New Venom being set up using old character, who's now being called "amazing" in another pointless Spidey spinoff

IGN says Marvel, already having done Mary Jane Watson enough damage in recent Spider-Man storylines, is now putting Eddie Brock back together with the symbiote, and putting a member of Spidey's rogues gallery in another symbiote, in preparation for a miniseries spinoff called - surprise, surprise - "the Amazing Venom":

Marvel is in the midst of the Queen in Black crossover, which sees the world caught in the middle of a destructive conflict between Asgardian death goddess Hela and the symbiote god Knull. It's a watershed moment for Venom, Carnage, and every other character connected to the symbiote family. And it goes without saying that the landscape of the Spider-Man franchise will look much different when all is said and done.

Part of that involves the launch of a new monthly Venom series that sees Eddie Brock reunite with his beloved symbiote at long last. But there's also a new spinoff miniseries in the works called The Amazing Venom. Who or what is the Amazing Venom? To answer that question, we turned to writer Jordan Morris. In an email interview with IGN, Morris explains how this series takes a cult-favorite Spider-Man villain and elevates him to new, ridiculous heights. [...]

When all they can think of is recycle certain adjectives, it's another example of how creatively bankrupt they are, right down to how there's still no sign they'll ever restore the Spider-marriage, even if MJ is no longer being depicted as a female Venom host. But, who indeed is this "amazing" Venom?

So who is the Amazing Venom? None other than Fred Myers, formerly the costumed supervillain known as Boomerang, and a character who makes a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo in Spider-Man: Brand New Day. Fred has really come up in the world in 2026, as he's now bonded to a symbiote named Passenger and sporting a costume inspired by Spider-Man himself. As Morris explains, this new series serves as an exciting opportunity to fundamentally revamp a character who's suddenly been thrust into the forefront of the Marvel Universe.

"I love that Fred is a villain with simple ambitions," Morris tells IGN. "He doesn’t want to rule the world, he just wants to throw boomerangs at people and steal a bunch of money. I’d like to think that if I had access to exploding boomerangs and jet boots I’d be a hero, but if I ended up going villain, I’d probably go the Fred Myers route. It’s so funny that this two-bit scumbag keeps getting caught up in world-ending sci-fi madness. I mean, he got killed by a vampire and came back from the dead! That’s stuff that should be happening to Avengers or X-Men, not guys with boomerangs on their head."

Why not "civilian" co-stars? I sometimes wonder if the police captain Jean deWolff's death in the mid-80s was really called for, and civilians who aren't superheroes shouldn't be prohibited from the privilege of being able to be resurrected, a concept that's part and parcel of science-fantasy. What this Morris tells is insulting to the intellect.

It also sounds like the writer, most unfortunately, is opportunistically putting more tired and grating emphasis on villainy, which has become far overemphasized in modern times. That they even resorted to economy casting also speaks volumes. Looks like Marvel's done little more than bore the senses with yet more promotion of villainy over heroism. And that, again, is a leading problem with modern storytelling. We decidedly could do without Brock's new solo too.

Marvel crosses its universe with Star Wars, in a special written by filmmaker Kevin Smith

Entertainment Weekly says Marvel's continuing with their pointless distractions, producing a crossover of franchises:

Titled Star Wars/Marvel: Hope Assembles, the five-part limited comic book series will launch in January 2027, Entertainment Weekly can exclusively reveal.

Figures like Chewbacca, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and Princess Leia will join Earth-616 — the primary continuity in which most stories of Marvel Comics take place —and mingle with the likes of Captain America, Black Widow, Spider-Man, and the Hulk. Meanwhile, Doctor Doom and the Marvel rogue’s gallery will join the likes of Darth Vader and the Galactic Empire.

But here's the bad part:

Kevin Smith, the actor/director who wrote major runs of Daredevil, Batman, and Green Arrow, writes the new story. David Marquez of Uncanny X-Men and Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man is the artist behind the comic, as seen in EW’s exclusive first look at the cover design.

Wow, what do we need such an overrated filmmaker writing this for? Even if this time, he doesn't suddenly, out of nowhere, take time off from completing the miniseries as he did with the horrible Black Cat miniseries he wrote in the early 2000s, Smith's resume is still just too insufferable to care about 2 ruined franchises crossing over. Another problem is that this perpetuates a serious mistake of the past 3 decades: hiring "celebrity" writers like filmmakers and novelists to script a comic book, yet not basing the employment on merit any more than talent and comprehension of the creations the writers are assigned to script.

Let's also not forget Smith once turned out a woke continuation of the Masters of the Universe cartoon, broadcast on Netflix, no less. That's all you need to know he could always render the Marvel/Star Wars crossover in similar ways. So again, what's the use of even advertising what's bound to be a time-waster?

Spider-Man being exploited for tennis-based collectible covers

US Open's announcing that Marvel's made another deal with the tennis movement for another sports-based story involving one of Marvel's most famous characters, and the special they're producing appears to be another publicity stunt for collectibility's sake, even if it's allegedly for free:

The US Open and Marvel are continuing their groundbreaking collaboration for a third consecutive year with a new and original Spider-Man comic book that champions the theme of the 2026 US Open, “Celebrating Our New York Story.” More than 40,000 print copies of the comic book will be given out to fans for free throughout US Open Fan Week at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center, with a limited-edition run of rare, collectible covers featuring one of New York City’s five boroughs given out in a surprise bag to the first 1,000 fans each day August 24-28.

The unique comic follows Spider-Man as he chases and battles supervillain Scorpion across all five boroughs en route to the US Open, visiting iconic landmarks and encountering quintessential New York experiences along the way. All 40,000-plus print copies of the book will be given out on a first-come, first-serve basis for free during US Open Fan Week to those fans who scan their Fan Access Pass at the giveaway tent inside the main entrance.

Rare collectible covers featuring Spider-Man in one of the five boroughs – the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island – are limited to 1,000 copies each and will be given away at random in a blind bag to the first 1,000 fans on-site who pick up their comic book Monday, August 24, through Friday, August 28.

And that's all you need to know this is just another farce that doesn't even seem to have been printed in high numbers, undoubtably as an attempt to get new readers for their output with no emphasis on merit. What are the chances Mary Jane Watson won't figure prominently in this stunt either? Also note that it sounds like they're relying upon the "blind bag" tactic previously employed by Image. Regardless of whether these specials are free, what they're doing still reeks of pandering to the speculator market, and that's one more reason why this is another unappealing example of how Marvel's going about business today.

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.

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.

Dark Horse infected with antisemitism

It's sad to discover that Dark Horse's name is taking on a whole new meaning, as the Algemeiner reports one of their editors refused to enable publishing a comic by Jewish scholar Rafael Medoff, the director of the Wyman Institute, because he wouldn't take an anti-Israel and anti-American stance:

Dark Horse Comics, the third-largest comic book publisher in the United States behind Marvel and DC, has canceled the publication of a book by a Holocaust scholar after he refused to include an introduction accusing Israel of “genocide,” according to the Jewish advocacy organization StandWithUs, which condemned the move in a statement on Sunday.

Dark Horse had scheduled Dr. Rafael Medoff’s Cartoonists Against the Holocaust — a collection of 150 editorial cartoons from American newspapers of the 1930s and 1940s, accompanied by Medoff’s commentary on what Americans knew about the Holocaust as it unfolded — for publication this summer. According to StandWithUs, then-Dark Horse imprint editor Craig Yoe told Medoff, the founding director of the Washington, DC-based David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, that he would block publication unless the book’s introduction stated that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Yoe later followed up in writing, the group said, demanding that the book include text accusing Israel of “war crimes and crimes against humanity” and claiming that the US operates “concentration camp-style prisons.”

Medoff refused, arguing that the claims are false, and Dark Horse subsequently canceled the project.

“Accusing Israel of genocide is a lie, and requiring a Holocaust scholar to denounce Israel to see his book published is antisemitic bullying,” Medoff said in the statement. “It’s troubling to see McCarthyism rearing its ugly head in 21st century America. Historians should be free to write about history, without being subjected to political litmus tests.”

Dark Horse had previously published two of Medoff’s books, Whistleblowers and Cartoonists Against Racism, without incident. It was only after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of Israel, StandWithUs said, that Yoe began demanding that Medoff denounce Israel as a condition of publication.

Dark Horse has disputed that account. In a June 3 email to StandWithUs cited by the Israeli news outlet Ynet, the publisher’s legal counsel said the decision was based on the company’s financial needs and repeated scheduling delays, and that Dark Horse “does not plan to publish” the book. [...]

“When a comic book publisher pressures a Holocaust scholar to denounce the Jewish state before his own book on the Holocaust can see print, the irony is hard to miss,” Carly Gammill, director of legal policy and litigation at StandWithUs Saidoff Law, said in Sunday’s statement. “We are seeing an alarming trend in which Jewish professionals are expected to pass ideological tests before they can fully participate in public life.”

She continued, “Whether in academia, the arts, or publishing, Jewish authors should be evaluated on the quality of their work — not on whether they are willing to denounce a core part of their Jewish identity.”

I seem to remember this Yoe as having been a far-leftist who published anti-war comics, and that Dark Horse, whether owned now by a video game corporation, would be willing to hire this disgraceful man and practically enable him to determine what's okay to publish speaks volumes. It was already horrific they employed the disgraced Scott Allie and ignored the sexual abuse accusations against him for some time. Now, they're tainting their image even further by allowing an antisemitic dictation to remain in place. That says quite a bit about what they must think of comicdom's past Jewish contributors like Stan Lee, Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Jack Kirby and Gil Kane. Also note how Mr. Yoe apparently wanted anti-American propaganda injected into the narrative, and it says a lot more about where the company could be going too. On which note, at Times Now, it says that:

Medoff alleges that editor Craig Yoe later sought to add a separate statement addressing contemporary politics. In an email dated 1 September 2025, Yoe reportedly proposed retaining the book’s existing introduction while placing an editor’s note elsewhere in the volume.

Writing in a personal capacity, Yoe accused the Trump administration of attempting to create detention centres comparable to concentration camps and of sending US residents to prisons abroad without constitutionally guaranteed trials. He also referred to the International Criminal Court warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and criticised US military assistance to Israel.

Medoff rejected the proposed wording, arguing that it would turn a historical project into a platform for present-day political commentary. He also objected to comparisons between contemporary American detention policies and Nazi concentration camps.

The historian said such language risked diminishing the suffering of Jewish victims imprisoned and murdered in concentration camps during the 1930s and 1940s. He further argued that connecting Israel with allegations of crimes against humanity within a Holocaust publication could be interpreted as accusing the country of genocide.

Medoff described the alleged pressure to criticise Israel as antisemitic bullying and insisted that a Holocaust scholar should not be required to denounce the Jewish state as a condition for publication.

The planned book was expected to feature approximately 150 editorial cartoons. Nine of them had originally appeared during the 1940s and were intended to demonstrate how much information about the Holocaust was already available to the American public while the atrocities were taking place.

Medoff said he proposed several compromises to prevent the book from being cancelled. Among them were publishing the manuscript without changes or moving the project to another Dark Horse imprint without Yoe’s name attached, while allowing the editor to retain his four per cent royalty interest.

According to Medoff, those proposals were rejected. Yoe subsequently ended his association with Dark Horse, while the publisher formally withdrew from the project.

Interesting that despite Yoe leaving their employ, they still wouldn't publish the project. But considering they just might practically be closing down one day as a book publisher, perhaps that's one more reason why realists should stay away from them. If this is the path Yoe took, and DH is okay with, you cannot possibly expect them to publish any history books about the Danish Muhammed cartoons of the past 2 decades either, nor could you expect them to approve a project focused on survivors of September 11, 2001. This also reminds me of the time when Mike Baron was publishing Private American: if he wanted to arrange with DH to be the host publisher, they clearly rejected it. The New York Post gives one more eyebrow raising detail about Yoe:

Yoe, a former creative director for the Muppets and a longtime cartoonist, was an editor with Dark Horse as he worked on Medoff’s book. He has since severed his relationship with the publishing house.

According to On Scouting, he was hired by the late Jim Henson himself. So it looks like the Muppet franchise is now tarnished by him along with the scandal from nearly 15 years ago involving the Muppeteer Kevin Clash, who was accused of sexual misconduct. How do these entertainers end up making such poor choices for recruits?

What's interesting about this scandal is that in the past decade, if the following articles from the Jerusalem Post and Arizona Jewish News indicate, Medoff and Yoe were once on positive terms with each other. That means Yoe turned against Medoff in later years. However, Medoff should've considered earlier that somebody with a disturbing left-wing record like Yoe's was a bad lot and a poor choice for a publishing partner. And as this NPR affiliate indicates, Lee once knew Yoe (or rather, didn't), and was willing to write an introduction to a book he'd published about Joe Shuster's "fetish art". I think it'd be wise to look for another author who could cover the same ground of research.

I hope Mr. Medoff's looking for a better publisher now. Although Dark Horse may be suffering financial difficulties now, that's still no excuse for refusing to publish the latest version of Medoff's history items. Seriously, Medoff should sue both them and Yoe for interference (and he shouldn't have approved of letting Yoe retain any profit percentages), and perhaps look for an editor of Israeli descent (and conservative) who can work freelance on the projects instead. This is not going to look good on Dark Horse's record, for as long as they're still around, nor will it help former chairman Mike Richardson's image in hindsight.

Marvel turns out the latest modern swimsuit special

Following up on the revived swimsuit special of the past year, Marvel's now publishing one for 2026, and Flickering Myth's got preview pages, but again, there's signs this'll be anything but a celebration. For one thing, as AIPT notes:

Kicking things off is Daniel Kibblesmith and Alessandro Miracolo for “Beach Bashed,” featuring a beach party hosted by Namor. A great opening page shows off a ton of heroes enjoying a pool, including the Watcher. Kibblesmith gets plenty of nods to Marvel events and character relationships throughout the story, with a main focus on Namor’s attempt to find Sue Storm. It’s a light tale for sure, but one that ends in a way only Namor could pull off.

If memory serves, Kibblesmith's one of the SJWs they employed earlier, and while it may seem like he's now willing to abandon that kind of stance, there's still signs the artwork is uninspired and otherwise sexless, and they still rely on the panel format used in the 2 earlier specials. It reminds me that, while some of the artwork in the Winter Break Special was marginally better, that special was still undermined by how they kept interrupting the artwork pages with a "story" that took up at least 15 pages, leaving the overall special with barely 16 or 17 pages of winter-based illustrations of various Marvel cast members, considerably less than the original swimsuit specials had over 3 decades ago. And the drawing of Elektra in the Winter Break special was particularly dull.

So again, I'm not sure why they're keeping on with this now, as they fail, beyond contributions from artists like J. Scott Campbell for variant covers, to offer anything that's seriously impressive. It underscores how poor the art world's becoming these days, at least according to how the mainstream hires them. And what do they mean by Namor being the "only one who can pull it off"? Isn't that provided the writer actually does a good job? Something that's been terrible lacking for over 2 decades now.

What John Byrne has to say about his new X-Men: Elsewhen story

Before I begin, while I've made clear in the past that the Phoenix Saga is not one of my favorite storylines - not on its own anyway - I am aware that terrible SJW Heather Antos actually attacked Byrne over bizarre accusations that he's supposedly homophobic/transphobic, even though he was the creator of Alpha Flight's Northstar, and it was originally his intention to emphasize that Jean-Paul Beubier was homosexual. From what I can tell, Antos must've attacked Byrne more out of bizarre jealousy along with virtue-signaling, and she does seem to have embarrassed herself with her employers over that.

But with all that said, does that mean I have to like the Phoenix Saga, or even the premise of Byrne's new alternate continuity story? Of course not, and seriously, what he's written up today is, IMO, distasteful, based in part on my being a fan of Jean Grey, and would I be taking this position if I weren't a fan? Anyway, Byrne was interviewed by the NY Times (archive link), and here's what's brought up in discussion:

Now 76, Byrne has re-emerged with what he’s calling his swan song: “X-Men: Elsewhen,” an alternate reality hardcover which revisits the X-Men at the point where he left, without his former collaborators but with a big plot twist: Phoenix was not killed.

Viewed within the specific context, if Jean was rescued from the Shiar and brought back to Earth as though nothing happened, after she allegedly wiped out billions, is that in good taste? Hardly. That told, what comes up next in the main interview is eyebrow raising:

For readers who may not be well-versed in the long history of the X-Men, can you briefly talk about the controversy around the Phoenix character?

There had never been a case where a superhero created by Stan and Jack had been turned into a villain. And we did that. We had her go out and blow up a whole planet and destroy an entire alien race. [Then editor in chief] Jim Shooter knew this was coming, but for some reason he said, “She must be punished” — that Phoenix had to be taken to a “prison asteroid,” and horribly tortured for all eternity. I said, “I’d rather kill her.” So that’s what we ended up doing.

What?!? Shooter thought Jean should be tortured?!? As though it weren't bad enough he wouldn't lift a finger in defense of her dignity as a character based on how she was being forced into the role of a criminal/murderess, he thought it okay to put her in a position where she'd end up being tortured to the end of time? Well, I knew there were sadly some very serious downsides to Shooter's MO, and Secret Wars was surely just the icing on the cake. What I did know years ago was that one of the story proposals was to have Jean put in a position similar to an actual Phoenix, where she'd revive but then be destroyed again repeatedly. I'm not sure if that's what Byrne's alluding to, but let's be clear: I just didn't find the whole premise appealing, and when the lead up to where Jean would be obliterated told that she'd wiped out 2 billion residents of an alien solar system...that made me sick. What's more, this whole storyline itself kept getting dredged up again and again, with Chris Claremont writing something vaguely similar when he got a job writing Justice League in the 2000s. What's so special about a story where a decent woman's turned into a monstress, but not one where she spends time with a loving family or something like that? And then, look what bizarre, questionable comment Byrne makes next:

But later, after you stopped working on X-Men books, Jean was brought back. So is anything ever really at stake in mainstream comics?

When Mark Gruenwald, my friend and editor, died unexpectedly, I mentioned it on my website and the first response was, “Oh, that’s terrible. I hope he recovers.” I thought: Oh my God, we’ve trained fans to expect that no death is actually permanent, even in the real world!

But this wasn't the real world they were dealing with! This was science-fiction/fantasy! And the later 1988-98 Excalibur was one of the most surreal series of all in Marvel's output. Resurrection is part and parcel of science-fantasy whether Byrne likes it or not, and he acts like it's some kind of calamity if handled otherwise? I'm sorry, but no. Resurrection in science-fantasy is not the worst thing that could happen, and to restrict it even in the Marvel/DC universes, or single them out as though they alone aren't allowed to employ the concept is insulting to the intellect, and offensive. Why, if you know where to look, there's undoubtably stories about resurrection of fictional characters in science-fiction/fantasy that are very enjoyable, in otherwise good taste, and we're being lectured that it's somehow a crime? Good grief. And then, look who he says he enjoyed writing most:

Which of the characters is the most fun to write?

Cyclops was always my favorite X-Man, from when I first started reading the book. Wolverine, of course. I often say Wolverine is my fault because [when I came on] Chris told me that he intended to write him out of the book. I was Canadian at that time and said, “No way are you getting rid of the only Canadian!”

But Jean wasn't fun at all? Perhaps not even Storm, Kitty Pryde, Scarlet Witch, Lois Lane and Lana Lang when he later wrote and drew Superman, or even Wonder Girl and Big Barda? Byrne unfortunately had a questionable approach to women at the time, and that he had 3 or 4 of the leading ladies drawn with short hair in his stories was probably the beginning. I recall a Superman story where an alien from Apocalips named Sleez mind-controlled Barda and Superman, and put them in a bizarre fanfiction situation where a snuff filmmaker would record them in something like a porno flick. I once read that Jack Kirby disliked that story because he considered it an insult to his wife, whom Barda was meant as a tribute to (and IIRC, there was a scene where Superman implied she looked like glop?!?). Superman may not have fared much better in that tale, and it was decidedly a low point in Byrne's run. And again, it doesn't always seem like he had much affection for some of the women in his stories, not even Aurora in Alpha Flight. Honestly, in hindsight, some of that stuff comes across as quite ludicrous, and has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Is Byrne correct though, that Claremont wanted to jettison Wolvie? I don't know, but some history items tell that Claremont wanted to put Wolvie in the grave and revive him as a villain. You could reasonably ask there if Claremont really loved Logan as a character, and of course, whether he actually loved Jean too, considering where he took her in the late 70s as the X-Men writer.

When people talk about giants of the era you came up in, you and Frank Miller are often on similar footing. Thoughts about his treatment of Wolverine?

This will get me in trouble, but I didn’t care much for Frank’s Wolverine. In terms of creating a hugely popular character, he did the right thing. My gut reaction was: beautiful artwork, but I don’t know this guy.

Well, based on Miller's appalling leftism, that's why I don't think I know him either, and he sure didn't give much reason to have faith in his ability to stand by his stories.

There’s a page in Elsewhen where you depict Wolverine brutally attacking Magneto. The backgrounds are bright red, his eyes are bright red, he’s in a murderous rage. Is this a new kind of ferocity for this character?

Well, it was always what we had in mind. There’s a scene, that I would never, in a million years, do. It’s Wolverine sitting at the breakfast table and Kitty Pryde [the youngest of the X-Men] comes in and says, “Hey,” in just the wrong tone of voice. And he guts her without a second thought and then goes on eating his Cheerios. Because he is quite literally a homicidal maniac.

Seriously, that's what he believes Logan should be?!? Strange. From what I'd read years ago, he wanted Wolvie to have a more likable persona, and this certainly is enough to wonder if Byrne's taking a contradictory position. He also makes it sound like he's taking the fictional-characters-are-real-life-people approach, which again, is utterly grating, illogical and brought down comicdom practically years ago.

And then, wouldn't you know it, an allusion to Byrne's leftism turns up:

It almost feels like we’re living in a comic book world today.

It feels like evil has won. I look at Washington and go, oh my God, this is the [guy] who I modeled my Lex Luthor in part on, back when he was just a big noise in business in New York.

Sigh. So he considers Trump a baddie and nothing else. A real shame. As though there weren't any better examples of bad billionaires out there at the time. On which note, as this Popverse article tells, if Byrne's take on Luthor was based on Trump, it was only partially, since there were other examples of billionaires at the time he'd drawn ideas from, including Ted Turner and Thomas Edison. But now, despite a suggestion to the contrary, Byrne sounds like he wants to claim Trump's literally the problem, and not the others. How odd. As a result, he's not all that different from Miller, so what's his point? At the end of the interview:

What do you consider your legacy?

When I look at my work, all I can see is the influences. There’s Neal Adams, there’s Joe Kubert, there’s Bernie Wrightson, there’s Jack Kirby, there’s Gil Kane. When people tell me they’re huge John Byrne fans, I go, “What are they seeing?”

I would like to think that when people see my work, it’s believable. If it’s two guys sitting at a bar, or if it’s two planets crashing into each other, I like to think that people will believe what they’re looking at. Just verisimilitude. There’s the word.

While there are several examples in his portfolio that're great, including his overall run on Fantastic Four, Byrne later stumbled by the turn of the century (his Spider-Man: Chapter One miniseries didn't get a good reception, IIRC), and I can't say he'll ever have as big a legacy as Kirby, Kane and Wrightson. Interesting that somebody who alluded to Kirby would've risked alienating him with a take on the aforementioned Barda from New Gods that was questionable at best, and ludicrous at worst. And Byrne's inability to avoid leftist political allusions will certainly for now make it difficult to decide how well his legacy can be admired overall.

Now again on the subject of Antos' recent attack on Byrne, what's really appalling is that she may have boosted sales for a story that I don't think should be considered a big deal, and alternate reality or not, it strikes me as tasteless. Interesting that she didn't attack Byrne because she cares about Jean, but rather, because she perceives his politics as incompatible with hers. That's got to be saying something. I don't like her MO, but even so, I'm not going to buy what Byrne's promoting as possibly his last writing and art project, because the whole premise was in questionable taste to start with, and became such an irritating cliche over the following decades. Even Colossus, if memory serves, was turned crooked in the early 90s, but he was never burdened with the kind of indignity Jean was when she was originally written obliterating citizens of an alien solar system, incurring the wrath of the Shiar. So why must Jean have suffered something that could make it difficult to use her as a character in later years? I know the setup was retconned with an alien lifeform disguising itself as Jean in 1985, but even so, that doesn't mean Claremont, Shooter, Byrne and company couldn't have created a new character in the mid-70s to take the role of the Phoenix instead of Jean being shoved into it. Now, we've since wound up with an embarrassing situation where the premise was repeatedly dredged up by bankrupt creators who can only think of emphasizing the darkness in the worst ways possible, and it's hurt comicdom very badly.

Marvel partners with USA Today for a Spider-Man project

Another of Marvel's pointless attempts to gain more publicity includes the following project at USA Today:

USA TODAY and Marvel Comics have partnered to provide USA TODAY’s PLAY digital entertainment hub with access to the most popular comic-book characters in the Marvel universe. PLAY will be the exclusive home for the new vertically formatted “Spider-Man TODAY” Infinity Comic series, which runs for 48 weeks beginning June 16 – with new issues dropping every Wednesday. Readers also will be able to dig into 1,000 curated archival Marvel comics ranging from old-school classics to modern favorites.

“USA TODAY is the largest news publisher in the country, and so that's always exciting,” says Marvel’s Spider-Man editor Nick Lowe. “And then you pair them with the greatest comic-book company in the world, Marvel Comics. I mean, that's chocolate and peanut butter, right? It's the best.”

Lowe sees “Spider-Man TODAY” as “the new incarnation of the Spider-Man funnies” by Spidey cocreator Stan Lee and artist John Romita Sr. that ran in newspapers starting back in the 1970s. “This is us trying to take up that baton and run the next part of the race.”

The new series features a “dream team” of artists Al Ewing (“Venom”) and Todd Nauck (“Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man”) bringing to life a story that “will span the entire Marvel universe and is good for fans of all ages,” Lowe says. [...]

Gee, when a left-wing ideologue like Ewing is involved, what's there to look forward to here? Even Lowe's not encouraging. That aside, why do they think a comic strip that wasn't as well written as the mainstay pamphlets is something to emulate? I seem to recall that, in the last few years before it ended, there was a very atrocious story where both Wolverine and Sabretooth turned up, with the latter incomprehensibly searching for the former, and was even willing to threaten Mary Jane Watson if that's what it took to get Spider-Man to reveal Logan's location (which he didn't know). Then Wolverine turned up and both he and Sabretooth knocked themselves out, and soon vanished again. That storyline, coming as it did near the official end of the original newspaper strip 7 years ago, was so insulting to the intellect, mainly because it didn't depict Spidey unleashing a gale of justified anguish at Sabretooth for threatening his wife. Why should this be just Wolvie's battle? That it was made to look almost absurdly comedic only worsened the tale. I couldn't bring myself to continue reading the newspaper strip after that, and besides, if the comics were already tainted by Joe Quesada, it only figures the newspaper strip was too.

So what's the use of turning out another comic strip that could be similar to ran during 1977-2019? Coupled with such awful writers and editors, that's why this is not something to care about, and could be worse than what the newspaper strip wound up being like. They also hint they've prepared comics, digital or otherwise, that're "modern", and that's another red flag they could be foisting some of the worst of the modern era on the readerships, stuff that could've come after Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson's marriage was forcibly annulled. Also, I've never been very impressed with USA Today's overall news coverage, which is little different from J. Jonah Jameson's MO. One more reason it'd be better not to waste time and money on what they now have in store for Spidey. Marvel's done little more than make a business deal with a real life variation on the Daily Bugle.

Sugarcoated interview with an IDW editor who's an SJW, and has quite a double standard

Brands Untapped interviewed Heather Antos, a SJW who worked at Marvel as an editor in the past decade and was instrumental in damaging their output the woke way, and now is working at IDW, where she serves as editor on some very eyebrow raising imprints:

Heather Antos, you’ve described yourself as “taller in person, a destroyer of childhoods and a professional geek.” How tall are you?

Ha! I’m 5’10”, which is short in my family.

Is it? Gosh! And ‘destroyer of childhoods we’ll find out more about… Professional geek – lets get into that. What’s your actual job title?

I’m the Senior Group Editor at IDW Publishing. I oversee our crime imprint – which is pretty self-explanatory – and all things IDW Dark; our horror imprint.

Great remit! What kind of things does IDW Dark involve?

That involves our licensed partnerships with Paramount – Event Horizon, Twilight Zone, A Quiet Place, Smile, Sleepy Hollow. It also involves some of our historic, original creator-owned horror titles: 30 Days of Night, Locke & Key, Beneath the Trees Where Nobody Sees, The Exorcism at 1600 Penn. Over its 26 years, IDW has really made a name for itself as being a home of horror in the comic space.

Very interesting. She had a sex-negative viewpoint when she worked at Marvel - with the biggest irony being her claim of alleged admiration for Flo Steinberg, who served as one of the editors on the Marvel Swimsuit specials - yet years later at IDW, all of a sudden, Antos is quite comfortable working on stories involving violent content, horror and darkness? That she'd boast about being a "destroyer of childhoods" is certainly sad as it's insulting, because that's what she was doing at Marvel, if anywhere, and perhaps also at neo-Valiant.

Hell in space… Tell me if I’m wrong here: my memory is that they filmed a lot more foootage for the Event Horizon movie that got cut because it was too horrific. Are you, in a comic, better positioned to explore the extreme edges of that?

Yes and no. I mean, ratings still exist – so what we’re allowed to show in a comic book still matters. We can’t go too extreme or else the comic itself would need to be polybagged to stop a kid picking it up and chancing across it. So ratings still matter. Also, for licenses like Event Horizon, A Quiet Place, Smile and so on, I’m very aware that those are Paramount franchises. So what we did has to match that brand…

So to your earlier point, about stuff filmed for Event Horizon that you can’t watch today, we can’t exceed that level in the comics That’s the brand! Another example is A Quiet Place… Those films are rated PG-13, so the comics themselves need to match that in terms of language, gore, the types of scares we’re allowed to do and so on. Meanwhile, Smile is rated R – so we can go a little further.

Again, this is quite telling when somebody who had a sex-negative viewpoint at one publisher is perfectly fine working with R-rated mayhem at another. Interesting how she actually brings up concern for what children might stumble over if they picked up a comic with mature themes, which, despite the perception comics aren't read by children today, could happen. But her double-standard on sex as opposed to violence ruins whatever points she's trying to make.

I’m loving this! You were at Marvel before IDW, were you not? What were you working on there?

When the Star Wars line launched in 2015, I helped do that with Jason Aaron, John Cassaday, Kieron Gillen, Salvador Larroca, Mark Waid, Terry Dodson… That was the big, big, BIG launch; around the time that Force Awakens was coming out. I also worked on the Deadpool line around the time that movie was came out. And I co-created the character Gweenpool for Marvel while I was there as well.

And Aaron was one of the biggest SJWs they hired at the time. One could say Gillen was too, considering he wrote the storyline where Tony Stark's background was retconned so he was an adopted orphan instead of having biological parents. And seriously, Antos co-created Gwenpool? Well I'm not impressed with that either. And did she ever apologize to Jae Lee for accusing him of being a Comicsgate supporter? If she ever did, I have yet to find out. Antos later says:

So you can imagine when I learned about comics in my university years, it was just such a cool thing! To know that a group of people got to collaborate together on these projects – and that it wasn’t just superhero stuff! Because, obviously, I grew up with the same superhero TV shows and movies and all the stuff that everyone else did. But when I was in college, I took an American literature course and studied a lot of the classic Vertigo stuff.

Such as?

Oh, I was introduced to The Sandman and Transmetropolitan and Hellblazer and a lot of that material. And I was surprised to find that comics can be horror, they can be crime. They can be so many things away from what most people might assume comics are. [...]

Wonder what she thinks now that the author of the former title was accused of sexual abuse? Or that the author of Transmetropolitan was accused of taking advantage of a number of women by making empty promises he'd help them get jobs in the industry? That she sounds like she's still okay with reading those items can be telling too of where she really stands. Near the end of the interview:

Amazing. I have one last question to wrap things up, Heather… Are there any dream licenses that you’d love to work on?

Oh, there are a couple I’ll happily talk about because I’ve been very vocal about them online! First, I absolutely love Indiana Jones – it’s one of my first loves. Obviously, it’s with Disney, which is in the Marvel wheelhouse so if anything was ever going to happen with Indy, that would be where it would happen. Then, my other love – again, I’m so loud about this online – is James Bond… I absolutely love James Bond, and I don’t think the franchise has had the comic run it deserves.

If she had her way, it definitely wouldn't. As for Indy, wonder what she thinks of how the series was screwed up and totally buried by political correctness? Probably nothing much, alas.

It's interesting to note that a few years ago, according to That Park Place, Antos accused her previous employers at Marvel and Valiant of unfair treatment, suggesting she now holds a grudge against them for discontinuing her employment. Why she got a job with IDW next is mystifying, though her willingness to serve as editor of dark titles does speak volumes. At the same time, the site notes that, based on what they found being told in her business profile:

She has no other job experience aside from being an independent editor and story consultant, which she claims to have been doing since 2016.

So why'd IDW want to hire her? Considering they could be on their last legs now finance-wise, it hardly helps to employ somebody whose "talent" is very unclear. In the past decade, she did little more than work as a SJW, and this only suggests she hasn't changed. Anybody who's going to take the kind of double-standard she does is only making clear why they weren't suited to work in comicdom to begin with. Whatever she's overseeing at IDW doesn't sound appealing, and with her as one of the editors, that's why it's best not to buy what're bound to be overrated horror and crime tales anyway.

A new book about the art of Michael Turner features some for a most inappropriate miniseries he worked on, and 3 unsuitable contributors

In this IGN article on Yahoo, it's announced that Aspen, the company originally founded by the late artist Michael Turner, worked on a crowdfunded art book featuring art he did for DC, and wouldn't you know it, one that includes some embarrassments based on what they were used for:

The late Michael Turner was undoubtedly one of the most popular comic book artists of the 2000s, with a proven track record of driving up sales on a series every time his art adorned the cover. Clover Press previously celebrated Turner's Marvel resume with The Marvel Art of Michael Turner, and now they're back with The DC Art of Michael Turner.

[...] The DC Art of Michael Turner is a 200-page 9" x 12" hardcover that reprints the artist's work on titles like Superman/Batman, The Flash, Justice League, Identity Crisis. The book includes an introduction by Ghost Machine editor-in-chief and former DC Comics Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns, as well as commentary from Jeph Loeb, Brad Meltzer, and Dan DiDio.

Turner may have been a talented artist, and some of his contributions to Image's Top Cow affiliate years ago were impressive, but what he drew for DC was all-style-no-substance, and that he would actually draw covers for Identity Crisis was disgusting and an embarrassing stain on his portfolio. I remember when Alex Ross told how he'd been asked to draw artwork for the vile miniseries that was offensive to victims of sexual assault, and in contrast to Turner, Ross wisely refused the offer. How is it Ross understood a story with a belittling structure could tarnish his resume if he'd participated, but Turner couldn't? And how come a site like Get Your Comic On is also obscuring the topics involved by putting one of the illustrations Turner did for Identity Crisis at the top of their article? Also, lest we forget, that Meltzer, Johns and DiDio gave introduction commentary for this project is also bad news. As for Loeb, his writing from the times was hardly a big deal.

What makes this additionally troubling is when a "feminist" site like Girl Talk HQ glosses over some art connected with one of the most repulsive miniseries of 2004:

In celebration of the Kickstarter campaign launch today, we are sharing some exclusive images from ‘THE DC ART OF MICHAEL TURNER’ – the artist’s iconic interpretations of Wonder Woman, which you won’t find on any other media publication!

One of those panels they highlight is a cover Turner drew for Identity Crisis, an issue where WW was made to look absurdly mechanical in-story, showing her using her lasso on an interrogated crook without actually showing her face, IIRC. That doesn't trouble them? I guess that says all you need to know about how some feminists aren't the responsible folks they'd like everybody to think they are. Oddly enough, another feminist/SJW writing for Book Riot actually woke up and recognized what was wrong with Identity Crisis 15 years afterwards, though she dampened the impact of her essay by continuing to embrace other forms of wokeness, IIRC. When will the writers for this other feminist site begin to wake up?

Comic Book Club Live also glossed over the news, and they say:

Like other volumes in The DC Art Of… line, the high-end edition will come in a 9″ x 12″ deluxe hardcover, featuring over 200 pages of art and commentary. The campaign will also feature an ashcan, a “sketchbook” edition featuring black and white art, “a Kickstarter-exclusive slipcase and dust jacket, and multiple DC Portfolio sets spotlighting Turner’s unforgettable takes on Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman, and The Flash.” In addition, Geoff Johns has provided an introduction alongside “thoughts” from Jeph Loeb, Brad Meltzer and Dan Didio. Hopefully those thoughts will come in thought bubbles, but probably not.

And that says all you need to know where they stand regarding those charlatans too. Almost a decade after the Harvey Weinstein scandal, and they're continuing to sugarcoat some of the worst stories to bring down DC/Marvel over the past quarter century. That doesn't speak well for alleged "fandom".

Turner may have some decent artwork to build an art book with, but Identity Crisis taints the covers he foolishly drew for that. I would not advise backing the crowdfunding campaign for this financially, and when it comes to his DC artwork, I don't think it amounted to much in the end. Though if it matters, it was reprehensible when DC reprinted the Superman/Batman story reintroducing Supergirl in an anthology with censored panels for the girls' rear ends, yet violence against Lois Lane went by without any opposition. This was when DiDio was still in charge, and that too says quite a bit about his MO. So why is Aspen welcoming him to provide commentary for their new art book project? He's just one more reason why not to give the book any financial backing, because what if some of the profits go into his pockets? So I'm sorry, but I would strongly advise anybody who's a realist not to give this book about Turner's DC art any money.

Turner may have been a talented artist, I won't deny that. But again, he made some very sad mistakes that make it necessary to separate art from artist and/or take it with a grain of salt when it comes to his own portfolio.

Since when was Supergirl always stuck in Superman's shadow?

The Conversation wrote a sugarcoated item about Supergirl and the upcoming movie, that rather predictably takes no objective view of the Maid of Might's history:

Since her official debut in 1959, Supergirl has struggled to emerge from the shadow of her cousin, Superman. So it’s a bold move that the second cinematic release in the newly rebooted DC Universe will be Supergirl.

Milly Alcock first appeared as Supergirl in the epilogue to Superman (2025). Her Supergirl is a brash “party girl” – an immediate contrast to David Corenswet’s squeaky clean rendition of Superman. Based on the comic book Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow (2021) by Tom King and Bilquis Evely, she is a traumatised character, dealing with the destruction of her home planet of Krypton. “I have no people,” Supergirl laments in the trailer.

Well that's the problem: it's based more on the overrated King's story than a screenplay that could stand on its own. Might I also add I don't find the posters showing Supergirl wearing a trenchcoat appealing? The sunglasses may be cool, but the coat ruins everything. And I don't think Supergirl was always in Superman's shadow as they say, if only because there were times in the past where she did have solo adventures printed. The problem is the publishers didn't always see her as the storytelling vehicle she could be if they wanted to invest in serious merit-based writing. And the article has a pretty big goof in the following:

However, Supergirl was not always so introspective. The character and her alter ego, Kara Zor-El, first appeared in 1938, to cash in on the popularity of Superman. She was a preppy teenager who played a supporting helpmate role, allowing Superman to display his paternal side.

Publishers DC Comics also flirted with the concept of Superwoman. A 1943 story had Superman’s girlfriend, reporter Lois Lane, dream that she was Superman’s female counterpart. In her book Supergirl: Contemporary Feminist Reboot of a Hapless DC Comic Helpmate (2022), Batya Weinbaum suggests this moment reflected the “changing position of women in wartime”. In a 1947 story, Lois Lane, Superwoman! from Superman issue #45, Lane is convinced she has superpowers, only to discover she is the victim of a ruse where Superman is using his influence to simulate the experience. This prompts her frustrated exclamation: “You men who try to keep women weak and defenceless – I hate you!”

Lane may well have been addressing the DC editors who published her adventures. In his cultural history of comic book heroines, comic book historian Mike Madrid outlines an excerpt from 1950s-era DC Comics’ editorial policy which reluctantly accepts stories featuring women, but only if the female characters are “secondary in importance”.

Somehow, it's hard to believe a company that readily published Wonder Woman all these years would have a problem publishing anything with a lady in the lead. Either way, they did have some impressive lady co-stars created at the time, and who went on to see better writing as time went by. Also notice the hilarious goof in the year of debut, which is actually Superman's, not Supergirl's, which was originally early 1959.

As for what Lois Lane was written telling in 1947, well, that could easily describe the situation decades later, when men and women alike who had lenient views on discrimination led to the publication of Identity Crisis. Yet that sees no mention in this puff piece, and that's the considerable weakness here. As is the following "explanation" why Kara Zor-El was originally terminated in Crisis on Infinite Earths:

Whereas Superman (played by Christopher Reeve) was introduced in 1978 by the same producers with a daring rescue of a plummeting helicopter, Helen Slater’s Supergirl performs an aerial ballet and frolics with woodland creatures. In comics, Supergirl fared even worse. The character was killed off in 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths storyline, partly because of her threat to Superman’s unique status as “the last son of Krypton”, and partly because of the film’s disappointing box office takings.

Excuse me? What kind of monumentally stupid explanation is that? The staff may have wanted to establish Kal-El as the last Kryptonian at the time. But that doesn't make Kara a "threat" to said status. What the writer says is disgusting, and undermines any valid lamentation he's making, though he's right the editors used the film's failure as a justification, which is also sick. And then he adds insult to injury when he says:

In comic books, however, death is never permanent. Kara Zor-El and Supergirl were resurrected in 2004 in The Supergirl from Krypton. There was an attempt to add nuance to the character, with a greater emphasis on the trauma she suffered from witnessing the loss of her home planet. But this was rather undermined by various revealing costumes clearly designed to satisfy the male gaze.

And this inherently wrong because? Even years before, there were times when Kara Zor-El was drawn as quite a fashion plate, and the bare midriff costume was actually introduced around the turn of the century, at the middle of Peter David's run on the new take on Supergirl (I think Leonard Kirk was the artist), which was developed out of a character who first appeared in 1988. The real reasons to complain are that no concrete story accompanied the reintroduction in the Superman/Batman title published at the time, or even the solo title that followed, and that a very bad man accused of sexual misconduct was in charge of editing, that being Eddie Berganza, who was only fired from DC in 2017. If there's a valid complaint to make about fetishizing in what he oversaw, it can be blamed on Berganza, and also writer Jeph Loeb. Oddly, when Kara was reintroduced at the time, the figure as drawn by Michael Turner wasn't so busty, if at all. As for the costume, if there's anything wrong with it, and possibly has been for a long time, it's how it was long-sleeved, which makes it look silly. The article, interestingly enough, notes that the TV show starring Melissa Benoist appears to have followed up on the PC view of Supergirl's outfits:

In the pilot episode she finally strikes out on her own with the dramatic rescue of an airliner, assuming the mantle of Supergirl. In a show that employed several female writers and became known for its positive representation of LGBTQ+ issues, problematic topics such as Supergirl’s infantilising name and costume were directly addressed.

Kara refuses to wear revealing versions of the costume from the character’s comic book past. In discussions with her employer, CatCo Worldwide Media CEO Cat Grant, she is told: “I’m a girl. And your boss. And powerful. And rich, and hot, and smart. So, if you perceive Supergirl as anything less than excellent, isn’t the real problem you?” Significantly, Grant is portrayed by actor Calista Flockhart, known for the Ally McBeal series – a show that sparked debates about feminism and women in the workplace in the late 1990s.

Well if all they care about is putting down even creators with more common sense, along with pushing an agenda that did more harm than good, those are just some of the reasons why it's regrettable the Maid of Might's potential has suffered ruin for years. The TV show became increasingly political, and that's why it's more an embarrassment than a classic today. At the end:

The 2021 comic book Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow follows the young alien Ruthye Marye Knoll, who recruits Supergirl to seek revenge after her father is murdered. The story is told from Ruthye’s point of view, the fractured narrative lending the story a fatalistic quality. The narration also emphasises the mythic quality of Supergirl, “who lost everything and kept walking”.

It remains to be seen how closely the film will follow the philosophical source material. Meanwhile, in the pages of the latest DC comic book, writer and artist Sophie Campbell has returned to the brighter tone of the 1960s version of the character, merged with the sensibilities of the 2015 television series. The many interpretations of Supergirl continue to reveal the character’s durability and versatility.

If memory serves, the writer of the latest series is really a man with the name Ross, and it sure is ironic somebody who claimed earlier the outfits in post-2004 Supergirl were a problem suddenly makes no such arguments when somebody of "Sophie Campbell"'s standing is helming the new series. Predictably, no objective view is taken of King's overrated story either, and that takes away any impact this puff piece might've had.

Since the new movie's also a subject, Polygon says the director, as much as the screenwriter, did draw "inspiration" from both King's story and what the assigned screenwriter turned out:

"I very deliberately started with the script that Ana wrote," Gillespie says, "and I put together a lot of visuals around that coming from the script, trying to make something that I would be excited about and that had this grit and flavor of the Supergirl character, Kara." [...]

"After that, I went back and visited Tom King's Woman of Tomorrow and took some images from that," he says, "but I didn't want to start there because I didn't want to just do the comic book."

Unfortunately, that's just what he did nevertheless, and borrowing even remotely from something that pretentious doesn't help a bit. Nor did injecting feminism into the narratives of the TV show or even the comics themselves avail, but that's certainly a moot point by now. It remains to be seen what the box office results will be for this new Supergirl movie, and based on how it's crafted, I'd rather stay home and read the comics I own instead. These articles are just more examples of stuff that ultimately doesn't help the Maid of Might's reputation at all.

DC no longer celebrates USA anniversaries, with Superman or any other superheroes

A writer at the New York Post talks about DC's refusal, in all their far-leftism, to celebrate America's 250th anniversary, in contrast to a time in 1976 when they were willing to publish a Superman special where they celebrated the Bicentennial:

He may be faster than a speeding bullet, but even Superman can’t outrun globalization.

Back in the summer of 1976, one of my treasures was an oversize special edition comic book, “Superman Salutes the Bicentennial.” Reprinting a famous cover of the 1940s, with a bald eagle perched on Superman’s arm and a stars-and-stripes shield behind him, the publication contained six historical tales of the Revolution and the Spirit of ’76.

Today, a search of DC Comics’ website shows nothing celebrating America’s Semiquincentennial, by Superman or any other superhero.

Yet they're perfectly fine with celebrating LGBT pride month, which is a lot more than the one or two days Holocaust Memorial Day and 911 Memorial Day takes place on. Even USA Independence Day (4th of July) is only about that long, and when a politically motivated "celebration" goes on for as long as a month, that's also troubling. Let's also consider that the same people who don't celebrate USA Independence Day and Centennials also don't show any appreciation for foreign independence days like in Ukraine and Bulgaria to celebrate their independence from the Soviet Union, nor do they celebrate holidays like the near dozen France has, nor far eastern holidays like Japan's and Thailand's. Or even Israel's, in complete disregard of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's ancestry.

One might have thought that 1976 would be a terrible time for comics to commemorate America. Hundreds of thousands of boys who had read Superman in the 1950s and ‘60s had been sent to Vietnam, where 58,000 of them died. Watergate and Richard Nixon’s resignation had shattered faith in the political system, while assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy, followed by devastating riots, made a mockery of the “American Way.”

Yet DC Comics, along with tens of millions of Americans, did celebrate the country. Though its values had been severely tested, Bicentennial America also had seen the greatest growth of the middle class and national wealth in human history, as well as the final push to ensure civil rights for all citizens, fulfilling the “promissory note,” as Dr. King put it, of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

That America’s most famous fictional hero — a symbol of the country around the world — would celebrate, too, seemed only natural, and it inspired young readers like me.

This patriotic portrayal continued. Thirteen years later, in September 1987, DC put out a special comic with the New York Daily News to commemorate the bicentennial of the Constitution. Traveling back in time, Superman, along with three young Americans, foils Lex Luthor’s plot to hijack the Constitutional Convention and install himself as dictator of the United States.

Amid the action, Superman delivers a mini civics lesson, explaining that while the Constitution did not outlaw slavery or give women the vote, the Framers had the foresight to allow it to be amended to fit the times.

Next to “Schoolhouse Rock,” Superman probably provided more civics education to young readers than most elementary classrooms could have hoped to do.

Times indeed have changed. In 2011, DC used Action Comics’ 900th issue as a platform to have Superman renounce his American citizenship, perhaps believing he felt more comfortable in Davos than Dubuque.

A decade later, DC officially changed Superman’s motto to “truth, justice and a better tomorrow,” a mash-up of adventure series and soap opera.

Given such changes, it’s no surprise that DC seems intent on ignoring America’s 250th.

That says more about DC than it does its most famous character. It seems the editors at DC no longer understand there is a reason that Superman was created in America, and not France or China. (DC Comics did not reply to a request for comment.)

Oh, that's not shocking either if they wouldn't respond to news writers about this. No doubt, they have a policy to shut out questions from anybody deemed patriotic and even sensible nowadays, and this is bound to be the case at Marvel too, where current EIC C.B. Cebulski rarely gives press statements like his predecessors at this point. On which note, if they're not celebrating the 250th with Captain America as a host icon, even that shouldn't be shocking. And back to DC, their story where Supes was depicted shedding his citizenship wasn't the only troubling tale they turned out back then. There was also one that downplayed the horrors of Iran's dictatorship very badly, and that definitely hasn't aged well in over 15 years, after the dictatorship slaughtered thousands of people opposed to their tyranny. When a USA publisher won't celebrate their own country, it should come as no surprise they can't even make a solid case for innocent and defenseless people overseas. Those Superman stories from 15 years ago are a stain on their resume as much as their reputation. I hesitate to think what they'd do with Golden Age-created characters like Liberty Belle too these days.

Anyway, if Paramount Skydance, as new owner of properties like DC that came with the WB purchase, has no intention of cleaning up such a mess, then that only further makes the case for why DC and Marvel can't remain under a conglomerate ownership.

Has a writer for neo-Valiant been un-cancelled?

About a year ago, an Argentinian writer working on Valiant's Bloodshot appeared to be blacklisted over alleged negativity to LGBT ideology. Now, according to Comic Book Club Live, he's been reinstated:

Nearly a year after Valiant — and publisher Alien Books — were hit with serious blowback online thanks to what was seen as anti-trans text in Bloodshot #1, writer Mauro Mantella is back on the book with the June release of Bloodshot #4 – Man Made Hell #1, a “new” three issue series with art by Kristian Rossi.

To briefly review what went down in August of 2025, the rebooted Bloodshot featured a storyline about vampires fighting the nano-tech powered warrior using his own nanites. While a lot of it skirted cultural commentary/satire, one bit in particular stuck in reader’s craws. Specifically, this line of text: “There are kids who want to be bitten to become vampires because their favorite influencer says they are one. And parents who force their children into that irreversible change… just to feel modern… and believing that they’ll be thankful for it when they grow up.”

As many readers pointed out, this bit seemed to be specifically mapping onto anti-trans messaging, and Argentinian writer Mantella came under fire for including it. For their part, Alien Books immediately offered a statement on the dialogue, and laid out several steps for addressing the issue including updating dialogue for the trade and undergoing “a more intense review by our proof readers as part of our editorial process.”

Unfortunately, immediately following that in came to light that Mantella had repeatedly retweeted anti-trans and anti-vaccine memes, multiple times in the past. And in response, Mantella deleted his Twitter account and posted a lengthy response/explanation about his reposts, as well as the offending line of dialogue in Bloodshot. [...]

Well, after that absence, Bloodshot is back — and so is Mantella, with the new issue hitting stores on June 24, 2026. While this is pure speculation, it seems likely this fourth issue is the first completely crafted since the fallout from everything detailed above. Whether it will be addressed in the issue, or referenced in any way? TBD.

Does this mean they came to realize how bad it looks when they cancel a writer over petty issues and politics, so they reversed their previous approach and reinstated Mantella at the helm? We can only hope so. But if Mantella and company actually address anything related to this, that's something they decidedly shouldn't do, unless they're willing to prove they can defend the dialogue as originally written last time. Something they probably won't do, unfortunately.

An attempted "boycott" of DC for the wrong reasons was called off

Popverse tells, in their most expectedly sugarcoated way, that a group that was calling for a boycott of DC because they lacked Black characters in a stand-alone ongoing stopped their call for one:

Last week, a group called Black Comic Alliance announced a boycott against DC Comics in response to the publisher not having an ongoing series featuring a Black character in its mainline universe. But after significant backlash online, the group has ended the boycott and has released a statement regarding the matter.

According to a press release from Black Comic Alliance and leader James Portis III, "This decision comes after a lot of reflection and conversations with members of the comic book community. While the boycott was launched to draw attention to an issue we believe remains important, it became clear that the conversation surrounding the boycott was often overshadowing the larger goal of the campaign."

The statement responded to a line of criticism that emerged in the wake of the boycott's announcement, mainly that the lack of a Black character-led ongoing series in DC's mainline universe doesn't negate the other books featuring marginalized people both on the page and behind the page.

"However, we also recognize that many fans and creators we care about felt the boycott unintentionally minimized books, characters, and creators whose work provides meaningful representation for women, LGBTQIA+ readers, people of color, and other marginalized communities. That was never our intention, and we apologize for that impact. We heard those concerns, and they played a major role in our decision to reevaluate the boycott," the statement continued.

That such "advocates" could still be active with all this nonsense is almost hilarious, mainly because: they actually care about mainstream comics, let alone DC? No, they do not, or they would've called for a boycott more than 2 decades ago when Identity Crisis marked DC's descent into misogyny. Just why do SJWs like these still want anything to do with DC and Marvel long after they ceased to matter? Mainly because it's unlikely they'd buy the products they demand, if they had their way.

So what comes next? According to the statement, "DCSoWhite will continue as an awareness and advocacy campaign rather than a boycott effort," and that they will encourage fans to preorder comics before FOC (Final Order Cutoff date) at their local comic shops. "Pre-orders are one of the clearest indicators of reader interest and help publishers and retailers determine future investments in characters, titles, and creative teams. We encourage fans to support the books and creators they want to see succeed, particularly those from underrepresented communities."

"The DCSoWhite campaign is not ending. The petition remains active. We will continue to highlight Black creators, promote Black independent comics, document industry trends, and advocate for greater investment in Black characters across mainstream comics."

With that in mind, writer Stephanie Williams (who is nominated for the Eisner Award for Best Writer this year for books like Roots of Madness, Street Sharks, and Temporal) and artist Clayton Henry are working on Wonder Woman #35 and #36 out this July and August, while Absolute Catwoman #1, co-written by Che Grayson, will be hitting stands on June 10. Currently, Green Lantern John Stewart is one of the leads of the Green Lantern Corps ongoing series by writer Morgan Hampton, while Jamal Campbell is nominated for the Eisner Award for Best Writer-Artist with his Zatanna.

This is basically a clone of the #OscarsSoWhite "campaign", which was all about demanding privileges and awards galore without consideration of merit. All the organizers of this comics-based campaign are doing is calling for throwing a lifeline to a company that's long collapsed in terms of merit, and won't improve under the current ownership unless maybe Paramount, as new owner of WB's assets, decides to clean house, make improvements in their properties, DC included, and even do away with much of what the past 2-plus decades have resulted in, which was awful.

It's also no surprise Popverse would devote so much attention to such a trivial issue that's been moot for years, make no effort to call for improved merit and reparations for the DCU, and also fail to acknowledge that DC's attempts at DEI 2 decades ago were a huge failure. Today, most of the characters who were introduced as replacements for 3rd tier white protagonists (the Asian Atom, Black Firestorm and Latino Blue Beetle) have largely disappeared, mainly because they weren't introduced based on merit, which ultimately led to their collapse, yet at this point, the saddest thing is that DC won't restore most of the white protagonists they forced out of their costumes back to their regular statuses, if at all. That's all you need to know they're not emphasizing merit, yet do the organizers of the DCsoWhite campaign care? Not one bit. Nor do they care that even the quality for comics starring white characters has also long collapsed under what Dan DiDio started, and continues with Marie Javins at the helm. That's why this Black Comic Alliance is such a joke. If they were serious, they'd be calling for a boycott of DC/Marvel based on how bad their stories actually are today, and making a case for supporting independents instead. So why do they continue to attach themselves to companies that're no longer run by merit?