More propaganda being published in favor of NYC's illegal-immigrant-pandering comic

The New York Times (archive link) published a puff piece favorable to NYC's propaganda comic that sides with illegal immigration, and against ICE. Worst, in case it wasn't mentioned before, its writer and artist are veterans of the regular industry:

As New York City middle school and high school students return to classrooms this term, they are receiving access to “Know Your Rights,” an educational comic book that prepares individuals for encounters with federal law enforcement officers.

It is the latest release by Civics for All, a program of the city schools’ department of social studies and civics. The program began in 2020 and now includes 45 comics. The print run of “Know Your Rights” is 140,000 — half in English, half in Spanish. It is also available digitally in 14 languages.

The comic presents vignettes, based on real events, about encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including guidance specific to New York City that emphasizes knowing your legal options at home, at work or walking to school. In easy-to-follow scenes with clear and brightly colored artwork, the story gives readers legal hotline numbers, and advice on planning ahead, organizing documents and memorizing emergency contact information.

“Know Your Rights,” written by Alex Segura and drawn by David Hahn, was suggested by members of Project Open Arms, a city school system effort to support immigrants, including asylum seekers. They saw value in helping students and families understand the rights that come with being an undocumented person.

I think Hahn drew stories for Bill Willingham's Fables series years ago, and wonder what the latter thinks of having worked with such leftists today, if they were going to go miles out of their way and throw their support behind tales that're hurtful to the USA? As for Segura, he's been quite the left-wing propagandist himself for some time, and he worked at Archie in the past 15 years, where I'm sure he had plenty of grimy stuff to foist on it.

Using comics and graphic novels in schools is not new. “Maus,” by Art Spiegelman, in the 1990s “broke a lot of barriers in terms of the acceptance of comics,” Hillary Chute, an English professor at Northeastern University, who specializes in comics and graphic narratives, said in an interview. She was a graphic novels columnist for The New York Times Book Review from 2018 to 2022.

I'm sure the citation of Maus was deliberate too, based on Spiegelman's leftism. After all, who in the MSM cares today about Will Eisner's GNs like A Contract With God? They don't think that broke any barriers by contrast, right? Surprisingly, the NYT's writer does give space for a conservative to comment on the propaganda comic:

Jennifer Weber, a fellow specializing in education policy at the Manhattan Institute, the conservative think tank, said in an interview that using comics is not a bad thing, but that “Know Your Rights” portrays immigrants as the protagonists and ICE as the antagonists, which is “one-sided.”

For civics lessons, “I would say that you would absolutely need to understand the other side,” she continued, adding that the comic misses an opportunity to teach readers about why ICE was formed and to showcase Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

But that's not what the propagandists bankrolling this comic at City Hall are doing, and under Zohran Mamdani, things have become much worse with the propaganda ramped up, all at the expense of decent Americans. And then they even have professional comics writers/artists come in and contribute to the damage they're inflicting, with Segura fluff-coating the procedures:

Segura said that writing this comic “felt really important,” adding that it provides valuable information “because we are experiencing a spike in activity from nonmunicipal law enforcement, namely ICE and organizations like that, where it’s imperative not only for kids, but their families and friends to know what their rights are and what the city can do to protect and help them.”

Politics aside, the aim of the comic is to inform. “People should know their rights, right?” Carlin asked. “That shouldn’t be controversial.”

Nor should it be controversial to prevent violent criminals from entering the USA, should it? And Europe? Also, doesn't anybody consider 911 Families, and how the memories of their beloved relatives are being let down and desecrated? Well Segura and Hahn certainly haven't, and this propaganda comic that supposedly "informs" only adds insult to injury. They're even hurting law enforcement whose goal is to ensure safety, and making NYC all the more an insufferable place to live. What "valuable" info does this comic give? And why is the angle of the comic that important in contrast to actual victims of crime, in NYC and elsewhere?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish entrepreneurs of the past helped build up toy merchandise as much as comics

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency wrote about how Jewish industrialists played as much a part in building up the toy industry as the comics industry:

But even if my family didn’t spend Saturdays in shul, kids’ television immersed me in an unspoken Jewish culture, as Michael Kimmel explains in his new book “Playmakers: The Jewish Entrepreneurs Who Created the Toy Industry in America.”

It’s a study of the mostly first-generation American Jews who led the toy industry in the 20th century, as well as the Jewish child psychologists, children’s book authors and comic book creators who, he asserts convincingly, invented the American idea of childhood.

“They created the childhood that they themselves never had,” Kimmel told me in a recent public conversation, part of “250 Years of American Jewish Life in America,” an online project of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History and 70 Faces Media, JTA’s parent company.

The founders of iconic brands such as Ideal, Mattel, Marx, Hasbro, Kenner, Wham-O and Madame Alexander dolls shared roots in Yiddish-speaking Europe, and childhoods as the sons and daughters of immigrants.

“They were born in poverty on the Lower East Side, and you have all these stories of the scraps that they picked up off the street that they made into things,” said Kimmel. “They had these ideas that children were basically curious and creative, and that they should be nurtured.”

And commodified. Shut out of establishment industries and professions, Jewish entrepreneurs thrived in niches of their own making, capitalizing on and helping propel the consumer culture that exploded after World War I. German Jews ran some of the largest department stores, including Macy’s, Abraham & Straus and Gimbels, and Eastern European newcomers became the manufacturers, distributors and sales force that stocked their shelves with dolls, games, and gadgets.

The list of classic toys and Jews who developed them is almost comically long: Barbie (Ruth Handler), Lionel trains (Lionel Cowan), Mr. Potato Head (George Lerner), Yakity-Yak chattering teeth (Eddy Goldfarb), the pogo stick (George Hansburg), the Hula Hoop (Arthur Melin and Richard Knerr), G.I. Joe (Larry Reiner) and Play-Doh and the Easy-Bake Oven (the Steiner brothers: Albert, Philip and Joseph).

Since they cite Barbie toys, it's a shame a certain filmmaker named Greta Gerwig chose to humiliate them for the sake of a woke agenda attacking the "patriarchy". And it's also a shame the GI Joe toys have similarly suffered in live action filmmaking. I sadly suspect the history book in focus doesn't dwell on any of that, even though that could also provide something to learn from. The comics industry's also cited here, along with children's books, but there's one name in the latter part that's decidedly an embarrassment to include:

The Jewish entrepreneurs not only benefited from such views of childhood, but understood how to turn them into a business model. They were also pushed toward these new industries by a less uplifting force: antisemitism.

Kimmel said that many comic-book artists originally wanted to work in advertising, but advertising agencies in the 1930s and ’40s were notoriously hostile to Jews. Like toymaking, comic books became a Jewish industry. Underpaid Jewish artists and writers — including Jack Kirby, Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Will Eisner, Stan Lee and Lily Renée — dreamed up Superman, Betty Boop, the Spirit, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Spider-Man and The Thing, among dozens of others, often giving these superheroes and comic characters coded or actual Jewish backstories.

The same pattern appears in children’s literature. Kimmel counts 42 titles on the New York Public Library’s list of the 100 most important children’s books of the 20th century that were written by first-generation Jews, including Sydney Taylor, Maurice Sendak, Jack Ezra Keats, Jules Feiffer, Esphyr Slobodkina and Norman Juster.

While it's great the writer reminds us about the comics side of the Jewish industrialists, it's a shame he had to bring up a figure like Sendak, whose children's books, IMO, were tasteless, and worse was his politics. The article even cites the Fat Albert cartoon based on the disgraced Bill Cosby's comedy sketches, and even Lil' Abner cartoonist Al Capp, who regrettably turned out to be a pervert, and I honestly don't think it's such a good idea to provide such figures with citation, even if it doesn't make sense to erase them from history altogether. It only undermines the impact of the article, and if the book by Kimmel brings them up, that can be problematic. At least Capp is long gone, which makes it easier to read his work for anybody who cares.

Kimmel's book also makes space for a certain children's TV program on PBS:

Kimmel ends his book with “Sesame Street,” which he sees as a kind of culmination. The groundbreaking children’s show was developed by Joan Ganz Cooney, whose father was Jewish, with the assistance of Gerald Lesser, a developmental psychologist born to Jewish immigrant parents. The show was in some ways an antidote to the world of Saturday morning cartoons. It prepared pre-schoolers for success in kindergarten with the addictive, engaging style of commercial television. And instead of advertisements for toys, its “commercials” offered lessons in letters, shapes, counting, social skills and concepts such as “near” and “far.”

There was a time when Sesame Street, famous as it is for its use of the Muppets, was a great item for children to view and learn from. But that too has been largely ruined in the past decade by wokeness, which would make it another Jewish creation along with mainstream comics that's been destroyed for the sake of leftist agendas. And nobody in the modern Jewish-American community seems to have any issue with the creations of their past brethren being appropriated for the sake of repugnant political agendas and other ideologies.

Kimmel's book may be quite interesting from a historical perspective, but I have a sad feeling it may not build on objectivity from a modern one. And that's decidedly a problem. How are we to fix modern errors if nobody's willing to acknowledge what went wrong since the turn of the century, and nobody in the Jewish community cares what happened?

New horror comic builds on political metaphors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank Miller tells more to the Wash. Post

One of Miller's interviewers said in one of the recent articles about him that he's got no intention of slowing down with his career, even as he's reaching 70, and as the following interview from the Washington Post makes clear, he's not done with his current promotional tour yet:

The pages of a Frank Miller work are filled with crooked cops, murderers, desperate men and unhinged dark knights. You might expect the creator behind all that darkness to be a bit gloomy himself. Maybe he would be a recluse, like his hero, “Calvin and Hobbes” creator Bill Watterson.

As it turns out, Miller seems to like people. I watched him sign hundreds of autographs at the Library of Congress’s National Book Festival in D.C. on Saturday. He was gentle, chatty and generous with his time despite the crowd overflowing past its designated space inside the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.

Unfortunately, Miller doesn't seem to like conservatives, and one in particular by the name of Donald Trump. You could reasonably wonder if any attendants are right-wing themselves, and if they let know this, what does Miller think of them?

Miller helped redefine the modern superhero with Daredevil and Batman before creating celebrated original works such as “Sin City” and “300.” Pop milestones like “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” or Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies may not exist without Frank Miller.

His book isn’t a conventional autobiography but a collection of 16 lessons Miller learned while becoming one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Those lessons include knowing your ending, getting your hero into trouble fast and pushing against whatever it is that’s keeping you from what you want to make.

The lessons also include making mistakes: Miller would sketch out many drawings for months before he finally made something that pleased the old master.

But those mistakes don't include apologizing for writing Holy Terror 7 years after its publishing, or blatant attacks on right-wingers, do they? If not, what's his point about trying to stand your ground on the subject of those who'd try to prevent you from developing what you want to make?

“It’s created new opportunities for me to speak more freely to new people who are coming up,” Miller said. “One of the real joys is for me to be looking at drawings and hearing story ideas that people are working on themselves, and to give them some advice on where to go with it.”

I wonder what he'd say to known conservatives? Or anybody who wants to tackle challenging issues? Again, that's not something dwelled upon here.

Miller writes about how his own lessons come from everywhere. He writes lovingly about Adams and his other mentor, Will Eisner, creator of “The Spirit,” but he reaches just as readily toward painters such as Francisco de Goya, Japanese manga writers like Kazuo Koike and music.

If memory serves, he wasn't so loving in his take on Eisner when he produced the American Genius documentary. After "cementing" a putdown in a recording, why now is he suddenly and seemingly talking positively about Eisner again? There was even another certain leftist who came from Israel working in video games at the convention Miller attended:

Onstage, I relayed a question to Miller from Neil Druckmann, co-creator of “The Last of Us” game series and HBO adaptation, who said his story wouldn’t exist without “Sin City.” He wanted to know how Miller selects collaborators, particularly when someone is adapting his work. How does he make sure they won’t abandon the spirit of his stories?

“Friendships,” Miller said. “Most of them come from getting to know somebody … and getting a kernel of an idea that I know would be something both of us could feed each other on.”

Wonder what that left-wing Israeli expatriate was doing there, recalling Druckmann exploited the Last of Us sequel for political propaganda? And to think, that he drew "inspiration" from a series of GNs like Miller's. It makes me think of how, not only does nobody like them seem to consider Superman inspirational material, they don't consider the Fantastic Four inspiration either. Miller may have done some illustrations for at least one story in both of the above, but as the bulk of his work since makes clear, he has a darkness problem, and so do some of the folks who say they're inspired by his work from the 1990s.

In the memoir, he describes learning to respect film and its differences from comics. His early comics success led to work as a Hollywood screenwriter. While he appreciated the medium, he would later write his biggest original book, “Sin City,” as a black-and-white novel, in the hope that it was unadaptable to film. He didn’t want it better known as a movie.

And yet, it was adapted in the mid-2000s, though the sequel was a failure, and it doesn't seem to have been revisited on celluloid since. I do think there's only so much from even standard literature that shouldn't have to be known far more cinematically, so some could wonder if Miller sadly failed to resist the tug of Hollywood influence. And then, a certain matter of defeatism comes up in the discussion again:

Before Miller’s memoir, his comics provided the clearest insight into his mind, but his book makes those thoughts explicit, including his regrets. He looks back on “Holy Terror,” a much-criticized story written out of Miller’s anger after the 9/11 attacks. He now describes it as a rant. Would he ever write another such story?

“I hope I’m never inspired to do so again,” he writes.

Miller urges readers to push walls, especially the ones he helped build. He writes that it drives him “crazy” to see that his version of Batman is now enshrined as foundational.

Once again, Miller, in a way, continues talking out of both sides of his mouth - he urges wall-pushing, but he doesn't want to push it any longer with a GN that took on a challenging issue. But what's this, does he really think it's a shame DKR's vision wound up practically ruining the general take on Bruce Wayne in comics proper? Well he sure hasn't done enough to complain about it. Probably because, as I've guessed before, he doesn't seem to care much about most other takes on Batman save for his own. And to date, I can't even recall him ever chatting about Denny O'Neil and Steve Englehart's writings.

“For one thing, the title ‘Dark Knight’ started appearing in all kinds of comic books,” Miller said in our interview. “Beyond that, he became the unpleasant superhero for a long time. I essentially felt that I was in the business of knocking down walls, and I felt like people had used my work to construct new ones.”

Interesting he should tell this, because again, by the turn of the century, DC editors were practically forcing such a personality upon the Masked Manhunter, and only now, long after Batman's potential was ruined along with countless other mainstream creations, does he have the audacity to tell us this? It's too little, too late.

One more thing I thought of regarding Miller's early writings in Daredevil is the negative take he may have had on the Punisher, and the contrasting take he had when he drew an early Wolverine miniseries co-written with Chris Claremont in 1982. Which would make Miller another scribe with a bewildering double-standard on vigilante-style characters who kill, and it's something else he may not have addressed so far, and probably never will. For now, it's a shame that Miller continues to give signs he sticks with a defeatist position, and some could wonder if his recent positive comments on a movie or two drawing from his writings is another sign of the same. And his continued veering towards the darkness, save for certain challenging issues, is another problem he's got that makes much of his resume since the 1990s so unappealing.

Frank Miller's relations with Jim Shooter

Here's a recent Hollywood Reporter interview with veteran artist Miller, where he continues his otherwise uninspired relay of what his relations with past comics veterans were like, and he even had the audacity to praise a certain overrated movie that unfortunately took plenty at the box office:

Miller has also been catching up on his moviegoing, and had seen Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey, which he calls “extravagant.” The creator behind Spartan story 300 knows his way around an ancient Greek myth or two (he can easily slip into expounding on Corinthian style helmets and their influence on Sparta) and says the movie “really did an awful lot right.”

Well this is a shame, but not all that surprising Miller would ignore some of the wokest workings in Nolan's new movie, which again, regrettably grossed plenty of dough, even if it did eventually go down in sales after 3 weeks. I have no idea if it'll turn the profits the studio's doubtlessly hoping it will, or whether it'll make waves in the USA in the end, but what Nolan's brewed up sounds so unappealing based on its eyebrow raising lack of sex, though I will say I'm relieved if it's not overly gory, although this article seems to indicate it may still have something disturbing. Which is reason enough for me to be discouraged. Maybe the problem is that no distinctions are made between sex that's in good or bad taste. Miller certainly doesn't seem interested in addressing all that. And it actually makes his superficial take on the film almost hilarious.

Your book is part memoir and part lessons in creativity. Why do it this way?

I got my career started by calling up Neal Adams’ office and getting a meeting with him. Neal Adams was the premier artist in comics at the time, and his art had a great effect on me as a child. And he was listed in the phone book. And I got to meet him that day, an hour after I called. And he looked over my drawings and told me they were terrible and sent me off. I redid them and I saw him again and again and again. And he was always a harsh critic, but every time he taught me more and more, sometimes doing drawings over them. And, and as the months went by, he got me my first job and he continued to be a sensei and an advisor to me on things professional and on how to deal with being an artist in the world and many other things. Years passed and I became successful. And one time, Neal and I were at a comic book convention and I just took him aside and I just said, “Neal, how do I thank you for what you’ve done for me? You’ve never asked me for anything.” And he said, “Oh, there’s only one thing you can do. Do the same thing for the next guy.” Well, this book really is my attempt to do the same thing for the next guy. And to commit to paper my experiences, my observations and, and the lessons learned in making comic books.

If that next guy were Will Eisner, he sure hasn't done much to thank him, recalling he spoke about him negatively in the American Genius documentary. Also, what lessons learned? That he should never ever have developed the Holy Terror GN over 15 years ago? Now here's what he says about working with the late Jim Shooter at Marvel:

Speaking of mentors, Jim Shooter (the wonderkid who became Marvel’s polarizing editor-in-chief through the 1980s) was also one. Do you remember the first time you met him?

My first memorable encounter with Jim was at the Marvel offices. I basically came in and was sort of selling my services. I’d gotten some little job, doing some little three-pager of something like Doc Sampson and that had gotten his attention enough to want to keep me around. And, he gave me his lecture on storytelling. Everything was always storytelling with Jim because he felt comics had really lost track of their basic mission, which was to enchant and compel young readers with gripping stories.

He came in on a fairly loose pack of people who were all over the map creatively. And he worked to pull it all together into a more cohesive unit.

There were a lot of writer-editors and little fiefdoms at the time.

Right. He focused more than ever on the concept of a Marvel universe.

How did you guys work together?

He was eager to change things and I was eager to learn. And we both had strong opinions. I think one of the reasons we got along was we were both up for a good argument. Arguments can be a very creative thing and a very good thing.

Be that as it may, Shooter's focus on the concept of the MCU included pushing the whole concept of line-wide crossovers, something that's sugarcoated quite a bit these days without any objectivity, and no questions as to whether it helped Marvel and DC artistically to go galaxies out of their way to turn out repeated crossovers every year, and increasingly, more than one every year, effectively making it increasingly difficult to find any creative autonomy at either company. That's something Miller doesn't dwell upon, even as he tells why he left Marvel, for DC and later Dark Horse:

You left Marvel in a pretty high profile fashion twice. And I say high profile because your profile was very high and you were creatively cresting, twice with Daredevil. What caused you to leave that first time?

Well, I didn’t leave anybody. I chose to take a project to another publisher who was more amenable to kind of freedom I wanted to do it with. The message underneath all this was that it was important to demonstrate that talent is portable. Let me say that. When a publisher is releasing your work, that does not mean you’re saying an oath of allegiance to a military operation. It’s not a marriage.

But again, no in depth mention of but one of the ways creative freedom was turned into a thing of the past at the Big Two. Nor of how horrific it's become ever since figures like Joe Quesada and Dan DiDio originally took over as EICs, and has never recovered even after they left. Why doesn't Miller have the courage to get into any of that? Perhaps because he never had much respect for Marvel and DC's creations to begin with? After all, he only seems to care about his own stories, and few others. He does address something I can't recall hearing about before at Marvel:

Uh, speaking of stories that never happened, what happened with the Doctor Strange run you were supposed to have with writer Roger Stern?

On that one, I really had come to realize that I was just dying to write my own material. And, I couldn’t wait anymore. I had to start writing and drawing my own comics and, you know, start being a cartoonist rather than just an illustrator.

Even back then, I think it's better Miller didn't take part. He may have at least a few science-fantasy themed stories in his resume, but it seems like the stuff less emphasizing of that genre is what he's most known for, and maybe for the best. Somehow, his artwork doesn't seem like a good fit for even the Sorceror Supreme, though I realize he must've been considered based on the dark themed stories he's most known for. As for Stern, he was a talented writer back in the day, but he regrettably has appalling viewpoints too, like his positions on Mary Jane Watson, where he acted like she was a real person, and look what good it did for comics in general ever since. All because people like Stern, much like Joe Quesada, had to be so petty and pointless.

The time of Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen and Maus is looked at like a revolutionary era at this point where comics were reinvented. How healthy is the comic art form now? Is the wall still being pushed?

Sure it is. I mean, it’s easy to look back on that time and say, “Wow, what a sunburst. That changed everything.” But in fact, that was a pretty small amount of work that we’re talking about that caused a big splash and that’s what people remember at the time. Because people tend to remember the stuff that really made a splash when they think back on a given period. We certainly have a pretty wildly diverse amount of stuff coming out now.

Well if there's anywhere the form isn't being pushed, it's at the Big Two. And if Miller meant what he said, why did he all but disown Holy Terror 8 years ago in a defeatist interview with the UK Guardian? It didn't even help prevent him from being shunned by a UK convention. Something he's never seemed to address either.

This year, there was upheaval at Dark Horse Entertainment, the home of your Sin City books. But you announced a new book that you’re writing, Invasive Species, with them. How did you decide to stay at Dark Horse for the new book and not take it elsewhere?

Well, the relationship was a good and strong one, and it served us all very well. I met with the people there. The philosophies of the company seemed to be close enough to what I’d always known them to be, and they certainly had the infrastructure to do a good job at it.

Going back to Sin City, the only thing happening now is the Western that is being drawn by Milo Manara, right?

Right now, yeah, but I’ve got a dozen ideas for new ones. Sin City is my life’s work, more than anything. Milo is well along. I just gotta teach him how to draw girls. (Laughs.)

Gee, I wonder how that'll turn out, and what Miller means? I remember when Manara got censored or cancelled at Marvel over an absurd illustration he did of Spider-Woman's butt, for a series that didn't get much fanfare, and was cancelled and forgotten pretty quickly. What if Miller's gone so woke, he'll want Manara to dumb down his art styles for the wrong reasons? Based on Miller's positive comment about Nolan's Odyssey adaptation, it wouldn't be too shocking if that were the case.

Here's also an extra interview Popverse did with one of Miller's business partners, Silenn Thomas, who oversaw the American Genius documentary, and what he's got to say about working with Miller:

You are CEO of Frank Miller Ink, COO of Frank Miller Presents. What does that entail besides… well… everything?

Thomas: Well, you said it. It entails everything, and as you know well, “with great power comes great responsibility.”

You've been working with Frank for a number of years, even before becoming CEO of his shingle. What have you learned about him as a creator?

Thomas: I met him on the movie 300, and one consistent thing with [Frank Miller] is that he is one of the hardest-working people I have ever met. His dedication to excellence is absolute.

Yeah, and look how that turned out for the adaptation of the Spirit comic strip, and also the Robocop sequels and the sequel to the Sin City movie. Certainly if we take his cinematic ventures into consideration. But if the comics matter, his artwork's long become mediocre, and it's hard to say he's dedicated to excellence based on that.

You directed the recent documentary Frank Miller: American Genius. What did you learn from doing it, and taking it on the road for screenings?

Thomas: I have gained a deeper understanding of comics and its culture. The project gave me an all-access pass. I saw the universe of comics in every corner of the world. Taking it on the road now at festivals, conventions, and schools has been exhilarating. It was a joy to make, and it is a joy to show.

And I guess Miller's regression to a left-wing advocate's also quite exhilarating and overjoying, huh? Such signs turned up in the documentary, and that makes it less appealing.

My editor Chris has told me of how much of a champion and protector you are of Frank in the worlds of comics, movies, TV, and even cons. Where did you learn to be such a carer while also managing the business side of things and standing up for people?

Thomas: At the rebel camp on Tatooine in Star Wars. All jokes aside, what else is there? I believe we are in a creator-driven era. At least, that is the side I’m on.

Trouble is, what if Mr. Thomas is only willing to champion and protect anybody who's as left-wing as Miller sadly remains? Some creator driven era it'll be then. These are yet more examples of why I'm just not impressed with Miller by today's standards, and would rather not work with him if I were in the business myself. And maybe a most prominent reason why, other than his troubling politics is that he's too obsessed with the darkness, and not enough with the lightness. Which has become a very sad staple of modern entertainment as we know it.

Animation can be a great spot for superheroes, but only if they aren't subject to PC

Indiewire says there's animated series based on superhero fare that's more interesting than the live action film adaptations, but unshockingly, they sugarcoat the presentations, beginning with what the Supergirl movie was adapted from:

“Supergirl,” the second film in James Gunn’s developing DCU and one of the biggest box office bombs of an otherwise strong year for movie theaters, isn’t the worse movie I watched in 2026. But it’s probably the most disappointing. An adaptation of an acclaimed standalone series called “Woman of Tomorrow,” “Supergirl” has a great lead in Milly Alcock and nothing else worth remembering. Whereas the comic it is based on is stunningly bright and beautiful to look at, “Supergirl” is a murky, brown-tinted eyesore. Its generic plot strands the character in a sci-fi universe that feels microscopically small, populated by third-rate archetypes the “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies would barely have time for. There are interesting threads to unravel regarding Kara’s grief and anger, but the story she’s stranded in doesn’t have time to do that in any meaningful way.

I just don't understand why we keep getting lectured about why the overrated Tom King's tale is a modern "classic". The artwork I've seen is certainly overrated. And King's stories about "trauma" are forced and contrived. And we're not told anything in regards to that.

Even more galling: as “Supergirl” was tarnishing the character’s reputation in movie theaters, a great adaptation of the character was airing on Adult Swim. “My Adventures With Superman,” an animated series reimagining the early career of the most famous superhero on the planet. Ostensibly, Clark Kent is the main character, but Season 2 introduced Kara (voiced in the show by Kiana Madeira), and the currently airing Season 3 — which airs its season finale this Sunday — sees her take center stage. And she rules: reimagined as a former brainwashed intergalactic conquerer attempting to atone for her misdeeds, the show’s Kara is charming, funny, badass, with a meaty arc about atoning for her misdeeds and a super cute romance with Jimmy Olsen (Ishmel Sahid) that slots right in with the show’s bright, optimistic tone and focus on these character’s day-to-day struggles contrasted with the sci-fi operatics. If “Supergirl” the movie only scratched the surface of the character’s potential, “My Adventures With Superman” takes the time to really examine what makes her tick.

“My Adventures With Superman” is one of three animated shows adapting popular comic book superheroes that ran over the course of this summer, along with “X-Men ’97” on Disney+, which concluded its second season earlier this week, and “Batman: Caped Crusader” on Amazon Prime, which premiered its second season in late July. Pitched to a slightly older audience than usual for an animated comic book series, teenage up as opposed to for children, these shows aren’t flawless. But as comic book film studios continues to struggle to adjust to a world where they are no longer the center of the entertainment landscape (give or take “Spider-Man”), these shows demonstrate that these characters are better suited for serialized storytelling in the first place.

Would this be the cartoon where Jimmy was changed from white to black? And where Lois Lane's turned into a short-cropped tomboy? In that case, I regret to say, but this puff piece amounts to little more than misleading the audience by obscuring how the production is allegedly optimistic with strings attached. It's also worth considering that, if Kara Zor-El was changed from an innocent girl to a former conqueror, brainwashed or not, that too, unfortunately, is tasteless. It's also symbolic of the modern era's inability to appreciate a simpler concept of a character who could be written with flaws and mistakes, but doesn't have to be written as that guilty of wrongdoing as Kara sounds characterized here.

One of the major criticisms of superhero cinema for the past decade has been its resolute sameness: while certain MCU movies may have loose genre window-dressing, they’re fundamentally tonally similar in their quippy characters and excess spectacle. But all three of these series have strong art direction and visions for these characters that feels spiritually true to the source material but also provides something fresh and new that fans haven’t seen before, and are all radically different from one another.

Heavily inspired by early 2000s anime, “My Adventures With Superman” is the bright, zippy, lighthearted offering. The show takes the characters and their battles seriously, but it provides a wonderfully comforting take on Superman that also heavily foregrounds the love story between Clark and Lois; it’s a rom-com as much as it is a series about fighting invading aliens. It works because of how well-drawn these versions of the characters are, and because his relationship with Lois was always what made the seemingly invulnerable Clark feel most human. If the 2025 James Gunn “Superman” film sometimes strained to reinvent the character’s optimism for modern audiences, “My Adventures With Superman” makes that challenge look effortless.

But again, we're not being told about the character design, and that's being dishonest with the readership, for the sake of virtue-signaling. They may not have done to Kara's hair what they did Lois', but that's still no excuse, and that Lois' ethnicity may have also been changed only further (she looks darker complected in the cartoon) confirms the disrespect the producers actually have for Siegel and Shuster's creations. The writer also made sure to take a biased look at the aforementioned Marvel cartoon:

“X-Men ’97” is another successor of a ’90s kids’ cartoon, albeit a direct sequel. The 1992 “X-Men” animated series that aired on Fox during the decade was a foundational series for fans of the Marvel superhero team, providing definitive versions of the mutant protectors in all their messy, soapy excess. “’97” picks up where the series left off, but again ages up the content for adults who grew up with the series for a much darker tone. The animation emphasizes fidelity to the original show and the time period’s garish aesthetic in general, for a show that, more than almost any film, truly feels like picking up and reading five random issues of a comic run from 30 years ago.

Not all of these series are of equal quality. “My Adventures with Superman” has been the most consistent of the three, a nice good time throughout all three seasons without ever being exceptional. “Caped Crusader” Season 1 was a promising start, but Season 2 ramped up the stakes and serialized storytelling for a much improved follow-up. “X-Men ’97,” meanwhile, had a near flawless debut season, but a divisive Season 2 that struggled with unfocused storytelling and weaker stakes, albeit with a standout fourth episode that ranks among the best of the series (the show’s production was likely marred by the firing of head writer Beau DeMayo during work on Season 2 for allegations of sexual harrasment).

No surprise they'd sugarcoat X-Men 97 as well. They made Rogue otherwise sexless, drew Storm with a mohawk forcibly, and even the treatment of Morph was reprehensible. The part about the darkness predictably goes by without objectivity, and seriously, what "fidelity" is there truly here? And why does the writer talk about being "unexceptional" when Jimmy's ethnicity was changed, while Lois was made to look unattractive, and Supergirl gets a questionable premise shoehorned onto her? Such dishonesty indeed.

I'd spoken before about why brightness and optimism can't come with strings attached, yet that's exactly what the producers of My Adventures With Superman did, and it's disgraceful how Indiewire's writer doesn't have the courage to admit it's ludicrous, divisive, and conflicts with entertainment value. Animation can certainly be a great venue for superheroics, but not if woke changes are forced onto established creations. There was once a saying that change must be consistent with what came before, and the Hollywood phonies who turned out these items certainly aren't proving much different from the live action moviemakers who race-swapped and sex-swapped any of the characters in specific adaptations.

Art Spiegelman continues his far-left act

The UK Guardian interviewed far-left cartoonist Art Spiegelman, who says America's in need of a "counter-revolution", which sounds very appalling coming from his perspective. And when he began drawing comics again after a hiatus in the post-911 years, this is what he did:

He produced a series about 9/11 for the German magazine Die Zeit, which was later run by other European magazines and American Jewish weekly the Forward. On one page he describes himself as “equally terrorised by al-Qaida and by my own government”. He felt that other American publications were too quiescent in the aftermath of the attacks, and not yet receptive to his fear that the US government was using 9/11 as cover for a massive crackdown on civil liberties and to launch xenophobic wars. “Sigh! It’s hard to be an artist who is consistently Seconds Ahead of His Time,” he writes in the foreword to In the Shadow of No Towers, a book that compiled these comics and is being reissued to mark the 25th anniversary of 9/11. (Although, he says, it may come out late – a shipment has been held up in the strait of Hormuz.)

Why was he so alert to the implications for US civil liberties? “Well, my tendency is not to trust the government, so that came easily,” he says. “But it also seems so obvious, like all of a sudden there were police cars and military trucks on Canal Street. We were being told where we could walk, where we couldn’t walk, what we could say, what we couldn’t say. It’s visceral. It’s not like: ‘OK, I’ve read this book on propaganda and here’s how it works.’” Spiegelman notes the direct link between the post-9/11 security crackdowns and some of the excesses of the Trump administration: Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ice, was created in the aftermath of the terror attacks.

Sounds like he doesn't respect special rules set in place for security reasons. And he seemed less offended by al Qaeda's behavior than by his government's. Very troubling. Let's be clear. The Bush administration did do some bad things. But to say it was inherently wrong to deploy security measures in the USA meant to prevent further jihadist attacks at the time is very disturbing, and takes away from the more serious issues involved. Though if Spiegelman doesn't trust the government, is that only when a right-wing government's in office? Does a left-wing government count?

Also note how he's indicated he's anti-ICE, and that too says something, considering how many sex offenders infiltrated the USA, and some of al Qaeda's terrorists also got into the country through lax immigration policies, and, with the spread of Islam in the USA, things could chillingly get worse. Is that what Spiegelman wants? I don't know, but the following is very chilling:

When it comes to 9/11, however, Spiegelman’s perspective has shifted. He no longer views the day as an “end of the world moment”. “It was a big deal. But it was a small big deal compared to the big deals that are going on now,” he tells me. “I’d much rather be in New York than in Iran, for example.”

This is disgusting, because it minimizes the tragedies and losses of 911 Families, many of whom recently launched a petition to have NYC mayoral incumbent Zohran Mamdani barred from the 911 Memorial, based on some of the most offensive things he's said and done that also minimize the repulsive incident from a quarter century ago, along with the memory of the actual victims. And Spiegelman's comment on Iran is fishy. Does he believe it wrong for the Trump administration to take down a barbaric dictatorship? I don't know what Spiegelman believes in fighting for at all.

Around 50 minutes after Spiegelman fires up his Nespresso machine, he finishes making two coffees, and we carry them up to his sunny roof terrace, which as he promised has beautiful views of downtown Manhattan. Spiegelman muses that the US’s volatile politics might reflect humankind’s natural tendency to self-destruction. “I guess, after a while, you get restless, so if you get too comfortable you create problems for yourself, even in more mundane, small-time life, never mind as a nation. At this point, we just had the bad luck of having a megalomaniac walking onto the scene,” he says, of the Trump presidency. American politics is, after all, “entertaining if you don’t give a shit, if you’re nihilistic”.

Spiegelman’s mood is sombre as he discusses how Trump has “very effectively dismantled” the country’s democratic ideals: “Whatever the ideals were, we never lived up to them, but at least we had them. Now it’s all so cynical and sordid and stupid.” The president “is cutting off civil liberties and using his powers to squelch dissent and enrich himself in such thoroughly illegal ways, it’s kind of mindblowing”, Spiegelman says, and he finds himself watching in alarm as the “plutocrat in chief” and his “few dozen toadies” get ever richer while ordinary Americans struggle and suffer a “new indignity every day”. He has no hesitation in describing the Trump administration as fascist. “It’s fascism,” he says. “It’s not nazism, per se, but it has a template that it’s following. And it does have to do with othering, which is the basis of what Maus is about, it’s: ‘OK, you guys are mice, we’re cats.’” Maus is among the many books to be banned by various Republican school boards in recent years, but Spiegelman says he has a “predilection” for producing the kind of art people will seek to ban. Sales of Maus spiked in response to the bans.

“I tend to be pessimistic, but this is worse than most things I know,” he says of American politics. “I just don’t see how we get out of this.” The media are struggling with how to convey the stakes in this post-truth era, he explains, the courts are packed with Trump appointees, democratic norms have been destroyed, and there is no effective opposition. The Republicans are “at this point the equivalent of made men in the mafia,” Spiegelman says, “they’ve committed a murder, they’re complicit in something and they have to keep moving as a complicit unit, so it’s very hard to get someone to blow the whistle and say ‘This is crazy.’” The US needs a “counter-revolution”, Spiegelman says. “But I don’t know where to look for it because the Democrats are so timid.”

*Shudder*. That sounds like he wants riots, as if there weren't enough already 6 years ago. And no concrete evidence is given for the claim the Republicans "committed a murder", nor whether the courts are literally packed with Trump appointees, but not Biden's appointees. This is very troubling, and Spiegelman's hatred for right-wingers is very noticeable, making this much sadder.

The Daily Cartoonist notes there's a flaw in their claim Spiegelman was the first cartoonist to win a Pulitizer for Maus:

As we all know the Pulitzers had been handing out Prizes to cartoonists for 70 years before Spiegelman got his. Some quantify Spiegelman’s Pulitzer by explaining that he was the cartoonist to get a Pulitzer outside that Editorial Cartooning category as his Pulitzer was a Special Citation. But even that must be further narrowed down to the first cartoonist to receive a Pulitzer prize for a specific graphic novel since Dr. Seuss had earlier been awarded a Special Pulitzer for his body of work.

And I can't recall Spiegelman ever speaking in Theodor Geisel's defense after a number of the latter's children's books were withdrawn from publication because of alleged stereotypes. The Guardian's errors shouldn't be surprising though; they're a horrible newspaper of poor quality as it is.

Spiegelman's given signs he has a despicable, narrow viewpoint that totally absolves leftists of any mistakes they make, even as he says the Democrats are too timid to carry out his ideas of how to manage business. I have no interest in buying his products, and seriously, I don't find his artwork appealing anyway. The worst part is how guys like him never seem to speak of groups like 911 Families, and don't consider how actual victims of serious crimes feel about anything. His political views are insufferable, and if Trump is what he cares about, it's all he's going to care about. One more reason there's no point in wasting time on any comics and cartoons he illustrates.

More about Frank Miller's now tiresome viewpoints

Here's a few more recent items involving an artist/writer who's got to be one of the most overrated in comicdom. First, in this recent UK Observer interview, he tells who his mentor was:

What prompted you to write this book? It’s not a straight-up memoir.

No, it’s a combination – a guidebook for storytelling and a portrait of the amazing little world I inhabit. I think it has something to do with my most important mentor, the artist Neal Adams, who helped me start my career and played the tough sensei in my life. After I met with some success, I asked him what I could do to pay him back for what he’d done for me. Without missing a beat he said: “Do it for the next [generation].” This book is the product of me trying to meet that pledge.

Wasn't Will Eisner an important mentor of his? Or is Miller deliberately trying to obscure Eisner, because the latter didn't live up to the former's exact expectations? Somehow, Miller seems to have disappointed again, all for the sake of political correctness. Besides, what's he actually doing for the next generation that could have lasting value?

You started out writing for Marvel and DC superhero franchises before branching off to create your own worlds, but was working within those confines a useful first step?

Oh, yes. I was being thrown problems to solve that I’d never been thrown before. I was working under specific instructions with this mythology of characters, many of whom I hadn’t even heard of, and learning to work in a much more disciplined situation.

I've got a feeling that even today, there's quite a few older creations he hasn't heard of, and at this point, not only doesn't care about them, he wouldn't be suited to work on them anyway.

You were still in your 20s when you were tasked with reimagining one of the world’s most cherished superheroes, Batman. It must have been a lot of pressure.

I don’t have any memory of having any fear. I was so full of ideas of where I wanted to take it. It was mostly enthusiasm and a sense of overwhelming joy. The amazing thing about Batman is that it’s so versatile. You can find different ways to make it work. Every once in a while I get a chuckle out of how much of The Dark Knight Returns is still surfacing in [Batman] movies after all these years.

Oh, but of course it was a joyous occasion, wasn't it? After all, he got to do swipes at Ronald Reagan, for ambiguous reasons. As for allusions to DKR in movies, the odd thing is that Miller hasn't found most of said movies appealing, and in another article coming later on the list here, they mention that subject.

Like so many East Coast writers before you, you were lured to Hollywood in the late 1980s.

That was wild. It was a whole lot of fun. I was playing in a much bigger ballpark to obviously a much bigger audience. But it was a very different experience: there were a whole lot more bosses.

You refer to “the fiery fallout of fame” and hitting rock bottom after moving to LA. What happened?

I lost my way. I’m afraid I got more involved with ego than with my mission as an auteur, and I lost track of things. But it’s through telling stories that I’ve been able to come back around to find myself and my purpose.

He sure did. His work on the Robocop sequels, if anything, was such a failure. But even his later adaptation of Sin City to film didn't pan out beyond 2 entries, IIRC, with the 2nd, A Dame to Kill For, thudding badly. It reminds me of a description of some two-season TV shows I once noticed on another blog a decade ago: "first season wonders, second season blunders". A similar description could be thought of for some recent live action comic adaptations.

Something that crops up again and again in your work, not least in Sin City, is the flawed but single-minded crime fighter who will clean up the mean streets against all the odds. What’s at the root of that fascination for you?

I’ve always liked my heroes, from Superman to Batman to Zorro. And I’ve always loved crime stories. The more I discovered film noir, the more I realised that stuff spoke to me like nobody’s business.

What's left out is that he developed a dim view of the Man of Steel, all because Supes in his narrow vision is ostensibly "too powerful". As for crime stories, based on the dark vision he alludes to, that's basically the problem: he seems more interested in honing skills for storytelling that's anything but science fiction, and maybe that's one of Miller's biggest weaknesses.

Somebody once asked you if you’re a conservative and you said “No, I’m a libertarian”. Is that still the case?

Let’s just say I’m an independent thinker. You know, being conservative right now means something very different than it did a generation ago. So I find my own way.

Unfortunately, it's been sadly apparent for years now he just can't bring himself to quit ragging on figures like Donald Trump, again, for ambiguous reasons. I just don't know what exactly Miller wants or expects.

As AI encroaches, do you regard it with excitement or something else?

Something else. At first I thought it was a magic mystery box. Then I thought it was the end of creativity. Now I think that it’s going to be something that everybody will eventually calm down about. Its uses are limited. It’s not a panacea, it’s not a god. It will be much like the personal computer, in that it will change things, but we need not all bow down before it.

I wonder how he'd feel if AI were used to imitate his art style, which has been mediocre for years? More to the point, if any would-be artists try cutting corners by resorting to AI to complete their assignment, isn't that dishonest and a poor approach? It's bad enough much of mainstream artwork's become so mediocre, but that doesn't mean we should approve of AI either, if anybody winds up using it as a way to save on employing actual artists.

Next, when the latest Spider-Man movie came out, how fascinating that Miller saw fit to praise this particular film, according to the Hollywood Reporter:

The comics icon took to Instagram to share his feelings about Sony’s latest Tom Holland adventure, calling the film, “The most Ditko movie yet and with my Hand in it for all to celebrate. This fan’s dream come true. Tom Holland is my forever Spider-Man as romantic as he is heroic. Congratulations to Destin and the whole team.”

Miller, who famously wrote The Dark Knight Returns and Batman Year One for DC, has sometimes been a tough critic of comic book movies over the years. In 2014, Playboy asked Miller about the “lousy” movie adaptations of Daredevil and Elektra. “When people come out with movies about characters I’ve worked on, I always hate them,” Miller said. “I have my own ideas about what the characters are like. I mean, I can’t watch a Batman movie. I’ve seen pieces of them, but I generally think, No, that’s not him. And I walk out of the theater before it’s over.”

When asked if that includes Christopher Nolan’s acclaimed Batman trilogy, Miller replied, “It includes all of them. I’m not condemning what he does. I don’t even understand it, except that he seems to think he owns the title Dark Knight. He’s about 20 years too late for that.”

Oh yes, that's interesting history too. I can't recall now if Nolan ever made use of any noticeable allusions to Miller's writings in his screenplays, but years later, when Nolan produced a woke adaptation of Homer's The Odyssey, which unfortunately grossed quite a bit at the box office, one could wonder if Miller would change his mind. There's another writer, more Hollywood-connected, however, who also had what to say about this:

Longtime Spider-Man comic book writer, J. Michael Straczynski, also had some praise for Brand New Day, writing on X: “To be clear I’ve enjoyed all the Spider-Man movies. But for my money, this latest iteration feels most authentically Peter, and Spider-Man. So many comic movies have fallen into MacGuffin plots, looking for the code, the stone, the box, the sword…this one is all about what William Faulkner called ‘the human heart in conflict with itself.’ It’s a very human story, emotional without being slow or dull or self-indulgent. It feels like stepping into a really good Spidey comic. Well done to all concerned (and even those unconcerned).”

As Toy People News notes, both Miller and J. Michael Straczynski are credited in the film's special thanks listings, "suggesting their comic work may have served as inspiration for the movie." But as the latter's presence makes clear to me, anybody as overrated and contemptuous of Spidey's world as JMS turned out to be is reason enough to skip this film for a long time. He played a part in the dissolving of the Spider-marriage 2 decades ago, and no matter what defense he employed at the time, it was just inexcusable. Also, Miller seems to think he owns the Dark Knight as well, so why complain about Nolan, regardless of where he's been going lately?

Here's also a review on Quillette of Push the Wall, which while mostly behind a paywall, offers the following visibly:

Even outside of comic book circles, Frank Miller is known as a gifted artist and writer who made comics grown up and gritty. From his damaged version of Bruce Wayne to Marv in Sin City (whom Miller pithily describes as “Conan the Barbarian in a trenchcoat”), Miller has created stories that resemble a strikingly original blend of film noir and dark Wagnerian opera. But the Miller who emerges from this memoir—part autobiography, part primer for aspiring graphic novelists—is as much a romantic as a gung-ho rebel.

It's always sad how earlier scribes like Dennis O'Neil and Steve Englehart are obscured in regards to whomever made comics "grown up". And why do they think a scribe who originally lucked out with the Robocop sequels is truly a "gifted" creator? Let's also not forget his only solo directorial effort to date, the cinematic adaptation of Will Eisner's Spirit, which was dreadful.

More importantly, New York was the home of his first great love: “Sure the city was violent, but it was also the hub of comic books and had been since the beginning. Marvel and DC were there, and all my real-life heroes were either still there bent over their drawing boards or they had spent formative time in the city, honing their skills and learning the lessons that only New York can teach you.” Miller was a childhood fan of the medium, and developed a particular fondness for EC comics, which were geared towards adults and “explored forbidden themes such as environmentalism, nuclear disarmament, and the miseries of war.” From EC comics, Miller “learned to always push the walls that others constructed, to challenge the strictures others put in place to stifle and smother.”

How does he feel about the mainstream moving away to Hollywood, apparently because that's how to truly manage a live action adaptation? One could argue the comics industry won't have as much impact as it used to, when DC/Marvel have been taken away from where they began.

Part of EC’s appeal no doubt rested on the reproaches it earned from the Comics Code Authority, which Miller describes as “a crusty remnant of ‘Red Scare’ censorship and the prim morality of postwar America.” The attempt to drum up a moral panic about comics will be familiar to those who have followed similar media and public campaigns to ban and censor video games and “video nasties” in the name of child protection:

And on this, one can only wonder how he feels about modern censorship, which made a comeback in the past decade, and the industry still hasn't recovered from it? Moral panics as we know them turned up again 15 years ago, with video games some of the primary victims, and Miller, unshockingly, seems oblivious to all that, as does the book reviewer.

Next, more recently, the BBC also interviewed Miller, and they perpetuate the whole notion only he succeeded in convincing everybody Batman was more than just kids stuff:

A deadpan do-gooder who wears underpants over his tights, and always carries a can of shark repellent spray.

For a long time, that was Batman – or, at least, Batman as the general public saw him, thanks to the camp 1960s television show and film. In his DC Comics adventures, he was depicted as a more serious and even sinister character, but the average person still saw him as Adam West in a self-mocking comedy with an infuriatingly catchy theme song.

Then came the graphic novel that changed everything – not just Batman, but superhero comics, and the many Hollywood films those comics would inspire.

I guess they too are just too lazy to do any research about Englehart and O'Neil's work in the 1970s. It's just like such an otherwise awful news network to be such favoratists. What's so special about Miller's work that isn't about most other Batman writers? Wasn't Chuck Dixon's creation, Bane, adapted for either the 2nd or 3rd Nolan film? Miller also told them:

"We do not have a Superman in the real world, but we do have huge military forces which can be used for good or evil. We do not have Batman out there, but we do have people's own desire to resist the use of force against them, and so on. I wanted to use the machinery and iconography of a children's story to tell a story for an older audience."

Back at the time, it was sadly intended to feature negative right-wing metaphors, and Miller doesn't seem troubled by how it all went from bad to worse, or that his very own 1986 miniseries was exploited by the editors by the turn of the century for depicting Batman as a mindless control freak. With the biggest irony being that Miller didn't apply the characterization wholesale from the miniseries to the ongoing flagship series when he scripted those.

As he recalls in his newly published memoir, Push the Wall, Miller was still in his twenties when he was commissioned by DC to "breathe new life" into a character who was at the time "emasculated" and "a second-class citizen in comics".

No kidding! That could easily describe what's gone wrong with a lot of portrayals of heroes in recent times: they're either emasculated and even depicted as cowards. Does it also sit well with them if Superman was transformed into a 2nd class citizen in comicdom, all for the sake of the Masked Manhunter? Such balderdash the BBC wrote up.

The idea was that while Batman was absent, Gotham City had crumbled into an urban hellhole, overrun by murderous gangs. The setting was based in part on Miller's own experiences. He moved to New York in the 1970s after a childhood in idyllic rural Vermont, and while he adored his new metropolitan home, "it was really a city in pretty serious decay".

Luckily for Gotham, the Batman of The Dark Knight Returns is no longer a gentlemanly sleuth, but an intimidating, ultra-violent vigilante who takes a grim satisfaction in breaking criminals' bones. He's so brutal, in fact, that it's almost incredible that DC's editors didn't object.

When you notice how ultra-violent modern entertainment's become, their acceptance of even a stand-alone tale set in a future era could be considered a precursor to modern problems. As for what Miller thought of NYC in the past, does that also sum up what he thinks of it today, when it's easily worse?

Most radical of all, Superman became a government stooge, loyal to a president who happened to resemble Ronald Reagan. And the Joker became a monstrous sadist. When the mini-series was first published, these revisions seemed iconoclastic, but Miller maintains that he was looking back as well as forward.

One can only wonder if the Joker was written as a metaphor for conservatives too, and IIRC, Marvel published a story featuring the Red Skull in the past decade that depicted him as one.

Numerous articles were written about how superhero comics weren't for children anymore. And the influence his work had on the comics industry was "pretty obvious fairly quickly", he admits – as were the shameless imitations. "But that's the nature of the beast. If something succeeds, there's a natural inclination by not just the publishers but the talent as well to imitate it. It's certainly nothing to resent or deplore."

At least they admit there's blatant imitations, not the least being some of Miller's own. I'm sorry, but when one looks at how bad entertainment's become today, it is what to resent and deplore. One more reason I'm not wasting time and money on Sin City.

His influence on the film industry was clear, too. Every single modern Batman film, from Tim Burton's 1989 blockbuster onwards, has taken some of its toughness and noirish style from The Dark Knight Returns.

Christopher Nolan's second and third Batman films took their name from it. And Zack Snyder's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice lifted whole sections directly from its pages. Beyond those, it could be argued that Hollywood's current understanding that superhero stories can appeal to all ages, without being dumbed down, can be traced back to Miller.

But he stresses that he was only one of several writers and artists who were revolutionising the genre in the 1980s. And he isn't losing any sleep over the many films that owe their existence to him. "It's better for sanity's sake and blood pressure's sake to take it all with a good nature," he says with a cackle.

Unfortunately, much of modern comicdom's been dumbed down, and all the while, Miller doesn't care about anything but his own writing and art. Also, Snyder's Batman v. Superman film wasn't that successful, so what's the big deal there? At least Miller and the BBC admit he's not the only scribe who "revolutionized" the mediums 40 years ago. Even so, they still insult intellects by refusing to give other artists and writers a spotlight for people to judge, and as a result, it all comes down to another mediocre puff piece that doesn't add anything new to what perceptions we could have of comicdom in general.

Bone creator Jeff Smith apparently believes conservatives want to censor his productions

Jeff Smith, the cartoonist who created Bone over 3 decades ago, was interviewed by El Mundo, and says it's one of the most censored comics in the USA. But he also uses the occasion for a political rant:

"Bone has been one of the most censored books in the US. I know, it's ridiculous, right? They see something in it that they don't approve of. Well, they can go to hell," he explodes, who for five years collaborated with the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund precisely to advocate for freedom of expression. "In my comics, I don't promote any political ideas. I only value friendship," he rejects. Although he has no problem taking a stand: "I'm optimistic: Trump will be gone soon and we will return to being Americans. It's a disaster."

He worked with an outfit as bad as the CBDLF? In that case, I'm not sure Bone, which he may have stopped writing as an ongoing series, is worth buying. And what are the odds he's aware it's the left that's censoring far more, but can't bring himself to openly admit it?

And what "friendship" does he value? If he's hostile to conservatives, then his statement's called into question. Also, if he can't avoid heavy handed politics in real life, that claim about promoting any in his comics is meaningless too. Another artist who's only doing a terrible disfavor to the medium's image when he leads such a double-standard.

Postal video game being adapted to a comic

Go Nintendo reports one of the most violent video games ever produced is being adapted, sadly enough, to the comics panels:

Running With Scissors, creators of the (in)famous POSTAL series, in partnership with the renowned artists at Roditeli Productions, release an official digital preview for the first-ever POSTAL comic book series, giving fans a 19-page preview of the diabolical action arriving in late 2026.

With tens of millions of copies sold across the POSTAL game franchise, the greater POSTAL universe has expanded through sequels, spin-off games, a documentary film, and a movie. Now, the POSTAL Dude will make his comics debut in a series produced/co-written by Kevin Roditeli (SWAT Kats, X‑O Manowar, Bad Omens: Concrete Jungle) and co-written by Rob Cannon (Freak Snow, Anime Animay).

The POSTAL Dude makes his way through what appears to be a normal Monday until his fragile peace of mind is shattered once again – this time by an ad for a sinister dating app that sends him into a spiral of conspiracy-fueled madness.

I looked at several pages from the preview, and what a surprise, it does feature bloody acts of violence not all that different from what the game could feature. And the publishers of this tommyrot actually believe this is normal and acceptable?

On top of that, must virtually every video game of this sort be adapted to the comics medium? Of course not. Yet these wastes of trees keep getting made, regardless of how many people even buy them to begin with. I wish more people would wake up and stop plunking their money into even the video game itself, because this is getting very irritating already if and whenever anybody just buys these comics unquestioned, as though it literally must be done. Let's be clear. Nobody has to buy these kind of comic adaptations at all, and a game as jarring as Postal shouldn't have to matter to anybody.

For every person and generation?

El Pais recently wrote about Spider-Man history, claiming there's one for every person and generation, and predictably, they sugarcoat even the wokest, DEI-pandering products that have only stripped Spidey of any genuine meaning, and have nothing critical or objective to say about the resumes of some of the worst writers to have worked on what has surely become the most editorially mandated franchise, for all the wrong reasons, coming out of Marvel in the modern age:

Spider-Man is always present. The philosopher Grafton Tanner coined the term “foreverism” to refer to phenomena like the Star Wars saga (which never ceases to explore its own intricacies), or those veteran rock bands that never stop reuniting and never quite break up.

These are cultural expressions that have transcended their era. They remain relevant, generation after generation, making nostalgia impossible (and business always possible). Such is the case with Spider-Man: the industry surrounding this character continually offers products for people of all ages and backgrounds. He’s still, quite literally, a kid at heart. And to demonstrate his enduring appeal, the latest installment in the franchise, Spider-Man: Brand New Day (2026), is premiering between July 29 and July 31 around the world.

Yes, and how they remain relevant and enduring, with endless publicity stunts and other alienating tactics that divide the audience, like the time when Joe Quesada forcibly undid the Spider-marriage through contrived circumstances, having Peter Parker make a deal with Mephisto and then in the following years, Mary Jane Watson was repeatedly insulted, and they even tried to "placate" audiences by putting her in solo books that ultimately didn't work out. Unfortunately, Spidey's appeal has not been able to endure increasingly leftist ideologies forced into the books, and they also ignore that Star Wars has succumbed to the same, one of the reasons why it's largely collapsed as a franchise today.

“What’s interesting is that he’s a character who feels timeless,” says Julián M. Clemente, author of the seminal book Untold Tales Of Spider-Man (2015), published in Spanish by Panini Comics. “If you’re a kid from the 1970s or 1980s, if you grew up with the cartoons from the 1960s, you’ll see him as someone who’s always been around. But a kid carrying a Spider-Man backpack today sees him as something very current. He’s managed to metamorphose; he doesn’t seem outdated to the new generations.”

No, but the modern stories are. One More/Brand New Day was insulting to the intellect, and again, the forced erasure of the Spider-marriage, which they don't have the courage to discuss here, has only led to a situation where Spidey has become pretty dated in terms of storytelling, because the stories are increasingly stilted and contrived. What's so current about even a story where Mary Jane becomes a female Venom?

The Spider-Man franchise just kept getting bigger and bigger. The 1980s and 1990s saw numerous milestones, including the black suit, the appearance of Venom, as well as the 1994 animated series. And, in the 21st century, he would be embodied by another character who wasn’t Peter Parker (something previously unthinkable): in 2011, after Peter Parker’s death in a branch of the Marvel Universe, writer Brian Michael Bendis and artist Sara Pichelli created Miles Morales, a young man of color. Half African-American and half Puerto Rican, he resonated with the era’s focus on diversity.

Later, in 2014, writer Dan Slott came up with a wild idea: the Spider-Verse comic book series, which also focused on diversity. Spider-Men of all kinds emerged, from a Spider-Punk to the futuristic Spider-Man 2099. One version was inspired by cowboys of the Wild West, while another was inspired by 1930s film noir. There was even a Spider-Ham (Peter Porker)!

“These [were] fresh ideas that worked out really well; they led to a series of highly-original animated films. [The many versions] demonstrated the character’s resilience, allowing him to reach another generation,” Clemente explains.

When they turn to this kind of stupidity that doesn't even emphasize merit in writing and art, it just explains all the more why the franchise has been as dulled as it's been dated. Why is it such a big deal virtually every "generation" have a Spidey, but not create new characters, and not have the guarantee of story merit? Do they even pay any attention to what sales figures are, or try to find out just how much any particular comic sells in copy units? All that aside, they predictably sugarcoated some of the era's worst writers like Bendis and Slott, right down to how the former mistreated Scarlet Witch horribly in Avengers: Disassembled. And what good was the original Ultimate line, which lasted about a decade, but whose ongoing series were largely cancelled, the Ultimate Spidey version included? They don't get into any of that either.

While there’s a wide variety of Spider-Man stories aimed at younger audiences, there are also options for those in middle age: Dan Slott’s Renew Your Vows series focuses on a 40-something-year-old Peter Parker’s married life with Mary Jane Watson. In that parallel universe, they have two children together, a situation also found in Jonathan Hickman’s recent Ultimate Spider-Man comic book series. “[This scenario] really connects with the audience that came to Spider-Man in the ’80s and ’90s,” Clemente points out. Going even further, Spider-Man: Reign shows an older, gray-haired Peter Parker, who’s around the age of 70. His eternal love, Mary Jane, has already died. He now lives under the rule of an authoritarian regime, in an atmosphere of darkness that seems inspired by Frank Miller’s aged Batman in The Dark Knight Returns.

I think this is equally telling of where this puff piece is going, when they go so far as to sugarcoat DKR's dark influence, and act like alternate dimension versions of Spidey's world are a literal substitute for the 616 universe. And they don't even question whether it was in good taste to write Mary Jane out of the picture and into the grave. Does that connect with the audience? It should be noted that although MJ gets mention here, it's superficial, and doesn't offer any serious focus on her as a character as opposed to Peter, and again, the writer and interviewee don't have anything objective to say about what happened with the Spider-marriage in 2007. So what's their point about Spidey becoming timeless?

The truth is that Spider-Man is, by a long shot, the superhero who has best conquered cinema. While Superman certainly paved the way for major adaptations — and even though Batman influenced several generations — the wall-crawler is the character who has been consistently successful for more than two decades.

Well isn't that because the filmmakers managed to convey some entertainment value? Although if Zendaya's of mixed descent, a case can be made that the Spidey films where she co-stars are a product of the DEI propaganda era. Was that really necessary? And even before that, what about the 2011 reboot? I'd argued before that the problem there was that I already knew the story as it originally began in 1962, so it didn't have the impact it could've.

...we can add the animated saga that began with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018), considered by many to be one of the best superhero movies ever made, with its revolutionary visual style and a story that turned Miles Morales into yet another icon of the franchise.

The truth is that Spider-Man’s dominance in film goes far beyond the character’s movies. For years now, Sony, which owns the film rights to the character, has tried to build a parallel universe, starring some of the villains and supporting characters (without including the hero himself). The result has been mixed: productions like Morbius (2022), Madame Web (2024) and Kraven the Hunter (2024) have received a lukewarm reception from critics and audiences alike. However, there is one major exception: Venom, the oil-like symbiote that bonds with people and grants them powers similar to Spiderman’s. The version starring Tom Hardy resonated with audiences, thanks to its more irreverent tone. It was so popular that it became a highly-successful trilogy.

Gee, I wonder why we're supposed to care about the villains, if anybody, being pushed to prominence? Sorry, but that was in poor taste, and another example in motion of too much emphasis on villainy and even glamorizing it. IIRC, the sequel, "Let There be Carnage", wasn't as successful, but in any event, it's a shame whenever audiences buy into that kind of embarrassment.

“Spiderman triumphs because the true protagonist isn’t the superhero: [in fact], it’s Peter Parker. There [have been] many superheroes, but people became fans of the person beneath the mask,” Jorge Iván concludes. “He’s a profoundly human character: he’s constantly worried that his Aunt May will discover his identity, he has precarious jobs and he barely makes ends meet. Unlike other heroes, his everyday problems are just as important as the villains [he faces]: if he gets fired, he doesn’t have money for food.”

It sounds like some propagandist doesn't want him to have any. In any case, even the part about lack of food is exaggerated, and this all ignores that the writers are responsible for the storylines turned out, which in recent times have become utterly pointless and dated the series all the more. This kind of stupid lecture is exactly what led to Mary Jane getting kicked to the curb, because some selfish, entitled propagandists want Peter to remain something close to a pauper in the stories till the end of time, who's not allowed, in their mindsets, to find a successful career in photography or university teaching, and his being married to a girl who became a model/actress is somehow implausible and the worst thing that could happen. If they say they respect Stan Lee, they lie.

Ultimately, deep down, he’s not a hero. He is, as the wall-crawler reminds us, just “your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.”

Well neither are the real life J. Jonah Jamesons who reduce this all to a form of PC propaganda that throughly fails to distinguish between the good and bad stories over the years, and won't ask whether the real descent into tailspin began around the turn of the century, when J. Michael Straczynski became writer. What they don't get into is how Peter and MJ's status has become horrendous over the years, with Marvel's upper echelons subjecting them to some of the worst editorial mandates possible, and despite what they say, when they start sugarcoating the DEI pandering, it's clear that despite any claims to the contrary, we are supposed to care more about the costume than the character. Peter and MJ have been done such injustice, as have even other recurring veteran cast members in Spidey's world, since the turn of the century, and these propagandists don't care a bit. Nor do they admit that all the DEI/SJW pandering they're gushing over is exactly what's made a joke out of Spidey as a creation, because they actually reduce the original's significance without offering anything solid for storytelling.

And if the day comes when Marvel goes out of business as a publisher, they're bound to act like nothing happened, and won't ask whether the degradation that began at the turn of the century had any part in bringing down Spidey. If there's anything that isn't for every person and generation, it's the sad lack of merit, which they unsurprisingly obscured.