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

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

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

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

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

What Green Lantern death did DC retcon?

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

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

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

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

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

2 more crossovers coming from Marvel this year

Marvel simply refuses to cease with the endless flood of company wide crossovers, and IGN in turn refuses to take any kind of objective view of how negatively this affects their now sorely lacking creativity:

Marvel Comics took to the Comics Pro retailer convention to shine a spotlight on two of its biggest 2026 storylines, Avengers: Armageddon and Queen in Black. Both of these crossover events will help to define the ongoing direction of the Marvel Universe in the latter half of 2026.

First up, Avengers: Armageddon is a new limited series from Captain America writer Chip Zdarsky and artists Frank Alpizar and Delio Diaz. Aramageddon is being compared to 2004's Avengers: Disassembled in terms of being a major watershed moment for the Avengers franchise that will completely transform Earth's Mightiest Heroes.

Armageddon builds on the fallout of One World Under Doom and ongoing story threads in Captain America and Wolverine: Weapons of Armageddon. As the world continues to reel from Doctor Doom's brief reign, Red Hulk decides to claim the kingdom of Latveria for himself. That sparks a global conflict that draws in the Avengers, Fantastic Four, and Wolverine.

...Meanwhile, Queen in Black is an event spinning out of the pages of Al Ewing's Venom series. [...]

Yup, a crossover based on the writings of one of the wokest writers of the past decade. And two crossovers is simply 2 too many. That this is being compared to one of the worst productions of Brian Bendis - one that degraded the Scarlet Witch - is telling. No matter how this turns out, it's not worth wasting money upon, and its being developed as a crossover at this point is a most serious problem, because of how as time went by, crossovers served to destroy creative autonomy and stand-alone storytelling. This is one of the main reasons Marvel and DC will never recover from the damage crossovers have resulted in long term, so long as they continue to stick with them so casually.

What Polygon says about the new Wonder Man TV show

Polygon wrote about the new TV program running on Disney Plus based on Wonder Man/Simon Williams, one of the most notable members of the Avengers in decades past, and what they say about his exact history in the following paragraph is rather confusing:

In the comics, however, Wonder Man’s origins are vastly different from his TV counterpart’s. Despite his deep ties to the Avengers, most notably Vision, his footprint in both the comics and the MCU has been surprisingly minimal. Add in his close friendship with Beast and his broader connections to the X-Men, and there’s a lot to unpack when digging into everything you need to know about Marvel’s next installment.

Oh, please. His presence in comicdom was anything but minor, considering he was cast in West Coast Avengers later on. But, if you want an example of where things went wrong with the use of Simon in past Marvel publication, there's the worthless 1991-94 solo series written by the disgraced Gerard Jones, which, like several other comics he wrote, contained dreadful sexual/political allusions, and that was definitely a stain on the character's publication history. With shoddy stories like those around, is it any wonder such an otherwise impressive creation could end up having minimal footprints? And, there's another problematic moment in Marvel history itself dating back nearly 2 decades ago to consider:

Wonder Man isn’t a mutant in the comics, though. But after he had a falling out with The Avengers over the Human Registration Act (the equivalent of the Sokovia Accords in the MCU) during the Civil War crossover event, he became a de facto homie of the X-Men. During Civil War, Simon vowed to never use his powers again and to use his public relations skills more instead.

One of the most insulting to the intellect crossovers ever produced when Joe Quesada was EIC, built on some very terrible premises making the USA look bad just because of a right-wing government being in charge, and they have the gall to sugarcoat that. Let's be clear. I don't think Captain America - or even Wonder Man - should've been written supporting the Human Registration Act, but neither did I want Iron Man to be depicted doing so. Yet they obscured all that for the sake of asking readers whose side they're on, not whether the story had merit, or was lacking. And to think, the crossover was produced for the sake of depicting WM shunning use of his powers? For shame. That was disrespectful to creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. At the article's end, it mentions:

Now that he’s back, still a pacifist, Wonder Man maintains his X-Men ties: He’s developed a strong friendship with the apelike mutant Hank McCoy, aka Beast, whose extroverted personality complements the more introspective Simon. Wonder Man considers Beast his best friend, a friendship that developed during their time as Avengers. The last time we saw Wonder Man in the comics was in Astonishing Avengers Infinity Comic #30 in 2025, but the character has a self-titled limited series expected to debut in Marvel Comics on March 18.

Which I'd advise all to stay away from. And if Simon's still depicted as a "pacifist" according to what Civil War set in motion, that's very bad and sad, and makes a mockery of what the character was created for, much like Captain America, Iron Man, and even the Beast. Assuming the TV miniseries goes more by the original premise of the past century, that's why it'd only be head-shaking if WM's allowed to be portrayed according to what earlier comics writers set up, but back in modern comics, Marvel's staff won't allow it, resulting in an absurd contradiction. Yet it wouldn't be surprising if the TV show did follow what was set up by Civil War, based on where Hollywood's been going for a long time now.

Regardless of that, because of how bad Marvel comics became under Quesada and Axel Alonso, that's one more reason why I'm not up to watching a lot of these live action films and TV shows at this point, because if the films and TV programs portrayed the characters as they originally were, why aren't comics writers willing to or allowed to do the same? The contradictions only make it a joke, but then, the live action films have become pretty woke regardless in the past several years, so it's not like there's much to look forward to now anyway. But to conclude, I will say that Wonder Man/Simon Williams, as a creation of Lee/Kirby, deserves far better, like many other creations major and minor who've been destroyed as storytelling vehicles by political correctness in over a quarter-century. And it won't happen under the current corporate managements and ownerships.

Update: and as noted here, the TV adaptation is little more than DEI propaganda. So clearly, something did go wrong, as expected.

Does Superman really "leave" his own comics that often?

A writer at Comic Book Club Live discusses how the Man of Steel seems to have quite a few moments where he's missing from his own solo comics:

While Superman launched the modern superhero era in Action Comics #1 and has been the hero of that title for almost all of its long run, the Man of Steel actually finds himself displaced — both in Action Comics and in the Superman comics titles more broadly — more often than most other heroes. And we’re gearing up for it to happen again with Reign of the Superboys, a big crossover event in which the various characters known as Superboy — but who aren’t actually Clark Kent — take center stage in a story whose title is lifted from Reign of the Supermen! (itself a story in which the Man of Steel was mostly absent).

To understand why this keeps happening, first, let’s take a look back at other instances when Superman disappeared from his own titles. Action Comics Weekly ran for over 40 issues, from Action Comics #601 through #642. During that time, Superman was no longer the lead feature in Action Comics, which became an oversized anthology featuring characters like Blackhawk, Green Lantern, Arsenal, and Nightwing. The experiment eventually ended and Superman got Action Comics back, leading into the “Triangle Era” of the Superman titles, during which time Action Comics, Superman, and The Adventures of Superman were joined by Superman: The Man of Steel to make a functionally-weekly story.

That wasn’t the last time Superman exited his own titles, though, and while Action Comics Weekly was seemingly an experimental proving ground for characters who didn’t have their own comic, later stories that took the Man of Steel out of his own comics were more narrative-driven.

The most famous example, obviously, was the stories that happened following 1992’s The Death of Superman. It’s also illustrative of why removing Superman from Superman works so well.

Say what? That's about as effective as saying that turning the Man of Steel into a crazy villain works so well. Sorry, but when it happens far too often - and potentially far more often than it does for Batman - then it doesn't work well at all. It only hints the writers don't know what to do with the star of the show, and would rather look for excuses to spotlight other characters in the star's main comics, rather than in their own separate miniseries or even paperback developed and sold on its own merits.

Interesting that Action Comics' weekly run of 42 issues was brought up, because while there were some stories there starring other characters that worked well enough, the Green Lantern stories almost single-handedly ruined everything. That was where GL's descent into horrible storytelling first officially began after his own solo book ended, as the assigned "creators" went miles out of their way to depict Carol Ferris in the Star Sapphire guise murdering Katma Tui, and if they were trying to make a statement about the South Africa republic's problems with racist apardheid at the time, they destroyed everything based on the bizarrely implausible way John Stewart was turned into a scapegoat: he recommends that Hal steal diamonds from a mine in South Africa, which goes against what Hal was written standing for, which is opposition to stealing. And then somehow, John gets blamed. If the whole idea was to comment on racial issues of the times, they totally botched it. And then, the Cosmic Odyssey special from 1989 made things worse by making John guilty of enabling a planetload of people to die. This is why it's actually despicable Action would be turned weekly, if any stories inside were going to be that bad, and alarmingly forced. Especially considering what other horrors awaited the DCU by the turn of the century. So, while stories featuring Nightwing, Black Canary and Deadman were okay, GL stood out as the rock-bottom feature of the lot, and the whole notion Superman would be sidelined for that is addtionally miserable.

That said, the Man of Steel wasn't literally absent from his own foremost book at the time. But based on how badly written GL's feature was by Christopher Priest and even Peter David, that's why it's a shame Action had to go weekly for that.

As for the Death/Return of Superman in 1992-3, what's so "famous" about that? As I've argued before, when the storyline got around to depicting the Toyman murdering Cat Grant's son, that's what really made it tasteless, and it also came at the expense of a crooked character whom I don't recall ever being portrayed as vile as the Joker before. If that's what the Man of Steel's being absented from his own comics for, no wonder quality went way south since. And what's so "narrative-driven" about all that anyway? It's laughable.

Anyway, this new crossover they speak of is decidedly another best avoided, and while it may not be surprising nobody's willing to insist universe-spanning crossovers have to stop, it's certainly disappointing. Superman should definitely not have to be sidelined because assigned writers may not know what kind of stories to give him, and the increased focus on villains has to stop too. It's no substitute for merit-based writing.

What's so special about DC's Kingdom Come that it should be adapted to film?

Geek Vibes Nation wrote a list of at least 5 comics stories they believe "deserve" a movie adaptation, and one of those is Mark Waid's Kingdom Come, the miniseries built upon a dark angle:

Written by Mark Waid with breathtaking painted art by Alex Ross, Kingdom Come is a four-issue miniseries that presents a future where the classic heroes have retired, giving way to a new generation of reckless, violent metahumans with no regard for human life. When tragedy strikes, an aged Superman emerges from exile to restore order, leading to a clash between old ideals and new chaos.

The story explores profound themes like legacy, morality, the role of heroes in society, and the dangers of unchecked power. Iconic moments include Superman’s return in a redesigned suit, epic battles involving the Justice League, Wonder Woman, and even Captain Marvel (Shazam), and a climactic confrontation with a brainwashed Captain Marvel orchestrated by Lex Luthor’s Mankind Liberation Front.

Why it deserves a live-action film: In the current DC Universe reboot under James Gunn, Kingdom Come could serve as a mature, standalone Elseworlds tale or a future-set epic. Its stunning visuals—thanks to Ross’s hyper-realistic style—would translate beautifully to CGI-heavy spectacle, while the generational conflict mirrors real-world debates. Imagine veteran actors portraying older heroes alongside younger stars as the new guard. No full live-action adaptation exists yet, making this a prime candidate for a prestige superhero film that balances action with philosophical depth.

Oh, so Gunn's new takes on the DCU are their excuse? Sorry, this is simply tasteless, and only regurgitates the cliches that set mainstream comicdom on the path to ruin in the 1990s. They don't clearly mention that the story built on the death of Lois Lane, and Superman all but quits the crimefighting business as a result. Seeing how such themes were cliched to death over the past decades, that's why I don't consider the story philosophical, let alone having much depth. Some could even argue the clash with a brainwashed Billy Batson preceded some of Marvel's stories where heroes clash with each other too more than villains. And while I don't deny Ross is a talented artist, the way they describe his style is all to reminiscent of why the medium's been brought down so badly - too much fuss about the supposed need for "realism". Must I point out one of my favorite Marvel books is the 1988-98 Excalibur, which had quite a few surreal moments? Its first half was certainly pretty good in that regard, and I think Alan Davis was a very talented artist with his cartoonish designs back then. Hence, I wish they'd quit implying "realistic" is what makes a fictional story great.

The point is, whether a story is realistic or surrealistic, both will only truly work if there's merit, and it isn't heavy-handed. Stories like Kingdom Come really went out of their way with the darkness, and the damage its done to practically any and all parts of the entertainment industry have long taken a toll, and no telling if the medium will ever move away from it. Also, what makes a story with a premise like Kingdom Come's far more important than a story where say, there's marriage or even a reunion leading to resumption of one? Modern PC has really led to a situation where it's near impossible to write up a plausible marriage premise between men and women, let alone appreciate the idea at all, and it's been setting a very unhealthy example for years now, with no telling if the situation will ever improve. And then we wonder why the Spider-marriage was destroyed. Kingdom Come isn't a good wellspring for a movie at all.

The history of a now 50-year-old specialty store in Santa Cruz

Good Times wrote a whole article about Atlantis Fantasyworld, one of the oldest USA specialty stores, located in Santa Cruz, whose owner Joe Ferrara once knew comics writer Mike Friedrich, and they discussed, in example, how the store's been able to last as long as it has for nearly 5 decades:

Approaching its 50th anniversary, I sat down with owner Joe Ferrara to chronicle how a personal collection grew into a half-century institution—and to understand the quieter values that allowed it to outlast earthquakes, recessions, and the digital revolution while so many brick-and-mortar stores disappeared.

Founded in 1976, Atlantis is stocked with comics, graphic novels, toys, magazines, art books, and collectibles. Its longevity isn’t nostalgia alone.

It’s consistency, care, and an unshakable belief that stories matter.

In that case, I hope he focuses more attention on independent/creator owned products, because after the way DC/Marvel went since the turn of the century with divisive politics and woke directions, it'd be better to lavish some more focus on creator-owned stories and judge which are the best ones for promotion.

According to January 2025 retailer reports, there are between 2,000 and 3,000 specialty comic shops in North America. Even broader business directories count fewer than 4,000 stores nationwide—a figure that includes “hybrids” that act primarily as game centers or tournament venues rather than dedicated comic bookstores. No other California shop matches Atlantis’s nearly 50 years under the same ownership—a true survivor in a landscape where many independents have closed.

To be sure, that's because they relied far too heavily on modern DC/Marvel output, though that's obviously not the only reason any stores could've gone out of business. There's also, as I'm well aware, problems with rent prices going up. Of course, regarding the comics themselves, when divisive politics are shoved into the pages as viciously as they were since the turn of the century, that too is dispiriting.

Ferrara’s love of comics was born from a childhood obsession that initially worried his mother.

“I loved comics as a kid,” he recalls. “My mom complained to the nuns, ‘He only wants to read comics.’ And God bless them, the nuns of the ’50s didn’t say no. They said, ‘Mrs. Ferrara, he’s reading.’”

What could have been brushed aside became literacy, curiosity, and eventually a life’s work. Comics weren’t a phase. They were a language.

That's certainly amazing the Catholic representatives he studied under recognized the medium in itself is valid. It's just the content and suitability level at a young age that's in question. Of course, today that might've changed in ways that aren't for the better, sadly, and in the past decade, it was certainly evident some of the worst forms of censorship were being promoted by leftists who didn't uphold the values of their predecessors.

Ferrara’s passion for comics was reignited in college by his roommate Mike Friedrich, who went on to write for Marvel and DC on titles such as Spider-Man and Batman. By the time Ferrara moved to Santa Cruz in 1976, he’d amassed more than 6,000 comics.

The turning point came during a dinner at his mother’s house.

“My mom, between bites, says, ‘He’ll probably open his own store,’” Ferrara remembers. “Bang. That did it. That was like a tuning fork. My body just started vibrating.”

And it's great he wanted to work as a salesman for the medium. Of course, while I appreciate that he'd owned plenty of back issues at the time, I'd be even happier if he agreed the medium's got to make the shift to formats like paperback/hardcover, because pamphlets have long become too expensive in over 20 years, and the way DC/Marvel rely so heavily upon crossovers has worsened the situation, regardless of whether you have to read all connecting issues to understand the whole. Somebody's got to make clear within sales management itself that this cannot go on, no matter how "clever" they might claim it all is.

Atlantis holds a unique place in Santa Cruz film history as the comic store featured in The Lost Boys. The original location at 707 Pacific Ave. was transformed by director Joel Schumacher’s crew to create the illusion that the shop sat on the Boardwalk. They built a wall in the gutter, placed Laughing Sal in front of it, and shot at an angle that hid the actual street—even removing a tree from the beach in post-production.

Seriously, considering Schumacher was such a wokester in his own way, one who brought the live action Batman films of the times down to shoddy levels, that's why I'm really not impressed to know this. And it's just as troubling to know the following:

The Lost Boys connection runs deeper than souvenirs. DC Comics published a six-issue sequel series, written by Tim Seeley, based on what was supposed to be the next film. Ferrara invited Seeley to the store’s 40th anniversary, where he signed the first two issues. When Seeley went home and finished writing the series, he included a tribute: in the final issue, the vampires kill Joe Ferrara.

“I’m dead in the comics,” Ferrara grins. When Atlantis sells out of those issues, they’re gone—the series is out of print.

In that case, is this miniseries really some massive success? Obviously not, and if I were in Ferrara's position, I'd be repelled that they put me in a horror-thriller setting that awful. That aside, Schumacher was such an overrated director in his time, and his take on any kind of comics, Batman or anything else, did no favors for the medium.

While the global comic book market continues to expand into a multi-billion dollar industry driven by manga and digital access, brick-and-mortar specialty shops like Atlantis navigate distinct pressures. Many diversify with events and tournaments to thrive, but Atlantis has stayed true to its roots as a story-centered bookstore. Its genre-racking and welcoming vibe proves that heartfelt, innovative retail can remain a cultural anchor amid broader industry evolution.

This may be a cliche, but if manga's the big deal, are USA comics by contrast such a success if manga's surpassed them in popularity? That said, it is impressive the specialty store's stuck by its core mission, and not tried to water down the whole purpose they got into the business for. They also bring up a former publisher who proved a letdown in the long run:

Ferrara’s longevity has earned him deep respect across the industry. Paul Levitz, who spent 47 years at DC Comics and served as its president from 2002 to 2009, calls Ferrara a pioneer. Levitz played a central role in shaping modern comics publishing, helping hire influential creators like Alan Moore and building the Direct Market system that made independent comic bookshops financially viable in the first place.

“Joe Ferrara has been a stellar example of the independent comic shop owner almost from the beginning of comic shops in America,” Levitz says. “He’s led the recognition of successful shops, and been a gentle godfather to the growth of our industry.”

And Levitz became a huge disappointment over time, to the point where I seriously doubt he ever got into the business because he cared about the creations he got assignments to write.

Industry admiration has also taken formal shape. Atlantis Fantasyworld won the Eisner Award for Best Comic Shop in 1996, one of the highest honors in comics retail. The award was created by Will Eisner, widely regarded as the father of the graphic novel, to encourage professionalism and elevate standards across the industry.

“His intention was that comic book retailers would become more professional,” Ferrara says. “Not just being like, you know, indoor flea market guys.”

Well I'm not sure if all became as professional as Eisner must've hoped, nor did standards improve, based on where they've gotten to now. At this point, it's much more likely they could turn against him for publishing his last GN, The Plot. And the Eisner awards, IIRC, even ended up going to comics that didn't deserve it, like Identity Crisis, and there were other troubling choices made by the panel of judges for the ceremony. That the Eisner awards went down in quality is, predictably, not dwelled upon here. The writer even made the mistake of referencing a now disgraced author who did no favors for the medium in the long run:

Beyond comics, Ferrara’s long-standing advocacy for prostate cancer awareness earned him the Bob Clampett Humanitarian Award, which honors individuals who have contributed to the comics community and public good beyond business success. Past recipients include science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, writer Neil Gaiman, and Jeannie Schulz, who has overseen and protected the legacy of her late husband, Peanuts creator Charles M. Schulz.

Did they have to put somebody whose reputation and career have since plummeted due to the sexual assault allegations against him into this article? I do wonder if Ferrara's store and other business associates ever had figures like Mike Baron and Chuck Dixon as recipients? If not, that's decidedly a flaw.

Inspired by how breast cancer awareness made pink a universal symbol of solidarity, Ferrara worked to bring the same visibility to prostate cancer through the color blue. He convinced Marvel to create special blue-themed variant covers for awareness campaigns—an industry first that amplified life-saving messages nationwide. IDW Publishing followed suit, running ads inside their comics. This pioneering advocacy solidified blue as the cause’s symbol within the medium. At Comic-Con, Bob Clampett’s daughter Ruth presented Ferrara with the award that bears her father’s name.

While the subject of cancer is a valid concern, what good does it do to promote awareness through variant covers, which has made a joke out of the mainstream in particular, since it only obscured how the stories became monumentally awful? Anybody who's going to push variant covers at the expense of the interiors is undermining the belief in need for merit.

The staff reflects the shop’s ethos: everyone belongs here. Atlantis has always been a place where all are welcome—no gatekeeping, no judgment, just a shared love of stories.

“If you hire the right people, you don’t have to worry,” Joe says. “They care.”

Well I sure hope they don't take a naive view of certain ideologies, including how communism's made such a troubling presence in USA society these days. I think it's great Ferrara's been able to keep the store running as successfully as he has for 50 years, but when the talk of variant covers comes up, that can be a telling clue something's wrong with the approach, and when they don't discuss any seriously challenging issues involved, that only dampens the impact of the article, along with what the store's meant to be about. Retail specialists need to consider that if they want anything to improve, they certainly can't overlook what went wrong with the mainstream.

Artist Ben Harvey believes drawing covers for One World Under Doom was actually getting somewhere

The Chesnut Hill Local spoke with artist Ben Harvey, another artist who may do more work with covers than anything else, and he's one of those kind of sugarcoaters who won't admit he's working on an overrated crossover that does no favors for the previous stories of the past:

Ben Harvey was busy when Marvel reached out to him to create covers for the “One World Under Doom” comic books a little over a year ago. Working on multiple other projects at the time, the illustrator politely declined the opportunity. However, when Marvel insisted they could work around his schedule, Harvey relented. He is glad he did.

“I had no idea what I was getting into,” Harvey told the Local about the project. “It wound up being this huge event,” a multi-issue storyline with large ramifications for the comic book’s universe.

According to Harvey, “One World Under Doom” has gone to its third printing, an accomplishment that indicates just how popular the comic books are. With issue No. 9 — the final one in the 2025 event — releasing on Nov. 19, Harvey will be celebrating the release at Multiverse (8026 Germantown Ave.) in Chestnut Hill on Nov. 22 from 1-3 p.m. He will be signing comics, and the first 30 attendees to purchase the “One World Under Doom” comic also will receive a free Ben Harvey print.

Forget it, these crossover events have become so insulting, it would be meaningless to own a print that pretentious. Again, sales figures aren't given here, so one must reasonably wonder if the company's wasting money trying to make it look like everything's dandy. We're supposed to waste money on this shoddy item built on the concept of crossovers, which eventually ruined mainstream superhero comics? That kind of stuff has also made it nigh impossible to develop stand-alone stories that could be built on character drama, but apparently, none of that matters to an artist who's clearly only in the business for drawing coverscans.

In addition to Marvel, Harvey has worked with multiple prestigious publishing houses such as DC Comics, Dynamite Entertainment, and Valiant Entertainment. Outside of the world of comic books, he also has provided illustrations for Wizards of the Coast’s Magic the Gathering x Marvel crossover and partnered with Epic Games to produce loading screens for the popular video game Fortnite.

Harvey said these high points of his career so far have typically been unanticipated.

“I guess you could say I’m just happy to be here,” Harvey said. “I never realized going into this [industry] I would be able to reach such successes with my work.”

With “One World Under Doom,” the work has not just ended in success, but also provided Harvey with “solid job training.”

“Throughout this whole ride with Marvel, as you do more and more of these covers for them, it’s a learning process,” Harvey said. “Looking at that first cover, issue No. 1 all the way out to No. 9, I feel like I’ve grown a foot between all that.”

And once more, what are the sales figures for this shoddy crossover that had its share of political metaphors? Harvey's just as dismaying as various other artists who've sugarcoated these overrated events intended only for short-term headlines, and what's to learn from participating in a story with tasteless political motivations? That's hardly "solid" training, and if he's going to keep propping up the company despite all the bad directions they sunk into, that's one of the ways things have gone wrong with modern comicdom. No doubt, Harvey also takes a naive, fluff-coated view of DC and Valiant/Dynamite, even though they too have their share of ill-advised directions they won't take responsibility for. I've seen some of his art, which appears to be more of the computerized variety, though what's really sad is how he wastes his talents on unproductive crossovers like One World Under Doom. Something which'll only be forgotten by next year, and will have accomplished nothing lasting, contrary to what Harvey wants everyone to think.

A columnist who was convinced to try modern comics because of woke Jason Aaron

A writer at Popverse claims he was encouraged to read more modern mainstream because of Marvel's "War of the Realms" crossover that Jason Aaron, one of the wokest writers in modern comicdom, was involved in producing. And, he belittles the complaints of the traditional fanbase that was driven away:

Today, the spectral form hovering above every conversation about the current state of the comic book industry is the amorphous group called 'new readers.' These 'new readers' are used to drive a wedge between Western comic book readership (which, in many conversations I've observed, tends to get flattened down to superhero books from Marvel and DC) and the popularity of manga, manhua, and manhwa from East Asia. The cynical narrative goes that the history of in-universe continuity reboots in both Marvel and DC Comics has driven away 'new readers,' who are reportedly too intimidated to take the plunge.

Ahem. It's not just that now routine reboots are dispiriting. It's also that moral and common sense were thrown away, and only so many characters from both universes had their personalities turned inside out for no good reason. All this, along with the very events the writer is sugarcoating, are what discouraged fandom from continuing, and he has the gall to call it "cynical", but not the writing of woke scribes like Aaron.

Suffice to say, I've never really agreed with this narrative, and I have writer Jason Aaron to thank for that. At Fan Expo Canada 2025, Aaron talked about the approach he takes as a writer to ensure that his books remain both exciting to returning comic book fans while "accessible" to newbies.

"I want every book I write to be accessible to somebody who's never read this character before, whether that's when I was doing Thor, doing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles," says Aaron. "For me as a writer, you always have to show your work. I can't expect that any of you kind of show up to the party already invested in these characters... When I'm writing the book, I have to think of it as you've been stuck in a bunker for 40 years, and you've never heard of these characters before, and you just came out and the first thing that happens is for some reason somebody hands you this first issue of this comic, you need to get everything to get you excited about these characters in the pages of that book."

When I heard Jason Aaron say this, my hackles were raised, because I have him to thank for how I got into present-day Marvel Comics. Without getting too bogged down in my origin story as a comic book reader, I was that reader who was stuck in a bunker for 40 years - and that bunker was Walt Simonson's run on Thor (as far as bunkers go, it was luxurious). It wasn't until I was a college student that I finally had the money to get into comics, so I bought an omnibus of Simonson's Thor with funds from a research fellowship I was in. I later branched out and got into G. Willow Wilson's Ms. Marvel and then Greg Pak and Frank Cho's Totally Awesome Hulk, but I didn't go much further than that. I was overwhelmed by the state of contemporary Marvel Comics and the endless aisles of the white and red trade paperback dress that lined the shelves of Forbidden Planet - until I picked up War of the Realms by Jason Aaron and Russell Dauterman in 2019.

Wow, one of the biggest advocates of social justice pandering is who convinced him to read Marvel's modern output? Well, it's really no shock at all. These modern news writers don't have what it takes to appreciate older stories, let alone encourage audiences to buy and read them to see what stands or falls on its own merits, and figure out how to develop stories in a modern context that can actually resonate. Interesting he also considered other social justice advocates like Wilson and Pak scribes whose works were worth reading, but not figures like Mike Baron or Chuck Dixon, or even liberals who were blacklisted by the Big Two because they weren't considered PC enough, like Larry Hama. I'm sure the citation of such writers and artists as Aaron, Wilson and Pak was no accident. It's insulting to say Simonson's Thor run is the equivalent of being "stuck in a bunker" if it's entertaining, and how is sticking with leftist PC nonsense of modern times not being "stuck in a bunker"?

Another odd thing about this puff piece is that it almost sounds like Thor was the only Marvel comic he ever read years ago. It's enough to wonder if he really is a Marvel fan, or he'd be chatting about how even early Golden Age output was far better than what we see today. He continues:

Marvel's War of the Realms was a perfect introduction for me to the larger Marvel Universe

At the time, War of the Realms was Marvel's most recent company-wide event, and I had been following Marvel's promotion of the event on social media closely because I could tell that it was a Thor-centric event. I saw the cover for War of th[e] Realms #3 and noticed that Spider-Man was wearing what appeared to be a winter hat while hiding from Frost Giants with Luke Cage, Captain America, Iron Fist, and Wolverine, and that won me over. Why did Spider-Man have a hat on his head? Is Thor going to be okay? Can he let Luke Cage keep Mjolnir, please?

Oh for heaven's sake, this is just so dumb, right down to how every other character is depicted lifting the Uru hammer as much as Thor himself. And despite any attempt the columnist might make to sound like the contrary, it doesn't actually focus convincingly on story merit.

War of the Realms was my ticket back to present-day Marvel, and I devoured the trade paperback in one sitting on the bus in Los Angeles. Obviously, I was a big fan of Thor, and the fact that War of the Realms featured Malekith as the villain was a perfect jumping-on point for me from Simonson's Thor. Dauterman drew Malekith with the type of enthusiasm that the character deserves (is Malekith the reason why I always play as a drow in Dungeons & Dragons? More on this at 10). I didn't know all the characters in the story, but that was okay - the action was so exciting that I was motivated to learn more about who they were.

Please, do tell us about it. Somehow, it's hard to believe one could actually read a whole trade collection that easily on a bus too without getting carsick. In any case, if he only got into the crossover because Malekith the Dark Elf was featured, I'm sorry, but that's not a reason. Yet at the same time, I think he's exaggerating the action factor deliberately, and again, he's given clues this is about anything but merit.

Even though I hadn't yet read Aaron's run on Thor that led up to War of the Realms, it was easy for me to immerse myself in the story because the premise is simple: Malekith wants to make everything cold. He always does! Then there were jaw-dropping moments peppered in the event, like Daredevil wielding Heimdall's sword and becoming the God Without Fear, that had me hooked. I got the sense that if War of the Realms was only the tip of the iceberg for this era of Marvel Comics, then there was plenty of stuff for me to enjoy.

This too is hopelessly silly. If all he really cared about was seeing other heroes besides Thor brandish weapons belonging to the Norse deities, then it sounds awfully superficial, and any discussion of merit becomes all the more ambiguous. Most of what he brings up are just cheap attempts to have every possible character take on certain "characteristics" of other Marvel cast members, and these alone don't add up to anything meaningful. Even Spider-Man's black symbiote costume during Secret Wars had more meaning than this.

And then the rest is history. I jumped into the Krakoan era of X-Men comics, ascended into a realm of my own from Chip Zdarsky and Marco Checchetto's Daredevil run, and became obsessed with this character called Swordmaster while fully knowing that I was probably the only Swordmaster fan in America. And look where we are now: Lin Lie is the face of Iron Fist for a new generation of Marvel fans.

Thank you, Jason Aaron and Russell Dauterman, for freeing me from my bunker.

I guess he has no thanks to offer to independent creators by contrast. There's a lot of these phonies who can only seem to get as far as the mainstream, and never give the independents any love. And how about that, he even considers a diversity pandering replacement for Danny Rand a big deal. That says all you need to know right there what he really thinks of the creations of more talented veterans like Roy Thomas. Though Rand may still be around, the way they're handling him now is no improvement. It's also laughable how the writers keep resorting to alliterative names for new characters. Just because Stan Lee made use of the idea doesn't make their employment of it as good. Mainly because Lee made his stories more entertaining than theirs will ever be. And I've got a feeling the columnist wouldn't be interested or impressed if there were romantic tales explored in these stories, old or new.

In the end, it only sounds like another attempt to sugarcoat how awful mainstream superhero fare become in the past 2 decades, and the continued fluff-coating of modern comicdom is all that's gone wrong with how it's spoken about. The obsession with forced politics in these stories is another awful mistake that was made. If they're not willing to write nice long essays about older items and why they matter more, they definitely fail to convince they're actually Marvel/DC fans.

Collider thinks cinematic Peter Parker should be jettisoned for sake of woke casting

Collider wrote a sugarcoated and utterly insulting article about why they believe the most recent cinematic take on Spider-Man should be sent to the grave, and the social justice pandering creations first seen in the tail end of the Ultimate line take his place:

From the very get-go, it should be stated that no one is saying Tom Holland's Spider-Man needs to bite the bullet in Spider-Man: Brand New Day or by the end of Avengers: Secret Wars. By the end of his next trilogy in many years, however, it honestly only makes sense that he meet his heroic end, based on a lot of factors. Not only would it be a great set-up to introduce Miles Morales, but Peter Parker's storyline has always been about sacrifice, so it makes perfect narrative sense.

There is no secret that one of the most impactful Spider-Man comic book stories is the iconic "Death of Spider-Man" from Ultimate Spider-Man (2009). Spider-Man is Marvel Comics' bread and butter, so to kill him—truly kill him for good—would be a huge and incredibly bold move. The confidence it takes to do something like that is huge. Unlike comic books, however, the Marvel Cinematic Universe cannot last forever, and adapting "Death of Spider-Man" is most likely the best route to go.

This is something only somebody who's not a Marvel fan could possibly write. And why do they think the comics could last forever? They certainly haven't survived artistically, and the Spider-marriage may never be brought back. I can't believe how stupid these entertainment sites can be, and they clearly don't care that the biggest problem with the introduction of Morales is that he was an early example of social justice/diversity pandering, without any interest in emphasizing merit. He was also a creation of the aforementioned Brian Bendis, who's regrettably returning to Marvel and the Avengers soon, about a dozen years since he'd last written the title, and based on the bad job he did with Avengers: Disassembled and the equally pointless House of M, that's why the whole notion he's improved is unlikely. He was possibly the first writer Marvel employed at the time who helped them mandate that all stories be at least 5-6 parts long, even if it led to padding out the stories implausibly. And that C.B. Cebulski would be willing to rehire Bendis is just another example of how Cebulski turned out in the long run to be as bad for Marvel as Quesada/Jemas/Alonso.

Collider must realize, even as they don't genuinely admit it, that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is collapsing artistically, but if they really wanted improvements made, they wouldn't have recommended Disney fall back on the woke pandering. Rather, they'd have insisted the studio make improvements to the screenplay and acting/directing. Instead, they only perpetuate the tabloid direction only so many entertainment sites have taken up for years already, even as Hollywood continues collapsing.

Popverse fluff-coats the history of the awful Avengers: Disassembled

Popverse wrote a brief sugarcoated item about how the overrated Brian Michael Bendis got the assignment to write Avengers: Disassembled, which is being alluded to as part of Marvel's next crossover to avoid:

The mention of Avengers: Disassembled in the announcement of 2026 Marvel Comics storyline Armageddon is something that might worry fans of certain superheroes, given the death toll of that earlier 2004 storyline. Turns out that killing off so many heroes — and so many high-profile Marvel characters, at that — wasn’t necessarily writer Brian Michael Bendis’s original plan.

Unfortunately, that he went along with everything as planned, entirely unquestioned, speaks volumes as to how much value he really placed on any of the characters who were subject to such loathsome abuse.

For those who weren’t reading comics in 2004, Avengers: Disassembled was a four-part storyline in which the Avengers have what Bendis described as “the worst day in Avengers’ history” — a day that results in the destruction of longtime HQ Avengers Mansion, the deaths of members Jack of Hearts, Ant Man, The Vision, and Hawkeye, and the discovery that the Scarlet Witch’s mental instability led to her making all of this happen (albeit unknowingly). The storyline ends with the team disbanding.

Don’t worry; a new Avengers formed a couple of months later, in a comic book series sensibly titled The New Avengers. In fact, The New Avengers had been the point all along, with Avengers: Disassembled created as a bridge between the Avengers of old and the new all-star team that included Spider-Man, Wolverine, and other best-selling characters intended to raise the profile of the team. The storyline was pulled together quickly, and intended to have a big impact to get fans’ attention — but even the writer of the comic was surprised how far Marvel was willing to go to make that happen.

I think it was established 8 years later that Dr. Doom may have been behind Wanda's neo-insanity. But it was 8 years too late, and look how the columnist has no complaints over how Spidey and Wolvie were chosen in such a way as to symbolize that the new team was comprised of members who weren't exactly the kind intended for combating the most larger than life villains the Avengers could face in the past, though worst is that these were hilariously cheap selections, shoehorned into Avengers at the expense of established members, Scarlet Witch included. There were stories in the past where Spidey came to the aid of characters like Scarlet Witch, and to think that here, instead of teaming them together in the same group, they wanted to kick Wanda to the curb for Spidey and Wolvie's sake.

What they say about Marvel seeking attention at all costs was also what led to the even more offensive Identity Crisis at DC, and nobody complains about how common sense was sacrified for the sake of scriptwriting that was offensive to women. Nor are any questions asked as to whether it was appropriate to alienate longtime fans, not to mention people who find misogyny repellent. It's absolutely disgusting, and both Marvel and DC have suffered from it since. Now, here's a part where Bendis indicates he never had any qualms about killing any characters the editors would greenlight for the grave:

“I was sitting there cooking my moments and instead of pitching a bunch of deaths, I go, ‘Can I have a list [of characters I can kill]?’ And they came back to me with a list that shocked the shit out of me. I would never have asked for The Vision. Hawkeye shocked me,” Bendis revealed in SKTCHD’s 2024 oral history of Avengers: Disassembled. “These were not asks. They were offers.”

“There wasn’t any debate over [killing] Ant-Man or Jack of Hearts any of those guys for the most part. Even The Vision. They’re not going to be in the new book. They have to go somewhere,” added editor Tom Brevoort. “So, the place that they’re going is potter’s field, and that means it’s explosive. Not to be gauche about it, but obviously death in comics sells. People turn up when superheroes go belly up. And so, the idea that they kill off a bunch of these characters was exciting.”

As a way of grabbing attention, it worked; Disassembled was the start of a significant sales renaissance for the Avengers as a franchise, catapulting the team back into the collective attention of fandom in a way it hadn’t been in decades. All of which should make fans of current day Marvel superheroes a little bit nervous — especially given that there’s now a Macguffin in the Marvel Universe to create new versions of old heroes pretty easily…

This is head-shakingly stupid too, mainly because no sales figures are presented. And to sell comics based on characters getting slaughtered is horrific and offensive, but do these overrated writers care? Even now, when what's alleged has mostly waned - mainly because the audiences were driven away - it's unlikely they'll ever admit death for the sake of it is repellent. Unfortunately, the seeds for this mentality were laid out long ago, with Gwen Stacy's death at the hands of the Green Goblin one of the beginners, and DC's killing off Supergirl, no matter how heroically she was portrayed in Crisis on Infinite Earths notwithstanding, another horrid prominent example. All because the writers either don't know what to do with the characters, or they believe everybody's that fine with casually killing off characters and never cared about the designated targets in the first place. Or worst, because they believe the audience is all that desensitized to violence. I've had the feeling DC's management was even more lacking in confidence in past decades, and it got worse when Identity Crisis came about, minimizing serious issues like sexual assault as it did during the same year Disassembled came out.

I looked at what's available from SKTCHD's interview from last year, and a problem with their MO is that they employ a paywall for a lot of articles, so I can't tell if anything was brought up about Scarlet Witch. But I wouldn't be shocked if anything that does come up is pretty sleazy. For now, I guess I'll highlight some examples of what is available, and they do offer a surprisingly large amount regardless that's quite sugarcoated, to say nothing short of disgusting. For example:

One of the most notable examples of this from the history of superhero comics was published 20 years ago. It was a four issue storyline that featured everything you could imagine from this type of tale. An endless onslaught of villains! A million guest stars! The destruction of an iconic location! Character deaths! A long-standing hero breaking bad! You name it, this comic had it. More than that, it led to a complete status quo change for the franchise it belonged to, helping turn what was already a big moment into something more.

[...] While it was polarizing upon its release, [Personal take: I find it to be an exciting superhero blockbuster.] it led to one of the most creatively fertile and commercially successful periods the franchise has ever seen, starting with Bendis and Finch’s New Avengers #1 that came in its wake. More than that, it was the beginning of one of the most prolific partnerships in Marvel’s modern era, with Bendis and Editor Tom Brevoort’s collaboration helping define an uncommonly strong period for the publisher.

Whatever your opinion of it is, Avengers Disassembled was a massive story. In the events that transpired in its pages. In the conversation surrounding it. In the impact it had down the line. And with its 20th anniversary [Avengers #500 kicked off the storyline with an issue that arrived on July 28th, 2004.] and another of those moments of transition nearly upon us, [One that even shares a key player from this story in Brevoort.] it felt like the right time to revisit Avengers Disassembled and how it came to be.

No matter what the interviewer says, this is insulting the fandom, and perpetuates examples of apologia that're prevalent from then till now. I'm not buying the notion the interviewer's actually an Avengers fan, an X-Men fan, or even a Spider-Man fan. There's no sales figures given here either, and worst is how the interviewer dismisses any questions of merit and morality for the sake of selling at all costs. Something that continues to this day, and nobody's willing to admit sales are dismal. Again, where does he get off lecturing us that Disassembled is "massive" and literally got everybody to buy it month after month simply because it killed characters and gave Wanda a fate worse than death? This is nothing more than tabloid nonsense.

Tom Brevoort (Editor of Avengers Disassembled and New Avengers): When we get to this period, [This was around 2003.] Avengers was not a top 10 seller. But it still sold respectably, and it still carried its weight as an upper midlist title. It had good talent on it, and it was generally well regarded. It just wasn’t as fresh and exciting as what was going on in the Ultimate line.

Brian Michael Bendis (Writer of Avengers Disassembled and New Avengers): (The Avengers) were doing absolutely fine.

Brevoort: Geoff (Johns) had signed an exclusive deal with DC, so we had to replace the writer on Avengers. And this was in the middle of the days when (then-Marvel President) Bill Jemas was at his craziest, so I needed to cast somebody that I could get Bill and (then-Marvel Editor-in-Chief) Joe (Quesada) to approve.

So, we ended up with Chuck (Austen).

Austen’s first issue was January 2004’s Avengers #77, and his run was troubled from the start. As Brevoort said, “almost every story he did wasn’t really the story he originally pitched by the time it got to the page.” The demands of leadership and Marvel’s own universe resulted in necessary adjustments, something that made delivering a quality title a tricky proposition. They still had big plans, though, as Brevoort, Austen, and artists Olivier Coipel and Scott Kolins knew they were on their way to a big anniversary issue in Avengers #500, which was set to arrive later that year. The team was already well into plans for that — and more.

If this was supposed to be a justification for where they went with Bendis' story, it's just as reprehensible as what DC did to the 2nd Green Lantern, Hal Jordan, during Emerald Twilight. Interesting how Brevoort uses the Ultimates, one of the crudest alternate world takes on a Marvel title, as an excuse for where they went with Bendis' shoddy story in Disassembled. How interesting "quality" comes up here, when the finished product was nothing of the sort, and no challenging queries are raised in that context. Yet interesting they bring up Austen, because he was a writer whom some PC advocates were only willing to admit was bad based on how, leftist or not, he didn't meet their standards. This also reminds me of when the disgraced Gerard Jones was writing Green Lantern during 1990-93, and then, simply because he screwed up horribly, that somehow justified Emerald Twilight. It sounds vaguely like the same thinking affected where things went with Avengers too.

Amidst all this, Marvel was going through a bit of a transition, as well. Its focus wasn’t even on its original line of comics but the Ultimate line, a parallel universe that had its own Avengers in Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch’s The Ultimates. Ultimate Marvel was a major point of emphasis for Jemas and Quesada, creating a situation where the “classic Marvel universe” material wasn’t “well-supported” in the moment, according to Brevoort. That was the way things were. But shortly before this story truly begins, there was a change in leadership. Jemas was out and Dan Buckley was in as the new publisher of Marvel. This was big for two reasons, one of which was Brevoort’s own health. He had an “incredibly contentious” relationship with Jemas.

Brevoort: He and I did not see eye to eye and did not get along. My job was not fun at all, to the point I would be thinking to myself on a daily basis, “Is today going to be the day that I’m just going to blow a gasket and keel over, or is today going to be the day that I hurl him down an elevator shaft?”

One of these two things is going to happen eventually.

The other reason it was important was it created an opportunity for the original line of Marvel comics to retake its place in the hierarchy, if only because of where Buckley’s interest lied.

Bendis: The Ultimate line took off in a way that was beyond what anyone was hoping for.

Brevoort: The Ultimate Universe was the new hotness for a couple of years.

Gee, that hints it was wearing thin and turning stale sooner than expected. Mark Millar's take was shameful, right down to how he treated the alternate world Wasp, and to think they'd go the sleazy route in order to compete with his book is atrocious. Including how Tigra was treated. It's certainly surprising to learn Brevoort wasn't comfy with Jemas, yet even after the latter left Marvel, any destructive approach Jemas put to use remained, and Brevoort contributed to much of it over the years that followed, including how, by this time, a lot of the stories he edited emphasized heroes fighting themselves. And when they turn to a storyboard meeting that preceded the official writing, they say that:

Brevoort: The conversation came around to Avengers and it went hot and heavy fast. And the reason it went hot and heavy fast as much as anything was Mark (Millar) and Brian were both there.

Bendis: Mark and I both had strong takes on what team books are and what they should be.

Brevoort: What Mark said essentially was, “When I was a kid growing up, I would buy Justice League of America. The reason I would buy Justice League of America is I would get all the best superheroes in one story. Why is it that the Avengers doesn’t have all the best guys in it?” And this became the conversation that dominated this setup.

Bendis: My bugaboo from when I was a kid was, “Why aren’t Spider-Man and Wolverine on the Avengers? Why aren’t the Avengers the six coolest people in the Marvel Universe?”

And here too is a serious flaw: they're going according to whom they consider their "favorites" (and considering where they went with Avengers, even that's questionable), not by the entertainment value in the finished product. And most of the writers of the past century didn't cast new team members at the expense of the core members. So what's the point? I'm not surprised Millar had no issue with where they were going, since it's not like he was respecting the same characters in his own alternate dimension title. The discussion continues with the following:

Brevoort: Most of my arguments about things like why Spider-Man and Wolverine shouldn’t be in the Avengers had less to do with the Avengers and more to do with Wolverine and Spider-Man. Part of the thing that makes Spider-Man work is he has problems balancing his superhero life and his real life, and those problems typically involve money woes, difficulties being in multiple places at the same time, and the impact that being a superhero has on his relationships. So many of those problems just go away if he’s got the Avengers as his buddies on speed dial.

Bendis: I remember the argument was, “Spider-Man’s not an Avenger.” That was the desk-pounding moment. And I was like, “Yeah, that sounds like a good story about why Spider-Man’s not an Avenger, or why Spider-Man is graduating to be an Avenger.” It just sounded like a good story to me. That was my argument. And if it’s only for a year and it didn’t work…even that’s interesting.

Brevoort: By the end of the day. I walked out of that meeting being like, “This again,” because I’d been through things like this with (Jemas) a lot. I came out of that evening going, “I don’t know what the hell I’m going to do now. This is another kick in the teeth.” But after having the night to kind of settle myself, the thing that made (it better) was, “Okay, Mark is pitching this. Mark is going to write this book. I know Mark. I can work with Mark. This will be fine. I’ll go in, and me and Millar, we’ll be able to do this, and we’ll figure it out.”

Interesting how Millar's backing for the direction persuaded Brevoort to go along. Additionally interesting how Mary Jane Watson isn't brought up, but then, if Axel Alonso was fine with One More Day, it shouldn't be surprising if Brevoort was too. Some of his arguments, however, could just as easily be made about Iron Man and Thor as well, based on what relationships were to be seen in their solo titles. Putting Spidey in a team title isn't the problem, it's just how plausible it is or isn't that's the problem. There were times when Spidey appeared in Avengers, and that itself was okay, but it wasn't based on recognition, but how good a story could be built around him. The same could be said for Wolverine, based on whether a plausible scenario could be written up about whether Capt. America approved of his claws. And if the Black Knight was a member before, blades alone aren't a problem, just the writing merit, or lack thereof.

The promise of New Avengers was why Avengers Disassembled existed at all. It was the path to a new era for a new team. How Bendis got to this squad of A-listers was up to him, Brevoort, and everyone else. What mattered most to the room was the destination. Everyone viewed it as one with great potential — even Brevoort.

Brevoort: As much as I argued, and I certainly was defending my existing creative team and defending my ego and pride, I always knew New Avengers would work. If you put Spider-Man, Wolverine, and the big characters in Avengers, that’s going to work. It was less about that and more about, “You’re trashing this thing that I’ve just been building with this other team and we’re treating them not terribly well.” That as much as anything was the concern.

And here's where Brevoort contradicts any previous argument he may have had that he didn't think it a good idea to put Spidey and Wolvie in the Avengers. Yet how hilarious he claims he'd worried they were deconstructing what he'd built up with previous writers, because on the one hand, he went along with Bendis' cheap vision, and on the other, the writing turned out by the aforementioned Johns was awful, as was Austen's. Kurt Busiek's Avengers run was the last palatable run on the series to date, and it's a shame he's such a leftist wokester. That said, I will say that if Brevoort and company deconstructed the best parts of Busiek's run, that's why it's such a sad affair.

This is about what I could get from what the site didn't put behind a paywall, but one more thing I will add here is what a commentor replied:

I can say, without hesitation, that I was one of the readers Disassembled drove away. It remains (and will remain) a gap in my collection and mind, along with everything else Bendis ever wrote for the Avengers. I appreciate that he and Tom can look back at the warts (some of them), but not enough was made of how odious Bendis was online, including a CBR interview I can unfortunately no longer find where he said that long time readers were just mad that he wasn’t doing “Roy Thomas” type stories and that he could write you “as Roy Thomas-y of a story as you want.” I’ve never forgotten that.

Bendis is no Thomas, nor did he ever turn out a story as good as what Thomas did, though if there's a shortcoming Thomas' writing may have had, it's that he wasn't all that different from some other writers of the times who chose to pair up superheroes and superheroines with each other, rather than developing civilian co-stars who could be paired up with the costumed characters. Now that I think of it, did Scarlet Witch ever have a civilian boyfriend? I do own a lot of Avengers stories in Epic Collection archives now, so I'll have to find the time to read as many of those as possible to make sure I know the exact answer, but if Wanda was never paired up with a mortal man on a long or short basis, that's got to be saying something.

Anyway, it's sad but no surprise how these apologists for Marvel/DC continue to fluff-coat their worst output since the turn of the century, and with people like them still running the department store, that's why even Avengers will never recover, nor will team titles see any talented writing.

Captain America kicked to the curb for sake of Dani Moonstar

This may be a storyline set in an alternate future, but according to this Superhero Hype/Yahoo article, another leftist political metaphor has been turned out by Marvel:

Thus far, the Marvel Comics event Age of Revelation has been largely focused on the X-Men. However, with the United States partially conquered by Mutant separatists, one natural question is what happened to Captain America in this future. The answer lies in a new miniseries, which reveals one Mutant hero has taken up Steve Rogers‘ shield and the task of leading The Avengers.

Written by Jason Loo, with art by Sergio Davila, X-Vengers #1 centers around a new team in the Age of Revelation. As the name suggests, it is made up of former Avengers and X-Men. However, the team line-up is not the only thing that has changed.

All of the Avengers turned X-Vengers were mutated by the X-Virus, which bestows superpowers on those who survive the initial infection. Hawkeye, for instance, grew four extra arms, while Black Widow became a woman made of living water. Steve Rogers, sadly, died in the aftermath of the X-Virus release. However, before he died, he passed on his shield and title to a hero he saw as a worthy successor.

Who is the new Captain America leading the future Avengers?

A flashback reveals that Steve Rogers gave the title of Captain America to former X-Men member Dani Moonstar, aka Mirage. Apparently Moonstar was the only hero present when he made his last stand. Despite this, nobody among the Avengers doubted her word when she said Steve Rogers gave her his shield.

Unfortunately, some Americans were less accepting of Moonstar’s taking the mantle than the former Avengers. However, following an altercation at a memorial for the victims of the X-Virus, the rest of the team are quick to assure her that she is doing Steve Rogers proud. Not only in leading the team in battle but also in giving inspirational speeches whenever one is needed.

Previously, when Steve was marginalized as part of woke diversity pandering, it was for the sake of putting a black man in the Cap costume, despite Sam Wilson have flight powers and going by the codename Falcon. Now, after it became clear that wasn't working, so they concoct a story where a woman takes up Cap's mantle. This despite how even Moonstar's powers are hardly a good fit for how Kirby and Simon created Cap for in the Golden Age, which was an acrobatic fighter, but hardly somebody with more elaborate superpowers like Dani's or Falcon's. And then, they make "some" Americans look like they're hostile to the whole idea of a women or an Indian descendant taking up the role, and the writers continue to obscure pressing issues in real life that could make far better metaphors than this.

ComicBook also sugarcoated the story, and exploited it for the sake of making the USA look totally evil in how it approached Indian inhabitants:

Over the years, we’ve gotten numerous Captain Americas, but there’s something about Dani Moonstar that just feels right in the role. To begin with, she’s Cheyenne, which makes her more American than basically anyone else who has used the shield. The United States’ history with the various Native tribes is monstrous, despite them just wanting to live their lives the way they always had. Giving a Native the shield is something very special, and Dani is the perfect person for it.

This of course ignores that even Indian citizens of the past didn't have a clean record when it came to issues like slavery, and what proof do they have that the USA was inherently evil towards the Indian inhabitants? Wasn't the Dakota War of 1862 a disturbing moment begun by Indian tribes like the Sioux? Sure, there were other tribes like the Apache who may have been decent, if not perfect, but none were saints any more than the white descendants of Europe who populated north America.

Dani has always been a great hero, but has never really been allowed to grow to the level she should be at. This is a common problem with the New Mutants. Nearly every member of that team has basically stayed static for years, despite the best of them being some of the coolest mutants around. Dani was always positioned as the best member of the team, and could have easily become the next Cyclops. However, she always seems to be an afterthought, which is why it’s so great that X-Vengers shows that Cap believed in her. Dani has always deserved better, and hopefully this will be the first step that will lead her to stardom.

Well I'm sorry, but all this doesn't make for a talented story, and the political structure this one's built upon only ruins everything. Even if this story's an alternate reality setting, that doesn't excuse the political biases, and Marvel's continued obsession with far-left propagandizing isn't salvaging their comics franchises at all. Dani Moonstar may deserve better, but so too does Steve Rogers, and even Sam Wilson. If they're not willing to craft a story that doesn't rely on the cheapest of modern political cliches, that's but one reason why this story also rings very hollow.

Batman perishes in Absolute Universe crossover

Comic Book Club Live tells that in DC K.O, one of the latest of the mainstream's insufferable crossovers, Batman dies while Darkseid comes out victorious:

For the second week in a row after Absolute Evil #1, it’s clear DC Comics isn’t holding back on wild, game-changing twists. That’s because in DC K.O. #1, which is in stores today — and spoilers past this point — Batman dies, an Absolute Universe crossover happens, and writer Scott Snyder even spoils that at the end of the story, the heroes lose, and Darkseid wins. Seriously.

So there's stories where Batman wins against heroes like Superman, but he loses against Darkseid? Well, this says all you need to know what's wrong with modern DC and its contributors. Maybe they thought that with all the stories about Batman defeating everybody thought fit for a loss, this would ease complaints, but no, this only makes the situation ever more dire. That this may be an alternate take on the DCU is no excuse either.

That’s a jaw-dropping amount of twists, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg in what happens in the issue. The broad strokes, before we get into the wild specifics, are that a year after “dying” in the DC All In Special, Darkseid essentially became the Absolute Universe. He conquered the future, where the Legion of Super-Heroes live, and has been working his way back to “our” time in order to take over the main DC Universe, as well.

As DC K.O. #1 opens, we get a glimpse of what will happen seven days in the future, when Darkseid takes over the entire universe all at once, consuming it. To stop him, the heroes hatch a dangerous plan… It turns out that there’s a Heart of Apokolips, the sort of engine that powers Darkseid’s home planet, at the center of the Earth. Darkseid’s goal is to activate it and consume the “Alpha Energy” that comes from Earth Prime, and add it to his “Omega Energy.” Instead, the heroes take the villains of the world off the board (though they don’t — more on that in a second), evacuate the Earth, and decide to restart the Heart of Apokolips using the Omega Energy that Booster Gold gathered from his time in the Absolute Universe.

Once there, they will be sent through five levels of Mortal Kombat style challenges, with 32 contenders. Each level, the winners will gain more Omega Energy, which will corrupt them more and give them more power. But the end result — at least they hope — is that one of them will get enough energy to become King Omega, restart the Heart to make it a positive force to counter Darkseid’s negative force, and bring everyone back to life.

This sounds like an attempt to mimic the premise of Marvel's One World Under Doom, and if it's bloodier than Marvel's event, then once again, DC's demonstrated how bankrupt they are by turning to jarring mayhem in order to remain relevant. That the story may see resurrections doesn't excuse the emphasis on bloody mayhem similar to one of the most repellent video games in computer history.

No doubt, DC and Marvel both pay careful attention to each other's shoddy crossovers to see who can do worse in their imitations than the other. In modern times, neither one's crossovers are worth wasting money to buy and read, no matter the turnout when it comes to whether Batman lives or dies.

Tom Brevoort apparently prefers heroes clash with each other

ComicBook talks about the X-Mens latest battle with themselves, which is meaningless, and brings up a most eyebrow raising problem with the stories one of Marvel's worst editors, Tom Brevoort, has been helming for nearly a quarter century:

The X-Men comics have jumped into an all-new alternate universe storyline — “The Age of Revelation”. This is just the latest change to the books, which started with 2024’s “From the Ashes”, a new publishing initiative meant to bring the X-Men comics back to a more traditional X-Men status quo, something that X-Men fans really haven’t gotten since the end of House of M way back in 2025. The X-Men line was given to Marvel bigwig editor Tom Brevoort, an editor who is known for his encyclopedic knowledge of comics, and a love of the old school Marvel Universe. However, there’s another thing that Brevoort loves, and it’s been a part of nearly everything that he’s edited in the 21st century — heroes clashing with heroes.

“From the Ashes” established that the X-Men had separated, with Cyclops leading one team, Rogue leading another, and a young mutant training team led by Emma Frost and Kitty Pryde. Right off the bat, we were shown that there was a grudge between Rogue and Cyclops, as each of them thought the other was making a mistake. “Raid on Graymalkin” pit the two teams against each other, and “X-Manhunt” showed the differences between the teams again. However, Amazing X-Men #1 shows that this grudge is basically meaningless, proving that the Brevoort approach to the X-Men is a mistake.

And that's why Marvel's lost much of their audience over the years. When Brevoort originally began working for Marvel over 35 years ago, whatever he edited then may not have been the forced embarrassment it is now, but anybody who's going to devote their time almost entirely to depicting heroes clashing with themselves far more than villains has certainly brought down artistic quality very badly, and made a joke out of the original premise. Even DC's had examples of heroes fighting each other in the past 2 decades, and that's dragged down the meaning of their comics horribly too. To be sure, if this is how Brevoort's been going about producing stories for the past quarter century, it's dubious whether he really has an "encyclopedic knowledge" and "love of old school" storytelling. Especially when the stories become so meaningless.

Amazing X-Men #1 proves that Brevoort’s pet idea is exactly the wrong one for the X-Men. Two X-Men teams doing different things is a fine idea, but it’s when you get to making the teams fight that fans have a problem. The popularity of the X-Men has always been about the way the X-Men work together despite having different methods and goals. We want to see the X-Men debate their points, fight evil as a family, and then get back to their arguments. They’re family; it takes a lot to make a family fight each other.

When Brevoort was announced as editor of the X-Men books, fans knew it would only be a matter of time before factions of X-Men would end up fighting. However, that’s against the natural state of the team. They may get mad at each other, but they love each other. They know their strengths and weaknesses, and that they’re stronger together. X-Men fans don’t want this sort of thing, and it looks like the creators of the books don’t either. Hopefully, this plot line will end sooner rather than later.

Brevoort used to be an editor of Avengers-related titles, and one could say he helmed preludes to the current situation with series like Avengers: Disassembled, where it came close as the "culprit" turned out to be Scarlet Witch. When the story makes it look like somebody who's written as a reformed crook who became an admirable heroine is far more the problem than even villains like Thanos, something is definitely wrong. There was nothing respectful of "tradition" back then, and no chance the X-Men will ever see a convincing return to it now either, what with the way Marvel is micromanaged these days. Interesting the news site acknowledges the fanbase, but it's important to note many have stopped reading Marvel as a result of these humiliatingly bad storylines.

DC does a joint wrestling project

All Elite Wrestling announced they're doing a joint project with DC, teaming up characters from the DCU with wrestling characters, because they really do believe anybody will care across the board about this latest excuse for "cross-promotion":

DC and All Elite Wrestling (AEW) are teaming up for an electrifying crossover that unites two powerhouse universes in a bold new storytelling experience. This unprecedented collaboration will bring the Justice League and AEW’s top wrestling talent together in a high-octane, two-issue comic book event — launching with a special preview edition available exclusively to fans at New York Comic Con.

DC and AEW will also co-promote DC K.O., the DC Comics event launching in October from acclaimed creators Scott Snyder and Javier Fernandez, across AEW’s linear broadcasts, digital platforms, and social media channels. The collaboration will culminate in DC Comics serving as the presenting sponsor for AEW’s marquee pay-per-view event, Full Gear, live from Newark, New Jersey.

I just don't understand why they believe this will keep their plummeted reputation afloat, and why we have to pay for any of this beyond the comic itself. Also note it's only 2 issues, so it's an awfully short "event". And Snyder's long proven he's no better than most of today's overrated writers. Besides, the topic of wrestling has already been seen in comicdom in some form or other, so we don't need this joint project coming from a ruined publisher at all.

Actress who played Scarlet Witch in Avengers movies wants an adaptation of House of M

In a very sad example of Hollywooders who don't have much respect for the franchises they contribute to, Superhero Hype says Elizabeth Olsen, who played Scarlet Witch in the Avengers films and even WandaVision and the Dr. Strange films, wants to adapt the dreadful Brian Bendis' House of M crossover from 2005 to live action:

During her recent appearance at the LA Comic Con, the 36-year-old actress opened up about the Marvel Comics arcs that she’d like her version of Scarlet Witch to feature in. Olsen specifically singled out the House of M storyline, noting that it would be fun for the Avengers to share the screen with the X-Men in a movie. (via Elizabeth Olsen Nation)

“I think House of M is just the coolest,” the Godzilla star stated before adding, “I just think it could be so fun to deal with X-Men and Avengers and ‘No more mutants.’ It would be fun.”

Written by Brian Michael Bendis and illustrated by Olivier Coipel, House of M is an eight-issue Marvel Comics series that premiered in 2005. The storyline revolves around Scarlet Witch, who creates a world where mutants comprise the majority of the population. However, after facing resistance from the Avengers and the X-Men, Wanda Maximoff decides to reset reality once again. She utters the now-infamous phrase, “No more mutants,” and recreates a world where most mutants end up losing their powers.

What this doesn't mention, unshockingly enough, is how in the previous event, Avengers: Disassembled, Scarlet Witch was depicted as indirectly attacking the Avengers and causing chaos, and even had responsibility for the death of Jack of Hearts and 2nd Ant-Man Scott Lang in the shoddy tale, where Bendis reportedly exploited an Avengers West Coast storyline from 1990 in which Wanda was brainwashed into returning to villainy as "justification" for such a disgusting new story that was practically questionable in how accurate it was in terms of continuity anyway (but yes, continuity as we know it began to collapse by the mid-2000s). And all because her children, as was originally written in AWC in 1989, turned out to be energy constructs. But is that an excuse for depicting somebody going insane and turning, specifically, against the heroes because it's super-easy? Nope. Also strange how nobody comments on whether depicting Wanda sobbing over the loss of energy construct kids was a good idea, any more than retconning them away.

What Olsen's hoping for will only be another reason why I'd rather stay away from whatever else is in store for the live action Marvel franchise, for as long as it's still in production. I'd like to hope it won't be much longer, but with these ideologues at the helm, who knows when they'll let it go?

Greg Rucka claims he couldn't stand working with Dan DiDio and Geoff Johns

Comic Book Movie has some transcripted dialogue from a Word Balloon podcast, where we get another example of somebody telling us years later that all was not as rosy as previously assumed in what could be considered a relationship between leftists:

Whether it's The Punisher and Wolverine for Marvel Comics or Gotham Central and Wonder Woman for DC, writer Greg Rucka is renowned for his work in the world of superheroes.

No he isn't. No matter what he's got to say about his relations with 2-3 specific writers and editors now, he still has blame to shoulder for bringing the DCU and MCU down to the shoddy level they're at now, including, but not limited to, his writings connected to the Infinite Crisis crossover. He's even got some pretty woke writings in his portfolio that were unsurprisingly optioned for television and films. Now, here's what he told the podcast:

"That was me at my absolute lowest at DC. That was in the deep end when everybody was lying to me, using me, betraying me, abusing me," he shared. "My relationship with James [Robinson] was a bad one. He was writing whatever he wanted. We were not collaborating well. Collaborating with Sterling [Gates] was great—literally was the best thing about that period. But it was just a repeated kick between the legs."

"It was toxic when I was there and remained toxic until Dan DiDio left. It was an abusive, manipulative environment. Geoff Johns was an incredibly manipulative person to me – used me, lied to me, played me off against people. DiDio did the same thing," Rucka continued. "I was made promises repeatedly, and they were always broken."

Explaining the impact that had on him, he added, "When I left in 2009, I was mentally ill. I was severely depressed and suicidal. I nearly took my life. And that's all the direct result of the way I was treated from 2006 through 2009; it was done with malice. The people I'm speaking about are bad actors. I'm not in a place where I will ever defend them again. They did what they did with malice of forethought."

Yes, they were very bad actors themselves. The damage they did to the DCU's coherency and morale is huge. Unfortunately, even Rucka himself is a pretty bad actor, and one of the first wrongs he did when he came to work for them was retconning the Renee Montoya character into a lesbian in the Gotham Central series. It wouldn't be the last, as the Infinite Crisis crossover, and Wonder Woman 219 vol. 2, where Diana breaks Max Lord's neck to stop him from mind-controlling Superman - who only condemns her for the act and little else - was one of the worst moments in Rucka's pretentious story portfolio. And now, we're supposed to care what he thinks? Let's also consider he made leftist political statements in the past decade, and his son was involved in criminal activity a few years ago.

It's said Rucka also discusses antisemitism in the comics industry, but when he adds:

Admitting that his 2016 and 2019 returns to DC to write Wonder Woman and Wonder Comics were similarly problematic, Rucka was asked what's changed. "I'm going to be perfectly honest. It's a different company right now. The people there—it's healthy," he explained, revealing that the communication between editors has improved significantly, creating a more collaborative environment.

Really. Does that include employment of far-left extremists despite the antisemitism they espoused? Only after what Gretchen Felker-Martin wrote on social media about the tragically assassinated Charlie Kirk did the management take Martin off the payroll. Also, look at who else DC still employs who hired the "dude in a dress", as noted by Ethan Van Sciver:

Here’s the creep who hired “Gretchen.” Surprise, it’s another trans weirdo. Son of Hollywood actor John Turturro, unfortunately. “Jesus” from The Big Lebowski. Now calls himself Ariana Turturro.

He, who would like to be called “she” now works as an editor at DC, and… https://t.co/5AOHU5wzLT pic.twitter.com/0VoyjczY35

— ETHAN VAN SCIVER (@EthanVanSciver) September 11, 2025

With people like that in their employ - and Marvel doubtless has their share of such ideologues too - is it any wonder this could happen to start with? I think after this revelation, I'll have to consider actor John Turturro an embarrassment as well. If Rucka doesn't make a call for these kind of people to be removed from employment in comicdom, I see no reason to take his discussions at face value.

Rucka's just one of quite a few overrated scribes of his time, much like Johns and DiDio themselves, and a writer who takes such a woke approach to scripting cannot be expected to maintain a convincing complaint about antisemitism in the industry, let alone sexism. Let's also recall Rucka once had a a cover illustration of WW censored all because her rear end was in view, and this sure was odd considering he may have written a shower scene for WW in his initial run on the series in 2005. Not to mention that if William Marston and H.G. Peter created WW as a sex symbol, then all Rucka's doing is insulting their memory.