The double-standards inflicted upon Wonder Woman in OMAC-connected storyline

An old argument this may be by now, but still a great one, and gives some very good perspective and argument on the Princess of Power, and how Rucka's current storyline, which is all too obviously part of a crossover (Infinite Crisis, what else), is a far cry from what George Perez worked upon so well in the late 80s, and tossed off with much more relish than Rucka's ever offered:

...in returning Diana to her warrior roots, Perez also avoided having her learn the standard superhero code of morality. Thus, in Wonder Woman v. 2 #5, a desperate Diana used her razor-sharp tiara to behead Deimos, the war-god son of Ares. While it may have been shocking at the time, it was also part of Perez's goal to make Diana more than just a female counterpart to Superman or Thor. His efforts paid off, and although future writers like Bill Messner-Loebs and John Byrne put Diana in more superheroic situations, she was firmly established as having a perspective slightly outside the mainstream. Mark Waid took advantage of this in the alternate future of Kingdom Come, when Diana took hard-line stances on the social issues which made Superman squeamish; and she, not Superman, ended up fighting Batman.

Therefore, Diana may be believable as the bad cop, but does that make it right? Moreover, as the most recognizable female superhero, should Diana be held to a higher standard than her grimmer, grittier descendants -- or, because she's a woman, does this just make her "strong," "edgy," or "deep"? Wouldn't Xena, Dana Scully, or Sydney Bristow have done the same thing to Max Lord? Would there have been gasps of shock if Aquaman, Hawkman, or Green Arrow had killed Max? Isn't this part of the same sexist mentality which holds that a murderous Jean Loring is more shocking than a murderous Ray Palmer?

I think I can see what the writer is getting at here, and it's that Diana was used as something akin to the notion that "stereotypes are easy": she's more easily expendable than Supes and Bats are, and that's why she was the one depicted as performing the death knell, not Supes or Bats.

Thus, he's got a very good point - that this is apparently part of the same misogynistic mentality that Identity Crisis was slapped so shamelessly together with. And it's all pointed out even further in the following:

Hard to say -- but over the past two decades, DC has allowed Diana to develop into a distinct character with her own viewpoint and her own mission. This was apparent from the beginning of Perez's run when, an issue after she killed Deimos, she defeated Ares not by force or violence, but with the Lasso of Truth. It showed him the futility of his plan to incite nuclear holocaust, and compelled him to abandon it. (Nowadays, either the lasso has lost its kick or Max Lord's mental powers are stronger than a Greek god's, because it couldn't even force Max to break his hold on Superman, let alone see the truth of where his actions would lead. Since Greg Rucka has just given Diana "vision of the gods," I suppose one could rationalize that at least she saw the truth of what she did.)

Clearly a double standard has evolved from DC's having more well-defined boundaries for Superman and Batman than it has had for Wonder Woman. On the bright side, this treatment has encouraged writers to take more chances with Diana and arguably has made her a far more complex character. The downside is that while Superman and Batman may have been treated like hothouse flowers, and not allowed to grow or change in the same ways Diana has, now she looks vengeful, even amoral, in comparison to someone who only knows her from Lynda Carter. Given the choice, if fans could "sacrifice" the morality of one of the Big Three, they might well vote for Wonder Woman.

Considering that WW's already been in situations where she's had to kill, that's exactly why her doing so to Max Lord, whose return appearance in Countdown was apparently just so he could die soon afterwards in the OMAC stuff, and was intended as simply a plot device in a crossover to boot, was little more than an exercise in futility on Rucka's part. In fact, a similar argument could be made from how Jean Loring was turned into a caricature, rather than a real human being, in Day of Vengeance, written by a would-be writer whose works I now have no interest in.

Mr. Zad's TPB reviews of the week

Joseph Szadkowski reviews a couple of trade paperbacks, including North Country, Superman: For Tomorrow, Serenity, and Secrets of the Swamp Thing. And on the latter, which is a pocket-sized compilation of the first 10 issues of Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson from the first volume in the 1970s, here's what he has to say:

Basically, I want my comic art big -- OK? I want to lay it out in my back yard, climb a tree and still be able to appreciate it. I want to savor it. I want to be overwhelmed by it. That will never happen trying to read a 5-by-7-inch book offering the first, fantastic 10 issues of the Swamp Thing, written by Len Wein and drawn by one of the kings of horror art, Bernie Wrightson.

Having to use a magnifying glass to relive Mr. Wrightson's detailed brilliance is just not my idea of a satisfying art experience.

Well, I guess that's understandable, and I'll admit that even I sometimes have trouble embracing the pocket format myself, since even I like to have it easy to read. But at the same time, if it gives people a chance to obtain these kind of books without their being too expensive, I'll have to admit that it could have something to it.

Nevertheless, I do understand how he feels about this.

More characters returning just to be killed off

As this topic at the Great Curve discusses, the trend/obsession with brining back notable characters who haven't been seen in awhile just so that they can be killed off or even turned evil, a subject I once wrote about earlier, may or seems to be continuing with DC's Infinite Crisis as well. Big question: do they intend to slay the Freedom Fighters in it? And will Geoff Johns be ruining his credibility in the process?

If there's anything it most certainly does symbolize, it's the lack of interest in developing any of these minor characters who've been used as the sitting ducks in the various stories they've been putting out lately, which is a leading problem with today's comics publishers.

One more reason why I prefer to wait and buy in trades today

This may be mainly about Marvel, but Yet Another Comics Blog presents an accurate reason why I'd rather get their stuff in trades today. 48 pages, and the majority are advertisements?! Oh yeah, go figure.

But lest anyone think that DC would still be getting my money on monthly issues, I decided some time ago that even they would have to wait for the trades, and any that I do get would be back issues. It's getting sadly, but not surprisingly, expensive these days, even for me, and a budget is a budget, and in my case, I had to cut back.

Now for a good college newspaper article: exhibition at Indiana library

Great, this is much more impressive than the last. The Indiana Daily Student writes about a comics exhibition taking place at the Lilly Library, sponsored by the historian Michael E. Uslan.

I think this is what I like the best from what Uslan is quoted as saying here:

"The ancient gods of the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians and the Norse still exist, only today they're clad in spandex, capes and masks," Uslan said.

Quite right, and if done well, then enjoyably so.

Superhero movies conquer with darkness?

The Webster College Journal publishes an article about comics-to-film, and the problem I find here is that it seems, at least in the first part, to make a lot of fuss about Batman, both comics and movies, more so than it does about something like Superman:

According to Weathers, comic books are also a misunderstood genre, presented through "bastardized films that miss the point."

Movies based on comic books tend to water down content for mass appeal, Weathers said. The Batman movies with Val Kilmer and George Clooney in the '90s were just marketing tools. He said too often filmmakers try to condense complex stories that shouldn't be made into movies. Two hours is not always long enough to do such stories justice.

Now that's certainly saying something. Trouble is, what comes next undermines the above, courtesy of what some might call the overlapping of "media bias":

The new Batman movie, "Batman Begins," released this past summer, is different than its predecessors. Directed by Chris Nolan, "Batman Begins" is not Weathers' favorite Batman film, but he said that movie got the gist of the comic.

"It seemed more dedicated to relaying the DNA of the character rather than the facade," Weathers said.

Although Weathers is not a particularly avid fan of superheroes, he enjoys Batman comics.

"He's one of the more balanced characters in comic books and well rounded," Weathers said, adding Batman is not necessarily good or bad but somewhere in between.

Others agree that darkness can set the mood for a movie and appeals to different audiences.

That implication again?! And not very clearly either. Just what do they mean by "different audiences"? The problem for me is that it sounds almost like a generalization of the audience at that.

Oh, and what have we here, to compound the above misleadings:

"The first Batman movie was great," said Michael Steinberg, director of the Webster Film Series. "It was a wonderful retelling of the original Batman stories and captured the same darkness and look of the comics."

This summer's "Batman Begins" also included a dark, mature atmosphere, Steinberg said. When filmmakers want to target younger viewers, they change the mood to lighter and friendlier.

"Comics get cute for the sake of the audience," Steinberg said.

Steinberg does not stand alone with his opinion.

Young people are drawn to this cuteness, but end up getting a different message than they expected, said Kathy Corley, chair of the electronic and photographic media department and film professor.

Corley cited "The Incredibles" as a model. Despite the cute characters, Corley said the film was actually a critique of American values. In the flick, Mr. Incredible was sued and forced into a protection program. When he said, "They keep finding ways to celebrate mediocrity," the movie suggested the American standard of education is too low, Corley said.

Now I'm not blind to even what the Disney company does, and believe me, if you know where to look, you'll find that they're not so clean themselves either (and goodness knows what problems I happen to have with their business dealings with foreign "investors"). But even so, what this member of the college staff is doing here is taking everything out of context by implying that the public itself actually wants to "celebrate mediocrity". No, Mrs. Corley, it's the mainstream media(MSM for short) that does. For years, they've been telling us what to think or believe, and this certainly isn't getting much better.

Technological advances also make superhero stories more realistic.

"Superheroes can do more now," said Art Silverblatt, a Webster media communications professor. "You go to see the special effects of a film."

When George Reeves played Superman, the audience could see the strings used to give him the appearance of flight, Silverblatt said. The Christopher Reeve films were exciting for their time, but the special effects are now thought to be poor.

Oh, for heaven's sake! Once again, special effects are more important than good storytelling and scriptwriting. And don't tell me that superheroes can do more now without telling me where they can. In the comics, maybe, but in the movies, can we be clear here that I don't just simply go to see special effects in motion? Please.

"Comic books have evolved and changed with the times to stay relevant," Weathers said. "It's amazing how they have kept their appeal through change."

Others are not surprised by the continued success of heroes and comics.

If only they'd take a closer look at things, even at the comics blogosphere...

"There are always new examples of what is considered good verses what is considered evil," Corley said, adding that comic books provide a social consciousness about issues like war.

They do? But in what perspective? Good or bad? Just look at what happened to Capt. America and even other Marvel books in the last few years, or what's happened to even the DCU in the last year or so.

With movie titles like "Spiderman 3," "X-Men 3" and "Superman Returns" scheduled to be released in the near future, the superhero trend in film will most likely continue.

"The only way it seems for a comic book to stay relevant is to have a movie made about it," Weathers said.

Which is almost like implying that they know things are bad for comics in sales and recognition, but at the same time, is still kept very dismayingly shrouded. Or are they implying that comics have to take their cue from the movies? Sorry, but with the dreadful track record movies seem to have this year, and the diminishing returns at the box office indicating that, I'm not impressed.

College coverage of comics just isn't what it could be either. Sigh.

It may be a computer game article, but...

I really don't like how Game Informer (via the Bradenton Herald, where it was published as a wire servicer) seems to sugarcoat the death of even the Ultimate Gwen Stacy:

For those of you who are not familiar with Marvel's "Ultimate" line, it's a modern-day retelling of classic character origins and stories. This line has become so popular, in fact, that the first issue of "Ultimate Spider-Man," released in 2000, is already valued at $175.

Marvel is taking its time letting this new universe develop, which shows in the great focus that is being applied to developing the characters. Bendis didn't waste any time offing Gwen Stacy (this time at the hands of Carnage), but Peter Parker is still in high school and it doesn't look like he will be graduating any time soon.

And it doesn't look like I'll be encouraged to read the book or play the game any time soon either. Is that supposed to be something great, that even an alternate universe version of Gwen's been offed? I don't think so. In fact, if the Ultimate line was supposed to be trying out new and/or different takes on the worlds of these characters, then that's about as new as what's in the newspaper bin.

And lemme get this straight: the first Ultimate issue of Spidey is valued at close to 200 bucks? Oh yeah, big deal.

Someone who's mainly a DC fan

In a recent issue of the Daily Dunklin Democrat (from Missouri, I think), a writer talks about how he came to be a comics reader, and was mainly a DC fan:

"I still read them today, mostly DC characters. Even though I subscribe to many Marvel titles, I still consider myself a DC man, for no reason other than that DC's heroes first caught my eye. These superheroes represented something that caught my attention, but what about them was so interesting?

In my younger days I think it was because I yearned for the glory, or the seeming glory, others had in academics or the baseball field or the basketball court that I didn't. For me it was easier living vicariously through the glory of superheroes, knowing, on the outside I might be painfully ordinary, on the inside I had something infinitely greater than anyone with the ability to get an A, hit a home run, or score a three point shot."

That's interesting, though I'll have to note that, if it were to imply that he doesn't/didn't read DC comics for ultra-darkness, well then, let's just say that I don't read Marvel for that either. And I've never been able to understand where anyone got the idea that any Marvel reader was into them for darkness. Of course some are, that's a given, but what genuine proof is there that all of Marvel's audience does? After all, Spider-Man, IMO, works best when it's got the bright side in motion, and when it began during the Silver Age, many of the adventures certainly did involve the art of fun. The same goes in fact for the Avengers, and thinking now of Avengers #221 from July 1982 that I've got at home, when She-Hulk was first invited to work with the EMH, it was the fact that it was written as both fun and funny that made it work for me.

So I'll have to hand it to the writer of this article, that he does make a fairly good point.

Marvel signs a 10-movie deal with Paramount

The Indianapolis Star/Bloomberg reports that Marvel's entered a 10-film deal that even involves characters like Capt. America, Nick Fury, and even...Ant-Man?!

But aside from that, let's see what the flaws are in this mainstream media report:

Marvel's decision to go without a studio partner will give it the opportunity to build a film library and a greater chance to profit if the films are successful. The move may help the company reverse a decline in net income over five of the past six quarters as licensing revenue slipped. Marvel previously licensed its film rights to studios including Sony Corp.'s Sony Pictures and News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox.

"This is phenomenally good for the company, and it's the best movie financing deal Hollywood has ever seen," said Robert Routh, an analyst for Jeffries & Co. in New York, who has a "buy" rating on the stock and owns shares of the company. "They got a good deal because their characters are so valuable."

Sigh. As expected, they're just not getting into the really big picture. Marvel's editors, even now, aren't exactly treating their characters like they're valuble. If they did, would we have had to put up with something as awful as Avengers Disassembled/House of M, or even the next massive crossover, Decimation?

"The movies are there to support the core businesses of toys, licensing, video games and publishing," Avi Arad, chief executive officer of Marvel Studios, said in a conference call with investors. "Each of these titles is meant to be a franchise."

I take it the core businesses don't include comic book publishing, eh? Pity.

The characters covered under the deal also include The Avengers, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi, according to the statement.

Somehow, I highly doubt we'll be seeing a movie based on the Avengers or even Ant-Man that easily. Come to think of it, why do I get the feeling that even a movie based on Hawkeye isn't too likely, any more than one based on Green Arrow?

But the main problem with all this is, it just doesn't seem to have anything to do with their comics publishing, which apparently does not factor into this.

Aquaman gets no respect?

Seeing this topic on Howling Curmudgeons, I'll have to admit that it's a good question: why doesn't Aquaman get any respect? Even with an ongoing that's still going, it appears true, that Arthur Curry doesn't get any real respect, even if he's got a wife as lovely as Mera.

Actually, upon reading this, I think an even better question might be: why don't the writers give the Sea King any respect? After a nightmare like the one presented in Adventure Comics #452, I think that's exactly why such a question most certainly warrents some thinking.

But at the same time, let's not forget the Silver Age Atom, who's also mentioned in the topic. One of the best arguements from there includes this one:

I think that the Atom suffered from this as well, although I agree that the JLU take of presenting Atom/Ray Palmer as one of *the* scientists in the group has helped to rehabilitate the character in a way (it also helps that a bunch of characters who used to be very competent scientists in the Silver Age, such as the Flash and Superman himself) no longer are.

Yes, there's an interesting point to that. Too few superheroes these days are being written as actual scientists or even technologists, probably because it's thought that being one would take away a lot of the challenges faced by the protagonists, I assume. Not at all. In fact, it could help them.

Sunbury's Daily Item: IC's 9-11 tie-ins confirmed

I was stunned when I found this. But it looks like now, with this article/interview from the Daily Item from Sunbury, Pennsylvania, the political stemmings of Identity Crisis have been confirmed:

..."Identity Crisis," a seven-issue miniseries collected this month in a special hardcover edition, didn't start out as a big event.

Instead, writer Brad Meltzer says, it was intended to be a small, emotional story — a look at the cost of being a hero.

DC's editors approached Meltzer after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. With those attacks giving Americans a new appreciation for firefighters and other everyday heroes, DC wanted a story that explored the risks its heroes faced when they donned masks and capes.

If you think the above that I highlighted looks confusing, you're right, it most certainly does. What exactly is this supposed to mean? That Americans are wrong to show appreciation for heroes? This is scary.

But one thing that certainly is being done here: the newspaper is lying if what they're saying is that this miniseries does what the American public appreciates. It does not portray heroes respectably, as noted below, and does little more than to depict them as failures.

Predictably, not only does the newspaper interview gloss over many of the real problems the miniseries suffers from, but Meltzer repeats the very weak defenses he used a year ago:

"I had no desire to kill a character for no good reason, not just shock value or sales," Meltzer says.

But in more talks with editors, an idea clicked.

"I said, 'You know what, I got it. Let me go.' In my head, it all made sense to me."

It did? As John Wayne once said, shyeah, right. I'm just falling out of my chair laughing already. What about the unspeakable act of horror Deathstroke pulled on Black Canary, and even the punch he gave Zatanna that caused her to vomit? And it only gets more hysterical with this:

A few days later, he returned with the pitch for what would become "Identity Crisis" — a murder-mystery that at its heart is a story of loss and families and heroism.

Oh, do tell me about it. They wipe Batman's mind, along with Dr. Light's, and Batman himself acts nasty, implying that he's on the side of a character who committed a rape, which is not even mentioned in the interview, and never show any genuine sympathy for the victim, that being Sue Dibny, of course. Some people may have said that the Masked Manhunter came off the best in this book, but when you look upon things harder, including the fact that he totally missed the phone being off the hook in the Dibny's apartment, you can see for yourself that even Batman comes off pretty bad, and isn't being portrayed heroically either.

The story follows the investigation into the murder of Sue Dibny, the wife of the stretchable Elongated Man. In doing so, it reveals a secret from the past of the Justice League of America.

To protect their loved ones, DC's greatest heroes had voted to perform "mindwipes" on some villains, erasing key memories. The JLA went a step further with Dr. Light, performing a sort of magical lobotomy on him.

When one of their own, Batman, objected, a mindwipe was performed on him.

So let me get this straight. They turned on their best pal, yet they say the book is about heroism? Please, that's the best one I've heard all day. Talk about forgetting what they said in the first place!

The Savage Critic blog at ComixExperience sums it up much better than I do:

Where is the heroism here? Did anything "heroic" occur in IDENTITY CRISIS? No, we've seen rapes, and murders, and insanity and horror, and self-delusion, and secrets and lies. And I don't think any of these characters are anything other than worse for it. Where's the damn heroism?

Alas, it's nowhere to be found. And thinking about it now, the way that the characters are shown to be utterly incompetant when battling Deathstroke...not exactly what I'd call heroic either. Nor the way that Ronnie Raymond as Firestorm just left himself open to an attack by the Shadow Thief in issue 5.

Next in the Daily Item interview, they say that:

Meltzer also used "Identity Crisis" to explore and revamp many of DC's second-tier heroes, such as Boomerang and the Calculator.

He was offered the option of using the baddest of the bad, such as the Joker, but he opted for the villains he says nobody cared about.

Probably just to serve as a cover, to make it look as if he was being clever. Sorry, but I'm not fooled, and making second-tier villians interesting at all costs is no substitute for good moral and common sense, which are crucial to good storytelling.

Next, a really big howler:

"I wanted to put a human face on both sides of this equation, hero and villain," Meltzer says.

No kidding. Then why were a]the women left out, b]Superman and even Hawkman made to look bad, c]the heroes covering up Dr. Light's crime and not informing anyone about them, and most importantly of all, d]Ralph and Sue largely minimized?

The mindwipes have been a key element in various titles as relationships between DC's heroes have soured — most notably the ties between the big three: Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

And that's a good thing? Yawn. Been there, done that.

Similarly, the newly reinvigorated villains from "Identity Crisis" have proved critical to DC's current direction.

No kidding. I can't say, after all this time, that they're in colossal demand. And the villains didn't have to be cast in some mega-extravaganza in order for other writers to be prompted to use them. Dr. Light may have been used in the recent "Light's Out" story in Teen Titans, but now, what's really being done with him? Nothing much. And things certainly have waned by now for a lot of this hubbub DC didn't have to make.

Meltzer has the inside scoop on what's ahead for DC's beleaguered heroes — though he, of course, isn't telling. Geoff Johns, one of his closest friends, is writing the "Infinite Crisis" miniseries.

If he is, that's pretty bad. Either way though, after the gratutious rape in issue 2, and all the horrific violence in issue 3 and even 6, with even Firestorm being belittled, when reading the following:

A longtime comics fan, Meltzer is thrilled to see so many stories spinning out of "Identity Crisis.

"To see this level built on something that we started, there's no greater kind of geek moment than that."

I can only laugh. Because if he were really a comics fan, I doubt he'd stoop that low. In fact, I think he may have given himself away with his use of the word "geek": because it's been used as a form of stereotypical description of comics fans in past years, it makes me wonder if what he's really saying is that it's great to see so many unwitting addicts falling for the whole mess, hook, line and sinker.

Comics fan, my foot.

The worst part of all is that this interview is coming out on the week that 9-11 is in memorium. The Dread Pundit Bluto has an entry today talking about how the Syracuse Post-Standard chose to commemorate 9-11 by running an article on how some professors at the Syracuse university compared the US to the Axis powers. With the Daily Item/Knight/Ridder's running an interview that glosses over a book that's more or less an attack on the US in metaphorical sense, you could say that they too have pulled a similar dirty trick.

Beginning now as a contributing columnist for Paperback Reader

Today, with this starting column, in which I ponder an the difference in reactions to Marvel and DC's "event" publishing of last year (and also try and offer some positive arguments for both Sue Dibny and Jean Loring), I begin now as a contributor to Paperback Reader.

Let me thank Chris Partin and company again for their invitation to join their editorial staff, which was quite a pleasant surprise (again, I do hope there's no hard feelings from Barry, whom, as I assured later on, my disagreement with one of his earlier columns wasn't personal, of course). In fact, now that I think of it, Paperback Reader may be by far one of the best websites to come my way, and I most certainly do enjoy writing.

I've already submitted another column in the meantime, and for now, I'll see if I can work things out on a bi-weekly basis.

In the meantime, I'd thought of something else that I could do as a blog project for whenever I'm blogging. I won't say what it is just now, just that it's mostly history related, but I'll hopefully get around to it.

Meanwhile, let me thank Chris and company again, and I hope to be able to do my best, for both them and me, in writing all about my leading favorite pastime, comics.

The more things "change" the more they end up appalling

I'd heard that Gannett News Service had become pretty bad recently, and this comics article from the Montgomery Advertiser could certainly attest to that. Wow, is this ever dumbing down mainstream comics coverage! The owner of a comics store is told to be of the following position:

It's the day he gets to see how Batman will react after being betrayed by his closest allies and seeing his greatest failure come back to life; how Superman will react to seeing one of his best friends resort to murder right in front of his eyes; and how Spider-Man will deal with the fact that his perfect life isn't his life at all.

In short, it's a great time to be a comic book fan.

Simply H-wow. Having terrible things happening is something to celebrate, is that it? But there you have it, one of the biggest problems with how comics are being covered in the mainstream media lately: they make it sound as if gloom and doom are something to celebrate with a capital C. How touching.

"We've had to up our orders just to keep things in stock," said Jason Barnes of Comics and Cards Trading Post on Vaughn Road. "They're definitely some of the most popular crossovers in awhile."

Is that so? Last I looked, DC's sales had falled back behind Marvel's in the charts again. While as for Marvel, theirs aren't exactly making massive waves now either.

DC and Marvel are no strangers to crossovers, but these new ones seem poised to actually deliver on the promise of completely changing the universes of their popular characters.

"Any time you shake up the foundations of a whole universe and kill off a couple of characters, it's going to draw interest," said Rob Duncan, owner of Capitol City Comix on Atlanta Highway.

Now isn't that the stuff that the MSM just loves to lap up like milk. Clearly, this man does not pay sharp attention to what people have to say on the internet, no matter their positions. And that he should be following in the footsteps of the companies themselves by making it sound as if he too favors death and destruction as a way of getting sales for his own store, all that does is discourage me from ever buying there.

Any time you do what he says, there's every chance it'll raise heckles and cause anger among the audience, whether for good or for bad. But you wouldn't know it from reading the above.

Duncan said that many of the comics connected with the two series are already in their second, third and even fourth printings after selling out, and he's constantly had to order more copies.

"DC Comics have picked up across the board," he said. "Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and JLA (Justice League America) are really doing well."

And with what they have going on, it's not surprising.

Really. I'd blogged an article or three here on the subject, and even provided Diamond's sales results for the summer, and, having turned to Diamond again on their own website, this is what I found in publishing shares for June 2005:

MARVEL COMICS 41.12%

DC COMICS 36.59%

How about that. More or less five percent ahead, that's our Marvel alright. I remember that PostmodernBarney once suggested that Marvel fans have a harder time dropping their books, or DC fans an easier one. Now that's not saying that DC fans are more high-minded than Marvel ones, or vice-versa, but one thing I've come to realize in past years is that: apparently, because Marvel's characters have/had personalties, and presumably livelier dialogue, so that's led to a lot favoratism. It's not something I'm happy about, if it's true, but that's apparently one of the leading factors, aside from having "hot" writers like Bendis on board, for Marvel's constant success in the Diamond sales charts.

In any case, the salesmen are largely exaggerating. ICV2's website also indicates that sales for graphic novels (trades) are the ones that're actually doing better. But if there's anything definate here, it's that the really biting questions are being ignored.

And, to make matters worse, we're told here what to think/believe:

The crossover started with the six-issue series "Identity Crisis" and since then has seen Batman's memories erased by fellow heroes and almost killed by a mind-controlled Superman. Wonder Woman killed a man in cold blood to free Superman from the mind control. And there's the return of Jason Todd, who was once Batman's sidekick Robin but was killed by the Joker, and his revelation that some of the DC heroes had taken to altering the minds of several supervillains.

"Things are getting darker and edgier in comics," Barnes said. "Fans love to see the darker side to their heroes, like seeing Wonder Woman go where Superman would never go."

No kidding. Please, do tell me something else I presumably don't know. I look at Comic Book Resources forum, one of the most outspoken on the subject, and while there are those who do like what Mr. Barnes says, there are also those who don't. What this salesman is doing by not drawing distinction between the two sides is basically insulting.

And what's this about WW going where Supes wouldn't? Is that supposed to be some kind of implication that Supes really wouldn't? Or is it discrimination? Puh-leez.

It gets worse. A comics fan from the area says:

"I think DC and Marvel are listening to the fans," he said. "We want to see heroes die and stay dead for a while, and if they have to come back from the dead, come back for a purpose."

Still telling what to think/believe, I'm afraid, to say nothing of speaking on behalf of all the fans without prior consultation. Sorry. Please purchase a ticket at the theater booth and come back.

That fans wall-to-wall and coast-to-coast are only interested in how the reader quoted above puts it is one of the worst parts of this piece of propaganda. In fact, it's perpetuating stereotypes, that's what it is.

The best example of this may be the return of [Jason] Todd as well as the recent Marvel resurrection of Captain America's long-dead sidekick Bucky. Both have come back as dark vigilantes who have no problems with killing.

"The comics are definitely getting more real," Duncan said. "Instead of the good guys fighting the bad guys and the good guys winning, it's no longer about having a happy ending all the time."

Ha ha ha. This is really awful now, since what we see here glosses over the question of story quality. And is it really real, or, shall we say, realistic? This article certainly isn't telling. And the part about Jason Todd and Bucky killing is definately disturbing. In fairness, I could probably buy into Bucky killing, if it's nazis he's terminating, but Jason? In the contemporary era, depending on what he's dealing with, I doubt it.

Now for the token dissenting voice, though even that, I might warn, is rendered superficial:

But not everyone sees this darker and more realistic trend as a good thing.

Jeremy Wells of Montgomery, 30, has been a big comic book fan since he was a child. He has passed on that love to his son Justin, 10.

But he's having trouble finding any comics he grew up on and loved that he can allow Justin to read.

"Comics have just gotten too evil for him," he said. "How can I let a kid his age read Captain America when he's cussing and getting so aggressive or Wonder Woman when she's killing people?"

Wells said he's dismayed that there are not many comics he can read with his son.

"He's past the age of the kiddie comics but not ready for some of the stuff they've got out now that's targeted towards adults," he said.

That's a fine argument there, but, what about the adults? Let's not forget that not every adult reads comic books just for bloodletting and devastation. If there's any really hard-hitting question that's been left out, there you have it.

The Capitol City Comix owner caps it off with a pretty big letdown:

Duncan said he hasn't seen that as a problem, since the comics are targeted toward adults and adults are buying most of them.

"There's so many out there -- kids don't really have the income to get them all. I pretty much have all adults buying them," he said.

Huh?! Kids don't have any income? Is he saying that parents don't try to help buy them for their children either? Talk about insulting the younger generation! And of course, the above blurs out the question of if part of the reason why kids aren't buying comics is in part because nobody's doing anything to encourage them to take interest in them, again or anew. Aside from that, whoever said that they wanted to or had to get 'em all? There too, an ambiguous response.

So there you have it, a pretty sad case of even a Gannett-owned newspaper dumbing down the whole inside story on comics. Sad, isn't it? Sigh.

Last but not least:

The success of these comics likely will continue. Once "Infinite Crisis" (the series doesn't even release it's first issue until October) and "House of M" end, the next big crossovers come with DCs "One Year Later" (which, as the title suggests, moves all the company's titles one year after the events of "Infinite Crisis") and Marvel's "Decimation," which deals with the fallout of "House of M."

Groan. Does this include DC too? I don't know, but it certainly looks like Marvel's got one more item to foist upon readers.

I won't be there, though. No more crossovers for me, that's it.

Update: speaking of Bendis, here's an awful item from the ultra-establishment Newsarama, and guess what Brian Bendis called the House of M in their report on the subject:

"Bendis called the series a 'love letter' to all the Magneto and Avengers stories that came before, and the idea of House of M is not to turn the Marvel Universe on it's head 'because we think we know better.' ...Bendis said that the series is a 'Valentine' to Marvel Comics from the '70s where he feels creators were creating new characters and new stories trying to one-up Stan Lee (in spirit). Bendis added that just because they are looking to tell new stories and new ways of telling them, doesn’t mean that anything old will be destroyed."

It makes no difference. After what Brad Meltzer called Identity Crisis last year, to call even this miniseries a love letter or a valentine, both of which I marked in bold, is to do little more than to signal more bad news, and could very easily put in doubt what's being planned, or will be the turnout for this story. One more reason why I'm just not interested.

Via Fanboy Rampage, which has another entry about people who still buy into all this "hype".

Plus, here's an entry from Comic World News about why all this "hype" is bad.

"TC" for terrorism chic?

The Seattle Times features an article about the upcoming adaptation of Alan Moore's V for Vendetta. And from what can be told here, it appears that Moore himself, perhaps not surprisingly (is anything surprising nowadays?), is not happy about the finished film:

The movie is based on an acclaimed graphic novel — but that book's author has called the screenplay "imbecilic" and wants nothing to do with the film. The lead actor was let go four weeks into the filming and his replacement never bothered to read the comic book. The main character is a masked terrorist on a rampage in London who uses the trains of the Underground to attack the government — a scenario that has proven too close to real life. And despite a trailer for the film that culminates in a voice-over telling the audience to "remember, remember the 5th of November" — a reference to the release date — the opening was delayed at first until February and then, most recently, until March.

(snip)

With so many travails, it's not unreasonable to wonder if this capes-on-cobblestones movie will end up in the same commercial litter box as the studio's "Catwoman," a universally ridiculed masked mishap.

If that fate befalls "Vendetta," it would be "bloody depressing" for legions of fans who have been looking forward to seeing the beloved graphic novel elevated into a socially provocative film. Producer Joel Silver ("The Matrix," "Lethal Weapon" franchises) acquired the rights to "V for Vendetta" in the late 1980s, at a time when the tale by writer Alan Moore and artist David Lloyd conjured up references of Margaret Thatcher and George Orwell — not Osama bin Laden.

"This is a movie that is special. ... It's about violence and society," Silver said in a recent phone interview. The producer spoke a bit more before the call came to an end. But he called back within the hour. "Look, we need help on this. We need people to understand what this movie is and what it's trying to do. Look, it is a controversial movie."

Silver can be forgiven for sounding a bit anxious about the road ahead. It'd be grossly unfair to say the movie is destined to be a train wreck. But even Silver can't argue that it's been a challenge just keeping this particular vehicle on track.

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made it awkward for any ensuing film that intended to casually pan across the New York skyline or weave scenes of urban carnage into a plot. Likewise, "Vendetta" is a film that has some echoes of the July attacks in London that used mass transit and bombs and left more than 50 people dead.

Given that this is a wire service article coming from the ultra-PC Los Angeles Times, it's to be expected that something is being glossed over or missed here. And by that, it may worse than just the real-life similarities the movie, if not the original miniseries, may contain. To get a clue of what could be inside Matrix writers' Larry and Andy Wachowski's latest film, here's part of an article from Front Page Magazine:

"V For Vendetta." From Warner Brothers and the creators of "The Matrix" comes this film about a futuristic Great Britain that's become a 'fascist state.' A masked 'freedom fighter' named V uses terror tactics (including bombing the London Underground) to undermine the government - leading to a climax in which the British Parliament is blown up. Natalie Portman stars as a skinhead who turns to 'the revolution' after doing time as a Guantanamo-style prisoner.

I'm going to be quite honest here now. I am not confortable with the idea of making that low a "punk revolutionary" movie, which Portman's being a skinhead implies this'll be. That just emphasizes just how parrot-phrasing this movie could actually turn out to be.

To comment on some more of this article from the LA Times:

Still unclear is whether the movie can get past the criticism leveled by Moore (who, like the Wachowskis, is press suspicious). He has asked that his name be taken off the credits and any checks (he said Warner Bros. should give Lloyd all the money for the story rights).

No kidding. The Wachowskis, the ones who put this movie together, are really press suspicious? Don't they know that publicity provided by the writers/directors is important too? Or, is it possible that they really did decline clear press coverage here, for fear that they would end up in an embarrassing light?

As for Moore himself, they say here:

An elusive figure who cooks up intricate tales of mythology and the fantastic, Moore has been burned again when those creations have ambled off the printed page on to the screen.

"Swamp Thing," "From Hell" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentleman" failed miserably to match Moore's words. And his masterpiece, "Watchmen," made history in comic books but has changed hands as a movie property repeatedly since 1980s and been treated brusquely along the way.

Moore himself despises Hollywood now.

He told the BBC in a rare interview that an ugly legal spat that followed the "Extraordinary Gentlemen" experience sealed his opinion of Hollywood.

I certainly can't blame him. In fact, this now reminds me of when I saw an article on Newsarama that seemed to say that he was "satisfied" with the LOEG movie. But now, after reading this, I wouldn't be surprised if they were misinforming.

Update: just as I thought. The ultra-PC Capt. Comics glosses over just about all of the hard questions surrounding this movie. Which just shows how unreliable the mainstream media is, even with comic related issues.

And now...conservative comic books come into play

This is quite facinating, I must admit, coming from a newspaper that's know for being liberal in its stances (save for Jeff Jacoby). The Boston Globe writes about a new comic book for the young conservative crowd called "Liberality for All" written by a Kentucky resident named Mike Mackey. But, based on the following parts, mainly what I highlight here, there's no telling if this is something for conserves to party over:

A new comic series bearing the unwieldy title ''Liberality for All" is coming out in October from ACC Studios, a recently formed one-man publishing venture in Kentucky. Advertised as ''an Orwellian nightmare of ultra-liberalism," the series features radio pundits Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, and Oliver North as biomechanically tricked-out members of a conservative underground resistance called F.O.I.L. (the Freedom of Information League). Writer and creator Mike Mackey, an affable comic book aficionado, says it's the conservative movement's first comic book series (unless you count the three 1987 issues of the exquisitely low-camp ''Reagan's Raiders") and the only series put together specifically for a right-wing audience. (A story synopsis and sample panels are online at accstudios.com).

Set in the year 2021, the eight-book series imagines an alternative history in which Al Gore won the 2000 election and liberals went on to create a grim dystopia, with Chelsea Clinton as president, Michael Moore the vice president, a hyper-active Department of Political-Correctness, and the United States under the thumb of a corrupt United Nations world government. Meanwhile, Islamic terrorists no longer consider the kinder, gentler US government a threat, and have focused their energies on assassinating their true enemies--the arch conservatives who make up the resistance. Osama bin Laden, now the Afghan ambassador to the United Nations, plans to wipe out New York with a nuclear device, and it's up to our dynamic talk-radio trio to save the nation.

In other words, ''Liberality for All" is a compendium of loopy, high-decibel conservative paranoia--or is it? Bloggers discussing the sample panels can't seem to agree whether the intention is ham-handed propaganda or more subtle ridicule. And many of the e-mails Mackey has received aren't much help either. ''My hats [sic] off to you for putting it to these self-absorbed idiots," one reader told Mackey recently. ''Keep up the good work!" Was the writer praising the attack on liberalism-gone-wild or the send-up of conservative pet anxieties? ''I have no idea," Mackey admits.

And that's fine with him. Mackey says he deliberately wrote the comic with a degree of ambiguity.

Ambiguous? If he's not taking a clear position either way, then there's no telling if this is something to be pleased about or not, I hate to say. Only if it takes a firm stance in its positions does it qualify as anything good.

There's also the fact that I find the idea of using real-life figures like Hannity, Liddy and North as the protagonists in this item that makes me doubt it'll be a bullseye for indie-published books. Why not fictionalized characters?

And considering that the article was written by a paper owned by the NY Times, I think that's one more reason why I'd examine this "Liberality for All" with caution if I ever found it up front.

I've argued before about the MSM's resorting to "fluff articles" on comics coverage rather than meat-and-potatoes coverage. This certainly isn't getting much better.

Update: Think Computers has a take on the book that does look promising at first. The Globe's coverage, however, may blur up the exact facts.