're taking here down everyone's throats.

The news of WB's video game production outfits closing is likely for the best, because the company's been going in wrong directions for years already, right down to what's coming from their comics to boot. It's best not to finance their video games either, and most definitely not Mortal Kombat.