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?

A decade after Lara Croft was dumbed down for woke's sake, Tomb Raider's programmers still only care about just that

As somebody who's admired the original Tomb Raider series of computer games with Lara Croft, I've been as disappointed as the next person that modern programmers in charge of the franchise repeatedly only show interest in watering down her sexuality, and as the following news from the Straits Times reveals, they still go to all that trouble just to make a point about something that affected some, if not all, of the comics adapted from the game:

Lara may have beaten a path for more female heroines and encouraged young women around the world to pick up a controller, but in the early days, the publicity for the game leaned heavily on her shapeliness.

With the market for video games now expanded well beyond the stereotype of adolescent boys, the team behind the new game says this time they are focusing on Lara as a strong character.

“The way we’re rebuilding Lara, we’re trying to respect the fact that she’s female and we’re just trying to make her powerful, not as an object of sexual attraction,” said the game’s art director Arek Tomaszewski.

Eight years after the last instalment Shadow Of The Tomb Raider and ahead of an all-new entry planned for 2028, Tomb Raider: Legacy Of Atlantis aims to revisit the original adventure “through a modern lens”, Siqueira said.

I've heard that ambiguous narrative about "strong character" before tons of times, and all the game designer is doing is insulting the whole premise of Wonder Woman, to name but one most prominent example from comicdom. It reminds me that a decade back, Gal Gadot told how she encountered people online who claimed WW "can't be intelligent because she's attractive". And I guess she can't be strong for the same reasons? The directors of this new entry in the Tomb Raider series certainly seem to think so, even though, from the pictorial samples I've seen, ironically or not, Lara's actually wearing a shirt with cleavage (something I don't think she wore in the early games), yet her bosom doesn't look that big in most of the photos, so obviously, they've still got very icy cold feet about such petty issues. And that doesn't improve perceptions of the newer video games at all. Must I also point out that, even in the early years of Tomb Raider, there were women who played and practically designed it too, without issue?

So it's utterly disrespectful for modern video game developers to lecture the audience about what the franchise should be. As though it weren't bad enough even the animated cartoons have suffered repellent PC in recent years to boot. I think it'd be best for the franchise to cease as video games, or be sold off, because repetitively producing them according to PC dictates has not improved their reputation, and it's insulting to the intellect to make it sound like boys don't deserve a lady to love. Also, are we to assume the developers have no creative freedom, let alone courage? Well, that's another something you could glean from such a pretentious article. I think it's best to continue saving money on new game purchases if they insist on insulting players' intellect.

Jewish entrepreneurs of the past helped build up toy merchandise as much as comics

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency wrote about how Jewish industrialists played as much a part in building up the toy industry as the comics industry:

But even if my family didn’t spend Saturdays in shul, kids’ television immersed me in an unspoken Jewish culture, as Michael Kimmel explains in his new book “Playmakers: The Jewish Entrepreneurs Who Created the Toy Industry in America.”

It’s a study of the mostly first-generation American Jews who led the toy industry in the 20th century, as well as the Jewish child psychologists, children’s book authors and comic book creators who, he asserts convincingly, invented the American idea of childhood.

“They created the childhood that they themselves never had,” Kimmel told me in a recent public conversation, part of “250 Years of American Jewish Life in America,” an online project of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History and 70 Faces Media, JTA’s parent company.

The founders of iconic brands such as Ideal, Mattel, Marx, Hasbro, Kenner, Wham-O and Madame Alexander dolls shared roots in Yiddish-speaking Europe, and childhoods as the sons and daughters of immigrants.

“They were born in poverty on the Lower East Side, and you have all these stories of the scraps that they picked up off the street that they made into things,” said Kimmel. “They had these ideas that children were basically curious and creative, and that they should be nurtured.”

And commodified. Shut out of establishment industries and professions, Jewish entrepreneurs thrived in niches of their own making, capitalizing on and helping propel the consumer culture that exploded after World War I. German Jews ran some of the largest department stores, including Macy’s, Abraham & Straus and Gimbels, and Eastern European newcomers became the manufacturers, distributors and sales force that stocked their shelves with dolls, games, and gadgets.

The list of classic toys and Jews who developed them is almost comically long: Barbie (Ruth Handler), Lionel trains (Lionel Cowan), Mr. Potato Head (George Lerner), Yakity-Yak chattering teeth (Eddy Goldfarb), the pogo stick (George Hansburg), the Hula Hoop (Arthur Melin and Richard Knerr), G.I. Joe (Larry Reiner) and Play-Doh and the Easy-Bake Oven (the Steiner brothers: Albert, Philip and Joseph).

Since they cite Barbie toys, it's a shame a certain filmmaker named Greta Gerwig chose to humiliate them for the sake of a woke agenda attacking the "patriarchy". And it's also a shame the GI Joe toys have similarly suffered in live action filmmaking. I sadly suspect the history book in focus doesn't dwell on any of that, even though that could also provide something to learn from. The comics industry's also cited here, along with children's books, but there's one name in the latter part that's decidedly an embarrassment to include:

The Jewish entrepreneurs not only benefited from such views of childhood, but understood how to turn them into a business model. They were also pushed toward these new industries by a less uplifting force: antisemitism.

Kimmel said that many comic-book artists originally wanted to work in advertising, but advertising agencies in the 1930s and ’40s were notoriously hostile to Jews. Like toymaking, comic books became a Jewish industry. Underpaid Jewish artists and writers — including Jack Kirby, Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Will Eisner, Stan Lee and Lily Renée — dreamed up Superman, Betty Boop, the Spirit, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Spider-Man and The Thing, among dozens of others, often giving these superheroes and comic characters coded or actual Jewish backstories.

The same pattern appears in children’s literature. Kimmel counts 42 titles on the New York Public Library’s list of the 100 most important children’s books of the 20th century that were written by first-generation Jews, including Sydney Taylor, Maurice Sendak, Jack Ezra Keats, Jules Feiffer, Esphyr Slobodkina and Norman Juster.

While it's great the writer reminds us about the comics side of the Jewish industrialists, it's a shame he had to bring up a figure like Sendak, whose children's books, IMO, were tasteless, and worse was his politics. The article even cites the Fat Albert cartoon based on the disgraced Bill Cosby's comedy sketches, and even Lil' Abner cartoonist Al Capp, who regrettably turned out to be a pervert, and I honestly don't think it's such a good idea to provide such figures with citation, even if it doesn't make sense to erase them from history altogether. It only undermines the impact of the article, and if the book by Kimmel brings them up, that can be problematic. At least Capp is long gone, which makes it easier to read his work for anybody who cares.

Kimmel's book also makes space for a certain children's TV program on PBS:

Kimmel ends his book with “Sesame Street,” which he sees as a kind of culmination. The groundbreaking children’s show was developed by Joan Ganz Cooney, whose father was Jewish, with the assistance of Gerald Lesser, a developmental psychologist born to Jewish immigrant parents. The show was in some ways an antidote to the world of Saturday morning cartoons. It prepared pre-schoolers for success in kindergarten with the addictive, engaging style of commercial television. And instead of advertisements for toys, its “commercials” offered lessons in letters, shapes, counting, social skills and concepts such as “near” and “far.”

There was a time when Sesame Street, famous as it is for its use of the Muppets, was a great item for children to view and learn from. But that too has been largely ruined in the past decade by wokeness, which would make it another Jewish creation along with mainstream comics that's been destroyed for the sake of leftist agendas. And nobody in the modern Jewish-American community seems to have any issue with the creations of their past brethren being appropriated for the sake of repugnant political agendas and other ideologies.

Kimmel's book may be quite interesting from a historical perspective, but I have a sad feeling it may not build on objectivity from a modern one. And that's decidedly a problem. How are we to fix modern errors if nobody's willing to acknowledge what went wrong since the turn of the century, and nobody in the Jewish community cares what happened?

Cartoon voice actor Peter Cullen dies at 85

Quad City Times reports the animation voice actor Peter Cullen, most notable for playing the voice of Optimus Prime in the original 1984-87 Transformers series, died at 85 years of age:

Peter Cullen, who gave Optimus Prime his iconic voice in the "Transformers" franchise, has died. He was 85.

Cullen died at his Los Angeles home on Wednesday, his agent, Kevin Motley, confirmed to USA Today.

"Peter Cullen passed away peacefully, surrounded by his loving family – and held in the hearts of his many friends and countless fans worldwide," his family said in a statement. A cause of death has not yet been shared publicly.

Cullen voiced Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots, in "Transformers," starting with the original animated series in the 1980s and continuing all the way into the modern live-action movies. He brought the character to the big screen in "The Transformers: The Movie," which is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. The 1986 film famously devastated fans by killing off Optimus Prime, though the character later returned. [...]

In a 2011 interview with USA Today, Cullen revealed how he was inspired by his brother, a former captain in the Marine Corps, when he first auditioned for the role. "One morning when I was on my way to the audition, he asked me where I was going and I told him 'I'm about to audition for a hero and it’s a truck,'" Cullen recalled. "He laughed, and I laughed, too, because I had no idea what I was getting into. He said, 'Peter, don't be a Hollywood hero. Don't be one of those loudmouths yelling and screaming and pretending. Be a real hero and you can be strong enough to be gentle and understanding.' It was the character of a Marine who was talking. His timbre is very similar to mine to begin with, so it was easy to impersonate him, and the tone he gave me to set the audition was perfect." [...]

"I love characters who do good or make people feel good," he said.

I think his inspirations were great. Of course, it's still a shame Hasbro had to spend millions of dollars on a whole cartoon movie in 1986 to make the point of jettisoning Optimus from their toy line, along with several other models, when here, they could've just canceled the models quietly and minimized the damage. They did the right thing to reverse the demise of Optimus, but I can't remember if they ever did the same with Wheeljack and Ironhide, in example.

That said, Cullen had an impressive career in cartoon voice acting, and he'll be missed.

Animation can be a great spot for superheroes, but only if they aren't subject to PC

Indiewire says there's animated series based on superhero fare that's more interesting than the live action film adaptations, but unshockingly, they sugarcoat the presentations, beginning with what the Supergirl movie was adapted from:

“Supergirl,” the second film in James Gunn’s developing DCU and one of the biggest box office bombs of an otherwise strong year for movie theaters, isn’t the worse movie I watched in 2026. But it’s probably the most disappointing. An adaptation of an acclaimed standalone series called “Woman of Tomorrow,” “Supergirl” has a great lead in Milly Alcock and nothing else worth remembering. Whereas the comic it is based on is stunningly bright and beautiful to look at, “Supergirl” is a murky, brown-tinted eyesore. Its generic plot strands the character in a sci-fi universe that feels microscopically small, populated by third-rate archetypes the “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies would barely have time for. There are interesting threads to unravel regarding Kara’s grief and anger, but the story she’s stranded in doesn’t have time to do that in any meaningful way.

I just don't understand why we keep getting lectured about why the overrated Tom King's tale is a modern "classic". The artwork I've seen is certainly overrated. And King's stories about "trauma" are forced and contrived. And we're not told anything in regards to that.

Even more galling: as “Supergirl” was tarnishing the character’s reputation in movie theaters, a great adaptation of the character was airing on Adult Swim. “My Adventures With Superman,” an animated series reimagining the early career of the most famous superhero on the planet. Ostensibly, Clark Kent is the main character, but Season 2 introduced Kara (voiced in the show by Kiana Madeira), and the currently airing Season 3 — which airs its season finale this Sunday — sees her take center stage. And she rules: reimagined as a former brainwashed intergalactic conquerer attempting to atone for her misdeeds, the show’s Kara is charming, funny, badass, with a meaty arc about atoning for her misdeeds and a super cute romance with Jimmy Olsen (Ishmel Sahid) that slots right in with the show’s bright, optimistic tone and focus on these character’s day-to-day struggles contrasted with the sci-fi operatics. If “Supergirl” the movie only scratched the surface of the character’s potential, “My Adventures With Superman” takes the time to really examine what makes her tick.

“My Adventures With Superman” is one of three animated shows adapting popular comic book superheroes that ran over the course of this summer, along with “X-Men ’97” on Disney+, which concluded its second season earlier this week, and “Batman: Caped Crusader” on Amazon Prime, which premiered its second season in late July. Pitched to a slightly older audience than usual for an animated comic book series, teenage up as opposed to for children, these shows aren’t flawless. But as comic book film studios continues to struggle to adjust to a world where they are no longer the center of the entertainment landscape (give or take “Spider-Man”), these shows demonstrate that these characters are better suited for serialized storytelling in the first place.

Would this be the cartoon where Jimmy was changed from white to black? And where Lois Lane's turned into a short-cropped tomboy? In that case, I regret to say, but this puff piece amounts to little more than misleading the audience by obscuring how the production is allegedly optimistic with strings attached. It's also worth considering that, if Kara Zor-El was changed from an innocent girl to a former conqueror, brainwashed or not, that too, unfortunately, is tasteless. It's also symbolic of the modern era's inability to appreciate a simpler concept of a character who could be written with flaws and mistakes, but doesn't have to be written as that guilty of wrongdoing as Kara sounds characterized here.

One of the major criticisms of superhero cinema for the past decade has been its resolute sameness: while certain MCU movies may have loose genre window-dressing, they’re fundamentally tonally similar in their quippy characters and excess spectacle. But all three of these series have strong art direction and visions for these characters that feels spiritually true to the source material but also provides something fresh and new that fans haven’t seen before, and are all radically different from one another.

Heavily inspired by early 2000s anime, “My Adventures With Superman” is the bright, zippy, lighthearted offering. The show takes the characters and their battles seriously, but it provides a wonderfully comforting take on Superman that also heavily foregrounds the love story between Clark and Lois; it’s a rom-com as much as it is a series about fighting invading aliens. It works because of how well-drawn these versions of the characters are, and because his relationship with Lois was always what made the seemingly invulnerable Clark feel most human. If the 2025 James Gunn “Superman” film sometimes strained to reinvent the character’s optimism for modern audiences, “My Adventures With Superman” makes that challenge look effortless.

But again, we're not being told about the character design, and that's being dishonest with the readership, for the sake of virtue-signaling. They may not have done to Kara's hair what they did Lois', but that's still no excuse, and that Lois' ethnicity may have also been changed only further (she looks darker complected in the cartoon) confirms the disrespect the producers actually have for Siegel and Shuster's creations. The writer also made sure to take a biased look at the aforementioned Marvel cartoon:

“X-Men ’97” is another successor of a ’90s kids’ cartoon, albeit a direct sequel. The 1992 “X-Men” animated series that aired on Fox during the decade was a foundational series for fans of the Marvel superhero team, providing definitive versions of the mutant protectors in all their messy, soapy excess. “’97” picks up where the series left off, but again ages up the content for adults who grew up with the series for a much darker tone. The animation emphasizes fidelity to the original show and the time period’s garish aesthetic in general, for a show that, more than almost any film, truly feels like picking up and reading five random issues of a comic run from 30 years ago.

Not all of these series are of equal quality. “My Adventures with Superman” has been the most consistent of the three, a nice good time throughout all three seasons without ever being exceptional. “Caped Crusader” Season 1 was a promising start, but Season 2 ramped up the stakes and serialized storytelling for a much improved follow-up. “X-Men ’97,” meanwhile, had a near flawless debut season, but a divisive Season 2 that struggled with unfocused storytelling and weaker stakes, albeit with a standout fourth episode that ranks among the best of the series (the show’s production was likely marred by the firing of head writer Beau DeMayo during work on Season 2 for allegations of sexual harrasment).

No surprise they'd sugarcoat X-Men 97 as well. They made Rogue otherwise sexless, drew Storm with a mohawk forcibly, and even the treatment of Morph was reprehensible. The part about the darkness predictably goes by without objectivity, and seriously, what "fidelity" is there truly here? And why does the writer talk about being "unexceptional" when Jimmy's ethnicity was changed, while Lois was made to look unattractive, and Supergirl gets a questionable premise shoehorned onto her? Such dishonesty indeed.

I'd spoken before about why brightness and optimism can't come with strings attached, yet that's exactly what the producers of My Adventures With Superman did, and it's disgraceful how Indiewire's writer doesn't have the courage to admit it's ludicrous, divisive, and conflicts with entertainment value. Animation can certainly be a great venue for superheroics, but not if woke changes are forced onto established creations. There was once a saying that change must be consistent with what came before, and the Hollywood phonies who turned out these items certainly aren't proving much different from the live action moviemakers who race-swapped and sex-swapped any of the characters in specific adaptations.

Bone creator Jeff Smith apparently believes conservatives want to censor his productions

Jeff Smith, the cartoonist who created Bone over 3 decades ago, was interviewed by El Mundo, and says it's one of the most censored comics in the USA. But he also uses the occasion for a political rant:

"Bone has been one of the most censored books in the US. I know, it's ridiculous, right? They see something in it that they don't approve of. Well, they can go to hell," he explodes, who for five years collaborated with the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund precisely to advocate for freedom of expression. "In my comics, I don't promote any political ideas. I only value friendship," he rejects. Although he has no problem taking a stand: "I'm optimistic: Trump will be gone soon and we will return to being Americans. It's a disaster."

He worked with an outfit as bad as the CBDLF? In that case, I'm not sure Bone, which he may have stopped writing as an ongoing series, is worth buying. And what are the odds he's aware it's the left that's censoring far more, but can't bring himself to openly admit it?

And what "friendship" does he value? If he's hostile to conservatives, then his statement's called into question. Also, if he can't avoid heavy handed politics in real life, that claim about promoting any in his comics is meaningless too. Another artist who's only doing a terrible disfavor to the medium's image when he leads such a double-standard.

Paul Newman's last live action movie was based on a GN

Men's Journal spoke about one of the late actor Paul Newman's last movies, Road to Perdition, based on a GN by Max Allan Collins, and also a cartoon he worked on:

Newman’s role as John Rooney marked his final live-action feature film. The Hollywood icon voiced Doc Hudson in Pixar’s animated film Cars in 2006 before passing away in 2008 at the age of 83.

Collider highlighted Newman’s work alongside the rest of the cast as a major reason the film still holds up. [...]

Decades later, Road to Perdition remains a quiet high point in several careers. For Newman, it closed out a lifetime of work with one final, memorable big screen performance.

Good for him. And that's great to know he provided voice acting for a cartoon as well. I'd seen several movies he made decades before, and Newman was a very admirable performer, a lot more talented than some of today's Hollywood actors. If only they'd learn from him.

For every person and generation?

El Pais recently wrote about Spider-Man history, claiming there's one for every person and generation, and predictably, they sugarcoat even the wokest, DEI-pandering products that have only stripped Spidey of any genuine meaning, and have nothing critical or objective to say about the resumes of some of the worst writers to have worked on what has surely become the most editorially mandated franchise, for all the wrong reasons, coming out of Marvel in the modern age:

Spider-Man is always present. The philosopher Grafton Tanner coined the term “foreverism” to refer to phenomena like the Star Wars saga (which never ceases to explore its own intricacies), or those veteran rock bands that never stop reuniting and never quite break up.

These are cultural expressions that have transcended their era. They remain relevant, generation after generation, making nostalgia impossible (and business always possible). Such is the case with Spider-Man: the industry surrounding this character continually offers products for people of all ages and backgrounds. He’s still, quite literally, a kid at heart. And to demonstrate his enduring appeal, the latest installment in the franchise, Spider-Man: Brand New Day (2026), is premiering between July 29 and July 31 around the world.

Yes, and how they remain relevant and enduring, with endless publicity stunts and other alienating tactics that divide the audience, like the time when Joe Quesada forcibly undid the Spider-marriage through contrived circumstances, having Peter Parker make a deal with Mephisto and then in the following years, Mary Jane Watson was repeatedly insulted, and they even tried to "placate" audiences by putting her in solo books that ultimately didn't work out. Unfortunately, Spidey's appeal has not been able to endure increasingly leftist ideologies forced into the books, and they also ignore that Star Wars has succumbed to the same, one of the reasons why it's largely collapsed as a franchise today.

“What’s interesting is that he’s a character who feels timeless,” says Julián M. Clemente, author of the seminal book Untold Tales Of Spider-Man (2015), published in Spanish by Panini Comics. “If you’re a kid from the 1970s or 1980s, if you grew up with the cartoons from the 1960s, you’ll see him as someone who’s always been around. But a kid carrying a Spider-Man backpack today sees him as something very current. He’s managed to metamorphose; he doesn’t seem outdated to the new generations.”

No, but the modern stories are. One More/Brand New Day was insulting to the intellect, and again, the forced erasure of the Spider-marriage, which they don't have the courage to discuss here, has only led to a situation where Spidey has become pretty dated in terms of storytelling, because the stories are increasingly stilted and contrived. What's so current about even a story where Mary Jane becomes a female Venom?

The Spider-Man franchise just kept getting bigger and bigger. The 1980s and 1990s saw numerous milestones, including the black suit, the appearance of Venom, as well as the 1994 animated series. And, in the 21st century, he would be embodied by another character who wasn’t Peter Parker (something previously unthinkable): in 2011, after Peter Parker’s death in a branch of the Marvel Universe, writer Brian Michael Bendis and artist Sara Pichelli created Miles Morales, a young man of color. Half African-American and half Puerto Rican, he resonated with the era’s focus on diversity.

Later, in 2014, writer Dan Slott came up with a wild idea: the Spider-Verse comic book series, which also focused on diversity. Spider-Men of all kinds emerged, from a Spider-Punk to the futuristic Spider-Man 2099. One version was inspired by cowboys of the Wild West, while another was inspired by 1930s film noir. There was even a Spider-Ham (Peter Porker)!

“These [were] fresh ideas that worked out really well; they led to a series of highly-original animated films. [The many versions] demonstrated the character’s resilience, allowing him to reach another generation,” Clemente explains.

When they turn to this kind of stupidity that doesn't even emphasize merit in writing and art, it just explains all the more why the franchise has been as dulled as it's been dated. Why is it such a big deal virtually every "generation" have a Spidey, but not create new characters, and not have the guarantee of story merit? Do they even pay any attention to what sales figures are, or try to find out just how much any particular comic sells in copy units? All that aside, they predictably sugarcoated some of the era's worst writers like Bendis and Slott, right down to how the former mistreated Scarlet Witch horribly in Avengers: Disassembled. And what good was the original Ultimate line, which lasted about a decade, but whose ongoing series were largely cancelled, the Ultimate Spidey version included? They don't get into any of that either.

While there’s a wide variety of Spider-Man stories aimed at younger audiences, there are also options for those in middle age: Dan Slott’s Renew Your Vows series focuses on a 40-something-year-old Peter Parker’s married life with Mary Jane Watson. In that parallel universe, they have two children together, a situation also found in Jonathan Hickman’s recent Ultimate Spider-Man comic book series. “[This scenario] really connects with the audience that came to Spider-Man in the ’80s and ’90s,” Clemente points out. Going even further, Spider-Man: Reign shows an older, gray-haired Peter Parker, who’s around the age of 70. His eternal love, Mary Jane, has already died. He now lives under the rule of an authoritarian regime, in an atmosphere of darkness that seems inspired by Frank Miller’s aged Batman in The Dark Knight Returns.

I think this is equally telling of where this puff piece is going, when they go so far as to sugarcoat DKR's dark influence, and act like alternate dimension versions of Spidey's world are a literal substitute for the 616 universe. And they don't even question whether it was in good taste to write Mary Jane out of the picture and into the grave. Does that connect with the audience? It should be noted that although MJ gets mention here, it's superficial, and doesn't offer any serious focus on her as a character as opposed to Peter, and again, the writer and interviewee don't have anything objective to say about what happened with the Spider-marriage in 2007. So what's their point about Spidey becoming timeless?

The truth is that Spider-Man is, by a long shot, the superhero who has best conquered cinema. While Superman certainly paved the way for major adaptations — and even though Batman influenced several generations — the wall-crawler is the character who has been consistently successful for more than two decades.

Well isn't that because the filmmakers managed to convey some entertainment value? Although if Zendaya's of mixed descent, a case can be made that the Spidey films where she co-stars are a product of the DEI propaganda era. Was that really necessary? And even before that, what about the 2011 reboot? I'd argued before that the problem there was that I already knew the story as it originally began in 1962, so it didn't have the impact it could've.

...we can add the animated saga that began with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018), considered by many to be one of the best superhero movies ever made, with its revolutionary visual style and a story that turned Miles Morales into yet another icon of the franchise.

The truth is that Spider-Man’s dominance in film goes far beyond the character’s movies. For years now, Sony, which owns the film rights to the character, has tried to build a parallel universe, starring some of the villains and supporting characters (without including the hero himself). The result has been mixed: productions like Morbius (2022), Madame Web (2024) and Kraven the Hunter (2024) have received a lukewarm reception from critics and audiences alike. However, there is one major exception: Venom, the oil-like symbiote that bonds with people and grants them powers similar to Spiderman’s. The version starring Tom Hardy resonated with audiences, thanks to its more irreverent tone. It was so popular that it became a highly-successful trilogy.

Gee, I wonder why we're supposed to care about the villains, if anybody, being pushed to prominence? Sorry, but that was in poor taste, and another example in motion of too much emphasis on villainy and even glamorizing it. IIRC, the sequel, "Let There be Carnage", wasn't as successful, but in any event, it's a shame whenever audiences buy into that kind of embarrassment.

“Spiderman triumphs because the true protagonist isn’t the superhero: [in fact], it’s Peter Parker. There [have been] many superheroes, but people became fans of the person beneath the mask,” Jorge Iván concludes. “He’s a profoundly human character: he’s constantly worried that his Aunt May will discover his identity, he has precarious jobs and he barely makes ends meet. Unlike other heroes, his everyday problems are just as important as the villains [he faces]: if he gets fired, he doesn’t have money for food.”

It sounds like some propagandist doesn't want him to have any. In any case, even the part about lack of food is exaggerated, and this all ignores that the writers are responsible for the storylines turned out, which in recent times have become utterly pointless and dated the series all the more. This kind of stupid lecture is exactly what led to Mary Jane getting kicked to the curb, because some selfish, entitled propagandists want Peter to remain something close to a pauper in the stories till the end of time, who's not allowed, in their mindsets, to find a successful career in photography or university teaching, and his being married to a girl who became a model/actress is somehow implausible and the worst thing that could happen. If they say they respect Stan Lee, they lie.

Ultimately, deep down, he’s not a hero. He is, as the wall-crawler reminds us, just “your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.”

Well neither are the real life J. Jonah Jamesons who reduce this all to a form of PC propaganda that throughly fails to distinguish between the good and bad stories over the years, and won't ask whether the real descent into tailspin began around the turn of the century, when J. Michael Straczynski became writer. What they don't get into is how Peter and MJ's status has become horrendous over the years, with Marvel's upper echelons subjecting them to some of the worst editorial mandates possible, and despite what they say, when they start sugarcoating the DEI pandering, it's clear that despite any claims to the contrary, we are supposed to care more about the costume than the character. Peter and MJ have been done such injustice, as have even other recurring veteran cast members in Spidey's world, since the turn of the century, and these propagandists don't care a bit. Nor do they admit that all the DEI/SJW pandering they're gushing over is exactly what's made a joke out of Spidey as a creation, because they actually reduce the original's significance without offering anything solid for storytelling.

And if the day comes when Marvel goes out of business as a publisher, they're bound to act like nothing happened, and won't ask whether the degradation that began at the turn of the century had any part in bringing down Spidey. If there's anything that isn't for every person and generation, it's the sad lack of merit, which they unsurprisingly obscured.

French cartoon film adapted from Legendaires broadcast on Canal Plus

Sortir a Paris announced an animated film based on a comic called The Legends is airing on Canal Plus:

The Legends, the animated film adapted from Patrick Sobral’s comic, is airing on Canal+ on Friday, July 31, 2026 at 9:06 PM. Directed by Guillaume Ivernel, the feature marks the first time the adventures of Danaël, Jadina, Gryf, Shimy and Razzia leap from page to the big screen in the magical world of Alysia.

Released in French cinemas on January 28, 2026, the film draws on the Delcourt-published saga, a touchstone of contemporary French children's comics. Now airing on television, it invites families to experience this adventure — a blend of magic, humor, and action — designed for viewers aged 6 and up.

The Légendaires used to be the planet’s greatest protectors. But a curse left them trapped in the bodies of ten-year-olds, just like everyone on Alysia. Stripped of their adult forms, Danaël, Jadina, Gryf, Shimy and Razzia must join forces to confront the sorcerer Darkhell and free their world from this eternal childhood.

The story keeps the core ingredients that made the comic a hit: a team of heroes with very different personalities, an accessible fantasy world, spectacular battles, and humor born from tensions within the group. The characters’ transformation into children also fuels a narrative about trust, friendship, and the need to cooperate despite their disagreements.

That certainly sounds a lot more faithful to its source material than some mainstream USA comics adaptations can be. And it's hopefully a lot more respectable to what's in good taste for children than what comes out of Hollywood these days too. Maybe best of all though, is that it's not airing on a bad network like Netflix happens to be. Broadcasting it there would only be bad news. It's better than the cartoon remain on French channels like Canal.

A new franchise titled "New-Gen"

Variety announced there's a new comic being turned into a multimedia franchise called "New-Gen", which is reportedly distributed by Marvel:

New-Gen Universe, Inc. is launching its first consumer products initiative at San Diego Comic-Con, debuting an exclusive collector’s trading card set made with Cryptozoic Entertainment to celebrate its Marvel-distributed comic series.

Just 300 convention exclusive boxes exist worldwide for the July 23–26 event, making this among the rarest “New-Gen” collectibles released to date. Designed solely for the convention, the set also builds momentum for the upcoming 3D CGI animated series “New-Gen Nanobot Heroes.”

In the comic, twin brothers Sean and Chris learn their bodies have been enhanced by nanotechnology, thrusting them into a fight against the villain Deadalus within a futuristic world where nature and technology exist side by side.

“New-Gen” was created by J.D. Matonti, Julia Coppola and Chris Matonti and has grown from its Marvel-distributed comic book origins into a transmedia franchise spanning publishing, animation and consumer products. The Comic-Con cards give fans a tangible link between the source comics and the animated series still to come.

While I think it's great somebody wants to create their own franchise, and turn it into animation to boot, why must they rely on a publisher as unreliable as Marvel's become for distribution? They're being very foolish there. I wish the creators good luck in selling New-Gen, but would appreciate it much more if they found a different distributor instead. And perhaps if they focused foremost on the comics writing/illustrating, and not get carried away by turning everything into a whole franchise relying on toy merchandise, because that hasn't done many favors for comicdom in the end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insufficient reactions from industry insiders to the Andrew Farago scandal

I looked to see if any comics writers and artists responded to the reports of the disgraced Andrew Farago being arrested for invasion of privacy felonies. So far, I couldn't find many at all. One who did respond was Gail Simone, of all people, on Facebook: So she's claiming she only spoke with Farago briefly through the mail. But what if there was more correspondence? In any case, somebody as leftist as Simone sadly is doesn't qualify as "moral authority" on the subject that turned up in the past few weeks. Some of the positions Simone took in the past decade only render her "arguments" moot, one more reason it's a shame anybody follows her on social media.

If we were to also quote somebody else who responded to the above post, it's the onetime comics editor Peter Sanderson:

It’s now happened to me three times that a comics pro whom I knew ended up in a sexual scandal. That’s disturbing. I suppose that many sexual predators function by seeming normal in public while having unpleasant secret lives. But I will continue to assume that people are what they seem to be until and unless unpleasant facts emerge about them. How can we function in society otherwise?

One way is to speak about these things more openly, and make clear that partisan politics can't get in the way of being vigilant and making clear sexually abusive behavior is unacceptable. And it's vital to ponder that many predators and perverts can have double or multiple personalities to disguise their actions. Perhaps if we quizzed some people on their overall personal character, we might be able to figure out whether certain individuals are worth supporting or not.

One more we could add is Tess Fowler Guittirez, who said:

It should be recalled, however, that Fowler may have once made unsubstantiated accusations against another writer/artist, and that doesn't help matters either. Those who seize upon scandals like these for the sake of opportunism are not improving the situation.

If there's more creators out there, old and new, I have yet to find them. 2 of those I've found commenting so far certainly don't have the best records to prove they're being altruistic. And when the vast majority of creators don't say a word, what was the point of that "pledge" they took years ago?

An op-ed about the Andrew Farago scandal, and a bit more research

Lavender Hotels has an op-ed about the invasion-of-privacy scandal caused by ousted SF Cartoon Art Museum curator Andrew Farago, and makes some important points about what's happened, though unsurprisingly, they won't allude to any of his online antics, and there are some leftist biases here too:

The downfall of Andrew Farago happened inside a space meant to be entirely safe. For over two decades, Farago was the public face and institutional backbone of San Francisco’s Cartoon Art Museum, a beloved cultural fixture celebrating comic strip history, graphic novels, and animation. He was a respected historian, an author, and an award-winning pillar of the tight-knit independent comic community.

"Beloved" and "respected"? If these writers would pay more attention to what Farago was writing on his social media pages, which was pretty cavalier, such descriptions could be considered disputable. A vital query to be made is: does being rude and calling everybody you disagree with "nazis" make you a better person? No, it does not. Unfortunately, Farago seemed to think otherwise.

For decades, the alternative comic and animation industries have marketed themselves as progressive, inclusive safe havens for outsiders. This case exposes the structural vulnerability inherent in organizations built entirely around tight social bonds and informal networking.

When an institution relies on a single individual to act as its gatekeeper, historical curator, and community liaison, professional boundaries inevitably blur. Farago began his tenure at the museum as a volunteer in 2000, rising to a paid role in 2001, and taking the mantle of official curator by 2005. Over 21 years, he curated more than 100 exhibitions. He was embedded in the personal lives of the artists he championed.

This level of integration creates a dangerous shield. Power in small cultural non-profits rarely looks like a corporate hierarchy; instead, it manifests as social capital. When an influential figure hosts a party, the attendees are not just friends—they are peers, subordinates, creators, and families whose professional fortunes are intertwined with the host’s goodwill.

As the former curator of the museum, I assume he was in charge of selecting the projects for exhibition. Something tells me that, if a right-winger wanted to develop an exhibition there under his management, Farago would've vehemently refused and shunned the conservative figure on the spot. For all we know, he probably didn't even include Chuck Dixon among the interviewees for his Batman history, and recalling Ethan van Sciver was blacklisted from DC as a result of Farago's machinations, it wouldn't be shocking if the latter had no role in Farago's book writings either. Also, what's this about "social capital"? Is the columnist implying capitalism is to blame here? If so, that's distasteful and making it sound like "progressive" and "inclusive" are inherently positive notions also obscures more serious issues to consider here.

The defense strategy in digital voyeurism cases frequently relies on the destruction of immediate evidence. Farago’s defense will likely lean heavily on his prompt deletion of the recordings and his self-issued written apology, attempting to frame the event as an isolated, impulsive lapse in judgment rather than a systemic pattern.

Digital forensics tells a much harsher story. Deleting a file from a commercial smartphone filesystem rarely removes the underlying data blocks immediately. Modern law enforcement extraction tools can routinely recover deleted media caches, unallocated space fragments, and temporary database thumbnails. The seizure of twelve separate electronic devices indicates that investigators are looking far beyond a single afternoon's recording.

The true legal exposure for Farago rests on what those remaining eleven devices contain. If forensic analysts uncover evidence of historical recording, distribution, or the involvement of minors across older datasets, the current requested 20 misdemeanor or low-level felony counts of invasion of privacy could escalate into severe structural charges carrying mandatory prison sentences.

The Cartoon Art Museum faces its own reckoning. The institution must now audit decades of internal operations, off-site workshops, and youth education programs managed under Farago’s direct supervision. The immediate termination was a necessary public relations maneuver, but it does not absolve the broader cultural ecosystem from ignoring the risks of concentrated, unchecked social authority.

Trust inside small arts organizations cannot be managed by a handshake agreement or shared progressive ideals. It requires strict operational protocols, background evaluations, and independent oversight structures that treat cultural icons with the exact same skepticism as any corporate executive.

No doubt, the museum will suffer from a drop in attendance as a result of this scandal, and of course, Farago's history books are bound to lose audience too. But hey, as mentioned before, they probably aren't the most dedicated, let alone accurate, since he may have forcibly omitted anybody he despised from his narratives. The article's right though, that educational programs the museum may have run will have to be investigated to figure out whether Farago abused any of its students over the years. For all we know, there could turn out to be more witnesses than previously thought. And what if Farago has more than one single online cloud storage where he kept disturbing materials? The market for online storages is very competitive, and it's always possible to register multiple accounts on different servers. The police will need to investigate that too, and it wouldn't be surprising if plenty had their own tools for data recovery to help police with investigations when needed.

In addition to the above op-ed, if there's more to say about the now disgraced Farago, well first, I discovered that, if there's any social media pages he didn't get rid of so far, it's his Threads page (although that could change soon enough), and if there's something I noticed here worth commenting on, it's the following:

Geez...was Farago giving a hint what he really thinks of invasions of privacy/sexual abuse, and even Identity Crisis from 2004? I get the strange feeling he simultaneously doesn't like Terry Long, and from what I know of him so far, it doesn't sound like he ever spoke out against DC's worst directions since the turn of the century. If not, that too speaks volumes about his MO. And then, there's this:

When I noticed this post about GI Joe, I couldn't help wonder if he was imitating video filmer Richard Meyer, since I recall the latter once did a video about a GI Joe annual (yearbook) nearly a decade ago, and what Farago says sounds oddly similar to what Meyer said. Was this Farago's way of expressing spite for somebody he doesn't agree with, and likely never met? All that aside, seriously, I doubt Mr. Farago is a GI Joe fan.

I also thought to try and do some research on past writings of his, and found that in 2008, the Los Angeles Times quoted him on the late artist Michael Turner:

“He was definitely one of the most popular and influential comic-book artists working right now,” said Andrew Farago, curator of San Francisco’s Cartoon Art Museum. “He was very, very much in demand as a cover artist on high-profile projects.”

If Farago's a woke male feminist these days with a sex-negative viewpoint, then depending how you view this, he had a pretty different position back at the time. What are the chances he'd come within even miles of saying anything positive about Turner today? Perhaps next to none. He's surely the kind of leftist who simply "goes with the flow" and accepts what they consider acceptable positions, and in Farago's case, it was quite possibly because he thought it would make a great shield from scrutiny.

Here's also an older interview he gave to the Comics Reporter and the late Tom Spurgeon in 2011, where he tells that:

I'm very fortunate in that I often find myself in situations where I can't believe that I'm getting paid for this. Joining the National Cartoonists Society and meeting about 90 percent of the strip cartoonists I grew up reading in a social context has been incredibly cool. It changes your perspective when you flip through the comics section and realize that you've got good drinking stories about half the artists on the page. I've had dinner with Gahan Wilson, walked around Rockefeller Center with Larry Hama (which would have made 12-year-old me's head explode), toured the offices of Mad Magazine, Marvel Comics and DC Comics, shingled a roof with Jeff Keane, given museum tours to Art Spiegelman and Mo Willems, had tea with Hayao Miyazaki, and went to a Simpsons script read-through in Los Angeles earlier this month thanks to Tom Gammill, whom I met through the NCS. I've honestly given up on ever making a wish list of comic/cartoon things I'd like to do, because I've gotten to do so many amazing things as a result of this job. If I'm hanging out in a pub with Alan Moore and Scooby-Doo next year, I don't think I'll be all that surprised.

On the downside, when you're working for a non-profit that you really believe in, it's easy to find yourself working 50 or more hours a week, tackling extra projects on weekends, and never quite being off-duty. And there's a lot of paperwork, fundraising and grant writing, which balances out the more exciting aspects of the job. My family are the only non-cartoonists in my address book, so I feel like I'm on the clock even when I'm hanging out with friends.

I wonder what any and all of these figures he speaks of think, now that the mask is off, and Farago turned out to be so repulsive? Some of the professionals he spent time with are leftists, of course, so what they think is quite possibly the most interesting part of all. Presumably, if they've heard the news about Farago's crimes, they're shutting the door on him now. But did they ever notice anything fishy about him years ago? And if so, why'd they want anything to do with him then? That aside, a terrible shame he was paid for anything. IIRC, Hama was blacklisted by Dan DiDio years ago, and Farago did nothing to help him. And why does a leftist like Spiegelman matter so much?

I then found a post on Peter Laird's blog from 2014, of the history book Farago wrote about Ninja Turtles (Ultimate Visual History), and Laird hints he's dissatisfied, if anything, with how it's put together, in a way that's very sloppy:

However, I was disappointed that it also contains a number of mistakes, inaccuracies, and some weirdly inconsistent editorial decisions with regard to art credits (sometimes there are, sometimes there aren't, with no discernible rhyme or reason). I used up about half a package of Post-It notes while carefully going through the book so I could put together this list of comments.

Here goes…

End pages in the front of the book: I was sort of baffled by the odd choice of art for this, out of all of the TMNT artwork available -- a drawing of a Turtle in boxer shorts? With this image begins a strangely inconsistent treatment of crediting and/or describing the illustrations -- in this case, no artist is cited as having drawn that image, either on these pages, or -- as would be more likely in a book like this -- on one of the pages to follow. It kind of looks like a Mike Dooney drawing, though I cannot say for certain.

First glossy page, right hand side: This reproduction of the very first group shot of the TMNT, penciled by Kevin Eastman and inked by me back in 1983, with a slab of mottled green superimposed for some reason, is not credited anywhere that I could find. It's also an odd place to put this uncredited drawing, in my opinion, when a far better location would be on page 20, where it is described in the section about the creation of the TMNT.

Following page, left hand side: This full-color piece by Kevin is also uncredited, as least as far as I could tell.

Second page following, left hand side: Another full-color piece, this one of a leaping Leonardo, again by Kevin, is uncredited.

Two page spread following the "Contents" page: This unusual full-color piece by me is also uncredited, and no information about it is given at all, which to my mind is extremely weird, given the curious nature of it, with the Turtles wearing costumes that are very different from the norm. [...]

Page 28: Four of my black and white TMNT pin-up sketches are printed on this page with no artist's credit or description.

Page 31: There are no artist's credits listed for the insert. This, as I recall, was penciled by Kevin and inked and toned by me.

Page 33: The image of April on the right hand side of the page is described as "April O' Neil as she appeared in Eastman and Laird's original comics." I don't understand why there is no mention of which issue and what page this panel is from.

Page 34: There is no information describing what the insert card in the lower left hand corner is.

Page 35: This image is described as "The Turtles preparing to engage in combat with the deadly Triceratons." Why not say which issue it was from? (I think it was TMNT Volume One, #6.) [...]

Page 40: In the second paragraph on this page, it is said that "… Eastman and Laird knew that the time was right to take the Turtles to the next level." The obvious implication here is that we were actively looking around for ways to grow the TMNT business in the direction of licensing and merchandising, and that's simply not true. It's not that we were averse to it -- we'd already proved that by striking deals with Dark Horse and Palladium Books and a few others -- but these are things that came to us, not deals that we went out looking for. We were focused on trying to get the TMNT comics out on time and with a decent level of quality.

Also, Kevin is quoted as saying that we'd been approached by other licensing agents wanting to rep the TMNT before Mark Freedman showed up. I have no memory of any agents other than Mark Freedman ever approaching us.

On the bottom right of the page is a reproduction of a large TMNT group shot that I penciled and inked; again, no artist credit.

One of the commentors also said:

One thing I was extremely disappointed with the book is the coverage on the 2003 cartoon, since it is my personal favorite incarnation of these characters. Or seemingly lack thereof...A very limited amount of text for 7 seasons of my personal favorite (if added, maybe a 1 1/2 pages at most)...and even the pictures/art used were disappointing. One pic of Mikey from the very last season for 1 whole page? And then one pic of Shredder from the very last season for 1 whole page? No pics of the 4 of them in action, or the 4 of them together, or even villains like Agent Bishop, or artwork/pictures to show people the darker tone/aspects of the cartoon & how it pushed the show as far as it could go for a cartoon, which I very much appreciated (whether it be samples from episodes like Same As It Never Was or Bad Day, or the hallucination/nightmare of Leonardo stabbing through Splinter, Baxter Stockman's body falling apart, etc.), no comments from any of the voice actors of the show...the 2003 cartoon portion of the book I was honestly very disheartened about. But hey, what can I say. I'm just a guy named Matt from Iowa who just loves the 4kids show to death, lol. It's very partial to me and it's what got me back into the characters.

Well, this is telling something. It sounds like this history book isn't the well-researched, accurate overview the establishment would have us believe it was. And now that Farago was arrested, it'll all be seen as moot and badly aged. If there's not enough history books about TMNT on the market to date, let's hope somebody with a better moral backbone will take the time to do the research, and not rely upon anything Farago may have written in his now worthless book in order to try and develop an improved history of how the Ninja Turtles came to be. If anyone's considering buying the Farago book, please, look for another one, or try to develop a research book of your own. Farago doesn't need our money, and besides, what if he uses any dough he gets to pay his legal bills? Let's not finance that.

And then, let's not forget the horrid political side of Farago, which Fandom Pulse reminds everyone about:

Alongside that professional record, Farago maintained an active social media presence that was consistently and combatively left-wing in its orientation toward comics industry controversies. He was a vocal opponent of the Comicsgate movement, describing its participants as bigots and comparing them to racist fictional villains. In February 2024, Bleeding Fool documented a series of his posts, including one stating: “Never forget that everyone in ComicsGate took personal offense when Superman took a stand against the Klan,” and another drawing a comparison between Comicsgate creators and the X-Men villain Graydon Creed, writing: “Watching the X-Men cartoon again. Graydon Creed, the shrill, screaming bigot seemed so over the top and ridiculous back then, but today he’d be running the Mutants of TikTok social media account and would be cranking out a dozen YouTube videos a day about the Woke menace.”

Farago took to The Daily Beast where he was quoted by the media at length in his attacks on ComicsGate: “[Comicsgate] is made up of people who were into the Gamergate thing and when that ran out of steam they noticed that they hadn’t made comics miserable for enough people yet.”

Look who was talking - somebody who doubtless turned a deaf ear and blind eye when DC and Marvel under Dan DiDio and Joe Quesada turned the comics miserable and worse, and because Mr. Farago didn't want to alienate them, he likely said nothing in history books, and didn't take any objective view of the issues involved. Utterly shameful indeed.

Also, the Comics Journal themselves posted some news about this, which is likely an indication he's no longer employed by them as a contributing writer. Again, whatever he wrote for them now stands as meaningless, and from what I've read from his resume, I don't think he could write his way out of the proverbial wet paper bag.

Anyway, these are the clues I could find from his resume so far that he's not the genius he'd surely want everyone else to think he is. Some could argue Farago's favoratism for Batman could hint at what's wrong with how folks like him approach the whole medium, and I'm sure some will continue to look for whether his leftist MO turns up in any of his writings. And whether Farago serves a prison sentence for his lawbreaking, it's possible he'll find himself a very lonely man, with reason, and his fortunes will hopefully be diminished by the legal bills he's surely paying now.

Former director at San Francisco's Cartoon Art Museum arrested for filming people in bathroom

Some people may be familiar with Andrew Farago, who until some time ago was a curator at the San Francisco Cartoon Art Museum, and a contributing writer to the Comics Journal, who was also the kind of leftist who attacked easy targets like right-wingers and Comicsgate. Now, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, he was arrested by police for secretly filming people in his home bathroom:

Andrew Farago, an author, historian and former curator of San Francisco’s Cartoon Art Museum, was arrested on June 3 on suspicion of recording 20 people in the bathroom at the party, which had attendees including at least six children ages 3 years old or older, Berkeley Police Department spokesperson Byron White told SFGATE in an email Wednesday. According to court documents viewed by the Berkeley Scanner, Farago co-hosted the party on May 23 at his Berkeley home.

A woman at the party found Farago’s phone wrapped in a towel and aimed in a direction that would “record people’s genitalia as they used the restroom,” and video footage on the phone showed Farago setting it up, the Berkeley Police Department wrote in the documents, according to the Berkeley Scanner. [...]

White said police launched an investigation and obtained a search warrant and an arrest warrant for Farago on May 27. Officers conducted a search at his house on June 20 and seized his electronic devices, White said.

Farago’s arrest warrant included 20 counts of secretly recording someone who is undressed or in their undergarments without their consent, White said. Farago’s name does not appear in the Alameda County inmate records as of Thursday afternoon.

The 50-year-old is a notable figure in San Francisco art and pop culture, including writing comics and co-authoring a history of Batman. Farago also helped advocate for the museum to acquire a new location in 2016 after its former Mission Street location doubled in rent. The museum is now at 781 Beach St., a block from Ghirardelli Square.

Although Farago is still listed as the curator for the San Francisco Cartoon Art Museum in several places online, his name has been removed from the museum’s official site and his LinkedIn profile has been deleted.

This is very, very disgusting, and that goes without saying. I expect his book writings will be going out of print soon, and he has truly tarnished a number of projects, not the least being the very museum where he reportedly once worked, but has now hopefully been ousted after committing repugnant acts that could've endangered children. One of the worst things about this is that it may not be the first time Farago pulled such crap, and what if it turns out he did similar acts at the museum he worked for? It's enough to shudder.

I noted how he's also been a contributing writer to the Comics Journal, and 6 months ago, he wrote the following item about the late cartoonist Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, and at the time, Farago said that:

Adams spoke candidly about expected topics like cartooning, office culture, and popular entertainment, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, revealed his self-described “Libertarian leanings” as he ventured into discussions of current events and politics. Controversial and outright hateful comments were framed as “thought experiments,” such as a 2006 Dilbert Blog post that questioned historical accounts of the Holocaust or a 2011 post in which he compared adult women to “children and the mentally handicapped.” Adams offered dating advice that included “pickup artist” techniques and emotional manipulation, but the Dilbert comic strip plugged along as usual, just with more dot-com jokes and cynical takes on the economy in the wake of the 2008 crash. Most daily newspaper readers and feature editors were oblivious or indifferent to Adams and his online activity, and friends chalked up the occasional offensive newsletter or blog post to the cartoonist’s sense of humor or desire to provoke a reaction. He had been happily married since 2006, after all, and was a devoted stepfather to two children, so how much of a jerk could he really be?

Readers, especially in hindsight, felt that Dilbert’s tone shifted during the 2010s, punching down at targets, mocking and belittling societal shifts and perceived “political correctness,” with more cynical, even bitter humor than the bemused, gentle office hijinks of the strip’s first two decades. “Dilbert went from challenging the absurdities of workplace management and the abuses of late-stage capitalism to a broader distrust of all expertise, media, and institutions,” observed Rob Salkowitz in his Adams obituary for Forbes.com. “The tone became combative, the humor more hectoring. Dogbert, Dilbert’s anarchic pet who always managed to come out on top, began delivering preachy monologues more suited to the op-ed page.”

Wow, look how Farago moralizes ad nauseum, and blah, blah, blah. Now, after Farago was discovered to be as much a pervert as his fellow SF resident and leftist Gerard Jones, these kind of writings stand as meaningless. I remember when Farago signed onto a petition in favor of the Kfir Bibas family after October 7, 2023, and hoped he was at least improving over his previous attacks on petty issues like Comicsgate. But as this scandal makes clear, Farago apparently just found another cunning way to virtue signal, and seeing how he endangered children at his house party, that makes his petition signing look very hypocritical, seeing how he committed such an abomination. If that's how he's going to behave, how do we know he doesn't hold those kind of twisted visions for Jewish children too? Will he ever even apologize for his rude social media postings about Comicsgate and any other petty issue where he made denigrating comments about anybody whom he didn't agree with, conservative or otherwise? Probably not, and his fellow leftists are possibly not interested in raising such topics again.

Cosmic Book News also notes:

He received the Inkpot Award from San Diego Comic-Con in 2015 and wrote numerous books on comics and animation, including the Harvey Award-winning Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Ultimate Visual History, The Complete Peanuts Family Album, and The Art of Harley Quinn.

Will the SDCC demand he return the award? He's also humiliated a lot of notable comics franchises and kid friendly creations as a result of his actions, and what do his interviewees think now that this has been discovered? The above site also has a redacted picture indicating Farago once took a photo with a kid standing in front of him, and after this whole scandal, sane parents will hopefully keep him far away from theirs. Also, what does the Comics Journal's staff think, now that one of their writers turned out to be scummy?

Some ideologues like Farago who attacked targets like conservatives online in past years possibly did so in the hopes their leftist brethren would overlook any wrongdoings they committed like what Farago's now known to have done, and would serve as a cunning shield from scrutiny. But even that's beginning to prove ineffective, and it's to be hoped more leftists in the medium will learn some lessons from this, and stop villifying the outside while ignorning the inside. For now, it remains to be seen if Farago will go to trial and face any legal penalties for his criminal offenses. His reputation is certainly over, and it wouldn't be surprising if the books he wrote about comics history aren't the masterpieces some press sources likely want everybody to believe they are.

Comics and cartoon characters featured in illustrated history about the Declaration of Independence

The Orange County Register interviewed cartoonist R. Sikoryak about a new GN titled Declaration/Emancipation Illustrated, which builds specially on use of comics and cartoon characters for exploration of the famous moment in USA history when independence was set in motion in the 18th century:

As he worked on an adaptation of some of America’s essential documents over the past few years, cartoonist R. Sikoryak says one element of the ongoing American experiment became clear.

[...] His new book, “Declaration / Emancipation Illustrated,” combines the complete texts of the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Gettysburg Address and illustrates them with characters and scenes from comic books, comic strips and animated films and TV series, including The Simpsons, My Little Pony, Black Panther, Ziggy, the Powerpuff Girls and more.

“People identify with cartoon characters,” says Sikoryak, who skillfully takes on the styles of everything from The Family Circus to Family Guy. “I like that interplay of familiar characters with important texts.”

And sharp-eyed readers will recognize reworkings of iconic comic book panels, including “The New Teen Titans,” “The Invaders” and “The Savage Sword of Conan.”

“I was strictly using American characters, U.S. characters,” he says about some of the restrictions he gave himself for the artwork. “They’re all characters created by, or who represent America in some way. So that was the rule for the book.”

I would assume it's done under licensed permit, but this is a creative way to make use of other known creations for producing a GN about American history, and a lot more than what you see in the actual mainstream today.

Q. Your book is an illustrated version of the Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation, and Gettysburg Address. How do you describe this kind of hybrid?

I grew up making comics and reading lots of comics, and I’ve tried to find ways to take my skills and use them in an interesting way. I used to do strictly literary adaptations, where I would take novels, and I would retell them as comics in different styles, kind of like what I’m doing now,

You could call it a graphic novel, you could call it an illustrated book, but basically, I just like taking the history I love from comics and combining it with texts that I think are important or interesting for people to reevaluate in new ways.

It's certainly pleasant news in an era where patriotic values have been largely rejected by mainstream leftists who don't show any appreciation for themes like "truth, justice and the American way" in Superman, for example, and likely don't celebrate American patriotism in Captain America either.

Q. There can be a friction between people who believe that if you love something, you can also have fun with it, versus those who don’t. Is that challenging to navigate?

I have a certain earnest streak to me, and I think that comes through in the work. Certainly, I will throw in some jokes here and there, but for the most part — there’s some editorializing, I suppose, in some of the image choices — but I am really keeping the text there. I’m not commenting in the text. If you just read the text, there’s nothing in the book that isn’t in the original document.

I’m really trying to be faithful to all my sources, whether it’s what Thomas Jefferson wrote or if it’s what Seth MacFarlane drew for “Family Guy,” I’m trying to represent the perspective of both sides — or the many sides.

One of the reasons I wanted to use the different styles is because you can find a page that feels very patriotic, and it feels kind of solemn, and then there’ll be another page that’s maybe a little absurd, or a little funny, or a little ironic, but that’s the tapestry of America. I really wanted people to feel like something in this would represent them.

In the best sense of what I think the country is, it’s all these people coming together — I know some people don’t think that’s what it is — but in my estimation, it’s really about all these people coming together, that’s kind of what the book represents. You could find specific pages that are nothing but solemn, but there is a certain, I hope, thrill, or as you say, friction, in the combination of all these things next to each other.

The question is whether he ultimately respects what the Declaration of Independence was for, which is why we need to hope the part about "reevaluation" only means whether most believe it's acceptable to employ notable creations from past franchises for a new GN about an historical milestone. Same can be said about the view of "both sides" too.

If the finished product respects patriotic and civilized values, that's what'll make this an admirable project. So if Sikoryak is faithful to those beliefs, then he'll have produced something that can be a breath of fresh air in an era where patriotism's sadly been diminished by leftist ideologies, and this needs to be challenged by showing the courage to present patriotism as a positive value again.