The appeal of Spider-Man that was destroyed by propagandists who won't defend the hero's dignity

The Conversation wrote a stupefyingly fawning "history" of Spider-Man (via Hip Hop Canada), supposedly to celebrate the non-landmark 1000th issue. Near the start:

This autumn marks a special occasion in the Marvel universe: Spider-Man, perhaps the most popular superhero of all time, has reached issue #1,000 in the comics series.

The tale of a scrawny teen from Queens who was bitten by a radioactive spider at 15, Spider-Man premiered in Marvel’s Amazing Fantasy #15 in August 1962 as a last-ditch attempt to save the dying series. The story of Peter Parker’s witty, agile alter ego quickly became an international sensation.

The defining hero of our times, this 1,000th edition also begs the question: what is it about superheroes that make them routinely outlive almost every other cultural property out there – regular heroes included?

My ongoing research into the world of superhero franchises may present a partial answer. Over the past several years, I have read a few thousand comic books, seen most (if not all) superhero films ever released, and interviewed dozens of superfans across the globe. I believe the secret to the longevity of Spider-Man (as well as countless other superheroes) lies at the nexus of four qualities cultivated over many decades within Marvel and DC, the two largest names in superhero entertainment for almost a century.

Those qualities were destroyed years ago, no thanks to these very same apologists for the publishers and editors, and where they go at the expense of the creations. I'm sure they'd do the same with Daredevil if they thought it made a great target. Does he really think Spidey and other superheroes are outliving other products at this point when they're in such dire artistic straits, and have lost sales and audience as a result?

1. Spider-Man is unreliable

Heroes are heroes because we always know where they stand. From Hercules to Luke Skywalker, a hero is a person of generally high principles and integrity. Heroes are reassuringly reliable, almost by definition.

In contrast, superheroes are compelling because they are unreliable, even to themselves. For instance, Spider-Man quits being Spider-Man altogether in The Amazing Spider-Man #50, and publicly unmasks in the Civil War comic book series (which undermines the character’s long-established anonymity). He is actually replaced in The Amazing Spider-Man #698-700 by arch-villain Doctor Octopus, who for a while becomes a harsher, more violent “superior” Spider-Man.

Across these stories, Spider-Man is never just a fixed moral archetype. Instead, he is a character whose very meaning can be repeatedly unsettled. And, comparing Spider-Man across different eras and manifestations fascinates the fans, who can never agree on what Spider-Man actually is outside of the name and a now-canonised origin story.

Look who's talking. A so-called "researcher" who's proven he's utterly unreliable if he brings this up entirely sans objectivity. He doesn't see anything wrong with Civil War, whose divisive politics were one of the worst things about it, in addition to its being an example of heroes fighting each other more than villains? And he doesn't see anything wrong with the Doc Ock switcheroo story from over a decade ago, one of the most atrocious tales turned out by Dan Slott? The way the Conversation's writer brings that up almost makes it sound like this happened in real life. It didn't, and it's not above criticism, yet no objective approach is taken to referencing it at all. Besides, if superheroes aren't reliable, can't that actually imply they're not so admirable at all?

The writer evidently isn't a Spider-fan, or he'd admit it's regrettable Spidey - and Mary Jane Watson - had to be subject to only many increasingly bad storylines ever since the Clone Saga first came about, though it was with J. Michael Straczynski's run that continuity really got derailed. We could even say it's also where John Romita Jr's artwork started becoming seriously mediocre, which, now that I think of it, is also what the late Darwyn Cooke's artwork could be described as. The Clone Saga is also brought up in the following "point":

2. Spider-Man is actually Spider-People

At first, Spider-Man was just Peter Parker. Over time, however, Spider-Man stopped being a single character and became a narrative role that different characters could inhabit together and in parallel.

For instance, Ben Reilly, introduced as Peter’s clone in The Amazing Spider-Man #149, eventually takes over and becomes Spider-Man during the 1990s Clone Saga. Miguel O’Hara, a brilliant scientist, then reimagines the character for the future in Spider-Man 2099. There are several more incarnations too, including Peter Porker (aka Spider-Ham), a pig bitten by a radioactive spider, Spider-Spider (a spider in the Spider-Man costume), and even a medieval British version called Peter Parquagh.

Over time, Spider-Man no longer describes one biography so much as a portable combination of recognisable powers, a loose moral compass and visual codes. For fans, this makes the brand unusually elastic. As they do not have to agree on a single definitive Spider-Man, they can attach themselves to the version that best fits their tastes.

Gee, doesn't this make clear Spidey's uniqueness has been effectively drained by too many imitations that ultimately don't add up to anything merit-based in terms of writing? This is stupid, and it's practically the reason why the premise of passing the mantle may have only worked with the Flash in the DCU, when Wally West took over where Barry Allen left off, and might've worked far better with the 2nd to 3rd Robin if it hadn't been for how the death of Jason Todd in 1988 was turned into a telephone poll. The Spider-verse cartoon from several years ago is where Peter Parker's uniqueness really got turned meaningless, and does anybody actually talk about it today? At this point, you don't really even hear about it anymore, and decidedly for good reason.

But this does indicate the writer's basically saying that whoever makes a big deal out of characters like Miles Morales at Peter Parker's expense isn't really a fan of the latter's creation in 1962. And it's sad how the creation of a mask that covers the entire head and face wound up being exploited as a way to push social justice propaganda. The columnist doesn't find it even the least bit sad how Stan Lee's creation was diminished by absurd "commercialization" that only makes the whole product pointless? Says all you need to know about what kind of phonies are writing these superficial puff pieces.

3. Spider-Man: no way home

Almost by definition, heroes must undergo the hero’s journey: they are called to an adventure, transformed by an ordeal and eventually return home as changed people. This has been a consistent pattern since Odysseus at least.

In contrast, Spider-Man never really gets to go home, as his supposedly formative experiences simply become the beginning of further experiences. For instance, in The Amazing Spider-Man ##121-122, the death of Gwen Stacy, Peter’s friend and first love, permanently upends the emotional stakes of his life – a fact that reverberates in Spider-Man #1000.

Decades later, however, he marries Mary Jane Watson. But The Amazing Spider-Man #544-545 dissolves this marriage and resets much of his adult existence again. That is, before Brand New Day begins yet another personally tumultuous phase in #546.

None of these moments supply a final transformation. Spider-Man simply can never graduate from being Spider-Man, the tortured Hamlet of superheroes. Therefore, his journey becomes less a cycle and more a never-ending life story in which apparent endings are continuously folded into new beginnings. For fans, this constant regenerativity creates a peculiar promise: older fans can “grow old” with Spider-Man, while new readers always encounter what feels like a brand new beginning.

I guess the writer's saying he absolutely loved One More/Brand New Day, and the embarrassments it led to. He doesn't approach the subject through a critical lens, and worst, makes it sound almost like all this happened in real life. He's obviously not a fan of MJ either, or he would've noted how repellent her treatment as a character's become ever since. And now former editor C.B. Cebulski did no favors by overseeing what looked like a long-called-for reunion between Peter and MJ in 2018, only to break it up shortly afterwards.

The writer sounds like he literally believes Spidey should never have true, organic success at anything, as though every such creation's writing paths should be even more extreme than how Charlie Brown's portrayed in Peanuts. As a result, the Conversation writer only ends up devaluing MJ by extension, and fascinating how he doesn't see anything wrong with Peter making a faustian pact with Mephisto. Even if that's not as abominable as how DC's Identity Crisis played out, it's still very reprehensible and contradicts how Peter was written years before. Even during the Clone Saga, Spidey was never written that absurdly.

4. Spider-Man remembers everything

Traditional heroes usually arrive with relatively little narrative baggage, and their defining trials and transformations are contained within finite and carefully staged stories.

Every new Spider-Man story, however, enters a world already crowded with previous stories. Spider-Man does not merely accumulate stories. Instead, later stories continually reactivate, reinterpret and cross-reference earlier ones.

This accumulated baggage can surely make the Spider-verse difficult to navigate for some. But it also rewards familiarity and time investment: the more Spider-Man you consume, the more meanings, references and connections become visible, turning laborious research into a source of pleasure and expertise.

Spider-Man’s longevity is the product of a highly specific narrative architecture. Spider-Man can contradict himself, multiply into different people, begin again after apparent endings and continuously mine his own past for new stories. These qualities make Spidey unusually difficult to exhaust, as each new generation of fans inherits a Spider-Man that is both recognisably old and strangely new.

Issue #1,000 is therefore less a culmination than a proof of concept. Looking back at more than 60 years of constant reinvention, Spider-Man’s greatest superpower may simply be his ability to go on despite all odds.

I think "remembering everything" is the problem. There's no distinguishing between good and bad storylines here, yet noticeably no mention of Straczynski's Sins Past storyline from 2004, which is where his shoddy run on Spidey really became a serious disaster. Those who initially acted as apologists for JMS and Marvel's mandates should be ashamed of themselves. What's so "carefully staged" about a story where Gwen was made to look dreadful by having sex with Norman Osborn, which she was never overly depicted doing with Peter back in the day?

And the 1000th issue doesn't "prove" anything, save for how badly worn out classic properties have become as a result of all these pointless boomerangs to "grudge matches" between heroes and recurring villains. To keep strip-mining older stories is something that could even be said about various other superhero creations like Superman, Avengers, Iron Man, Batman, and Justice League, but the reason these modern minings fall flat is because they're not done with respect for past continuities up to the turn of the century, and they're not done with respect for the personalities originally attached to the superheroes and co-stars. The writers and upper echelons may claim there's "humanity" and "reality" in these shoddy PC stories of theirs, but it's not organic or plausible so much as it's phony, and only makes the heroes look more like scumbags and idiots than flawed individuals.

And then some propagandists whose fandom is questionable and put words in actual fandom's mouths have the gall to come along and defend the worst directions taken by the writers and editors. To say nothing of acting as apologists for the entire publishing company themselves. If they don't have the courage to admit they're on the side of the company, that's precisely the problem.

Why the late artist Darwyn Cooke took the job drawing Catwoman's 3rd volume

Since the subject of pretentious writer Ed Brubaker recently came up, I found this fluff-coated Popverse article from last May, telling why the late artist Darwyn Cooke accepted the assignment of drawing the Catwoman volume Brubaker wrote in the early 2000s:

Catwoman has nine lives, and one of her most notable lives was her 2001 revamp by Ed Brubaker and Darwyn Cooke. The character’s previous run had mostly portrayed her as a cunning thief in skimpy clothing, but Brubaker and Cooke gave her a new look, a new supporting cast, and a new mission as the protector of Gotham’s East End. According to Darwyn Cooke, who passed away in 2016, this was a dealbreaker for him.

“Going back to Catwoman, when I was asked if I wanted to get involved in that, I said, ‘On one condition. She has to be completely redesigned. And I have to know that the writer believes, as well as I know, that this is a book that should be aimed at women, not at teenage boys,’” Darwyn Cooke says during a panel at Toronto Fan Expo 2009.

“And I said if that’s the approach we’re going to take, then I’m happy to get involved, because this is a great character, and it gives us an opportunity to build her back up and redeem her as a person and get girls reading comics again and excited about a character that they can relate to. I’ve always felt that this is an important thing that any sort of creator should be trying to consider.”

It’s good to have nine lives, and it’s even better if one of them is penciled by Darwyn Cooke.

I think a challenging query to be raised here is - what's so wrong with writing a story appealing to teen boys? Or, who says the same approach won't appeal to teen girls as well? In hindsight, I'm really not impressed with Cooke as an artist, and IIRC, at the time this took place, DC made efforts to do away with the blue shadings from previous designs for Batman's costume, and make entirely black. Catwoman's costume underwent a similar change, of course. But was her previous outfit really skimpy? I think during the 80s, Selina Kyle had one with cleavage, but I don't recall if what she wore in the 90s drawn by Jim Balent had, so this is another unshockingly sloppy take on history.

That said, did women really flock en masse to Brubaker and Cooke's take on the Feline Fatale? Perhaps the following I found on CBR's forums from 2016 can give a clue:

I did some research on Catwoman's sales from 1994 to 2016 on comichron.com and diamondcomics.com. I've been wondering why Catwoman sales have been so low, especially why they plummeted a few issues ago since they've been the best issues I've read in many years. Now it is assumed the comic is cancelled because it was not mentioned as being included during the Rebirth event.

Catwoman vol 2 (1993-2001) maintained much, much better sales than vol 3 or vol 4. In fact, the final issue of vol 2 in 2001 (the worst selling of the series) sold almost as many copies as vol 3 issue 25 (by Brubaker) in 2003, about 26,000 copies. The 90's Catwoman never ranked below 100 in the monthly Top 100 Comics chart. It only dropped below a rank of 75 around the Fall of 2000. It almost always sold as many issues as Robin, Supergirl, Birds of Pray, often outselling them and usually outsold Wonder Woman consistently.

Volume 3, which ran from 2001-2008, did not sell near as well. Its sales dropped from 49,000 copies of issue #1 to 26,500 copies of issue #12 in only a year. It consistently ranked well under 75 on the Top 100 chart, oftentimes dropping below 100. Its final issue only sold 15,000 copies.

Volume 4, the New 52, sold a little better than vol 3. Issue #1 sold 53,670 copies, but issue #20 was down to 26,900 copies, ranking 85th on the chart and was then one of the 3 worst selling DC titles. Sales from that point on were consistent until issue 42 only sold 22,000 copies. Then issue 47, Frank Tieri's first issue, plummeted to only 15,000 copies, ranking 166 on The Top 200 chart for December 2015.

These sales figures make it pretty obvious that the stories told and the artwork used used in Vol 2 in the 90's was significantly* more desirable than that of Vol 3 & 4.

I believe there were a few problems with Vol 3 from the beginning of it. First, I believe the new costume was simply unattractive. Darwyn Cooke said he wanted to tone down Catwoman's sexiness and make her look more practical and utilitarian. And he gave her bug-eye goggles. Catwoman became the opposite of sexy and I think that was a bad idea.

Next I think focusing on Catwoman in the role of a vigilante sworn to protect Gotham's seedy East End, where she has a controversial history of working as dominatrix, probably wasn't ideal for most comic readers. I think it was too dark and controversial for general audiences to get into. This was not the Catwoman that the public was used to seeing, and not what they wanted for her comic. She has always been glamorous and sensuous. She was fun because she was naughty, but still helped people often. This new Catwoman was a complete opposite, so people didn't buy it.

Vol 4, the New 52, had prettier artwork but the same bug-eye goggles, Emma Peele outfit, and bulky boots. She was a theif again but she was younger and dumber. And she was having sex with Batman while the two of them kept their masks on in the first issue. Yeah because when you wear a mask over the top half of your face, the person you are frequently screwing will never find out your true identity. This is just bad writing, which simply got worse over the next few years and the sales kept dropping.*

It's tragic that the past few issues have such low sales, and that Catwoman won't be included in DC's Rebirth. Frank Tieri's issues have been recieving great reviews, especially issue #50.

But I hope that DC has big plans for Catwoman to make her more attractive, more exciting, and more successful.

Thoughts??

Unfortunately, as the wokeness of the past decade made clear, there was no reason for optimism, and besides, Identity Crisis also led to ruination. IIRC, there was a story with Catwoman shortly afterwards where a retcon took place claiming she'd been influenced by Zatanna, quite possibly at Batman's request, to reform Selina. In other words, according to that tale, Selina did not reform of her own accord and thinking, which makes a mockery and insult to the older works of better writers.

Cooke's claims also ring hollow when you consider that at least a few women actually worked on the Feline Fatale years earlier. For example, Mindy Newell, and then Jo Duffy, who wrote the first 14 issues of the 90s series. So Cooke and Brubaker were insulting a woman who had no issue with depicting Selina Kyle as sexy. A most disgraceful distortion Cooke pulled there, and if memory serves, Brubaker not only implausibly revived Holly Robinson, a character originally seen in Frank Miller's Year One tale from 1987, Brubaker even turned her into a lesbian for the sake of it.

Now I'll give Cooke this: he did the right thing to say he didn't want to see the kind of one-sided sexual violence seen in Identity Crisis become normalized as offensive, sensationalistic plot devices. But if he once said he didn't want to see once heterosexual characters be turned LGBT overnight, he contradicted that, in a manner of speaking, by working with a writer as overrated and exploitive as Brubaker, who did something like that, certainly in Gotham Central with Greg Rucka, where they changed the Renee Montoya character to lesbian. Cooke also continued to work with DC even after Identity Crisis came out, and it can be validly argued that in doing so, Cooke wasn't following through on his arguments convincingly. Besides, he also once led a chummy connection with the disgraced Gerard Jones, and that too doesn't reflect well on Cooke in hindsight.

Cooke may have made a few valid statements, but he was apparently an early example of a wokester, and one can only wonder what he thought of his take on Catwoman selling considerably lower than the volume drawn by Balent, and first written by Duffy. Cooke not only insulted the aforementioned two, he also insulted plenty of other, more talented artists who came before Balent, like those who drew Catwoman in the 1970s. Having artists like Cooke on the job is sadly not better at all.

And as for the mention of Frank Tieri, wasn't he the writer who derailed Wolverine in the last 2 years of the 1988-2003 series? One more reason why I'd rather not buy his take on Catwoman either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New horror comic builds on political metaphors

The Daily Dead interviewed cartoonist Matt Bors, who's now producing a comic titled "The Toxic Avenger vs. the Noxious Offender", the latter which is the artist's creation, and this particular story contains quite an eyebrow-raising political allusion and metaphor:

Bringing The Noxious Offender into the comic book world is a huge deal for fans of the franchise. What made now the perfect time to bring him in to face Toxie?

Matt Bors: Doing the dark universe counterpart of a hero in comic books is almost a right of passage. After establishing the universe we are in and some new adventures like Toxie Goes to Washington, I wanted to circle back to something more character focused and there’s nothing more character focused than yourself, but as an asshole. Our Noxie is an incel school shooter—not typically hilarious stuff. We want to make him a real menace, an obscenely violent twisted version of our character who was broken long before he was melted by toxic waste. We are doing something different with Noxie and as the story goes on, readers will see how it fits within long-running plots we have had going since these comics launched.

This is sick, because it builds on stereotypes that have probably been common for years, that "nerds" are wolves in sheep's clothing, and somehow, they're all "right-wing" adherents. And if he's playing it for laughs, that only makes it all the more chillingly offensive. There've been a horrifying number of school shootings in real life in more than a quarter century since Columbine in 1999, and this is what the market is pushing? Repulsive.

For this mini-series, what real-world struggles did you want to tackle in this fantastical setting?

Matt Bors: Toxie and Yvonne are going to have a mutant baby, despite the risks of a toxic waste-based pregnancy, as Noxie arrives and violently takes over his life. As I mentioned, our Noxie is a school shooter—that’s how he dealt with his bullies in his universe and that has everything to do with his own upbringing. So we are dealing with some pretty heavy themes and we are leavening that with a lot of humor, action, and body horror. But we’re not being flip about it all either. As with my series Justice Warriors, I like to mix the highbrow and lowbrow. Real world issues in a weird mutant comic. The serious and the stupid can coexist. This is the promise of comic books.

Can you talk about your approach to mixing humor, ooze, and serious topics in the world of The Toxic Avenger?

Matt Bors: I come from the world of political cartooning, so I like punchy writing and talking about everything that is fucked up in our world—it’s a long list and we’re adding to it every day. I’m also a longtime fan of genre fiction—mutants and gore, please, but make it substantive. Make it about something. I don’t abide by the idea that something is more serious or literary by shedding jokes and genre and the more engaging elements of fiction, particularly movies and comics. These are vehicles for discussing and processing our world, but that doesn’t mean things have to be dour, doomer, or—worse—boring. To hell with that.

One has to wonder how a story about a character who's a school shooter is something to be impressed by, mainly because, if the antagonist (the word "protagonist" would be very inappropriate here) winds up costing the lives of innocents, then what exactly makes this a suitable tale? And even if the "star" takes on bullies, does that make it okay to celebrate gore galore and treat it all as humor? Nope. All that does is take away the seriousness of the issues involved. This whole comic is nothing more than another thing that's "f***ed up in our world".

What has your experience been with long-time fans of the franchise who are getting all-new adventures through your stories?

Matt Bors: I hear from Troma and Troma fans all the time and everyone seems to love it and be very supportive. Lloyd Kaufman and the fine people in the Troma offices are in touch regularly and give us their blessings. There wasn’t a lot done with the character for a long time and now we have a long-running comic book series, new movie, and a video game on the way. And this isn’t garbage pumped out for fan service—it’s new takes on the original material that fans can appreciate while bringing in new readers. I don’t think you have to have grown up on the movie to enjoy this comic book. You just have to enjoy weird, gory heroes.

There is nothing "heroic" in any of this propaganda, and it only gives the horror genre a bad name by playing the story for cheap sensationalism. What exact "fan service" is to be in this anyway? Only for corrupt mindsets, that's what. And all from somebody who's worked in political cartoons. This is just another item that ruins the whole medium and art form. When will some people wake up and understand that?

South Carolina paper fluff-coats Steve Epting's career

The Lexington County Chronicle announced artist Steve Epting is attending a book signing for one of his latest projects, and they made sure to paint a fluff-coated picture of what he did with Captain America 2 decades ago as well:

“Steve Epting is a South Carolina native who has had a huge impact in the comic industry that ultimately led to these giant blockbuster Marvel movies,” Scratch N’ Spin owner Eric Woodard said in a news release. “We love promoting local creators, whether it’s comics, music or movies. We love bringing these guests to our store to have them available to meet with our community and encourage aspiring creators (who get) the opportunity to have a space to get their comics signed without having to go to a big comic convention.”

A multiple Eisner Award-nominated comic artist, Steve Epting worked on The Avengers, Fantastic Four, Velvet, Batwoman and Superman. He has contributed art for Marvel, DC, Image and many more publishers across the comic industry.

He’s best known for Captain America and his Marvel projects, where he teamed up with Ed Brubaker in co-creating The Winter Soldier, which led to the character’s appearance in the Marvel movie hit “Captain America: The Winter Soldier.”

Epting is credited with “forever redefining Bucky Barnes and allowing the character to become globally recognized with a recurring role in many films like ‘Black Panther’ and ‘The Thunderbolts.’”

Wow, such overrated mishmash that was part and parcel of a time when Marvel was on the decline, and we're told this is what made great movie material? It's actually enough to reevaluate. The problem was that, at the time, bringing back Bucky was for little more than replacing Steve Rogers as Cap, and this was before they took to serious DEI-pandering, with figures like the Falcon shoehorned into the costume. Also, wasn't the Thunderbolts film a failure? So what good does that citation do?

As for Epting's new comic from Image, Hammerfist, which he produced with writer Rick Remender, what's it about?

The protagonist of Hammerfist is Mike Denton, “a dirtbag hitman, junkie and absentee father who’s spent his life chasing the easy fix — drugs, cheap sex and murder for money — while failing the one person who still believes he can be better: his daughter.”

“Now, on the eve of Black Noon — an ancient darkness that erases the light in all things — Mike has to drag himself out of the gutter, awaken a supernatural weapon powered only by love and fight his way through the living embodiment of evil to save her,” a description of the comic reads. “This unredeemable killer is forced to do the one thing he’s avoided his entire life: stand for something other than himself.”

Gee, yet another dark-laced product we could do without, one where a murderer is in the spotlight?!? Well that's got to be one of the worst ideas the market could turn out, and it's yet another example of too much attention paid to villainy at the expense of heroism. That the character's depicted saving his daughter and fighting another evil entity is no alleviation.

Epting's resume is decidedly overrated, and this kind of project doesn't improve it either. All we have here is another example of a newspaper making a big deal out of nothing, just because the guy lives in the area. Not every local figure is worth celebrating, and even Remender's no big deal.

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 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.

Rob Liefeld whines again

Popverse says dreadful artist Liefeld is complaining that he's not listed as a writer/artist in one of Marvel's latest archives for New Mutants:

Rob Liefeld has never been shy about his opinions on... er, anything, really. But for our purposes, he's never held back on his opinions over how the work he did at Marvel has been handled by the company. Take, for example, a recent expression of his frustration regarding his work on the '90s X-Men title The New Mutants, in which Liefeld introduced perhaps his most famous creations, Deadpool and Cable. According to the seminal artist and Image Comics co-founder, a new collection of said comics miscredits him egregiously.

Liefeld's thoughts came via a social media post made June 6, in conjunction with Marvel's advertisement for an upcoming comic book omnibus. Specifically, that omnibus is The New Mutants Volume 4, which as some fans brought to Liefeld's attention, only credits him as an artist.

"Yes," said Liefeld, "despite writing the best selling issues of New Mutants ever published I am not listed [as a writer]."

But wasn't Louise Simonson the writer at the time? The only issues where he appeared to have credit as writer - or perhaps more precisely, as plotter - were the last 3, issues 98-100, and even there, it wasn't alone. It was with Fabian Nicieza. And I also noticed, interestingly enough, that issues 92 and 97 had Bob Hall and Guang Yap, respectively, credited as artists, not Liefeld. So it sounds like Liefeld's once again trying to give tabloid news sites like Popverse more material they can exploit for trivial matters, and simultaneously, Liefeld's trying to pretend he's one of the finest artists around, even though he's not. Rather hiliariously, he even admits he only "wrote" the last 3 issues in 1983-91's New Mutants:

Thus began a series of posts in which Liefeld not only voiced his annoyance of the oversight, but reminded readers of the success of the comic book the omnibus collects.

"It was through my writing that issues #98-100 sold 2.2 million copies," Liefeld said in another post. "That is more than the entire year previous to my joining. New Mutants was selling 110.000 copies in a sea of X-books selling 350k and above."

No kidding. It sold that much with his otherwise awful art? Well, I do recall the P.T. Barnum phrase "a sucker is born every minute", but even so, if anybody actually bought stories where it's not clear he was the writer per se as Nicieza was, it's a terrible shame they had to help prolong the dreadful career of such a pretentious artist.

Finally, Liefeld stepped back from his own experience to point at other artists who've conveyed their exasperation not just with the comic book industry, but with Marvel itself.

"In closing, Marvel treats creators like shit," Liefeld concluded, "They always have. Jack Kirby sued them. For two decades. The estate wants to sweep it under the rug now that they settled, but it turned Jack’s stomach. Steve Ditko sued Marvel. They can’t help but create the magic makers like shit."

Oops, did he really say "create" instead of "treat"? And since when was Liefeld a "magic maker" with that awful art of his, where he couldn't draw feet, let alone consistent panels with coherent art? Liefeld, alas, appears to be pretty arrogant, and with that kind of approach, is it any wonder he's otherwise on the sidelines now? It's a real shame Marvel had to hire him to work on at least 2 comics in their unsuccessful Heroes Reborn "experiment", which was like a textbook example of how mainstream publishers aren't marketing and selling on merit. Liefeld's only making clear he doesn't think his sloppy, derivative art is an embarrassment to the whole concept of artmaking. Yet all these pretentious news sites see fit to lavish attention on him they likely wouldn't give to writers like Chuck Dixon, or even artists like Brandon Peterson and Kirby himself, who're more talented than Liefeld ever was back in the day.

All we learn from this is that Liefeld's got a pointless grudge against Marvel, proving they shouldn't have ever done business with him in the first place. And Image shouldn't have let him take part in the company's founding.

Ohio Maltz Museum's exhibition for Jewish comics contributions

NPR-WOSU covers an exhibition of Jewish comics contributions at the Maltz Museum in Ohio. It was also organized by a historian who was involved in getting a NYC street named after Jack Kirby:

“Icons in Ink, The Jewish Comics Experience,” on view at the Maltz Museum in Beachwood through Aug. 23, is a revelation and a celebration, albeit with some limitations and questionable aspects.

The show’s core material is conveyed through colorful, large-scale graphic layouts resembling magazine pages that reach from the height of one’s knee to above one’s head. The layouts are filled with text and reproductions of pages from comic books. It’s an eye-grabbing approach that produces visual overload at times. Also, transitions from one section of the show to another occasionally lack continuity and flow.

But when it comes to the core goal of highlighting Jewish contributions to comic book history, the show delivers fascinating and sometimes surprising insights.

Organized by Roy Schwartz, a New York-based pop culture historian, the exhibition opened in 2023 at the Center for Jewish History in New York and is now in the middle of a five-year national tour.

It brims with Schwartz’s zeal to highlight the Jewish roots of what he described in an interview as “a unique American art form,’’ and “the bastard child of literature and art.’’ His expertise includes having written the 2021 book, “Is Superman Circumcised?: The Complete Jewish History of the World's Greatest Hero.’’

For Cleveland, Schwartz and the Maltz expanded the show to highlight the city’s role in the evolution of comic books, in collaboration with Samantha Baskind, the Cleveland State University professor of art history known for her extensive scholarship on Jewish contributions to the visual arts.

Hidden meanings of Superman

Naturally, Superman, the brainchild of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, two Jewish high school students in Cleveland’s Glenville neighborhood who invented the “Man of Steel’’ in the 1930s, is a major focus.

Superman’s birth on the doomed planet Krypton and his parents’ effort to save him by launching him to Earth is a familiar tale. It may not be widely appreciated, however, that the story echoes that of the finding of Moses, and that Superman’s name at birth, Kal-El, is a Hebrew phrase often interpreted as “voice of God’’ or “vessel of God.”

Superman’s powers evoke the myth of the Golem, a massive, Samson-like humanoid purportedly molded in clay by a 16th-century rabbi Prague to defend Jews from pogroms.

As the show points out, Jewish fans have certainly understood such signals.

Somehow, I'm not so sure they do, seeing how some of those who stick with leftism are so hostile to Israel, their country of origin, that it's hard to believe at this point they care about any "signals". Speaking of which, this exhibit features at least 2 comic creators who decidedly aren't worth seeing there:

Also featured in the Cleveland section of the show are printed works and original drawings from Harvey Pekar’s ironic and self-deprecating “American Splendor” series, Peter Kuper’s hilarious “Spy vs. Spy” episodes in Mad Magazine and Terri Libenson’s Jewish-centered narratives in series, including “The Pajama Diaries.”

Cleveland Heights native Brian Michael Bendis is represented by outstanding works including a spectacular 2006 ink drawing for an Avengers episode depicting an explosion on a crowded street in what could be Downtown Cleveland.

When somebody as awful as Bendis is included, despite how overrated and atrocious his writings were on - but not limited to - series like the Avengers, something is terribly wrong. What's so "outstanding" about his cheap approach to science fiction? It's also troubling that somebody like the late Pekar was included, despite his negativity to Israel that he practically wove into a GN titled "Not the Israel my Parents promised me". These are the kind of "creators" whose works we need to see? Nope.

Conspiracists and paranoiacs might see the show as piling on more evidence for the hate-filled fantasy that Jews supposedly control everything from Wall Street to Hollywood.

On this, it's bizarre said conspiracists would want anything to do with Jewish creations, if that's how they feel, and have no interest in producing their own entertainment products that hopefully aren't laced with prejudicial visions. And then, in a very sad hint at where this NPR affiliate really stands, they say it needs an "update":

It’s also striking, given its attention to the social and political context of comic books in prior decades that “Icons in Ink’’ doesn't bring its story fully into the present.

The show’s generally triumphal tone feels oddly off-key amid the recent uptick in anti-Semitism on the left and right, and the post Oct. 7 backlash against Israel.

Debate over Israel’s military conduct in Iran, Gaza and Lebanon, or settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, has inspired authors and pundits of all political persuasions.

“Icons in Ink’’ hasn’t been updated to reflect the turmoil. It could be said that because the show was organized in 2023, there hasn’t been enough time for a significant response to current events from Jewish creators of comic books or graphic novels to warrant attention.

But it seems to be a missed opportunity that the show doesn't mention the conflicted feelings about Israel that Pekar explored in “Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me,’’ published in 2012 as one of his last books.

There’s also no mention of the three-page spread criticizing Israel’s conduct in Gaza published in The New York Review of Books in February 2025 by Joe Sacco and Art Spiegelman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning creator of the Holocaust-related graphic novel “Maus,’’ whose work is otherwise lauded in the show at Maltz.

Such publications and others like them represent an intriguing opportunity to revise “Icons in Ink’’ as it continues to travel. The exhibition argues successfully that the Jewish experience in comics needs to be understood more deeply.

Given that goal, some freshening could make the show even more relevant and up-to-the-minute. After all, as the exhibition demonstrates, Jewish comic book creators and graphic novelists have been pulling no punches for decades in messages both overt and subtly coded.

When they insist Sacco's a recommendation, and no right-wing creators like the late Joe Simon are mentioned at all, or even Will Eisner, that speaks volumes as to where they really stand on this. It's actually amazing Pekar's screed didn't turn up at the exhibit, but even so, he's hardly somebody I'd consider a perfect choice any more than Spiegelman. Also note how the news site omits issues like Jews being murdered by the Religion of Peace, and all they care about is making Jews look like the sole ones responsible for anything bad happening post-October 7, 2023, while obscuring the more serious issues caused by said religion.

I'll give Schwartz and company this: they may have deliberately avoided some of these issues because they realized Pekar's POV was divisive, and it wouldn't do any good post-10.7.2023 to bring something like that into the mix. Even so, if they didn't bring in something that could provide a more positive viewpoint on Israeli issues like a Japanese mangaka's publication, then it's otherwise a defeat, though not in the way NPR wants to frame it. What they say about the exhibit in that context is shameful, and if that's their position, why'd they even bother to cover the project?

Professional artists continue to take issue with AI

Creative Bloq reports on what real life artists have to say about AI at a convention in Lake Como. Trouble is, some of those quoted are some of the most pretentious, or worked on projects that do no favors for their reputations:

The spectre of AI is creeping into every aspect of our lives, and it has felt for some time as if artists and creatives in general are on the front line. We’ve heard how comic artists such as Stanley 'Artgerm' Lau have even told us, “In the future, there will be fewer artists like me – real artists”. [...]

David Mack, artist on Daredevil and creator of his own Kabuki series, who’s been a regular at Como for many years now, had this to say about AI and how it could affect both this show and in a wider context his own work and career: “I'm just focused on my work, making my work the way I like to make it, so I don't really have an interest in using it [AI], and I just like making stuff by hand. We're not machines, we're people.”

He adds, “We can't do everything precisely. Probably because of [AI], people who make handmade art will be more in demand. That'll be a more precious commodity because not everyone can replicate it. Talking about the tactile nature of things and a real 3D material object that exists in the physical world. People like that, and that'll probably be even more treasured, in the future, if more and more people lean towards prompting things on AI to magically just make something.”

I think when somebody who worked with Brian Michael Bendis on several issues of Daredevil and Avengers is one of the interviewees, it's hard to understand why we're supposed to care, since such work is basically meaningless. Certainly it would be great if what he tells will be so in the future. But that depends on whether they're talented or just overrated. And Mack is the kind of artist who decidedly belongs in the latter category.

As for Artgerm, he may have more talent in his own way, but he's also, most unfortunately, lent said talents to covers that were stapled onto poltical propaganda. That has the effect of dampening the impact.

British artist Gary Frank, whose career has included drawing Hulk for Marvel but who has now won plaudits as artist on Image’s Hyde Street, part of Image’s Ghost Machine imprint, had his own take on AI: “I think AI is possibly something which has its uses. I don't think that any of those uses include making art, because art is a human thing. The worry I've got is not so much that AI is going to replace people like me, because I'm known and people know I'm a real person.”

He explains it's the next generation of artists who could suffer more, saying: “My worry is the next generation coming through. So we're going to have to compete with dishonest actors who are using AI to fake stuff. We've already seen a little bit of this in the comic industry with people using AI to fake covers. So it's more whether it ends up making it difficult or impossible or damaging the prospects of young people coming through.”

Oh, and isn't Ghost Machine the insufferable Geoff Johns' project? Frank may be a talented artist too, but if this is what he's turning to lately, that also sours the milk. I just don't understand why artists like these are the ones the journalists are turning to for information on the topic...or maybe I do? Is it because their politics skew left?

Now that I think of it, what newer generations of artists could have to worry about is if AI is seen as a perfect substitute for real life talent based on politics. In other words, if a right-wing artist is looking for work, and the company is left-wing managed, they'd pass over him/her and resort to AI instead if that's what it took to avoid hiring somebody whose political platforms they hated. Not that you could expect artists like the above to comment on that issue, unfortunately. But no doubt, it's a valid subject, and some people are going to have to start asking whether it could happen.

University paper predictably recommends the weaker Daredevil stories post-2000

The Beacon of Wilkes University wrote about Daredevil stories they recommend, and while there's at least two worthy citations, the rest come from the post-2000 era where Hornhead's stories went down the drain. And, the writer runs the gauntlet of making it sound like fictional characters are real people:

Daredevil is such a complex and interesting character. This is because no matter if he’s defending the public during the day as the attorney Matt Murdock or thwarting evil on the dark streets of Hell’s Kitchen as Daredevil, his faith in his Catholic upbringing and his heroic morals are always put to the test. His rogues gallery is also really interesting from the iconic Kingpin and Bullseye to lesser-known villains such as the Owl and Mr. Fear, Daredevil’s stories consist of such great villains that perfectly juxtapose that of the seemingly unbreakable will of the devil of Hell’s Kitchen.

No, DD alone is not complex and interesting, it's the assigned writers who make him that. A similar point can be made about the recurring villains. Regarding Matt's Catholic background, modern writers have certainly put that to the test through forced leftist politics. And when the writer gets around to citing Frank Miller and David Mazuchelli's Born Again story, she says:

There’s a reason why this is one of the most iconic Daredevil stories of all time and that’s because this story arc is a turning point for the character. Without giving too much away, Matt Murdock is put through the wringer by his arch-nemesis, Kingpin. This story also includes a character death that shook the comic book world.

The police lieutenant Nick Manolis? Born Again was certainly one of the best DD stories, but what she says about Manolis, a minor character who made barely a dozen appearances between 1980-86, could just as easily have been said about Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man, and was. And come to think of it, if an innocent character dies or worse, is that something to celebrate? Of course not.

Now, what else is cited here? As mentioned, far newer stuff post-2000:

These next few recommendations are going to be entire comic book runs of Daredevil rather than story arcs. The next I’ll recommend is Mark Waid’s Daredevil run. This run is much lighter in terms of storytelling since Matt Murdock has been through a lot of low points in previous stories. In this run, Daredevil teams up with some other favorite Marvel heroes like Spider-Man and Captain America. This is a really great run to read up on since not only does it feature great storylines, but it also features the viral, “I’m not Daredevil” Christmas sweater.

This next one is a bit divisive among fans, but I think it’s pretty good all things considered. The Charles Soule run of Daredevil picks up right after Mark Waid’s run and while I don’t think it’s as strong as the Mark Waid run, I think it’s a lot of fun and takes a lot of risks with the character. This run also introduces one of my favorite Daredevil villains, Muse. Muse is an Inhuman who is also a serial killer who turns his victims’ bodies into art projects.

Oh, that's just what we need, like we need only so much more of this in Batman to boot. As for Waid's run, what devastates that is that, despite claims to the contrary, he shoehorned in leftist propaganda at the time, in what was quite likely a precursor to how Marvel approached writing the Muslim Ms. Marvel series - write it seemingly bright and optimistic, and use that as a potential shield and excuse for turning out Islamic propaganda. When the publishers are only willing to explore an optimistic/lighter view with strings attached, that's wrong and insulting to the intellect. If Waid's ever apologized for that, I have yet to find out. And one more citation given in this university puff piece is about Chip Zdarsky's run:

There are so many things to love about Zdarsky’s Daredevil series such as the incredible artwork by Marco Checcetto in various issues and several great moments and events such as the major street level hero crossover event, “Devil’s Reign”. Another thing I love about this run is how Zdarsky elevates the character of Elektra Natchios and how she even becomes Daredevil alongside Matt Murdock.

See, this too is another tired modern cliche, where a character is robbed of personal agency and identity for the sake of putting them in another character's costume, which I once described as a case of the company asking readers to care more about the costume than the character. IIRC, even Black Panther was put in the DD costume at one point. And no clear explanation from the university writer on how this amounts to merit-based storytelling.

Maybe most puzzling of all is why Ann Nocenti's run in the late 80s-early 90s receives no mention here. She turned out some pretty good stories, and even created the villainess Typhoid Mary. Some could reasonably wonder if Nocenti goes unmentioned because it would undermine the PC narrative of the past decade that women were supposedly excluded from the industry. It's also appalling how the original 1964-98 volume is otherwise largely obscured here, because undoubtably, there's plenty one could say about it as a whole, right down to how Bullseye was created in the mid-70s, yet the only story that matters here is Miller's. Seriously, while his run was satisfying, and far better than what he's known for in later years like Sin City, it's insulting to the intellect to obscure almost everything and anything else in the pre-2000 DD run. At least the writer doesn't go gushing over Kevin Smith's Marvel Knights run, where he obliterated Karen Page. On which note, DD was probably the only series to run as long as it did under the Knights imprint when it was first in use around 1998-2006. Most other characters/series that were put under the imprint by Joe Quesada didn't last as long, if at all, and Black Panther's series of the times was moved back to the flagship imprint after a year. As a result, one can reasonably question whether it was the gigantic success pseudo-historians claim it was at all. Besides, lest we forget that the Capt. America run under the imprint was some of the worst anti-American propaganda ever produced.

After looking at this college paper's take on DD, I'm honestly not sure the writer's a DD fan at all, since like countless other writers of her sort, all she can think of recommending is the easiest and most obvious moments in old/new publication, and won't even discuss the pre-2000 volume in its entirety, nor any of the other specials and miniseries connected with it. That's why these college papers are such a joke.

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.

A supposed throwback to past teenage movies that only gives them a bad name

The Daily Dead interviewed Jude Ellison Doyle and Caitlin Yarsky, the writer and artist of a new horror comic titlted Dead Teenagers, and in discussing the premise:

The unfortunate friends in the new five-issue comic book series Dead Teenagers don't have a choice, as they're forced to relive their 1997 prom night in a lethal time loop that kills them thousands of times through increasingly bizarre methods, with everything from a giant lizard to malevolent mannequins resulting in their violent demises before they reboot and live through death all over again with one goal in mind: to break the vicious cycle and figure out why for them, as Bowling for Soup sings, "High school never ends."

Perfect for fans of Happy Death Day and ’90s slashers, Dead Teenagers is a blood-splattered ride down memory lane that is fun, heartfelt, and easily one of my favorite comic books of 2026. [...]

It's interesting to note that Happy Death Day was scripted by the aforementioned Scott Lobdell, in one of at least a handful of forays he did into screenplay writing. And if that's the kind of slop he thinks makes for great entertainment, it just explains what's wrong with Lobdell's MO in the long run. If he hasn't had any involvement with writing the X-Men in a quarter century, it's for the best.

Thank you for taking the time to answer questions for us, Jude and Caitlin, and congratulations on your new comic book series Dead Teenagers! I love time loop stories and really dug the first issue of this series. When did you initially come up with the idea for this mind-bending story?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: There were a lot of origin points for this story, not least the fact that I’m now a grown-up and have a lot more compassion for teenagers and my own teenage self than I used to, but the truth is, I thought it would be fun to have a high-school reunion for slasher teenagers where they all commiserated about the most embarrassing ways they had died. I wanted to see someone cope with the existential horror of realizing they were only created to be drowned in a toilet by the enraged mutant son of their mean landlady, or something. Then I realized they would have to be alive in order to look back on their deaths, and that sort of slowly folded out into this idea.

What disgust, though obviously a moot point. This is what the entertainment industry's all about? Seriously, if this is all that can be marketed to teens, if that's really what they're doing, something's horribly wrong.

Dead Teenagers swaps the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia to look at the past through a nightmarish lens that pulls no punches. How important was it for you both to tap into the horrors of nostalgia with this story?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: I think we romanticize “the teen years”—or OUR teen years—as this ideal point in time when you were just grown-up enough to have fun and fall in love, but not yet adult enough to have any real problems. Even people who had really horrible teenage experiences tend to project that image of carefree youth onto other people. I do.

The truth is, though, that nearly anyone who grows up enough has the experience of looking back at their teen years and realizing that things were really screwed-up and hard back then, sometimes in ways they didn’t even have names for at the time. Forms of sexual violence that we protest today were normalized, or slurs and other forms of bigotry that we consider horrible today were part of everyday conversation; just look at those famous John Hughes movies, where every other line is a rape joke or a gay joke.

Being a teenager isn’t any easier or safer than being an adult, even if you don’t always have the vocabulary to name what’s wrong. So that’s what Dead Teenagers is about: the characters are slowly realizing that all the violence they’re growing up with, which they’ve taken almost for granted, isn’t actually normal or okay.

Caitlin Yarsky: Horror may be the most fitting genre to contextualize and express the dark side of growing up. Like Jude said, being a teenager isn’t any safer than being an adult. It’s really often less safe, depending on our environment and the people around us. We don’t have autonomy or control over our lives at that time, and talking about it can be scary because we don’t know who we can trust. I think horror can help convey that feeling of helplessness and fear, while also reminding us that we’re not alone.

Since they bring up the late screenwriter Hughes, who later turned to copycatting his own Home Alone movies to the point of being repellent or plain boring, isn't that interesting they make it sound like all movies normalized jokes about sexual abuse, though I will say that in retrospect, I do think those that do - and Hughes turned out at least one, the Breakfast Club, where it was implied Judd Nelson molested Molly Ringwald under a table - made a disgusting, embarrassingly bad mistake that's only hurt moviedom in hindsight and made things difficult for more recent filmmakers, who're no doubt terrified of dealing with sexual issues, based on what a certain filmmaker who directed the most recent James Bond movie falsely said about Thunderball.

But was virtually all the dialogue in Hughes' teenage-themed films like what this Doyle's claiming? I don't recall what I saw being all that bad. So it sounds like another somebody is just exaggerating if that's what it takes to justify his or her shoddy positions on what constitutes "entertainment". Because despite what they say about violence not being okay, and not something to take for granted, it's clear they still believe what they're setting out to do is "fun". It's not. There's plenty of ways to teach that violence is not the answer to everything and that the whole notion it's wonderful to commit heinous acts is offensive and wrong, morally or otherwise, without making it all out to sound like the story's written for cheap sensationalism. When a writer takes that kind of path, then whatever moral lesson is allegedly in store is contradicted.

As for being a teen not guaranteeing safety, well of course being a teen isn't any better than being an adult, and the past decade's served to teach that the hard way. But that doesn't mean comics writers should be obsessing over the horror genre and not at least providing teens or anybody with some kind of solace and relief from what a sadistic world this can be. Funny how the same people turning out these horror thrillers don't have any issue with savages like Iran's, in example, by sharp contrast. And is there something wrong with a direction that offers teenagers something to feel happy about romantically? If Doyle's saying that's wrong, it's atrocious, and again, an example of how many pseudo-scribes today have no sense of mirth, nor do they wish to be happy.

While working on Dead Teenagers, were you both influenced or inspired by any other time loop or high school stories in film, television, books, comics, or video games (horror or otherwise)?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: There are a lot of straightforward teen comedies that I looked to for inspiration. I think Clueless and Mean Girls and 10 Things I Hate About You are just effortless, beautiful movies that don’t get the critical respect they deserve because they were made for teenage girls. I also think of Final Destination as a comedy, though that’s probably my problem. I also, strangely, pulled from superhero comics; I loved X-Men comics as a kid, particularly the teen series Generation X, because the characters had that found-family dynamic, and the inter-scene banter was often just as interesting as whatever they were fighting.

Caitlin Yarsky: All of the media Jude mentioned was inspiration for me too. I was also a big Buffy fan and read a ton of Goosebumps, Fear Street, and Stephen King books. There were movies like She’s All That and shows like Clarissa Explains It All that will always live in my head rent-free.

Caitlin, you created a great variant cover for Dead Teenagers #1 that pays homage to the iconic ’90s film Pretty Woman, and I understand that you’ll be honoring other ’90s films with a variant cover for each upcoming issue. Can you give us a tease of which ’90s films you’ll be celebrating on future covers?

Caitlin Yarsky: Haha I’m not sure how many I can spoil, but I’ll say that Clueless is in the mix!

I find it very unappealing when somebody draws inspiration from a scribe as unendurable as King's turned out to be. I may have watched 2 or 3 movies based on his novels in the past, but that's decidedly it, and I'd rather have nothing to do with him today. Interesting though that the writer actually loved X-Men, right down to the spinoff Lobdell wrote back in the day that may be considered one of the few better items in his resume. Were his forays into the horror genre what influenced this comic? Whatever, I don't see how something as revolting as what they describe could pay tribute to comedies and dramas that were far from horror thrillers in their time. What is clear is that the influence of horror continues to be chillingly dominant.

Ultimately, what do you hope readers take away from this comic book series?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: Fun, hopefully. It’s a dark time and we could all use a break. But also, I want people who don’t normally see themselves or their teenage struggles portrayed in the media to feel seen, and I want to give us all a little encouragement to reckon with our formative traumas and leave our safe zones and grow up.

Caitlin Yarsky: Entertainment for sure, but as Jude said, there are deep themes in here that I hope resonate with people who may feel unrepresented or unheard. I hope people find it exciting and fun, but also meaningful and something they would want to revisit.

If it's so dark today, why do they want to heap more upon us? The mere mention of "fun", as noted before, only contradicts any supposedly positive messages they're trying to convey. Seriously, this is repulsive. And what does she mean by "unrepresented and unheard"? The following near the end may give a clue:

With Dead Teenagers #1 being released in comic book shops on March 18th, what other projects do you both have coming up that you can tease for our readers, and where can they go online to keep up to date on your work?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: I’ve written a whole bunch of things in the last year—aside from Dead Teenagers, there’s Be Not Afraid, which just wrapped up at BOOM!, and DILF: Did I Leave Feminism, which is my obligatory non-fiction book about my transition. [...]

What?!? Does this mean the writer's a woman who took the transsexual route too?!? Boy, there sure is something mind-bogglingly wrong with this whole picture then. So the writer/artist claim this horror tale is meant to be "fun", despite jarring violence being anything but, and then they expect supposedly positive messages to work? Sigh. One must wonder if there's certain left-wing "feminists" who got so disillusioned with the belief system, yet actually thought self-hatred of their sex was any more acceptable, to the point they desecrated themselves in the past decade. For all we know, that could be the fallout from feminism, that it failed to make women proud to be what they are, and only led to worse in the long run.

Anyway, it's shameful how there's quite a few scribes in comicdom who're obsessing with the horror genre, and telling these specialty sites in turn exactly what they'd love to hear. I don't think John Hughes movies of the past 4 decades are perfect, but emphasizing the horror genre does not an improvement make. What the twosome who put out this loathsome comic are doing is despicable.

The role of Detroit, Michigan in comicdom

NPR-Michigan Public wrote about what role a city like Detroit played in producing comics, and tabletop games:

When people think of Detroit, they might think of the city’s reputation for auto manufacturing or Motown music—but what about comic books? Two recent exhibits at the Detroit Historical Museum showcase the city’s lesser-known influence in comic books and tabletop gaming.

Curated by Billy Wall-Winkel, “Heroes vs. Villains” explores Detroit’s comic book history, showcasing more than 60 comic artists with ties to Michigan. The exhibit features artists like Jerry Bails, known as the “father of comic book fandom,” and Shel Dorf, the founder of San Diego Comic-Con, among others. A companion exhibit, “Worlds of Palladium,” profiles Detroit-based publisher Palladium Books, a pioneer in the tabletop roleplaying game community.

“We had folks here in Detroit that were just absolutely obsessed with science fiction and fantasy,” Wall-Winkel said. “We had folks that wanted just to convince everyone else that comics [were] a legitimate art form.”

Trouble is, anybody who thinks they succeeded in convincing they are a valid art form failed, if we look at this from an artistic perspective, and how the mainstream was devastated by political correctness. The only thing the specialists convinced anybody about was that comics make a great wellspring for extended media potential like movies and TV programs. And for a while, yes, that was a success. But by the turn of the decade, the fortunes of Marvel's movieverse began to recede under the weight of wokeness,

The exhibit also features the work of Detroit comic artists who worked for Marvel and DC, including Jim Starlin, Rich Buckler, Keith Pollard, and many more. Wall-Winkel’s personal favorite is writer Dwayne McDuffie, who pioneered minority representation in superhero comics through Milestone Media.

Be that as it may about McDuffie, something that disappoints me is that he was still quite a leftist, from what I know. But, if it matters, it's admittedly disgusting how Dan DiDio fired McDuffie over an Orwellian Thoughtcrime after the latter indicated he wasn't happy writing Justice League in the mid-2000s, because of horrible editorial mandates forced upon him. The worst part is that DiDio all but got away with doing so, and who in the mainstream holds him accountable for disrespecting a POC today over a petty issue? Let's not forget Frank Miller inexplicably hired him as an editor for a self-titled imprint Miller launched a few years back, and if it was a flop, DiDio's involvement alone is arguably why.

As noted, the article also brings up tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons, and how such concepts have overlapped with comicdom:

Palladium Books was founded in 1981 by Detroit artist Kevin Siembieda, a time when tabletop gaming surged in popularity. The publisher is most known for tabletop games like Rifts or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness, which was the first licensed product of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons allow players to act out fantasy adventures together, fighting monsters while playing as their own original characters. Dungeons & Dragons, in particular, has been having a mainstream moment after featuring heavily in the Netflix series “Stranger Things,” as well as the success of its own 2023 feature film. According to Wall-Winkel, fans of video games often turn to tabletop gaming as a more expansive way to explore fantasy and science fiction worlds.

Predictably, they won't get into how the franchise also encountered political correctness and was watered down in the past decade for the sake of leftist propaganda like "inclusivity", as though it were never there, and some of the silliest things about this direction are that they acted like the Drows, Orcs and goodness knows what other anthropomorphic villains in the franchise literally had to see positive depictions, as though they weren't there to begin with. D&D, for all we know, will probably be brought down hard in time by all this wokeism.

Without a doubt, Detroit's got plenty of interesting comics contributors abound who could make good subjects for this exhibition. But, if there's one whom I hope they haven't gone out of their way to highlight, it's Geoff Johns, whose writings in mainstream in the past quarter century were so inexcusably crude and insufferable, they'd make a very humiliating addition to the exhibition as a result. From what I can tell, Johns doesn't seem to be on the list, and if he's absent, that's fortunate. No need to sully the exhibition with the work of somebody as blatant as he proved to be in the long run.

That told, it's still a shame there's so much more an article like this could've brought up, and predictably, they wouldn't because it doesn't fit the superficial, PC narrative they follow.

A shameful misuse of Carnage in Spider-Man

Coming Soon announces that one of Marvel's latest "events" might see Spider-Man being combined with Carnage, as though it weren't bad enough Mary Jane Watson was being turned into another Venom:

Spider-Man is about to transform into one of the scariest Marvel characters of all time.

Marvel Comics is getting ready to launch a new Spider-Man, Venom, and Carnage crossover titled Death Spiral. The event begins with an Amazing Spider-Man/Venom: Death Spiral one-shot that is being released next month, before it then continues in issues of Amazing Spider-Man and Venom throughout the spring.

In Death Spiral, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, Mary Jane/All-New Venom, and Eddie Brock/Carnage will be targeted by a super-powered serial killer named Torment. The event comes from writers Joe Kelly, Al Ewing, and Charles Soule, with artwork by Ed McGuinness, Carlos Gómez, and Jesús Saíz.

What is Spider-Man about to transform into?

Now, Marvel Comics has unveiled the cover art, done by McGuiness, for Amazing Spider-Man #27, which will serve as the finale to Death Spiral. The cover reveals that Spider-Man and Carnage — a notoriously evil character who has a long history with Peter — are about to bond to become the Amazing Spider-Carnage.

When woke writers like Ewing are listed, it's pretty apparent this is going to be awful anyway. And plots involving serial killers have become way too much as well. This is repellent, and is clearly their idea of how to ape the past decade's storyline where Dr. Octopus switched bodies with Peter. It only explains why Marvel would be better off being closed down for good.

A fluff-coated take on DC's so-called revival of the Golden Age Hawkman

A writer at ComicBook did a sugar-drenched take on DC's "revival" of Golden Age Hawkman Carter Hall, courtesy of the most overrated scribes they employed at the time, Geoff Johns, James Robinson and David Goyer:

Hawkman was the first leader of the Justice Society of America, making him one of the most important characters of the Golden Age. He was joined by his girlfriend Hawkgirl as a hero, something that would be repeated numerous times over the years by other characters. Hawkman is a legend, one who has been abused by the vagaries of DC continuity worse than anyone else, including someone like Donna Troy, which is saying something. One Hawkman retcon was so damaging that it destroyed the character in the eyes of fans. However, 24 years ago, DC would put out a story that would begin the process of fixing the character, bringing him back to the forefront of the DC Universe.

“Return of Hawkman” Made the Icon Tenable Again

JSA was the hottest team book of the ’00s. The book started in 1999 and played off the concept of legacy, bringing together the surviving Golden Age members of the team and the descendants of those who died. Fans loved the book, but there was a Hawkman-sized hole in the team. Hawkgirl was there, but it wasn’t the same. At this point, Hawkman had been destroyed as a character for numerous reasons, with the main one being that the character was much too confusing to work with anymore.

And this is a weak, defeatist take on the subject that completely ignores how, if the publishers wanted to, they could have jettisoned all the storylines that made a horrific mess of any DC Hawk, and simultaneously, they didn't need to publish Zero Hour at all. Though this does make clear that one of the worst crossovers in history - one that also made a horrific mess of Silver Age Green Lantern Hal Jordan - wasn't exactly published for the purpose of clearing up continuity any more than Crisis on Infinite Earths. On which note, does the writer recognize what he says could also be said about Hal and the GL series? And what happened with those was easily worse, morally or otherwise. From what I can recall, unlike Hal, Carter was never turned into a murderous monster named Parallax, nor was Katar Hol, the Silver Age counterpart.

And talk about not being the same when it comes to Hawkgirl! That's because in a way, Shiera Sanders, the Golden Age Hawkgirl, had been all but destroyed as a character too, perishing during ZH when Carter and Katar were "merged", and we're supposed to buy into the notion she'd been reincarnated in the body of her niece, Kendra Saunders. Unfortunately, much like with Hawkman, the issues involving Hawkgirl were handled according to a bad form of "canon" from 1994 that should've been abandoned wholesale, though of course, there was much worse that came down the pike the following decade like Identity Crisis, where even Hawkman was mistreated badly.

The way Geoff Johns and James Robinson wrote their series, in hindsight, was pretentious at worst, as the artwork by Rags Morales was overrated too. Perhaps even Tim Truman's 1989 miniseries was a big mistake as well, because let's be clear. It is possible to write distinctions between the Hawks of the Golden and Silver Ages, and if it really mattered, the editors could've written the Halls into retirement, along with several other Golden Age heroes. And if they had to be sent to the afterlife, it could've been through natural causes or auto accidents.

With this puff piece, ComicBook sure has solidified their place next to CBR in its current incarnation as one of the worst tabloid-style entertainment sites in the business. Besides, they completely ignore that in the past 15 years or so, writing's become awfully woke, even for the Hawks. I've noted before that it was only at the dawn of the 1990s where the backstory of the Hawks became a horrible mess. If all that stuff could be jettisoned, it is possible to make repairs. That's why as of today, I don't consider John Ostrander's Hawkworld series from the 90s a worthy incarnation for Katar Hol and Shayera Thal either. I recently bought the DC Finest archive containing stories of the Hawks from the 60s, and that's decidedly a far better form of canon than what came 3 decades later. If the Silver Age Hawks matter, that would make a better base from which to build premises today. And when the Golden Age Hawks are hopefully reprinted in similar archives, that can provide a good source for building upon as well.

A dreadful choice for best of 2025

A writer at Superhero Hype chose what he claims is the best of 2025, and his selection of Dr. Doom material from the past year sounds pretty predetermined:

2025 was a red letter year for Doctor Doom. His profile was boosted publicly by the hype surrounding the upcoming MCU movie Avengers: Doomsday. HIs star also rose in the comics, where he dominated the Earth in the One World Under Doom miniseries. And yet, for all this, his finest turn in 2025 came as part of an unlikely team-up with Rocket Raccoon.

Written by J. Michael Straczynski, with art by Will Robson, Doctor Doom & Rocket Racoon #1 finds Rocket summoned to Latveria. Doom is in a contemplative mood, and has come to question the nature of existence. In short, he seeks the meaning of life.

However, for all his knowledge, Doom is a master of Earthly science. This is where Rocket and his own brilliance with alien technology come into play. Rocket, for his part, thinks Doom is nuts, but he’s willing to indulge just about anything if the money is good.

Doom and Rocket are an odd couple, to say the least. However, the pairing makes sense under Straczynski’s pen. Both characters are largely amoral, yet can be pressed into playing the hero. This leads to the development of an odd friendship that defies logic, yet fits both characters perfectly. Beyond that, the story delves into some truly deep philosophy.

Robson’s artwork further highlights the paradoxical nature of the story. The image of a talking raccoon standing alongside a Wagnerian figure in full plate is frankly ridiculous. It is the sort of thing that only works in comics. And yet, it does work.

Yeah right, and all because JMS is the writer, and based on that, the columnist wants it to. At least that's my perception of what's going on here. Surely it's not appalling we have a case here of a presumed goodie who's making a Faustian pact with a villain? Atop all that, it's sad how a Hollywood scribe who played a part in bringing down Marvel and DC in the 2000s has been welcomed back by C.B. Cebulski to writing the former's creations, all for the sake of endless line-wide crossovers that brought down Marvel in the long run.

The article even fawns over Gail Simone's writing in X-Men, and says:

I’ve honestly never been much of an X-Men fan. The franchise has often exemplified the worst excesses of superhero comics, with writing that presumes you already know the characters. Uncanny X-Men #17 does not do this. Indeed, it’s a simple one-shot story with an interesting new villain.

This is confusing, because IIRC, there were times when some characters in X-Men and other such comics would have an introduction written for them multiple times, explaining what their powers are and what they could do. That's not "presuming we know" the cast of characters, but rather, assuming we don't. Of course, today, if you know where to look, you'll notice some examples of mainstream comics where they couldn't care less if you didn't know any of the characters, because they intend to obliterate any characters they consider literally expendable through a crossover or some other shoddily written event, as was the case with Identity Crisis and Avengers: Disassembled 2 decades ago. And such a direction, when taken, is disgraceful as it's insulting to the intellect.

All that aside, this is another puff piece that seems to be deliberately written just for promoting an overrated writer who wasn't worth all the fuss when she began. And then, there's also the choice of the Titans Annual:

Donna Troy is notable among DC Comics’ characters for being one of the few heroes created by a continuity error. Her backstory has become even more muddled over time, thanks to various reboots changing the history of the Amazons. She’s been everything from a baby rescued by Wonder Woman to an evil clone meant to replace her. Titans 2025 Annual #1 sought to once again clarify this, creating a definitive history for Donna in the DC All-In era.

Writer/artist Phil Jimenez has often said that Donna Troy is his favorite superhero. That is made more than clear over the course of this issue. It is an obvious labor of love, made all the more miraculous for how it details some fairly complicated history and makes it accessible. The artwork is simply gorgeous as well. [...]

As I noted some time ago, the character design for Donna was watered down and mediocre, so it's decidedly not hard to guess the fawning commentary was deliberate, and the columnist expects virtually everyone to buy into his puff piece without question. This is why such news sites aren't serious sources for information, and only multiply the insults to veteran artists and writers. If that's how Jiminez is going to draw Donna, then his claims she's his favorite character are phony. And Donna's backstory is muddled? Well gee, maybe they should blame previous editorial boards and writers, Dan DiDio included, for all that.

On the other hand, Bam-Smack-Pow says Image was the best of the year:

This year, Image Comics may not have made as much money as the big two, but they were the best comic book company of the year. Superman, Batman, and the Absolute Universe are always among the top sellers of the month. For example, a title starring Batman was in four of the five best sellers in November 2025 (DC / Marvel - Batman / Deadpool #1 (One-Shot), Batman No. 3, Absolute Batman No. 14, and DC K.O. Knightfight No. 1). Nevertheless, you can’t discount the impact titles from the Energon Universe have made in 2025. It was so good that the universe is getting an adult animated series.

Some of these comics based on licensed merchandise like GI Joe/Transformers may be worth the effort, but that doesn't mean everything's recommendable there. For example:

Of course, comic book fans want stories with characters using unfathomable abilities to defeat overpowered villains. Image Comics doesn’t deprive readers of stories like that. Titles like Ludo Lullabi’s Ghost Pepper, along with Benito Cereno and E. J. Su's Blood and Thunder, are two comics that provide the sci-fi adventures you may crave. However, they also publish more “grounded” comics like Doug Wagner and Daniel Hillyard’s I Was a Fashion School Serial Killer. There are still fantasy tales, but without having a hero flying or breaking steel with their hands.

With titles like those, it's clear not all is rosy at Image, and when they promote horror thriller fare so blatantly, far more than anything optimistic, it's sad.

Another thing to love is how Image Comics uses its social media. Image doesn’t just promote the comics. They make sure to show real people who have read and reviewed the comics. The best part is that the reviews are genuine. You can tell they mean what they say instead of doing it to get a paycheck. It’s easy to see those videos and be drawn into what they’re highlighting because it’s coming from an actual comic book fan.

I think that's awfully naive and jumping to conclusions too. There's all sorts of "professional" critics who can be biased and predetermined in their positions, so it does little good for Image to make use of their reviews for social media promotion. And if they don't sell in millions of copies, then like the mainstream, they haven't exactly accomplished much.

So again, there may be more overrated slop being fawned over by specialty columnists this year, and what's really sad is how they won't champion the visions of veteran writers of the past who did better than what the mainstream's offering today. And while I'm sure Image has some palatable stuff, that doesn't mean we should take a naive view of their output either.