Las Vegas specialty business closes 1 of 3 outlets after just a decade

Fox-KVVU in Las Vegas says a comics store that had been working for about a decade is shutting down in one neighborhood, though they do have 2 other locations in their ownership:

Maximum Comics’ Henderson location says it is shuttering after 10 years of business. Store owner Jay Bosworth gave several reasons the store had to make the difficult decision, including the pandemic and a hike in the cost of rent.

According to the store’s closing announcement posted on Facebook, monthly rent for their location on Marks Street near West Sunset Road was $4,200. Today, it costs them nearly double that amount, to pay the bill. [...]

Maximum Comics has two other locations in the Las Vegas Valley that the Henderson customers will be able to visit.

So here's one store that was in business for a rather short time, but luckily does have 2 other branches to operate. But there's a valid argument here that rental costs are getting too high, and if it continues, it'll be much harder for all sorts of businesses to function well. Can that be dealt with?

Update: on the other hand, here's an article from the Shawnee News-Star in Oklahoma about a store that's reopened:

After being closed for five weeks during the COVID-19 quarantine, Bibliotech Books & Comics reopened May 8 and since then customers have returned and the store has implemented measures to maintain social distancing.

According to owner Randy Grizzle, for five weeks the store was closed to the public and he couldn’t offer any online services or curbside pick up because he said most of his sales come from people browsing for books and comics.

However, Grizzle said while they were closed for five weeks, the store received a loan and could still pay their employees and other expenses. [...]

As time goes on, Grizzle said he is cautiously optimistic for the future as the community continues to navigate through the COVID-19 pandemic.

They're lucky. But if they really want the industry to survive, that's why store owners have to support all the measures I've believed in for making improvements. It can be done, and I've a feeling it might in the future.

Image's publisher writes a foolish attack on DC's choice to leave Diamond

And CBR's given him the platform on which to make his rather tasteless statement:

Image Comics Publisher Eric Stephenson has responded to DC's move to cut ties with Diamond Comic Distributors, calling it "a hasty, sociopathic decision made by people who do not care about the long-term welfare of our marketplace, let alone about comics."

What about Image? Who's to say they don't suffer the same problem? Stephenson's use of "sociopathic" reeks of bad taste, and he's making a big mistake to make such a fuss over something they could do too if there's any advantage. There is one ironic truth to his words, though: if DC under Dan DiDio brought their story merit down to such dismal levels while pretending they were actually doing fandom a favor and turning out genuine masterpieces, then that should prove they never cared about comics. But then, where were Stephenson and company, and why didn't they call out the offenders of the times for the mistakes they were making?

"DC did this without any consideration for how it would affect the rest of the marketplace," Stephenson added. He then drew comparisons to Marvel Comics buying Heroes World distributor in 1994. "When Marvel bought Heroes World and pulled their business from their other distributors, they gave notice. Not in terms of days, but months," he said. "That is not what happened here."

Stephenson ended his letter by speaking on conversations he's had with Diamond founder Steve Geppi and the rest of the Diamond team, and double-downed on how "Image doesn't operate like other publishers" and isn't beholden to parent companies like AT&T and Disney.

But if these distributors aren't part of those conglomerates - precisely what's brought down Marvel and DC alike - why does Stephenson have a problem with it? Nobody smart's saying Image should be part of a corporation, but if they want to make things easier on their own distribution, why not look for distributors who aren't beholden to conglomerates either and make deals with them?

To make matters worse, the News-Tribune of Rome, Georgia ran a column by propagandist Andrew Smith, who's taking Stephenson's side, along with that of any store manager who seems to believe solely Diamond can offer all the benefits other distributors supposedly won't:

“What?” I hear you say. “I thought monopolies were bad things! Shouldn’t everyone be pleased that there will be more competition?”

Short answer: No. The comics industry operates on a shoestring, where the fall of a single domino can cause untold havoc. And its weak link has always been distribution — the very thing DC’s move subverts. Also, the two new distributors are outgrowths of retail stores with large mail-order businesses, meaning they were and are competition for all the other comic shops … who have just become their customers.

Ominous, eh? Nobody summed up this point of view better than Eric Stephenson, publisher of Image Comics, in a tweet:

“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.”

That famous Santayana quote is particularly apt in this situation. Because not only does the comics industry have a history of distribution catastrophes, this specific catastrophe has happened before!

Scene: early 1990s. There are a number of comics distributors, including No. 1, Diamond; No. 2, Capital City; and No. 3, Heroes World. But then, much like DC today, Marvel Comics decided to go exclusive with one of them (Heroes World).

Excuse me? I thought there were at least two of them (Lunar and UCS), and Smith just said so? All that aside, it sounds like somebody or some bunch of buffoons have a problem with a store deciding to try out expanding into the distribution business. In other words, all must operate only according to specific dictates. Diamond is the sole distributor, and that's square it; all others must be stores only and never change their approach. This reeks of jumbled logic, which continues with the following:

The result was carnage. With everybody but Heroes World losing the No. 1 publisher — roughly 30-40% of the market — the other distributors scrambled for what was left, offering sweetheart deals to other publishers (notably No. 2 DC Comics) to sign exclusive deals.

A number of distributors and even some comic shops went belly up. By 1997, the last distributor standing was Diamond. Marvel (and all the other publishers) meekly signed with them. And that’s how Diamond became a near-monopoly.

But, as noted, that’s not the only ugly distribution story in the history of comics. Especially before 1978, back when comics were distributed by the same people who distribute magazines. In those days, the distributors held veto power over the entire industry.

Wow, so there was no good source at the time? Only bad? Hey, if they'd wanted to, I'm sure the publishers could find several more distribution services of varying degrees who'd give them all the sweetheart deals without some sort of faustian exclusivity clause in the contract. But, contrary to what this column states, and as noted a few months ago, most publishers were turning to Diamond by the turn of the century, hardly an example of drafting deals with at least a few different ones. What's really annoying about the article is how it all comes down to making it sound like Diamond's the only company that should serve as a distributor, and it's impossible to modify anything for the better. Not very inspiring. Does that mean that by today's standards, it's okay if Diamond holds veto power over an entire industry? Oh wait, that's exactly what Smith's trying to lecture us with! Above all, I can't find much logic in this laughable piece. Which goes on to say the following regarding the Comics Code of the 50s:

For example, when the draconian Comics Code of 1954 was created, it would have only been words on paper without the distributors as enforcers. The national distributors refused to move any books without the Comics Code Seal of Approval (except for family-friendly Dell), which put the final nail in the coffin for EC Comics.

What was EC Comics? Only the finest collection of artists and writers ever assembled in the history of the medium. Legendary creators who were responsible for books like “Tales from the Crypt” (horror), “Frontline Combat” (war), “Shock SuspenStories” (crime), “Weird Science Fiction” (SF) and “MAD” (humor).

Some argue the Comics Code of 1954 was aimed like a gun at EC Comics (and I am among them), but it would have been a misfire without the distributors, who left the publisher’s books languishing in warehouses and on New York docks. EC even tried to rebound with a line of Code-friendly books, including “Extra!” (two-fisted reporters), “M.D.” (medical drama) and even “Psychoanalysis” (seriously). But no soap; the distributors ignored them, too. Eventually EC had only “MAD” left, which was a magazine outside the Code’s reach.

EC wasn’t the only publisher to drop dead after the Code. The Comics Code was an extinction-level event, predicated on public outrage over horror and crime books, and abetted by audience-stealing inventions like television. There were likely other factors too, but there is no doubt that the distributors were the muscle in this drama.

If the implication is that comicdom can only rely on specialty distributors within its own industry (which, if the given info is correct, they are anyway), and all this at a time when adult entertainment is no longer opposed except by modern censorship advocates - the very crowd that caused the problems back in the 50s - then that's pure comedy gold too. Besides, didn't several other publishers throw EC under the bus, if it helped oust some competition for them? Which was a mistake, of course, just like Stephenson's making now to oppose competition in the making. Let's also note Smith, despite his alleged disapproval of the CCA, has signaled support for Wertham-ish censorship in the past, and never did anything to defend Frank Miller when he crafted Holy Terror, which was rejected as a Batman story when Paul Levitz was in charge of DC.

The Code wasn’t the only body blow against the industry in the 1950s, and distribution was central to that story, too. Scene: 1957 …

Before Marvel was Marvel, it had other names, including “Atlas” for most of the ‘50s. That’s because publisher Martin Goodman launched his own distribution company in 1951, the Atlas News Company. By 1952 all of the books published by Goodman’s 59 shell companies (you read that right) bore the Atlas logo on the cover.

But in 1956 Goodman had a change of heart, dissolved Atlas and turned to the American News Company to distribute his books. Which turned out to be a really, really bad decision. The following year American lost a restraint-of-trade lawsuit brought by the Justice Department, and essentially evaporated.

With no other choice, Goodman was forced to beg Independent News to distribute his books. “Beg,” because Independent News was owned by arch-rival National Periodical Publications, known today as DC Comics. Independent said, “Sure, we’ll distribute your books. But you can only publish eight books a month, losers! Haw! Haw! Haw!”

OK, I wasn’t there, so I don’t really know what they said. But Atlas, which had been publishing 50 or 60 books a month was restricted to eight or so until they wiggled out of their contract … in 1968.

This is disputable too, but in any event, that "joke" he's making there is disgusting. And I'm not sure Marvel in its Atlas days was publishing that many. I know there were several sci-fi anthologies mostly written by Stan Lee, but this was at a time when superhero comics had cooled in popularity after WW2 ended for a time, and during 1951-56, few were produced outside of Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman at DC. From what I know, Lee told Comics Interview's Darrel Boatz in the late 80s that in the Atlas era, though they may have had a bundle of books at one point, they didn't achieve any breakout successes until the time Journey Into Mystery came along under the Marvel banner, and Fantastic Four in 1961. So I estimate the majority of whatever had been published under the Atlas banners was cancelled by that time, as sales simply weren't delivering the goods they hoped for. The article by Smith certainly can't be taken at face value, and it's attitude, again, is insulting.

Lastly, I draw your attention to “Blazing Combat,” an awesome war magazine produced in 1965 by Warren Publishing, famous for “Creepy,” “Eerie” and “Vampirella.” The reason “Combat” was so good was that it was essentially a continuation of EC’s war comics, with many of the same creators — including Frank Frazetta, John Severin and Wally Wood — and a pronounced, realistic, war-is-hell vibe.

That latter part got them in trouble with the U.S. military, which was ramping up the Vietnam War at the time and was struggling for public support. So “Blazing Combat” was blocked from sale on military bases. But worse, the American Legion lobbied the distributors to give “Blazing Combat” the EC Comics treatment. And sure enough, the book began being left on docks and in warehouses.

“Blazing Combat” was canceled with (counts on fingers) issue #4.

What's weird about this is how any mention of a lawsuit over mishandling of property goes unmentioned. If any distributors were actually leaving products to rot at the docks, wouldn't that be illegal and grounds for action in court? Something just doesn't add up here. Also, even if unjustified steps were being taken against Warren's comic, something tells me this stance stems from an anti-war position - that is, an objection to defeating communists in Vietnam - and if it had been a comic supporting the war being oppressed, no complaints would be filed.

Fortunately, the national periodical distributors no longer have anything to do with comic books, which are handled by specialized distributors like Diamond. But as retailer reaction to DC’s decision shows, it’s still a fragile food chain.

Well gee whiz, if DC were seeking business with a distributor who'd actually leave their products to gather dust, wouldn't that be their loss, and not that of those who choose to stick with Diamond? I'm sorry, but this is, quite simply, apologia for monopolies, and opposition to competition. Besides, today, legal action can be taken against distributors for mishandling of goods, and if the distributors really had responsibility for abandoning products rather than returning them or refusing association altogether, they could be sued for damages. Above all, any industry that can't handle distribution or expand it properly is bound for collapse sooner or later, and anybody who really wants it to survive would be making the argument that something's got to be mended and business strategists have to get to work. This lazy article certainly isn't it.

The most mind-boggling part of the "argument" is that it makes it sound as though all distribution services outside comicdom proper are prone to corruption unchanged, and only distributors inside can be relied upon, even if it's just one mere company. But Diamond's halt on business a few months ago suggests otherwise. The whole muddled argument reeks of insularity, and that's just what brought down comicdom. DC's choice to change distribution to other businesses is not wrong in itself. But if they continue to rely on writers like Brian Bendis, who may be leaving Superman but not DC as a whole, that's what'll bring down their sales and marketing, not distribution choices. Similarly, if they refuse to change their publication format, that too is something bound to hurt them in the long run.

Denny O'Neil, RIP

The UK Mail reports that one of comicdom's most notable writers/editors, famous for restoring the darker approach to Batman successfully from an artistic angle, has died at 81:

The legendary comics writer and editor Dennis 'Denny' O'Neil died Thursday at 81.

O'Neil is best known for his work writing Batman comic books for DC, and he later took on an editing role for the caped crusaders tales from 1986–2000.

He also wrote for other iconic comic book heroes, this time for Marvel, including Spider-Man and Iron Man.

O'Neil died at his home of natural causes, according to his family.

Maybe the most interesting moment in his career would be his extra job in the toy industry:

He was also involved in naming Optimus Prime, the leader of the Transformers series.

He had some involvement with GI Joe to boot, both the comics in editing, and possibly the cartoon series in the mid-80s. And while not without his flaws in the past, I do think he had significant successes, certainly far more than today's smug SJWs are experiencing. Compared to modern comics, the stories with political themes he wrote in Green Lantern/Arrow and the late 80s Question series provide more to think about, and were nowhere near as heavy-handed as what's been seen in the past decade. And of course, he did have significant moments at Marvel too, certainly with Daredevil and Iron Man.

Of course, there are more recent moments in history that bother me, such as this one reported by Variety in their obituary:

In December 2018, O’Neil was the keynote speaker at The Jimmy Carter Presidential Library’s “Comic Books and Social Justice” event and Phoenix, Ariz. declared May 25 as “Dennis O’Neil Day” in 2019.

I really wish he hadn't attended a meeting at an institution founded by one of the USA's worst presidents, who enabled the ayatollah to take over Iran in 1979. And the conference was done under the banner of "social justice", which today is becoming a tasteless phrase.

All that said, O'Neil was decidedly one of the better writers of his time, deserves credit for developing Optimus Prime for Hasbro's Transformers line, and will be remembered far better than some of the would-be creators who came along in later times.

Bendis is leaving Superman, but should also leave DC entirely

Good news has come about, that overrated Bendis, who spent years trolling the Marvel audience, ever since he got his mitts on the Avengers, has announced he's leaving the Superman franchise. As a Super-fan, I find that relieving, but it'll be far better if he's willing to make a departure from DC - and Marvel - entirely. It says here:

...He has said from the beginning that he did not plan to stay on his DC titles as long as he did at Marvel, since he has so many DC properties he wants to get around to working on before his exclusive contract is over.

Last I looked, that list included the Legion of Super-Heroes, where he made at least one race-swap of a cast member, all for the sake of diversity and wokeness. This will simply not do. He's not suited for any title or character at DC, and if he still remains, there's no doubt he'll cause more harm elsewhere, right down to the most obscure cast member. In fact, do they intend to keep Superman's abandon of his secret identity in place as a status quo long after he's left? If they do, they'll be succumbing to the political correctness he's long stood for. Which includes the following:

During his time on the Superman titles, Bendis introduced new villains and some new supporting cast members, aged up Jon Kent from 10-year-old to teenager, and sent the boy to join the Legion of Super-Heroes. He did so by playing off of the return of Jor-El as the villain Mr. Oz, set up by writers like Geoff Johns and Dan Jurgens in the years immediately preceding Bendis's arrival at DC.

Ah, is that so? Johns and Jurgens concocted the notion of depicting Superman's biological dad showing up as a villain? That's far worse than reviving him, and it wouldn't be acceptable if uncle Ben Parker underwent such a transformation either. This is certainly telling. One of the villains Bendis cast (Rogol Zaar) was little more than a rehash of a premise used in the late 60s, when an intergalactic criminal called Black Zero was alleged to be the destroyer of Krypton. Such ideas were little more than early, desperate attempts to be "taken seriously", and ultimately didn't stick, for good reason, and if Black Zero's premise wasn't accepted as canon in the past, Rogol Zaar's shouldn't be today. If this isn't reversed, that'll be very bad.

That's why every title Bendis is assigned to must be boycotted. It's the same with Greg Rucka, if he's still on the Lois Lane spinoff he was working on. These overrated writers have to be informed their PC-laden writing is simply not acceptable, and the best way to do that is to vote with your wallet where the money will go.

DC's Young Adult projects denigrate Steve Trevor

CBR's gushing galore over the young-adult rendition of Wonder Woman in a graphic novel called Tempest Tossed, which revisions her classic boyfriend Major Steve Trevor into two different men as a homosexual couple:

Sometimes a love interest, sometimes a mentor from the federal government but always a friend, Trevor serves as a living link between Diana's Amazon background and her burgeoning superhero career beyond it. In the latest DC Comics original graphic novel Wonder Woman: Tempest Tossed, by Laurie Halse Anderson and Leila del Duca, Steve Trevor has been radically reimagined as two separate characters. This change is one of the boldest, most effective revisions in the story.

After being magically cut off from Themyscira while saving refugees from a violent storm off the island's coast, Diana lands in Greece. Corralled with the rest of the refugees in subpar conditions and constantly treated with vitriolic contempt, Diana comes to the assistance of a young girl mistreated by the soldiers running the refugee camp.

Before the situation can escalate, Steve Chang arrives with his husband Trevor to defuse the confrontation in their role as official inspectors tasked by the United Nations. Steve is an Asian-American medical physician while Trevor is an African-American soldier, in keeping with the character's historical military background.

They certainly spared no expense ensuring this would involve race-swapping as much as sexual orientation-swapping. Less clear is the part about spending time at a refugee camp. Is that an allusion to the illegal immigration ruining Europe? More noticeable is that the 2 characters based on the one work for the UN, one of the most corrupt outfits in the world with a disturbing record of employees who committed sex abuse. I guess that's one thing the SJWs who exploited WW for this propaganda decided didn't require a different viewpoint than past renditions that took a superficial view of the UN as a political outfit.

There are two things that the reimagining of Steve Trevor in Tempest Tossed does well right from the start: First, it revises Diana's own Wonder Woman origin. No longer following an outsider on a glorified escort mission, Diana instead leaves home to save the lives of dozens of refugees; Trevor isn't a direct part of that equation at all. It also underscores the tragedy of being separated from home: Diana being unable to return to Themyscira is not the choice of either herself or her fellow Amazons.

It's still unclear - possibly deliberate too - who these refugees are. But it most certainly is apparent this is one of the worst examples of virtue-signaling to come down the pike in the past few years. And CBR throws their full weight behind the promotion unquestioned, ugh.

The creative team doubles not only not doesn't make Trevor a love interest for Diana, but eliminates the possibility of his ever being one by turning him into two married individuals. This is also significant because it gives Diana her first glimpse of a loving relationship outside of her home.

Trevor had previously been reimagined as an African-American soldier by Grant Morrison and Yanick Paquette in Wonder Woman: Earth One but Steve Chang being a separate, Asian-American character is a welcome change, especially because the two characters are in a thriving, same-sex marriage.

Yep, because rejecting the opposite sex as a partner in romance and marriage is just that important. Of course, they don't mention how degrading Morrison and Paquette's take on WW was, nor how it served the Amazon princess badly. Which only shows what double-standards and cheap views they have to offer.

Still, Steve and Trevor forge a connection with Diana and serve as a bridge between both of her homes. Anderson and del Duca have taken the opportunity not just to modernize Wonder Woman and the world around her, but also make Steve Trevor provide much-needed representation for LGBTQ audiences and readers of color as separate, competent and loving characters who help show Diana Prince the good in the world beyond Themyscira.

There's so much of that now from end to end and coast to coast of the entertainment world, I'm wondering where the columnist is coming from on anything. This stuff is growing old, and they know it.

This may be not be connected to what passes for "continuity" today at DC, but it's still a considerable denigration of William Marston and Harry G. Peter's famous creations, exploiting and turning them inside out for the sake of narrow agendas.

The wokeness gang is going after the Punisher again

As the post-George Floyd protests continue (and the riots), SJWs are pursuing Marvel's most notable non-superpowered vigilante again, slamming the "appropriation" of the skull symbol by police. The awful Gizmodo has one of the most loathsome articles about this, which goes so far as to claim the skull symbol is literally based on totenkopf imagery(!):

The appropriation of comic book character Frank Castle’s skull emblem by police and the military has been an ongoing issue for Marvel Entertainment as it wrestles with the questionable embrace of the anti-hero’s extrajudicial violence by real state and federal employees. But as the “Punisher skull” has re-emerged on officer’s uniforms in current crackdowns on anti-racism and police brutality protests, the publisher is being forced to confront it once more.

As demonstrations continue this week in the wake of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s killing of George Floyd, in all 50 U.S. states and across the world, pictures of two Detroit PD officers allegedly wearing special operations badges emblazoned with the skull designed by writer Gerry Conway, artist John Romita, Sr. and Ross Andru went viral on social media. As a reminder, the Punisher skull logo itself was inspired by similar imagery of the totenkopf, the skull-and-crossbones used by military forces in the German Empire and, most infamously, the Nazi SS, in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Excuse me? I've checked what the totenkoph symbol looks like, and Frank Castle's jumpsuit symbol looks nothing like it, and doesn't even have crossbones. For good ol' Frank's outfit, it's just a skull with long teeth. The Gizmodo writer appears to be basing his allegation on the words of a Twitter poster who claims it resembles the National Socialists' abomination-representing symbol, that originally came around during the early 19th century. I'm sorry, but this is political correctness at its worst, coming from someone who clearly believes - as Gerry Conway sadly seems to these days - that Frank Castle was a huge mistake that should never have been. The columnist even has a problem with Marvel not officially commenting on the subject:

But while this is far from the first time Marvel has had to contend with the Punisher’s imagery being wielded like this, its return to prominence in the current protests against police brutality makes the seeming lack of any public response by the publisher disconcerting.

When asked about its stance on U.S. police officers using its logo – the imagery of a murderous, extrajudicial vigilante – a spokesperson for the comics publisher indicated to Gizmodo that while it is “taking seriously” any unlicensed use of its imagery by officers, in terms of making any new statements, Marvel Comics was standing by the message delivered on social media by the Marvel Entertainment account this past Sunday: “We stand against racism. We stand for inclusion. We stand with our fellow Black employees, storytellers, creators and the entire Black community. We must unite and speak out.” (The same message was shared on other Disney-owned subsidiary accounts, including the official channels for Disney+, Marvel Studios, Star Wars and more.)

When asked about the publisher’s further commitments beyond this statement, Gizmodo was pointed to Tuesday’s news that Marvel Comics’ owners, the Walt Disney Company, would be making a $5 million (£3.95 million) donation to “support nonprofit organisations that advance social justice,” starting with $2 million (£1.58 million) of that fund going to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Well it certainly can be said that the Disney corporation's one of the worst offenders in political correctness, and they've made sure to include BLM on their list for contributions. To make matters worse, the aforementioned Conway, as reported by the UK Independent, is taking a path against the authorities' use of the symbol:

Comic book creator Gerry Conway has encouraged fans to help him reclaim The Punisher’s skull symbol from police in favour of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Over the years, the superhero’s trademark skull symbol has been co-opted by right-wing campaigners. It's most recently been spotted on police officers fighting against Black Lives Matter demonstrators during the George Floyd protests in the US.

In response, The Punisher co-creator Conway, who also wrote for The Amazing Spider-Man series, started a campaign encouraging Bame artists to work with him to reclaim the symbol.

“I’m looking for young comic-book artists of colour who’d like to participate in a small fundraising project for #BLM to reclaim the Punisher skull as a symbol of justice rather than lawless police oppression,” Conway wrote.

“To be clear, this little project is open to anyone who wants to contribute their time and effort. It’s not a paying gig, it’s intended to raise funds to support BLM. I hope to use multiple artists with a variety of styles and artistic approaches.”

Yup, he's backing a movement that's doing more harm than good for the black community. Given the chance, he'd surely throw Romita and Andru under the bus (and come to think of it, already did), since as artists, they're the ones responsible for conceiving the skull symbol visually. I wonder if Conway's sorry now he took assignments to write Batman circa 1978-84, where the Masked Manhunter usually led good relations with police staffers like Jim Gordon? If DC's editorial decides to do a story where the Gotham police department is defunded, will he be in favor of that too, in lockstep imitation of what's going on now in real life?

Here's Screen Rant's take on the topic, which says:

The fact police officers have co-opted the Punisher's logo, in particular, has always been an odd choice. Some cops have used emblems and decals of the logo to show support of Blue Lives Matter. Choosing the logo of a cold-blooded killer who takes the law into his own hands has always been bizarre as the Punisher represents everything police officer's shouldn't be. Whether it's misplaced machismo and/or a clear lack of understanding of the character's motives and history, some police officers have continued to wear the skull logo as protests continue around the United States and world. Disney has been urged by comic creators to sue police who use the logo, while Marvel recently said they were taking unauthorized use of the Punisher's logo "seriously." Even in the comics, Castle has told cops to stop using the logo.

Ugh, that earlier article they posted from last year is awful too, and even links to another one in turn declaring that Castle's a serial killer despised by every MCU cast member, despite how even Daredevil came to respect him over time, and while he may have turned him in to authorities at one point, by the time Frank's solo books came about, Matt Murdock was helping him, as seen in the first few issues of the War Journal spinoff when it debuted in 1988. So apparently, the Punisher terminating violent, murderous criminals is worse than what they're doing. Absolutely disgusting.

Even Den of Geek seems to have gotten in on the PC positions, citing a Punisher story written by Matthew Rosenberg:

The page referenced in Marvel’s official response to media requests about their plans to enforce their own trademark is from 2019’s Punisher #13, by Matthew Rosenberg, Szymon Kudransky, Antonio Febela, and Corey Petit. On the page, the Punisher castigates a group of cops with his decal on their squad car, telling them if they want someone to look up to, they should talk to Captain America.

To Rosenberg’s credit, he’s been very vocal about his support of Black Lives Matter and various groups doing work with marginalized populations on Twitter, but this page bears more than a passing resemblance to Charles Barkley’s “I am not a role model” commercial: a valuable, thought provoking statement exasperated with mass media culture, amplified into that very culture by a corporation looking to make a buck – in Barkley’s case, Nike selling shoes, and in Marvel’s, ducking responsibility for the consequences of their character’s portrayal among a group of dedicated point-missers.

All this from another site that's buying into a position that all law enforcers are inherently evil, more so than the criminals they're tasked with stopping. They may not be impressed with the story per se, but the political position they're taking is still very off-putting. They even say:

As of this writing, there are more than 2,000 results for “trump punisher” on Amazon, many of them shirts with President Trump’s signature hair piece over the Punisher logo. These shirts are the Thin Blue Punisher shirts for people who believe a pizza place without a basement was hiding a child sex trafficking ring in its basement.

And this is just more Trump-bashing, and painting certain segments of society as hysterical over nothing, and looking in all the wrong places.

Since we're on the subject, I wonder if this recent debacle is what's influencing actor Frank Grillo not to wish he could play the role as Jon Bernthal did on TV anymore. According to this Uproxx interview with Grillo:

Gathering will be tough. There won’t even be Comic-Con this year, which reminds me of how you once wanted to portray The Punisher. Is that still in your sights, now that Disney+ might start those shows back up one day?

That’s not in my trajectory now. It’s not where my life is taking me anymore, and my friend Jonny Bernthal did an amazing job. My life and what I want to do is much different now, and I think I’m outgrowing that whole kind-of Marvel and superhero thing. Joe and I have a really good little company in War Party, and we’re concentrating on action thrillers that are responsibly budgeted, and we’re very busy, knock wood, and we’ll go down the path of creating our own material and content and having a good time.

He may not get into details here, but if this was recent enough, it suggests his response was influenced by the current situation. I don't mind if he wants to "outgrow" an infatuation with the superhero adventure genre, but if politics played into this, it's honestly a shame.

Whether or not Disney/Marvel actually wish to take legal action against precincts using replicas of the Punisher logo, Business Insider's quoted a lawyer who says such a step wouldn't be effective:

But Justin Jacobson, an entertainment attorney with with the Jacobson Firm, told Business Insider that Disney and Marvel couldn't take effective legal action against officers wearing the logo unless they were also selling items that feature it.

"If you buy something and wear it, that's you're right," Jacobson said. "But action could be taken against the manufacturers or distributors of the product."

That thought leads to one potential action Disney and Marvel could take, which was pointed out by Abraham Riesman, a journalist and author of the upcoming book, "True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee."

Riesman tweeted that it was time for Disney to "stop selling Punisher merch."

While I don't care for licensed merchandise, since I feel it's only played a part in draining the quality from the zygote, as we see people in entertainment who care far more about the movie adaptations than the original comics, I think it's atrocious when a propagandist like Riesman, who glossed over the case of a former Alamo Drafthouse film staffer and defended turning Captain America into a villain, makes the case for quitting to make Punisher merchandise. He has no business commenting on the medium if that's his approach.

It's a terrible shame all these crises had to occur, and the Punisher had to get stuck in the middle of politics. What are the chances Marvel will eventually put a moratorium on Frank Castle in more ways than one going forward? Let's not think it's impossible, if they believe the current political correctness is acceptable.

Netflix adaptation of Cowboy Bebop makes a big deal out of diversity pandering, and toning down Faye Valentine's outfit

Netflix is keeping on with their now hilarious commitment to social justice pandering, as demonstrated in this shoddy interview recorded from Gizmodo, written by the same Beth Elderkin who defended politicizing Captain America in the past year. And the producer even defended where he's going with the following:

“We ain’t playing Bebop, Bebop is playing us,” Grillo-Marxuach said. That rule came from co-writer Karl Taro Greenfeld, and it embodies the spirit of this adaptation.

Wrong. Political correctness is playing him. For instance:

Other smaller changes are also being made in translation, as one would expect. For example, Faye’s revealing costume from the anime has been toned down a bit for Netflix’s costume design because, as Grillo-Marxuach put it, “we need to have a real human being wearing that.” And while the characters still smoke, the habit may be a bit less glamorized to reflect modern sensibilities. Grillo-Marxuach told us it’s about finding a balance between honoring the spirit of the original and adapting to the medium and audience.

His first mistake, implying Faye's not a human being. It may be one thing to "tone down" the outfit she wears in the anime, but it's entirely another to say a woman's not human. Evidently, he didn't even realize what he was saying. And there's more:

“You’ve got an entity that is very much a kind of gathering together of influences that were very important in post-war Japan: jazz, American pop culture, the whole sort-of cowboy thing, reality television,” Grillo-Marxuach continued. “So, you’re looking at a show that’s already a commentary on the influence of American pop culture with Japanese culture in the future, in space. And then we’re taking that and then we’re...trying to translate that not just in English, but also a format that is not the original format of the show.”

This is where the adaptation has gotten into a bit of hot water. Netflix faced criticism for having a largely white and male creative team behind Cowboy Bebop, part of an ongoing problem of diversity behind the scenes. However, Grillo-Marxuach, who is Puerto Rican, pushed back on this a bit. He noted that Cowboy Bebop creator Shinichirō Watanabe is serving as a consultant on the show, and touted fellow season one writers like the aforementioned Greenfeld and Vivian Lee-Durkin, both of whom are of Asian descent. He also said the show has been committed to diversity in front of the camera (something that Netflix’s other high-profile anime adaptation, Death Note, failed to do).

“Spike Spiegel has to be Asian. Like, you can’t Scarlett Johansson this shit,” Grillo-Marxuach stated. “We are making a show that takes place in a future that is multicultural, that is extraordinarily integrated and where those things are the norm.”

I'm afraid here too, they've goofed big time. Inspiration from the physical appearance of actor Yusaku Matsuda notwithstanding, Spike is a Jewish character, arms himself with an Israeli-made firearm (the IWI Jericho 941), and it's not like the Japanese never made manga and cartoons starring caucasians before. Also: if the Japanese by contrast aren't complaining about a white woman taking the role of Motoko in the live action adaptation of Ghost in the Shell, then it's hypocritical to keep acting like they have to run around trying to please everyone. The producer of this new live action adaptation sounds like a jelly-spined clown who can't avoid identity politics.

Screen Rant followed up on the PC angle, and they say:

After Cowboy Bebop debuted on Adult Swim, Americans started viewing anime as more than just extremely violent pornography. On top of the anime’s gargantuan legacy, Netflix’s live-action Cowboy Bebop faced a delay in production due to an injury John Cho (Spike Spiegel) suffered while filming a scene. Many fans fear another adaptation debacle equivalent to the Dragonball Evolution. The show's writers insist that their version will astutely honor the original while implementing contemporary/live-action sensibilities.

This is also disputable. Sure, there's plenty of anime and manga going overboard with obscene elements. But that doesn't mean the US audience all believes that's all the Japanese industry has to offer, and most stories for women tend to be less extreme in their elements than those aimed at men. In any case, even if Faye's outfit wasn't toned down, I still doubt this'll respect the original material. The funniest part is how the US comics adaptations for the silver screen appear to honor the source by ways of their costumes (but drown out the potential with overt politics), yet here PC sensibilities for some reason must apply.

Something a lot of people probably remember about Cowboy Bebop was the costume worn by Faye Valentine. Her iconic outfit consisted of yellow shorts, a shirt, white ankle boots, a loose red jacket, and flesh-colored stockings. In retrospect, her appearance can be described as overtly revealing. When Cowboy Bebop aired, that was very much in line with how young women in manga/anime were/are drawn. [...]

And this too is misleading. There's plenty of girls in anime drawn wearing simpler modern day outfits like jeans too. This was supposed to be a sci-fi drama in the future at least 50 years ahead, and much like Burroughs' the Warlord of Mars, people could dress in odd fashions. So SR is blanket smearing whole industries and genres in their quest for political correctness.

Then, to make matters worse, SR added a so-called op-ed where a writer claims it's entirely a good thing:

Netflix is changing an iconic aspect of Cowboy Bebop for their live-action series: Faye's costume. Cowboy Bebop is one of the most popular and beloved anime of all time, but the news that a live-action series is being produced for Netflix left many fans with pause over whether the original can be improved and what iconic details may be changed. In the case of Faye's revealing costume, however, the change is a good thing. [...]

It’s recently been announced that Cowboy Bebop will be brought to life via a live-action Netflix series. John Cho, Mustafa Shakir, and Daniella Pineda lead the series as the crew of the planet-hopping Bebop. One of the adaptation's writers, Javier Grillo-Marxuach, has opened up about some of the details regarding this new update on the classic anime. Grillo-Marxuach has spoken about how important it is to retain the classic anime’s essence, but despite being faithful to the source material there are still certain details that are going to receive alterations, one of which will be Faye Valentine’s outfit.

Faye Valentine is one of the most beloved characters on the series. She's a bounty hunter who lost her sense of self after she's struck with amnesia when pulled out of cryo-sleep. Daniella Pineda (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom) will play Faye in the series, but she's not going to look how fans remember the character. Faye’s skimpy look consisting of shorts, red jacket, and thigh-high stockings is certainly a little awkward in real life. It’s the kind of style that’s stereotypical of many anime and meant to be eye-catching to bring in audiences, but this new series operates in a different medium.

This change is actually beneficial for the character, since Faye is by no means a sexual character — despite how sexualized her outfit is. She’s someone who’s intentionally shown to not be engaged in romance throughout the series (despite theories that Faye is in love with Spike). In the anime, Faye’s gratuitous look is meant to be a way to distract her targets while she covers for her own lack of self. Sticking to that original costume in a live-action version sends a mixed message, especially when the new series is ultimately interested in exploring other aspects of Faye’s character. The new series will also have hour-long episodes as opposed to the anime’s half-hour installments, which allows for a lot more opportunities to dig deeper into Faye’s character.

Sorry, but this is just another article making sex sound like a bad thing. And all in a story that's aimed at adults. Besides, just what do they intend to "dig deeper" for? Something tells me they're not going to build any romance between her and other men in the new Netflix adaptation, and they'll probably even forcibly turn her lesbian for the sake of it. All SR's writer does is make it sound like the anime didn't do good enough.

Hopefully the new Cowboy Bebop will keep the same color scheme for Faye’s costume as they take her look in a different direction. Regardless, costumes and hairstyles are an element of adaptations that viewers expect to be changed. There are much more important details to be concerned about, and as long as this version of Faye rings true, it's really not important how she dresses. All things considers, it sounds like it’s going to be the same Cowboy Bebop at the end of the day.

Nope. Not if Spike's being a Jewish character is dropped, all for the sake of "diversity". Indeed, that would surely be the biggest irony here. What if the firearm he uses isn't even Israeli-made?

The producers and propagandists clearly don't respect the women upholding Faye's symbolism, as told in this Fandom article, for example:

Wendee Lee has brought over 500 characters to life, but when asked which was her favorite, she doesn’t even hesitate. “I think that’s self-evident,” Lee says with a chuckle. “Faye is the most iconic girl, chick, woman, child, badass, femme fatale, you name it. She encompasses it all, and I feel like she is somebody that was almost written for me.”

“She just kind of fulfills a lot of fantasy personality aspects that I wish I was bold enough to embody, but [that I] get to as an actor,” says Lee. “Just the fact that she has sass and edge, and she’s plotting and cunning and uses her sex appeal is so empowering as an actress. To be able to embody that is hugely rewarding.”

Indeed, Faye’s strength and unabashed embracement of her sexuality were ahead of her time. This may be why she and others on the Bebop continue to resonate with fans even 20 years later. But, as fans know, Faye Valentine isn’t perfect. In fact, her hardened exterior protects her from a tragic past that she can’t remember for most of the show. One where she loses her parents and her identity in one fell swoop.

And how about this interview from The Dot and Line where the voice actress who played the Faye role dubbed in English language additionally says:

For what it’s worth, in my opinion as a straight male fan of Bebop, I re-watch the show now and I think you’re right. There is a way more lascivious lens that most other anime seems to have with regards to their female characters. Bebop doesn’t really have that for Faye. She’s obviously wearing this skimpy outfit, but she’s not turned into a sex object for certainly any of her peers on the Bebop, the main male characters on the show. She’s never presented as without agency of her own. I think it’s really interesting that you wanted to bring that to her, and that you heard that in the Japanese voice actress’s performance and also wanted to do a little bit more as well.

Yeah, definitely. Faye is a feminist. She’s a sexpot and a feminist from my perspective. She uses her talents and her wiles to her advantage, but she’s clearly in control. She’s consensual. The only time I worried about that was with the film when she got abducted and her hands are tied together behind her back. I always forget his name. Vincent.

The only issue she had was with a segment in the movie version taking place between 2 stories in the latter end of the TV show's run, where a villain kidnaps and assaults her (though in the end, she thought she could work out the storyline successfully). That's fair enough. I can only wonder if the live action producers have any intention of writing storylines like those, or avoiding them, and whether it'll be done out of political correctness? It's rather strange when you say you're going to tone down the clothing, yet if they do go for this kind of adult element, one can only wonder why it's okay to do that instead?

In the end, what's dismaying is how the Netflix staff make such a fuss over pseudo-diversity and sexuality, to the point where they fail to convince whether their series will have artistic merit. And I'm honestly tired of all this obsession with turning nearly every animated property into a live action adaptation. I get the vibe it's being done because the new producers hope everybody will believe their version is infinitely superior to the source material. Recent history would suggest otherwise. I decidedly won't be bothering about this Netflix item, because it doesn't or shouldn't replace the original items, and personally, I find it easier to handle animation than live action with special effects. I once read an interview with a comics writer who said that for the printed medium, they have a de facto unlimited budget, and can thus create all the FX they want more convincingly. What can live action with the same do, but offer up a vision where, chances are you will be able to spot the seams? That's what it seems like to me these days. Sometimes, smaller is better.

Actor fired from Flash TV show for posting racist and gender-bigoted messages on social media

The Hollywood Reporter says Hartley Sawyer, the actor playing Elongated Man on the Flash TV series (which Geoff Johns has credits for developing, if it matters), has been fired after it turned out he posted repulsive tweets on his Twitter account:

Actor Hartley Sawyer has been fired from The Flash after a host of his tweets containing misogynist and racist references were surfaced in the past week.

The tweets, all from before he joined The CW series, make references to sexual assault and contain racist and homophobic language. Sawyer's Twitter account has been deleted, but screenshots of the old posts have circulated online in the past two weeks. His firing also comes amid nationwide protests against systemic racism in the wake of George Floyd's May 25 death in Minneapolis. [...]

Sawyer joined The Flash in 2017 as Ralph Dibny, aka Elongated Man. He recurred on the show initially and was upped to series regular in 2018.

Historically, the slapstick adventure character he played up till now on this TV series has surely been one of the most badly abused in almost 30 years, along with his wife Sue Dibny (Identity Crisis and Gerard Jones's writings), and these discoveries add only more insults to injuries. One can only wonder what Sawyer thinks of the 2004 miniseries written by Brad Meltzer. Sawyer sure knew how to provide ammunition for SJWs at a terrible time. Here's what Entertainment Weekly's reported he said:

The tweets in question were published before Sawyer joined The Flash in 2017 and are dated from 2012-2014. At the time of publishing, his Twitter account has been deleted; however, there are still screenshots of the tweets floating around the internet. Among them were references to sexual assault ("As a lad, one of my favorite activities was kidnapping homeless women and cutting off their breasts"), racist comments ("The only thing stopping me from doing mildly racist things is the knowledge that Al Sharpton would never stop complaining about me"), and sexist remarks ("Things only women should be in: twilight screenings, gynecologists offices, and Porsches).

Sawyer claimed he was joking, but his comments about kidnappings are particularly repulsive. Graphic gore isn't something you joke about, nor is kidnapping in a country where thousands of women and children are kidnapped and raped every year. If you know where to look, you'll notice some of the live action DC adaptations have scandals and embarrassments abound, like an actress on the Smallville series arrested for collaboration with a sex abuse cult and jailed, an abusive producer on the Supergirl TV show, and Aquaman movie co-star Amber Heard's scandal. So this makes yet another one that's bound to put a whole cloud over another production. USA Today notes:

"The Flash" showrunner Eric Wallace wrote in a statement shared late Monday by star Grant Gustin that Sawyer's tweets "broke my heart and made me mad as hell," noting "they're indicative of the larger problem in our country."

Wallace vowed to "continue to find Black and Brown writers, directors, actors and producers of all genders to help tell FLASH stories. Their stories are part of the American narrative, too, and must be heard."

I think what's really angering about this is that, while I'd rather not provide an audience to a series that's already got its own problems with liberal influence (though Supergirl's probably suffering worse), this scandal has them tripping over themselves to appease more social justice advocates, like LGBT ideology. Something else atrocious about Sawyer's comments is that they provide ammunition for bad reps like Sharpton, who encouraged anti-semitism in the past, supported the fake sexual assault story concocted by Tawana Brawley, and never did any favors for any community. What are the chances Sawyer will turn to aiding Sharpton personally soon?

The day prior, Sawyer had shared a message on Instagram voicing his support for the Black Lives Matter movement. "I am white. I have privilege. For too long, I have not used my platform to advocate for POC. I apologize to all my brothers and sisters."

He also included a quote attributed to former Ohio state senator Nina Turner: "The burden cannot just be on the backs of black people to deal with it."

Of course, you couldn't possibly expect a likely Democrat to admit the left has ever had a problem with racism, or that Joe Biden did a terrible disfavor in modern times. For now, what's clear is that he's tarring the white community entire, obscuring the hard work Abe Lincoln did to abolish slavery, all in an attempt to apologize to crowds who're unlikely to forgive him. Sawyer's career is surely finished, and considering the harm people like him do to society overall, he's bound to deserve it. First, he makes repulsive remarks. The next, he's groveling before a movement that's built on bad ideologies.

And since we're still on the subject, let's see what Forbes is saying, and the writer appears to have slipped in something inappropriate about one actor whose record is far from as bad as the others who brought scandals about:

We see actors leave CW series all the time when their arcs are finished, and occasionally, it’s not on the best of terms. But I’m not sure I’ve seen anything quite this severe before.

[...] I really don’t want to even repost them here, but you can read some of the worst offenders in this reddit thread. While yes, many of these are 8-9 years old, at the time Hartley still would have been in his mid ‘20s, not some 13 year-old trying to be edgy, which is what these sound like. The tweets have since been deleted but they have already all been screenshot for posterity.

[...] I would not expect Sawyer to be given a second chance and return to The Flash. While Ralph had become a central part of the cast, he’s not quite “essential” and it should be easy enough to write him off when the show returns.

I will say the CW Arrowverse shows are starting to feel a little…unsteady. Legends of Tomorrow lost three cast members this season, two of which did not seem to want to go willingly (Brandon Routh and Courtney Ford), Supergirl wrote off Dean Cain as Kara’s father due to his bad politics, The Flash is now dealing with this Sawyer mess and the show that started it all, Arrow, is now over. Oh, and the lead of Batwoman quit and needs to be recast and rewritten entirely. It just all seems a bit…shaky.

Now the columnist has a point that the Arrowverse isn't very steady, and hasn't ever really been. But he lost me when he asserted the mid-90s Superman's politics are "bad", without specifying. Cain, from what I know, is right-leaning, supports Israel, and he's even co-produced documentaries about the Armenian Holocaust of WW1 committed by Turkey's Islamic Ottoman empire in its last years. And the Forbes writer has the gall to say Cain's politics are bad? Or worse, the Supergirl TV producers had the gall to get rid of him as a cast member for that? Sick.

As noted before, what Sawyer did only heaps more denigration upon John Broome and Carmine Infantino's Silver Age creation for slapstick adventures. But if the live action DC adaptations suffer due to these scandalous affairs, I honestly can't bring myself to care. The staffers working on them are such liberal hypocrites, they're probably getting what they deserve.

When heroes act like villains

In this post by AJ Glickson explaining what the whole Comicsgate campaign is about, he makes an interesting observation about what the X-Men are like now:

Comics writers have changed lots of characters to make them more PC. Carol Danvers went from being called Ms. Marvel to Captain Marvel. She was given a square jaw and a flat body, and her long blonde hair changed to a short cut. Male characters are made to look weak and effeminate. Female characters must be heroes, not villains. Then the heroes start acting like villains. This is especially evident with the X-Men, who went from fighting for acceptance and friendship with nonmutants, to basically creating an ethnostate on the living island, Krakoa.

I'd thought this was a poor direction before, to have the X-Men otherwise isolate themselves from the rest of the world, rather than co-exist and reside with populaces lacking superpowers. First, Magneto takes up this kind of residence on Genosha island, and now, Xavier decides his direction is better, just so they can all undergo internal squabbles or worse. It's another example of what's gone wrong with superhero comics if they avoid making use of civilian co-stars.

And that's why Jonathan Hickman's run is basically overrated, just as retconning Moira MacTaggart into a mutant is contrived and cheap.

New Stargirl TV series rubs out the original Justice Society

IGN's written up a sugary article about the new TV show adapting Geoff Johns' Stargirl, and wouldn't you know it, they went for tasteless cliches, even as it makes use of 2 characters who were organically created by Roy Thomas for Infinity Inc:

But despite hinging on that family bond, Stargirl is also an ensemble series about multiple young heroes taking up the mantles of their predecessors. As the series opens, the original Justice Society of America has been killed, leaving it up to Courtney and fellow teen heroes like Yolanda Montez and Beth Chapel to fill that void. According to Bassinger, Stargirl is the de facto leader for this new JSA team, as she recruits her fellow classmates after discovering the Cosmic Staff.

Now I do know Johns may have revived these 2 disciples of the original Wildcat and Dr. Mid-Nite about a year or so ago in his otherwise pretentious Doomsday Clock miniseries (which suffered from quite a few eyebrow raising delays in issues released), one of the very few good things to be found in any of his resume. But he's had so many poor deeds in his record that ruin everything, that's why I'm not approving of what he's done here, even if this is a different medium in focus. Besides, I recall the short-lived Flash TV show from 1990 took a similar approach, potentially influenced by the Batman film of the time, and I'm not impressed with that either.

These cheap gimmicks of killing off heroic stars to provide motivation for new disciples has gotten way out of hand. Coming as this show is from such an overrated writer as Johns, that's why I'll definitely not be approving.

How Northstar's homosexuality was brought to the surface by Christian Cooper and Scott Lobdell

Yahoo's entertainment section (via SyFy Wire) interviewed Christian Cooper, reportedly one of the first openly homosexual editors at Marvel in the 90s, who co-edited the Alpha Flight issue written by Scott Lobdell where Northstar was "outed", in a story that wasn't exactly the big deal they wanted it to be seen as. And he's also got a webcomic series planned that smells of biased politics:

You might know Christian Cooper as the mild-mannered New York City birdwatcher who became a social media hero last month following a racially-charged encounter in Central Park. But even before that incident thrust him into the wider public eye, the 57-year-old editor and writer was a comic book industry superhero. During the 1990s, Cooper was one of the first openly gay employees at Marvel Comics, and worked to increase LGBTQ representation in the pages of the company’s comics by leaps and bounds.

“It was really a dream come true to work there,” he tells Yahoo Entertainment. “I’d been a Marvel guy since I was a little kid. For anyone who is into comics and they get a chance to work at Marvel or DC, you’re like ‘This is so amazing.’”

Cooper certainly accomplished amazing things during his Marvel tenure. In March 1992, he served as the assistant editor on the landmark issue of Alpha Flight in which the mutant hero, Northstar (created by Chris Claremont and John Byrne), came out of the closet. Later that same year, he created the company’s first lesbian hero, Victoria Montesi, in the pages of Darkhold. And as the writer of the short-lived Star Trek: Starfleet Academy series, he boldly introduced the franchise’s first openly gay character, Yoshi Mishima. After parting ways with Marvel in the late ’90s, he became a web comic pioneer with Queer Nation, a never-completed series that he’s now hoping to revive.

“With my new notoriety or fame — whatever you want to call it — I am looking to take Queer Nation out of mothballs,” he says. “It has a certain urgency right now that maybe it didn’t have back then, because one of the core plot points is that a crazy right-wing fascist has been elected president and is pandering to the religious right. Oh wait, that couldn't happen in real life!”

As part of Yahoo Entertainment’s Pride Month coverage, we spoke with Cooper about his marvelous years at Marvel, and what superhero entertainment he’s consuming now.

As I'd discussed earlier, revealing Northstar was homosexual was actually the least of the Lobdell story's problems. The real problem was the portrayal of the villain, Major Maple Leaf, who tried to take out his anger on an infant Northstar had saved from a dumpster, threatening to murder her, yet in the end, his sick attempt on the life of a helpless entity was all but forgotten, and he was never arrested and prosecuted even for destroying public property at the hospital area. As far as I know, issue #106 has yet to be officially reprinted in trades, and for now, it can be assumed Marvel's taking their time because they realize how embarrassing it is based on the whole Major Maple Leaf matter. And when it is reprinted in trades, if it ever will be, history will judge whether this was artistically merited or not.

As for Cooper's whole quarrel in NYC with a woman whose last name is same as his, over lack of a leash for her dog in a park district where it was required, here's my assessment: no, she shouldn't have left the pooch off the leash, but, I do have to question the former Marvel staffer's reaction:

The woman, Amy Cooper, is seen on video being asked by a black man, Christian Cooper, to put her dog on a leash, and offered the pet a treat after she repeatedly refused to do so. Cooper wrote on Facebook that he said, “if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it,” before calling the dog over to him.

Seriously now, is it appropriate to "have fun" with somebody else's pet and potentially annoy them over such an otherwise minor issue? Why didn't he say he was going to call the cops and let her know she'd be risking a fine if she didn't comply with the law? I can't see the logic here. His whole approach was irresponsible, and makes him no better than the woman. I looked at the main part of his Facebook page, and he had pictures of the Obamas, and one that looked like the crescent symbol of Turkey. If my estimates are correct, Cooper's got quite a puzzling double standard going there, when Turkey under Recep Erdogan's not particularly supportive of the ideological practice Cooper goes by. What indeed is going on here?

Now let's return to the interview in focus, and what our friend Cooper here has to say about how they planned out that AF issue that's such a big deal based on the closet emergence of Jean-Paul Beaubier. I notice, curiously enough, that he doesn't sound impressed with a storyline written by Bill Mantlo:

What were the behind-the-scenes decisions that led to Northstar coming out in Alpha Flight #106?

I remember reading the first-ever issue of Alpha Flight when I was a freshman in college and thinking, "Northstar's gay." For anybody with a discerning eye, Northstar blipped on your gaydar from the get-go. Later on, there was an incredibly awful storyline where Northstar was coughing in every panel for a couple of issues; basically, the idea was they were going to give Northstar AIDS. Someone decided — rightly in my opinion — “We're not taking our only gay character and giving him AIDS.” So to get out of it, they came up with this absurd storyline where Northstar and his twin sister, Aurora, were the children of elves or fairies from fairy-land, and they had the two of them disappear to fairy-land.

Anyway, they undid that eventually and Alpha Flight passed into the hands of Bobbie Chase, who I was working with at the time as her assistant editor. We had to hire a new writer, and we talked to Scott Lobdell. We’re at a lunch going over the possible storylines, and Scott says, "I think maybe we should bring Northstar out of the closet." And we were like, "Yeah, it's time for Northstar to be out of the closet." So it was very matter-of-fact. His original issue was about twice as wordy as it ended up being — we just cut and cut. It's not the most subtle issue ever, but it got the job done.

We sent out a solicitation to comic shops that said that’s what was going to be happening in that issue. Then we got a phone call from some comic book shop, which asked, “Does Northstar really come out of the closet in No. 106?” I told Bobbie, and she said that we had to notify the head of PR. So I go trotting to her office, and you could just see the blood drain out of her face. The higher-ups tried to pull the issue from the printer before it was printed, but they were too late, thank god. The really ridiculous thing was that they gagged us from talking [to the press]. They had this opportunity to get all this publicity for the issue, and instead they said, "You can not talk about this issue at all."

But the issue came out, and it was pretty cool. There was some negative reaction — I think some Texas comic book shop owner said, "Now I have to put Alpha Flight on a top shelf in a special brown cover." I was like, “What?” And apparently, the Catholic Church was going to come out with a statement against us, but then decided not to. We had persistent goodwill from them, because we had done a Pope John Paul II comic. So yeah, it was a crazy time!

By any chance, did he approve of that storyline just a few issues earlier, where Aurora was mentally assaulted by Headlok, and this caused her to revert to her split personality she had when the series first began? And again, there's that little matter involving the guy dressed like a Mountie who initially tried to wipe out the infant infected with AIDS. No mention of that, I see. We must be missing quite a bit here, my my. He misremembers what happened with Aurora too at the time Mantlo was doing the writing in the late 80s: after Loki convinced the twins they were fairies (Northstar, anyway), he had Jeanne-Marie transported to a monestary where she spent a short amount of time before returning to the team in James Hudnall's run, at a time the series went direct sales only. Hmm, how come no credit for Hudnall's canning the fairy stuff and Asgard connections when he did the writing?

And what if the real reason the higher echelons at the time were against the story because of the embarrassingly bad way the Mountie man was depicted regarding the infant? In retrospect, that's the real point of contention.

In the issue, Northstar’s coming out is part of a storyline that involves the AIDS crisis.

That was sort of what was happening in society. Before then, so many people had stayed in the closet, and gay stuff only came up in lurid ways. Suddenly, ordinary gay folk were saying, "No, I'm not staying in the closet anymore," because of the AIDS crisis.

Would you have preferred for it to have been part of a romantic storyline instead?

In that era, there was no way in hell we would have gotten a romantic coming out. It would have gotten through Bobbie and I, but we’d never have gotten it through anybody else. It had to be a confession devoid of any expression of romance or sexuality, like a statement of fact: "I am gay." Even after that, they clamped us down. Someone decided, "Let's do a Northstar limited series where he can’t talk about the fact that he's gay." Which they did and everyone roundly panned it, because it made no sense! [Laughs]

Again, I still don't see why he argues about failure to make sense when Major Maple Leaf was let off the hook for his violent act with nary a slap on the wrist. I figure there's a reason why Lobdell left the book after just several issues. And of course, he brought all that stuff back to the fore in X-Men's "Eve of Destruction" during 2001, where Northstar assaults another guy over a quarrel, with no opposition from Jean Grey and company. Apparently, there's leftists who believe violence is a perfectly valid response while having an argument with somebody you don't agree with.

Did you experience any pushback from Marvel when you created Victoria Montesi in the pages of Darkhold?

They wouldn't let me say that Vicky was a lesbian outright, but it's clear that she's in a romantic relationship with a woman. It’s part of the story in terms of it being one of several reasons why her father considered her a great disappointment. Not only the fact that she was lesbian, but also because the fact that she was born a woman — she was supposed to be a male heir to his line. I wasn’t trying to hide the relationship with her lover, Natasha, but it was mostly off-screen. Natasha was incapacitated in the first issue, and spends the rest of the series in hospice care. There was no negotiation needed on that with Marvel, maybe because it was two women. There’s this weird double-standard about two women together not being nearly as threatening as two guys together.

There's also a weird double-standard in the showbiz world that considers it acceptable to depict lesbians as criminals - hence, the casting of Mystique and Destiny in their notable roles in the X-Men's rogues gallery - but male homosexuals far less so. I get the feeling Cooper's jealous. In biblical times, even if they didn't consider lesbianism a good role model, the ancient Israelites were more lenient on lesbianism than on male homosexuality, probably because the latter was seen as one of the worst ways a man could deviate from sanity, and in that era, most lesbians were probably less extreme than some modern ones with anti-male mentality.

What was the fan reaction like to Vicky at the time?

The relationship with fans and writers back then was definitely via letter-writing, so that was how we gauged fan response to things. We got a s***-load of mail on Northstar and it was split about 50/50, which was disappointing, but not surprising considering that a lot of the readership for superhero comic was adolescent males uncomfortable with the whole issue. I don’t remember us getting mail on Vicky; no one went, “She’s a lesbian? I can’t read this anymore!” She was just below everyone’s radar.

Did it ever occur to him there's some people who feel male homosexuality is simply a poor role model, and those who practice it may not consider any health risks involved? There are some examples in the entertainment world, like this movie called In and Out, where men are depicted heroically because they dump their wives/don't marry them, quit their jobs and admit their homosexuality. But what's surely most troubling is when they almost literally reject the opposite sex as a romantic/sexual partner. Honestly, it's ludicrous. As is the risk Cooper's taking of damning adolescent males as uncomfy with the issue, rather than acknowledge the problem lies in how one-sided a lot of depictions of homosexuality are in fiction, portraying it as almost entirely acceptable a belief and practice, and damn anyone who dares to disagree. When it comes down to that, it becomes lecturing propaganda rather than a debate.

Cooper was apparently involved with Star Trek adaptations Marvel was doing in the mid-90s, at the time they acquired the license that had originally been held by DC around 1984-94:

What was your general experience like as a writer with Marvel? Were they increasingly open to featuring different kinds of characters?

Certainly on sexual orientation issues back in that era, they were pretty slow. When I tried to introduce Yoshi Mishima in Starfleet Academy, there was pushback on that — pushback in terms of that I wasn't going to be able to show Yoshi having a kiss. My reaction to that was, "OK. If I can't show Yoshi having a kiss, I'm not going to show anybody having a kiss.”

The character who was originally supposed to be gay was Matthew Decker, the squad leader. It was going to be a role-reversal story, because in the initial issue, it's Matt who is looking askance at having a Ferengi on his team, and doesn't really want to have anything to do with them. Then Matt comes out, and now the Ferengi who was going to be looking askance at him. But Paramount wouldn’t let me make the leader of the squadron gay; they thought that was a bridge too far. If someone was going to boldly go there, it would have to be the TV series or the movies, not the comics. [Paramount controlled the Star Trek television franchise until 2005; both the TV and feature film franchise are currently owned by ViacomCBS.]

I watched a lot of the Trek productions aired until the turn of the century, and it's not like they dealt with the issue as heavily or overtly as he must think either. If there were any allusions to homosexuality on the Treks of the time, they were usually depicted sparingly. One episode that certainly came close, however, was Next Generation's "The Host" in 1991, where Beverly Crusher falls in love with a Trill ambassador named Odan who's really a symbiont residing in a host body, and due to the usual complications, ends up in Will Riker's body briefly, before that has to be abandoned as well, and then winds up in a woman's body. Dr. Crusher decided then that she couldn't keep on with this mind-boggling switcheroo, and so the affair was shelved.

Star Trek takes place in a utopian future where we’re beyond 20th century prejudices. How would you have a written a gay character in that kind of setting?

Well, there's no prejudice in human society — that's why it's Nog the Ferengi who would have had a problem with it. [Nog was introduced on the TV series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.] The Ferengi in particular were always portrayed as extraordinarily sexist, and a sexist society with clearly-defined gender roles is going to have a problem with someone who has varying sexuality. So that's how I was going to play it.

That's awfully funny he'd want to depict human society of the future as throughly accepting of homosexuality, while Ferengi get the negative role. Or, it's rather awkward to depict human society as thinking entirely the same about a lifestyle/belief/ideology. But if we're to talk Star Trek, what really galls me at the moment is the recent news the left-wing novelist Michael Chabon, who was hired as overseer for the Picard series, deliberately sought to alienate Trekkies with stories where several notable characters were put to death, as though after all the developments they received previously somehow made this legitimate. Worst, the show was alarmingly violent, not something the earlier series were known for. Another example of a hypocritical stance these SJWs can maintain on mayhem.

Did you feel any industry-wide impact your characters were having while you were at Marvel?

Not really; I always thought Marvel was a little bit late. DC already had openly gay characters by the time we got around to it, and because we were Marvel it was a big deal when we did it. That goes back to the American misconception that comics are a juvenile medium, and that anything gay is inappropriate for anyone who is not an adult. That's ridiculous, because I was a gay kid — I knew from the age of 5 that I was gay. Just because you're talking about someone being gay doesn't mean you're talking about their sexual practices, or stuff that's inappropriate for a particular age group. But that's hard for some people to wrap their minds around, and the stigma persisted at Marvel certainly longer than it did at DC.

It's not good if comics are depicted or perceived as a juvenile medium (something that also occurred in Europe at one point during the 50s, which he doesn't seem to realize), but that's no excuse for juvenile writing either when you're dealing with a serious topic. Lobdell's X-Men story from 2001 is a particularly notable example of going juvenile. But c'mon, seriously, Cooper knew he was homosexual from that young an age? Hard to believe. It sounds more like a silly boast or a brag. All to justify his apparent belief that homosexuality is suitable for kids. If that's what he's saying, it's shameful, and certainly if he believes sex scenes in an adult movie aren't by contrast.

After you left Marvel, you published the web comic, Queer Nation. Did you find the content restrictions on the internet more freeing?

What restrictions? [Laughs] It was whatever the hell I wanted to do, and I did it. I made the conscious decision myself that I wanted Queer Nation to be R-rated, not X-rated. I didn't want people to feel like they were reading something pornographic — there's plenty of places on the web for that. For me, R-rated meant naked breasts and butts are OK, but no genitalia. And the subject matter was no holds barred: foul language, ridiculous situations, intense political commentary… we did it all. People would react pretty much instantaneously. There really wasn't much in the way of web comics back then, and one of the reasons why I thought a web format was particularly good for Queer Nation is because a lot of LGBTQ people didn’t feel comfortable going into a comic book store. Meanwhile, gay bookstores didn’t know what to do with comics; they ended up gathering dust on a back shelf somewhere. Whereas if you did a web comic, it's immediately available to anybody who wants it, and they don't have to go into public.

Oh please. I doubt that makes sense. It's silly to think LGBT advocates would be reluctant to visit a comics store, or that LGBT bookstores wouldn't have a clue what to do with comics. What they'd be bound to do is sell them, what else? If they want to make money, that's part of it, no?

Are you following any comics or comic book-inspired TV shows right now?

Sadly, I went cold turkey out of necessity, but I’ve picked up a couple of things. I picked up Northstar’s wedding, and I’ve been reading Mags Visaggio, who is a trans comic book writer, and she's getting a lot of traction, which is fantastic. I’m addicted to The Flash on The CW, even though the recent seasons haven’t been quite as good as the earlier seasons. I don’t watch Legends of Tomorrow, but I would if they brought back the guy who played Hawkman, because he was hot. [Laughs] I look at Supergirl every once in a blue moon, and they have a trans actress on that show, Nicole Maines. If that’s not a sign of how far we’ve come, I don’t know what is. My boyfriend and I have also watched a couple episodes of Batwoman, and that character is a lesbian which is great — although I understand [Ruby Rose] isn’t coming back for second season.

Now here's something revealing. He reads this Vissagio's work, despite the latter's reprehensible behavior a few years back? Tsk tsk. And I guess he doesn't care that Brian Vissagio's writings just aren't selling anything, because he's marketing himself based on his transgender ideology, not on writing merit. Speaking of which, a TV show called Vagrant Queen, based on one of his books, was recently cancelled. That sure doesn't say Visaggio's actually making waves.

As with Marvel comics back in your day, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been a little slower to integrate LGBTQ characters. Would you love for one of your characters to wind up on the big screen?

That would be awesome! Though it would have be Vicky Montesi, and she's not a superhero — she’s an occult investigator and doesn’t run around in an outfit and fight crime or anything. But if they did a Darkhold series on TV, I’d be so happy. [The Darkhold book did make an appearance on the Marvel series, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., which is currently airing its final season on ABC.] I’d want to be in the writer’s room, goddammit! Let me fetch coffee, I don’t care — just put me in that writers’ room. [Laughs]

I'm wondering if he's hoping his work on Alpha Flight will be reprinted in actual paperback, and not just as bonus extras in at least 2 Marvel specials a decade ago? If they are, it'll be interesting to see what the wider public thinks of a story that was so incoherent. For now, Cooper is virtue-signaling, and it's ludicrous. I'm not surprised no deeper questions were asked, and the focus of this article, and others like it, is just on the fact they confirmed Northstar was meant to be a homosexual character ever since it was hinted at in the 10th issue of Alpha Flight. But if there's no merit in the writing, how can it be significant? Sorry, it can't be, and certainly not with the aforementioned dreadful portrayal of how Major Maple Leaf was dealt with.

A webcomic exercising optimism

Hyperallergic wrote about a webcomic called Rescue Party prepared on Instagram that's meant to emphasize optimism:

Launched in April, Rescue Party offered Desert Island’s followers an exercise: draw a nine-panel comic that explores an “ideal future” or imagines a post-pandemic utopia. Artists were only given a few visual guidelines, but the main point was to “stay positive.”

[...] Diverse and constantly surprising, the comics of Rescue Party are as distinct as the seemingly infinite number of artists who have contributed their work. Like a haiku, the nine-panel comic format offers succinct summations of complex feelings spurred by in this crisis. An ode to the things we miss (hugs, joy) and the promises we now make (to live fuller, to love harder), Rescue Party offers poetic and eternally optimistic renderings of the world beyond our current reality. According to these artists, it’ll be beautiful.

The samples of art they provide look tasteful enough, and they're right about this: we all enjoy hugs and kisses, as part of human nature of love, and optimism is a crucial element in life. So if this is project in good taste, they're to be congratulated for emphasizing something mainstream superhero comics have all but thrown away. Optimism and happiness is something all aspiring comic writers should practice, and now that I think of it, if DC/Marvel refuse to accept such a viewpoint in your story pitch to them, don't be disappointed, because they're already a sinking ship in no small part due to their mistakes. Just stick with the independents if that's what it takes to emphasize optimism, and certainly in a way that's not forcibly political.

A politically motivated comic about a Mexican superhero

NBC published a biased article focusing on El Peso Hero, a comic that seems to support illegal immigration, and even features an out-of-context smear tactic against Trump:

"El Peso Hero" first gained mainstream fame after the Mexican-American superhero delivered a mighty punch, or “trumpazo” to then presidential candidate Donald Trump on a 2015 cover. The issue was in response to Trump's presidential campaign announcement, where he called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals.

This special pandemic issue, which is released online for free on Monday, shows “El Peso Hero” taking a backseat to a nurse and other essential workers facing tough day-to-day challenges against COVID-19.

“This is definitely a contrast from "El Peso Hero" fighting corruption, drug cartels, and racism on the [U.S.-Mexico] border,” Rodríguez said. “Fans will see him in a supporting role to real-life heroes, helping a nurse bring medical masks to agricultural workers, and deliver a much needed message of solidarity and positivity to a community that is often marginalized in the shadows."

Rodríguez said that "many undocumented Latinos are the glue that holds America together."

Oh, good grief. So the author's depicting a situation where people who entered the USA without proper permits and documentation as actually helping 100 percent, and NBC regurgitates a smear tactic where Trump's words were predictably distorted by the mainstream press. That wasn't what Trump said. Here's a fact check on Breitbart:

Trump was referring to illegal aliens coming over the U.S.-Mexico border who commit additional crimes, such as rape. As Breitbart Texas has extensively documented, it’s common for human traffickers to “to sexually assault or rape the females” en route to the U.S., and the smugglers “usually remove an article of clothing from the female they rape and they tie it tightly to a tree—a rape tree.”

So. I suppose in the minds of the MSM, it's okay if slavemongers commit violent crimes against women while tied to a tree? Sick. By any chance, does the comic in focus ever deal with horrors like those suffered by sex slaves at the hands of human traffickers? If not, I'm not sure what it's point is meant to be. It seems to have been conceived as little more than a claim all worried about crime committed by illegal immigrants are inherently stupid, and an attack on right-leaning politicians. And that entering the country without a permit bears no taxation on society, comes with no health hazards at a time when Coronavirus took a toll, to say nothing of suggesting US citizens proper don't have what it takes to do the same jobs as the interlopers allegedly do. Such lecturing and insults to the intellect are never helpful.