"Black Heroes Journey" exhibit in west Philadelphia

Billy Penn at WHYY reported about an exhibition of Africa-American themed comics at the University of Pennsylvania, and a new GN about the 1955 murder of Emmett Till, which is authored by artist Eric Battle:

Some people spend decades figuring out what they want to do with their lives. Eric Battle found his calling at a corner store in West Philadelphia when he was 5.

“I can still remember the day, like it was yesterday,” said Battle, now 59.

He was walking to the store with his mother and two sisters when he discovered a comic book spinner rack in the back.

“I ran over and flipped through the comics. And it’s been a love affair ever since, but that spawned my interest in drawing and reading and everything else,” he said.

That fascination grew into a career illustrating stories for Marvel and DC Comics, children’s books and graphic novels. Now, Battle is helping explore the history of Black characters and creators in comics through “The Black Hero’s Journey,” an exhibition that opened Oct. 15 at the University of Pennsylvania’s Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts.

Battle is a co-curator of the exhibition, which runs through May 13, 2027, in the Goldstein Gallery at the Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center. The free exhibition traces the evolution of Black comic book heroes and the people who created them, with a particular connection to Philadelphia.

For Battle, its opening also comes as he prepares for the publication of “Framing Emmett Till: Exposing Dark Fear,” a graphic novel he spent more than five years illustrating.

Written by Christopher Benson, the book follows an anonymous Black writer investigating Till’s murder. It draws on Benson’s experience working with Till’s mother, Mamie Till-Mobley, on her memoir, “Death of Innocence: The Story of the Hate Crime That Changed America.”

Till was a 14-year-old Black boy from Chicago visiting relatives in Mississippi when he was abducted and murdered in 1955 after a white woman accused him of making advances toward her.

His mother insisted on an open casket at his funeral so the public could see what had been done to her son. An all-white jury acquitted the two white men charged with his murder. Till’s death and the images of his battered body helped galvanize the Civil Rights Movement.

Benson is a journalist, attorney and associate professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. The book is being published by Megascope, an Abrams ComicArts imprint curated by John Jennings, a professor at the University of California, Riverside, and a friend of Battle’s.

This reminds me of 6 years ago, when propagandist Heidi MacDonald was spouting leftist talking points like "believe women", even though there have been cases where false accusations are made, and the Till tragedy is one of them, right down to how the jury clearly predetermined their verdict in Mississippi. I'm sure MacDonald knows perfectly well her MO was flawed, and since that time, it's become apparent Warren Ellis, another leftist whom she threw under the bus, was not guilty of the mass "grooming" she took part in accusing him of. That doesn't mean I like his work. But to make absurdly petty issues over stuff that was otherwise consensual only ends up hurting the cause of actual victims, and let's not forget when MacDonald defended the disgraced CBLDF manager Charles Brownstein years ago.

Now to return to the subject, while Battle's got an interesting project to run in a history exhibition, I found out that, when he began working in comicdom years ago, and tried to work in the majors, he didn't have the best assignment:

To break into comics, he traveled to New York City to show editors his portfolios.

“It took quite a while before I was able to get my first job in comics, but that’s how it all really started,” Battle said.

His first Marvel assignment involved Cable, the X-Men character, in backup stories written by Jeph Loeb.

That wasn't considered the best written X-Men material produced, since it didn't have much clear direction to it, and came at a time when the cracks were forming in quality storytelling. Also, let's remember Cable, as he first appeared as an adult in 1990, was developed by the dreadful Rob Liefeld in the last 2 years of New Mutants, and Loeb later proved himself one of the most overrated writers in comicdom, recalling the Hush storyline he wrote for Batman, one of his "all style, no substance" type of approaches. So if Battle's now working more in the independents, he should be glad, considering how below rock bottom Marvel and DC became ever since. I wish him good luck with this exhibition and the GN's publication, and I also hope he'll consider that even today, there's a lot more that needs to paid attention to in modern times as well, if we're ever to improve just how bad things have become again, and that's also something that can make for important material for graphic novels/comic books. Those who wish to improve society and retain civility need to show the courage to actually deal with serious issues in modern times as much as the past.

Actor Samuel Jackson reflects on friendship with Stan Lee

Actor Samuel Jackson told People about how he got to know the late Stan Lee while appearing in some Marvel adaptations as Nick Fury:

Samuel L. Jackson is reflecting on his longtime friendship with the late Marvel universe creator Stan Lee.

While attending The Beast premiere at the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles on Oct. 6, the actor, 77, learned that he’s just behind Lee when ranking performers in cumulative box office revenue across all film roles.

The late co-creator of iconic comic book characters including Spider-Man, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Thor and the X-Men had worked on around 200 films when he died at 95 in 2018.

While growing up on Lee’s work, Jackson never envisioned having the opportunity to meet him.

“Things like that happen that you never expected,” he told PEOPLE at the L.A. premiere. “Those are things that you can’t even imagine when you’re a kid and you’re reading the books and you see his name all over the place.”

“Never occurred to me as a kid growing up in segregated Tennessee, I would meet Stan Lee,” he added. “So when it happens, it’s not even a dream come true. It’s something beyond that.”

Jackson, who plays Nick Fury in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, described Lee as a “wonderful, charming person” while reflecting on what a delight he was to be around.

I think it's great Jackson got to meet a figure he admired, but I'm sure there's people who're wondering why he - or more precisely, the studio - had to take the woke race-swapping route when they cast Jackson in Nick Fury's role instead of creating a new character who could take more or less the same prominent role as a leading S.H.I.E.L.D field operative. Let's consider that the political correctness got worse in some way or other in how the Marvel movieverse went forward, with post-2018 movies being particularly dreadful, including the 4th Thor movie (and lest we forget, there too, some race-swapping occurred with Heimdall earlier on). Was it really that necessary? Of course not, and for all we know, Jackson could surely have been cast as Robbie Robertson, one of the senior editors at the Daily Bugle in Spider-Man's series as well, and unlike Fury in the comics, Robertson was created as Black. Since Robertson was depicted as more favorable to Spidey than J. Jonah Jameson ever was, Jackson could've been perfect for the role of Robbie.

So Jackson's admiration for Stan the Man is appreciated, but it's a shame if he won't debate whether the S.H.I.E.L.D director who'd previously led the Howling Commandos in the first series Fury headlined should've ever been race-swapped. Of course it's absolutely terrible Jackson had to grow up at a time when the mid-south was held hostage to racial segregation, but that doesn't mean established fictional characters created as white should be changed to Black/Asian/Latino as a way to apologize. It's always possible to create new ones and not have to rely solely on what's already been created for the same comics-based movies. That kind of PC mindset has long ruined even DC comics, and it's something that has be moved away from and the original incarnations should be allowed to be made use of again.

NYC street named after Spider-Man

JNS reports a New York assemblyman arranged to have a street named after Stan Lee's famous wall-crawler in NYC's Forest Hills neighborhood in Queens, which was depicted as Peter Parker's place of residence as far back as the late 1980s:

Peter Parker, better known as Spider-Man, was born in Forest Hills, as the comic book backstory goes. The grandparents of New York state Assembly member Sam Berger also lived in the neighborhood.

“As the grandson of Holocaust survivors, who settled in Forest Hills and rebuilt their lives in Queens, I’m especially proud to see Spider-Man Way recognized in the very community they helped build,” Berger told JNS, of the newly named street in the Queens neighborhood in New York City.

“My grandparents may not have had superpowers, but they understood that with the opportunity to build a new life came a responsibility to give back and leave their community better than they found it,” he said.

Berger, who represents the area and advocated for the street naming, connected that legacy to the Jewish creators, who helped shape American comic books, including Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Will Eisner, Joe Simon, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Lee penned the Spider-Man comics, while Steve Ditko illustrated them.

“Through their stories, they helped generations understand that our greatest strength isn’t measured by our powers or achievements, but by how we use them to stand up for others and make the world around us a little better,” Berger told JNS.

“That’s a legacy worth celebrating, and one that makes Spider-Man Way especially meaningful here in Queens,” he said.

But not meaningful to horrible figures like current mayor Zohran Mamdani, who've done plenty already to desecrate the memory of the aforementioned Jewish comics creators. Come to think of it, there's even a presumably Jewish city comptroller who's now doing the same, exactly what Mamdani wants. That has the regrettable effect of dampening the impact of Berger's work to have a street specially named after a comics character a Jewish writer created.

That said, Berger's work is admirable, but then, how about if there were to be a street named after Mary Jane Watson? After all the abuse Marvel under Joe Quesada seet in motion, it could be a great way to draw a special spotlight on one of Stan's most famous co-star creations. I'd strongly recommend Mr. Berger consider trying that out next.

Stephen Wacker supposedly has a plan to repair Marvel

Adventures in Poor Taste says Marvel's new EIC allegedly has plans for fixing Marvel's management, starting with the busloads of variant covers that became a ludicrous staple of the industry for well over a decade now. Near the beginning, the site predictably sugarcoats Wacker's pretensions:

It’s been no secret in the comic book industry that Marvel has been struggling for the last 2-3 years. They’ve been in a creative and sales malaise that has been discussed ad infinitum. People have been calling for big changes at the highest levels of Marvel Comics, and when they announced that Stephen Wacker would take over as Editor-in-Chief, many fans and insiders breathed a sigh of relief. Here was someone with a proven track record who could turn the ship around and send Marvel in the right direction.

There's no mention of Mary Jane Watson in this puff piece, and Wacker, as one of the Spidey editors, was obviously part and parcel of the continuing effort to keep her otherwise kicked to the curb. Based on that, it's reprehensible they're putting words into the mouths of fandom, if not insiders. But, interesting they talk about Marvel falling into a slump now, as if that never happened before, when Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso were chief editors.

Wacker also addressed variant covers:

He admitted he was biased and really loved variant covers. He conceded that many readers also enjoy variant covers. For these reasons, they aren’t going away.

Wacker does worry about the overuse of variant covers to the point that it creates confusion about what the actual main cover of a comic is. He pointed out iconic covers of the past and how you could picture them in your mind, but when comics have so many variants, that iconic nature can be muddled.

From now on, Marvel will be clearer about main covers, adopting the industry standard of “Cover A, B, C, etc.” to denote main covers versus variants. Gone are the days of mindlessly throwing endless covers at every book.

That still doesn't address editorial mandates like what MJ's a victim of. Sure, it can help to quit turning out so many variants that actually cost more money. But if the story merit inside the comic isn't up to snuff, you still can't expect readers to actually buy the products. And as this more or less confirms, even under Wacker, they're not willing to quit, specifically, producing and commissioning so many variants to put on the covers of pamphlets themselves, rather than publish them inside some comics, or even as wall paintings. I don't think the price of pamphlets has been clearly addressed here either, and despite how Wacker mentions manga, it's unclear they'll make a shift to paperbacks and hardcovers.

Wacker also brought up following what movie adaptations put to use:

Marvel comic fans have long complained that the comics seem to be taking their cues from the wildly successful and popular movies. In an endless push for synergy between the movies and comics, the comics are altered to fit the cinematic universe. Many have felt that the tail has been wagging the dog.

Wacker pointed out that after moving to California, the comic offices would physically be in the same building as the movie offices. According to Wacker, the MCU’s success has created the assumption that the comics should relate to and match the films.

Wacker emphatically stated, “That is backwards.”

In his first meeting with Kevin Feige, Wacker was told that it’s not their job to follow the movies. To reinforce that, Feige attended the Marvel Summit yesterday in New York and told them their job was to be 15 years ahead of the cinematic universe.

Marvel Comics should be the creative engine.

But if they follow distasteful mandates like keeping MJ and Spidey separated, they're not improving there, that's for sure. There's also the matter of continuity being in a shambles since the early 2000s. I got a bad feeling they're going to use any status Peter Parker and Mary Jane have in the movies as an excuse to keep them apart in the comics, and that's wrong, mainly because of how contrived and inorganic the jettisoning of the marriage was when One More Day came about, and lest we forget how badly MJ was insulted as a creation even after OMD. So if Wacker's adamant on his part about keeping Quesada and J. Michael Straczynski's loathsome separation of the Spider-couple in place, there's no need to keep putting money into their pockets. Besides, wasn't it more in the early 2000s, in comics like X-Men, where they forced a mandate into place that the cast had to wear suits similar to the 2000 movie? I get the feeling Wacker and company are looking for an all-too convenient excuse in modern times. And then he talks about creators:

To repair relationships with creators, Wacker brought up three main points: paying creators on time, backing them up when things get loud, and listening to their creative instincts and desires.

Wacker promised that next year we would see names on Marvel books that we have not seen in years, and in some cases ever. He does not believe in a house style and thinks the publisher will benefit from fresh, creative ideas.

Oh, here's a great query: will we see them take conservative-leaning creators like Mike Baron and Chuck Dixon off the blacklist? Quite possibly not, nor will we see them respecting the USA in patriotic terms, nor will they tackle serious issues like Islamic terrorism or prove they respect 911 Families, and if Wacker doesn't reinstate the Spider-marriage today, he won't tomorrow. What are we missing, exactly? This isn't fresh so much as stale.

Cosmic Book News said Wacker also wants to do what sounds like cliches with machines, but before we get to that, look what writer he's bringing back:

UPDATE: Wacker made his first big announcement at NYCC: a new Captain Marvel series from Ms. Marvel writer G. Willow Wilson, exactly what we flagged when he got the job.

So he believes a left-wing propagandist who was hired to write pro-Islamic propaganda is the perfect choice for new assignments? That says all you need to know that whatever Wacker's talking about is empty mishmash, and should be avoided at all costs.

Wacker says an unpublished script exists that Frank Miller wrote for Walt Simonson to draw, and it never got made.

“That script exists. It’s part one of two,” said Wacker, who calls Simonson part of his personal Mount Rushmore of comic artists. “When I had Daredevil, I was trying to get it done, but schedules didn’t work out.”

“Boy, that’s a white whale,” he added. “If I can get a Frank Miller, Walt Simonson story done.”

Oh, I think that's something Miller mentioned 2 months ago, a Dr. Strange story, but it's already much too late, and I've concluded Miller's overrated anyway.

Wacker says the first comic he ever collected as a kid was Shogun Warriors, Marvel’s licensed giant robot series from the late ’70s, which broke his heart when it was canceled after 20 issues.

As an editor, he tried to get giant robots back into the Marvel Universe, and an entire story was written and drawn before being shelved.

“It turns out we didn’t have the legal rights that we thought,” said Wacker, joking the robots were legally not Shogun Warriors. “It’s still too close for our legal department.”

Now he’s running the place.

“It is my life’s work in this new gig, this Editor-in-Chief gig,” he said. “I have to find a way to bring giant robots into the Marvel Universe.”

What, the Sentinels aren't enough? Even this is silly, because if you know where to look, the MCU's had giant bots lumbering around in some form or other decades ago, and if Wacker's trying to draw in manga readers who like mecha tales, he won't succeed if he sticks with the kind of leftism he's already hinted he'll be following. It's clear that, despite any claims that may be made to the contrary, it'll be business as usual, with conservatives forbidden to seek jobs at Marvel, continuity destroyed, and the Spider-marriage kept out of the picture. So there's still no reason to resume reading their output.

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.

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.

For National Comic Book Day, more news about speculators came up

Here's some recent UPI coverage of National Comic Book Day, which tells how, wouldn't you know it, there was quite a bit of auction-style news brought up as they discuss 5 times comicdom appeared in "odd news". First:

September 25 is National Comic Book Day, celebrating the heroes, villains and stories that have filled comic book pages for generations. UPI is marking the occasion with a look back at five times superheroes -- and their fans, collectibles and real-life counterparts -- made their way into Odd News.

You know, it's very ill-advised to make it sound like the villains are something to celebrate, yet that's what they're certainly risking here, and it's quite the dismay indeed. And then, there's the sugarcoating of speculation:

Also in July, the piece of comic book art that first introduced readers to the Marvel Comics hero Iron Man sold for a record-breaking $3,875,000.

Heritage Auctions announced the sale of the original Don Heck artwork from page 1 of Marvel's Tales of Suspense No. 39 from March 1963.

The final price set a new world record for the highest price paid for a piece of original comic art. The previous record of $3,360,000 was set by a piece of Mike Zeck art from 1984's Marvel Super-Heroes Secret Wars No. 8. The artwork, which depicts the first appearance of Spider-Man's black costume, was sold in January 2022.

Again, why must we hear about how much it sold, and not say, what the best stories throughout the ages are? And just a single page too. This is getting ridiculous, and no clue whether the audience for comicdom overall has grown as a result. Then comes the following about Wonder Woman:

A Georgia woman paid tribute to her favorite superhero by amassing the world's largest collection of Wonder Woman memorabilia: 1,581 items.

Guinness World Records announced in June that Cedartown resident Aleshia Wiley's collection of memorabilia, including comic books, Funko Pop figurines, action figures, specialty toys and branded merchandise, officially took the title.

Wiley said she likes that Wonder Woman stands for female empowerment.

"Wonder Woman is a beacon of hope for girls and women everywhere, and a reminder that we need to support one another more," she said. "She shows that true strength comes from within and together we have the strength of the Amazons. Over the years, her character has evolved alongside new generations, but one thing has always stayed the same: women can do anything, and together we are unstoppable!"

Now this beggars some challenging questions: does WW still stand for anything positive regarding women? It's been far from the case for years, and the stories haven't been entertaining in a quarter century, with Greg Rucka making it worse when he was writer for at least 3 years. Some recent problems and incidents explain why whatever "female empowerment" is supposed to mean now stand as a joke, and make clear women never really had the backing they needed. Certainly not from leftists. All that aside, can women in real life do virtually anything? Are they "unstoppable"? Sadly, reality says otherwise. And then, more items involving villainy come up on UPI's list:

Also in 2025, a 22-year-old comic book fan from Indiana earned a Guinness World Record for her collection of 2,318 items related to Batman villain the Joker.

Bloomington resident Megan Pierce said she started collecting in middle school, and soon she had amassed items ranging from action figures and comic books to Joker rollerblades, a skateboard and milk caps from 1966. [...]

She said her hobby has allowed her to make connections with Joker fandom figures including actor Mark Hamill, who voiced the character in several animated and video game projects, as well as other collectors.

They were manufacturing merchandise for the Clown Prince of Crime that far back as 60-plus years? Even if that was before the darker angle of Batman was restored in the comics proper, to emphasize a villain who was often written as a murderous man is disturbing. And what's so great about veteran actor Hamill anyway? It's long turned out he's one of the most disturbingly leftist activists around, and I don't want to admire somebody who seems to consider a villain the most ideal role to play. Certainly not a supervillain as nasty as the Joker's often been characterized. Why, even a villain with a seemingly honorable persona as Doctor Doom's been written with is a character to give pause about, mainly because even Doom's been written as a nasty monster too decades before.

If that's the kind of material UPI thinks is a big deal for NCBD, something is terribly wrong here alright.

How is Elektra suddenly "scarier" than Punisher and Wolverine?

According to this brief on Softonic about new Daredevil issues, Elektra takes out a whole villainous mob without killing them:

In Daredevil #6 and #7, Stephanie Phillips and Lee Garbett fold Elektra into this new Marvel run by making one thing immediately clear: she’s dangerous in a way that has nothing to do with piling up the highest body count. “Of Moles & Owls” doesn’t sell her as deadlier than the Punisher or Wolverine in the usual numbers game. What’s unnerving about her is something else. She’s so exact, so disciplined, so tactical that she cuts through Mister Negative’s Inner Demons and leaves every last one of them alive. That’s the real point. Elektra decides exactly how much damage gets done, and she never loses control of it.

The issues also have her outplaying multiple factions as she works to secure Wilson Fisk’s ledger during a Hell’s Kitchen war that pulls in Silvermane, Tombstone, Hammerhead’s goons, and the Inner Demons. It makes the city feel like a live-fire chessboard, with Elektra still thinking several moves ahead of everyone else on it. If you’ve been following the noir-leaning, street-level direction Daredevil has taken since Stephanie Phillips and Lee Garbett launched their run in March 2026, these issues are easy to recommend. Even if Elektra’s return reads more like a sharp cameo than a full-blown comeback, issue #8 is already lining up Mister Fear, a drug threat at Empire State University (E.S.U.), and more questions tied to Wilson Fisk’s ledger.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make the story immediately entertaining. There's plenty of other superheroines who could've been written doing the same thing too, like Wonder Woman, Jesse Quick, Spider-Woman, Donna Troy, Invisible Girl, Psylocke, and Kitty Pryde. All that matters is whether it's written well, and at Marvel today, it's much too late for that. Plus, what if it turns out the artwork in this DD run is as terrible as some of the past decade's offerings?

This brief also ignores that there were times when the Punisher refrained from killing in order to appease Spider-Man, and it's not like Wolverine was depicted killing in all instances either. So why does Softonic think this news is going to automatically impress anybody, especially when the article doesn't seem written on merit?

Spider-Man comics sadly can no longer define Marvel as they used to, because of PC and editorial mandates

A writer at ComicBook continues the site's unfortunate leanings towards tabloid superficiality, this time taking an almost hilariously superficial look at Spidey's history and whitewashing the mistakes made since the turn of the century. For example:

Villains are one of the most important parts of superhero comics; as they say, a hero is only as good as his enemies. Marvel has been the home to some amazing villains over the decades and if we’re being honest, the Wall-Crawler has some of the best antagonists out there. Spider-Man’s villains have been amazing from the start, animal-based gimmick villains who take the idea of “science gone wrong” that is so important to Peter Parker’s mythos and use it in novel ways. Villains have played a massive role in making Spider-Man as popular as he is. Spidey is constantly playing off his enemies and he needs to have villains that make for both exciting stories and great character interplay with the webslinging hero. Spider-Man books have proven Marvel’s most fertile ground for villains, with bad guys springing up that have changed comics forever. The Marvel Universe would be very different without his fantastic rosters of foes and not in a good way.

Umm, there's plenty of other Marvel series where formidable villains were created, and with talented writing to accompany them, an entertaining story could result. I love Spidey as much as the next person, but I'm not going to say no other Marvel comic produced villains as durable as those seen in Spidey's comics. Though I should remind that villains alone are not the reason to read such books, and shouldn't be placed on a higher level of appreciation than the heroes. And telling us heroes are only as good as their enemies is no substitute for merit-based writing.

Oh, and since we're on the subject, by the mid-80s, the Kingpin, who first appeared in Spidey around 1967, was starting to make more appearances in comics like Daredevil. Wilson Fisk may have begun as a Spidey adversary, but later on became more notable as a recurring villain in DD's stories. And Kraven the Hunter was later written committing suicide in 1987's "Kraven's Last Hunt" storyline, so it's not like all villains lasted forever at a time when Marvel had meaning. That said, they do cite supporting casts:

Supporting casts have been important since the beginning, when characters like Lois Lane, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, and many more added some much-needed spice to superhero stories. Over the years, readers have come to expect amazing supporting casts from their favorite books, especially at Marvel. The House of Ideas has always showcased more human heroes, with the trials of their superhero life coloring their civilian lives, and the best example of a stellar supporting cast in the Marvel Universe comes from Spidey’s comics. We’ve gotten numerous best of all-time supporting characters from his books – Aunt May, Mary Jane, J. Jonah Jameson, Robbie Robertson, Harry Osborn, Ben Urich, Ned Leeds, Betty Brant, Liz Allen, and so many more – with the best of them showing why supporting casts are so important to superhero comics. Spidey’s supporting cast has added so much to his books, allowing creators to take the stories in directions they couldn’t have otherwise went. One of the main reasons you expect so much from Marvel supporting casts is that the Spider-Man comics have been spoiling readers with the best supporting cast in the business for decades.

Interesting they should bring this up, because if memory serves, J. Michael Straczynski made very little use out of the most notable recurring cast members in Spidey in his overrated 2001-07 run, and Mary Jane Watson was kicked to the curb nearly 2 decades ago, while all these propagandists waffled around, and, while it obviously wouldn't be something to be happy about doing, they said nothing about whether a boycott would be the best direction to take if that could help get the Spider-marriage restored, and any or all undeserving staff members dismissed from Marvel.

And what's this about more human heroes? That too was massively destroyed in the past quarter century or more, as heroes and co-stars actually had humanity stripped from them by ways of contrived writing, and having cynicism and other shoddy character traits forced upon them. IIRC, Marvel may have been trying to convince the audience to dislike Mary Jane by forcing an irritating personality upon her in 1999, and in the end, One More/Brand New Day really buried whatever convincing personalities Marvel once had for their casts. If the editors and writers wanted to turn MJ into a villainess for real, it's entirely possible they'd do it, and certainly came close with the shoddy story where she was forced into the Venom glop.

With the rise of cinematic superhero universes and geek culture, you’d assume that it’s easier than ever to become a comic fan, but this isn’t the case. Not every town has a comic store and that’s merely the first of some rather large hurdles you have to get over. Another rather large one is just how daunting comics can be to the average fan. Marvel Comics has some amazing gateway books, but even after reading those, it can be hard to pick out who to start with. Spider-Man, though, has proven to be one of the best characters to kick off your comic journey with. To begin with, he was given one of the greatest origins in comics, one that’s simple to understand and can be the catalyst for the best stories you can imagine. He’s an extremely relatable character – a guy with low self esteem using his powers to fight crime as his life falls apart around him is basically how everyone is living in 2026. His supporting cast makes you feel at home immediately. The Amazing Spider-Man is one of those books that is always among the first books that any comic fan buys, the perfect primer on why superhero comics so much fun to read.

In that case, why not recommend the Epic Collection archives collecting Spidey's adventures from the past century, or even the Omnibuses? If they believe only the newest items in stores matter, they're not serious about recommendations. Also, what's "relatable" about a character who made a deal with Mephisto in One More Day? And then, they even fawn over the Ultimate line, and the DEI propaganda it wound up emphasizing:

I have a friend who mostly only buys comics when he think they’re going to be “key issues” and I remember him being one of the first people to talk to me about the death of the first Ultimate Spider-Man in the early ’10s. Ultimate Spider-Man had always been the most popular Ultimate characters and lots of fans were reticent about his death; the Ultimate books were already mostly dead and a lot of fans figured that this would be the end for them. However, instead, we got an all-new Spider-Man in Miles Morales. Miles was able to grow his fanbase on his own in a universe where he was the main Spider-Man and it worked better than anyone could have imagined. Fans loved him so much that he would end up surviving the end of the Ultimate Universe and joining the 616. There was the chance that this wouldn’t work out for him, but instead of losing his popularity, he became bigger than ever. The Spider-Man books were able to do something that few other comics have – introduce a second character that stays popular even when readers can just read the adventures of the original instead. It’s a huge achievement that we don’t really praise enough.

This is all we need to know just how biased they are, and all delivered without sales figures to prove their empty point. What next, will they sugarcoat and recommend Jason Aaron's own woke pandering? And then, lastly:

Being a Spider-Man fan isn’t always great. There’s something about Spider-Man’s comic in that when things get bad, they get really, really bad. A big part of this is the simplest – his books sell regardless; there’s no reason to listen to fan complaints as long as they’re still buying the book. Anyone out there who has been a part of the online comic community for any period of time has encountered the often hyperbolic hatred for the hero’s comics, especially since “One More Day” did away with his marriage to Mary Jane. In the last 19 years (yes, it’s been that long), fans hated Spider-Man comics more than anything, especially if you were just going by the stuff said in comment sections. However, when you went to the sales charts, The Amazing Spider-Man was always one of the bestselling comics out there. It’s only been in the last year or so that it’s not been consistently at the top of the sales charts; now, it’s merely in the top ten. Spidey comics are able to survive fan ire like no other. There’s no other character that could have fans as angry as The Amazing Spider-Man has and survive. It’s one of the most interesting things about Spider-Man – when his fans are complaining the loudest, his book is usually selling like hot cakes.

Well at least here, they hint at a leading problem explaining why things got so bad: because you have only so many fools out there, doubtlessly including tons of speculators, who won't judge by merit and keep buying Spidey no matter how much this makes it impossible to ever see the Spider-marriage restored. That said, even Spidey sales have long plummeted, and I remember that, when sales figures were visible at ICV2, the sales appeared to have dropped under 100,000 copies allegedly sold. Unfortunately, Marvel's modern management is so blatant, they're clearly willing to keep churning out Spidey and other now maligned comics no matter how poorly they sell in the end.

And what's this about "hatred" for Spidey's comics? That's only in the context of that the story in a current issue is bottom of the barrel, and they still force a mandate forbidding restoration of the Spider-marriage, and improving respect for Mary Jane as a character. It's obvious MJ's of no value to the columnist, or he would've championed the Spider-marriage, pro-MJ supporters long ago instead of writing such drivel. So why write such fawning garbage? All it does is compound how unserious ComicBook really is as a news site, and how creatively bankrupt they are themselves. They're an utter embarrassment. They're yet another reason why Spidey no longer defines pop culture itself.

New X-Men film director appears to be adapting writings of Jonathan Hickman

According to this IGN article, Jason Schreier, the director of a new X-Men movie (and previously the Thunderbolts), is basing his screenplay on not one, but two sources, the 2nd not a good one:

The filmmaker leading the charge on what seems to be the first post-Avengers: Secret Wars movie spoke about some of the corners of the mutant universe he and MCU boss Kevin Feige have already started digging through during an interview with Good Morning America. The conversation followed the film's explosive D23 2026 X-Men cast reveal, which included announcements for characters like Rogue, Storm, Professor X, and Mister Sinister.

With its May 2028 release still almost two years away, Schreier, who previously helmed Marvel's Thunderbolts*, stopped short of revealing too much about the movie's plot. Instead, his comments suggested fans may want to brush up on the work of comic book authors Chris Claremont and Jonathan Hickman.

"One of the great things about the comics is there is such a rich and broad history," he said. "That was one of the first things that Kevin and I talked about when I came in; they made many great movies in this world, and they've made so many great things. Let's find the things that haven't recently been done well. All these other corners of the universe…"

"Digging back into those comics like 20 years, the whole Chris Claremont run, the newer Jonathan Hickman stuff. There are so many stories that are still untold, to honor and to reach into, and then to meet this cast and try to do something new, I think you always want to see something that reveres where it came from and then is still taking a new spin on where we want to go."

Considering the Thunderbolts movie, spelled as it is with an asterisk, is one of those things that hasn't been done well, I'm not sure what Schreier's point is. Hickman's run was overrated, right down to the part where he turned Moira MacTaggart into yet another mutant, which takes away the uniqueness of the character as a civilian co-star. Does Schreier intend to make use of that?

In any case, I've long grown weary of these non-stop live action adaptations, and Schreier's claim there's a rich and broad history is another example of failing to make distinctions between any era. He likely doesn't care that X-Men began to lose mileage when crossovers like Age of Apocalypse came about. Or that Scott Lobdell was considered a very mediocre writer back in the day. Or that the X-books overall began to lose any meaning or significance by the turn of the century, and even Claremont's talent plummeted post-2000. So what's the use of keeping on with the films, when the comics are in such bad shape as it is due to editors like Joe Quesada bringing them down years ago?

Luton's Comicon pays tribute to Steve Dillon

Luton Today says their local convention is going to pay tribute to artist Steve Dillon, who passed away a decade ago:

Luton Comic Con 2026 will pay tribute to one of the town’s most celebrated creative talents with a special exhibition dedicated to the life and work of legendary comic book artist Steve Dillon.

The exhibition, which Luton Comic Con CIC describes as a special final tribute to Dillon’s legacy, will showcase his remarkable career and lasting contribution to the world of comics.

[...] Dillon’s professional career began when he was just 16 years old, when he was hired to work for Marvel UK’s Hulk Weekly. His early Marvel UK work included drawing Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., as well as work connected to The Hulk, before he went on to establish himself across some of the most influential British and American comics.

That's pretty interesting he had Nick Fury to his credits. But what else was he know for?

He would later become renowned for his work on titles including Judge Dredd, Hellblazer and The Punisher, as well as co-creating the acclaimed Preacher with writer Garth Ennis. His distinctive storytelling and character work made him one of the most respected British comic artists of his generation.

Would that be Ennis' take on the Punisher they're referring to? Because Ennis set in motion the destruction of Frank Castle, turning it into a political mess 2 decades ago, and his take is something to admire? Though it does make me wonder what the late Gerry Conway might've thought of it.

Whatever the quality of Dillon's art, the sad part's that he was apparently one of a whole ocean of scribes who veered to the darkness, as his resume suggests. So what's so "remarkable" about that? I don't see it. There's bound to be only so many artists and writers who dealt more with the bright side - and Superman's building on that angle - who don't get as much attention as artists like Dillon may be getting (Al Plastino, for example). Seriously, it's time to give them more spotlight too.

For Spider-Man's 1000th issue, Aunt May forgets who Peter Parker is

Comic Book Club tells the premise of the thousandth issue for Amazing Spider-Man:

In the cliffhanger of the last issue of Amazing Spider-Man, Peter Parker’s beloved Aunt May had a stroke. Well, thanks to a new preview from Marvel of Amazing Spider-Man #1000, we know what’s happened: she’s forgotten Peter Parker.

Alongside the preview pages, which include an appearance by May’s biological son Cormac, who has been appearing recently in the series, we’re also getting covers for the second printing, which will arrive on October 28 with pencilled versions of the covers by Pepe Larraz and John Romita Jr. (check out if the controversial cover looks better without the coloring). That’s because the issue has already sold over 400,000 copies to comic book stores [...]

Spider-Man faces his greatest fear and his most frightening new villain in decades… RAVAGE! Plus, some of the greatest creative minds on Earth honor one thousand issues of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! NOAH HAWLEY (Alien: Earth, Fargo, LEGION) makes his comic book debut, Frank Miller and Peach Momoko collaborate for the first time, Stuart Immonen and Brian Michael Bendis return to Spider-Man together, and some of the best ASM creators return to the title!

It's much too late for introducing new relatives of the Parkers to the title, and with Bendis aboard, something's obviously wrong. Even Miller's involvement does nothing to improve what's clearly just more publicity stunts. I don't know if Mary Jane Watson shows up, but if Bendis and/or Miller are allowed to script a story where MJ appears, it's only plain dismay.

Just like it's long too late for there to have been a 1000th Superman issue, it's too late for a 1000th Spidey issue, and besides, what are the chances they'll soon be resetting it to a number one, as became a sad staple in the years since a number of Marvel titles were first relaunched in 1998? The customers have hopefully long learned why it doesn't pay to buy all these brand new relaunch premieres that won't amount to much on the speculator market.

Film director defends comic adaptations

Variety reports film director Chloe Zhao, who worked on the unsuccessful Eternals movie, and is insisting on defending them as a form of entertainment:

When Chloé Zhao was growing up, she dreamed not of directing movies but becoming a manga artist.

“But I wasn’t very good at drawing. I wasn’t up to standard,” she said with a laugh during a wide-ranging masterclass presented by Cartier on Friday afternoon at the Venice Film Festival. “I wanted to tell stories. I didn’t think cinema was an option for me.”

Of course, Zhao found her way into film and directed acclaimed movies such as 2020’s Oscar-winning “Nomadland” and 2025’s Shakespearean drama “Hamnet.” She was eventually able to meld her passions with 2021’s Marvel adaptation “Eternals,” which starred Gemma Chan, Richard Madden, Kumail Nanjiani, Brian Tyree Henry, Barry Keoghan, Salma Hayek and Angelina Jolie and revolved around an immortal alien race sent to protect Earth from evil beings.

“I loved doing it,” she said of directing the movie. “For any of you who love anime, I know you know this was a girl’s dream come true. Comic books are the western equivalent of [manga]. They are very different, but I live in the west, and that’s what I had access to.”

Although superhero movies have waned in popularity since the pandemic — even “Eternals” fell short of box office expectations with $400 million globally against a $200 million-plus budget — Zhao sees the value in all forms of entertainment. That’s unlike, say, Martin Scorsese, who has infamously likened Marvel movies to “theme parks.”

“I do feel it’s important to not write off stories because we don’t consider them high art,” she said. “The purpose of storytelling for me, humbly, is to create containers for people … to try to process what they need to process. Archetypes are such a great way to do it — and we see them in myths — is because it’s something we all share.”

The problem is that political correctness has long taken over - even the Eternals movie had its own share of that - and it's drained the adaptations of whatever potential they had. If Zhao's creative license was restricted, that also says something about the film she directed, which was one of the first serious failures for modern comic adaptations to screen.

And since manga came up, it's vital to recall there've been at least a few Hollywood adaptations that were failures too, like the Saint Seiya film. That one, IIRC, wasn't even released with much fanfare. Some mangakas are also against following certain "western" principles. For all we know, the least successful adaptations of manga could've precipitated the failure of USA comics movies. Another problem is that the adaptations only seem to build on action and comedy themes, not unlike how animation is marketed in the west. If Hollywood's not willing to try out projects based on comics and manga emphasizing drama and romance, it just illustrates the failure of the western film industry to expand beyond certain themes and be more creative, not to mention give the audience something that could be more challenging.

So what's the use of defending comics-based live action films if they're going to remain so PC, and not expand to more challenging themes? There's whole shiploads of independent comics out there too that could serve as a wellspring, and they eschew all that for the sake of adapting mainstream comics that've been throughly ruined over the past quarter century. Indeed, what good does it do to watch live action adaptations when the original comics are being destroyed? If the original comics are turned stale, it just makes a mockery out of the idea to adapt them in the first place.

What former DC editor Joseph Illidge works in today

Newsweek interviewed veteran editor Joseph Illidge, who worked on the Milestone imprint 3 decades ago, and is now running a company titled Illuminous:

For more than three decades, Joseph Illidge has moved between the creative and corporate engines of comics, and while his résumé includes Milestone Media, Batman, Spawn Universe, and a slate of original graphic novels, his latest venture begins with a deceptively simple question: What if the story someone has carried for years finally received the architecture, talent and business strategy required to become real?

Illuminous, Illidge’s production and creative-services company, is built for those dormant epics, whether an entrepreneur has imagined a sprawling fantasy saga or an experienced comics creator wants to strengthen a new world before publication.

“There are so many people out there” with a “nagging idea,” Illidge told Newsweek, and because many cannot see a path from private inspiration to publishable intellectual property, he wants the company to make such possibility tangible.

The company grew out of a career spent protecting established characters while opening doors for new ones. Illidge began at Milestone, whose founders created an inclusive superhero universe amid an industry that had marginalized them and their identities, and he sees a direct connection between that entrepreneurial example and Illuminous.

“It really stems from starting my career at Milestone,” he said. “Starting my career at a company like that really led in a straight line to Illuminous, and founding that company so it could provide empowerment for a new generation of creators [and] veteran creators.”

I should hope they're actually trying to develop something meaningful, years after Dan DiDio almost singlehandedly ruined DC, and Joe Quesada similarly ruined Marvel. But if it's DC/Marvel we're talking about, Illidge failed epically to protect established characters, some of whom saw new ones built on DEI brought in at the expense of the old ones. An Asian Atom, Black Firestorm and Latino Blue Beetle, in example, introduced through forced and contrived situations, and they've largely vanished since, though at the same time, DC seems opposed to fully reinstating Ray Palmer and Ted Kord to their roles, not to mention some of their civilian co-stars like Jean Loring. If Illidge is obscuring what came at the time of Identity Crisis, he's done a terrible disfavor.

“Comic books are the fastest and relatively least expensive way to get an idea to market, to start identifying and growing an audience and building a community,” Illidge said. “It is the beginning of how intellectual properties and projects are identified by other companies for adaptations.”

Illidge sees opportunity in an entertainment economy whose attitude toward originality can shift with a pair of hits. He pointed to Sinners and Weapons, two 2025 films whose success followed an era of “peak IP” thinking, when studios favored reboots and familiar franchises.

“Suddenly the narrative changed, and Hollywood wanted original ideas again,” he said. “We’re not at a time of fatigue of stories. What people do want is an original take on the familiar genres.”

Well if Hollywood's relying on darkness and the horror theme, as a title like Sinners could suggest, I'm not sure "original" ideas are seriously being considered. What's certainly lacking is more comedy stories, along with more optimism. Something that isn't clear so far from what Illidge is telling. Also, it can't be built upon woke themes, or contrived DEI. Also, if adaptations are what he cares about, that's unfortunately a problem. What has to matter first and foremost is the comic story itself. I seem to recall AWA Studios, founded as it was by Bill Jemas and Axel Alonso, built on the hopes of producing comics that could be adapted to other mediums, and that only undercuts the potential of the comic itself.

A creator’s first meeting with Illidge moves quickly past spectacle, since he begins with two questions whose answers expose the story’s emotional foundation: “Why this story?” and “What’s the theme of your story?”

Half of his clients, he said, arrive without a clear theme, while others treat premise and theme as interchangeable; once the distinction emerges, however, the entire project gains direction.

“We’re going to discover [the theme] together,” he tells them. “Once you know what your theme is, which is really the underpinning of your story, you’re truly off to the races.”

His framework is ICWTC: idea, character, world, theme and cast. The idea defines the project; the lead character gives readers someone to follow; the world creates pressure; the theme clarifies the story’s deeper argument; and the cast either supports or challenges both protagonist and theme.

“In any story, you need a primary character for the audience to care about,” Illidge said, adding, “For drama, the world has to create tension for the character. The world cannot be in the character’s favor; it has to be the character’s macro enemy.”

In that case, I hope he recognizes just how artificial DC and Marvel's "plans" were in the past quarter century. Why, come to think of it, while an argument about need for a lead to care about is valid, shouldn't entertainment value be the foremost importance? It should also be noted DC/Marvel weren't interested in actually getting audiences to care about the characters when they turned out Identity Crisis and Avengers: Disassembled. Even before that, I can't say they actually wanted anybody to care about Kyle Rayner as a 3rd Green Lantern, no matter what nonsense they spouted 3 decades ago. And lest we forget, Emerald Twilight was all done at Hal Jordan's expense, a decade before they subjected a number of other characters to the same, this time under the confidence that, because the characters in question were more minor, nobody would give a damn. That's but one of the reasons the atrocities of the 2000s are so offensive.

Illidge then describes how he hires whom he believes are the perfect artists for the job:

As the story takes shape, Illidge begins looking for artists whose work carries the project’s tone while inviting readers into its world. “Art brings people to stories, and the writing keeps them there,” he said.

The right collaborator can also reveal possibilities a writer never envisioned, which is why Illidge urges clients to reject a command-and-control relationship with the person drawing their book.

“Try to think of the artist as your partner,” he said. “They are going to do things you could not have conceived, and it’s going to surprise you.”

Brian Hitch provides Illidge’s clearest example of visual authorship becoming industry architecture. Hitch’s naturalistic work on The Ultimates, created with Mark Millar, helped establish a cinematic vocabulary later associated with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, while his earlier work on The Authority demonstrated how forceful design and widescreen composition could make superhero spectacle feel immediate.

He considers artists with such overrated resumes the best choices? Oh for heaven's sake. This also reminds me of the time author Sean Howe argued almost 15 years ago that making comics look like movies is a losing formula. So why must we hear somebody who worked with Mark Millar on stories emphasizing shock value is a great choice? Only if Hitch can prove he's willing to try out something less forced and more inspiring than what the aforementioned stories turned out to be.

Illidge’s years editing Batman comics trained him to balance interpretation with the nonnegotiable principles that make a character recognizable across generations. Readers arrived through Adam West’s colorful television version of Gotham, Frank Miller’s harder-edged comics, Tim Burton’s 1989 film and Batman: The Animated Series, yet each audience expected an essential core to survive.

“As a caretaker of the intellectual property, which is what an editor is, you have to be the guardian of those rules,” Illidge said.

Batman’s rejection of guns and killing offers the clearest boundary, though Illidge frames such rules as engines for drama. A gun destroyed Bruce Wayne’s family, while his parents’ lives in medicine and social work anchor his reverence for life; therefore, a writer can push him toward a moral precipice while preserving the choice which defines him.

This only compounds the perception Illidge builds too much on cinematics and drawing in the same audience. And again, considering DC's stable of creations went south due to contempt by DiDio in the past 2 decades, it's awfully rich for Illidge to say he was a "caretaker". Also, seriously, did virtually all readers take to the Masked Manhunter's tales just because of the West TV series and Burton's film? Or even Miller's contributions? I wouldn't be that narrow in assumptions. Some could also argue that if villains like the Joker aren't brought to an end, then it only weakens the whole premise of Batman not killing. Then, look what else Illidge apparently worked in as writer:

Writing Bloodletter inside Todd McFarlane’s Spawn Universe showed Illidge how a new creation can honor a franchise while filling a space its founder has yet to imagine. After McFarlane explained the universe’s rules, Illidge and his co-writer found the final piece of their story.

“The job was to create something additive,” he said, describing the goal as an idea the universe “hasn’t even occurred to [its creator] it needs until we present it.”

A mature intellectual property, in Illidge’s view, eventually becomes large enough to welcome other writers, artists and producers, whose additions create fresh dimensions without erasing its identity. Robert Kirkman wrote The Walking Dead comic, while its television incarnation grew through a larger creative team; David Chase created The Sopranos, whose writers included Terence Winter and Matthew Weiner before they built major series of their own.

So Illidge considers the horror genre a great wellspring? That's unfortunately also a problem, much like if he only saw Batman as the ideal franchise to edit, but not Superman.

Illuminous extends beyond story development because a finished comic still needs legal guidance, publicity, marketing and a route to readers. Illidge’s network becomes part of the service, connecting clients with specialists once the project is ready to enter the market.

“If I work with you to develop your idea and realize your idea, and then cast you to the wind, and you don’t know what to do with it in the landscape, then I’m not being of service,” he said.

Crowdfunding, especially Kickstarter, has widened access by letting creators reach audiences directly, while webcomics and vertical reading formats offer additional entry points for projects which may never fit a traditional publisher’s list. Even so, Illidge cautions against launching an entire universe at once. Marvel’s interconnected mythology grew over decades, whereas a new creator still has to earn attention one powerful story at a time.

“Start with the one story, the one potent story, and then work your way out,” he said.

On this, I wonder if he respects conservative writers and artists? Would he be willing to publish say, Mike Baron's Private American? If not, that would sum up quite a problem with his own MO.

In the end, if there's any flaw in Illidge's approach to publishing, it's if he views comics as more of a wellspring for moviemaking. But that's just another mistake that's brought down comicdom. I think working in the independent scene can have its advantages, but if Illidge follows a PC narrative, he's not doing enough to fully realize the potential of creator-owned comics any more than the mainstream. And will he ever admit what went wrong in the 2000s? Probably not. It's also very problematic if he thought the genre Spawn's built on makes for great storytelling, but not what Superman was. That's a problem indeed.

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.