"Black Heroes Journey" exhibit in west Philadelphia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Wire guest writer goes too easy on Tom King

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IDW hires Grant Morrison to write James Bond adaptations

The Hollywood Reporter (via Total Film/Yahoo) says IDW, already having established a bad name for themselves as pushers of woke garbage, have hired one of most leftist ideologues to write new James Bond adaptations:

IDW Publishing has acquired the license to thrill and has set Morrison, Grant Morrison, to shake, not stir, things up.

Partnering with Ian Fleming Publications, IDW has picked up the license to create all-new comic book adventures featuring the iconic British spy James Bond.

The two companies have tapped writer Grant Morrison, the influential and award-winning scribe known for All-Star Superman and his multi-year Batman run as well medium-pushing comics such as Animal Man and Doom Patrol.

“Pairing a renowned franchise like James Bond with the visionary writer Grant Morrison is a perfect example of IDW doing what it does best with licensed properties,” said IDW CEO Davidi Jonas in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “Our goal isn’t to simply provide supplemental and optional stories. We strive to take radical swings which celebrate and stay true to the very qualities that make the franchise special while also reinventing it for the modern comic book landscape.”

[...] “Our opening 6-part adventure, Sunbreaker, attempts to create a definitive Bond story featuring everything fans love about the character and his world, while adding a whole lot more,” Morrison said. “Expect to see James Bond in a few unfamiliar situations, facing unfamiliar foes, in a world very like our own as reflected in a deadly funhouse mirror – a world of intrigue, violence, double cross and deception. A world through which James Bond glides like a killer shark among minnows. Charismatic, ruthless, unstoppable.”

Notice how Morrison's own statement says nothing about sex or romance, but does mention violence. That can be telling something, as can the description of 007 as a "killer shark", and "unstoppable", suggesting this'll come off more like a Mary Sue fanfiction.

This also reminds me that 5 years ago, artist Aaron Lopresti was ordered by Dynamite to censor an illustration of a woman in lingerie, all for the sake of a woke era. What if IDW and Morrison go even further? It also reminds me that, when Morrison was writing "New" X-Men, at the time, he and his artist, Frank Quitely, drew Emma Frost in the skimpy white outfit she was most known for years prior. It wouldn't be surprising if Morrison for one would do it very differently today if he buys into woke ideology full force now.

In any case, I'll stick with the first 16 Bond movies instead, since they were a lot more entertaining than what came later, and if violence is all the modern licensees think is worth marketing, that's exactly the problem. And what's IDW doing right as of now, if they too still follow wokeness?

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

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

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

***SPOILERS***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEADLINE: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate world Batmans are a subject of this year's Batman Day

The Post-Journal gave a report about a specialty store in Chautauqua County that's contributing to Batman Day. At the beginning, they even describe it in a way I'm not sure was emphasized when the event began a dozen years ago:

Batman/Batgirl Day is an annual event that celebrates and promotes everything related to Batman, according to DC Entertainment, a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Discovery.

What version of Batgirl are they talking about, by the way? Somehow, I don't think they're talking about the women who wore the outfit, like Barbara Gordon or even Cassandra Cain, probably the only 2 characters written well enough within a certain timeframe to qualify as representing the costume. After the early 2000s, lest we forget, things went downhill, even for Cassie.

Steffens explained that the comic book world has seen a seismic shift with the release of the Absolute Batman and Batman of Two Worlds.

"When the comic book industry issues a second or third printing of a book or storyline, it indicates they believe they have a successful product--something that people want," he said. "This latest Batman line is currently in its 12th printing, and I can't keep it on the shelf."

Unfortunately, he continues the failure to cite any actual sales figures, and I've got a feeling that a lot of the additional printings spoken of are done more to mislead than confirm the series is actually selling. When no sales figures are given, it's an open signal there's something embarrassing they want to hide. And to think that so much paper could be wasted over efforts to pretend otherwise.

Steffens believes much of the excitement around the latest Batman offerings stems from a storyline that explores two alternate universes--where different versions of Batman encounter each other.

"One Batman is reminiscent of the Justice League version; Bruce Wayne is his alter ego. He's wealthy, self-funded, wears a cape, and exhibits some restraint. He lost both of his parents at a young age, which drives his mission," he explained. "In contrast, the Absolute version of Batman is much younger; his mother is still alive, and he is utterly ruthless. The 'Bat' symbol on his costume can be detached, and he uses it like an axe. In one comic book, he even nails Scarecrow, one of his enemies, to a cross. I would recommend this comic book for readers aged 16 and older – it’s just that violent.”

Even if this is to be expected in the Masked Manhunter's tales ever since Denny O'Neil restored the series in 1969 to what it began as 3 decades prior, to say we should buy it because of the violence is taking a sad risk of perpetuating a serious problem that wouldn't work well if they emphasized this with Superman either. Speaking of which:

"While I'm more of a Superman fan, this is still a lot of fun," said Steffens. "Batman has an interesting history and allure about him – fans go nuts for him, and we sell a lot of Batman-related merchandise."

At least the guy's willing to bring up the Man of Steel, who's been like a neglected stepchild for too long, as Batman was pushed over the edge of marketing for years now at Superman's expense. But if the craze over Batman is all due to the dark angle and not based on merit, that's insulting to the intellect, and compounds what's gone wrong for years.

Since the subject came up though, it's been reported by sources like Game Rant that the Absolute series would be going on hiatus after issue 25 for at least 2 months:

Following the scheduled release of issue 25 on October 28, 2026, Absolute Batman will officially be done for the rest of 2026, with no confirmed return in 2027 other than a TBP release collecting the most recent batch of issues. The story isn't over yet, as Beyond Ark M is still scheduled for a November 11, 2026 release and is deeply connected to Absolute Batman's mythology, but this is the first time the book is taking a major break.

Fortunately, Scott Snyder has already confirmed that Nick Dragotta will return for Absolute Batman 27, so if nothing else, there are still two more planned issues for the series. Realistically, though, the Absolute line has been a massive success for DC and there is no indication that Absolute Batman is winding down narratively. That hasn't stopped DC from killing great books with lots of potential early before, but hopefully they understand just how much good Absolute Batman has done for the comics industry.

The only truly troubling thing about Absolute Batman going on hiatus is the lack of information about its return. By all accounts, Scott Synder is hard at work on future issues, but too long a break could end up killing all the momentum built since October, 2024.

DC is Losing Their Best Ongoing

While it hopefully won't be long before Absolute Batman returns in 2027, the fact that DC's best ongoing series in a minute is silently and suddenly going on hiatus isn't a great sign – especially in a milestone issue like 25. It almost feels like DC is prepping the Absolute line for a premature end (the fact it's lasted this long is honestly a miracle from Darkseid). Fortunately, there's no indication that the likes of Absolute Superman or Absolute Wonder Woman are ending, so this could just be a way for the creative team to get a break.

What it can suggest is that this is meant to be a writer's vanity project, and they can take a break whenever they like, similar to how an indie creator could operate. Even so, this does suggest it's not doing as well as they want everyone to think, and naturally, they don't mention the political metaphors Absolute Batman builds on, something even the Absolute takes on Supes and WW could have as well. If that's why store owners are promoting the Batman version, there's a serious problem with politics driving their business practices that doesn't belong. And as for alternate world editions, are they implying the Absolute version meets other ones? We're way past the point that could work, and said political metaphors are another reason why it doesn't.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filmmaker Zack Snyder continues to discuss his comics-to-film adaptations

Variety interviewed film director Snyder, who's moved on from adapting comics to other projects, but still discusses his prior visions and how the industry's dealt with the adaptations since, while simultaneously discussing his latest movie, "The Last Photograph", which, unfortunately, is dark and sounds easily darker than the comics adaptations he directed, which is why a description of the new film may have to be highlighted here first:

The most common criticism I’ve seen is that there is a lot of violence and brutality toward women in the film and that it was excessive, which has led to accusations of misogyny being leveled against you. What do you say to that?

I mean, I don’t know. First of all, I would argue that the violence toward women and men is equal and that nobody is spared — men, women, children, everybody. The justice that’s doled out in the movie is in the same way that a hurricane doles out justice. To try and superimpose morality over it and want the violence to mean something — the meaning is that violence doesn’t work and doesn’t get anything done.

It really doesn't make much difference whether the men and women both suffer equally. What matters is that Snyder's given another clue to what problems he has with his MO: too much obsession with darkness. And who knows, based on that last line, if he's trying to say it doesn't work even when the goodies employ it as corporal punishment for what horrors the baddies committed? Now, here's a part that appears to discuss the otherwise unsuccessful Justice League film:

And to have this be added to it.

It was so loud — that part was so loud — that, in retrospect, asking, “How’s the movie going?” And they go, “Oh, it’s fine! They’re doing some reshoots.” And I go, “Oh, OK. Fuck it.” So, Debbie went and watched the Joss [Whedon] version of the movie, and to have her come back to me and say, “You can never see that movie,” and to realize then that it was 60 pages of rewrites that they did for it… I’ve never seen the movie, so I don’t know.

You’ve never seen Joss’ version?

I’ve never seen it. There was a point when the movie was released that was a low point for me because the pile-on effect was so insane. Not only did I lose my daughter, but also they’ve released this version of the movie that I had nothing to do with and my name is on a movie that I didn’t make.

Were you like, “What else?!”

“What else!” Literally. But there was this catharsis of, I met with this executive at Warner Bros. who’s long gone since — I won’t say who it was — and he said to me, “You know, Zack, I’ve got to tell you one thing: You were right about everything.” And I was like, “That’s kind of you.” And he goes, “We were fighting you, and in the end you were right.”

What were they fighting you on?

The whole vision for the DC universe and the way I made movies and everything. They did this attempt to control it — and I’m just talking about the regime that was there that’s no longer there. They had this massive IP that’s worth a ton and I can understand wanting to protect it as best they could since all their jobs depended on it working, and they’d put it in the hands of a madman — or so they thought — so the part of them thinking that, and this is going to sound horrible, “This thing that happened to Zack is a window for us to take the movie back now.”

Seriously, they "protected" it? If they had, even Identity Crisis wouldn't have been published, nor would Geoff Johns have been hired as a writer, or even Brian Bendis. Oddly enough, what they did "protect" was an editorial mandate that Superman couldn't have red tights, until a PC selection like Bendis was allowed to restore it in the comics proper. It's something that's actually alluded to in the interview, which I'll get to soon, but for now:

I do want to know what your thoughts are on the current state of the DC Universe. Have you seen “Superman” or “Supergirl”?

I haven’t seen the movies. It’s a little bit too personal for me. Too soon, I guess you could say. I do like James [Gunn]. And I do have an appreciation for his [vision].

I wonder if Gunn and company used Snyder's premise of Superman killing Zod in 2013's Man of Steel movie as justification for having Supergirl kill the villain Krem in the new movie this year? The problem, of course, is that now, a different movie canon was set up, and in the context of what Gunn's producing, it makes Supergirl look awful, with less of a moral compass than Superman, since in the Silver/Bronze Age comics of the past century, her viewpoint and MO were little different from his. For now, it's got to be telling that Snyder's favorable to Gunn, considering that, even if the latter seemingly employed a more optimistic view than the former, the problem is that there were still subtle politics attached as strings, and that's not a good confidence builder. Now, about the costume issues:

He consulted with you on Superman’s suit, right?

He asked me a question about the underwear. You know, I can’t even remember now, but I think it was about the underwear. Sorry, but I’m going to do a little diatribe. “Watchmen” is a superhero deconstruction film — neuroses, sexual impotence around their costumes, the fetishism, everything. You can’t undo that. I think about everything that way. So, the underwear on the outside of the superhero costume comes from Victorian strongmen. The Victorians were so prudish that they’d wear flesh-colored leotards and then put the underwear over it. That’s how it started. It was really just a reflection of the Victorians not wanting to show any real skin due to their prudish fear of nakedness. So to me, that’s such a dinosaur. We don’t feel that way anymore. We live in an era where we’re OK without putting the underwear on. But maybe we’re not OK! Maybe the message is that you put the underwear back on Superman because we haven’t moved on from our Victorian prudishness. But I thought we had!

I wonder what Snyder thinks of how Warner Bros. denied him creative freedom for having the red tights be part of the movie costume, and then at least a few years later, all of a sudden, studio, publisher or both has the sheer audacity to have them restored post-New52, using a woke writer like Bendis as the justification? It's enough to wonder, Snyder went to all that trouble to make adaptations that don't exactly rate as classics today, all so the company could insult everybody's intellect with a "give and take" approach? Well, that's what the "diatribe" suggests. Interestingly, both interviewer and interviewee discuss the lack of sex in a lot of major movies today:

There is sex in your movie and there isn’t a lot of sex in movies anymore.

This is one of my big things: Sex in movies is weirdly gone. I don’t understand it.

And there’s plenty of sex on TV, but not in movies.

And it’s on TV! TV shows can have sex but movies, for whatever reason, can’t. What happened? I’m an ‘80s kid and grew up with “Body Heat,” “9 ½ Weeks.”

I’m a ‘90s kid and grew up with “Basic Instinct” and “The Last Seduction” and “Wild Things.”

Eroticism in movies has somehow been stomped out, and I don’t understand it. We watched “Excalibur” the other day and it’s a very sexy movie. It’s erotic.

Make Hollywood Movies Sexy Again.

Make them sexy again! I couldn’t agree more. I don’t know why TV gets a pass.

“Game of Thrones” had so much sex that it coined the term “sexposition.”

Crazy sex. Crazy sex.

Is it the MPAA?

I don’t know what it is. You know what needs to happen? The same thing that happened with the R-rated movie. So, R-rated movies now have lost their stigma — “The Odyssey,” “Obsession,” whatever it is. Now, we need an NC-17 movie that’s a hit.

Well they didn't impress me when they brought up Game of Thrones, because if memory serves, that has a lot of sexual violence in it, which only gives sex a bad name. Since they mention it, TV's still allowed to write up sex scenes? It remains to be seen if that'll last. For now, what I do know is that, if anybody's ever thought comics adaptations were an okay and/or challenging project in which to feature sex scenes, the woke crowd sure did a splendid job putting the kibosh on all that. They certainly made it difficult to make romance movies too, no matter the suitability level for children/family. IIRC, there may have been implied sex in the 1989 Batman movie, but since that time, most comics adaptations for the silver screen are far from taking such challenges. For now, Snyder simply doesn't understand that it's the very leftist crowd he comes from that's been pushing anti-sex propaganda for as much as a quarter century now, and it's led to a steep decline. Maybe what he could argue is that the time's come to give sex a more positive - if not perfect - name, and that could provide a more encouraging environment in which to explore the themes. Similarly, maybe somebody could argue that Japanese anime/manga producers have to give sex a better name too.

But what Snyder doesn't seem to discuss is that violence, by contrast, has increased in nearly all movie genres over the past decades, and even his own new movie seems to build on that. Perhaps it occurred to him that maybe the time's come to tone down the most graphic of violence for a change, and make distinctions between that and sex that's in good taste?

Now that you’ve made “The Last Photograph,” are there other films you’re still dying to make? Do you still want to make a “Rick and Morty” movie?

I do want to make a “Rick and Morty” movie. It would be fun. For the longest time, I’ve been trying to make “The Fountainhead” into a movie or into TV show because it’s too long. I’ve written it.

That’s not going to help with the right-wing allegations.

I was going to say! That’s not going to help. But it’s an undeniably great book. What people don’t realize is that “The Fountainhead” in the 1950s was like “Harry Potter” now in terms of popularity. It was off the charts. Even just the why of that is worth it. And “The Fountainhead” is an insane melodrama. That’ll probably be my magnum opus. I’ll probably die on that one. And “Escape From New York” is what we’re working on right now.

An important clue why Snyder quite possibly had no issue with stealthing a cameo by the Asian DEI replacement for Ray Palmer as the Atom, Ryan Choi, into the Justice League film, along with an important reminder that he's sadly not all that different from countless Hollywooders in his undoubtably leftist politics. On the other hand:

How did your Christian Science upbringing inform your superhero films? Because you do depict your superheroes as gods.

It’s this alchemy of Christian Science and Joseph Campbell — however you want to mix those together. Christian Science, in the end, is metaphysics. It’s probably closer to Buddhism than Western Christianity or Catholicism. It’s about the miraculous. The one thing about Christian Science is, it’s very much about: The works that I can do, you can do too. I’m the son of God but so are you. It’s very much, like, Jesus is just a dude who figured it out. That influence on Superman is that we’re him — in “Man of Steel,” especially. Yes, he’s godlike, but he still faces the exact same problems that we face. In the end, he loves his mother and wants to find love with Lois and have a job and be a person. Even though I do glorify the version of Superman at its best, I also try at the same time to put you in that position because I believe that we all are Supermen and we all are gods on Earth. I think that’s probably the influence in some ways.

Isn't the Christian Science sect the one that became notorious for refusing medical treatment, based on bizarre beliefs to the contrary? And this was what Snyder was raised under? Good grief. Superman may be depicted as bulletproof in past comics canon, but he was anything but impervious to pain, when one takes both Kryptonite and magic energies into consideration, which not many PC advocates today do. It's actually ill-advised to tout Superman as "godlike", because that only enforces what PC advocates like to weaponize in their efforts to belittle the Big Blue Boy Scout as "inferior" to Batman. Who, if memory serves, Snyder was more favorable to in some of his screenplay drafts. At the end of the interview:

You said once that the only way you’d do another superhero movie is if you could do an adaptation of Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns.”

The reason why it’s “The Dark Knight Returns,” if anyone would ever let me do it outside of the DC Universe since it’s a novel that just happens to have superheroes in it, is if I could do “Watchmen” and “Dark Knight Returns,” those two books next to each other, to me, represent the complete cycle of the superhero comic book medium. You can do no more than those two books. “Watchmen” came at the beginning of the superhero movie phase, so it would be super fitting to have “The Dark Knight Returns” come now, at what I would say is possibly — I don’t want to call it the twilight, but we’re down the road of the superhero movie genre, and I think audiences would understand the why of it. Let’s not forget: “The Dark Knight Returns” was written for a comic book audience that was very exhausted by comic books in the same way that “Watchmen” was, so having that movie written now for people who are exhausted by comic book movies would be a good time.

I'm so tired of hearing about DKR all over the place. Besides, didn't Miller later write 2-3 sequels and even a prequel in the past 2 decades, such as Last Crusade, Dark Knight Strikes Again, the Master Race and the Golden Child? They probably didn't get as good a reception as DKR got, yet they certainly helped overflood the market with more of the same cliches Miller's known for. If the audience is tired of superhero film fare, why should they care about yet another Batman movie of this sort either? Besides, most of the more recent superhero films aren't exactly built on the most inspiring story premises, and that's why you can't be surprised if their light's dimmed.

In the end, if there's something imporatant to say, it's that I'm most terribly sorry Snyder lost his daughter, and offer my condolences, but it doesn't change that he's one of the most overrated filmmakers of the modern era, his films are no big deal, and unlikely to register high in history records in decades to come. And then he goes right along and makes yet another violence-prone movie called The Last Photograph, and we're supposed to be impressed with the more noticable lurch to darkness? Please. That's as predictable as his own comics films turned out to be.

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

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

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

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

That was around 1990?

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

You must have made a compelling pitch to him.

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

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

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

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

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

You said that you always had problems with that bullet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the studio producing Brubaker's Criminal adaptation says in his legal defense

According to Deadline (via AV Club), here's what Amazon/MGM studios says in response to the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Ed Brubaker:

“His most sensational allegation — that Brubaker pointed a functional firearm at his face and pulled the trigger — is pure invention,” the demurrer adds. “Had that happened, every person in the room, Noohu included, had a duty to report it and in a post-Rust industry on high alert to firearms, someone would have. No one did. Defendants first learned of the supposed incident when Noohu reemerged peddling the story and demanding a payday.” [...]

“The timing of that election gives the game away,” the GT lawyers say of the Sri Lankan American filmmaker who was looking to be made an EP as his PA gig came to an end. “Noohu sat on these supposed claims for twenty months and filed suit on the eve of the press circuit for Criminal. That is the conduct of an opportunist timing his leverage, not a victim seeking redress.”

The part about the pistol is certainly the most questionable, and if the "plaintiff" did this out of spite, perhaps because he's trying to paint himself as a victim based on his Islamic background, that is wrong. And after the Alex Baldwin scandal, yes, it's definitely far more believable that film studios are being more careful not to allow live firearms on set. So, while I don't find Brubaker an appealing writer, and firmly believe he played a big part in bringing down comicdom in more than a quarter century, for now, I will withhold judgement. For all we know, this Noohu is probably a grifter and Islamic victimologist who's trying to get a bigger piece of the pie, and entirely indiscriminate about whether his target's also a leftist. That kind of person is not worth listening to, if it turns out he's filed false complaints.