Daily Wire guest writer goes too easy on Tom King

Comics artist Matt Battaglia wrote on the Daily Wire about the Lanterns TV show the overrated leftist Tom King worked on, and while Battaglia may express disappointment with the TV program itself (and even that's very soft), he regrettably takes a lenient view of King as a writer himself, making it sound as though King literally has talent, which he doesn't:

HBO’s new television series “Lanterns” is revealing to a broader audience the limits of the superhero genre. The show tries to capture the spirit of the first season of “True Detective” (perfect television) while being shackled to Green Lantern’s expectations. Put those aesthetics on Batman or The Question, and it would work; slap them on a cosmic superhero whose power is fueled by imagination and a magic ring, and they begin to break under the weight of expectation.

The show is dour, but uplifted by a cast whose charisma tends to break what the script asks the viewer to believe and think. Kyle Chandler is obviously magnetic and shakes off any negative connotations some writers wanted to saddle the character with (old, racist, privileged, etc.; roll the clip). John Stewart is played well by Aaron Pierre and is given the reverse problem from Chandler: we are told he’s going to be great at the job, but his actions tend to say otherwise. It’s an odd framing for a story ostensibly about a superhero who comes with lots of baggage and expectations. Nathan Fillion’s Guy Gardner at least feels like he’s playing in the same sandbox his source material requires.

Umm, the politics they're forcing onto the material here wouldn't suit Batman and the Question either, and it's sad Battaglia wants to downplay the whole problem. No matter how good the performances seemingly are, the far-left leanings ruin everything.

This problem of missing expectations and weighing down heroes with such bleak, morally dubious problems and decisions is something of a hallmark of Tom King. Since his rise to prominence in the comics scene, he has been handed the reins to many a superhero property. King is a good writer; his stories are generally well received (except, of course, from his extremely vocal critics who think he single-handedly waged the war in Iraq); it’s just that his stories tend to be ill-suited to the expectations of the superhero genre.

Well isn't this an insult to the intellect. Who gives King's stories a good reception? Only the most loyalist of the critics and leftist audiences. This doesn't make a clear distinction between superhero fare and the indie comics King's written, and if his superhero stories are that bad, why should we think his independent comics are any better? Also, what makes Mr. Battaglia think we actually believe King fought singlehandedly in Iraq? Of course I don't think that's the case, and Battaglia sounds like he's trying to put down King's detractors despite how poor his writing is. Battaglia's downplay continues:

The issue with King’s writing and themes in the TV world is that his styling is finally running up against budget limitations. When paired with artists like Greg Smallwood on “Human Target,” Doc Shaner and Mitch Gerards on “Strange Adventures,” and Mitch Gerards again on “Mister Miracle” (these three being the closest analog tonally to “Lanterns”), the dour writing is buoyed by colorful, exciting visuals, even when the staging can become mundane (see the relatively low dynamics in “Mister Miracle” compared to the Jack Kirby high dynamism source material). Those visuals are entirely absent from “Lanterns”, the suits are drab, the power use is limited, this isn’t the big space opera stuff that is expected from the character.

King tends to mine the hero for guilt and regret, rather than heroics. His take on Adam Strange is a compromised man who ended up in over his head, making sacrifices that he couldn’t handle; His Mister Miracle is suffering from crippling depression and anxiety; Christopher Chance in “Human Target” is dealing with a terminal poisoning and trying to solve his own pending murder (spoilers: his murderer shares a good deal with Hal Jordan’s in “Lanterns”). His DC series “Heroes in Crisis” places all of the superheroes in therapy, and one of them is unable to handle all the pain that they are holding onto, thus creating a murder mystery.

He also leans on female leads who dominate their male counterparts. Mister Miracle and Big Barda at least veer into showing a supportive marriage, whereas Adam Strange’s marriage with Alanna is fraught with lies, similar to Chance’s relationship with Ice, which plays on the classic femme fatale trope.

Sorry, but from the art samples I've seen from King's books, it's uninspired, and telling us it's dour is actually putting it lightly. And if King's take on Human Target has anything similar to what occurs in Lanterns, that's just one more reason to stay far away from his comics. As for ladies dominating their male counterparts, let's be clear. It's not like Barda was ever written literally bossing around Scott Free. If memory serves, she was based partly on Jack Kirby's wife Rosalind, and a way for Kirby to express his love and respect for her.

None of these decisions are bad in and of themselves, and they’re all well done for the choices being made; they just tend to undermine the superhero genre to the point of crumbling. He dealt with many of these themes in his breakout book “Sheriff of Babylon,” which, I think, is a fantastic read dealing with the Iraq War. All the themes King keeps mining in superhero properties were present there, and they fit well. It’s a powerful book that remains relevant. The key difference is that “Sheriff of Babylon” deals with regular people; his other work deals with superhumans and the decision to reduce them to normal, flawed people, pushed to the breaking point and morally compromised to the point where they are indistinguishable from evil. Which may very well be his point – and it’s a point that Alan Moore makes in “Watchmen.” However, with “Watchmen,” Moore is using analogs of other heroes, while King is using the actual characters themselves and all their accumulated baggage. His stories would play so much better unchained from these legacy characters and all their weight.

Sugarcoating even creator-owned comics by folks with left-wing bents is no improvement. There's only so many creator-owned comics that unfortunately are built on divisive politics, and while it may be better if the themes King keeps relying upon were employed in indie fare instead, that still doesn't mean they're palatable even in independents. At least a vital point is made as to what's been common for years now - tinkering and tampering with established characters in ways that does not suit the personas they're usually known for, and certainly doesn't make them look admirable as they were created to be. But to say the heavy-handed trauma themes are "well done" still risks being too easy on the scriptwriters, and that's what's enabled them to all but get away with some of the worst things they've done all these years. We could do without that kind of lenience.

It's a shame the Daily Wire's taking an article from somebody who follows a predictable but still very sad playbook of "diplomacy". If Mr. Battaglia can't deliver a tour de force critique, he also obscures all the worst errors made over the past 20-30 years. That kind of soft approach can't continue.

Topics like Magneto, Kitty Pryde and Sabra at the NYCC

A writer on Times of Israel tells about his visits to Jewish-themed panels at the NYCC, and what he thinks of similar creations in the comics themselves. For example, Magneto:

Magneto brings a specific Jewish history into that broader metaphor.

Introduced as an antagonist in the original X-Men series, he acquired a more complex background under writer Chris Claremont, whose work established his history as a Holocaust survivor. His conflict with Charles Xavier became more than a contest between two powerful men. It became an argument about whether coexistence can protect a vulnerable minority, and what happens when someone no longer trusts that promise.

That history helps explain Magneto’s worldview without excusing every action he takes. A survivor’s fear of renewed persecution is understandable. His willingness, in some stories, to dominate or endanger others remains open to moral judgment.

X-Men: Magneto Testament takes readers back before those arguments, to the child who had to live through the catastrophe.

Written by Greg Pak and illustrated by Carmine Di Giandomenico, the five-issue series appeared in 2008–2009. It follows Max Eisenhardt, the boy who will become Magneto, through Nazi persecution and Auschwitz-Birkenau. His efforts to protect his family and Magda, a Romani girl, place individual relationships within the machinery of genocide. The collected edition includes historical endnotes and a teachers’ guide.

I think the saddest part of this is how the writer does not address how writing quality went downhill post-2000, and whatever redemption Magneto saw in writing back in the 80s was taken apart, with the last storyline prior to leftist Grant Morrison's shoddy run in 2001, "Eve of Destruction", being one of the worst renditions, lowering Erik Lensherr to a nasty, one-dimensional cliche. And then Wolverine's depicted stabbing him to death. In the "modern era" stories, it turns out Magneto survived, or it was a classic clone established taking his place earlier, but it does little to mend the bad taste Scott Lobdell's last X-Men story at the time left behind. A writer like Pak, who's a product of the modern PC era, does not make me feel encouraged to read whatever he turned out, no matter how he portrays Magneto. In any case, why doesn't the modern PC destruction matter to the columnist? Next comes Kitty Pryde:

Jewish identity within the X-Men is not confined to catastrophe. Kitty Pryde, also known as Kate, provides another important example. Marvel’s official biography identifies her as a Jewish girl from Illinois whose grandfather survived a Nazi concentration camp.

Her presence makes room for a Jewish character whose life encompasses friendship, leadership and adventure. Jewish representation should have room for inherited memory and for the ordinary business of living.

Must I point out even Kitty fell victim to PC tactics the columnist seems uninterested in addressing? I'm sorry, but when you gloss over what went wrong in later years, and act like it literally doesn't matter, that only makes the impact soggy. What really makes it sad is that here, Kitty went on to become a notable member of Excalibur, surely one of the most surreal Marvel series of all, and years later, that was all turned into a sad mockery. Now here's Sabra:

Sabra introduces a different dimension: Israeli identity.

Created by writer Bill Mantlo and artist Sal Buscema, Ruth Bat-Seraph appeared briefly in The Incredible Hulk #250 in 1980 before her full introduction in #256, cover-dated February 1981. A mutant associated with Israeli intelligence, she wears a costume inspired by Israel’s blue-and-white flag. Her name draws on the term for a native-born Israeli, associated with the prickly pear: a tough exterior and a sweet interior.

Her significance is easy to understand. Israel has a place within Marvel’s imagined world, and an Israeli woman can occupy the role of superhero.

Her early portrayal also deserves scrutiny. In her first full appearance, the death of an Arab boy becomes the occasion for the Hulk to challenge her understanding of their shared humanity. The story’s treatment of the conflict is blunt, and Israeli comics creators have criticized the character’s limited depth.

Recognizing those shortcomings does not diminish the value of Israeli representation. It establishes a higher expectation for it. An Israeli character should have an interior life, relationships and moral complexity, rather than carrying an entire country’s meaning in every appearance.

The screen adaptation renewed that discussion. Shira Haas played Ruth Bat-Seraph in the 2025 film Captain America: Brave New World. Although the film changed her background to a former Black Widow operative, it retained her Israeli identity. Claims that the released film erased her nationality therefore miss an important fact.

Umm, even if her nationality was retained, the way the overall movie was written was very poor, dragged the character down with it, and that Bat-Seraph had no super-powers of any kind in the finished product also made a mockery of the proceedings. Also, it sounds like the writer's putting words in the mouths of Jewish comics writers by making it sound like they criticize the fictional character instead of her creators, Bill Mantlo and Sal Buscema, for writing her with such limited depth, employing moral equivalence, making it look like Israelis literally don't care if Islamists end up costing their own, and one of the stupidest moments in that story is when the Arab boy Bruce Banner was talking with says he doesn't even read books. The Times of Israel's writer obscures just how embarrassingly bad that all was, and it didn't end there. In 1991, almost 8 years after her last appearance, Peter David wrote a Hulk story where Bat-Seraph was a guest again, and made a bizarre claim that Israeli men beat their wives in frustration over the wars that go on. Even that was poorly written/researched focus, fully obscuring what the Islamic religion's built upon.

Also, perhaps an argument can be made that Israeli/Jewish representation doesn't matter when there's insufficient merit in the finished product? Sabra's appearances at the time had very few positive moments, and unlike the Arabian Knight, introduced shortly after her, she never got a stand-alone story in anthologies like Marvel Comics Presents, recalling the Knight had a story in the early issues titled, "The Demon in the Dunes". It should also be noted the Knight's debut story was more favorable to him than Sabra's was to her, and no objective view was taken of how the Knight's 3 wives-through-polygamy wore niqabs. When Contest of Champions came about, that actually depicted the Knight as negative towards Sabra, but even then, the writing was still very weak, right down to how the Knight was the one who got to snatch up one of the artifacts the heroes in the tale were after. And then, look who's participating in panels at the NYCC itself:

These conversations will also have a home at Comic Con. According to the announcement Roy Schwartz shared, “The Year of Jack Kirby: A Star-Studded Celebration!” is scheduled for Thursday, October 8, from 5:45–6:30 p.m. in North–Room 408. The announced participants include Chris Claremont, Jim Starlin, Adi Granov, Dean Haspiel, Jeremy Kirby and Schwartz.

“Jewish Identity in Comics” is scheduled for Sunday, October 11, from 12:15–1 p.m. in North–Room 406.1, with Alex Segura, Julian Voloj, Michal Schick, Neil Kleid, Sarah Singer and Schwartz. Attendees should check the convention’s current schedule for changes.

Far-left Segura is part of the proceedings at NYCC? Well I didn't think what was already in description about the convention was appealing, so I guess this is just an extension of the dreadful farce. What I do realize is that he's probably trying to compare illegal immigration from bad places like the Islamic world to anti-Jewish persecution, and if so, that's wrong and offensive to the intellect. Mainly because, if the illegal immigrants have no intention of abandoning the Religion of Peace, then how can they possibly be called "refugees" when they're actually hell-bent upon forcing their twisted beliefs upon civilized people? Near the end of the article:

Magneto’s childhood asks us to remember the human being beneath a frightening reputation. Kitty Pryde makes space for Jewish life beyond persecution. Sabra raises questions about how Israeli identity can be visible without becoming a caricature.

Again, that "human being" was thrown out around the turn of the century, and some of Sabra's appearances in the 45 years of her creation were caricatures. Even Shadowcat hasn't always fared well, but the buffoon writing the Times of Israel item simply won't show the courage to lament how anything from Marvel and DC since the turn of the century was massively damaged for the sake of woke garbage renditions. But it's nothing new to me that quite a few "historians" are rather unconvincing and don't make very good commentators either on pop culture, never examining the positives and negatives in depth. That's why some history books might offer a meatier look at past conduct pre-2000, but then, if they were published more recently, they never take an objective look at the newer writers and editors in charge to see if they're doing a good job or not, if at all. And that doesn't bode well for the industry's artistic health.

Lanterns TV series villifies both police and policewomen, and even pulls an Identity Crisis

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart lets know what the finale for the James Gunn-produced Lanterns series is, and who was written killing Hal Jordan:

DC Studios’ HBO Max series Lanterns revealed who killed superhero Hal Jordan in the season finale this week and several many fans are shocked and disgusted over who the writers turned into a killer.

***SPOILERS***

The series, which holds an estimated $130 million production budge on eight episodes that took more than three months to shoot, has taken a lot of criticism since its debut for the massive amount of wokeism it has forced on viewers. The finale, however, revealed who shot the original human Green Lantern in the head and incensed many fans as it turned out that Hal’s purported love interest, Sheriff Kerry Kane (Kelly Macdonald), was the murderer.

Most of the detractors are confused over the reveal because it does not seem to make any logical sense. Not only was Sheriff Kelly portrayed as a love interest for the man she murdered in cold blood, but the scene depicting the murder does not contain any threat to Kelly (or her son) being posed by Hal Jordan, who she then ruthlessly shot to death.

Without getting too far into the comic book weeds of this storyline, the plot of the season maintains that Kelly’s son is actually part alien (a Martian Manhunter), a fact that Kelly has tried to keep hidden from the world. In the controversial murder scene, Jordan reveals that he knows that her son, Noah Macon (Shea Pritchard), is part alien and that he wants to help her keep the boy’s secret and to protect him from danger.

But, in a shocking split-second decision, Kelly whips out her sheriff’s service pistol and shoots Jordan in the forehead, killing him, despite the fact that he was not acting belligerently or threatening her or Noah in any way.

The producers pulled an Identity Crisis, in reference to the abominable 2004 DC miniseries that degraded women, made heroes look bad, and was a left-wing metaphor for September 11, 2001. And here, in Lanterns, you could say they villify not just simply law enforcement, but a policewoman/mother too. WB's spending only so much money on something this repugnant? I hesitate to think what they'd do if Carol Ferris were the co-star.

I think audiences who care would be strongly advised to turn off the TV set. If there's a 2nd season in the works, it's better to avoid it entirely. This is one of the most horrifically forced and contrived programs supposedly based on classic comics characters, and compounds the damage that GL first seriously experienced in Action Comics Weekly back in mid-1988, marking its downhill collapse that continued for many years, and has never recovered from to date.

Spider-Man isn't still standing, since it all fell down long ago

Deadline interviewed screenwriter Noah Hawley, who penned one of the entries in the 1000th issue of Spider-Man, and while his tale may mention Mary Jane Watson, it's only in passing. First:

Undoubtedly, Spider-Man is having a moment. As Spider-Man: Brand New Day continues its record-breaking theatrical run, recently becoming the highest-grossing film in North American box office history, the Amazing Spider-Man #1000 is generating major demand of its own, with more than 400,000 orders ahead of its release today, and Marvel already moving to a second printing. (The issue also features a fortuitous interview between Tom Holland and Destin Daniel Cretton prior to the current accolades).

For “Still Standing,” Hawley teamed with artist Patrick Gleason to imagine a Peter Parker decades removed from the Spider-Man fans have long known. Now in his 80s and living at Forest Hills Nursing Home, Peter can feel the pull of the life he left behind, while his son and grandson offer reminders of the life he built beyond the mask. But as Peter looks back, one regret continues to haunt him: the death of Gwen Stacy. The story finds Peter confronting his memories and the possibility that they may not be as reliable as they once were. When a woman who appears to be an older Gwen Stacy enters his life, Peter is forced to confront the past in a story that carries the bittersweet weight of a hero reckoning with his own mortality.

It's kind of hard to appreciate a tale spotlighting Gwen when everything's been done to desecrate not just her dignity in J. Michael Straczynski's Sins Past storyline from 2004, but also MJ's, since the same tale made her look like a liar who'd kept a bizarre secret from Peter for many years. Back in the early 2000s, there were a number of stories from the majors that were either inconsistent with past continuity, or distorted it altogether, and Sins Past was but one of those. They may have seemingly jettisoned the Sins Past premise in the past several years, but their adamant refusal to restore the Spider-marriage still speaks volumes.

And how is just 400,000 orders having a "moment"? If some previous landmark issues saw more than that, it's clear there's less enthusiasm now for Spidey. Especially if all they can offer up is yet another tale shoving Mary Jane out of the picture, and dredging up the Gwen issue ad nauseum. Come to think of it, after a few years, the writers had moved past the whole Gwen demise trauma in the Bronze Age, and it's not like it was repeatedly hauled out over the years in all instances, even if and when the clone developed by the Jackal turned up. If the orders see significant drops after the 1000th issue, that will only confirm all the more this isn't working out.

Also, interesting they cite a son and grandson...but no daughters? Apparently, even the future-era Mayday Parker isn't acceptable to them as a lady legacy now. That's the perception they're giving.

DEADLINE: Your story, I feel, belongs in the same vein of Jeph Loeb’s Spider-Man: Blue, in the sense that Peter is still reflecting on his relationship with Gwen Stacy. But the story also takes it one step further, as he still acknowledges his life with MJ, his own mortality in old age, his son who doesn’t pay much attention to him, and his grandson who indulges him… So, how did you parse what your story was going to be about? And what’s the emotionality you were trying to capture here?

HAWLEY: I started with the issue number. Spider-Man #1000 makes Spider-Man an old man on some level, and there was something about that legacy where it’s like, well, let’s give him the dignity of old age. We’ve forced him to be this eternal youth for us on some level. And that’s where my head went to this idea that he’s passed on this legacy to his son, who then passed it on to his grandson. And all of us, even the maestros at a certain age, your kids are like, “Oh, Dad, it’s enough already with the old stories.” But the grandchild loves to hear the old stories. You know what I mean?[laughs].

DEADLINE: Right.

HAWLEY: So there was something about that dynamic between [his own living family, after MJ passed away]. Also, the story is about the idea that Peter can see the path from where he grew up to where he is now, yet the one thing in his life that still eats at him is Gwen’s death and how he feels he failed her. So, it’s a bit like Legion, in the sense that, when it starts, you meet a man; he’s in a psychiatric institution, he’s either mentally ill or he has superpowers, and we don’t know which one is true. He’s seeing things that aren’t there. He is hearing things that aren’t there.

In Spider-Man, you have a guy who’s in his 80s, and he’s in a nursing home, and is he getting dementia. Is something else happening to him? I think the audience would like to think of him as still sharp and that he’s just being manipulated. And then throwing in an older Mysterio into the mix—so many of these supervillains wear a mask all the time. Who would even know what Mysterio looks like? So that idea that there’s just somebody right next to him who’s preying on him, I thought that was a really insidious idea.

Somehow, this doesn't sound very encouraging, any more than any other shoddy story that's come about ever since Joe Quesada gave JMS the keys to the kingdom. Also note how, while MJ may be mentioned (here, it's solely as initials, from what I can tell), she's still very much out of the picture. That doesn't build confidence at all. Also, what dignity is to be found in elderly age when they've spent the past quarter century taking apart everything that made Spidey work in the first place, abused MJ as a character very badly, to the point where she has no agency, as the premise of her passing away long ago clarifies? Indeed, despite any stories where they may make it look to the contrary to date, they have otherwise kicked MJ's agency to the curb, mainly through denial of exploring a full relationship between her and Peter. And Gwen, for some reason, is made into an object for focusing on Peter as a miserable man, which seems to be the PC crowd's whole notion is the only way Spidey should ever be characterized - as a guy whose life is otherwise depressing. That kind of bizarre, controlling mindset is exactly what led to the dissolving of the Spider-marriage.

Oh, by the way, does that line about Mysterio suggest he's disguised himself as Gwen's lookalike? I think I know another reason why it's better to stay far away from this "landmark" issue. Spidey is definitely being manipulated, and it's been a sad staple ever since JMS became the writer, and even before, as the Clone Saga suggests.

DEADLINE: What was the most challenging aspect of putting this story together?

HAWLEY: Well, again, it’s the economy, right? It’s how do we get these three big thoughts across? One is our Spider-Man is in his 80s. He has a son and a grandson, so that legacy continues. He’s in a nursing home. He meets [a person who presents themselves as] Gwen, but it can’t be because she’s dead. And even if it is issue #1000, you can never assume that people know the backstory. But I was told this run is already sold out before the debut, and they’re printing more copies. It’s going to be a keepsake item, so people who might not even know much about Spider-Man are buying it. So, part of the challenge was: how do you get in enough clarity for less-informed readers without it being boring?

And for the twist, for example, when Gwen is being attacked and Peter goes to her room, how do you make sure that what’s happening is clear for the reader? I can use all the words I want to describe it, but visually, you really want to make sure the reader is like, “I think it’s an attacker, but what’s going on?”

What if it's the clone of Gwen originally written up by Gerry Conway around 1975? Or again, what if it's Mysterio? Or better still, who cares? Hawley's insulting intellects, and clearly doesn't have confidence in any history writeups, online or off, about Spidey, for people to know the backstories. On the other hand, interesting how he hints he realizes this looks more appealing to the speculator market, and is pretty much going along with it sans any discussion of whether there's merit to the tales inside.

DEADLINE: Does it make you nervous that this is going out into the world with that much sales success surrounding it? 400,000 copies sold and then some… that’s no joke.

HAWLEY: I feel good. You can never predict if anyone’s going to like a thing, but the vision that I had has been fully realized, and so that’s what matters the most.

Sorry, but while it may be higher than some sums today, it's still a joke. It's rare today for a pamphlet to sell over a million, and even then, there's telling clues it's only according to how much specialty stores order. And look at how the guy hints what he's really happy about is that his vision has been brought about, not whether anybody embraces it at the readership level.

DEADLINE: Do you have a hard-and-fast rule for adapting things to different mediums like this?

HAWLEY: Look, my philosophy always, when I was doing Legion or Alien even, it’s like the danger with adaptation is that you take issues 120 through 130 of a comic book, like the beloved Dark Phoenix Saga, for example, and you turn it into a two-hour movie, and inevitably you have to compress some things and change some things, maybe consolidate some characters. Whatever you change will make people angry. I have a friend who worked on Star Trek who said, “Nobody hates Star Trek more than a Star Trek fan.” There is that idealism of, “All right, what you got?” But my thing was always, “Look, if I take the character of Legion, and I don’t try to tell you stories you already know, but I create new stories with characters you love, isn’t that a gift? Where you’re like, ‘I’m going to do something. I’m going to move past the ghost of Ripley and tell you an entirely new world-building story that has Xenomorphs in it, or I’m going to take you on a journey with Legion that will ultimately involve Professor X, but the story has to stand on its own two feet before he comes in.'”

And so that was my thought here with “Still Standing,” to offer people something different, something that maybe nobody else would. And they can like it or not. But I also felt like people are going to buy issue #1000 who maybe haven’t bought a comic book since they were 16, and now they’re 50. And so they’re thinking about getting old, and so here’s a story that feels relevant to them [laughs].

I don't like how he keeps up the cliche of telling everybody the Phoenix Saga is "beloved". Because I don't find it appealing, if only because of how Chris Claremont exploited an established character I thought I was supposed to be rooting for, and originally turned her into a murderous maniac before the setup was retconned in 1985 to a cosmic entity taking Jean's place. And what's so "different" about a story where MJ continues to be marginalized?

Hawley's also hinting at a double-standard on a story needing to stand on its own 2 feet when he implies he's virtue-signaling about having gotten his geriatric-themed story into print. Some of the older folks he alludes to could also quite possibly be those most alienated by 2007's One More Day, and that's the Spidey equivalent of any Trek tale that made sci-fi fans angry, if they were that badly written. What's the whole deal with angering fandoms instead of making them happy? No wonder the Spider-marriage continues to be trampled upon. There's nothing Hawley's offering here that's encouraging, that's for sure, and he predictably takes no critical stance on any of the worst stories ever published since 2001.

DEADLINE: Your version of Mysterio is a good example of that reflection in old age. He’s doing these things to Peter that are so hurtful, and eventually, he actually recognizes that.

HAWLEY: There’s a lot of regret going on here. Mysterio thinks that he’s finally getting his revenge in torturing Peter. He thinks it’s going to give him a sense of closure and pleasure, but it turns out that it really didn’t do either of those things. It was just mean. And I guess he’s looking at his endgame too, and he was like, “Well, maybe I’m not that guy anymore.” There’s something about the redemption of it all. I’ve created a lot of villains in my day, and I’m always looking for points of empathy for a viewer or reader because when you have a villain, it usually means violence is coming. And we’re trained, certainly in America, to believe that the only way to really resolve conflict is black hat versus white hat in the town square at noon. But I never want violence to feel like a good idea.

It’s like violence is problem-solving without an idea. And so when you build empathy, when you see, well, there’s no such thing as a villain. There are. Historically, there are some true psychopaths. But for the most part, you have people with grievances or people who feel wronged and who are trying, like a lot of people, to fill a hole they just can’t seem to fill, and they’re just bitter. And every time that Spider-Man takes them back to jail, they’re like, “See, I’m the victim.” Which is a very Fargo mentality for villains. It’s like, “I’m the victim.” So I guess I wanted to put these two old men in a room after the fighting was done and to go, not, “I’m sorry,” but maybe all that villainy was just a waste of time.

Oh, and here we get a fishy lecture about violence not solving problems. But isn't it supposed to be the problem? This is confusing and reeks of leftist propaganda. Although plenty of real life criminals are practically indoctrinated to where they consider themselves "victims", that completely obscures that comitting the worst acts like murder and rape do not make somebody a better person, and Hawley's not addressing that matter, yet hinting he even puts moral equivalence into the tale. In that case, is actor Gerard Depardieu to be literally excused for his sexual offenses of the past? How about Jimmy Savile? Absolutely not. And even if Mysterio only robbed banks in past stories, is that inherently okay? Of course not. Why reduce the whole matter of Spidey and his rogues gallery to one of mere "rivalry" as though it were all just a spat in the playground? Even eldery age is no excuse for this absurdity Mr. Hawley's brewed up. We're supposed to emphasize with a criminal? That's the whole problem here, because again, it risks letting the worst offenders off the hook.

DEADLINE: Bloodborne and Elden Ring will never see me coming, that’s for sure. And last but not least, you mentioned Tom Holland earlier. This comic issue includes an interview with Destin Daniel Cretton and Tom about Spider-Man: Brand New Day, which is now one of the highest-grossing North American films of all time. What say you about its success?

HAWLEY: It comes back to the optimism of the character. It’s interesting because that story is about “everybody’s forgotten me, and I’m trying to be OK with that, but I’m lonely on some level.” And then it’s also clearly setting up some elements for the next Avengers movie. It’s a good time in the theater, which I think is what’s driving people to see it, especially at this scale, and Tom Holland is so likable, right? And not to [get into their business], but it’s also about who he is married to, and the year they’ve both been having. You want to see him and Zendaya together because it feels like a lived-in relationship on and off-screen. But either way, the movie delivers, and that’s the headline.

Considering optimism went out the window after Quesada became EIC, I'm not sure what the point is here. As for the movie, seriously, Peter and Mary Jane are married there? Wow, isn't that just so generous after all the trouble Quesada led to in a quarter century. It's interesting that what Straczynski wrote has since been archived in the Marvel Modern Era Collections, effectively differentiating it from what comes before. The DC Finest archives don't seem to have that kind of an early 2000s gap, which is a flaw by contrast.

Even if Peter and MJ are married in the live action movie, that's unfortunately no substitute for the disaster the comics have long become, and Mr. Hawley's story from the 1000th issue sounds quite unappealing, right down to how Gwen's memory was decidedly drawn up very unnecessarily in a future age where Peter's an old man. So as I may have said before, there's no reason to celebrate this "milestone" issue when it's clear they're not interested in making Spider-fans happy. Serious publishers and writers do. As Hawley and company make clear, they're not. So to title a story "still standing" is meaningless.

Actor who played Batman in 2022 now appears in film that makes clear he wasn't a good choice for the role

This may not be about comics per se, but what the following Front Page article discusses does bring up both Robert Pattison, who played Batman in the 2022 film, which was woke in its own way, and makes at least one allusion to a certain comics supervillain. It's about a film titled Primetime, which is supposedly about news writer Chris Hanson, who's served as host of the To Catch a Predator program on NBC:

The popularity of the long-running (over two decades) NBC News show To Catch a Predator, in which online pedophiles are lured to a sting house where camera crews and local police await them, has entered the stratosphere of pop culture consciousness. Its host Chris Hanson has appeared in or been parodied on many other shows such as The Simpsons and South Park, and his catchphrase “Have a seat,” or some variation thereof, is a familiar meme. The show is credited not only with snaring hundreds of potential predators of the underaged, but with raising awareness of the issue to an unprecedented degree. It has not been without controversy – principally an incident in which a suspect committed suicide as he was being swarmed at his home by a SWAT team and TV cameras – but To Catch a Predator and its host have generally been praised as a force for good and justice in America.

Now a brand new film drama has hit theaters in which Hanson and the show are presented as sleazy, sinister, and damaging to everyone involved and to society at large. Primetime, directed by first-time helmer Lance Oppenheim, stars Robert Pattinson as Hanson, whom he plays with a psychotic intensity that is never fully explained. Pattinson depicts Hanson as initially being obsessed with ratings (his jealousy of Dateline anchor Stone Phillips’ industry “stature” is made palpable) but not ultimately driven by them – unlike his slimy, gum-smacking producer Andie Bender (Bender, interestingly, is a fictional “composite” character, suggesting that the real-life producer[s] weren’t seedy enough to give Oppenheim the material he needed to demonize the entire To Catch a Predator enterprise). [...]

“I guess it’s not surprising that a Hollywood studio would act in such an exploitative or predatory manner,” Hanson told The Hollywood Reporter prior to seeing the film. “We’re talking about an industry that was led by perhaps one of the biggest predators to walk the planet, Harvey Weinstein. They’ll all pat each other on the back and say, ‘What a great job. This is really dark and mysterious and intriguing.’”

After seeing Primetime, a frustrated Hanson told Fox News’ Jesse Watters that the filmmaker clearly wanted to create a “horror-like film” which twisted Hanson into the “bad guy,” and had no interest in presenting the work Hanson did as positive.

This is certainly troubling and disturbing, considering that earlier, as mentioned, Pattinson played the Masked Manhunter in a film that, again, was regrettably woke, and for all we know, the Catwoman was probably just shoehorned in so they could forcibly alter her racial background too. And Batman himself, in that film from 4 years back, doesn't accomplish much on his own anyway.

That aside, there's valid questions to be raised whether it was in good taste for the Simpsons and South Park to be doing parodies of a host working on serious topics. Perhaps well before this new film, Primetime, two of the leading animated TV shows in the USA were belittling a program meant to inform people about serious crimes?

Although Hanson is justifiably offended by Pattinson’s portrayal, it is less revealing than the film’s depiction of the predators he catches. There can hardly be any criminal more repugnant than a pedophile, and yet we spend no real time with any in the film except two men, both of whom are humanized far more than Hanson is, and for whom we are clearly expected to feel sympathy. The first is Hanson’s target in the movie’s opening, a man rendered almost catatonic by Hanson’s entrance into the kitchen, who pleads that he has just recently divorced. Pattinson’s Hanson barely represses a cruel smile as he twists the psychological knife in his victim. “You know how this looks, right?” Hanson whispers. The ruined man eventually exits the house in a daze, only to be thrown to the ground by a swarm of cops. [...]

Primetime is not a big studio flick but an independent film production. Nevertheless, it is right in line with mainstream, contemporary Hollywood’s insistence on subverting good-versus-evil narratives and imposing moral equivalence under the guise of “nuance.” The good guys are far too often shown to be not just flawed but consumed by darkness themselves, like Primetime’s Chris Hanson; meanwhile, the bad guys are humanized and elevated to the point of starring in their own films – The Joker, for instance, played with a different kind of psychotic intensity by Joaquin Phoenix.

Well good that they brought that up, because for all we know, films spotlighting supervillains are potentially on their way to becoming the next avenue for humanization of monsters, if the upcoming movie based on Clayface is any suggestion. And let's not forget the recent film based on Kraven from Marvel; that could've been subtle propaganda too, and we sure don't need to be rooting for criminals. To think that the Joker would be "humanized" in a film of his own is inexcusable.

What's been told about where Pattison's gone next makes me lose whatever respect I might have for him as an actor. If there's a sequel to his Batman film in the works, I'll pass. If the first film was PC, it's hardly a surprise that Pattinson's new movie could be anything similar.

Onetime DC employee who wrote a terrible Adam Strange tale turns up again

The Comics Journal interviewed Richard Bruning, one of DC's former managers (and husband of the onetime editor Karen Berger), who, while it goes curiously unmentioned, had a handful stories to his credits, including a repellent miniseries from 1990 starring Adam Strange, which saw humanoid co-star Alanna killed for the sake of it, though that story was reversed several years later. Though I couldn't seem to find any mention of Adam Strange here, the discussion does bring up the following, along with early efforts in digital artistry, and how Paul Levitz actually thought this guy was worth keeping for employment:

There had been a couple of novelty efforts at computer art in comics by that point. There was Shatter for First Comics, and then an Iron Man graphic novel [1988’s Crash] at Marvel…

Pepé Moreno approached us after Shatter came out, and we did Batman: Digital Justice. I got to work with him very closely on it, and I started learning a lot about how those tools could work. He and Mike Saenz [artist of Shatter and Crash] were pushing the boundaries of what these machines could handle. I don't even know how they pulled off what they did, and it was certainly crude in some ways, but it was a necessary step to get to a technological level that would give you art worth looking at. All those things convinced me that this was a real turning point in my industry publication and communication. I was getting very impatient with DC dragging its heels. I had become friends with another graphic designer, Dean Motter from Canada, and we had been talking about forming a business and opening up studios in Manhattan. He was moving down from Toronto and wanted to live in New York.

That was around 1990?

Yeah. I decided to go out on a limb and resign, and then set up a studio with Dean. Fortunately for me, Paul liked what I did, and he signed me up to an exclusive contract for the comic book business [at DC]. I couldn't work for any other publisher, but I got paid every month whether I worked or not, which was kind of cool, and it certainly helped financially in getting a business started.

You must have made a compelling pitch to him.

I didn't pitch it, he pitched it to me. I had a very successful run for those five years at DC, and I had become fairly high profile within the company, which was a very small company at that point. I think Paul saw something in me, and he didn't want Marvel to have it. Basically, he thought it was to his advantage as a businessman to keep me off the market for the competition. That was an incredible honor, and I left on good terms with him. He was happy just to have me still doing freelance work for DC, and not working for Marvel or anybody else.

What's curious about the mention of "freelance" work is that it sounds like Mr. Bruning's obscuring the time when he wrote the aforementioned Adam Strange miniseries, Man of Two Worlds, which was pretty shoddy, and while Alanna's fate was reversed later on, as noted, that doesn't change the fact that it was artistically an embarrassment. But that's exactly why it's a shame if Comics Journal's writer and Bruning himself deliberately obscured his writing portfolio and all but limited the discussion to the business side of things. That only suggests they don't have the courage to discuss what mistakes were made in writing, and possibly art, and how to improve upon said mistakes in the future.

As for computerized artwork, there may have been some achievements, including the aforementioned Iron Man special, but some of the more recent efforts from the past 20 years or so are utterly worthless, recalling an artist named Adi Granov who specialized in stuff like that for Marvel. Other artists like Greg Horn only seemed to do cover art, and while that alone might be okay, it hardly helps in the long run. Digital art may have some potential, but Marvel decidedly didn't make good use of it by the turn of the century. Now, here's where he first brings up how he had a role in getting rid of DC's symbol that was retained from 1977-2005, though recently was restored, certainly on the DC Finest archives. It was the Vertigo line where this first occurred:

Tell me about the process of developing the Vertigo design. Was the idea that you wanted to set this off as visually something distinct from the main DC branding?

Yes, that was one of the things we decided early on. We did not want the DC bullet on the Vertigo books.

You said that you always had problems with that bullet.

Paul thought that some identification to DC [was necessary]. I didn't integrate it into the Vertigo logo per se, on the covers and such, but there'd be a little “DC” in a different typeface just right above or right below the Vertigo logo on the covers. There was that presence or indicator that DC was part of it. We worked that out with Paul, and it worked out fine. It was just a matter of figuring out how to do a line of books that people know are from DC, that will appeal to people who don't read DC comics. How do we get them to want to try it out? Creating a specific identity was really important.

One of the ways was we did this was to use only painted covers. There were very few painted covers on regular comic books, partially because they are not economically feasible, and also because people wanted their line art to maintain [consistency] for the superhero titles. We were able to start commissioning painters to do covers, and that immediately gave the book a different feel and look. The editorial stuff was all Karen.

Oh, I remember some painted covers on books like Avengers and New Teen Titans, and I'll say that those examples were among the better of their kind, if only because they weren't forced, unlike the disgraced Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, which featured stunningly dull cover illustrations, whether painted or not. Why Bruning and company seemed to think it was such a big deal for an imprint that was allegedly aimed at adults I have no idea, because if they did it almost routinely and by editorial mandate, that risks insulting intellects. And speaking of Sandman, that's mentioned here:

It seems like that was pretty intrinsic to the Vertigo line from the beginning. There was this system, especially for some of the bigger titles like Sandman, where you would get collections coming out almost as soon as the story arcs concluded in the monthlies.

There was a lot of back and forth on that, because it wasn't the normal way that DC did things. They usually let time pass. It wasn't very important when you collected a certain volume of The Flash, but we could tell that we were picking up new readers all the time. We didn't want them to feel out of touch with what was going on in the books as book sales rose. We pushed very hard to get the books collected early. We would go to all the different comic dealer meetings and expos and talk to the retailers about this. The retailers were very explicit about the fact that if we give them volume one, and then three months later we give them volume two, and then volume three, they can push those books out the door all day long. That was the general consensus from the retailers. So we had a really strong ally in that, and it helped us firm that up as a publishing platform.

And a comic as overrated as Sandman truly was is exactly what they just had to collect instantly. All they did was hint they considered the superhero fare less valuable, compared to a comic that was more like a political lecture a number of times. But of course, they won't admit that, will they?

Most annoying of all is how the same publishers wouldn't consider the time may have come for making a shift to paperback/hardcover only, or even Graphic Novel format, if that sums it up better. Why waste so much money on two formats, rather than consider what could become more viable sales and business-wise?

Would you say that Paul was more reluctant to push for collected editions, while Jenette was more gung-ho in favor of it?

Yes. Jenette was by nature, a very gung-ho person. You could get around Paul by going to Jeanette, and then Jenette would convince Paul that it was a good idea, and he'd throw his hands up and go, “All right, whatever you want.” She was a wonderful agent of change. Without Jenette coming into the company when she did, I doubt DC would still be around. I mean, it almost folded in the late ‘70s. It was her enthusiasm and ability to take a risk – and Paul's ability to take a risk, too. He was not risk-averse. What you were trying to do just had better be nailed down. Don’t just wing it.

But, really, it was a good time. And the people there - Dick Giordano and everybody - were very supportive. Superhero editors were never very happy with Vertigo. Somehow they saw it as competition, or I think they saw it as thumbing our noses at the superhero books. That wasn't true. We were just doing our thing.

Oh, were they ever, if we take the Sandman as an example. It's one thing to write an adult comic, but another entirely to act like horror and dark, jarring violence are the only ways to do it. Even the heavier use of profanity in the Vertigo line is enough to raise questions. Now, here's more on what Bruning said about DC's most significant symbol:

You finally got to live out your dream of abandoning the bullet after all that time. And of course, it immediately ran into criticism from just about everywhere.

Yep. There is no pleasing people. I stand by my position that if you are stripping away the nostalgia that all of us, including myself, grew up with, the Bullet, structurally, doesn't work very well. There is too much negative space to it. Everything gets tiny if you start to reduce it. The little hair lines start to break up. It just becomes a little clump of things. And that's why on the design, I wanted a big clear “DC.” Whereas on the Bullet, the “DC” seems unimportant compared to the band with four white stars on it. I've worked with it physically more than most people have. I saw that early on that there were a lot of internal structural problems with the design itself, and I stand by that.

Well that's still nothing compared to the artistic mess DC became by that time, which Bruning and interviewer conveniently left out. But if the "DC Bullet" symbol matters, they were making peanuts out of an otherwise okay symbol for putting on the top corner of the comics, and considering Mr. Bruning otherwise didn't offer much positive by the mid-2000s, it's awfully hypocritical of him to make petty fusses about symbols when the company under DiDio plunged into repellent disasters. Years ago, I didn't even know they called it a "bullet"; I just thought it was a "diagonal" coin-like symbol. Since then, it's made a quiet comeback, now put to use on archives like the DC Finest series. So what's Bruning celebrating anyway?

It's striking to me that here we are in 2026, and yet after all this time, it feels like publishers have thrown up their hands at the idea of finding a new format that specifically works with digital readers and phones, and everything else. At the end of the day, comics still look like comics did 30 years ago.

Right? It's a unique format, and it is hard to get it to accommodate other means of presentation. People who buy comics are aware of a certain amount of a collectible nature in them. I think people wanted to be able to buy and hold the comics, and digital comics never gave them that. They didn't feel like they had anything. Comic book people have a physical collector sort of mentality. And I do, too. I love seeing the books lined up on my shelf. So yeah, that one hasn't been cracked yet.

Interesting they brought this up, because it's an important clue how digital comics on the web haven't caught on successfully, and certainly not the Big Two's. At the same time, they also hint at the misfortune of the speculator market, which largely ruined comicdom beginning in the early to mid-90s. And lest we forget, if they think anybody's going to care about digital when their stories are otherwise bad, they have to think again. When artwork becomes bad, and company wide crossovers keep getting churned out entirely unquestioned, that's why digital sales won't work. Next, wouldn't you know it, Mr. Bruning even lauds a man who turned out to be a bad omen, who ruined the storytelling, and whom Mr. Bruning apparently had a hand in approving for employment:

Around the same time that Zuda launched, Dan DiDio became executive editor at DC. I'm wondering how that played out in terms of your role.

I was one of the few people who interviewed Dan before he was hired. Paul wanted my take on him. Dan is another super smart guy, knows comics inside and out; he had even been doing a little writing, as well. He was pals with Jimmy Palmiotti, so he'd been given a few assignments here and there. Dan had big ambitions. I was very enthusiastic when he came on board, partially because the whole Mike/Denny/Archie thing hadn't worked. And then Archie tragically died from cancer. Denny was just – God love him, but he was kind of checked out. The burden was falling on Mike, but Mike had been carrying the ball for years by himself, and it's a hard job. Marvel couldn't keep anybody in place for a long time as editor-in-chief. There was turnover every year or two.

When you say that Denny was checked out, what do you mean?

I'm not trying to insult Denny. He was very nice man, but he just didn't seem like he was engaged in his work, shall we say. When I had a Batman project that I was working on, he felt a little too hands-off for me. At least, that’s how I view what an editor does, and he had his assistant doing most things. Again, I'm not trying to slag him, but just I think he was tired. He was tired of doing superhero comics.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Bruning is belittling O'Neil, though there's valid arguments to make that even O'Neil made serious mistakes. Also note how Bruning, by contrast, is more favorable to DiDio, and that's as telling as it's disgusting. If he's talking about Mike Carlin, it can be validly argued he was a failure, based on how he threw the late Len Strazewski under the bus, and I don't think Archie Goodwin, whom I assume he's alluding to, did a good job with them either, based on his being an editor of the pretentious James Robinson's Starman series. But to say DiDio was galaxies better than them, and knew comics inside-out, when he lacked a moral compass and relied heavily upon crossovers, that's insulting to the intellect.

The other big thing that was going on at that point was the merger of WildStorm into DC, which also brought Jim Lee into the company. How was that playing out?

That was funny. I hadn't been back long when Paul called me and said, “This is quiet. Don't tell anybody, but we're buying WildStorm, and I want you to help be the liaison to their offices to try to integrate them into ours.” We had never tried to do that before. Milestone was the closest thing where they had their own little editorial setup, but Jim had a very well-established shop that did everything. It was Jim that DC seemed to be buying. They were buying more Jim than they were buying WildStorm properties.

I went out to La Jolla every couple of months and just hung around there for three or four days, met with people, asked them if I could help them with anything, and if there was anything New York should be doing for them. We'd go over cover sketches, we'd go over marketing materials, just trying to point them in a direction, not tell them what they had to do.

A lot of good that did in the end. The Wildstorm universe didn't see much success when they bought it, or even tried to merge it into the DCU proper, and for something like 15 years now, it's largely vanished into the land of the forgotten. So what "success" is Mr. Bruning talking about even here?

If you look at the way DC looked when you came in ‘96 and the way it was when you left in 2010, do you think your time there was a success or a failure?

I'd like to think there were few failures. Something can be a success and be a commercial failure. If you achieve your creative goals, then it's a success. If people don't buy it, they're stupid. I was very fortunate there. I just felt like they gave me a lot of rope to hang myself, and I never hung myself, and they backed me. Even if I did something really stupid, they would say, don't do that again, and then let me move on. I'm eternally grateful to people like Jenette, and Paul, and Dick, but Paul probably the most of all. He was the one who brought me back for the 15-year tenure.

I think for me, the end really came when Warner Brothers decided these movies are really fucking big deals. The Batman trilogy was just setting the world on fire. That was the clarion call for corporate to come in from the West Coast and start telling us how the new place was going to be run.

He can say whatever he likes, but I think Mr. Bruning knows the failures were plenty when it comes to the comics themselves, and the company wide crossovers were also a standout example of that. And while the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy may have been a success, there were other adaptations that were failures, like the Jonah Hex and Green Lantern movies, to name early examples in modern times.

And it's very insulting how Mr. Bruning acts like they achieved artistic success in the past 3 decades, when early examples of destruction like the mishandling of Green Lantern can clarify otherwise. For the Flash, the plummeting down came when Geoff Johns became writer. And lest we forget the most repulsive example of the 2000s, Identity Crisis. Mr. Bruning's declaration the audience is "stupid" for not buying is also poor conduct, because you don't use insulting words to describe consumers who aren't interested in your output when it effectively becomes repellent. No doubt, he also has some responsibility for bringing in even more "woke" writers of the times, and artists. Based on that, he's another former employee of the majors who won't be missed, based on what pretentions he foisted upon the DCU, which includes his aforementioned Adam Strange miniseries, which he didn't even have the courage to discuss. That's very telling as to how much he merely whistles in the dark.

I think This Man, This Collection's take on Man of Two Worlds sums up pretty well why the story aged poorly:

In Bruning’s introduction to the collected edition of this story, he defends himself by stating his childhood love of the character, and that he was trying to apply the same approach to storytelling that that Alan Moore applied in Watchmen and Swamp Thing or that Frank Miller did with The Dark Knight Returns. But in his zeal to tell a more “mature” Adam Strange story, Bruning loses track of what made the character appealing in the first place. That opinion was clearly the one that prevailed, given what happened next. After this mini-series, Adam Strange dropped out of the DC Universe completely; his next appearance was a few years later in a supporting role in Green Lantern #75, when Kyle Rayner moved the floating city of Ranagar back to the planet. In 1998, in Mark Waid hit the reset button by bringing Alanna back to life in two-issue story in JLA. Aside from Adam’s daughter, everything of consequence from Adam Strange had been undone.

So he basically "cliched" the audience by applying more darkness than need be, and surely worse yet, making Adam far less heroic, if at all, and making Ranagar's council look repellent too. The part about the Zeta-beam being designed to teleport a guy to Rann for the purpose of serving as a breeding stud also conflicts with the original takes from the Silver Age. This posting misses, however, that there was a Hal Jordan-starring GL story written by the disgraced Gerard Jones printed in 1993, prior to the Rayner run, where Adam made an appearance, and that story stunk of fishy stuff too. And Bruning didn't even have the courage to discuss any of that in his Comics Journal interview. It's fortunate that dreadful story was jettisoned, but unfortunate the DCU had to collapse afterwards due to the machinations of an editor Bruning himself had a hand in appointing a quarter century ago. As a result, Adam Strange and company still suffered a terrible injustice, as did many other DCU cast members.

Batman's Knightfall becomes an animated cartoon

Inverse told some history of what may be one of the better offerings of the 1990s, the time when Batman's Knightfall event introduced Bane, the hefty villain whose main achievement at the time was breaking Batman's back. A story that's now subject of animated films. The writer spoke with the animation producers, but strangely enough, neither Bane's co-creators Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan, nor any other connected writers and artists of the time are named for their jobs here. For now, let's take a look at the beginning paragraphs:

Without a doubt, the 1990s were a period of extreme transformation and experimentation for the comic book industry. And depending on who you ask, it wasn’t exactly a great one. The era was dominated by gimmicks like foil and glow-in-the-dark covers, murderous edgelord antiheroes with big guns, hundreds of pockets, and odd things strapped to their legs. This was also the era in which both DC and Marvel became increasingly aware of the spectator market of comic book purchases. DC’s 1992 stunt, The Death of Superman, was designed to sell a special edition comic book, just as much as it was designed to shake up internal narrative continuity. Similarly, in 1994, Hal Jordan went mad with grief after the destruction of his entire city and became the villain Parallax, slaughtering most of the Green Lantern Corps in the Emerald Twilight storyline.

And yet neither event was as daring and complex as the most iconic destruction of one hero from that decade: the breaking of the Bat in Knightfall, a trilogy of storylines that played out over the course of 1993 and 1994 and across no less than seven distinct DC titles. Now, 33 years after Knightfall began, and 14 years after the live-action film The Dark Knight Rises adapted aspects of the storyline, an animated DC film trilogy is faithfully bringing Knightfall to life.

If there's any problem with the 2nd paragraph, it's that it has the effect of making you wonder if the writer really does find what's told in the 1st reprehensible. And Emerald Twilight definitely was. Amazing they admit the Death and Return of Superman was a stunt, because not every mainstream news site's willing to clearly admit that. Also disturbing is that it served as a lead-in to Emerald Twilight, based on how the destruction of Coast City took place in a connecting tale.

It’s impossible to understate just how shocking Knightfall was at the time of release and also how much it permeates Batman media. It’s referenced in the Arkham games and, again, is the partial basis for 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises.

Krieg remembers working across the street from New York’s Forbidden Planet Comics, going in so broke that he’d “just read the comics from the stands.” Morales, somebody who “grew up with the story and was a fan as it was happening,” describes his reaction to joining the project as one of “amazement.” Knightfall was a turning point for the industry as much as it was a turning point for the character of Batman himself – it depicted a vision of the character on the verge of extreme burnout and exhaustion, working beyond his limits while ignoring the lingering trauma of Jason Todd’s murder and Superman’s death.

Neither of which examples are very good, because the former was a cheap way of jettisoning a character based on that he supposedly sent a rapist to his death for scaring an innocent woman into committing suicide. And the latter was just a cheap way of getting short range attention for the Man of Steel, in a year long storyline that later saw the Toyman murder Cat Grant's son. We certainly didn't need the latter example put into effect, mainly because it does leave a bad aftertaste.

If there was anything peculiar about the death of Jason Todd, it's that, if he was trying and failed to defuse a bomb left by the Joker, it didn't disintegrate Todd at all. His body, though badly scarred and dripping with blood, was still largely intact, considering that in reality, it could've been blown to smithereens if struck at close range by an explosion. Batman comics can be as surreal as their more science-fantasy emphasizing couterparts, but if "reality" is really a big deal to the higher echelons, they sure didn't follow through with it there. Though it's decidedly fortunate that, when Bane broke the Bat's back in 1993, it wasn't portrayed graphically. Today, in the Geoff Johns-influenced era, that could all turn out much differently. And back to the cartoon adaptations, there's a notable character who's also making an appearance in them:

Even with those concessions, Batman: Knightfall – Part 1 is still extremely accurate and retains a key part of the original storyline overlooked by most adaptations: Jean-Paul Valley, the replacement Batman who gets a high-tech Batsuit as an upgrade but degenerates into a savage, vicious killer in the mantle. The character debuted two years before Knightfall as an unassuming college graduate, unwittingly raised since birth by the mysterious Order of St. Dumas to become the assassin Azrael. While Bane is the villain with all the pop culture recognition, Azrael was always intended to be the storyline’s final antagonist, an ideological battle between Batman’s strict moral code and the amoral ruthlessness of the antiheroes like Spawn and Cable popular in the 90s – and the movie sets up that conflict firmly by making Jean-Paul the saga’s third main character.

Azrael is introduced in a brutal cold open where Batman catches him in the middle of murdering a gang of criminals and offers him psychological help when he realizes his troubles. According to Morales, that opening “gives you a sense of Azrael and how violent he can be, how he’s not Batman but a darker version that kills. Then it shows you Batman in his peak form before we start to take him down later. I thought it was valuable to establish that this is how good Batman is, and this is how good Azrael is.”

Wow, that's their whole idea of an achievement, huh? Interesting that Azrael's the character who kills more noticeably, and unlike Jason Todd, Valley wasn't bumped off like Todd was, though at the end of the solo series created for Azrael, Valley was put to an end, and his role was later filled by a character named Michael Lane in the mid-2000s. Some could probably wonder if the arguments against killing violent criminals symbolized with Azrael is what led to the leftist hostility against the Punisher years later, even as Wolverine continues to get a free pass on the same acts Frank Castle was depicted performing. It hasn't done mainstream superhero comics any good, of course, and we've seen the effect it's had on readership and sales since.

Much as I think Dixon and Nolan turned out a significant addition to Batman lore of the time, it doesn't sound from this interview like the cartoon producers are truly grateful to the aforementioned twosome, and at this point, what's the use of a cartoon adaptation anyway, in an era where the zygote was ruined by PC and bad management?

A sloppy article about Frank Miller's work on Daredevil

When it's not the Dark Knight Returns that's the overemphasized focus of so many puff piece news articles, it could be Miller's work on Daredevil instead, and that's what Inverse wrote about recently, since some recent TV shows drew from Miller's stories, but this is yet another news item that's decidedly not interested in maintaining consistency, let alone assuring us that Miller's work, good enough as it was there, isn't the beginning or end of what we could find impressive about Hornhead's original series, in sharp contrast to what came post-1998. First:

Whenever people discuss superheroes who have it rough, there are a couple of names that usually stick out. Spider-Man’s day-to-day life is notoriously bad, so the term “Parker luck” was coined because of it. Batman has had his back broken, several of his sidekicks killed, and consistently fights monstrosities and aliens all while just being a normal human being.

But it’s safe to say that few comic book characters have trials and tribulations comparable to those of Matt Murdock, aka Hell’s Kitchen’s own Daredevil. Those who love him can’t quite seem to stay alive, those who hate him can’t quite seem to stay in jail, and the Man Without Fear himself can’t quite seem to keep a handle on his own secret identity (a problem that has just recently followed him to the MCU in Daredevil: Born Again). But 40 years ago, one of the most celebrated comic book writers of all-time took it upon himself to drag Matt Murdock through hell and back, and in the process wrote not just one of the best Daredevil stories ever but one of the best comic arcs of all-time: the original 1986 Born Again.

Did it ever occur to them that if they describe DD's life as that bad, it could actually become less appealing to the audience? Also, since Batman does come up here, yes, there were a few, but if Spoiler's the one who matters, interesting there's no objective take here on a character who was a more notable recurring cast member of the Robin series begun by Chuck Dixon in 1993. And how Stephanie Brown was initially turned into a sacrificial lamb in the War Games/Crimes crossover, before this was eventually reversed 3 years later, and there were a few other bad directions that came at the time of Identity Crisis that were reversed later as well, though still too late at this point.

Since they speak of lovers, even Batman had at least one who was turned into a forced sacrifice in 2002 for the sake of a shoddy crossover, Bruce Wayne: Murderer?/Fugitive. Her name was Vesper Fairchild, and if there's any way to handle such a curtain call for a character that's less than organic, it's crossovers. So it's not like DD's the only one story-wise who underwent such incidents, whether the writing was good or bad. And of course, even overrated writers like Kevin Smith have turned out some of the worst storylines in DD based on exactly what Inverse unobjectively spoke of: wiping out Karen Page in the Marvel Knights imprint just 5 issues in. And to Inverse's writers, it means nothing. By the way, if any of DD's adversaries were written cheating death, doesn't that make Karen's death extremely hypocritical?

When Stan Lee and Bill Everett first created Daredevil all the way back in 1964, they were responsible for many of the character’s everlasting traits: he’s a blind lawyer named Matt Murdock, his father was a murdered boxer named Battlin’ Jack, and he works alongside Foggy Nelson and secretary Karen Page at a legal firm named Nelson and Murdock. But the original depiction of the character was a quippy, lighthearted Spider-Man-adjacent swashbuckler – it wasn’t until the late 70s and early 80s, when the title was in danger of cancellation because of declining sales, that Frank Miller took over as writer and forever changed the perception of the book. Instead of fighting vampires or villains pulled from science fiction B-movies like Stilt-Man, Miller emphasized the psychological turmoil of a Catholic vigilante and fleshed out the contours of Hell’s Kitchen’s criminal underworld (converting The Kingpin from a Spider-Man villain into a Daredevil villain), ultimately giving the book a hard-boiled, seedy film noir atmosphere that was instantly popular and has influenced other Daredevil writers to this day.

Umm, I think even before Miller came about, it was dark enough. And while it may have come with a bit of a twist, Stilt-Man did make an appearance in DD during Miller's run, though a crook Miller introduced stole Wilbur Day's mechanics so he could make use of them himself. Even Dr. Octopus made one appearance in DD at the time. So let's not think the series ever strayed far from more sci-fi oriented concepts.

What's more, how is it Ann Nocenti, who succeeded Miller in writing later, didn't provide an enjoyable perception too? I think Miller's DD run is good, but I'm not buying that favoratism at all costs. And IIRC, didn't Mark Waid at one point write DD with a brighter perspective in the past 15 years? It may have been at a time when Marvel's artistic quality collapsed, but the lecture Inverse delivers again becomes sloppy. And one more thing about Waid's run: whether he wrote DD bright or dark, he did a terrible disfavor at the time with heavy handed leftism.

After briefly stepping away from the title, Frank Miller returned with what is maybe his greatest narrative contribution to the Daredevil mythos: 1986’s Born Again storyline, which played out from February to August in the pages of Daredevil #227-233. A culmination of everything he'd built up over his original five years writing the character, Born Again opens with the reveal that Karen Page, who had been absent from Daredevil comics since 1969 (she left Nelson and Murdock to become an actor after discovering Matt’s secret), has become an adult film actor and heroin addict. In the throes of her addiction, Karen sells Matt’s secret identity for a fix, and that information ends up in the hands of The Kingpin, who decides that if he can’t defeat Daredevil the vigilante, he’ll defeat Matt Murdock the civilian by systematically destroying his personal life.

Here too, we have quite a flaw in history. Karen made appearances in DD at least until 1972 and issue 86, and afterwards, she made several appearances in comics like Ghost Rider and Marvel Two-In-One (and one more guest appearance in DD 138 from 1976) until about 1978, before going into limbo for 7 years. Inverse has just confirmed ever further they're unqualified for history jobs. Also, notice how they refer to a woman becoming an "actor" instead of actress? I've seen that woke PC tactic in the past few years, apparently their whole sick idea of how to belittle the fairer sex in an era where LGBT ideology was pushed all over the place. One more problem undermining this puff piece. Near the end, it says:

Frank Miller didn’t just write arguably the greatest Daredevil story ever told, but he also changed the way that superhero stories deal with human drama. Matt Murdock is a running joke for comic book fans because he’s a character who can’t escape his own suffering, but over four decades ago, Frank Miller showed us that the reason why Daredevil can handle it is that the hero is the man underneath the costume, not the bright red costum he’s known for.

If Matt can't escape suffering, isn't that a problem? It's also one if Marvel's adamant about keeping Karen in the grave, after what happened to her in the Knights imprint. Supposedly, Aquaman's been a running joke because he could communicate with undersea animals, but I don't recall Hornhead ever been described as a joke. Are they aware the original costume was yellow in 1964, changed after 6-7 issues? You might think that's a joke, but the problems Matt faced as both superhero and lawyer certainly weren't. What's certainly a joke are the inaccuracies in the puff piece, decidedly another example of somebody who doesn't want to say a word in depth about the runs coming before and after Miller's. Seriously, what's so hard about discussing Nocenti's run in the late 80s-early 90s at length? This elevation of one specific run at the expense of others has long gotten way out of hand. There's also plenty about Spider-Man that hasn't been brought up by these tabloid news sites. On which note, maybe early Hornhead was "lighthearted", but "quippy" was something he could've been written as even well after Stan Lee relinquished the job to other writers. I assume they mean DD could be written dishing out wisecracks like Spidey and the Thing, and in the stories I read, Matt certainly came close.

So let's be clear. Of course I recommend Miller's DD run, but I'm not going to say what came before and after wasn't worth the effort and the price you could pay for the reprint archives. Just because there've been TV shows adapting notable Hornhead storylines is also not a reason to focus almost solely upon Miller's run either. The original comics scripts are what should count, far more than any two-bit TV adaptation.

Brand new Green Lantern stories are considered the "best"

Comic Basics listed several runs of Green Lantern from the past decades, only one of which is worth considering (Denny O'Neil's early 70s run), while some of the others are predictably fluff-coated takes on modern runs. For example, there's Geoff Johns' run:

Writer Geoff Johns revitalized the franchise by returning Hal Jordan to the spotlight in the miniseries ‘Green Lantern: Rebirth’. The overarching narrative expanded the lore by introducing the Emotional Spectrum and creating diverse new Lantern corps across the cosmos. Major comic crossover events such as ‘Sinestro Corps War’ and ‘Blackest Night’ elevated the title into a cornerstone of the DC Universe. Johns collaborated with prominent artists like Ethan Van Sciver and Ivan Reis to deliver high-stakes cosmic action and deep character development. This nine-year run transformed the mythology and established the modern foundation of the Green Lantern mythos.

Some "revitalization" alright. There were several jarringly violent moments in the run, and most particularly telling was when Johns exploited the title for forcing Islamic propaganda into it, in the decade following September 11, 2001. The story introducing Simon Baz even resorted to the cliche of a white supremacist being the actual culprit. This is what Johns cares about, not actual victims? What he did was definitely telling.

Also note how conservative-leaning artist van Sciver was part of the GL project at the time, and a case can be made that some would-be right-wingers have blame to shoulder for bringing comicdom down to such an awful level. Plus, when there's the totally uncritical take on company wide crossovers, you know something's wrong. Another reason this run can be considered worthless is that it hinged on Identity Crisis, and thus came at a time that was simply too late for bringing back Hal. Another example listed here is the 1994-2004 run:

Ron Marz drastically altered the franchise by penning the controversial ‘Emerald Twilight’ arc, which saw Hal Jordan fall from grace and become the villain Parallax. Following the destruction of the Green Lantern Corps, Marz introduced artist Kyle Rayner as the torchbearer of the final functional power ring. The decade-long run focused on Kyle learning to become a superhero while maintaining a relatable civilian life in New York City. Notable storylines introduced supporting characters such as Jade and examined the legacy of previous ring-wielders. This era redefined the mantle for a new generation of readers and established Kyle Rayner as an essential DC hero.

Gee, a run starring a character who came off little different in the end from how Hal's characterization was perceived - as a cipher lacking in genuine personality. Also note how the writer doesn't acknowledge the heavy editorial mandates that defined this run, coming as they did before Spider-Man was subjected to much of the same the following decade. These mandates included that Rayner could not have a "civilian" girlfriend at the time, only an established superheroine like Donna Troy for starters, and Jade afterwards.

Interesting how no objective view is provided for whether it was in good taste to turn Hal into a murderous villain, nor any mention of the notorious fridging scene for Alexandra deWitt, the girlfriend who was introduced only to be murdered by Major Force about 6 issues in. These kind of steps are exactly what ensured sales would otherwise plummet in the long run, and I'd seen legitimate arguments made over the years that the Rayner stories weren't the big deal some wanted all to think they were. If the fridging of deWitt was retconned away of recent, that in itself is miraculous.

Oddly enough, the paragraph is accompanied by a coverscan of the 3rd volume's premiere issue from 1990, which was written by the disgraced Gerard Jones. Do they realize that could haunt the Rayner run for a long time, and only compounds why the 3rd volume is so otherwise obsolete?

Next, there's one of the spinoff series, GL Corps:

Running alongside the central flagship series, Peter J. Tomasi penned a critically acclaimed ensemble title focused on the wider Green Lantern Corps. The narrative centered on veteran Lanterns Guy Gardner and John Stewart as they led the cosmic police force through galaxy-wide conflicts. The series provided essential perspectives during major events like ‘Blackest Night’ while highlighting the camaraderie and sacrifices of alien ring-bearers. Artist Patrick Gleason provided distinctive, kinetic visuals that brought life to massive space battles and alien civilizations. Tomasi’s work added emotional depth to secondary characters and proved that the franchise thrived beyond Hal Jordan.

Oh, do tell us about it. I've long learned not to be fooled by such balderdash, and look where things have arrived today, with a TV show that practically throws Hal under the bus for the sake of DEI ideology. And why are we being lectured that a series with connections to company wide crossovers was "essential"? Yawn.

When stuff like this is all they can think of highlighting, and not the Golden/Silver/Bronze Age stories other than O'Neil's, something is definitely wrong. But I guess that's what to expect when the whole franchise plummeted into the abyss beginning with the Action Comics Weekly run, and nobody in the press is willing admit severe mistakes were made. That's how both DC and Marvel have been able to get away with their worst acts for decades now.

Lanterns TV series is little more than a "white privilege" lecture

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart says the James Gunn-produced TV show supposedly based on Green Lantern has unsurprisingly turned out to be quite an outmoded political lecture:

Director James Gunn’s executive produced DC comics streaming series Lanterns has become one long lecture on “white privilege” and racism in America and fans are lashing out.

The HBO series is based on DC’s Green Lantern universe of characters, which features the Green Lantern Corps, a multi-species policing organization that patrols the universe to keep the peace. The first human Corps member was Hal Jordan, a character introduced in 1959, who was given the Lantern Corp’s power ring, which allows him to manifest a green energy that can be used in many ways as a weapon to fight enemies. The Corps was created as an extension of the original Green Lantern stories introduced in 1940 with character Alan Scott wielding the power ring.

Lanterns, though, seems to be following the codes of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and black victimology instead of the heroic Green Lantern Corps oath about fighting evil. And after only three episodes, fans are pushing back on the leftist political agenda interwoven throughout the third episode.

Why isn't it surprising that a character like Hal could eventually be subject to some of the worst PC possible, if he hadn't been before? But here we are, and the destruction of GL nobody's willing to admit occurred as far back as mid-1988 continues, this time in live action. The first 3 episodes feature the following:

Lindelof is apparently already indulging his penchant toward “revisionism” with this Green Lantern series, too. In the first episode of the new Lanterns series, we meet the once heroic Hal Jordan (Kyle Chandler), who has become a cynical, disheveled, drunk who no one likes and who is murdered at the end of the episode. Then in episode two we get a woman telling Jordan’s protege, black American John Stewart (Aaron Pierre), all about white privilege.

In the “white privilege” scene, viewers are told that white men have the “luxury” of being able to be “eccentric,” and “white men with money can do whatever the fuck they want.”

This may be cable TV, but wow, they went that far to fill it with expletives to boot? Ugh. I remember there was once a time when profanity on TV was kept mild, and even most cable programs I watched weren't that heavy-handed. What this additionally makes clear is that Gunn, as the overseer of the production, is quite fine with forcing vicious leftism down everyone's throats. If his Superman movie hadn't had subtle metaphors, this show would've. I don't see any need to tune for something that doesn't even put the word "green" alongside the Lanterns. It's also telling their contempt for Hal isn't all that different from what the writers of the Zero Hour crossover in 1994 expressed. If they don't respect Hal Jordan, there's no point in viewing any further.

Since we're on the subject, several weeks earlier, Tom King, who was one of the production staff, was interviewed by Inverse, and what he tells is quite laughable as it's predictable:

Talk to me about how the story of Lanterns became what we see in the show.

It started with me. I sort of had it first. And then we brought Damon [Lindelof] and Chris [Mundy] on. We threw out everything I had and started over — I mean, except for the theme. The three of us built a show. And then when we hit the ground with the three other writers, we were like, “Here’s what we have.” And they’re like, “Throw that all out, because we have ideas.” It was built organically that way, by listening to each other and to each person’s personal experience. We had these big ideas, and Vanessa [Baden Kelly] built that from her experience and made it sing. She gets all the flowers for that.

Some organism, I'll say. Even Denny O'Neil's run on GL was never as forced as appears to be the case here, and the difference is that back then, stories like O'Neil's reflected the times legitimately enough. Also, what's the point of their listening to each other if they're all left-wing? The "biggest" idea would have to be sending Hal once again to the afterlife, this time in live action.

Did you always know it’d be Hal training John to be his successor?

The central mystery we started with is, “Why does Guy Gardner have the ring? There’s these two other Lanterns. Why is he the one you only see in the Superman movie? How do we kind of explain that, where that starts, and where Hal is in the picture?” It was always, from the beginning, John Stewart and Hal Jordan, because those are the quintessential Green Lanterns. Due to two people, I think: Gil Kane, who created our ’60s Hal Jordan. That “Paul Newman” Hal Jordan — which is so embodied by Kyle — that’s very much [from] Gil Kane and John Broome, who invented him as kind of this ideal, ’60s masculine guy living on the edge.

And for John, Neal Adams. Neal was this total outsider; he was, like, a rebel. He’s like, “I’m not going anywhere where I’m not changing the game for the better.” He took hits for that in the comic industry. But he’s the one who got us paid and got us the first whiff of health insurance and got the old guard their art back… And that’s all in John Stewart. And then Dwayne McDuffie was the guy. Dwayne McDuffie had such control over his art. He’s the one who brought that Marine to [John] and brought that creativity to him — and brought that to children. A whole generation’s like, “Who’s Hal Jordan? John Stewart’s my Green Lantern.”

When exactly did McDuffie have anything to do with GL? I don't know of any involvement he could've had. I thought it was the overrated Geoff Johns who retconned John into a Marine, and when somebody as awful as Johns is the one doing the scripting, it's only bad news. But far more telling has to be the way King puts down Hal for the sake of John. Sounds like he doesn't want anybody reading the Silver Age archives and judging for themselves at all. One more reason not to be taken in by King's propaganda, which even goes so far as to hint he dislikes what Broome and Kane created Hal Jordan as.

Lanterns does take some big swings with that premise right out the gate. This series takes place after Sinestro breaks bad and is defeated by the Green Lanterns, which is a huge comic story that hasn’t really been adapted on-screen. Did that ever feel like a risk?

I was at the first architecture meeting [for the DCU], when we’re just sort of all these writers sitting around the room. James Gunn’s first — and it was so instinctual to him that he didn’t realize what a revolution it was… But he started that first meeting by pitching us what his universe is going to be. As he’s pitching us Superman, the thing that he was saying is, “This is not an origin story. We’re not starting with Day 1. This universe has started. We’re on Day 20 of this universe. We’re on Day 80. We’re on Year 80.” He’s like, “People are tired of origin stories. People are tired of seeing that stuff over and over again. Let’s give them quality over explaining. They don’t need to be lectured at. They need to be entertained.”

Starting in the middle was always James’ way of saying, “Get to the meat.” You’re in a universe that lives. It’s like picking up a random comic book. And the Sinestro stuff, I love that because what separates DC from Marvel a little bit — at least in the comics I’ve been doing so much — is the idea of legacy, the idea that what you do affects the next generation. Who your father is affects who you are as a son, affects who you are as a father. It’s the idea that Sinestro was Hal’s coach, and Hal is John’s coach. Both of them have passed on the good and the bad to each other. Watching that flow the way we watch both our trauma and our greatness flow from our grandparents down to us was a wonderful part of that show.

Oh, so they followed up on the shoddy premise that began in the 2 worthless Emerald Dawn miniseries that were both quite jumbled in their consistency with one another? Let's also recall the disgraced Gerard Jones was one of the writers of those awful stories, which forcibly reduced Hal to a drunkard who spends a few months in prison for causing an accident. Indeed, what was so special about those miniseries that DC had to reprint them in trades for some time? After Jones was found out, they've gone out of print, and deservedly so. And what's told about Gunn's statements are just so hilarious, since despite what's claimed, he did lecture, and Lanterns is now proof of that too.

You also get some of that in the way this tweaks John’s origins, examining this idea of legacy in his relationship to his parents, and the privilege of being considered for a ring.

John’s origin has been fudgeable a little bit. Different people have done different things with it. It’s not like Batman’s “My parents were killed.” It has changed. We tweaked his origin story to give him that thing that Batman has, that thing that Spider-Man has: a hook. They can be like, “Oh, I understand this character because he deserves that, because a hook makes a great superhero.” And John’s one of the greatest we’ve ever had.

We played with this idea in the room, the odd idea that, with the ring — and Vanessa wrote this so well — sometimes you have to raise your hand. I remember reading that the first time, and I was like, “Oh my God. That’s the show.” That the ring chose Hal and he doesn’t think of the privilege of that, like, “Yeah, of course I deserve all this.” But John’s like, “There’s a difference between him and me. I know it’s not fair. That’s the way the world is.” A lot of parents have that conversation with their kids, and it’s a hard conversation to have.

Let me guess. Their idea of a "hook" was that John lose a parental figure too? I recall that it was established his mother was still alive in the last few years of the 2nd GL volume, though she was incomprehensibly dropped from the proceedings when the unbearable Action Comics Weekly feature went to press, and Katma Tui was repulsively slain, forcing Carol Ferris into a role she shouldn't have been in. They also seem to have built on a premise with the ring coming from the writings of Geoff Johns, who IIRC depicted the rings as choosing their hosts, instead of the original wearer, which for the GL Corps was the late Abin Sur. One more reason we could do without this TV mess.

Just before Lanterns, DC released Supergirl, based on your Woman of Tomorrow series. Did you work with [screenwriter] Ana Nogueira on that adaptation at all?

I was very purposefully hands-off on that project because, number one, I was in Lanterns. So that was my focus, supporting Chris to make Lanterns. And number two, I was so close to that material. I love that book that I wrote that I wanted to give them the freedom to create something. Because if I’m in there, I’m going to be like, “Let me tell you how it’s done.” And that wouldn’t have helped anyone be creative. I hate when people are doing that to me, so I wouldn’t want to do it to somebody else. Instead, I was like, “Beautiful people make beautiful work. Go forth and do your thing. I’ll be over here.”

Oh, some "beautiful" people they are alright. Also notice how King predictably remains oblivious to the catastrophe the Supergirl movie became, and won't ask whether his work was really any good to begin with. Is he also claiming there'd be no freedom to create something drawing from Golden/Silver/Bronze Age material, and only if it's based on his work, there is? That is just so dumb.

Nogueira’s working on a Wonder Woman movie as well. Have you gone hands-off with that, too?

For a while I had a job where I was a consultant — like a nerd consultant — so I worked on a lot of different sort of [DC] projects. But between Lanterns and Mister Miracle… I’m not involved in Wonder Woman except to say I hope it’s going to be utterly brilliant. I hope the people who are building it stay true to who that character is, because she’s just one of the greatest heroines ever created.

With the same screenwriter assigned, I doubt it. And I don't think King means what he says when he claims he hopes they'll remain true to what WW was built upon, seeing what a mess he made already in the comics proper, all for the sake of leftist agendas.

Even if Gunn hadn't been the executive producer of Lanterns, King's involvement is enough to avoid it, and the woke politics it builds on are so revolting, they make even the most questionable moments from O'Neil's writings look tame by comparison. It would be best if TV viewers would just change the channel, and read the earlier comics of GL from up to mid-1988 instead. And it's a shame many pseudo-historians won't admit much of GL's potential collapsed after that period.