Tom King belittles the Protector from the 1983 New Teen Titans anti-drug special
Here's a panel from issue 5 of Heroes in Crisis, providing further proof Tom King is as bad a writer as plenty of others have already decided by now:
When Marv Wolfman and George Perez put together a special New Teen Titans miniseries in 3 issues to serve as information about the dangers of drug abuse in 1983, co-sponsored by Keebler Corp for the presidential Drug Awareness Campaign, there was some kind of dispute over whether they could use Robin/Nightwing (apparently, Nabisco was doing a licensed project with Robin). They wound up substituting the Teen Wonder with a similar character called the Protector/Jason Hart, with whom the rest of the Titans joined to track down drug traffickers. (Interesting trivia about said special: unlike the regular ongoing series, Starfire wore a one-piece outfit, though bosom cleavage like hers and Donna Troy's thankfully wasn't censored.) Now, it looks like King brought back the character only so he could make him look like a phony, and not a dedicated crime-fighter at all. What an absolute disgrace. It's not too hard to guess King's not a fan of Stan Lee and Denny O'Neil's groundbreaking stories from Spider-Man and Green Lantern/Arrow that tackled the drug crisis in 1971, which addressed the issue in a bold move for the times. And, he likely isn't a fan of Bill Mantlo's work on Cloak and Dagger either, since their origin involved drugs and experimentation.
And if this panel indicates the Protector was also brought back from obscurity only so he could be wiped out like several other Titans already were, that's one more reason why Heroes in Crisis is absolutely worthless, and nobody should waste their money on it.
And if this panel indicates the Protector was also brought back from obscurity only so he could be wiped out like several other Titans already were, that's one more reason why Heroes in Crisis is absolutely worthless, and nobody should waste their money on it.
Labels: bad editors, crossoverloading, dc comics, golden calf of death, moonbat writers, politics, Titans, violence
The dialog is pretty dry; not sure if its supposed to be humorous. "I took a lot of drugs", "I was doing a lot of other stuff". What does that even mean? I'd find it more interesting if he actually described what "drugs" he did. Maybe if he talked about bong hits or pot brownies it would be funny. Or, if he talked about smoking crack or shooting heroin and how he let his life swing out of control because of his addiction; tragic. Instead this is just pathetic, with no entertainment value; not even shock. It's fairly boring and insulting.
Posted by
Unknown |
10:04 AM
"Instead this is just pathetic, with no entertainment value; not even shock. It's fairly boring and insulting" I wrote a post about how we got here, in the comments section there.
https://fourcolormedmon.blogspot.com/2019/01/meltzers-still-unrepentant-and-cbr-wont.html
A bit of it has to do with a lot of publishers exclusively hiring writers who are graduates of graduate school level writing programs from highly ranked schools or who have other gradate school credentials, to write comics. Roxane Gay is good example. More formal education, "experience" and being a member of a minority group who is well-off enough to work for chump change are the prerequisites for getting a job in comics.
I imagine Tom King's CIA experience made him inexplicably worthy getting high profile work and book deals , and mainstream media attention, whereas before, he was basically a nobody in the industry.
Credentialism .
Posted by
Saber Tooth Tiger Mike |
1:47 AM
Roxane Gay has written five books, one of them hit the best seller lists, and she writes opinion pieces for the New York Times. She is not going to write for chump change; she has no shortage of good-paying work.
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:28 PM
King, Synder, Miller, Millar, Hickman, Ewing, Slott, Fraction, and all the rest. Why hasn't the rest of the world demanded that this lot stop trying to sell pessimism and start trying for hopeful stories instead?
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:49 PM
Why go to the trouble of creating something great when it's so easy to tear something down? It substitutes for entertainment for a while, until you run out of things to destroy.
Posted by
Tony Nichols |
8:16 PM
King's portrayal of Jason Hart as a phony was one of the most controversial moments in the novel. King wrote this in order to make the reader question whether Jason Hart is a real character or not.
The author's depiction of Jason Hart as a phony is one of the most controversial moments in the novel. King wrote this to make readers question whether Jason Hart is a real character or not. The author uses this moment to make readers think about what they know and how they know it, and how that knowledge changes their perception of events.
Posted by
pay someone to do my course online for me |
12:06 PM