Wednesday, November 06, 2024 

If Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys TV show isn't released, it won't be a loss

Uproxx discussed one of the disgraced Neil Gaiman's TV projects that currently remains unreleased, Anansi Boys, which was produced for Amazon Prime, but so far remains unreleased, for rather obvious reasons:
Out of the mountain of Neil Gaiman TV and film projects recently in process, Anansi Boys seemed like the most troubled earlier pick this year. Yet as many of the prolific comic book writer’s (former and ongoing) readers now know, Anansi Boys is almost the only project with a question mark beside it after others have been postponed, cut short, or cancelled.

[...] To briefly recap the show’s history, the six-episode series began filming in late 2021 and was in post production two years ago (as reported by Deadline), at which point co-showrunner Douglas Mackinnon abruptly exited. At around the same time, Mackinnon also departed Good Omens, leaving Gaiman as that series’ sole showrunner, a position that he no longer occupies.

[...] Most recently, Prime Video/Amazon scaled back Good Omens‘ third and final season to a 90-minute episode to bring the Aziraphale and Crowley story to an end. This followed Gaiman voluntary stepping away from the show.

As for who (if anybody) is now showrunning Anansi Boys, nobody is talking. And we definitely do not know if the project will ever surface on TV screens or streaming devices. Earlier this year, however, Dark Horse Comics announced that the story would be tackled as an individual comic series, although there’s no word on how that’s going in light of recent developments.
Well if Dark Horse's adaptation is also cancelled, it's no huge loss. Certainly, it's most unfortunate a whole production is now compromised as a result of the sexual abuse accusations Gaiman's now facing. And no doubt, it could be a very expensive production. But let's remember he's the foremost one to blame, and if it hadn't been for the atrocities he's accused of, the show would probably have been on the air by now. This wouldn't be the only project of its sort that found itself under a whole cloud following scandalous cases. 3 decades ago, after the now deceased O.J. Simpson was first arrested for the murder of his wife Nicole Brown and a new boyfriend of hers, a TV movie titled Frogmen had to be shelved by NBC, and if it hasn't been released to date, it likely never will be, since who in the right frame of mind can stand the sight of a man who murdered a defenseless woman, and all but got away with it? Similar problems exist even with writers who aren't in front of the camera, and even if consumers can divide between art and artist, not everyone wants to pay money for a subscription to see something adapted from the work of a bad man, if the residuals could end up in his pockets.

In the case of Good Omens, I do realize the late Sir Terry Pratchett may have been the main author of the book the Netflix show is adapted from, and Gaiman probably got second billing. Even so, the latter's tainted the work of the former, and while the TV show may be getting an ending, the stench of Gaiman's antics will still haunt the production for years to come. After this whole debacle, would it be too difficult for the entertainment industry to do a better job vetting people who come to work for it?

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 

Disney's hypocritical approach to Jessica Rabbit

Entertainment Weekly reports veteran filmmaker Robert Zemeckis, famous for several notable movies like Back to the Future, told a podcast interview about Disney's refusal to ever film a sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the combination of live action and animation, all because of Jessica Rabbit's strapless dress design, a subject he'd first spoken about several years earlier:
Fans of Who Framed Roger Rabbit know that Jessica Rabbit isn't bad — she's "just drawn that way." But according to director Robert Zemeckis, the hit movie will never get a sequel because its animated femme fatale is simply too risqué.

On a recent episode of the Happy Sad Confused podcast, Zemeckis lamented, "There's a good script [for a sequel] at Disney, but here's the thing: The current Disney would never make Roger Rabbit today. They can't make a movie with Jessica in it." He added that the sequel script, which was penned by original Roger Rabbit writers Peter S. Seamen and Jeffrey Price, "isn't ever going see the light of day, as good as it is."

If it sounds implausible that Disney would hold up a no-brainer follow-up to a box office smash, Zemeckis offered this: "I mean, look what they did to Jessica at the theme park. They trussed her up in a trench coat, you know."

[...] According to Zemeckis, it necessarily isn't the murder, kidnapping, voyeurism, drug use, or crooked cops and politicians that today's House of Mouse would object to, but Jessica's scandalous sartorial sensibility.
Yes, and coupled with the company's far-left obsession with pandering to LGBT ideology in cartoons and other products aimed at children, that's stunningly hypocritical.
Zemeckis also elaborated on the miraculous timing that allowed Who Framed Roger Rabbit to go forward in the first place. "We were able to make it right at the time when Disney was ready to rebuild itself," he said. "We were there when that new regime came in, and they were full of energy, and they wanted to do it. I kept saying, and I sincerely say this, I do believe this, 'I'm making Roger Rabbit the way I believe Walt Disney would have made it.' The reason I say that is because Walt Disney never made any of his movies for children. He always made them for adults. And that's what I decided to do with Roger Rabbit."

Rather than trying to temper the film's racier elements, Zemeckis embraced them. And he knew before the film was even released that this gamble would pay off. "One time we did a test preview with just moms and kids," he recalled. "I was terrified because these kids were like 5, 6 years old. They absolutely were riveted to the movie. And I realized that the thing is, kids get everything. They understand. They get it. You don't have to — the thing that Walt Disney never did was he never talked down to the children in his movies. He treated the kids like they were adults."
Yes, and it's worth noting that, however some women in his cartoons were dressed, it's not like anybody engaged in explicit sexual relations there, and the dress worn by Jessica is something that could be worn in events where children could be present, like theaters, banquet halls, and parties. Based upon where Disney went in just a few years, it must have more to do with the LGBT agenda they're now upholding. If anything, it's astonishingly hypocritical and demeaning to women to censor Jessica Rabbit's strapless dress and act as though children couldn't get used to it. At worst, it even delegitimizes what they could see at the beach, which even mothers can wear, along with bare midriff outfits.

And let's also consider what Zemeckis says about the violent content and allusions to drugs in Roger Rabbit clearly not concerning the top brass at Disney. That's where they otherwise are insulting intellects, of children and adults alike. If they think something so un-romantic makes for art, they really don't belong in their jobs. Even more dumbfounding to consider is that Roger Rabbit wasn't made under the Disney brand per se, but rather, under the Touchstone Studios brand, which was founded in the mid-80s to produce movies that could be aimed more at adults. If Disney won't produce fare featuring Jessica Rabbit even under a studio logo serving more grownup fare, that's telling.

So maybe it's time for Zemeckis to consider moving away from Disney like Tim Burton already has. Better still, maybe he should even consider trying to buy out the rights to all characters in Roger Rabbit who aren't property of Disney and Warner Brothers, and see if he can make a sequel at another studio. For now, it wouldn't do much good to pay tickets to see a Disney-produced film anyway, if it only ends up helping their woke agendas.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 04, 2024 

Tom King goes to campaign for leftist causes on USA election day

The Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed the overrated King, who's attending a local specialty store for election day, and the leftists leanings are made known:
Acclaimed comic book writer Tom King has never shied away from the political moment. Telling tender, mind-bending tales about immortal gods, amazon princesses and masked vigilantes, King has powerfully explored the anxiety, paranoia, misogyny, and absurdity that has defined America in the time of Trumpism.

King, known for hit comics like “The Vision”, “Mister Miracle”, “Rorschach,” and “Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow,” knows the stakes more than most.

Before shooting to comic book stardom writing “Batman” in 2016, King spent seven years in the CIA as a counterterrorism operations officer, including serving in Baghdad in 2004. The experience served as inspiration for his masterful and murky 2015 wartime crime thriller, “The Sheriff of Babylon.”
So only Trump's to blame, and leftists have no accountability on any of these subjects? It's just like them to airbrush it all out of the picture, as usual. Describing his stories as "tender" is insulting to the intellect, as is to say he's acclaimed, which is only by the leftist crowd, who never convincingly panned his horrific miniseries Heroes in Crisis, which still stands out as one of the worst exploitations of established characters to serve his pointless agendas. The only "stakes" he knows are taking apart those holding up the tables on which the classic creations he's torn down are sitting on.
While the Eisner Award winning author has never been shy about sharing his political concerns, including in 2019 when he tweeted his suspicions that Trump could be a foreign asset, his must-read comics are far from political diatribes. Like all classic comics, they glimpse the truths of our time through the struggles of the superheroes we like to think we could be.

King, 46, who lives in Washington D.C. with his wife and three children, will be appearing at Brave New Worlds comics in Old City on Election Day for a get out the vote celebration. The author will be signing books and handing free copies of his books for customers who show an “I Voted” sticker. We talked with King recently from Hollywood, where he’s currently co-writing and executive producing the upcoming HBO series, “Lanterns.” The author talked about the inherent hopefulness of comics and how Philly has the power to change the world.
Oh this is pathetic to lecture us that his comics aren't diatribes. If anything, they certainly are revolting "explorations" of trauma, and for Heroes in Crisis, the application was very forced and contrived. And that he'd attack Trump - quite possibly over the exaggerated claim of being a Russian agent - only says all we need to know why King's bad for the job. Not to mention that his Adam Strange miniseries was quite a political metaphor. As for "inherent hopefulness", that's only if you write a story that way, which Heroes in Crisis wasn't. And how can Philly change the world when officials in charge have done nothing to clean up the mess in neighborhoods like Kensington?
You’re making Philly an Election Day tradition!

King: Yeah, I did a similar event at Fat Jack’s four years ago where I just celebrated Philly’s voice in the election. You just do everything you can — and one of the few things I can do is to say thank you to voters by giving them the thing that I can give out: my time and signage. Pennsylvania is where the rubber meets the road.
No doubt, he was celebrating the beginning of 4 disastrous years for the USA under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Though based mainly on his mainstream comics writing, that's why I have no interest in his signature. And then he says:
You had just broken through to the top of the comic book industry when Trump came to power.

King: I spent my 20s in the CIA doing counterterrorism work overseas so I’m not uninvolved in government and how it works. And I live blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court are literally my neighbors. I remember walking my dog right before the [2017] inauguration, and this is one of these little absurd details that got lost in history, but they had a bunch of porta-potties and the porta-potties company was called “Don’s Johns.” And I guess the president-elect took offense to that so he had people go use a sharpie marker and cross out ‘Don’s Johns’ from all these porta-potties. Literally, the guy had censored porta-potties in my neighborhood. I remember walking past, and thinking, “Oh, this is going to be bad.”
Oh, this sounds like yet another petty rant, blaming a conservative for everything bad that allegedly happens, but never a liberal. I guess that means he's not disappointed with Biden's conduct, nor with Harris' conduct. King wrote these absurd rants of his a number of years before, so this is nothing new.
Your books are incredibly successful but you have gotten a little blowback from readers over the political bent of some stories. Like when Wonder Woman fights against a ban against all Amazons passed by a secret king of America.

King: The atmosphere right now is so bifurcated and personal that you can’t sort of help to step on that rail. Even Shakespeare, man. Look at “Macbeth.” He’s talking about the fact that they just got a Scottish king. You’ve got to write for your moment. That’s what it means to be a writer and to be alive. So to just try to ignore that to appeal to a larger base in order to make more money seems wrong to me.
Now isn't it contradictory to talk about a political bent, when here, the writer first lectured everyone that his tales aren't diatribes? Oh wait, is that because they're leftist? Now we can understand - if these were rightist stories, they would be considered diatribes. Apparently, not if they're left-wing, however. And he makes the error of indicating he doesn't care about pleasing a larger audience, since his petty leftist politics is apparently worth that much more.
What’s the balance between politics and a good superhero story?

King: You never want your comics to be your twitter feed. You never want to be lecturing somebody and being like, “This is bad, this is good, the world is black and white.” That just doesn’t make for good stories. It’s not about a lecture. It’s just about writing truth.

Writing superhero stories in the era of Trump almost seems like a political act in of itself.

King: In a superhero context, it doesn’t work. Lex Luthor is evil but he’s also super intelligent. That’s not Trump. No offense to the guy, but he’s not Lex. He’s not Doctor Doom. He doesn’t resemble anything like a superhero villain. His appeal is something else, something new, something shocking.
What he's saying here is that in his biased mindset, Trump's not intelligent enough to be compared to classic villains like Luthor and Doom. Or, in other words, King considers Trump nothing but stupid, despite all his studies in businesses that he worked in decades ago. Well how come he doesn't consider say, the Iranian ayatollahs not intelligent enough to be comparable to said supervillains? And why does he say we shouldn't turn our scripts into our X pages when he's been doing just that for some time?
Comics feel so resonant right now. They have always been such a powerful artform for political thought.

King: It’s aspirational. Like I don’t think of Wonder Woman as being very political. Someone is being terrible to women therefore Wonder Woman should fight back. That doesn’t seem like a political stance to me. That doesn’t seem left or right to me. That just seems American.

Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman aren’t inherently political. They’re inherently hopeful. All three of those characters were created in the shadow of the Nazi Party, two of them specifically by Jewish creators (Batman and Superman). So their origins are Anti-Fascist. The earliest Superman comic before we entered World War II had Superman going overseas and capturing Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. That’s baked into the pie. But it’s not political to be Anti-Nazi. We all used to agree on those ideals.
Notice how he doesn't speak of Islamic jihadists as an adversary, past or present. Should concerns about Islamofascism be a political stance? If Germany's National Socialism is a non-partisan issue, then by the same token of logic, even the dangers of the Religion of Peace shouldn't be a partisan issue either. Sure is strange somebody who wrote a WW story as a metaphor for anti-Trump viewpoints and to support illegal immigration doesn't want to take issue with Islamic regimes who oppress women and turn them into 2nd class citizens. King apparently also doesn't want to address the issue of illegal immigrants who attack women either. That he sticks with a tunnelvisioned viewpoint of western conservatives as "evil" only makes clear he's not a serious writer.
The comic book audience has grown much more diverse in recent years, everyone from indie readers to the most hardcore “Punisher” fan. It’s a big tent.

King: If I had to say the random comic book reader, there’s something about the world that alienates them. There’s something that they feel a little bit disconnected about — a little bit rebellious. They feel a little bit of otherness. That crosses all political lines. That’s what I love about comics. It speaks to kids and grown ups who do feel a little disconnected from the mainstream.
What about conservatives? Don't they feel practically ostracized and blacklisted from the mainstream? What alienates them is woke writers like King.
What’s at stake?

King: Everything’s at stake, man.

But honestly, you read Superman because you want to be like Superman. You read Batman because you want to be like Batman. Because they’re special. They’re important. They don’t accept the world the way it is. They try to change it. And I feel like voters in Pennsylvania right now have the opportunity to be like Batman, to be like Superman, like they don’t every other day of their life. If Batman and Superman were alive today they couldn’t do s--- to stop what’s coming. But a voter in Pennsylvania can, and that’s pretty cool.

And if you vote for Trump, and want to come get a comic, you’re welcome to it. It’s a celebration of democracy and the fact that Philly gets a chance to change the world.
If he's trying to pretend he's not anti-conservative, forget it, I'm not convinced. And you read Superman/Batman/whatever else because you want to be entertained and find some escapism. Which King's comics make impossible to find. Nor does his writing provide anything genuine to think about. Except that in his mindset, right-wingers in the west are the sole cause of all that's evil. That's why King's hopeless as a writer. Maybe he should consider getting into a politics instead?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 03, 2024 

Hollywood Reporter gushes over James Tynion's overrated venture

The Hollywood Reporter did a fluff-coated interview with overrated horror-thriller specialist Tynion, in which they claim he's launched the hugest horror comic title in the business, "Something Is Killing The Children", which is now predictably being adapted for broadcast on Netflix. Most laughable is the sales figures:
SIKTC sells upwards of 50,000 copies a month, with Slaughter selling around 25,000, according to sources, making the franchise the highest-selling creator-owned title out there, and besting a majority of comics put out by DC and Marvel. When Penguin Random House bought Boom! earlier this year, SIKTC was a factor in the acquisition. And Netflix, meanwhile, is in the middle of developing a series adaptation, with Baran bo Odar and Jantje Friese, the German creators of buzzy cult series Dark and 1899, writing and potentially showrunning.
Whether pamphlet or paperback, this is a laugh riot, though it's pretty amazing we have here, for a change, an actual citation of sales figures, considering how sites like ICV2 stopped providing them openly a few years ago. It does say earlier that SIKTC has already sold 5 million copies worldwide, but if that's the total figure spanning over 5 years, then it's absurd to say this is a literal success. A similar point can be made about House of Slaughter, which they say sold 500,000 for its premiere, but that suggests it was store level, of course, seeing how little it sells in pamphlets since. Interesting that Boom Studios, if that's where it's published, is now owned by a publishing conglomerate, which only perpetuates the sad staple of businesses selling off to larger owners, regardless of whether they're successful or not.
The comic was also a change from your usual writing style. How so?

At the time I was writing a lot of superhero comics and specifically I was writing a lot of superhero comics that had a kind of science fiction or magical edge to them. And there was something so refreshing to the world if Something is Killing the Children, which did have these supernatural qualities to it, but it was a very grounded world.

I remember it being incredibly refreshing in writing the first few. I think it’s the second issue has a scene that takes place in an Applebee’s. And I didn’t have to explain the structure of the multiverse in exposition to make a reader understand that we were in an Applebee’s. I just had to put them in an Applebee’s.

It untapped a type of writing in me that I didn’t set out to do. The book really kind of taught me how to write it.
When he wrote superhero fare, he did so with a woke mindset, perpetuating the severe damage to first Green Lantern Alan Scott, retaining the LGBT theme James Robinson forced upon him for starters. It wouldn't be surprising if Tynion also forced such propaganda into his Batman work. So what's the use of telling us all about sci-fi and magical edge in mainstream when he dampened the impact with wokeness? On which note, there's something laughable about saying the book "taught" him how to write it up, when this is somebody who was trained upon leftist propaganda.
Is there a value in doing an ongoing series that a mini-series doesn’t have?

I’m sitting in front of a wall of comic book trades and my favorite series were always the ones that ran for volumes and volumes and volumes that I was able to follow those characters stories over the course of years. And I think the most successful comics of all time, particularly in the corner of comics in which I work, have always been those long form stories and those big runs. And that’s really what we’re trying to go after with Something is Killing the Children.

The reason I ask that question is I think we live in a time of less ongoing series and lots of mini-series, and if there’s an ongoing series that is launched, by issue 10, it’s canceled and a few months later it’s relaunched again. So that seems to be a modern publishing problem.

I do think it can be shortsighted because the thing that Something is Killing the Children proves to me is that in the modern day and age, a series can build an audience over time. I think a lot of times now everything is positioned around the launch of a big number one. When Something is Killing the Children launched, it launched very, very strongly for the market. At that time, I think we were around 40,000 copies, but once we got into the teen issues, the series had multiple issues that were breaking six figures. It is rare that a series can double its monthly audience and beat it a little bit into the series. Now we have a very healthy monthly audience for the series. I do believe that if you’re building a really, really rich world and you trust that it can find an audience that there is an audience to find.
Well it's a shame the only kind of comics anybody's willing to enable the possibility of building an audience for is horror stories. And it's almost entirely the only kind of genre anybody's willing to market seriously and convince people to take a look at. So then of course, you have whole younger generations getting sucked into the void and indoctrinated with this kind of noxious brew, while the comedy genre is almost entirely abandoned out of PC. And what good does it do for Tynion to seemingly agree that there's a recent problem Marvel/DC have succumbed to in well over a decade, when he did nothing to improve the situation either? The part about six figures isn't clear either, and if they didn't sell over a million for a single copy, that only compounds the absurdity.
The other unique aspect to the comic is that in a time where one artist can’t stay on a book for more than four or issues before bailing, Werther has stayed with it since the beginning. Which is another factor in its success. People want continuity in the books they read.

As the creators of the series me and Werther we’re not going to let anyone else write the right or draw the story of Erica Slaughter. We’ve had a lot of success with our spinoff series, House of Slaughter, but that expands the world that Erica lives in. But if you are a fan of Erica Slaughter, you will get her entire story from start to finish in the pages of Something’s Killing the Children. And I will write all of it and Werther will draw all of it. There’s no compromising on that.
Funny the interviewer should mention continuity, since the mainstream shredded it long ago, and he did nothing to respect it either. Roy Thomas' creation, Obsidian, from Infinity Inc. was an early victim of contrived and forced contradictions, and I think Tynion stuck with what Gerard Jones led to as well, which only rewards a scoundrel for the harm he caused. In which case, what's that about not compromising?
The book has unique sense of pacing…

I’ve done a lot of time in superhero comics but I came of age in the manga boom of the early two thousands. Something is Killing the Children is really the first time I was able to lean in to that kind of manga storytelling. It’s a slower, more character driven pacing. It’s a slightly more decompressed. You linger in the character moments. You’re not trying to rush to the next action scene. That is part of what I think gives Something is Killing the Children its page-turner quality.
I wouldn't be shocked if he took influences from the horror genre as employed by mangakas too. But as for character driven stories, he wasn't doing it plausibly when he wrote superhero fare, and his failure to acknowledge he made mistakes is telling.
How do you and Werther work together? How complete are your scripts?

There are a few issues that especially if something’s more action driven, sometimes I’ll do the classic Marvel Method, the plot style, and just sort of lay out the kind of key visual beats and all that. And then I’ll go back over, do the dialogue after all of the art is complete. Then other issues are very dialogue heavy so I will write out the full flow of dialogue and I’ll have very, very loose panel descriptions throughout. But really the average script that I do is kind of a blend between them.
Sorry, but even that comes off as baloney, since if he wouldn't respect continuity and/or characterization as originally developed at DC, then no chance he respects Marvel's original developments either. His refusal to admit he wronged classic creations during his time at the mainstream is what undermines his arguments, because he was part of the PC system in doing so, and won't take accountability for the wrongs he enabled while there. And I have no interest in buying the products of somebody that pretentious, who can't even rise above the cliched obsession with horror thrillers. All he and his artists are doing is flooding the market with a form of propaganda that's come at the expense of more optimistic genres along with comedy. That he seemingly has a big success with SIKTC is nothing to admire.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, November 02, 2024 

Part four of the study of troubling and offensive panels from Neil Gaiman's comics

So now, we turn to the 4th post I'm writing about the fishy and offensive elements from Neil Gaiman's comics resume. Now, I guess we'll continue with a look at some Batman-related material he wrote for Secret Origins Special in 1989, featuring the following from a framing sequence he wrote for at least a few stories inside the issue:
How interesting this story has the effect of making it sound like Batman's allowed to break laws against trespassing and illegal infiltration of property without any legal opposition. Wonder if this was a hint of contempt for Bob Kane and Bill Finger's creation coming from Gaiman at the time?
And here, it runs the gauntlet of making Batman sound like he's a perverted voyeur, in addition to a line implying there's been infidelity at play, which was of course the case with Gaiman, yet on its own, that's still nothing compared to the sexual assaults he was accused of. Now, for some panels involving the Riddler, in a segment Gaiman wrote:
Hmm, this could probably describe Gaiman's whole career. It's nothing more than a myth that he's a "legend" of a writer, especially at this point.
Well if everything's different now, it's because men like Gaiman made it so, yet in his case, without adding any sustainable substance to make age well.
We also don't know anything about Gaiman coming from his own side of the spectrum, that's for sure. Wonder if the way he wrote this was meant to be a riddle about himself?
And at the end of this segment, wow, those TV producers sure lack a moral backbone, don't they. Give a horrid criminal like the Riddler his own show? Time to change the channel, or turn the set off completely. Now, here's 2 panels from Secret Origins 36:
Apparently, this was Gaiman's attempt to retcon the origins of both Jason Woodrue, who I think debuted first in the Silver Age Atom's stories, while Poison Ivy debuted at least a few years later in Batman's stories. Well I think it's worth disregarding Gaiman's premise here, since most of what he wrote way back when isn't a good fit for DC/Marvel anyway. Interesting he depicts Pamela Isley reading a book with a title like "Feminist Trash", since he himself has long claimed to be a male feminist. The story may be another one written with an unwise tilt in favor of the villains, and that's not good either.

Now, here's some panels from Books of Magic, where Gaiman introduced the teen Tim Hunter, who's supposedly a precursor to Harry Potter, though Gaiman's tale sure looked quite boring. It was originally published in a 4-part prestige format miniseries. From the 1st part:
Wow, just what we need, regardless of whether the story was aimed at adult audiences. References to perverts, by a pervert. Not good. And tragically, a certain pervert was able to catch defenseless women in his obnoxious grasp. It should be noted Gaiman once worked with the disgraced DragonCon co-founder Ed Kramer, who was charged with child molestation, and notoriously delayed his trial, denying his victims justice for over a decade. He also later got in trouble for helping a crooked judge illegally access a court database. And after what's been discovered about Gaiman, well, he sure didn't do anything to prove himself better.
And this reeks of fishy allusions to bad fanfiction, where a woman is weakened in a Mary Sue-style script. But that's no surprise at this point, is it? Next, from the 2nd issue:
It's just like Gaiman to put in forced queries like the above, about whether the guy known as the Spectre is homosexual. Because that's supposedly what makes this "mature" and "adult". To ask that about an original cast member is one thing, but asking these things about an established creation is entirely another.
And then we have to read about the young star wanting to get drunk on alcohol, is that it? By the way, any particular reason Boston Brand, aka Deadman, possessed a man who looks dressed as an Islamic cleric with a Turkish hat, to communicate aboard the plane? Something tells me that today, Gaiman wouldn't put the two subjects on the same page, since as previously mentioned, Islam abhors alcohol.
Now here, it is surprising to see Gaiman wrote a scene where it looks like an Islamic jihadist tried to attack the Phantom Stranger. But it's important to remember that ever since, Gaiman's made a joke out of even those kind of scenes based on his modern ignorance of the Religion of Peace, and highly unlikely he'd write scenes like that today. Political correctness certainly did have some effect on various leftist authors as time went by. In the next scene, when John Constantine takes Tim to stay with Zatanna:
I've seen a few panels over the years in some comics from leftist writers who must think vegetarianism is preferable to being a meat-eater. But considering what the world is like today, that's why it's hypocritical to take such an approach.
And what's this here? Is Gaiman insulting Murphy Anderson's original costume design for Zee? Won't be surprising either if he was, considering how cynical his view of DC/Marvel has actually been. That a point is made about Halloween coming about does nothing to alleviate the dismay a scene like the above can make one feel either. Such a scene was undoubtably how male feminists like Gaiman try to conceal what they're really like. And towards the end, the following comes off as pretty weak:
So Constantine saves the day, but Zatanna doesn't? Well that's not doing much to give anybody a chance to root for Zee. I'm sorry, but even this is very defeatist and underwhelming. Now for part 3:
My my, in this panel, Mister E. is suggesting the Phantom Stranger's some kind of variation on an antisemitic stereotype, "the wandering Jew", and this is casually spoken about with no form of opposition or protest in-story. Once again, Gaiman slipped in something potentially hurtful to the community he came from, but it's uncertain he actually cares about.
This sounds strangely like allusions to transsexuality. No surprise Gaiman could exploit opportunities to shoehorn something like that in, of course.
Now what have we here? A man singing about Germany ruling the world? Most likely, this alludes to WW2, and that's why this comes off as very disturbing and offensive. It's the kind of moment that makes one wonder what Gaiman really thinks about...well, you get the idea.
This reeks of sexist/misogynist stereotypes, and is just as bad as say, a fairy tale like Hansel and Gretel.
And here, looks like we have confirmation of the prior scene featuring the woman in the red suit having once been a man. How tasteless and embarrassing. Finally, from part 4:
Seriously, I don't like how Constantine is written talking to Tim in this panel. I know Constantine was written in the past as quite a cynic at times, but this is still very appalling.
Fishy allusions to a woman's body parts in the above panels, and that decidedly doesn't bode well for this book either. Not to mention that, in light of the discoveries about Gaiman's dark side, they take on a whole new meaning.

Now, here's some panels from a comic published at Marvel, apparently based on stories developed by the Alice Cooper band, founded by a man with a woman's name (originally Vincent Damon Furnier). The 3-part book is titled Last Temptation, and from the 1st part, quite a telling panel we have here:
I'm sure I don't need to point out how skin-crawlingly offensive this is in light of Gaiman's own violations. And then:
I think the reference to prostitution here is also troubling, based on what Gaiman did in real life. The reference to suicide is just as reprehensible. And next:
Hmm, now this has got to be quite telling and eyebrow raising too, considering how little respect Gaiman turned out to have for the fairer sex. Mainly because he still retained disdain for women's dignity, if anything. Reminds me of a time the Jerusalem Post columnist Ruthie Blum noted a dozen years ago that nobody's teaching kids to defend a woman's honor and dignity. Gaiman's certainly a product of the resulting moral bankruptcy. Now, here's the 2nd part:
Now claims in the past that insane people were poisoning Halloween food may have been hugely exaggerated, but what business does Gaiman have addressing stuff like this? Especially considering he attacked the Comicsgate campaign without any solid evidence as to whether it was all the "fascist" movement leftists like him regrettably wanted it to be. Here's more:
Well maybe the phantom spoken about here never stole children, but Gaiman certainly demeaned women via sexual assault. So what was his whole point putting in a scene that stinks of minimization of serious issues like kidnapping, and is further destroyed by his real life antics?
And what's this about traps? That, tragically, is what Gaiman set for the women he violated in real life.
Here we go with yet more sickness, which gives an even sicker feeling after the revelations about Gaiman's dark side.
Based on Gaiman's leftist politics, this could take on a whole new meaning too, suggesting he shoehorned contempt for the USA into his script.
And for all we know, this could just as well have been a stealth insult to the X-Men. Gaiman's antics make clear he doesn't respect Stan Lee's creations regardless. Now, one more panel from the 3rd part:
This looks like a subtle insult to Christians, and certainly monotheistic religion in general, when it comes to Halloween. From what I know, even today, plenty of Christians still celebrate the holiday, are okay with adopting what began as a pagan ritual as something for monotheists to celebrate as well, and it serves as a lead-in to All-Saints Day. So it sure is strange Gaiman would put in such a peculiar comment as that. And all in a macabre-themed comic that hasn't aged well, and would be best forgotten. It's not a treat so much as it is an atrocious trick. Next up, here's a few panels from 1602, a comic Gaiman wrote in the early 2000s, featuring variations on Marvel heroes set in the middle ages (and it's later revealed they may be time-displaced):
The use of a vulgar word in this panel, put in the mouth of Scotland's king James, is such a turnoff. This comic may not be the most profane Gaiman ever wrote, but it's still one of the most forced, contrived and downright pointless.
The "she" in question appears to be this miniseries' take on Jean Grey, and she doesn't seem particularly respected as a character here (the part where she's called a "whore" is disgusting), any more than in countless other takes on the X-Men to come down the lane over the years. Interesting how Archangel's variation is scolded for being half-undressed here. There was something potentially hypocritical here, and I guess that's why I highlighted this scene. But the following is even more eyebrow raising:
Wow, this looks like a nod to the premise of the Watchmen, not to mention another cliched stealth attack on conservatives. Even if George W. Bush wasn't a good president, the problem with stories like this is that they're not altruistic, fail to make clear what grounds they're built on, and just seem written up out of obsession with conservative-bashing. At worst, it perpetuated the destruction of Capt. America that began with the Marvel Knights series published in 2002, initially written by Jon Ney Rieber.
And here, we have insult added to injury when Archangel is made to sound like he's homosexual, in addition to Jean Grey being disguised at one point as a man, is that it? And this was before Iceman suffered even worse abuse that'll likely never be mended. Wow, this too is pretty insulting to the intellect. Gaiman sure knew how to employ his leftist influence for the worse. This is also one of the reasons a scene in the 1st issue ostensibly alluding to antisemitic persecution by medieval Spain falls flat too.

Now here's some panels from Batman in Black & White 2 from 1996:
So on the one hand, looks like there's a subtle insult to Ronald Reagan, and on the other hand, a bizarre stealth assault on France. Yes, seriously, I wouldn't be shocked if Gaiman did have it in for France, since the Joker appears to be speaking ironically when referending a country that's been victim of some of the most terrible cases of Islamofascism in history.

Next are some pages from Superman/Green Lantern: Legend of the Green Flame, a story that was originally written in the late 80s, but only published around the turn of the century, and apparently draws from the disastrous premise employed for GL in Action Comics Weekly. Meaning, of course, the time when Superman's primary title was turned weekly for about 41 issues before being shifted back to monthly (and while there was some decent stuff, like Nightwing and Black Canary entries, the GL stories were rock bottom). Let's begin with the introduction by Gaiman:
It sure is strange why anybody who claims to love GL would want to build off the premises employed in ACW, since that saw one of the most offensive moments in GL writing history, starting with Katma Tui being slaughtered by Carol Ferris in Star Sapphire mode. On which note, that direction with Carol was something that should've been abandoned by the time that grimy story was published, yet the editors at the time prolonged the humiliation, and kept things up, and Christopher Priest, who scripted it, made things worse by even agreeing to write it. Editorial mandates are no excuse either. What's fascinating is that Priest had fallouts with the editors, and ultimately left by the time Action Comics left the weekly format. Yet Gaiman thinks this makes a perfect premise to build on? Please.
Ah, and look here, they're alluding, in example, to the Hal Jordan/Arisia Raab affair. Which in fairness was dealt with using a specific awareness of how questionable it could be by writer Steve Englehart when he scripted GL's 2nd volume in its last years. Arisia was aged up via a subconscious wish on her GL ring, but an awareness was kept as to what age she could've been when she first debuted. Based on what offensive behavior Gaiman committed, however, that's why he decidedly had no business addressing it himself, even if the honeymoon was over by the time this story was meant to occur. Interestingly enough, I think it already was over by the time the 2nd volume ended, because, while the New Guardians may have been a mediocre short-lived series (originally part of the "New Format" imprint of the late 80s), it appeared that Arisia was already becoming a companion of sorts to Kilowog in the pages of that series, which wisely didn't mention the horror-fest in ACW. I think the allusion to GL's partnership with Green Arrow also falls flat. Also note the following panel towards the end:
There's decidedly something wrong with the allusion to Michael Douglas and Glenn Close's psycho-thriller of 1987, Fatal Attraction, probably because it's like Gaiman was indirectly endorsing a film where a woman was the mental case, in order to inject a stealth insult to the women he wronged. Or, he was virtue-signaling, which is very bad too. I also decided to add the book's afterword here:
Wonder what Waid thinks now that Gaiman's been exposed as a bad lot? It's annoying how Waid refers to ACW as something where lives were destroyed, because it did it in very bad taste, very offensively, and the damage may never be mended.

Now here's some pages from an Eternals miniseries Gaiman wrote at the time the Civil War crossover was occurring, where Sprite somehow erases the memories his fellow Eternals have of who exactly they are, and there is an allusion or two to that awful item in the pages of what happens to be another pointless story Gaiman brewed up. For example:
Oh my god. Almost immediately out of the gate, Gaiman writes in an insult to Kirby's creation, Sersi, where she tells the other lady that a gay man likes her because she reminds him of a drag queen?!? Meaning, of course, a man dressing as a woman. Double the insult and offense to women right there. Such practices are offensive to women, and then Gaiman makes things worse by shoehorning in a statement where a lady is insulted by being told she looks like a man?!? Wha-huh? It's just plain stupefying, especially in light of what Gaiman was discovered doing behind the scenes. Here's some more:
So in the former panel, Sprite says it's not like he wants to grow up like singer Michael Jackson, who was accused of child molestation, though Gaiman sure turned out to be quite a fiend in his own way when it came to women. Such hypocrisy right there. And in the latter panel, it looks like there's a stealth insult to Christianity again. Along with a superficial allusion to the subject of terrorism, which Gaiman only trivializes in any event. Because, in issues 2-3:
Now isn't that odd how Chechnya turns up in passing reference here, because they're a country where Islamic terrorism has been organized, but the subject remains minimized here, even in the 3rd part, and it makes little difference whether what terrorists appear in this tale have sci-fi structures or not; it's still minimizing a serious issue from real life. Also notice in the ballroom, there's peculiar allusions to potentially underaged attendants and alcohol. Again, viewed in context of Gaiman's offenses, that's why there's something fishy about that too. It gets worse with what's in the 4th part:
This is embarrassingly bad. No doubt, Gaiman was making Sersi sound like a prostitute in a most negative sense, but what's really ghastly is how it sounds like Sprite wanted to have sexual relations with her, but couldn't based on his looking like an underaged child. Let's be clear. Based on the revelations about Gaiman in real life, that's why this scene is monumentally offensive. Next, in the 5th part:
And if this was an attempt to allude to communist Russia's discriminations, this doesn't work either. Mainly because it somehow seems more like a subtle attack on conservatives in the west. And then, in part 6:
Yup. Just like that, Yellowjacket insists registration required for the sake of Civil War. Do tell us about it. Finally, in 7, this is most disturbing:
Well, well, well. Another allusion to sexual abuse, written by somebody who's disqualified himself from addressing the issue. On the following page, Zuras breaks Sprite's neck, and IIRC, a number of years after this lethargic miniseries, Sprite was resurrected in the body of a woman. As if the groan-inducing moments weren't enough. This has to be one of the worst insults to Kirby's creations, at least a dozen years before the failed live action movie came about. Now, here's a few pages from the Batman story "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?", from around 15 years ago:
On the surface, the presumed pimp may sound like he wants to coerce Catwoman/Selina Kyle into becoming a prostitute, which she actually was depicted as having once done in Frank Miller's writings in the late 80s, so depending how you view this, it can be considered strange if she's got an issue, outside of a pimp trying to force her to do his bidding. But the worse implication is that he may be threatening to sexually abuse her, and while she does take him down on the following page, it still collapses into the dust, based again, on what Gaiman did in real life.
And what's this? Some kind of variation on Miller's writing Batman saying "I'm the goddamn Batman" in his earlier stories like Dark Knight Returns? Also, who is Gaiman to write about craziness, and what's his whole fascination with the Riddler anyway?
Wow, is this supposed to be critique of violence? Because that too falls flat on its face coming from Gaiman, and so does the part about heroics, because even he played a part in dumbing it down, or ruining it altogether as time went by. Not to mention that Gaiman, by sharp contrast, is such a coward. Now, here's a few pages from Sandman: Overture, some sort of prequel to the 1989-96 series. And wouldn't you know it, more of a subject Gaiman's unfit to shine the shoes of turns up:
On the one hand, it sounds like Morpheus is being written talking to a young girl about a subject she may be too young to comprehend, which is certainly embarrassing. On the other hand, look how it's made to look like he's running the gauntlet of barging in on a woman who's changing her clothes. Quite a stealth tactic alright. And then:
Hmm, this reeks of liberal anti-war propaganda. Probably a latter day allusion to the war in Iraq from the early 2000s. Either way, such subjects are unsurprising for Gaiman, who did after all use the original 1989-96 series as a drainpipe for leftist propaganda.
This might be an allusion to the Cold War, but in light of Gaiman's real life violations of women, it also lands with a thud. A most peculiar thing about this miniseries is that the profanity was milder than the rawer stuff seen in the regular series, yet it still remains quite pretentious. Lastly, here's a few panels from Amazing Fantasy 1000, an alleged tribute to Spider-Man from about 2 years ago:
He may have felt sorry for Spidey, but clearly not for the ladies he violated, so this scene takes a nose dive.
On the matter of Peter Parker sweating underneath his mask, if that's supposed to be an allusion to how real life can be different, it crashes down under the weight of the accusations against Gaiman.
And here, the way it's set up makes it read like Gaiman was putting words in Spidey's mouth. No, Spidey didn't say Gaiman was the web-slinger's "biggest fan". It was Gaiman who did. Clearly for virtue-signaling. The way this reads out, it doesn't sound like Gaiman ever understood that Spidey's mission was to fight crime, and that can include the offensive behavior Gaiman was accused of too. I recall somebody may have said following the revelations of Gaiman's offenses that "authors create their own moral universe." Sadly, this could reflect that problem too. This is another product that's been tarnished by Gaiman's bad behavior. If Mary Jane Watson wasn't mentioned here, it's actually a fortunate thing. I hesitate to think how Gaiman would portray her if she was in this story.

In the end, I can only say that the stuff I've read written by Gaiman is some of the most pretentious leftist propaganda ever published, and even when it's not political per se, it still manages to be quite insulting to the intellect. There were a few stories where it looked like he was supposedly setting up payoffs, but never finished them. And there were others where he came off as quite the moral hypocrite alright. Some of what he wrote is even worse than what Gerard Jones did, and I don't want to read Gaiman's comics ever again, nor do I want to read any of his novels and short stories. The 3 storylines in Sandman where Morpheus was depicted being lenient on some of the grimiest criminals were some of the most insulting moments I've ever seen, ditto the parts where he forced Fury/Lyta Hall through the motions in stuff that didn't lead anywhere but down. I'm very disappointed with Gaiman as a writer, but I'm even more disappointed with him based on his vile behavior towards women in real life. I hope that someday, it'll be possible to abandon and disregard his stories as any kind of canon in the DC/Marvel universes. For now, it's fortunate he was exposed by Tortoise Media, and now, publishers and film producers are distancing themselves from him and his hypocritical works that are little more than leftist propaganda and virtue-signaling.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About me

  • I'm Avi Green
  • From Jerusalem, Israel
  • I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.
My profile

Archives

Links

  • avigreen2002@yahoo.com
  • Fansites I Created

  • Hawkfan
  • The Greatest Thing on Earth!
  • The Outer Observatory
  • Earth's Mightiest Heroines
  • The Co-Stars Primer
  • Realtime Website Traffic

    Comic book websites (open menu)

    Comic book weblogs (open menu)

    Writers and Artists (open menu)

    Video commentators (open menu)

    Miscellanous links (open menu)

  • W3 Counter stats
  • Bio Link page
  • blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory View My Stats Blog Directory & Search engine eXTReMe Tracker Locations of visitors to this page  
    Flag Counter Free Hit Counters
    Free Web Counter

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    make money online blogger templates

Older Posts Newer Posts

The Four Color Media Monitor is powered by Blogspot and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Join the Google Adsense program and learn how to make money online.