The Four Color Media Monitor

The Free Press of London, Ontario reports that the Comic Book Collector, one of the oldest specialty stores which opened back in 1979, is now closing down because of poor sales, and Marvel has to be faulted for at least some of the decline:

It wasn’t the fierce competition in the Forest City that has forced owner Tim Morris to close down.

It wasn’t the fact Marvel Comics has neglected its print products in favour of blockbuster movie adaptations featuring Wolverine, the Avengers, Captain America and Iron Man.

It wasn’t the summer construction east of Adelaide.

It was all of those things.

“It’s not making any money,” Morris said.

The store’s third owner, Morris, 60, says he simply can’t afford to sink any more cash into the venture.

As I figured, Marvel's abandonment of their comics proper for the sake of movies, by leaving the writing to a bunch of amateurs, has been costing readers who've come to see their output from nearly 2 decades past as some of the worst scriptwriting possible. More of that is discussed below:

One of the biggest factors in the sales decline, Morris says, is the proliferation of needless, low-quality books the last few years from Marvel Comics especially. “Marvel Comics has been doing a bunch of crap for the last five years,” he said. So where there was once a single monthly title starring self-reflective mutant antihero Deadpool, there are now four. “Give me one good Deadpool book,” Morris said.

On this, I'd like to make clear, however, that their downfall came much farther back, in the early to mid-90s, with the X-Men one of the biggest victims of dismal scripting. As I've noted a few times, I can't help feel at this point that badly written characters like Gambit were only created to give extended merchandise manufacturers something to go by for developing cartoons and toy action figures. Yep, IMHO, licensed merchandise had a part of its own in bringing down superhero comics, which by then had been taken over by apathetic publishers with no confidence in the creations they were taking charge of.

And 4 Deadpool books is certainly too many. Especially if, as the guy hints, they're written as badly as they come. But hey, given creator Rob Liefeld (who conceived Wade Wilson with Fabian Nicieza) was almost as bad a writer as he was an artist, it isn't much of a surprise.

As I read this, I also thought it best to make a point that Marvel's not the only one guilty of this poor quality. Even DC has to be held accountable in plenty of ways for bringing down the quality of storytelling. Let's remember a lot of the worst stuff they put out in the mid-2000s, with surely the worst being Identity Crisis and Countdown to Infinite Crisis, to name but some, and they came up with some SJW-pandering diversity tactics (a Latino Blue Beetle, Asian Atom, female Manhunter, black Firestorm) several years before Marvel began pushing the idea so forcefully. Even the changing of Green Lantern Alan Scott to gay in the "New 52", their own big mistake from the past 6 years, was another example coming just a few years before Marvel's own blatant steps, more on which is spoken of below.

There’s also a disconnect between the company’s comic universe and the cinematic one.

“(Fixing) continuity would bring a lot of people back,” Morris added.

Now that's an excellent point! Continuity as we once knew it has been reduced to a terrible jumble at the Big Two, and this was already back in the early 2000s. Grant Morrison made a mockery of the X-Men's characterization, to name but one example, and the Marvel Knights volume of Captain America was definitely another. I'd argue there's valid grounds for quietly canning a lot of the storylines that were in use since the mid-2000s, and even earlier, going back to the 1990s. There may have been some gems at the time, but there were still quite a few disasters in storytelling at the time, like the Spider-Man Clone Saga and a lot of X-Men stories written by Scott Lobdell and Fabian Nicieza. Green Lantern was also in a state of badness during this time, what with all the contrived, forced writing that went on when Ron Marz was helming that title, and that's something that could be discarded from continuity too. Why, who knows, even the Gerard Jones run may have to be discarded after the scandal he caused.

He’ll have customers come in the store fresh from the multiplex who are confused because they don’t understand why the Hulk’s alter ego, Bruce Banner, is dead.

And Spider-Man is Hispanic.

And Thor is a woman.

And Iron Man's had his background forcibly retconned, and been mostly replaced by a teen girl. And the Hulk's been replaced by a young Asian guy who makes quips like "totally awesome Hulk", in an absurd, stereotypical attempt to sound cool. And Ms. Marvel's been intentionally replaced by a Muslim girl in one of the most politically motivated books ever. Maybe the worst part of all this diversity-pandering is that they do it under the impression nobody, not even movie fans, will care. Which says quite a bit about what they really think of the products they're in charge of.

Indeed, one could argue superheroes have never been more popular, thanks to the movies and video games, while the dwindling comics audience has been cannibalized by too many “event” storylines aimed at collectors, not fans.

Yes, that's another problem: the "events", much like the pamphlets proper, are all prepared for the sake of the speculator market. But one could also argue the popularity of superheroes is superficial only, and even if there is a small sum of moviegoers who do head for the store, a much larger sum not only don't, they have virtually no interest in the source material either. Not even the Golden/Silver/Bronze Age stories, which are far superior to the newer, SJW-geared farces.

Even a city like London now sports two annual comic conventions, Forest City Comicon and London Comic Con, more proof comics are mainstream.

“They’re bringing in their kids now, trying to get them hooked on comics,” Morris said of the original generation of Comic Book Collector shoppers.

But many of those children and teens don’t want to read about Batman, they want to be Batman, which immersive video games allow them to do.

They don’t need the books.

See, this is what happens when a technology-based medium surpasses both recognition and marketing of a storytelling medium. But also when parents themselves make the mistake of raising their children on too many video games to boot. And, when they fail to get them to read literature often enough. Yet at the same time, depending on what the Batbooks contain today, they may not be old enough to read them, because as time went by, the Batbooks became bloodier, and require parental guidance. This is the same for many other superhero books today, when any and every series could be affected by this approach. When Geoff Johns was writing the Flash, it was certainly that kind of mess.

On which note, while this was an interesting article, I still find it bothersome whenever these folks make it sound like Marvel's to be held first and foremost responsible for the modern downfall of superhero comics, when DC's proven just as awful, and it'd be foolhardy to think they've improved overnight. Of course Marvel's done considerable harm, especially ever since Bill Jemas worked as their publisher. But DC also has to be held unambiguously accountable for the harm Paul Levitz and especially Dan DiDio inflicted as DC company heads. Citing DC's own serious mistakes in the news could help draw vital attention to why they're in as sore need of repairs as Marvel is.

There's also a lesson to be learned from this news, that store managers shouldn't put all their eggs into Marvel and DC's baskets, and rely on more than 3 quarters of their output for stock to sell. A lot of smaller publishers like IDW, Image and Dynamite have products worth selling too, probably more than meets the eye. And whatever they're producing, that's precisely what store owners should take the challenge of investing in. More importantly though, is getting companies to abandon the pamphlet format and make the move to paperbacks, which I'm sure a lot of consumers would be more encouraged to buy.

Labels: Avengers, Batman, Captain America, conventions, dc comics, Hulk, indie publishers, islam and jihad, marvel comics, politics, sales, Spider-Man, technology, Thor, X-Men

At least it seems that way. Breitbart's reported they're going to restore Steve Rogers' heroism in the 10th issue of Secret Empire:

After months of a controversial storyline in which Marvel Comics turned Captain America into a fascist dictator in a reality where World War Two was won by the evil, Nazi-like organization Hydra, Marvel is dumping the storyline and returning the Captain to being a hero.

Saying that their plan all along was to return Captain America to being the shining light of Superhero-dom, Marvel is to release Issue #10 of its Secret Empire series which until now has featured a savage, fascist Captain America lording over an America run by the evil Hydra.

The much-criticized series by writer Nick Spencer has featured schoolchildren giving Nazi-like salutes in grade schools and the nation enthralled with fascism.

The company insists that the storyline was never meant as a commentary on current events because it was long in the planning stages before the current unrest perpetrated by Antifa groups, militant anti-free speech activists, and Black Lives Matter protesters in the streets and on college campuses across the nation.

But despite the disclaimer, many fans and media figures criticized the storyline based on their take on the state of the country today.

And they panned it with good reason. It was nothing more than a pathetic effort by left-wing opportunists to exploit Kirby/Simon's famous creation for the sake of tearing down America in every way, not to mention insulting the memory of two famous scribes as well. That they would do a story like this in the first place only compounds the perception they wanted to find every excuse not to tackle serious issues like Islamofascism plaguing the globe, and had no concern about violence committed by leftists either. If anything, they definitely didn't need to waste time and money for paper-making on such a godawful direction that was intended to troll the fans. If DC thought they could pull something like this with Superman and other superheroes, I'm certain they'd do it, much more blatantly than some of the propaganda they've put out so far.

I'd also note that the artwork they've been using is very unappealing, compared to a lot of the art from yesteryear. I've sometimes looked at the samples provided to various websites for book promotion, and a lot of what they use now is all this computerized garbage, some of it with manga-style character design that's very dull. That's another reason why their fans were alienated. Even if it's not on the rock bottom level of Liefeld's style, their current approach to artwork on various books is still very poor. Probably in part because they drove away a lot of better artists with better character design.

And even now, they can't be trusted to steer away completely from all leftist politics they forced down the audience's throats. They also haven't reversed any of the harm caused to Spider-Man and Mary Jane Watson, something I'm still wondering why those press sources disturbed by their political propaganda don't seem to consider worth commenting on as well. Even if, on the surface, it doesn't look as bad as the leftism per se, it's still but one of many errors Marvel committed besides the politics that's hurting their comics. And if the right-wing press sources were willing to call for repairs for Spidey just as much as for Captain America, that could be of great help. Likewise, if they called for dismissal of editors like Quesada and Alonso, that too could help bring about some level of improvement at Marvel.

Labels: Captain America, marvel comics, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, politics

The Thailand Nation wrote about a manga exhibition being held in Bangkok to celebrate 130 years of diplomatic relations between Thailand and Japan, and it describes how artists of the 18th-19th centuries still have some influence over how mangakas work their style today.

Labels: Europe and Asia, exhibitions, manga and anime, museums

It's the 100th birthday of the late Jack Kirby, and Tech Crunch wrote some history about his career, starting with Captain America, and extending to some of his Bronze Age work like the New Gods and Kamandi.

On the other hand, a writer at the Austin American Statesman chose to exploit the occasion for making subtle attacks on the Trump administration:

To contemporary audiences, these characters are best known on the silver screen in movies such as “The Avengers” and “X-Men: First Class” and “Thor” and “Hulk,” their adventures generating billions of dollars around the world. They were all created or co-created by one dude — a small, tough, brilliant New Yorker named Jacob Kurtzberg, aka Jack Kirby, who was born Aug. 28, 1917.

There is no doubt in my mind, and the minds of others, that he is easily one of the most important artists of the 20th century, up there with Picasso, Louis Armstrong, Elvis, Chuck Berry, the Beatles and Andy Warhol.

And in a world where actual white supremacists are given tacit approval from the highest offices in the land, his work — as inherently anti-fascist as it gets — feels as important as ever.

Well now, what's this, somebody's implying the Trump administration actually gave approval to the neo-nazi gang that caused all that trouble in Charlottesville, along with Antifa? And I thought Kirby's centennial was supposed to be an occasion for celebration, not attacking local politicians you don't agree with. What a shame somebody over in Austin has to sully what was meant to be a week for entertainment by remembering the contributions of a man who never got enough compensation and residuals for his past work with needless political jabs.

If we really want to admire Kirby's memory, that's why it'd be better not to exploit his contributions for the sake of a dopey political beef. A shame if the columnist who wrote the newspaper article won't ever understand that.

Labels: Captain America, dc comics, good artists, marvel comics, msm propaganda, politics

Wired interviewed writer/artist named Sean Murphy about a Batman story he's brewing up where the Masked Manhunter is the villain, and the Joker is turned into something more like a hero, in a story angle apparently meant to appeal to the SJW crowd:

For Batman: White Knight, writer-illustrator Sean Murphy (The Wake, Punk Rock Jesus) created a version of Gotham with real, modern-day problems, and then let Batman solve them by making him the villain. How? In the comic mini-series' alternate-reality, it's the Joker—cured of his insanity—who sees that Bruce Wayne is just another part of the city's vicious cycle of crime and sets out to stop him.

"My main goal was to undo the comic tropes while changing Gotham from a comic book city into a real city—a city dealing with everything from Black Lives Matter to the growing wage gap," Murphy says. "[But] rather than write a comic about the wage gap, I gave those ideas to the Joker, who leads a kind of media war against Gotham's elite by winning people over with his potent observations and rhetoric."

While this may be an alternate reality, Elseworlds-style story, it clearly demonstrates that ultra-leftist mentality and decision making still prevail at DC (let's remember what they did over a year ago with both Superman and Batman), and it's possible they thought they could get away with it because everyone's so focused on Marvel's leftism. This is exactly why it's ill-advised to overlook other publishers just because they allegedly weren't as noticably blatant as Marvel's been of recent.

The Daily Wire says:

There is a huge problem with this logic. Why would the citizens of Gotham City suddenly forgive a psychopathic mass murderer and view him as a crusading politician who is leading the cause of social justice against the Caped Crusader? That is a stretch, even for a comic book. [...]

Murphy uses a plethora of left-wing buzzwords, playing to the leftism of the SJWs he is trying to reach.

And if they could be so prevalent at Marvel, it should come as no shock they'd still be infesting DC.

Pandering to the left-wing ideologues is what is hurting the sales at Marvel Comics. Why would DC want to copy that failing model with their greatest comic book character? The industry needs to realize that SJWs do not buy comics, nor will they. The far left will always complain about their imagined lack of diversity or social engineering in the pages.

The problem is, DC may have started some of this SJW pandering several years before Marvel did, with examples like replacing Ted Kord as Blue Beetle, Ray Palmer as Atom and Ronnie Raymond as Firestorm with "diverse" protagonists, using the abominable Identity Crisis to start it off in the worst ways possible. And it made no difference to them that SJWs wouldn't read those either. So, it comes as no shock they'd continue with their pandering now. Even as the crowd they seek is unlikely to buy this latest idiocy either.

This is why anybody disturbed now should take a good look at DC's own output in the past decade or so, and then they'd realize this is hardly new. And precisely why it shouldn't be overlooked.

Labels: Batman, dc comics, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics

Hyperallergic has a history article with plenty of pictures about a special exhibition on display at St. Louis' World Chess Hall of Fame dedicated to the role of the one of the oldest and legendary board games featured in various comics since the Golden Age.

Labels: exhibitions, museums

It looks like the film/TV producer and occasional comics writer who created the Buffy franchise isn't really the "feminist" he wants everyone to think. His former wife Kai Cole called him out on his apparently adulterous past in an article on The Wrap (via One Angry Gamer), where she tells how he betrayed her during their years of marriage:

There were times in our relationship that I was uncomfortable with the attention Joss paid other women. He always had a lot of female friends, but he told me it was because his mother raised him as a feminist, so he just liked women better. He said he admired and respected females, he didn’t lust after them. I believed him and trusted him. On the set of “Buffy,” Joss decided to have his first secret affair. [...]

Joss admitted that for the next decade and a half, he hid multiple affairs and a number of inappropriate emotional ones that he had with his actresses, co-workers, fans and friends, while he stayed married to me. [...]

And we can only wonder who the lady on the Buffy set was whom he committed infidelity with. He may not be as bad as some of the other anti-Gamergate screwballs out there who were accused of much worse, and clearly attacked the GG campaign just to feel good about themselves. But he's still evidently a huge disappointment, and after this, Buffy fans may not be able to look at the 1997-2003 series the same way again. Come to think of it, nor will comics readers who read the Fray miniseries he wrote, and the Astonishing X-Men spinoff title from the mid-2000s. One of the commenters to Cole's article said that now, some of his work may look creepy cast in the new light.

On which note, those of us who've kept track of his work in comicdom know he wrote the introduction to Brad Meltzer's repellent Identity Crisis when it came out in trade collection format. And then there was that time he oversaw a story in the Buffy comics from Dark Horse where his vampire hunting creation went coma-drunk at a party and somebody sex-ploited her, impregnating her for the sake of a tale where she goes for an abortion. Those should serve as additional clues just how understanding he really could be of women's issues.

Soon after the headlines this scandal made, a major fansite dedicated to Whedon's work closed down (Hat tip: Breitbart). And, we're reminded of the time Whedon was originally hired to write up a screenplay for Wonder Woman as a movie:

In June, a 2006 script that Whedon wrote for a Wonder Woman movie that never went into production leaked online, with many DC fans calling the director's take on the character sexist due to the character description, dialogue and the majority of the important action falling on male lead Steve Trevor (played by Chris Pine in the Patty Jenkins-directed feature).

Well there's another clue where he could really stand on all these topics. There's every chance now that his works aren't going to age well, and he's bound to lose some of the fans he's enjoyed over the years. He recently got the assignment to direct the planned Justice League movie, and it'll remain to be seen how well that'll fare now that the cat's out of Whedon's bag. Even the brief TV show he created called Firefly is bound to lose some of its retrospective value.

Labels: dc comics, indie publishers, Justice League of America, licensed products, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, Wonder Woman, X-Men

It looks like there's a publisher in the UK that's putting out a book similar to some of the efforts made in the US to fawn over former president Barack Obama, one that presents the dreadful Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn as a "hero":

In one incarnation, he is Corbyn the Barbarian, facing off against the Maydusa. In another, Corbynman leaves his “mild mannered allotment of solitude” to take on the “inter-dimensional invasion fleet of Daily Mail death drones blasting everything with their Tory food bank rays” with a rallying battle cry of “jam on!”. Just in time for the Labour party conference, an unlikely superhero is preparing to take his place alongside the likes of Spider-Man and Wonder Woman: Jeremy Corbyn.

Independent graphic novel publisher SelfMadeHero says it has received a “tsunami” of submissions since it opened its doors to comic-book creators a month ago, asking for comics on the subject of the Labour leader. Contributors to The Corbyn Comic Book, which will be launched at the Labour party conference in Brighton in September, include Guardian cartoonists Steve Bell, Martin Rowson and Stephen Collins, and comics artists Karrie Fransman and Steven Appleby, along with a host of strips from new writers and illustrators received during the open submission period.

Well this is certainly atrocious. Corbyn's a Hamas and Hezbollah supporter, and he's even supported communism and Fidel Castro (and the UK commies, in turn, supported him). He's also anti-American and anti-Israeli. What's there to celebrate about a man with such awful platforms? Unfortunately, that's the British left for you, who won't consider a better guy like Nigel Farage worthy of a comics biography or heroic figure by contrast. The only thing they thought worthy of doing with Farage was making a villain based on him for Judge Dredd. They sure know how to be cheap.

Labels: Europe and Asia, indie publishers, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, politics

Famous comedian Jerry Lewis has died at 91 years of age. Besides being notable in past decades for his slapstick movies like the Nutty Professor, he also had some comics coming from DC where he was turned into a cartoon figure on four color panels, and ComicBook has some history notes on the series starring his illustrated counterpart, published between 1952-71.

Labels: dc comics, licensed products

The writer Tim Seeley's been interviewed by the Hollywood Reporter (via Science Fiction) about a bizarre comic he's written up called "Brilliant Trash", which features what appears to be a Muslim teen girl destroying Jerusalem, as seen in the panel posted on the side. This is what the trade paper says this about:

Brilliant Trash, co-created with artist Priscilla Petraites, begins with the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of a superhuman teenage girl, which introduces a near-future dystopia in which anyone can be a superhero — but only one journalist knows how pricey a proposition that really is. Heat Vision talked briefly with Seeley about the new series.

From the looks of things, it would seem as though this story is about an Islamofascist who declared jihad on the historical Jewish city. The question, undoubtably, is whether it's depicted as an abominable, inhumane act. I should hope so. But according to the following statements from Seeley, this book is supposed to be satire:

The world of the series feels very much like it's prime satire, taking elements of today and ramping them up to 11: Journalists that no one believes! Fractured media that tells everyone what they want to hear! Conspiracy theories where corporations keep information from the people! Does this come from a love of satire, or a sense of "I have to write this now before reality eclipses me in a couple of days"?


It's both! But my favorite sci-fi has always been the material that takes current trends to a seemingly ridiculous satirical end, because those are the things that end up being accurate. We laughed at the ads in Robocop, but they mostly came true. As a person, I have to fight myself not to make fun of everything — but Brilliant Trash allows me to do it, and be absolutely savage about it.

As the solicitation for the first issue reveals, you're literally wiping Jerusalem off the face of the earth at the very start of this series. As far as opening gambits go, there's attention-grabbing and then there's attention-grabbing. Are you anticipating a lot of feedback on that particular plot point?

Ha, I never anticipate feedback, because I never know what's going to really sink in with readers. But there's very much a reasoning behind why Lady LastWord [the character responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem] does this, and we'll see that motivation unfold over the course of the first five issues.

I'm not sure what to make of a tale that's built on satire, considering the book involves a serious issue like religiously motivated assault and annihilation. After all, there's nothing funny in real life about jihadists who commit murder in high numbers. Yet we're living in an age when the industry has almost entirely censored the subject of fighting against Islamic terrorism, and if they do address it, they take blame-the-victim paths, as seen in the unreadable Marvel Knights volume of Captain America in the early 2000s. If Seeley's not playing his cards right, then he's only served up another letdown. Serious issues aren't something you should just present as satire.

Since we're on the subject of Seeley, here's a few tweets he wrote in the past week, giving an idea of where he stands on the political map, mostly to the left:

I generally find myself retweeting Trump crits from conservatives. Part of me thinks it means something. Maybe more. Not sure anymore.

— Tim Seeley (@HackinTimSeeley) August 15, 2017

That said, in these strange & terrible days, I recommend @RWPUSA and @Evan_McMullin. Principled Republicans. Genuine concern for America.

— Tim Seeley (@HackinTimSeeley) August 15, 2017

I'm guessing they're RINOs, right? That is, Republicans In Name Only. Among those he retweeted include Mitt Romney and John McCain, the latter who's opposed repairing the damage wrought by Obamacare. I can't say I'm shocked when some mega-leftie considers faux-conservatives the reliable bunch, but not those who actually care about the public's future.

My grandpa fought Nazis in Europe in WW2. Gonna tell him that makes him 'alt-left' now.

— Tim Seeley (@HackinTimSeeley) August 16, 2017

Well my grandpa, who died in 1972, about 2 years before I was born, also fought in the second World War. And labels had nothing to do with it, just altruism, far more than Franklin Delano Roosevelt ever showed. So this is Seeley's way of saying he apparently buys into the notion that Antifa's really a heroic, patriotic movement, when in reality, they're as repellent as the white supremacists who littered up Charlottesville. Even some hardcore leftists admit Antifa's basically the same as those they're "protesting".

Yeah, I wouldn't think Russians have a lot of love for Nazis with that whole Battle of Stalingrad thing: https://t.co/mlMOvlvYXt

— Tim Seeley (@HackinTimSeeley) August 17, 2017

Well at least he's thanking Russia's government for wisely opposing any associations with supremacist news sources, where all their commentary is loathsome as can be. However, he also retweeted this post from Snopes, apparently claiming it's not true what Trump said about Gen. Pershing's war on Islam, hinting he's still part of the anti-Trump crowd. And I think he should ponder that Snopes, in reality, is one of the most dishonest leftist websites around. Definitely not a site I'd consider trustworthy.

Seeley may not be the worst liberal out there in the comics medium, but he may not be the best informed either. And based on what the news is telling about his new comics story, he may not have done a very good job addressing a serious topic. In that case, what would be so "brilliant" about the trash he conceived?

Labels: Europe and Asia, indie publishers, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, terrorism, violence

If there's any conservatives in comicdom now who're being targeted by leftists, it's Van Sciver, who said he's avoided Twitter because of the toxic environment it's become. Here's what he wrote (via The Daily Caller):

There are strange people on twitter who are pretending to believe that I am a ‘white supremacist’ or a ‘Nazi’ because I’m a rare thing in comics: a Republican. It’s intolerable. It’s ridiculous to have to even declare that I’m none of these things.

To me, white supremacists are villains from movies. They aren’t me, they aren’t my family, and I deeply resent these calculated efforts to make me feel unwelcome in the industry that I’ve given my life to, and by the way, which has profited greatly from my work. This industry isn’t them or me. It’s us.

Their evidence is some ridiculous out of context images from a decade ago, when we were all much more friendly. Being called a ‘Nazi’ by a fellow creator then was quite different, like me calling someone a commie. It was meant in fun. But occasionally, some truly weird people would make a claim that my little diamond logo was a swastika (oh?? HOW? It’s based on the Iron Maiden logo). and a friend would satirize it by making it look like one. For laughs. Because it’s absurd.

Around the same time, I decided that I’d make my sketch books look like extremist political tracts. One was called MANIFESTO and contained communist dogma, with backward letters to look like Russian language. The other one was called ‘MY STRUGGLE’ and contained my earliest work on Cyberfrog up to my recent work. The cover was SINESTRO, who we’d redesigned that year to resemble Hitler, and with the fact that most people knew I leaned right, this was a JOKE. Made self-effacingly to my peers who I considered my friends.

These people who spread these images and claim that I’m a ‘Nazi’ are liars. They are lying. Flat out. They are liars who wish this industry wasn’t tolerant of people who do not share their partisan political views. That may include you. It may not. But I’ll lay out my career and the work that I’ve done against theirs. This is MY industry too. And lying liars with a dishonest agenda cannot change that.

I’ve chosen to avoid Twitter. It is a toxic wasteland of negativity. I’ve chosen to avoid discussing politics, for this very reason. But I won’t stand by and let these creeps continue to go unanswered.

And neither should you.

If you see this, please, as a fan, CORRECT IT.

It is evil.

Thank you.

Well, I guess we can all understand now why Twitter's use is in decline. The weird thing is, Van Sciver at least once came off sounding like a liberal apologist for Islam, but obviously, there's quite a few leftists out there who'll never care, never be satisfied and surely aren't buying his products no matter what left-wing scriptwriter is crafting the story he's illustrating.

I checked his Twitter page, and indeed, he doesn't seem to have updated it for 3 years. He's honestly doing the right thing to avoid such a social network (though he'll be doing even more of the right thing not to make embarrassing statements that sound like leftist apologia), because it really has become a toxic environment, with some of his leftist counterparts in comicdom only compounding the situation there. One of the worst things about Twitter is that there's quite a few SJWs running amok whom Marvel, if anyone, has been caving to with their demands drop certain coverscans that are far from the worst thing they could come up with. And even if they are in poor taste, that doesn't mean we have to buy the books in question. Marvel and others have to figure out for themselves what makes a tasteful drawing or not. In any event, the stories they've been publishing for more than a decade are awful, clogged with leftism and company wide crossovers, so it makes little difference what's on the cover to start with.

And I think Van Sciver would do well to avoid making comments in the future that sound like he's trying to pander to liberals, because in the end, it just won't work, and SJWs will never care.

Labels: politics, technology

Here's something sensible coming from the op-eds on Tech Crunch - a writer's pointing out how, over the years, major comic publishers and even small outfits like Mark Millar's have come to serve more as groundswells for movie adaptations and other such media, while the storytelling value of the pamphlets and graphic novels is cared for far less. Yet there is at least one part at the beginning that's not very accurate:

Over the past few decades, comic books have become Hollywood’s most reliable well for source material. It’s easy to see why — not only is comics one the most vibrant storytelling mediums in the world, but the books themselves offer built-in storyboarding, providing writers and directors a visual template on which to build a film.

This past week’s news that Netflix would purchase independent comics publisher Millarworld is hardly an outlier. It echoes larger moves made by Warner Brothers and Disney, when they purchased the two largest comics publishers, DC and Marvel, respectively, cementing their own cinematic comics universes. And while the specifics of those deals differ, both have kept their comics publishing wings most in tact.

Uhh, I'm not so sure I can agree with that. After all, the continuity and stand-alone storytelling collapsed more than a decade ago, rendering their products incoherent at worst, especially as company wide crossovers took over each and every year. No thanks to some of the worst editors and publishers who mandated tasteless storytelling effects, which had a bad impact in turn on the rest of their output. Leftist politics have unsurprisingly followed and flooded their output, and that too is another serious detractor.

And do the comics really provide built-in storyboarding? Maybe, but considering a significant amount of films and TV adaptations draw from the most recent stories of the 21st century, that's why the stories they're building on aren't the best places to look for inspiration. And I disagree that screenwriters have to base their ideas 100 percent on what's already been published - why can't they think of something themselves? Though it's probably nothing compared to how the publishers have been going out of their way to alter the structure of the original comics so it'll visually resemble what's seen in the movies, as was the case once with the X-Men films in the early 2000s, one of the earliest examples of the tail wagging the dog.. When they do stuff like that, it only ruins the zygote.

In the case of Netflix, however, the decision seems a bit more crass — or at least, it’s a decision that has very little to do with the comics themselves. There’s no doubt about the company’s motivations here. Seemingly spurred on by Disney’s plans to launch its own streaming media platform(s), Netflix went ahead and bought its own comic book universe.

Now they're getting somewhere. While Millar's products aren't worth much in terms of story merit, Netflix didn't buy Millar's company because they wanted to invest in comics publishing, if at all, as is further confirmed below. Rather, they bought it so they'd have a groundswell around for developing films and TV shows. Even if the source material as he envisioned it is already pretty tasteless, recalling some excerpts I once read from Kick-Ass involving gang rapists. John Romita Jr. was one of the artists for that sensationalized book, which decidedly doesn't reflect well on his portfolio.

Unlike the DC and Marvel acquisitions, Netflix appears to be making no bones about the fact that it didn’t purchase Millarworld to get into the comics publishing business. Yes, it says “Millarworld will also continue to create and publish new stories and character franchises.”

But also appears to be the key word here — as the press release spells out, the publisher’s main value to Netflix is in its IP: “The acquisition, the first ever by Netflix, is a natural progression in the company’s effort to work directly with prolific and skilled creators and to acquire intellectual property and ownership of stories featuring compelling characters and timeless, interwoven fictional worlds.”

Gee, what "skills" does Millar have for one? How compellingly developed are his characters? And what's so timeless about the "worlds" he conceived either? If anything, the man's made a career out of shock tactics, as seen in the Ultimates, right down to his remake of the Hank Pym-as-abusive storyline from 1981 in the Avengers, and even that was handled far better than what he put out in the early 2000s, where the Ultimate take on Janet Van Dyne may have been put in a situation where she allegedly "deserved" what he threw at her.

Deals like this risk undermining the source material. It’s in line with a growing fear in recent years that, the comics industry has becoming something of a farm league for Hollywood films. And indeed, it seems that many prospective screenwriters and directors have come to view the comics industry as a back door into Hollywood.

Eric Reynolds, Associate Publisher of alternative comics house Fantagraphics, bluntly sums up the opinion of many in the indie comics community.

“I have never read a Millarworld comic and as such have no clue and don’t really give a shit about this stuff, but of course it’s bad if media companies see comics as nothing more than IP factories,” he told TechCrunch. “I mean, if you actually care about the medium of comics, anyway, and believe that it has its own intrinsic value as an art form.”

This may all sound a bit alarmist, prompting the skeptical reader to quote crime novelist James M. Cain, who responded to concerns that Hollywood had ruined his novels by saying, “They haven’t done anything to my books. They’re still right there on the shelf. They’re fine.” Similarly, we might hope that no matter how many titles get pulled into the studios’ universe-building schemes, the comics themselves will be fine.

Except these larger corporate decisions are affecting the comics. Look no further than Marvel, where comics featuring the Fantastic Four and X-Men (characters whose movie rights were sold to Fox before the publisher started making its own films) have languished in recent years.

This makes sense too. In fact, I have a hunch Superman's red tights were omitted around 2011 partly because WB wanted to build on such a vision for the Man of Steel movie shoehorned into the comics first. And now look what's happened, it all led into Batman vs. Superman, which was even more mediocre; an excuse to see two legendary figures clashing.

There's a few other ways superhero comics were affected by sellouts to Hollywood, going back as far as the early 1990s, when video games and cartoons were coming out, and built on stuff I can't help wonder were created specially as IP or wellsprings for the different mediums to build their own products on. Gambit of the X-Men, for instance, is an early example of a character I wondered was created more as cartoon and video game fodder than as a storytelling vehicle for the comics themselves. I know Chris Claremont didn't do a great job fleshing out whatever background he gave Remy LeBeau after introducing him in 1990, and Scott Lobdell/Fabian Nicieza made everything worse with their expansions. Yet this very badly developed character began turning up in an X-Men cartoon and several video games over the next decade, even as he suffered terrible writing (and Rogue was victimized by poor writing to boot) back in the comics proper, right down the connections made to the Mutant Massacre and Mr. Sinister. I do think, however, that any writers in comicdom who didn't want to use Gambit for their stories at the time (he appeared in very few other Marvel books outside of X-Men during the 90s) weren't making their cases the right way, because their misgivings seemed to stem from a superficial dislike of a fictional character that let the writers responsible for bad characterization off the hook. What should've been their beef was the likelihood they wouldn't be allowed to make improvements in overall characterization, which is not impossible to do. The only obstacle would be the editors who'd impose harmful mandates.

And as for the video game influences, another early example could be Spider-Man's Maximum Carnage storyline, which ran through 4-5 different Spidey titles in 1993. It may not be considered the worst Spider-story in the backlog, but from what I know, most Spider-fans don't find it very good either. Yet this weak tale of a serial killer getting hold of an even more demonic take on the symbiote that originally created Venom several years prior wound up being adapted to a video game shortly after. And I can't help but wonder if the story's overall mediocrity stems from being written specially as the basis for creating a video game, where storytelling isn't the most important part by contrast. Even the Onslaught crossover from 1996 served to provide the subsequent Marvel vs. Capcom with a boss opponent, no matter how wretched the original comics crossover was to start with. I'm sure DC also had a few examples at the time, but Marvel's are most noticeable.

Over the past decade, Millarworld has become far better known for its IP than its actual books. While Millar’s early superhero work like The Ultimates and The Authority has its fans, you’d be hard-pressed to find Millarworld titles like The Secret Service, Kickass and Wanted on anyone’s list of their favorite comics. Instead, they were “successful” in the way that Millar probably intended: They were de facto pitches for blockbuster films.

And what does that suggest? That he's probably the kind of guy who's greedy for the chance to get into Tinseltown by conceiving his own line of comics that would appeal to film producers desperate for something comics connected they could craft their screenplays on. Let's not be surprised if Netflix could just as easily close down Millarworld as a publisher in the future, because they believe the story premises alone are enough.

For now, what matters most is how the Big Two have suffered from becoming more IP for movies than their own storytelling agencies, and just as awful are the crossovers they show no signs of wanting to abandon as the outdated concept they already are. That's why I believe in their case, it could do a lot of good if somebody who does recognize the power and potential of the art form try to buy out the publishing arms and just use them to tell stories as part of the medium they are, and if anybody wants to adapt a story from them, let them do it without writing it specially for movies or video games, and in fact, let the screenwriters conceive their own film adaptations as they see fit for the silver screen. This is far different from how Japan's manga and anime mediums have managed business, as here, by contrast, no distinctions or considerations are made as to what's best for either division. Being one specific medium is the only way to run a successful business.

Labels: crossoverloading, dc comics, dreadful writers, indie publishers, licensed products, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, violence

Here's a number of tweets the usual leftist comics crowd wrote following the truly awful spectacle of two equally bad movements - white supremacists on one hand and Antifa activists on the other - in Charlottesville earlier in the week. For example, Patrick Zircher:

Trump lies, and lies, and lies, and lies, and lies........ https://t.co/aPqCeDZaS9

— Patch Zircher (@PatrickZircher) August 17, 2017

Is he claiming Antifa's totally innocent? Well that's why I'd beg to differ, based on the fact that Trump did condemn the neo-nazis, and Susan Bro, the mother of Heather Hayer, the woman who was killed by the filth driving that sport coupe, thanked Trump for speaking out:

On Monday, the mother of Charlottesville, Virginia victim Heather Heyer released a statement thanking President Donald Trump "for denouncing those who promote violence and hatred."

"Thank you, President Trump, for those words of comfort and for denouncing those who promote violence and hatred," reads a statement from mother Susan Bro. "My condolences, also, to the grieving families of the two state troopers and quick recovering for those injured."

So anyway, if Zircher and the following examples are pretending he didn't address the subject, they'd do well to think again, because he did condemn the neo-nazi violence. But Antifa's also a bad lot, and one activist even assaulted a reporter. Worst, some even called for murdering white children. This is why Trump panned violence "on all sides", as news reports first noted. So if they think Antifa's any better, they'd be advised to get a microscope and magnifying glass. Antifa is one of the phoniest and most reprehensible movements around.

When Trump is particularly wrong-headed, don't defend him. Move on. There's no 'win' in defending a bad statement. https://t.co/AkwuxvN3Od

— Patch Zircher (@PatrickZircher) August 17, 2017

Quite a few leftists are wrong-headed themselves. Nobody can win if they keep that denial act up. Next comes Ron Marz:

I have been ashamed of Trump since day one, but never more so than now. https://t.co/q0KdHYbo9g

— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 13, 2017

So no thanks for Trump, even though he condemned the supremacists? Nope, it's just not in Marz's mentality to do so. Here's Dan Slott:

.@SpeakerRyan, you are the Speaker of the House. Put country before party. SAY HIS NAME. Condemning him is the LEAST you can do. https://t.co/ZAAT4AOx5y

— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 15, 2017

This from the same man who penned the Dr. Octopus in Peter Parker's body atrocity. Put sincerity before politics, Slott.

Do 34% of Americans *not* have TVs, internet access, or some way to have seen that last press conference? https://t.co/Hj7H5UqdeA

— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 17, 2017

Correction: do leftists like Slott not think for themselves, and only rely selectively on specific news sources like CNN? Next, from Rick Remender:

No time for that shit, got us a Nazi in the White House! https://t.co/GGd0LtiZHy

— Rick Remender (@Remender) August 15, 2017

This from one of the writes who made terrible use of Scarlet Witch a few years ago in one of the Avengers titles. Now from Jimmy Palmiotti:

I admit I made a huge mistake voting for Trump. Oh wait. I didn't. Please clip and paste the first sentence if you did. Thanks.

— Jimmy Palmiotti (@jpalmiotti) August 16, 2017

But if he voted for Clinton, he doesn't think he made a mistake voting for the woman who hurt Kathy Shelton by helping her attacker off the hook in Arkansas? Then, we have Brad Meltzer, responding to a post about Trump Evangelical Council officials not resigning:

Think on this a moment. This is where we are. So saddened by this. https://t.co/LB4d2Kx3MF

— Brad Meltzer (@bradmeltzer) August 16, 2017

But no regrets over penning that awful gender bigotry called Identity Crisis? Nope, as this tweet strongly hints, he's as unrepentant as ever. Oh, and since we're on that subject, what's the artist of that repellent miniseries, Rags Morales, got to say about an Economist article with a nasty attack on Trump?

Haven't read the article yet, but the artwork is BRILLIANT. https://t.co/AJ9A8rYVDn

— Rags Morales (@RagsMorales) August 17, 2017

He hasn't read the article? Gee, then how can he possibly judge anyway? What a disgrace. And then, here's Kurt Busiek:

Taking down statues doesn't erase history, or we'd fight to preserve statues of Saddam Hussein and Josef Stalin.

— Kurt Busiek Resists (@KurtBusiek) August 17, 2017

You know what erases history? Taking the parts you don't like out of history textbooks.

— Kurt Busiek Resists (@KurtBusiek) August 17, 2017

And who does that? A lot of Christian conservative "patriots" in Texas, who want to soft-pedal slavery and other such issues.

— Kurt Busiek Resists (@KurtBusiek) August 17, 2017

Yeah. Trying to deny history, or to change what's taught about it to something untrue. That's erasing history. https://t.co/B23VHwNI0y

— Kurt Busiek Resists (@KurtBusiek) August 17, 2017

Hmm, fascinating. Does that mean he's dismayed at how, over the decades since the 1950s, references to Islamic pirates in the 18th century (sometimes referred to as Moors) were erased from US school textbooks? Probably not, so I'm not sure what he's talking about.

Which brings us to an important point: not only are these leftist creators using the terrible incident in the past week as a cheap excuse to attack Trump, they're also using it as a perfect excuse for obscuring challenging issues now facing the world, including Iran's nuclear terror. As for those monuments to Confederates, I don't like the notion of honoring tyrants, but I do think there should be a museum or some kind of archive for research on supremacists built where those structures could be moved, so everybody could study how there were cretins out there who conceived monuments to fiends who didn't deserve them. Yet if I'm correct, the screwballs who removed them may have even destroyed them? That's not helpful.

Oh, and how odd that Busiek's bringing up statues of Saddam, because I wouldn't be shocked if he was part of the anti-war crowd that opposed toppling Saddam in the first place. If he's still as leftist as he makes clear, then his comments on the Saddam statues are conflicted.

Labels: misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, violence

I'm guessing the discussion Gail Simone was leading on Twitter that's gathered together here only took place because she's largely out of DC Comics' employ now. But, it does prompt fascination:

Simone took to Twitter to respond to a few fans who had been asking for her take on the Wonder Woman movie and the revamping of the character on the pages of DC Comics' New 52 runs. It was there where Simone shared her disapproving perspective of changes made to the character's origins.

Namely, Simone's main issue is the New 52 introducing Zeus to the heroine's origin story. "Of the many reasons to hold a grudge against the New 52, the role of Zeus in Wonder Woman's birth is top of my list," comic book writer D.M. Higgins wrote under the Twitter username Superdames Comics. "It's now in the movie."

On that, I can certainly agree it was uncalled for to use Brian Azzarello's retcon, which, for all we know, was probably intended to serve as a component for the screenplay to build on in advance. The origin of being created from magical clay holds up far better, and just think of how imaginative it could've been to see a daughter conjured up from clay on celluloid.

But I miss the part where she pans the guy's retcon of the Amazons themselves into one-dimensional savages, which was definitely no improvement over the repellent miniseries "Amazons Attack", where they were depicted going on an anti-male rampage. It's one thing to complain about an unimpressive retcon of WW's own birth origin. It's another to ignore the harm done by turning her tribal colony into something so vicious that Bill Marston never intended them to be.

So unfortunately, if she can't lament the misuse of the Amazon society of Themyscira, then I'm not sure we can buy that her complaint about the retcon used in the film is sincere.

Labels: dc comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, violence, Wonder Woman

Here's another sugary column in the Times Record that tells about the launch of a Netflix series bearing the Defenders title...but stars at least a few characters who once headlined the Heroes for Hire title in the late 90s:

...the Netflix “Defenders” is from Marvel Television and teams up all the characters which have headlined Netflix series so far: Luke Cage (Mike Colter), Jessica Jones (Krysten Ritter), Matt “Daredevil” Murdock (Charlie Cox) and Danny “Iron Fist” Rand (Finn Jones). It also includes a lot of supporting characters from those shows, both heroes and villains, including Madame Gao (Wai Ching Ho), Jeri Hogarth (Carrie-Anne Moss), Misty Knight (Simone Missick), Elektra Natchios (Elodie Yung), Foggy Nelson (Elden Henson), Karen Page (Deborah Ann Woll), Stick (Scott Glenn), Claire Temple (Rosario Dawson), Trish Walker (Rachael Taylor) and Colleen Wing (Jessica Henwick).

But no Dr. Strange, Hulk, Valkyrie, Silver Surfer or Namor? Now isn't this weird. Because as mentioned, there was a title starring a few of the above in the late 90s called Heroes for Hire, written by John Ostrander, which would've made a far better title for a TV show spotlighting these street-level heroes whose powers, if any, aren't the most elaborate, and not as formidable as Strange and Valkyrie's. Only Luke Cage and Misty Knight qualify, and I think Cage did make an appearance in Defenders during its original 1972-86 run.

IMO, a TV show titled Defenders after Marvel's past series should star characters who comprised the original cast members. While Heroes for Hire should serve as the title for a show starring street-level vigilantes. If Netflix is using the title of the Bronze Age adventure series instead of the latter, they're only being absurd.

Labels: Daredevil, marvel comics, msm propaganda, women of marvel

Fluff-coated propaganda columnist Andrew Smith, writing about the recent SDCC in the Times Record, brings up the Flash TV show's plan to guest star Elongated Man, and he sure doesn't seem enthusiastic about acknowledging what he himself said about a certain miniseries in the past:

Several new faces were announced at San Diego for Season 4 of The CW’s “The Flash,” including Danny Trejo (as Breacher, a bounty hunter from Earth-19), Neil Sandilands (as Clifford “The Thinker” Devoe) and Kim Engelbrecht (as the Mechanic, The Thinker’s aide de camp). But this week brought news of another character coming to the show, one which should have comics fans cheering.

That would be Ralph Dibny, a.k.a. The Elongated Man, played by Hartley Sawyer. In the comics, Dibny was introduced in “Flash” comics in 1960 as a man who was able to stretch his body in ridiculous fashion — think Plastic Man or Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic Four — and whose nose would twitch comically when he “smelled a mystery.”

Dibny quickly became a frequent guest star in “Flash,” and later starred in a variety of backup strips, eventually becoming a member of the Justice League. His popularity rose to its peak after the introduction of his wife, Sue, in 1961, an heiress whose fortune allowed Dibny the financial freedom to travel the world solving mysteries, like The Saint, while engaging in amusing banter with Sue, akin to Nick and Nora Charles of the Thin Man movies.

Later stories took a darker turn — before the 2011 revamp at DC Comics, both characters were dead — but “Flash” is (or should be) an upbeat show, so it’s likely the Stretchable Sleuth’s camp side will be prominent. There’s no word on Sue yet, but omitting her would be felony TV-writing malpractice, so I expect her to show up.

Interesting he should say that years after he wrote at least 3 hideous columns gushing over Identity Crisis, making light of sexual assault and expressing his belief that the death of Sue Dibny should be permanent. None of which he acknowledges now, nor do I notice any apology for minimizing the harm done by that 2004 abomination. And say, didn't Ralph make his own fortune too, whether as detective or even an entertainer in showbiz? In once instance during the Silver Age, he took Sue to a diner on his tab, and she indicated he had plenty of his own dough. Why does only Sue's fortune matter? Is Smith trying to make Ralph look like a male gold-digger?

Oh, and wasn't turning Jean Loring into a crazed killer with a flamethrower - and later a female Eclipso for the sake of sensationalism - felony comic-writing malpractice at the time? He sure hasn't explained how that's justified either.

Biggest fault with Smith's position is that he's not saying it because he supports it himself, but rather, to promote the TV producers' upcoming story, rather than stress convincingly why Sue and Jean are both worthy storytelling vehicles with the right kind of writing, as is Mary Jane Watson over at Marvel. And, he hasn't said a word about any of the abominable steps taken with any of these ladies over the past years, so it's hard to buy he's saying what he did because he cares. I doubt it.

Mr. Smith also brought up the planned sequel to Deadpool's film, and I honestly don't see what's so great about this:

Speaking of casting news, pandemonium ensued when it was announced that Josh Brolin would join the cast of “Deadpool 2” as the taciturn and grim Cable, a character often associated with the Merc with a Mouth, but who is also Nathan Summers, the time-displaced son of Scott “Cyclops” Summers and Jean “Phoenix” Grey of the X-Men (who is older than both of them). That’s pretty weird, but what’s even weirder is that Brolin is also playing supervillain Thanos in the next two Avengers movies. The boy gets around.

However they characterize Cable here, or apply a background, what's the use when Nathan Summers was not well developed in the comics, and the stories starring him during the 90s were so dull? It's just like the case surrounding a possible Gambit movie - you have a character who was not developed well back in the comics, and while it wasn't his fault either, it still doesn't make him a great idea for movie material, even if writing's improved, which is unlikely at this point. Besides, he wasn't always associated with Deadpool, certainly not during the 90s when he had his own pointless solo book; it was only during the mid-2000s, when their hack writers were desperate for ideas, that they thought of casting the twosome together in a miniseries or ongoing just so they'd have someplace to write a story with them. But writing was so bad by then, I don't see the point.

Besides, if Smith can't acknowledge any of that, then he's not one who's qualified to write about such topics.

Labels: conventions, dc comics, Flash, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, violence, women of dc, women of marvel, X-Men

The filmmaker still can't accept that the overall failure of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is mainly his own fault, and thinks he knows why it wasn't a success in the USA, though truly, he doesn't:

Leading French filmmaker Luc Besson has a clear idea why the sci-fi epic Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets flopped in the US after being slammed by critics.

"If a film like this was working huge in the US, that's a problem for the studios," the prolific director of Lucy, The Fifth Element, Leon The Professional, La Femme Nikita and producer of the Taken and Transporter movies says.

"It's independent. It's not superheroes defending the power of America. It's European – it's different – and they can't accept that."

Oh, do tell us about it. There were plenty of critics favorable to Forbidden Games, A Man and a Woman, My Night at Maud's, Belle de Jour, La Nuit Americain, among various other notable films from France, so it's not like US film critics can't even get the hang of a European-made sci-fi flick. There's smaller outfits like Miramax and Lionsgate who've had their share of successes and failures alike, and nobody saw that as a problem. What matters is Besson's own goofs as the screenwriter/director, to say nothing of the leading actors, who were panned for their uninspired performances. It looks like he also stuffed in far too many ideas and characters drawing from the comics, not unlike how the Green Lantern movie did the same, and that can weigh heavily against the screenplay too. If he were smart, he would've saved some elements for the sequel that'll probably never happen now.

He also sounds oblivious to the James Bond franchise, which, if it matters, could just as well be about defending the power of the UK, even though they've proven themselves little better than any country with dreadful socialist politics running amok. A lot of audiences embraced 007 in past decades, so I don't see his logic here. And is something wrong with defending America for the right reasons? Or, if it's such a big deal to him, how come he's not paying attention to how recent superhero comics aren't defending America's powers, just because Trump was elected?

And he's wrong about studios having a problem with independently produced films, comic-based or otherwise: Atomic Blonde, made by a small company called Focus Features, is based on the 2012 graphic novel Coldest City by Antony Johnston, and it's gotten a favorable reception so far. Again, what matters is the talent involved, or lack thereof, as in Besson's case. I saw the Fifth Element years ago, and it was honestly overrated in retrospect.

Besson, who lives in Los Angeles but remains very much a French auteur with a taste for action, strong female characters and visual spectacle, says no other country in the world would have the guts to call a movie the national equivalent of Captain America.

"It's their right – and sometimes these films [about American superheroes] are very good – but I think diversity is the key for everyone," he says. "If on 10 screens we have 10 Marvel [movies] we're losing something.

"It's like eating fast food every day. And I come from France so I'm more for cuisine."

Umm, France has fast food networks working there too, along with plenty of customers, so don't go around making it sound like being French means you literally stick with cuisine, even if it's healthier than most fast food is. And for somebody who says he's mad about the negative reception in the USA, he sure doesn't seem to have a problem insulting the intellect of other Europeans when he says they wouldn't have the guts to name a local equivalent of the Star Spangled Avenger. If somebody wanted to, I'm sure they'd try to write up a story starring a variation on American superheroes. Besides, I'm not sure why somebody who doesn't even live on his native continent's complaining, when he hasn't shown the willingness to try it himself. He already made clear he's not fond of superheroes, so his point's very weak.

I'd also think to take issue with the notion Besson actually upholds strong female leads, because his 1990 movie Nikita's lead was a character who'd murdered a policeman after holding up a store, and it makes little difference whether she was under drug influence when she did it. Is that somebody we should care for? It's a very shaky premise, I'd say.

And while Chris Claremont and Herb Trimpe may have been contributing to a US publisher's UK affiliate, they created a variation on Captain America for Marvel in the guise of Captain Britain, Brian Braddock, created primarily for the UK-based Captain Britain Weekly anthology in 1976. But I guess since Besson's made clear he doesn't care for superheroes, he's never cared to check that out.

While as reluctant to read reviews as he is to being photographed, Besson admits to being upset by one prominent American critic who called Valerian "Eurotrash" and declared it a certainty for the Razzie as the year's worst movie.

"You know since the beginning of art that some people will love it and some people won't like it and that's fine," he says. "Every artist accepts that.

"But why insult someone? We worked seven years on this film. There are 2000 people who worked [on it]. Why insult these people?

"We are proposing something that people are not obliged to watch. We're not building weapons so why not use all this hate to defend real causes or put the fingers on people who are selling weapons?"

So he's upset by one mere review, when there's plenty of others that made more valid critiques than others? Gee, what thin skin! Must I point out that, despite the film's failure, there actually were still quite a few critics who gave it favorable reviews? Why doesn't he bring that up? He sure does have some nerve to obscure valid critiques of acting, scripting, directing and other behind the camera activities by confusing them with mere insults.

Oh, and what "causes" is he talking about? The ones he defends, stemming from his ultra-leftist POV? On which note, has he ever considered that quite a few of the film critics he's got issues with are as leftist as he is, if not more so. And if they have a problem with a movie made by a smaller studio, their politics could be guiding their opinions? The guy just can't take the time to think about how his fellow leftists could be the biggest obstacle to success he'll never achieve without learning to write competently.

Besson fell in love with the comic book Valerian and Laureline when he was a lonely 10-year-old after his parents split up. But he had long thought it unfilmable.

Yet he never thought himself untalented, the very reason it would be unfilmable.

"I go where talent is," Besson says. "I'm not looking for the passport. And there are not enough good French actors any more.

"They wake up too late; they wake up at noon.

"The girls – the French actresses – work much more, that is why they're so popular. But the English, the US, their actors are very strong. And the French don't want to learn English."

What's this, he's slamming his own nation? Gee, considering how many travel to English-speaking countries like Britain, the USA and Canada, I don't see how that makes much sense either. And this begs the question: why insult someone? Because that's exactly what he's doing, after whining about but one critic whose review he didn't like.

While we're on the subject, Cosmic Book News also translated an interview from Brazil's Cine Pop, and he comes off sounding much worse:

Totally tired of it. Totally. I mean it was great ten years ago when we seen the first Spider-Man and Iron Man. Now it's like number five, six, seven. There's superheroes working with another superhero, but it's not the same family. I'm lost. But what bothers me most is that it's always here to show the supremacy of America, and how they are great. I mean, which country in the world would have the guts to call a film 'Captain Brazil?' or 'Captain France?' I mean no one. We would be like so ashamed and say 'no, no, we can't do that.' They can. They call it 'Captain America' [laughter]. And everybody thinks it's normal. So I'm not hear for propaganda, I'm hear to tell a story.

Yep, you're here to tell a whole shaggy dog story alright, with a script that's otherwise incoherent, contradictory and even features some dreadful leftist politics, as noted earlier. That's why it's not too hard to guess he can only see the USA as a one-dimensional domineer, and little else. Even though he's living there! Besides, I'm sure that if a European writer/artist wanted to, they could come up with a variation on Captain America or even the Flash, but something tells me the loss of self-esteem in Europe's made it exceedingly difficult, or, most European publishers would probably reject them simply because it doesn't reflect their idea of what an adventure comic should be about. Why, that could explain how Captain Britain's been ruined in in the past decade by shoving so much leftist PC crap into any story involving the hero and/or his role. We've come a long way since Claremont and Alan Davis launched Excalibur in 1988, where such dreck didn't usually clog up the proceedings.

When Cinema Blend brought this up, they said:

Ouch. It looks like Luc Besson believes the superhero genre portrays a sense of American nationalism, and goes on to even accuse the Captain America franchise of being propaganda. Those are some pretty strong words, especially considering Besson has just directed a comic book adaptation of his own with Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Of course, that particular series of graphic novels is French, and not DC or Marvel made.

A point can be made that he's adapted a GN series that's got political propaganda of its own, so he's just confirming his hypocrisy.

And when Indiewire addressed the interview, they noted that:

Despite his problems with the genre, Besson did make a movie about a kind of superhero: “Lucy,” which stars Scarlett Johansson as a woman who develops psychic abilities and superhuman intelligence after ingesting a highly advanced drug.

So why is he bothering to complain? All he's doing is discounting all the foreigners who have no issue with being Captain America fans, and again, he's failed to consider that his overt love for the creation he went out of his way to turn into a film is what botched it in the end.

And that sums up Besson's mind in a nutshell. A man who lives in America, far from his native France, yet doesn't have what it takes to appreciate any of the USA's benefits. Is it any wonder his new movie was a failure?

Update: Screen Rant's also taken issue with Besson's ridiculous comments.

Labels: Captain America, comic strips, Europe and Asia, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics

Netflix bought Mark Millar's publishing outfit, all so they can have another source for adapting comics into movies and TV shows:

Netflix has acquired Millarworld, the comic book publisher from Wanted and Kick-Ass creator Mark Millar, marking the streaming giant's first major acquisition.

Terms of the deal between Netflix and the comics world guru weren't announced. But Netflix and Millar will bring Millarworld’s franchises to life through films, series and kids’ shows available exclusively to Netflix members globally. Millarworld will also continue to create and publish new stories and character franchises under the Netflix label.

The acquisition continues Netflix's efforts to work directly with prolific and skilled creators and to acquire IP and ownership of stories featuring popular characters and fictional worlds.

Considering some of his books, like Kick-Ass, were written and illustrated more for shock value, I just don't see what's so great about them. But what really annoys me from a retrospective view is when they say Millar:

...is bringing Netflix into his superhero universe after working for eight years at Marvel developing comic books and story arcs that inspired the first Avengers movie (with his groundbreaking Ultimates books), Captain America: Civil War (with the 2006 comic book storyline Civil War), and Logan (with the Old Man Logan storyline that debuted in 2008).

This always comes as a source of dismay for me. Because sooner or later, somebody's bound to put two and two together, and realize the source of "inspiration" for the Avengers film happens to be a series where Millar pulled some pretty tasteless acts, including a scene where Giant-Man bit off the Blob's head. It's many of the more recent stories Marvel's churned out since the turn of the century that are awful, and no matter how the filmmakers spin them onto DVD, it doesn't change the fact that the original stories the films and TV shows draw from are some of the most lugubrious slop ever thought up. And even if the stories are aimed at an adult audience, does that make it any better? Of course not.

The point is that Millar's just not a very good writer, and his story creations, IMO, aren't something filmmakers should rely on for extended franchises.

Labels: Avengers, Captain America, indie publishers, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, violence

In the past few years, I'd seen writers like Rucka, Marz, Conway, Slott, and possibly Busiek, posting damning tweets against the Koch brothers in the past. If they've seen the Wonder Woman movie, it'll be fascinating to know what they think, now that it's been revealed the two siblings were investors in the WW movie's production:

Though they might be the most reviled figures among Hollywood's liberal crowd, the Koch brothers have been a silent investor in Warner Bros.' slate of movies for four years.

Sources say Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch — who are worth a combined $96.2 billion and wield enormous power in political circles as major backers of right-wing politicians — took a significant stake valued at tens of millions of dollars in RatPac-Dune Entertainment. Now-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin brought the brothers in as investors as part of a $450 million deal struck in 2013 — a move that was never disclosed because RatPac-Dune is a private company.

Though Mnuchin is no longer involved with the slate financing facility, having recently put his stake into a blind trust in order to avoid a conflict of interest, the Koch brothers continue to be stakeholders in such films as Wonder Woman, Dunkirk and Steven Spielberg's upcoming Ready Player One.

[...] The idea of the Koch brothers as Hollywood stakeholders might be difficult to swallow for some of the industry's more liberal-minded power players like Spielberg and Ben Affleck, whose 2016 drama Live by Night was one of the films co-financed by RatPac-Dune.

On which note, the Daily Wire says:

One thing is for sure, all the liberals who once hailed Wonder Woman as one small step toward ridding their patriarchy-imposed shackles are not going to be pleasantly surprised over the news.

This, and the reality that star Gal Gadot is a proud Israeli, might just be too much for them to handle.

Those liberals include quite a few of the comics writers/artists/editors I've scrutinized in the past, and by now, they're probably moaning and sobbing over all the money they wasted on tickets to the theater. I'm sure some of them despise Gadot to boot, and who knows, those who do probably didn't even care to watch the film.

If the Koch brothers have decent personalities, I'd honestly be happy if they'd buy out the publishing arms of DC, Marvel and other such companies, and focus on how to write up entertaining comic books without ramming a constant stream of leftism down everyone's throats, and who could clear away many of the mistakes that wrecked the Big Two's continuities and characterizations. Movies can have advantages, but so too can an undervalued medium like comics.

Labels: dc comics, moonbat writers, politics, Wonder Woman

Well waddaya know: a few months after Alamo Drafthouse held women-only screenings for the Wonder Woman movie, it turns out they violated Austin's equality laws (Hat tip: Hot Air):

Promoting female-only “Wonder Woman” screenings was a violation of Austin’s equality laws, the Alamo Drafthouse acknowledged in a letter to the city last month. [...]

The city processed two formal complaints against the theater for the two female-only screenings in June, one from Albany, N.Y., law professor Stephen Clark and the other from an unidentified man, claiming sex discrimination. City equality laws ban a public accommodation such as a movie theater from limiting its service, or indicating through advertising that it will limit it, based on race, sex, sexual orientation or other factors.

Interesting. I haven't found any comics sites reporting on this, and if not, it's clear their own leftist agendas are getting the better of them. Anti-female discrimination is very bad, but so too is anti-male discrimination, and that wouldn't jibe well with the original comics either. So will Alamo Drafthouse learn their lesson and never try something like that again? Let's hope so, because they really screwed up.

Labels: dc comics, politics, Wonder Woman

The Hollywood Reporter interviewed Archie CEO Jon Goldwater, already an unfunny joke of a publisher, about their plans to revive the Mighty Crusaders, and predictably, the guy's full of himself:

Both Riverdale and, to an extent, the recent "Over the Edge" storyline in the main Archie comic book series, have recast the characters in a more dramatic tone than was traditionally the case — and this follows on from the horror series Afterlife With Archie and Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. Archie has diversified tonally to such a point that Dan Parent's new Your Pal Archie comic feels like a break from the norm, despite it being, in many ways, an evolution of "classic" Archie. In the past, you've talked about a desire to show that Archie and the gang could tell any kind of story — how close to that aim are you now?

We’re there. It’s now. Archie can do anything. It’s not just one kind of comic, show or concept. You can do a horror Archie story, you can do a superhero Archie story, you can do a drama or comedy. We can also redefine what we’re best known for, like we have revamped classic Archie with Dan Parent and Ty Templeton’s superb Your Pal Archie. Nothing is static. Archie is as versatile — no, more versatile — than Superman or Batman. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: As long as the story feels true to the spirit of the characters, it can be anything. Archie fights zombies, has powers, tours the world — there’s no limit to what you can do with these amazing characters. We’ve finally gotten to the point where the world is seeing that, too.

Sure, you can do practically any of these story concepts with Archie and cast, but you can't convince the public en masse to buy the books. Archie may be able to do anything, but Goldwater's not. I think it's ill-advised to say the redheaded teen is more versatile than the Man of Steel, because that's little more than a bragging, boastful way of claiming you're infinitely superior to your publishing rivals, which isn't so. Certainly not when we take their leftism into account. That's what they really mean by tonal diversification.

Furthermore, they've long moved away from the spirit of the Archie books, and I wouldn't be surprised if, despite Goldwater's boast, the personalities are even more static than what they were in the Golden/Silver/Bronze Age. Also, "no limit"? Umm, what if somebody crazy enough came along and proposed writing a story where the Archie cast was turned into vicious racists and sexists? Would they stand for that? For now, it's clear they believe there's no limit to forcing leftism down everyone's throats, as they did several years ago when the Occupy movement littered the streets of several cities.

And, what is the world seeing, exactly? They're seeing a company with sales in the gutter, appearing very low on the charts, with a publisher who believes he's succeeded in turning them into a booming business, when reality proves that's not so. Come to think of it, I'm sure he realizes this, but wants to put on the ostrich act and pretend everything's all hunky-dory.

While the mainline Archie books have been making their mark, the company's superhero properties have been quietly in the background with the Dark Circle Books for a few years now. You're putting new focus on Archie's superhero properties with the new Mighty Crusaders book. What do you think Archie can bring to the mainstream superhero genre?

One of the things I’m most proud of, is that, as a company, we’re not afraid to take risks. We’re not scared of trying something that pushes against where the industry is going. The Black Hood, the first Dark Circle title we launched under the imprint, is a perfect example of that. Duane Swierczynski and Michael Gaydos made a crime classic — no hyperbole. It was like watching a great HBO or Showtime drama. It just happened to feature a vigilante hero. That’s how I want to approach each Dark Circle book — how is this different? What does it add to Archie as a whole and is it a unique and compelling story? With The Mighty Crusaders, I want a book that establishes the team and explores the world of these heroes. Unlike many of our competitors, Archie has a diverse and beloved library of superheroes.

What does he mean by that? From what I know about the Mighty Crusaders, the original cast was more or less all white. In fact, this promo seems to indicate they'll still be mainly white. Oh wait, does he mean their new take is deliberately meant to reflect a liberal SJW agenda by turning at least one cast member gay for the sake of it? Given they've long shoved the Kevin Keller homosexuality personality upon their productions, it wouldn't shock me if they plan such a path for the Crusader cast to boot. On which note, why does Goldwater boast about going against where the rest of the industry is, if the Archie staff's already made clear they're going as leftist as anyone else?

And if there's one risk they certainly shouldn't take, it's alienating the family audiences they once sold to. Yet that's exactly what they've done over the past decade, unable to recognize what a bad idea it is to stuff social justice agendas down everyone's throats, no matter how poor the ideas they're going by happen to be.

All of this comic book activity feels like it's happening in tandem with Riverdale, and also laying the groundwork for more TV and movie activity around the company's properties. Has the response to Archie as a company, and its portfolio, shifted over the last year or so, as the new comics and Riverdale have gotten people's attention? Do you see other media companies/potential partners act differently towards Archie as a company?

I feel like Riverdale really kicked a door down, and presented to the world an idea that was already common knowledge in comics — that Archie Comics has a wide, diverse and multifaceted library of characters. From Katy Keene to Cosmo to Dark Circle to Josie and the Pussycats — we cover a lot of ground and we have decades and decades of great storytelling to support that. Now that the show is on the air, is a hit and is gaining so much momentum as we head into the second season, I feel like people outside of our industry are starting to take notice — and they’re interested. It should be a very fun few years.

Not if they keep putting their heads in the sand, and won't recognize they're only tearing down all the hard work of their predecessors. Besides, the Riverdale TV show looks so sleazy, I have no intention of becoming hooked onto it. Certainly in the past, they managed diversity properly, but today, as the propaganda in the form of Kevin Keller and their leftism has proven, along with their dismaying shift to horror thrillers with the Afterlife title, they have no idea what they're really doing, and that's alienating the family audiences, along with right-wingers, yet at the same time, as sales receipts suggest, they're not bringing in any leftists either.

Labels: Archie, msm propaganda, politics

Newsarama ran an interview with a few writers for Marvel, such as Jonathan Hickman, who gave some clues the cancellation of Marvel's breakout hit from the Silver Age was put to rest more because of disputes with Fox studios than because of bad sales per se:

The concrete “whys” of the Richards family’s absence have been a matter of speculation since they left the Marvel Universe in Secret Wars, but as it turns out, the actual reason for their disappearance from Marvel's publishing line may be exactly what some conspiracy minded fans have said all along - 20th Century Fox's ownership of the franchise's film rights - but maybe not for the reasons they may expect.

"I think it’s pretty common knowledge at this point that Marvel isn’t publishing Fantastic Four because of their disagreement with Fox," Hickman explained. “While it bums me out, I completely understand because, well, it isn’t like they’re not acting out of cause. Fox needs to do a better job there.”

Hickman’s reasoning seems to imply that Marvel did indeed drop the FF because of the Fox films – not necessarily for financial reasons, but because the most recent reboot was both critically and financially unsuccessful, and failed to reflect well on Marvel's comic books. Marvel still publishes an entire line of X-Men comic books, for example, despite Fox also controlling that franchise's film rights.

If they were talking about the comics, wouldn't that be Hickman's fault, along with James Robinson? Because from what I could tell, there wasn't much to write home about in their offerings, other than changing the FF's costumes to red at one point. Not to mention the constant stream of crossovers made it impossible to provide decent storytelling anyway. And, while cancelling the FF is probably better than allowing a whole bunch of hack writers to turn out monstrosities that could've easily been political as anything else they've published of recent, it's idiotic to act as though a movie's failure warrants the ceasing of the title. There's tons of films based on great novels and plays that didn't fare well at the box office, and that was no justification for stopping their printings and scheduling for theater auditoriums. Still, because of the horrible storytelling effects the FF have been put through in the past decade, right down to the awful crossovers, that's why the series' cancellation is for the best, rather than see a lot of money and trees continually wasted at the behest of awful editors like Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso, who've been exploiting the MCU for all their agenda-laden ideas.

Bleeding Cool also reminded about their own coverage of the subject, and how a certain executive in charge had responsibility that does more harm than good:

A specific instruction given by the Marvel Chairman Isaac Perlmutter that the comic be cancelled (though they were given the time to do it in the manner of their choosing) and all Fantastic Four licensing was cancelled immediately. Posters were even ripped down from the Marvel offices walls featuring the FF so that he didn’t have to see them when he walked through the offices. Marvel staffers, some of whom have never even spoken to Bleeding Cool before or since, got in touch to share their outrage and hoped that exposure would force change — but despite the story getting wide play across the media from THR to Comic Book to Cinemablend to Screencrush to Slashfilm to Nerdist to Collider to Forbes, though not wide enough for George to notice, there was no change.

It's also worth reminding there's been no change in the situation surrounding Spider-Man and Mary Jane Watson's marriage either, and Perlmutter hasn't been helpful on those issues either. Much as I'd like to admire his apparent conservative leanings politically, I think what we have here is a case of somebody who's proven a monumental failure in demonstrating his ability to lead a company, concern himself with whether they're maintaining decent storytelling directions with talented writers, and Perlmutter's allowing politically motivated productions like the Muslim Ms. Marvel to be greenlighted - presumably because he doesn't want to be seen as "islamophobic" - is just one more serious letdown. I'd say Perlmutter's problems stem from his apparent dislike of the creations and products he's overseeing at his end, and IIRC, he even indicated he doesn't like Stan Lee! Why? Besides, if he only cares about dollars in movies, then there's no point in being part of a company that once built itself on a respectable reputation.

And certainly, I was aware that there was a strain of thought at Marvel from some people that the FF comics were only published out of some kind of nostalgia and that the brand could do with a rest. But they were a minority view at the publisher and it took the edict from Ike Perlmutter to kill the first family of Marvel.

Really, they thought so? Umm, that could easily describe the situation with many more Marvel series now. But the answer BC's writer refuses to dwell on is that the a lot of their output in the past several years was only published for the sake of political agendas and the desperation of company wide crossovers for extra bucks. Besides, the FF was no more immune to leftism than any of the other ongoings and miniseries Quesada/Alonso were publishing, wasting tons of money in the process.

I'm not happy to say this, but I think Perlmutter should leave the company, along with all the terrible editors and writers he's allowed to remain in place at the expense of Marvel's storytelling cohesion. He's practically an embarrassment for conservatives because he puts so little value on the comics and more on the movies. He may not be as influential today as he was several years ago, but it's clear he's failed the company in the long run, and made himself out to be no better than the ultra-leftists running Marvel now.

Labels: dreadful writers, Fantastic Four, marvel comics, politics, sales