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.

Marvel failed the X-Men long ago, yet Collider thinks it's only recently this happened

Collider argues that Marvel is now failing the X-Men, as if it hadn't already happened, though it's interesting they take issue with one of the most overrated, pretentious leftist writers of modern times, Gail Simone, in their look at what she wrote in recent X-Men stories. The article doesn't begin well:

Comic books have come a long way since their advent in 1933, but they have evolved significantly over the last ten years as the industry has grappled with writing stories in a post-Comicsgate era. Still, some of the most celebrated titles have found themselves falling into familiar and oftentimes uncomfortable patterns.

When the writer starts subtly blaming Comicsgate, something's obviously gone wrong. That's just a distraction reducing the seriousness of the subject.

Few writers embody this evolution more uniquely than Gail Simone, whose early commentary helped redefine how gender and agency are understood in mainstream superhero media. In 1999, prior to her professional writing debut, Simone launched the website "Women in Refrigerators," coining a phrase that forever altered comic book criticism. Sparked by the infamous death of Kyle Rayner’s girlfriend Alexandra DeWitt (who was murdered and stuffed into a refrigerator in Green Lantern #54) the term described a pervasive industry trope where female characters were routinely killed, maimed, or otherwise de-powered purely to advance the emotional arcs of male heroes.

Simone’s sharp critique propelled her into the industry itself, where she swiftly became a powerhouse writer for both DC and Marvel, crafting acclaimed runs on titles like Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman, and even Deadpool while proving that female characters could anchor the same complex narratives as their male peers.

That legacy makes the last two years of her run on Uncanny X-Men all the more jarring. As the first woman to be the mainline’s sole writer, Simone benefited from a degree of “plot armor,” so to say, which allowed her early missteps to be given a pass. However, this run has slowly become a depressing descent into the very creative pitfalls she spent decades dismantling.

Rather than propelling the mutant flagship forward, Simone's work succumbs to clunky prose, dated characterizations, and a frustrating reliance on regressive tropes that feel out of character for not only the franchise, but Simone as a writer. Perhaps most glaring is how the narrative falters under the weight of subtle microaggressions and tone-deaf interpersonal dynamics, which begets the question of how an icon of feminist comic commentary could deliver a story so strangely out of step with her own established standard.

Unfortunately, she continued to work with DC even as they performed many of the same offensive acts she was supposedly against, and even her work on Birds of Prey may have contained allusions to Identity Crisis and Infinite Crisis, which dampens the impact of whatever she was supposedly trying to reverse. It's also worth considering her real life politics are another contradiction that make a joke out of her alleged mission. Even the artwork in some of her later projects became noticeably bad. So why do they suddenly say she's stumbled into "creative pitfalls"? She was sadly always a left-wing phony, and her attacks on J.K. Rowling only made things worse. And the writer appears to have forgotten one more chilling trope: when a girl is turned into a villainess for the sake of it. Another something I don't think Simone ever made a convincing effort to dismantle in her scriptwriting, and she never made a convincing effort to give ladies a complex narrative to rival the male cast members.

The most immediate, and perhaps least egregious, casualty of this run is the regression of Rogue and Gambit, whose iconic relationship is flattened into a hollow caricature. Rather than leading the team as a formidable leader in her own right, Rogue is reduced to little more than a domestic "tradwife" existing solely in relation to her husband. It quickly becomes evident that the narrative prioritizes making Gambit look effortless and cool instead of allowing Rogue to command respect as an actual leader.

Let me get this straight. The writer believes Simone turned Rogue into a "conservative" stereotype? Something tells me the columnist's not being altruistic. Besides, Rogue's potential as a character was damaged 3 decades ago, and Scott Lobdell could be considered the culprit. It's one thing to pair up 2 superhero figures, but another to do it in such sloppy fashion as Lobdell did it, which undermined characterization. It's interesting though, that the woman who wrote this Collider item actually feels Simone's doing stuff that's allegedly anathema to a leftist agenda, when she claims there's "microaggressions" in the script, and the talk of a "tradwife" also gives strong clues where this is really going.

Rogue's dialogue (and Remy's, admittedly) is weighed down by heavy-handed, exaggerated Southern phonetics that read more like mocking stereotypes than authentic regional voices. Compounding this domestic imbalance is the awkward insertion of Calico; forcing an infantilized teenage mutant into their immediate living situation pushes Rogue further into a suburban foster-parent trope, taking her even further away from the frontlines of mutant leadership. The narrative comes across as off-putting as Calico is written in a deeply juvenile way which includes seeing the teenage mutant crawling into bed with Rogue and Remy — a couple she has only known for a few months.

This superficial obsession with making Gambit look cool constantly sacrifices basic narrative logic for cheap, unearned hype. A glaring example occurs during a major battle sequence in Uncanny X-Men #32, where Remy abruptly transforms into the "Wyvern" — a monstrous form that has been teased relentlessly for nearly ten issues and hyped up on promotional art. Instead of delivering a dramatic, satisfying payoff to all of that teasing, the transformation arrives suddenly at a moment that makes little sense within the flow of the story.

The panel they presented doesn't show Gambit in bed while Calico's there, and Rogue's role in that segment is clearly meant to play something like a big sister figure who cheers up a protege who'd been suffering from a nightmare. I don't find Simone's writing appealing today, but it sounds like the columnist's looking for cheap excuses to tear down on motherhood/sisterhood. Nor does it show Gambit looking cool, which I assume means he's battling baddies. But that's not what happens in the material I've seen so far. In any case, if the writer's delegitimizing Gambit as a character by acting as though he's a real person, she's just perpetuating the rock bottom lapse in logic that's been going on for decades.

Most striking is the treatment of Monet St. Croix, a Black Muslim woman whose established characterization has always centered on bodily autonomy and a fierce opposition to incarceration. Reducing her to the temporary warden of Graymalkin — a fascist concentration camp where mutants are detained until human authorities arrive — completely guts the core of her identity, reframing a hero of liberation as an enforcer of state-sanctioned violence.

Monet, from what I know, was not created as a Muslim adherent in 1994. I think it was Peter David who was allowed to force that retcon onto the former Generation X cast member, 15 years ago. What occurred is similar to how heterosexual characters like Obsidian in Infinity Inc. were retconned into homosexual characters. What happened to Monet is atrocious in the extreme, and that the columnist appears to be fine with that also speaks volumes. In the Islamic world, women are treated as 2nd class citizens, and we're being lectured about "bodily autonomy" and opposition to incarceration? I'm sorry, but what's written sounds so deliberate, and again, like a lecture. If the writer's going to take such an accepting view of the Religion of Peace, then this article is politically motivated, though it does have some eyebrow raising details to tell:

Another recurring pattern in Simone’s Uncanny X-Men run is the abundance of cultural insensitivity and subtle microaggressions woven into the dialogue. Asian characters are routinely subjected to lazy, exoticized tropes. Of note, Logan casually refers to the young Japanese mutant Deathdream as a "manga kid,” which Simone glibly responded to criticism by framing it as Wolverine “incorrectly” calling him that. This casual bias rears its head again with Calico’s most recent interactions with Pietro Maximoff. Calico treats Pietro — a character of Romani heritage and a man of color — with a smug, condescending superiority (despite being in a moment of crisis), dismissively refusing to even view him as a true mutant.

Rather than celebrating the rich diversity that has long defined the franchise, these characterizations alienate readers, reducing an ambitious flagship era to a series of uncomfortable missteps. While there is some narrative explanation for Calico’s behavior, it is nevertheless jarring to see a blue-eyed, blonde-haired white woman othering a character who is, historically, the son of a Holocaust survivor. Coupled with the optics of tethering her to the franchise’s most cookie-cutter Southern couple, it feels as though Simone is doubling down on an inherent and accepted bias about Southern ideals.

Watching an industry titan like Gail Simone, whose entire legacy was built on dismantling harmful tropes, fall into these exact creative traps is a deeply disheartening turn for modern comic criticism — especially as she argues with fans of her writing on social media. Yet this failure does not rest solely on her shoulders; Marvel shares equal responsibility for allowing one of its most iconic flagships to languish without editorial discipline or vision.

Honestly, it's hardly a surprise if Simone doesn't respect any of the better qualities of X-Men from the past. Let's recall said quality definitely collapsed since the early 2000s, along with cohesion of continuity, and characterization. But truly, Simone never "dismantled" any harmful tropes, and she added insult to injury for the Atom by fully accepting the assignment of writing a DEI-pandering character of Asian background shoehorned into Ray Palmer's costume in 2006. It was cancelled about 2 years later, and 2 decades later still, nobody cares about a social justice pandering production. But if Simone really is resorting to harmful tropes, should this be a surprise? What it can suggest is that, if she was part and parcel of DC and Marvel's earlier embarrassments, and never took issue with what DC did to any female character not written by her, then she never had faith in her alleged positions to begin with. No wonder she's so overrated.

Since the X-Men is a subject, here's also an article on IGN telling why the X-Men don't have a role in a Wolverine video game:

While there are many mutants famous for being members of the X-Men in Marvel’s Wolverine, in the video game’s story the X-Men do not exist. Rather, Logan is a former member of Team X, the mutant black ops unit that includes the likes of Sabretooth and Mystique. Yes, Jean Grey is in the game, but she is not part of any group called the X-Men because it hasn't been formed yet. Put simply, don’t expect Cyclops to turn up in his comic accurate suit, dropping from the Blackbird under orders from Professor X back at the X Mansion.

But why? Why not have the X-Men exist in Marvel’s Wolverine? In an interview with IGN, narrative director Walt Williams said Insomniac was keen for the mutants in the game to not have a safe place to go to, to not benefit from being superheroes, but rather remind players that mutants exist on the outside — and Wolverine himself, who this game is all about, is perhaps the biggest outsider of them all.

“So Team X is canonical,” Williams began. “It is Logan's first team in his history. It was a black ops team from the '70s made up of wetworks mutant workers. So in telling Wolverine's story, we wanted to bring it back to the beginning of where his story really began in that long string of teams. Because as we know, he's been a member of many teams by this point in his 50-plus year history.

Well that's part of the problem with the comics since the early to mid-2000s, if we take the terrible Brian Michael Bendis' work on Avengers as an example. Several mainstay characters were dropped in favor of hilariously obvious choices like Wolvie and Spider-Man, with Scarlet Witch the biggest victim of jettisoning, yet the same people doing these interviews don't take an objective view of that, and it's no excuse for forcibly omitting his own team from reference. If they want to make this game a solo adventure, so be it, but I don't see why the X-Men have to be downplayed, or written out that forcibly.

“But really what we were looking to do is, because superheroes have become so mainstream at this point in just pop culture and everything through TV shows, comics, movies and everything, that even especially with our own Spider-Man games, these are characters with superpowers that a lot of the world has accepted, that they are celebrated. They have parades, they are honored and stuff. But mutants at the core are outsiders, even within the Marvel universe.

He acts like this has to be the norm at all times, and cannot be changed. Another decided problem. It's exactly what led to the Spider-marriage being thrown out with bath water 2 decades ago, and Mary Jane Watson paying a heavy price in the process.

It’s a detailed answer to a question that fans have been wondering about ever since Marvel’s Wolverine was revealed. And so, while you’ll get co-op gameplay with Jean Grey, she’s not in the story as Marvel Girl or wearing a suit we’ve seen from the X-Men comics. And without the X-Men knocking about, Logan and Jean are free to explore their own romantic relationship — assuming the game itself goes that far — free from Cyclops’ death stare.

Indeed, Williams confirmed to IGN that there is no Logan, Jean, and Scott Summers love triangle at play in Marvel’s Wolverine.

“I don't want to get too much into spoilers because obviously there's a whole story that we want everyone to experience as they play through it,” Williams said. “But I think it's safe to say that we are focusing on just Logan and Jean's relationship in Marvel's Wolverine.”

Gee, so that's what is considered a big deal? Up to the turn of the century, I can't recall if Wolverine was ever seriously seen pursuing a relationship with Jean, and Chris Claremont wrote Logan noticing she and Scott were an item in the late 70s, to the point where Logan quietly discarded some flowers he'd brought her in a trash bin at a hospital when Cyclops was around. It was only when Mark Millar being helming Ultimate X-Men that all of a sudden, exploring a love triangle became a big deal, because in this alternate universe, practically depicting Logan as morally bankrupt was somehow a great idea. But that alternate universe line was little more than one of the most overblown tales of its sort, and came at a time when mainstream was declining.

And it's a shame we once again have examples of MSM sources not admitting the X-Men went downhill long ago.

Adapting directly from overrated modern source materials is what's bringing down comics films

Inverse recently argued that direct reliance on certain source material for making a comics adaptation has only hindered such films, with Supergirl being the latest casualty:

In the early days, these movies were far more willing to bend comic book lore to the will of the screenwriter and director – the original Blade screenplay from David S. Goyer, rewrote the character’s origins — created by Marv Wolfman — to be set in America instead of London, a change that quickly made its way to the page, and many other superhero films took their own liberties with the source material as well. But now that the genre has become one of the most prevalent in Hollywood, these franchises have started plumbing the depths of canon with more intentionality, directly adapting iconic storylines and using that sense of “accuracy” as a key part of the marketing…a strategy that has earned mixed results. In the case of this year’s Supergirl, a movie currently being met with middling reviews and a disappointing start to its box office run, part of the criticism has been a lack of fidelity to the Woman of Tomorrow storyline that it’s predominantly based on. But here’s the thing: This criticism could’ve been avoided wholesale if the DCU hadn’t made that adaptational choice such a major factor in the writing and promotion of the movie.

I would just like to note that Goyer's a very overrated writer himself, and I'm not forgetting the time he made repellent remarks about She-Hulk over a decade ago, and the story where he depicted Superman throwing out his USA citizenship. Goyer may have proven a worse comics writer than a movie writer. With that noted, there's certainly an interesting point made here that decades ago, filmmakers had the creative license to build a story that stood on its own, wasn't based directly on any particular story or back issue, but drew certain ideas seen in the stories for developing a screenplay. Now, in an era where creative freedom's been all but taken away, they're almost literally obligated to adapt overrated modern miniseries that most film critics aren't willing to admit was hardly worth the effort compared to the films, and that is problematic.

And if there's a flaw in this article so far that needs to be addressed, it's that Blade first debuted in 1972-79's Tomb of Dracula series, becoming an ally to the main vampire hunting protagonists (Quincy Harker, Rachel van Helsing, et al). That series was set in the UK, and Blade did not have any kind of series at that time; he just made guest appearances in various series up to the early 90s, and if he got a series by that time, it may have been published under a brief imprint called Midnight Sons. So you know that Inverse's writers are again proving to make insufficient effort to do the math and connect the dots. Mainly because they perpetuate the sugarcoating of Tom King's miniseries, along with another error:

While there are quite a few other problems the film faces, it’s hard to ignore that its narrative issues stem from the decision to straightforwardly adapt Woman of Tomorrow in the first place. And at first glance, that seems like a strange takeaway – it’s a critically acclaimed storyline, and for years comic book fans have wanted to see films adapt iconic story arcs more directly. However, there’s a reason Woman of Tomorrow works on the page in a way the filmed version never could: it’s a story that operates as a deconstruction of Kara Zor-El and the unwavering optimism she has represented throughout her existence as a character. Exploring her buried grief regarding the destruction of her homeworld and her refusal to end a life takes on a new significance because she’s spent over 60 years of real-time storytelling suppressing her pain and upholding her golden rule – directly adapting WoT as Kara’s first DCU outing misses the metatextual nature of why the book works within the decades-long lineage of Supergirl as a comic book character.

That’s not to mention the ways in which the film outright changes certain elements of the story. In the book Krem is a despicable mass-murderer, but the fact that Ruthye and Supergirl banish him to the Phantom Zone instead of ending him forces him to reckon with his own failings as a human being and grow to feel genuine remorse for his crimes – making him a slaver and a trafficker almost demands he meet his end because a moviegoing audience truthfully just has a different tolerance for that kind of debauchery. Kara slaying him by the end fits a character who’s evil in a nastier way, but it also compromises the original intent of a story that’s ultimately about Kara and Ruthye preserving their own innocence and refusing to beat Krem in a way that validates his violent worldview.

So they're saying "deconstruction" is entirely acceptable? Sigh. Another serious mistake, right down to how they claim fandom wants to see more direct adaptations of anything. It all depends, and besides, whenever DC and Marvel produced miniseries past the early 2000s, they were some of the worst tales ever to litter the landscape. Also, I seem to recall that, when Batman caused the Joker to fall to his death from a helicopter in the 1989 film, that was done without any moralizing coming before or after. Even Superman 2 from 1980 didn't seem to do anything like that. Even the 1st Spider-Man movie from 2002 depicted the burglar who murdered Ben Parker falling to his death after Peter injured his hand to disarm him of the handgun. So if the new Supergirl film does wallow in heavy handed moralizing over whether to kill a repulsive villain, and ends with the Maid of Might jettisoning her earlier stance, isn't that another mistake in-screenplay?

Also, where do they get the idea a movie audience is more open to the idea of superheroes obliterating the worst of criminals, or that a comics audience isn't? All that does is suggest, on the one hand, that either/both are absurdly hypocritical, and it only makes for a more divisive situation.

Anyway, John Nolte at Breitbart's spoken about how the Supergirl film's sunk big time in 2 weeks:

Between production and promotion, Warner Bros. sunk around $250 million into Supergirl, which puts the break-even number at around $450 million, which means we’re looking at losses in the hundred million range, not to mention the damage done to the overall DC brand.

James Gunn’s Superman was not a very good movie, but it was good enough, good enough that people were willing to see what came next from his rebooted DC Universe. Supergirl is a drain on the one thing a successful franchise requires, and that’s goodwill. Next up, later this year from DC, is something called Clayface, which no one asked for.

We’ll see.

No, we won't. The spotlight on villains got out of hand in its own way, and it's a poor example of what to emphasize. Interesting there's no news so far that they may want to adapt characters like the Silver Age Atom to the silver screen, because that in itself could have clever potential, as could possibly a shape-shifter like Metamorpho. But under overrated filmmakers like Gunn, it's always possible such possibilities for adaptations could be as totally botched as the Supergirl film. Also, I don't think in the original comics, Superman and Supergirl had to be within the range of a yellow sun solar system proper in order for their powers to work. It's just that when within the confines of a red sun system, their powers were nullified, and I think there were times when red solar radiation was used as a plot point in at least a few pre-Crisis Superman stories as a way to portray a weakness in sci-fi terms without his being in a red sun system proper. One more reason this new live action movie is clearly theater of the absurd.

And in the end, once again, it's a terrible shame Supergirl's been subjected to such injustices and indignities as a comics creation, along with a movie adaptation. The sad result of only so much corporate neglect and mismanagement. But who knows if the box office receipts will convince the studios to allow screenwriters and directors more creative license to build a story they think is worthwhile? Even then, it'd require creatives who aren't heavy handed ideologues, and they're sadly in short supply in modern Hollywood.

More signs it's looking bad for the live action Supergirl film

The reviews are in, and according to Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart, even leftist trade journals like Variety are appalled with the new live action take on Supergirl, describing it as follows:

Even the left-wing Hollywood press is turning against Warner Bros’ new summer superhero tent pole, Supergirl, calling the film “super-horrendous” with the “worst script” ever.

The review by Variety’s Owen Gleiberman was quite negative ahead of the film’s worldwide debut coming up on Friday. The Hollywood newser ripped the film as “pretentious” for it’s “punk rock attitude” that is “cringe.”

Gleiberman dismissed the film, writing, “here’s the key thing to know about Supergirl, the second outing from James Gunn’s DC Studios: The entire movie thinks it’s ‘punk rock.'” And that, Gleiberman says, is “cringe.”

“The film introduces us to Kara Zor-El (Milly Alcock), who rather than being the spunky Supergirl of legend, saving earthly lives in a primary-colored spandex suit, is an interplanetary drunk in a Blondie T-shirt (how punk rock!), bopping from one arid dystopia to the next,” Gleiberman explained.

What's additionally troubling is how the Girl of Steel's depicted as a drunkard, which Culture Mix talks about some more:

Supergirl spends most of her screen time in the movie being drunk, nearly drunk, or hung over. There are multiple scenes that are meant to make Supergirl into some sort of sad superhero emo girl, who uses alcohol because she’s got inner demons about being an orphan. It’s supposed to make her look sympathetic, but her repetitive drunkenness gets tiresome to watch after a while.

When it's that heavy-handed, something is definitely wrong, right down to how they're forcing Supergirl into the darkness, instead of offering an optimistic vision of a woman who could overcome any trauma she suffered and find happiness again. If this film lacks a sense of humor to boot, that's another major error. And the filmmakers may have screwed up with the following plotlines as well:

A trio of Sklarian raiders (played by blue-costumed Clara Rosager, purple-costumed Heather Agyepong and red-costumed Alice Hewkin) suddenly invade the bus because they want to steal Ruthye’s sword. A massive fight ensues, Supergirl suddenly exerts her superpowers (because she’s on a yellow light planet), and somehow she’s able to get these Sklarian raiders to tell her where Krem is. He’s on a planet where kidnapped girls are being held captive to be forced into marriage to men. For a superhero movie aimed at families, this pedophilia/child trafficking storyline is quite disturbing and might be inappropriate for viewing by children of a certain age.

Similarly, the movie has some murder scenes that are unsettling and sends hypocritical messages about revenge killings. Several times in the movie, Supergirl gets preachy with Ruthye, by lecturing her to not be consumed by vengeful anger because it will rot her soul. Supergirl literally tells Ruthye that killing Krem won’t be the answer to help Ruthie’s emotional pain.

And that’s why it’s a letdown to see what happens to Krem, because it’s the complete antithesis of Supergirl’s moralistic lectures. Why go to the trouble of having Supergirl hold herself up as taking the “high ground,” when she stoops to the level that she does by the end of this movie? The end fate of Krem is just lazy and formulaic. This movie is really trying to be a superhero version of “Mad Max” meets “Game of Thrones,” but the nihilistic themes in “Mad Max” and “Game of Thrones” just don’t work in a “Supergirl” movie.

There's 2 things that can be said about the above: one, the chances the plotline with slave girls is a metaphor for Islam's support for child-trafficking are very slim. Two, if murder scenes are what the screeplay is built upon, that too is pretty alienating. Let's also recall James Gunn, who's one of the producers of this film, turned out to have made some very offensive jokes among other horrific deeds in the past decade, and also injected a repellent metaphor for Israel into last year's Superman film, which is why he's unqualified to explore the aforementioned themes in the movie. At the end of this review, it also notes that:

Don’t expect any mid-credits or any end-credits scenes to hint how this story might continue, because there are no mid-credits or end-credits scenes in “Supergirl,” probably because the filmmakers ran out of ideas for this underwhelming superhero movie. And there’s no better example of how far off the mark “Supergirl” is than the fact that it isn’t until about 80 minutes into this 108-minute movie before Supergirl is seen in her full iconic superhero costume. “Supergirl” spends so much time trying to prove that Supergirl has an identity crisis, the entire story loses its way in its own identity crisis that falls short of what a great “Supergirl” movie should be.

Ah, that's got to be another huge mistake the scriptwriters made: they take forever to show Kara donning her costume - which looks pretty dull in terms of color here - and only so much time depicting her as a drunkard, while her powers oscillate between stronger and weaker in ways that don't avail. The filmmakers also made the unpardonable error of adapting the script of the overrated Tom King's miniseries, and if that's how it's going to be, you can't be shocked when things go into freefall. A leading error in the film's making has to be that the screenwriters didn't have the creative autonomy to develop their own story free of editorial mandates. And it looks like we'll be seeing the sad results soon at the box office.

Once again, as in 1984, the Maid of Might and her creators (Otto Binder and Al Plastino) have been done a terrible injustice. With the worst part being that the filmmakers - and even modern comics writers - are unlikely to apologize for what they've led to, no matter the box office results.

A new book about the art of Michael Turner features some for a most inappropriate miniseries he worked on, and 3 unsuitable contributors

In this IGN article on Yahoo, it's announced that Aspen, the company originally founded by the late artist Michael Turner, worked on a crowdfunded art book featuring art he did for DC, and wouldn't you know it, one that includes some embarrassments based on what they were used for:

The late Michael Turner was undoubtedly one of the most popular comic book artists of the 2000s, with a proven track record of driving up sales on a series every time his art adorned the cover. Clover Press previously celebrated Turner's Marvel resume with The Marvel Art of Michael Turner, and now they're back with The DC Art of Michael Turner.

[...] The DC Art of Michael Turner is a 200-page 9" x 12" hardcover that reprints the artist's work on titles like Superman/Batman, The Flash, Justice League, Identity Crisis. The book includes an introduction by Ghost Machine editor-in-chief and former DC Comics Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns, as well as commentary from Jeph Loeb, Brad Meltzer, and Dan DiDio.

Turner may have been a talented artist, and some of his contributions to Image's Top Cow affiliate years ago were impressive, but what he drew for DC was all-style-no-substance, and that he would actually draw covers for Identity Crisis was disgusting and an embarrassing stain on his portfolio. I remember when Alex Ross told how he'd been asked to draw artwork for the vile miniseries that was offensive to victims of sexual assault, and in contrast to Turner, Ross wisely refused the offer. How is it Ross understood a story with a belittling structure could tarnish his resume if he'd participated, but Turner couldn't? And how come a site like Get Your Comic On is also obscuring the topics involved by putting one of the illustrations Turner did for Identity Crisis at the top of their article? Also, lest we forget, that Meltzer, Johns and DiDio gave introduction commentary for this project is also bad news. As for Loeb, his writing from the times was hardly a big deal.

What makes this additionally troubling is when a "feminist" site like Girl Talk HQ glosses over some art connected with one of the most repulsive miniseries of 2004:

In celebration of the Kickstarter campaign launch today, we are sharing some exclusive images from ‘THE DC ART OF MICHAEL TURNER’ – the artist’s iconic interpretations of Wonder Woman, which you won’t find on any other media publication!

One of those panels they highlight is a cover Turner drew for Identity Crisis, an issue where WW was made to look absurdly mechanical in-story, showing her using her lasso on an interrogated crook without actually showing her face, IIRC. That doesn't trouble them? I guess that says all you need to know about how some feminists aren't the responsible folks they'd like everybody to think they are. Oddly enough, another feminist/SJW writing for Book Riot actually woke up and recognized what was wrong with Identity Crisis 15 years afterwards, though she dampened the impact of her essay by continuing to embrace other forms of wokeness, IIRC. When will the writers for this other feminist site begin to wake up?

Comic Book Club Live also glossed over the news, and they say:

Like other volumes in The DC Art Of… line, the high-end edition will come in a 9″ x 12″ deluxe hardcover, featuring over 200 pages of art and commentary. The campaign will also feature an ashcan, a “sketchbook” edition featuring black and white art, “a Kickstarter-exclusive slipcase and dust jacket, and multiple DC Portfolio sets spotlighting Turner’s unforgettable takes on Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman, and The Flash.” In addition, Geoff Johns has provided an introduction alongside “thoughts” from Jeph Loeb, Brad Meltzer and Dan Didio. Hopefully those thoughts will come in thought bubbles, but probably not.

And that says all you need to know where they stand regarding those charlatans too. Almost a decade after the Harvey Weinstein scandal, and they're continuing to sugarcoat some of the worst stories to bring down DC/Marvel over the past quarter century. That doesn't speak well for alleged "fandom".

Turner may have some decent artwork to build an art book with, but Identity Crisis taints the covers he foolishly drew for that. I would not advise backing the crowdfunding campaign for this financially, and when it comes to his DC artwork, I don't think it amounted to much in the end. Though if it matters, it was reprehensible when DC reprinted the Superman/Batman story reintroducing Supergirl in an anthology with censored panels for the girls' rear ends, yet violence against Lois Lane went by without any opposition. This was when DiDio was still in charge, and that too says quite a bit about his MO. So why is Aspen welcoming him to provide commentary for their new art book project? He's just one more reason why not to give the book any financial backing, because what if some of the profits go into his pockets? So I'm sorry, but I would strongly advise anybody who's a realist not to give this book about Turner's DC art any money.

Turner may have been a talented artist, I won't deny that. But again, he made some very sad mistakes that make it necessary to separate art from artist and/or take it with a grain of salt when it comes to his own portfolio.

Since when was Supergirl always stuck in Superman's shadow?

The Conversation wrote a sugarcoated item about Supergirl and the upcoming movie, that rather predictably takes no objective view of the Maid of Might's history:

Since her official debut in 1959, Supergirl has struggled to emerge from the shadow of her cousin, Superman. So it’s a bold move that the second cinematic release in the newly rebooted DC Universe will be Supergirl.

Milly Alcock first appeared as Supergirl in the epilogue to Superman (2025). Her Supergirl is a brash “party girl” – an immediate contrast to David Corenswet’s squeaky clean rendition of Superman. Based on the comic book Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow (2021) by Tom King and Bilquis Evely, she is a traumatised character, dealing with the destruction of her home planet of Krypton. “I have no people,” Supergirl laments in the trailer.

Well that's the problem: it's based more on the overrated King's story than a screenplay that could stand on its own. Might I also add I don't find the posters showing Supergirl wearing a trenchcoat appealing? The sunglasses may be cool, but the coat ruins everything. And I don't think Supergirl was always in Superman's shadow as they say, if only because there were times in the past where she did have solo adventures printed. The problem is the publishers didn't always see her as the storytelling vehicle she could be if they wanted to invest in serious merit-based writing. And the article has a pretty big goof in the following:

However, Supergirl was not always so introspective. The character and her alter ego, Kara Zor-El, first appeared in 1938, to cash in on the popularity of Superman. She was a preppy teenager who played a supporting helpmate role, allowing Superman to display his paternal side.

Publishers DC Comics also flirted with the concept of Superwoman. A 1943 story had Superman’s girlfriend, reporter Lois Lane, dream that she was Superman’s female counterpart. In her book Supergirl: Contemporary Feminist Reboot of a Hapless DC Comic Helpmate (2022), Batya Weinbaum suggests this moment reflected the “changing position of women in wartime”. In a 1947 story, Lois Lane, Superwoman! from Superman issue #45, Lane is convinced she has superpowers, only to discover she is the victim of a ruse where Superman is using his influence to simulate the experience. This prompts her frustrated exclamation: “You men who try to keep women weak and defenceless – I hate you!”

Lane may well have been addressing the DC editors who published her adventures. In his cultural history of comic book heroines, comic book historian Mike Madrid outlines an excerpt from 1950s-era DC Comics’ editorial policy which reluctantly accepts stories featuring women, but only if the female characters are “secondary in importance”.

Somehow, it's hard to believe a company that readily published Wonder Woman all these years would have a problem publishing anything with a lady in the lead. Either way, they did have some impressive lady co-stars created at the time, and who went on to see better writing as time went by. Also notice the hilarious goof in the year of debut, which is actually Superman's, not Supergirl's, which was originally early 1959.

As for what Lois Lane was written telling in 1947, well, that could easily describe the situation decades later, when men and women alike who had lenient views on discrimination led to the publication of Identity Crisis. Yet that sees no mention in this puff piece, and that's the considerable weakness here. As is the following "explanation" why Kara Zor-El was originally terminated in Crisis on Infinite Earths:

Whereas Superman (played by Christopher Reeve) was introduced in 1978 by the same producers with a daring rescue of a plummeting helicopter, Helen Slater’s Supergirl performs an aerial ballet and frolics with woodland creatures. In comics, Supergirl fared even worse. The character was killed off in 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths storyline, partly because of her threat to Superman’s unique status as “the last son of Krypton”, and partly because of the film’s disappointing box office takings.

Excuse me? What kind of monumentally stupid explanation is that? The staff may have wanted to establish Kal-El as the last Kryptonian at the time. But that doesn't make Kara a "threat" to said status. What the writer says is disgusting, and undermines any valid lamentation he's making, though he's right the editors used the film's failure as a justification, which is also sick. And then he adds insult to injury when he says:

In comic books, however, death is never permanent. Kara Zor-El and Supergirl were resurrected in 2004 in The Supergirl from Krypton. There was an attempt to add nuance to the character, with a greater emphasis on the trauma she suffered from witnessing the loss of her home planet. But this was rather undermined by various revealing costumes clearly designed to satisfy the male gaze.

And this inherently wrong because? Even years before, there were times when Kara Zor-El was drawn as quite a fashion plate, and the bare midriff costume was actually introduced around the turn of the century, at the middle of Peter David's run on the new take on Supergirl (I think Leonard Kirk was the artist), which was developed out of a character who first appeared in 1988. The real reasons to complain are that no concrete story accompanied the reintroduction in the Superman/Batman title published at the time, or even the solo title that followed, and that a very bad man accused of sexual misconduct was in charge of editing, that being Eddie Berganza, who was only fired from DC in 2017. If there's a valid complaint to make about fetishizing in what he oversaw, it can be blamed on Berganza, and also writer Jeph Loeb. Oddly, when Kara was reintroduced at the time, the figure as drawn by Michael Turner wasn't so busty, if at all. As for the costume, if there's anything wrong with it, and possibly has been for a long time, it's how it was long-sleeved, which makes it look silly. The article, interestingly enough, notes that the TV show starring Melissa Benoist appears to have followed up on the PC view of Supergirl's outfits:

In the pilot episode she finally strikes out on her own with the dramatic rescue of an airliner, assuming the mantle of Supergirl. In a show that employed several female writers and became known for its positive representation of LGBTQ+ issues, problematic topics such as Supergirl’s infantilising name and costume were directly addressed.

Kara refuses to wear revealing versions of the costume from the character’s comic book past. In discussions with her employer, CatCo Worldwide Media CEO Cat Grant, she is told: “I’m a girl. And your boss. And powerful. And rich, and hot, and smart. So, if you perceive Supergirl as anything less than excellent, isn’t the real problem you?” Significantly, Grant is portrayed by actor Calista Flockhart, known for the Ally McBeal series – a show that sparked debates about feminism and women in the workplace in the late 1990s.

Well if all they care about is putting down even creators with more common sense, along with pushing an agenda that did more harm than good, those are just some of the reasons why it's regrettable the Maid of Might's potential has suffered ruin for years. The TV show became increasingly political, and that's why it's more an embarrassment than a classic today. At the end:

The 2021 comic book Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow follows the young alien Ruthye Marye Knoll, who recruits Supergirl to seek revenge after her father is murdered. The story is told from Ruthye’s point of view, the fractured narrative lending the story a fatalistic quality. The narration also emphasises the mythic quality of Supergirl, “who lost everything and kept walking”.

It remains to be seen how closely the film will follow the philosophical source material. Meanwhile, in the pages of the latest DC comic book, writer and artist Sophie Campbell has returned to the brighter tone of the 1960s version of the character, merged with the sensibilities of the 2015 television series. The many interpretations of Supergirl continue to reveal the character’s durability and versatility.

If memory serves, the writer of the latest series is really a man with the name Ross, and it sure is ironic somebody who claimed earlier the outfits in post-2004 Supergirl were a problem suddenly makes no such arguments when somebody of "Sophie Campbell"'s standing is helming the new series. Predictably, no objective view is taken of King's overrated story either, and that takes away any impact this puff piece might've had.

Since the new movie's also a subject, Polygon says the director, as much as the screenwriter, did draw "inspiration" from both King's story and what the assigned screenwriter turned out:

"I very deliberately started with the script that Ana wrote," Gillespie says, "and I put together a lot of visuals around that coming from the script, trying to make something that I would be excited about and that had this grit and flavor of the Supergirl character, Kara." [...]

"After that, I went back and visited Tom King's Woman of Tomorrow and took some images from that," he says, "but I didn't want to start there because I didn't want to just do the comic book."

Unfortunately, that's just what he did nevertheless, and borrowing even remotely from something that pretentious doesn't help a bit. Nor did injecting feminism into the narratives of the TV show or even the comics themselves avail, but that's certainly a moot point by now. It remains to be seen what the box office results will be for this new Supergirl movie, and based on how it's crafted, I'd rather stay home and read the comics I own instead. These articles are just more examples of stuff that ultimately doesn't help the Maid of Might's reputation at all.

Without merit, USA comics won't have "everlasting" appeal

The North State Journal (Raleigh, NC) wrote about why American comics are so great:

Pick one up. Be seduced by its glossy cover. Gaze upon the impossibly muscular body clad in a skin-tight suit. Our hero or heroine will surely be soaring, shouting, blasting a villain into next week.

They are ridiculous. They are addictively great. Comic books, of the superhero variety, are 100% American.

Compare the thin comic book to Europe’s graphic novels, and they come off looking flimsy, infantile. Compare the American comic to Japanese Manga and they appear innocent in their fixation with heroism; they hark back to a departed American age.

Once a nickel, a dime, a quarter, now the price of a latte, they are objects of American consumer capitalism. The comic is literature in junk-food version.

Well it used to be, but that doesn't mean it was always perfect even back in the Golden Age. And if you consider how, by the turn of the century, they were on their way to putting far more forced emphasis on leftist ideologies, that's why it doesn't make much sense now to say they're objects of capitalism. The American age in question has sadly departed, and they're not fixed on heroism like they were before.

Yet what truly makes them American objects is what plays out in their 32 pages month after month, decade upon decade.

When the Fantastic Four took their fateful space journey in 1961 and “cosmic rays” transformed the quartet into unwilling superheroes, comics entered a weird realm where the all-powerful were also the unwilling, decidedly modern victims of science and circumstance.

Spider-Man, the Hulk, Wolverine (the list goes on) were given supernatural abilities that made them outcasts, obliging them to be flawed messiahs.

They were, by some quirk of the American character, bound to Peter Parker’s moral imperative: “With great power comes great responsibility.” They are versions of an American Sisyphus, bound to saving us over and over again.

What could be more American — that might, when lashed to a sense of justice, eventually, makes right? So honorable, so naïve.

Well now even the phrase from Spidey's 1962 premiere has been throughly trashed for the sake of pointless directions, not the least being the erasure of the Spider-marriage. When the paper, possibly a college-type one, won't get into any of those issues, something is decidedly and terribly wrong. There's no justice to be found in modern comics when they force in so much leftist ideologies at the expense of coherency.

To this day, though the tone is darker, Marvel and DC, the two mammoths of comics, continue to reimagine the American character.

Once side attractions in a world of leading white men, Gwen Stacy, Jean Grey and Susan Storm have in recent years emerged as leaders to reinvigorate the Spider-Man, X-Men and Fantastic Four sagas. Absolute Wonder Woman has broken ground with beautiful art. Miles Morales is Spidey for a new generation.

And when they make such ambiguous statements about these leading ladies, something is wrong here too. Note the absurdity of bringing up what I assume is Spider-Gwen, some kind of otherworldly take on the 616 universe Gwen, without even making anything clear, or asking if it really does favors for the Spidey franchise. Also, not all art is good today, what with the woke damage of the past decade still being felt, and the Titans' title in the DCU is one that's suffered as a result. And they don't have a problem with the darker tone? That's practically what brought down comicdom in the long run. Also, do they have a problem with white men? One can only wonder if the writer's saying he considers Peter Parker expendable.

Yet the central fissures remain.

Bruce Wayne can’t connect with anyone other than his butler; he is the lonely individual in an atomized America. Steve Rogers bears the burden of representing the “Greatest Generation” from World War II. He is a Captain America forever out of place, even in his own land.

And could there be a more iconic tech magnate toying with humanity’s fate than Superman’s nemesis Lex Luthor and his delusions of grandeur? If only our world had a bespectacled Clark Kent keeping an eye on things. Just in case.

Umm, even this is flawed if they'd consider there were stories where Bruce had affairs with ladies like Vicky Vale, Silver St. Cloud and even Catwoman. Where do they get off using that kind of laughable lecture anyway? The writer's also oblivious to how there were several stories over the years where Marvel tried to replace and harm the reputation of Capt. America for the sake of publicity stunts, and it goes without saying that today's dialogue for a lot of the regular cast doesn't feel like that of the older comics anymore.

So what's the point of this article? Practically nothing, since like a lot of other such modern articles, it won't explore what went wrong over past decades, nor will it take an objective view of Marvel/DC in their modern form. Once again, comicdom's getting nowhere fast as a result of all these phonies writing about what's hardly coverage of history.

Batman: The Killing Joke gets an expensive prestige edition designed like a camera

Digital Camera World wrote about a special edition of Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's Batman: The Killing Joke, that's designed like a camera and comes with a possibly unshocking price tag:

The most iconic Batman serial of all time, The Killing Joke, is getting an oversized prestige edition themed like a film camera (with removable lens and leather case) for an eye-watering €15,000 – approximately $17,500 / £13,000 / AU$24,400.

While other caped crusader comics are arguably better (check out The Dark Knight Returns and Year One), what makes The Killing Joke the most iconic Batman graphic novel ever is its cover – featuring a rictus-grinning Joker pointing a camera at the viewer.

Drawn by Brian Bolland, it's one of the greatest comic book covers the medium has ever seen – and it reflects the Joker's twisted use of photography to psychologically torture Commissioner Gordon, in what serves as the villain's most widely accepted origin story.

The 1988 comic, written by similarly iconic Alan Moore (Watchmen, V for Vendetta), has inspired everything from action figures to an animated movie – and now the essential Batman story is being presented in the most prestigious of prestige editions, styled after the Joker's fictitious Witz film camera.

Described by publisher Argent Comics as "the world’s first giclée-printed comic book," only 52 volumes will ever exist – 47 for sale to the public, with 5 archive copies for Argent and DC.

If memory serves, it's also the story where Barbara Gordon was turned parapalegic when the Joker shot her, and what Moore may not have intended as canon per se was soon turned into just that by the editors, with the earliest appearance Babs made in a wheelchair I can recall possibly being an issue of John Ostrander's Suicide Squad, at least 2 years after the Killing Joke was published. While there were decent stories that followed where Babs was in the spotlight like Birds of Prey's first several years, some could reasonably argue whether it was a good idea to just take a potentially questionable story and shoehorn in into continuity proper.

For now, this is yet another speculator market farce in the making, and nobody should be buying this photographing joke just because of the silly design they used on the cover material. And seriously, is Moore really that "iconic" a writer? Not really, and he hasn't been in a long, long time.

2 old interviews regarding the JSA

I found 2 interviews, one with the overrated David Goyer and the other with the late Len Strazewski, from an old Geocities JSA fansite that's now archived. First, here's the interview with Goyer:

Q2. How did you choose what storyline to start the new series with? Was it always intended to deal with the death of Sandman, and the rebirth of Dr Fate, or were there other ideas?

We always intended to begin the new book with the death of Wesley Dodds, but originally, this was going to be tied into a story involving the old Paul Kirk Manhunter clones. We shelved that (we'll be bringing it back later on) and decided to go for something much more epic -- the birth of a new Dr. Fate.

And that new Dr. Fate was Golden Age Hawkman and Hawkgirl's son Hector Hall, aka the Silver Scarab, who about 5 years later, was put back in the grave along with Lyta Hall/Fury, by none other than Geoff Johns himself when he took up the writing chores almost entirely solo. So what was the whole point of bringing them back into the fold? And what's so wrong with Kent Nelson and Inza Nelson that they wouldn't reverse their atrocious fate in Zero Hour?

That aside, while it may be one thing to write up a demise for Dodds, the way he was depicted committing suicide to prevent a hefty villain from possibly assaulting him to get more information out of him was disgraceful and forced, as were the other deaths depicted early in the series' run. The problem with how they did it is that they seem to think these other characters were some sort of a burden with no storytelling value to build around, and in the end, instead of just quietly letting them be dropped into limbo, they can only think of putting them to death through murder. Even suicide's very appalling. Yet they resort almost exclusively to such fates instead of death by natural causes and auto accidents, just to show how uncreative they actually are.

Q5. How has the reaction to the new JSA comic been in the DC offices? Positive?

Generally, DC has been very happy with the book. Sales are quite good and they like the way the fans have been responding. They've given us fairly free rein to do what we want.

Q6. What did you think of the 1992 JSA series by Len Strazewski and the late Mike Parobeck?

I enjoyed the short-lived '92 JSA series, but I thought it lingered a bit too much in the past, recycling the same (quite small) JSA rogues gallery, etc.

That was one of the reasons we introduced Mordru and (in issue #6) Black Adam. Later on, we will see a new Injustice Society. We wanted to expand the JSA's rogues gallery.

Oh, so here he's stealthily putting down Strazewski's work, which was cut short by editor Mike Carlin, yet when somebody like Goyer comes along, suddenly there's no complaints. Funny Goyer says Strazewski's work lingered in the past too much, when Goyer/Johns/Robinson's JSA wasn't all that different, despite what they say. And a big problem was how it didn't built legitimately or organically, based on how it stuck with the status quo set by Zero Hout, and there were at least 3-4 series at the time introducing new characters to replace the older ones, including how Oliver Queen was replaced as Green Arrow by a newly created son. In retrospect, none of the replacements aged well.

Q8. Why did you decide to explore the return of a new Dr Fate, and not the return of another JSAer, for e.g, a new Hawkman, new Spectre or new Sandman?

We decided to bring Dr. Fate back because the Spectre issue was already being dealt with in Day of Judgement.

Hawkman was a larger issue which is being worked out as we speak -- but at the time we were pitching the series, DC still wasn't ready to give us the green light on a Hawkman resurrection.

As for Sandman -- well, Sandy needed to be in the book from the beginning for obvious reasons. And we were prohibited from actually naming a new character Sandman by Gaiman and the Vertigo folks. In the DCU, that name is exclusively Morpheus' now.

Well at least this tells something. To think that a so-called called auteur who was since accused of serious sexual abuse would have that kind of "creative control" at the expense of the flagship DCU would even have veto power over what characters could retain the Sandman codename. Of course, one can reasonably wonder how Goyer and company feel now that a guy they possibly looked up to as a genius was discovered to be quite the opposite? Do they still consider what he did with Lyta Hall throughly acceptable? I don't know, but the next part of the interview certainly makes clear what kind of woke advocate Goyer really is:

Q15. Some fans have claimed that Dr Midnite (Charles McNider) was possibly gay. What is your opinion on this situation?

It is my personal belief that McNider may very well have been gay. If we have the opportunity, we may address it one day in a story.

It's definitely eyebrow raising when somebody blurs the differences between fiction and reality that blatantly. The Golden Age Dr. Mid-Nite is a non-existant person, and like various other characters of the times, was written as a cypher, so how and why do phonies like Goyer jump to these conclusions? And who are these fans they speak of? Not me. Talk about putting words in the fanbase's mouth! Some could say the way McNider was written might make him look gay, but since he's a fictional character, there's nothing to prove, period, except for that some overrated modern writers are some of the most shameless people around. And Goyer did go pretty woke in later years to boot. And what he said about She-Hulk and did with Superman was inexcusable.

Now, here's the 2nd with Len Strazewski, and some of what he tells is far more impressive what Goyer had to say, and tells quite a bit about what went wrong at the time when the editors decided they didn't want to sell according to merit in the early 90s. This is about both the 1991 miniseries and the regular series the followed the next year:

Q4. Was this series received well by fans, and DC alike?

Fans liked the 1991 series and most DC editors ignored it.

Q5. And what about the 1992 series? What's the story behind that?

(After the 1991 series,) Brian and I proposed the 1992 continuing series set in the present. Mike Parobeck worked with me on THE FLY and also on the mini-series, and the 1992 series was created with him in mind. He designed the look of all the characters for the series.

Q6. And was the 1992 series well-received?

Fans universally loved the 1992 series and DC editors hated it because they (as a group) had convinced themselves that no one was interested in older heroic characters. History has proved them wrong, of course.

What's additonally ironic is that at least a few of the older characters who weren't slaughtered during Zero Hour were put to use in JSA, and when that occurred, no complaints were made, and the editors didn't balk at Goyer/Robinson/Johns making use of them. One could validly wonder if Strazewski wasn't PC enough for their tastes that Carlin for one had to be so petty. There is one part here that's unfortunate, however:

Q9. Regarding the lineup of the 1992 series, why were characters such as Dr Fate, Power Girl or the Star-Spangled Kid not included? Were there plans to have them appear in the future?

No special reason not to include them. Dr Fate would have shown up eventually. Power Girl and Star-Spangled Kid never interested me much.

With all due respect, it's ludicrous to say they "never interested" you much when it all depends what talent you can bring to the table and what stories you can build around them. Although, the reason why Power Girl wasn't in those 10 issues was because the disgraced Gerard Jones was holding her hostage to his repellent stories in JLA. As for Star-Spangled Kid, a creation of Jerry Siegel, the only problem there was that Roy Thomas had already put Sylvester Pemberton to death towards the end of Infinity Inc, though if anybody talented enough wanted to, there were zillions of decent ways to resurrect the guy from the grave (and Thomas himself may have once said he'd regretted what he did with Pemberton). Instead, DC editors allowed Johns to exploit the role for his female counterpart creation, Courtney Whitmore, and for some reason, if there was any character in the past decade whom editors didn't demand be given a PC costume design unlike what Starfire sadly got, it was Johns' creation, who wore a tank top outfit, begging the question, why does he get a pass while other writers/artists don't on such issues? Now, here's what Strazewski addressed in regards to the late Mike Parobeck's art:

Q12. Some fans have stated that Mike's JSA work was "too cartoony". Personally, I thought it fit perfectly, but do you have an opinion?

As noted above. He was brilliant and his style is now the most copied style in comics. Among others, DC Executive Editor Mike Carlin said Mike's work was not appropriate for super-heroes and that was one reason why the JSA series was cancelled. Carlin also said he didn't like my writing. He was mistaken.

Again, Carlin was clearly a bad omen for comicdom as an editor, if anything, and some of the later projects he worked on certainly played quite a part in draining all that made DC/Marvel work in the first place. And as I may have noted before, if older characters like Dr. Strange and Mr. Fantastic could be loved by so many readers back in the day, then it's false to say nobody liked reading about older heroes.

Q13. Have you read the current JSA series, by David Goyer and Geoff Johns? If so, what is your opinion?

I haven't read it and probably will not. It would be unfair, I think, to do so. If it is really good, I'd be jealous. If it is really bad, I'd be angry. If it was mediocre, I'd be sad. I've met the creators and they seem like bright, creative, young guys. I am sure they are doing as well as their editors allow them.

Hopefully, he didn't read it and years afterwards, I myself reevaluated whatever I did read from Goyer/Johns/Robinson and realized it was grossly overrated to begin with, and otherwise insulting to the intellect. And Johns later willingly took part in the time-altering crossover Flashpoint, which led to the New52, and in the process, erased his stories from continuity for the sake of a new one that led nowhere fast, and was eventually reversed along with at least a few other horrible mistakes like Identity Crisis. But by then, it was long too late, and the damage Johns in particular engineered on his part was truly reprehensible.

As far as I know, Carlin's never apologized for being such a hypocrite, and of course, neither have Goyer/Robinson/Johns. If Strazewski got alienated from comicdom because of all that, it's understandable. Some PC advocates for decades have really brought things down to insufferable levels, and repairing all that will take an epoch. For now, I hope Strazewski's JSA stories will be reprinted in the DC Finest archives, and as for the later JSA, that's best avoided and forgotten.

Back issue bins can turn up interesting items, but why not trade collections?

CTV News wrote about what people find in back issue bins, at conventions like FCBD and the Calgary Expo:

If you’re the right kind of geek, there’s a good chance you’ve spent some time lately rooting through comic book back issue bins.

Calgary Expo and Free Comic Book Day are just freshly behind us.

Maybe you were hoping the next flip would bring you a particular something on your list for a mere dollar or two.

Maybe a successful dive through the cheap reads means getting exactly issues 520 and 521 of Journey Into Mystery.

Or maybe you were flipping aimlessly, and it was by the Comic Book Gods’ good grace you hit on the “fear-filled final issues” of that specific Marvel Comics series that someone else either didn’t want anymore or couldn’t sell at face value.

It was a rescue mission, regardless.

How comic book collectors approach it is what can vary, says Bill Bateman from Alpha Comics in Calgary.

“While some are looking for anything to fill in the blanks in their collections, others are looking for that elusive rare book that may have been missed by the store,” Bateman told CTV News.

“Some people show up with a binder of notes showing what they’re missing, (while) some have apps on their phones that do the job a lot faster, and some just know all of the books well enough.”

Sure, there can be gems to find in back issue bins, but if the same issues have been reprinted in trade collections, why must we hear about would-be collectors zeroing in almost entirely on said bins and not searching for paperback/hardcovers reprinting the very same issues? Why not even whether anybody wants specific issues reprinted, if they haven't yet been? That's what I never seem to see these news outlets bring up, nor do they interview people who do. But trade collections or paperback/hardcovers are what comprise the bulk of my collection now, and I think it's working a lot better that way, because thanks to the Marvel Epic Collections and the more recently launched DC Finest archives, I now own hundreds, perhaps thousands of old issues reprinted through these forms of collections for older comics. And these news companies don't want to talk about how great those can be for everybody who hopes to acquire a complete run of various classic series? That's just the problem here.

Rhiannon Mesler says comic book bin diving “runs on the same machinery that powers a slot machine.”

Likewise, the University of Lethbridge marketing professor and expert in consumer behaviour and decision-making says, “the same machinery social media platforms have spent fifteen years optimizing.”

“What makes it irresistible isn’t the find. It’s the unpredictability,” she says.

“Neuroscientists have shown that the brain’s dopamine system fires hardest not when reward arrives, but when reward arrives unexpectedly.

“And that the dopamine signal actually peaks when the odds are roughly 50-50, when you genuinely don’t know whether the next comic in the box is going to be ‘The One.’”

They make it sound more like a game of hide-and-seek than searching for the best reading material. Another clue the speculator mentality plays a part in this whole affair, which effectively ruins any attempt to sound convincing in their fandom.

In addition to the above, ComicBook also told about a guy who, with aid from his dad, managed to purchase at least 400 of the Amazing Spider-Man issues printed up till around the mid-90s:

Many times, comic book collectors are only interested in building a collection for bragging rights or to hopefully one day make money off of the collectibles. However, there are other times when a collector has a more personal reason for collecting memorabilia, and it has a purer meaning than just looking for the big bucks. In some cases, the idea of collecting comics or other items of memorabilia is passed down through the generations. In those cases, it is more about the relationship between a person and their parents, and that makes completing a collection something that means so much more.

This was the case for a Redditor known as joeltheconner, who just revealed that he finally completed his Amazing Spider-Man run of the first 400 issues. He then added that he has his father to thank for this fact.

In his post, joeltheconner wrote that his dad was a comic book collector and would take him to comic shops when he was a kid. However, he said that he was never as interested in comics until he was nine years old. “At the age of 9. My dad gave me a copy of ASM 300 to read. I was hooked instantly,” he wrote. “From then, we started collecting together. For two years we took our vacations to Chicago so we could go to the big convention up there.”

Around 1998, he said he lost interest and stopped collecting, and then moved on. However, he admitted there was something his dad had said to him before that he thought was cool. They discussed having the full run of a specific comic book title. He chose Amazing Spider-Man and decided he would collect the run of the first 400 issues. That led to a few years ago, when his dad asked if he was still interested in completing that collection. His dad then did something that meant the world to him.

His dad had his “prized” Silver Surfer comics, and he offered to sell those to the local shop to get credit so that his son could work on finishing his Amazing Spider-Man run. “I honestly tried to talk him out of it, but it sounded like a really fun thing for him and I to do together again,” he wrote. “From the first time I stepped back into a shop, it took me right back and I was hooked again. 2 years later, today I bought the last book that I needed to complete the run.”

That book was Amazing Spider-Man #2, which was the first appearance of the Vulture and which was the first book where Spider-Man fought a superpowered villain (Chameleon was the first villain in the debut issue). This man’s dad gave up a prized possession to work with his son to help fulfill a dream. It was obvious that it meant the world to this man. “It’s so hard sometimes for sons to tell their fathers what they mean to them, and I’m going to figure out a way to really tell him,” he wrote. “But thank you, Dad. I owe more to you in this life than I could never repay.”

While it's great for dads and sons to do all sorts of things together, it's simply ludicrous how somebody would like to get as much of Spidey when it mattered in pamphlets, but not in trade collections, which at this point is precisely what I own. As of now, I own, for example, the first 12 ASM Epic archives, and have plenty more coming after that, and hope the ASM run will be more or less completed eventually, so that then, I can try to buy complete sets myself, though admittedly, at this point I'm hesitant to buy those collecting the Clone Saga, which, while it may not be as awful as some other artistic humiliations to come down the pike later, was still very damaging to the Spidey legacy, and certainly the part where Peter assaulted Ben Reilly in frustration and accidentally injured Mary Jane when she tried to get him to stop, after which Peter just ran out of the laboratory in horror instead of doing what he could to mend the damage to MJ. That kind of scene is far more reprehensible than claiming Ben was the protagonist all along between 1975-95 (and it was soon confirmed by writers that Peter was the protagonist within that time frame, not Ben, in their efforts to apologize to Spider-fans they alienated).

And I have plenty more Epic Collection and Finest archives I've bought, including a few dedicated to Superman's series and spinoffs, all 3 for Black Panther, several for Daredevil, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Wonder Woman, Catwoman, Dr. Strange, Justice Society/League, Punisher, Luke Cage, X-Men, Capt. America, Thor, Hawkman, Defenders, Moon Knight and even Excalibur. I also have several omnibuses to boot. And I hope other Spidey spinoffs like the 1976-98 Spectacular will see some Epic archives eventually too. That's what serious "collectors" should really be buying, and considering the back issues are highly likely to become increasingly expensive over time, if they really want to read this stuff, that's why they'll buy the trade collections.

So again, why are we still seeing this otherwise absurd news about people searching for back issues instead of paperbacks/hardcovers? That's another huge letdown with modern news coverage of comidom. Because in the end, it only hints they still don't take the medium seriously, otherwise, they would talk about all these reprint collections and how they can introduce new generations to older classics as a great reading pastime. And this demonstrates how the MSM continues to belittle the medium, by not highlighting a far more convenient approach to collecting notable stories of the past decades by today's standards. Unless something is done to dissuade speculators and collectors from back issues and try trade collections instead, the problem's going to continue for at least another decade or three.

Len Strazewski passes away at 71

The Columbia Chronicle of Chicago announced that Len Strazewski, a professor and news writer for the AMA who wrote several comics in the 1990s, and co-created Jesse Quick as the teen daughter for the Golden Age Johnny Quick and Liberty Belle with the late artist Mike Parobeck, passed away at 71 years of age:

Len Strazewski, a Columbia College professor emeritus and comic book writer known for his work on “The Flash,” died Monday, April 27, at 71.

Strazewski died peacefully in an Evanston nursing home following months of infections and hospital stays, Kevin O’Reilly, the son of his longtime partner, shared in a Facebook post.

Strazewski spent more than two decades at Columbia where he became a defining figure in the journalism program as a professor, mentor and administrator. He also built a career in comics, writing for DC and contributing to titles including “The Flash,” “Starman” and “Justice Society of America.”

When it comes to Flash and Starman, yes, he wrote at least one story for both, though it should be noted that the latter was the 1988-92 series primarily written by Roger Stern, starring a newer character named Will Payton, coming several years before the pretentious James Robinson was allowed to make mockery of everything with his overrated take, which starred a son of the Golden Age character Ted Knight, named Jack. Stern's series has yet to be reprinted, from what I know, and while it may not be perfect, I'd sooner read all of that specific Starman series than what Robinson wrote during 1994-2001; a post-Zero Hour concoction as it was. I don't think any of the forced replacement characters that came along in the wake of that shoddy crossover worked out well, because, simply put, they weren't introduced organically.

Outside the newsroom and classroom, Strazewski wrote for DC Comics and was part of projects spanning dozens of titles.

In 2013, he told Chicago Talks that he estimated he had written between 160 and 200 comics. Part of his work was on display at Columbia’s campus at the time.

He said he got into journalism because of Superman. “The job of reporter and journalist seemed to be a suitable profession for a young man because Clark Kent did it,” he said.

Yes, but for many years, there's just far too many journalists influenced by J. Jonah Jameson and Bethany Snow. Maybe Strazewski had a great idea working as a contributor to medical news, rather than political per se. Something that rather unsurprisingly isn't explored here is that back in 1993, the DC editor Mike Carlin cancelled Strazewski's Justice Society series after 10 issues because he didn't think they should be writing stories starring older heroes, and possibly despised Strazewski's writing and Parobeck's artwork too. And this was at a time when Marvel had been publishing Doctor Strange, easily the oldest protagonist in their universe, for many years as a series. Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four could easily come 2nd in terms of age at Marvel for "field warriors", and I'm sure there's more (Wolverine, anyone?). Carlin was also an editor on the repellent Identity Crisis in 2004, and that certainly doesn't speak well for his reputation. Let's also recall at least a few of the Justice Society characters who appeared in Strazewski's series were wiped out in Zero Hour soon after, and that was kept canon for many years.

Surely one of the most important lessons to learn in the debacle involving Strazewski's Justice Society series is that editors/publishers like Carlin weren't marketing on merit. One silver lining is that Strazewski/Parobeck's creation there, Jesse Quick, went on during the following decade to become a recurring co-star in the Flash as a resident lady speedster. But of course, all that went downhill after Mark Waid stopped writing, and terrible writers like Geoff Johns made things worse.

If there were any mistakes Strazewski made during his career in comicdom, it would have to have been when he wrote 2 items for the now defunct Malibu. One was the 1993 Street Fighter comic, the earliest USA adaptation of the video game franchise I know of, when, in the 3rd and last issue, he wrote Ken Masters being slain at the hands of Sagat, as though this were Mortal Kombat rather than SF. Capcom management and the fandom found that objectionable, and it was put to an end as a result, and only several years later when the Canadian Udon Entertainment took up a license did SF adaptations get better traction. Another far worse mistake was when Strazewski and the late artist Norm Breyfogle co-wrote Malibu's Prime with the disgraced Gerard Jones. I wouldn't be surprised if both Len and Norm disowned that comic later on, and stuff like that definitely tarnishes the entire Malibu output, which Marvel bought out at least a few years later, in what was obviously a huge mistake.

Apart from those errors, Strazewski's resume, though small it may be, looks okay, and his contributions to DC are to be admired. Exactly why it's a terrible shame later writers and editors took repellent directions with some of the characters he worked on. So Strazewski's a writer who can be appreciated - certainly a lot more than some of the other figures he worked with, and it's to be hoped that someday, more sensible creators will be able to do justice for his writings as much as previous generations of the past century.

Gerry Conway dead at 73

Conway, one of the most notable comics writers to come about in the past 60 years, yet also sadly one of the most vehemently leftist, has passed on at age 73. According to ArtThreat:

Gerry Conway, the legendary comic book writer who created the Punisher and penned the iconic death of Gwen Stacy, has passed away today at age 73. The Brooklyn-born icon shaped Marvel’s entire narrative trajectory over five decades. [...]

At just 19 years old, Conway took over The Amazing Spider-Man series, replacing Stan Lee himself. He wrote the flagship title for over three years, producing some of the most consequential Spider-Man stories ever published. During his run, Peter Parker matured from a teenager into an adult grappling with real emotional stakes and devastating losses. Conway understood that superhero stories worked best when characters suffered authentic consequences.

His masterpiece came in Amazing Spider-Man #121, where the Green Goblin murdered Peter Parker’s beloved girlfriend Gwen Stacy after discovering Spider-Man’s secret identity. This moment became the defining tragedy of the Spider-Man mythos, influencing the character’s psychology for decades. Conway didn’t shy away from showing that heroism carries costs.

Be that as it may at the time, this glosses over how, according to author Sean Howe's history book from about 15 years ago, Gwen Stacy's death did cause controversy with some circles, as Stan Lee attended a college convention at the time, and some of the audience was furious. Conway said that after Lee "threw him to the wolves", Conway wasn't up to attending conventions himself for a while. This led to a compromise where Conway himself, IIRC, wrote up the story in 1975 where a clone of Gwen Stacy was developed by the Jackal, and in what became more notorious 2 decades later, the Ben Reilly clone of Peter Parker himself. But was Stacy's death really the most defining tragedy in Spidey history? What about uncle Ben Parker's? Stan's premise was that Peter felt so guilty for not stopping the burglar at the studio building earlier, he decided to become a dedicated crimefighter to try and prevent similar tragedies from occurring. He may have failed to save both Gwen and her dad George later, but the whole notion Gwen's murder at the hands of the Green Goblin was what literally or solely defined Spidey, is an unsurprising exaggeration.

Gerry Conway, working with artists John Romita Sr. and Ross Andru, introduced the Punisher in The Amazing Spider-Man #129 in February 1974. What began as a one-off antagonist evolved into Marvel’s most iconic anti-hero. Frank Castle was originally hired to kill Spider-Man, but Conway gave the character moral agency and a tragic backstory. Later, with artist Tony DeZuniga, he fully developed the Punisher’s origin story in Marvel Preview #2.

The Punisher became far more than a Spider-Man villain. Today, the character anchors multiple film and television franchises. Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige highlighted how the Punisher inspired Daredevil and other MCU projects. Conway’s willingness to create morally complex characters transformed how comics approached storytelling.

But this glosses over how Conway, in all his regrettable far-leftism, later disowned Frank Castle and condemned anybody who appreciated the justice-dedicated direction Frank stood for. More on which anon. For now, here's something very awkward that comes up:

Conway brought unprecedented emotional maturity to mainstream comics. He didn’t treat superhero stories as simple escapism. Instead, he explored how ordinary humans cope with supernatural power, loss, and moral responsibility. His work on Tomb of Dracula (which launched Dracula into Marvel canon) and supernatural tales proved comics could handle darker, grittier storytelling. He elevated Carol Danvers in Ms. Marvel #1, laying groundwork for her eventual transformation into Captain Marvel. Conway fundamentally changed how heroes were written across both Marvel and DC Comics, where he co-created Firestorm and wrote Justice League of America for eight years.

And this is where they really make a clumsy claim. Conway never wrote Carol up as the kind of sex-negative figure "feminist" writers of the past 15 years forced her into for the sake of a woke agenda, while appropriating the role of Ms. Marvel for the sake of Islamist propaganda. Conway, galling leftist though he was, did at least depict Carol with dignity as a woman, and artist Dave Cockrum on his part made her beautiful. That's the real way to respect women, though I do wonder if Conway himself changed drastically in the decade before he passed on. And if so, that's a terrible shame. His kowtowing to a woke position on the Punisher certainly suggests what else he might've thought of his own past writings and creations by extension, and that includes Power Girl from 1976 in the DCU.

Now, here's what Comic Book Club has to say, and at least 2 parts to take issue with here:

Along with co-creating The Punisher, Conway is likely best known for his work on the notorious Clone Saga, where he created Ben Reilly and the Jackal. However, a far more impactful story for the publisher was writing the story “The Night Gwen Stacy Died” in The Amazing Spider-Man. He’s also credited with launching Carol Danvers as Ms. Marvel, and pursuant to the recent DC/Marvel crossovers, is responsible for writing what is considered the first ever: Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man. [...]

More recently, in 2020 Conway spoke out about the misappropriation of The Punisher emblem, helping launch a drive to take back in the symbol during the prime of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Wrote Conway, “For too long, symbols associated with a character I co-created have been co-opted by forces of oppression and to intimidate black Americans. This character and symbol was never intended as a symbol of oppression. This is a symbol of a systematic failure of equal justice. It’s time to claim this symbol for the cause of equal justice and Black Lives Matter.”

When leftists want to, they can sure retain some pretty selective memories about what they believe makes a great political position to admire a writer for. And while Conway did conceive the premise that led to the 1995 Clone Saga storyline, he wasn't actually part of the writers group that did all that mess years later. Terry Kavanaugh was one, and Tom deFalco might've been another, though he was certainly EIC at the time that embarrassment came around. What Conway did was very sad, considering how the BLM movement did more harm than good for everybody, yet some in the medium went miles out of their way to apologize for it, Conway included. And that wasn't just remaining "stuck in the past". It was also a show of contempt for many decent Americans.

Deadline says:

His work on Ms. Marvel in the late ’70s launched the series that repositioned Carol Danvers as her own cosmic hero. It established Danvers as one of the most powerful forces in the Marvel Universe and laid the groundwork for her to eventually become Captain Marvel.

I don't think he ever portrayed Carol as powerful as Thor or the Hulk, let alone Superman. Nor did Chris Claremont, who took over the writing shortly after. So what're they trying to prove?

The Hollywood Reporter says:

He had already been working on the Spider-Man-centric Marvel Team-Up when Stan Lee put him in charge of Marvel’s flagship Amazing Spider-Man. He was only 19 at the time. A year into the job, he wrote the two-parter “The Night Gwen Stacy Died,” which killed off Peter Parker’s girlfriend Gwen Stacy and the villain Green Goblin, too. It is considered by many to be one of the most important stories ever published by Marvel, one that still resonates today. A few months later, Conway introduced Frank Castle, aka the vigilante The Punisher, as well as the villain the Jackal. He was so prolific in the 1970s that if you read a Marvel or DC comic back then, there was a very reasonable chance it was written by him.

Oh, he wasn't the only one. There was also Marv Wolfman, Len Wein, Steve Englehart and Roy Thomas, and the former told the following:

Wolfman was at first a competitor for writing assignments opposite Conway, later becoming a friend. Posting on Facebook Monday, Wolfman recalled struggling to break into comics and getting work and said it was Conway’s feedback that turned things arounds for him. But accepting feedback from a young teenager was a hit to his ego.

“I was like 19 or 20. Gerry was like 14,” Wolfman wrote. “Why should I listen to this kid? Putting aside ego the answer was simple. He was getting lots of assignments and I wasn’t.”

Wolfman would later become not only a key Marvel writer, working Tomb of Dracula and Fantastic Four, as well as also acting briefly as an editor in chief, he in the 1980s was DC’s top writer, creating New Teen Titans and Crisis in Infinte Earths.

After his unsatisfying stint as Marvel’s editor-in-chief, Conway bounced between Marvel and DC, eventually doing more and more work at the company where he began his writing career. At DC, he wrote for its flagship title Justice League of America for eight years and co-created the heroes Firestorm and Power Girl, the latter Superman’s cousin from an alternate universe.

In 1983, he introduced Jason Todd, a character who took over the mantle of Batman sidekick Robin from the original Dick Grayson. Todd was later controversially killed off after fans voted to off him in a telephone poll, though the character was resurrected in the early 2000s.

Yes, but it wasn't with the best intentions, recalling the onetime writer Judd Winick, also a big leftist himself, admitted he lied about supposedly supporting Todd's survival in 1988 some time after Infinite Crisis went to press in 2005. And if memory serves, not only did Todd see a retcon to his origins before being offed, Killer Croc also underwent something similar - he may have been written as the murderer of Todd's parents pre-Crisis, but post-Crisis, this was changed to Two-Face.

But back to Conway, it's a real shame he had to be such a vocal leftist on social media, because decades ago, he did offer some impressive stories throughout his comics career, and unlike say, Bill Mantlo, I can't recall Conway ever being as heavy-handed with what political allusions he did put in, although when he went on to become a TV writer, I vaguely recall viewing an episode of a TV show where he did inject an allusion to the leftist standings he went by. That aside, while again, he may have proven an impressive comics writer in the time he originally worked on various Marvel/DC series, it could be said that, in a way, he disowned some of his work, and never spoke out against the modern editors like Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso, who took apart much of what even he worked hard to write up. Did it sit well with Conway how J. Michael Straczynski humiliated both Gwen and Mary Jane Watson? I can't recall him ever publicly addressing that badly-aged run on Spidey by JMS, and if Conway wouldn't defend Lee's hard work, or even Jack Kirby's, that says all you need to know how defeatist Conway proved to be in the end. And some could reasonably wonder if it's because Conway's ultra-leftism got the better of him.

All that said, it is sad Conway's gone now. And I wish he hadn't employed social media just so he could take divisive positions better left at the door. Although, in the past year or so before he passed away, Conway did seem to have stopped posting on any social media site. I suppose now that he's gone, it'll be easier to read the comics he left behind, and no longer worry about the Punisher being tainted and made a mockery of by Conway's boilerplate leftism. If anything, I would hope future generations of creators will at least learn from Conway's mistakes, and not take divisive political positions in the forseeable future.