SJW-She-Ra's producer gets slammed for allegedly making a racist joke

It looks like the people behind the SJW-pandering remake of She-Ra have just been thrown under the bus by the crowd they were gearing for, as CBR's telling:

During a livestream with She-Ra and the Princesses of Power showrunner Noelle Stevenson and members of "Crew-Ra" on Wednesday, Stevenson recounted an "inside joke" with board artist Sam Szymanski that sparked significant controversy. While discussing the writer's room process, Stevenson made reference to a seemingly long-running joke about main character Bow, a skilled archer, having multiple siblings whose names all rhyme, in addition to reflecting their main pursuits.

"There's like Oboe and he plays the oboe, and Gogh -- like Van Gogh -- and he's missing an ear," Stevenson explained. "[Sam] would come up and just be like, 'Which one of Bow's brothers likes to till the fields?' I'm like, 'Which one, Sam?' and he's like, 'Sow.' Sam was very big on puns."

Fans were quick to point out the racist implications of a Black character named "Sow" being the one to "till the fields." Stevenson was called out for perpetuating racist stereotypes about African Americans and for repeating a joke that implies Bow's brother is a slave. Although Stevenson admitted to being unaware of the implications in an apology she posted to Twitter, the joke and the fan art mentioned in the stream -- which she also shared on Twitter -- both seem to reveal implicit racism.

Graphic novelist Richard Meyer says she didn't actually make a racist joke, but like quite a few leftists in entertainment today, all she can think to do is grovel and apologize over what may have been nothing.

Here's what an extra article from affiliated site Screen Rant says that now, the white background of the cartoon staff is being attacked:

Stevenson's apology led to fans criticizing She-Ra's all-white writer's room, urging the hiring of more POC writers moving forward. Others pointed out the positive impact She-Ra has had on fans, noting the autistic representation from the character Entrapta. Since its premiere in 2018, the series has been praised for showing a positive representation of autism in media.

Stevenson's joke was surprisingly careless, especially coming from the creator of a show that famously promotes inclusivity. It's clear that She-Ra fans hold the series to a high standard, especially due to its history of trying to appeal to many different communities. It's a shame that Stevenson and the rest of the crew didn't consider how Sow would be depicted, but hopefully they will make changes to the character and be more thoughtful in how the writer's room is run in the future.

If her statements were more intentional than we might think, then it's not all that surprising somebody producing such a pandering show could or would say something that might be degrading. But seriously, do "fans" hold the new cartoon in such huge regard? Only as something to serve as an example to push their PC agendas upon society while not necessarily viewing it themselves beyond a superficial, cursory glance.

In any case, don't be surprised if the showrunners for SJW-She-Ra, so long as any new material goes on the air, are going to take this liberal advice SR's giving seriously, and add POC to their staff, regardless of personal merit, all in a frantic effort to appease the crowd that's unlikely to fully forgive them for violating their contrived positions. Who knows, maybe they'll even boot out all the women working on it to date as well, because they're too white for their PC standards.

Donna Troy isn't being done justice

It's been about 55 years since Donna Troy was introduced into the DCU as one of the Teen Titans, and went on to become one of the most underrated sex symbols of comicdom. But, as expected, the mainstream media can't do Donna any justice after the misuse by modern writers over the past 2 decades. For example, here's a Screen Rant item where, not only do they take a weak view of the lady originally created as Wonder Woman's indirect sidekick, they also post an uncritical look at the retcons WW underwent just several years ago:

Despite being one of DC's most recognizable heroes, Wonder Woman's origin story has never been as set in stone as Superman or Batman's. Originally Diana of Themyscira was molded out of clay by her mother Hippolyta, but her origin has been revised and expanded a number of times until the modern era. Her most recent origin story, and the one which the movie mostly follows, is that she was the daughter of Zeus and Hippolyta. Though Wonder Woman's many origins can be complicated, they are nothing compared to the tangled web of backstories and retcons created for Wonder Woman's first sidekick, Donna Troy.

Reading this, I can understand why Silver Age Hawkman Katar Hol's suffered such terrible injustices as having his origins retconned at the dawn of the 1990s too. WW's origins as enchanted clay remained pretty much the same until the end of the 2000s, and it was only in the past decade, no thanks to Brian Azzarello, that they just had to change it for political correctness' sake. But sites like these aren't into the medium for the sake of clear research, or we would've gotten a far better take than SR's offering, which continues to goof with the following:

The confusing nature of Donna Troy starts before her first appearance. When the Teen Titans first premiered in 1965 the team consisted of sidekicks Robin, Speedy, Aqualad, Kid Flash, and Wonder Girl. All of these characters had a history outside of the Teen Titans and would have been familiar to comic readers at the time. All of them except for Wonder Girl. Unlike many other DC heroes, Wonder Woman did not have a sidekick. There was a Wonder Girl within the pages of Wonder Woman, but only in non-cannon stories where Wonder Girl is a teenage Wonder Woman from the past. The Teen Titan's creators mistook this past version of Diana for an entirely separate character and added her to the Teen Titans.

Soon after the Teen Titan's solo series began, the creative team behind the book realized their mistake and gave Donna Troy her first origin story in 1969. Originally, Donna Troy was a young girl rescued from a burning building by Wonder Woman who took Donna back to Paradise Island. Donna was then raised by Queen Hippolyta, which led to Donna becoming Diana's younger sister. This origin would receive a small expansion during Donna's time with the New Teen Titans where it was revealed that her biological parents were alive and that she had been kidnapped by human traffickers at a young age. Just four years later, this origin would be revised as a result of Crisis on Infinite Earths. Due to timeline issues, it no longer made sense for Wonder Woman to have rescued Donna, so instead, it was the Greek Titan Rhea who rescued Donna, gave her powers, and brought her to Paradise Island. During this period, Donna changed her costume and adopted the codename Troia. This revised origin would only last until the nineties.

More slapdash "research", I see. No, Donna's biological parents (specifically, her mother, Dorothy Hinckley) were gone, but her adoptive mom, Fay Stacy, was still alive, as chronicled in NTT #38 in 1984. And even during the Silver Age, it wasn't every superhero who had a costumed teen sidekick. Green Lantern didn't have one, and neither did the Atom, Hawkman and Metamorpho. But SR's failure to connect the dots in history on Donna's story history, that's certainly telling.

Which brings us to what they say about the 3rd Donna Troy origin John Byrne concocted in the late 90s when he was helming Wonder Woman's 2nd volume:

After years of being on the New Teen Titans, Donna's character became more focused on her home life. She had married a much older professor of hers named Terry. Despite the unfortunate nature of their relationship, the first major complication arrived when Donna became pregnant. A new team of heroes called the Team Titans arrived with the goal to kill Donna because her son would end up as a dictator called Lord Chaos. The storyline ended with Donna losing her powers and her marriage. All of this led to a third new origin story. Donna was now created by a sorceress to be a duplicate of Wonder Woman but was abducted by a supervillain named Dark Angel. Dark Angel cursed Donna Troy to live countless lives, all ending in tragedy and misery. When Wonder Woman, Hippolyta, and Wally West try to rescue Donna from Dark Angel, the villainess wipes her from existence rather than let her go. Donna is remade through Wally's memories of her before regaining her memories a handful of years later.

In the lead-up to Infinite Crisis, readers learned that Donna is actually one of the few beings who survived Crisis on Infinite Earths with her memories intact, making her a timeline anomaly. Her status as an anomaly led to her multiple different origins as the universe tried to fit her into the new timeline. Also, Dark Angel is, apparently, Donna Troy from an alternate universe where she was raised by the Anti-Monitor. Donna would go on to exist on the edges of the DC Universe until it was rebooted.

Honestly, I think this was where things began to fumble, as instead of a mortal human gifted with powers from the Greek deities, Donna now became merely the clone of a deity. Why, during the early 90s, it's said that's when the energy in the Titans was beginning to run low, and Donna later became a Darkstar in the 1992-96 series to replace the powers she cast aside, something that, if it matters, could always be reversed so she'd be superhuman again. The storylines in Infinite Crisis are particularly distasteful, doing little to mend the damage from before, and only make it worse. Even after Rebirth, they kept this up. This is what happens when some people just don't have what it takes to quietly drop unpopular ideas and discard them from canon.

And about Terry Long: I own a lot of the TT material and read those stories where he was a prominent co-star, and he wasn't her college teacher. Is that yet one more attempt by the PC crowd to put down all the hard work Marv Wolfman did to build up the Titans in the first place?

When the New 52 continuity took over DC, Donna Troy was nowhere to be seen for some time. She was eventually reintroduced into Wonder Woman's mythos, but as a being created to destroy Wonder Woman completely. This new origin was further complicated when Donna went on to interact with past titan members and act as though she knew them well. Even ignoring how that made little sense given her new origin, it was also contradicted by the dubious canonicity of past Teen Titans teams. Finally, complicating matters further, the Wonder Woman storyline The Lies claimed that the new New 52 depiction of Donna Troy as a villain was an illusion but that she was still created to kill Wonder Woman.

Needless to say, that's the fault of Dan DiDio's editorial, who exhibited quite a repellent bias against almost anyone Titan when he was still around, and all the while, these same press sources shielded him from any serious criticism. If there was ever a time when mishandling really took a turn for the worse, it was during the mid-2000s, and got worse when Heroes in Crisis came about. Now that there's a new EIC at DC, will this change? At the end of the article, it says:

Donna Troy shows the complicated nature of continuity in comic books. The multiple origins make a theoretically simple character into a trove of contradictory histories and retconned twists. It is telling that when the character was brought to live-action in Titans, her first and simplest origin was used. Complicated backstories and shocking revelations don't make characters compelling when they don't mean anything. Donna Troy is a compelling character for many reasons but her conflicting origins have only ever distracted from that.

And this article shows, despite any suggestions to the contrary, what a lack of interest the columnist has in arguing for the better, let alone doing good research. Certainly that's good if the TV show's producers decided to build on the 1st origin from 1969. But why doesn't the SR writer call for DC to take a similar step, and jettison the worst retcons of later years? It's not so much a matter of "complicated nature" in continuity as it is an inability by editors and writers to refrain from making things more confusing than need be. Even the retcon from 1988 wasn't as ridiculous or superfluous as Byrne's was.

There's also this CBR item from last year, giving details for anybody who views the live action TV show:

Descriptions of Donna Troy are quick to highlight the various modifications that have been done to her origin story, and it is frequently referred to as one of her most unique qualities about herself. Initially, Donna was an orphan rescued by Wonder Woman, where she was then raised on Themyscira. Later, however, it would be discovered that Donna was actually rescued by the Titans of Myth. Further in the future, though, Donna would start as a piece of Diana’s soul, brought to life with magic. Similar to the last, the New 52 saw Donna brought to life again with magic but under false pretenses.

But no complaints about how Byrne put the keys in the ignition for what was to come later? Or why editors and writers wouldn't just let it quietly drop, if that's the best way to discard an otherwise failed premise? Nor are there any clear distinctions between what retcons worked or didn't. Not even an objective look at how Donna briefly died in 2003:

Donna Troy, like many comic book characters, has died at one point only to be resurrected in the future. Donna’s death took place in the third issue of the Graduation Day series where she is killed by a Superman robot that attacks the Titans. Donna would not be dead for long, however, as she would be resurrected in the future by the Titans of Myth.

That's still no excuse for the lazy plot they used to get to the point of entombing Donna, and come to think of it, no excuse for killing her off at all. It was all a classic case of terrible writing, published under the confidence the press wouldn't ask the editors and writers in charge to step down, in contrast to most Japanese manga companies, where responsibility is usually taken in case of a failure.

And if turning her into a Black Lantern during the awful Blackest Night crossover wasn't bad enough, there's the kidnapping by Dark Angel:

Apart from her death, one of Donna’s most painful experiences came at the hands of the Dark Angel (a villain who is, ironically, a version of Donna Troy from another universe). As an act of revenge against Hippolyta, the Dark Angel attempted to kidnap Princess Diana but mistakenly took Donna, instead.

Nevertheless, the Dark Angel still tortures Donna by forcing her to repeatedly endure different simulations of life that always ended in misery. Donna experiences this torment at least a thousand times before she is finally rescued. Surviving such cruelty, though to do, was inevitably a representation of Donna’s will to overcome even the most hopeless of scenarios.

These kind of storylines haven't just gotten old, they've gotten stunningly insufferable as well, because of how sensationalized they've become, taking an unpopular plot that could very easily have been dropped quietly and regurgitating it ad nauseum. And again, there's that little issue involving the slap in the face of turning Donna into a baddie:

As a part of the New 52, Donna Troy was re-introduced as a part of a coup to dethrone Diana as Queen of the Amazons. The sister to Hippolyta, Derinoe, rejected Diana’s decision to let the males born of Amazonian heritage to remain on Themyscira, and in turn, planned to create a contender for the throne that would prioritize the livelihood of the Amazonian nation. This contender would be Donna Troy. Realistically, though, Donna was used by Derinoe as a pawn for her own personal vendetta against Diana. This portrayal, though, is one of the most unfavorable of Donna Troy as it defines her only as a weapon against Wonder Woman, and dismisses, as well, the former relationship between Donna and Diana that had previously empowered them both. Fortunately, this dynamic would change during the DC Rebirth campaign.

It was also one of the most alienating, and at this point, Rebirth's done little to redeem her.

Now that Dan DiDio, who led to only so much of this, just as he sought to destroy the rest of the Titans when he was still at DC, is gone from their employ, I'd like to know if the new EIC, Marie Javins, is willing to take all the steps necessary to reverse the harm DiDio caused for nearly 2 decades. There's only so much since the early to mid-2000s, for example, that needs to be discarded. A very simple step they could take to mending Donna is to simply discard the botched Byrne retcon from the late 90s, along with much of what came afterwards. Continuity can work so long as you don't complicate it with so many hastily drawn retcons stemming from company wide crossovers, exactly what turned everything into a shambles these past 2 decades. And I strongly/firmly believe much of what DiDio worked on in the past 2 decades should be dropped, as the majority was loathsome, including - but not limited to - whatever Geoff Johns wrote. Earlier stuff I'd recommend jettisoning would include the 3rd volume of Green Lantern, which was pretty bad when it debuted in 1990, and turning Hal Jordan into Parallax made it worse. Maybe in time, I should make a list of whatever DC and Marvel did in past years that would be best jettisoned. For now, this should make a good start.

And again, it's been about 55 years since Donna Troy's debut. Making improvements for her background would be a good way to celebrate the anniversary of her 1965 premiere.

Chadwick Boseman, 1976-2020

Whatever one thinks of the Black Panther movie, it's definitely a shame its star, Chadwick Boseman, passed away at only 43 years of age as a result of cancer. It's a very sad loss of an actor who brought one of Stan Lee's most famous Silver Age creations to live action.

Update: here's an extra article about Boseman on The Federalist.

PC Gamer recommends the wrong Avengers comics before playing the game adaptation

PC Gamer's just made some pretty awful recommendations for what your average computer gamer should read in Avengers and Marvel material before playing the pretentious new game from Crystal Dynamics. Let's start with what they say about Jonathan Hickman's run:

I might be throwing you straight into the deep end here, but I'm a sucker for anything written by Jonathan Hickman. He likes his concepts high and his stories dense, and his exceptional run on The Avengers does not ease you in. It's still absolutely worth jumping into head first, however, as it really explores the concept of the Avengers and sets up one of Marvel's most ambitious eras.

Hmm, does that mean if Scarlet Witch is depicted as a murderous creature in House and Powers of X, that's okay? Tsk tsk. I've figured based on that there could be more than one thing wrong with Hickman's MO. But things get even worse when they cite the Death of Captain America as a recommendation:

The Death of Captain America takes place after the superheroes took sides and duked it out in Civil War—also well worth a read—when the star-spangled hero is assassinated outside a courthouse. With Cap no more, his closest friends try to fill the void and Winter Soldier takes up his best friend's mantle. It hits many of the notes of a classic Captain America story, but it's also brilliantly tangled up in conspiracy-laden thriller.

While we're on the subject of Captain America comics that don't feature Steve Rogers, there's also Sam Wilson's stint as America's favourite hero. It's a brutal run that sees the new Cap turned on for standing up to a private police force and expressing a pretty muted 'political' opinion. Race is very much at the forefront of the series, with white Americans reacting very differently to a Black Captain America. These are comics filled with protests and anger and frustration, which strike even more of a chord in 2020.

This is actually why killing off Steve Rogers was so tasteless at the time, by tying it in to Civil War in some ways, much like Spider-Man's One More Day, and considering how awful it got when Cap was turned into a Hydra-Nazi while Axel Alonso was still EIC, while previous writers said nary a word in protest, that's one more reason I can't condone the Winter Soldier story. And look at how the columnist made sure to sugarcoat the ultra-leftist turn when Sam Wilson is put in the costume. Guess he's not concerned about how BLM is lionizing criminals for the sake of violence. Also cited in the article is an Iron Man story written by a certain embarrassment:

While there have been plenty of twists and changes since, 2005's Extremis is really where this era of Iron Man begins, with Warren Ellis and Adi Granov building a Tony Stark for the future. [...]

The MCU version of Iron Man owes a great deal to Extremis, especially the third (and best, sorry) film, which lifts much of the story, and it really set the tone and visual style for everything Iron Man-related going forward. Expect Marvel's Avengers version of Iron Man to be pretty similar.

After the recent Ellis scandal, in which there were at least 2 matters that could certainly be considered reprehensible, I don't see the point of citing one of his tales as something great to read. His career certainly may be crippled now, and it's not clear if he'll continue on the Castlevania cartoon where he served as chief storyteller. And wouldn't you know it, the columnist even made sure to recommend Marvel's most politically motivated book of the past several years, kept in print deliberately for propaganda purposes:

This is an easy one. Kamala Khan only took over as Ms. Marvel in 2013, when she became the first Muslim superhero to get her own Marvel comic, so you might as well start with the first (superb) volume. And then the rest because they're awesome.

No Normal has a classic Spider-Man vibe, with Ms. Marvel juggling school, teen drama and her secret identity as an Inhuman crimefighter. She's awkward, she jokes, she's smart but sometimes makes bad choices for good reasons—it's familiar, comforting stuff, but also a lot more important than another white coming of age story.

G. Willow Wilson and Adrian Alphona created a fun, kinetic yarn that's full of action and conspiracies, but some of the best parts are Kamala dealing with her family and faith. Though a lot of the story beats are conventional superhero fair, by exploring them through a Muslim teenager from Jersey City, this familiar tale gets a fresh perspective.

The team-ups are pretty great, too, with this ordinary kid suddenly getting to hang out with the most powerful heroes on the planet and rubbing shoulders with Inhuman royalty. Kamala is a bit of a hero geek, which makes her a good pick for reuniting the rest of the heroes in Marvel's Avengers.

This is easily the most forced of the recommendations, but what else can one expect of these pretentious news sites? No mention of any of the dishonest propaganda tactics or how the story made typical whites look awful, and bringing in a Jewish guest star at one point does nothing to alleviate the concerns the setup is whitewashing the Koran's demonizing viewpoint of Jews, damning them as the offspring of "monkeys and pigs". Also recommended by the columnist is Jason Aaron's takes on Thor:

Jason Aaron really put Thor through the ringer. Starting in Thor: God of Thunder and continuing through multiple series, including The Mighty Thor and The Unworthy Thor, the beefcake Asgardian gets stripped down, ripped apart and experiences multiple major transformations, with Aaron really digging into Thor's history, beliefs, relationships—every aspect of him.

This spans lots of volumes and arcs, including a cosmic adventure to hunt down a divine serial killer, several brutal wars, a surprising amount of corporate espionage, a depressed Thor and a completely new Thor... which probably sounds pretty intimidating if you're just dipping your toes into it now. Take the plunge anyway, as nothing will give you a clearer picture of who Thor is and why he loves swinging that hammer.

I wonder if any of those volumes and arcs include the terrible 1993 crossover called Blood & Thunder, where Thor underwent bizarre brainwashing? Bad as that was, they're probably alluding to all the needless volume relaunches Thor underwent in the past decade as much as any other Marvel ongoing series. Noticeably absent here is unambiguous mention of the alterations taking place just so Jane Foster could become a female Thor with the very same name. And when they turn to a recent Black Widow miniseries called Deadly Origins, they say:

Marvel hasn't always done right by Black Widow, who's often been pushed off to the side or playing second fiddle to another character, despite being involved in so many important storylines over the decades. Deadly Origins shows some of the breadth of her career, filling you in on her long and tangled history, as well as establishing her relationship with Daredevil, Wolverine, Winter Soldier and Captain America.

Well in that case, why must they pretend nothing poor occurred of recent either? They fail to mention any of Natasha Romanoff's older solo stories, like a 4-parter from Marvel Fanfare in 1983, where she certainly got to shine. The writer also said the following about a Matt Fraction-penned Hawkeye miniseries:

Until Matt Fraction and David Aja stuck Hawkeye in a crummy apartment and gave us a look at what the archer gets up to when he's not mucking around with SHIELD or the Avengers, I'd never really thought much about him. My Life as a Weapon changed that pretty quickly.

Wow, another phony who's got no interest or respect for past iterations of the Silver/Bronze/Iron Ages, yet when some overrated hack of modern times pens a pretentious mini about Clint Barton, suddenly the columnist thinks it's all a big classic deal. I'm not impressed. Anybody who can't appreciate Stan Lee's hard work has no business claiming he actually embraces this modern farrago.

Since we're on the topic, it also brought to mind this Newsarama announcement of who's been hired to write extra stories for Amazing Spider-Man #850, as Marvel's decided yet again to restore legacy numbering until the time they see fit to exploit all the speculators anew with another needless Numero Uno relaunch:

Series writer Nick Spencer will have a lead story with artist Ryan Ottley, followed by other stories from Bachalo, Humberto Ramos, Aaron Kuder, Tradd Moore, Kurt Busiek, and Saladin Ahmed.

It's bad enough somebody with as horrible a personality as Ahmed's is being granted story space in a book created by a Jewish guy. But it's also decidedly bad Busiek was granted space here too, considering he's part of the crowd that backed One More Day, and dissolving the Spider-marriage to suit a denigrating agenda. There was once a time when Busiek was a talented writer, and I do still consider a number of his past stories from the 80s and 90s excellent contributions. But, his political conduct of the past decade or so is exactly why I feel his return to anything mainstream superhero-related is but bad news, and nothing to celebrate any longer. I just can't see somebody that blatant making a good writer anymore (and if memory serves, he was one of Ahmed's supporters in past years).

And practically all the stories cited by PC Gamer are from the past decade or so, not from earlier times like the Silver/Bronze Age, one more reason why their recommendations are laughable, just as the Avengers-based computer game they mention bears traces of political influences. All that goes to show is how cheap the research these modern "journalists" do happens to be.

Supposedly, these are comics for "all"

The Eugene Weekly gushes over the opening of a specialty store in the Oregonian city that puts a big emphasis on social justice pandering:

The comic book market is changing, says Andrea Gilroy, owner and operator of Books with Pictures, which opened in early March in downtown Eugene. It’s a sister store to a Portland comic shop of the same name.

What’s changed, Gilroy says, is inclusion. Although sales of traditional comics have slumped — think Spidey and X-Men — the overall market has grown, driven primarily by graphic novels, which are more diverse in terms of gender and sexual identity.

That diversity is what Books with Pictures is all about, she says.

“We carry all the cool stuff,” says Gilroy, who graduated from the University of Oregon in 2015 with a degree in comparative literature and a dissertation focused on comics and identity.

That includes superhero comics and more, she says. “We want to pay special attention to folks who often feel uncomfortable in more traditional geek and nerd spaces, especially women, LGBTQ folks and kids.

“I curate the stock to reflect that everyone is welcome and deserves to see themselves in stories,” Gilroy adds. “We are very intentional and explicit in this inclusive message, because enough folks have been damaged by the more toxic elements of gatekeeping. I don’t think just being passively inclusive is good enough anymore.”

Naturally, this is quite a laugh for anybody who's a realist. Any and every specialty store can sell items like those, and has for many years now. The market changed years ago. And how odd the manager of this store chooses to complain of gatekeeping, when that's exactly what their fellow leftists in publication are doing now, banishing as many conservatives as possible (Chuck Dixon, Ethan Van Sciver, Jon Malin), with more expected to be thrown under the bus in time. The store managers are clearly imitating the right-wingers and other anti-PC advocates using the term, without doing much to prove they're also opposed to PC.

Bestsellers at the store since opening reflect diversity. There are usual suspects, like Batman, but also Dana Simpson’s fantastic series Phoebe and Her Unicorn, John Lewis’ graphic novel memoir March and The Adventure Zone series.

“But our single bestselling book is Maia Kobabe’s fantastic memoir Gender Queer,” Gilroy says.

Batman a usual suspect, you say? Based on all the observations I've made of recent on how the Masked Manhunter is being built up ad nauseum in the wider medium, at the expense of almost any and every comic with a brighter, more optimistic viewpoint, I gotta say, that sounds pretty accurate. It also suggests quite a bit about the people buying it at the moment, despite having assigned writers who're no better than Brian Bendis, of recent assigned to Superman.

Anyway, if they want to open a specialty store geared to certain "niche" genres, so be it, but it's ludicrous how they're damning "nerds" and "geeks", or acting as though women really like this particular stuff they emphasize, or believe kids should be reading these particular themes at a young age. Indeed, noticing the part about kids being a coveted segment, one has to wonder if they actually do provide stuff that's suitable for children when there's such a heavy emphasis on LGBT themes. One sure thing, they can't be expected to sell material aimed at right-wingers so easily. And if not, why bother saying it's for all?

Newsarama reviewer sees what's wrong with Bendis' Superman tales, even as he tries to give #1024 a fair rating

A reviewer for Newsarama at Games Radar looked over Brian Bendis' latest Action Comics issue, 1024. He's actually trying very hard not to be too negative, yet he admits something's wrong with the scripting:

Brian Michael Bendis lets exposition get in the way of real deal heart in Action Comics #1024. Unburdened by the Leviathan affair and his ongoing troubles with his secret identity, Superman now fully turns his sights toward the Invisible Mafia. Better still, he has backup in the form of Brainiac 5, Jon Kent, and the newly returned Conner Kent and Supergirl, who makes her return to the 'main titles' here in this issue.

But while this family reunion and the fallout of the Red Cloud's latest attack on Metropolis infrastructure generates great pathos for the title, the exposition Bendis wraps the plot in saps energy away from the forward momentum.

Artists John Romita Jr, Klaus Janson, and Brad Anderson also lose a bit of pep as well, settling into static expository scenes. Though the trio lay them out in splashy, highly detailed double-pags splashes, none of the scenes really pop as well as they should. Nor are the art team allowed any real set pieces for this newest issue. So while it has heart, Action Comics #1024 gets lost in the plot. [...]

Wow, that part about heart is something the writer must've really strained to put in there, along with the 6 out of 10 points he gives the issue in ratings. But, I think this is a sign of somebody who understands something's wrong and mishandled, and at least has what it takes to admit that. Also: 

...these are the true failings of Action Comics #1024. Starting with essentially a recap of the last several months of Action and what people might have missed from Event Leviathan, Bendis packs the opening scenes with scads of dialogue. Most of these scenes are basically just watching a telephone conversation, one between the enigmatic Whisper and another while Melody Moore is being interviewed by another news outlet. While an effective way to deliver exposition, seeing the scenes back to back robs them of their import which is taken away further as the script shifts to the Daily Planet and more exposition. This time in a more open-air setting.

The drag of the exposition also, unfortunately, extends to the artwork as well. Though, as I said, the trio attempt to jazz it up a bit by spreading it across double-page splashes (like Whisper's monitor dominated hideout and the main bullpen of The Daily Planet) it doesn't do much to pep up the issue.

While there were a few times when John Byrne might've written up panels with crowded word balloons in the 80s, it was nothing compared to what this is like, and Byrne had the advantage of providing more to think about when he was a writer at the time. As for the artists, Romita may be talented (though his style became awfully blocky-looking at times in past years), but some of the projects he's taken in over 2 decades have been pretty lousy choices, not the least being the time when he was paired with J. Michael Straczynski on Spider-Man, and look where that got to for over a decade following One More Day. So to see him paired with Bendis isn't much of an improvement, but rather, a downright embarrassment.

I hope Bendis will make a departure eventually from a franchise he's almost singlehandedly brought down in just a few years, and a more decent writer brought in to replace him, not to mention jettison the slapdash abandonment of the secret identity. It's just a shame Newsarama's reviewers won't go all the way in calling a spade a spade, and let political correctness get in the way of being seriously objective in their viewpoint. The Man of Steel won't be saved by such wimpiness.

Something right Rob Liefeld said about Bette Midler

Actress/singer Bette Midler suddenly decided she wanted to regain relevance by attacking Melania Trump. Amazingly enough, pretentious artist Liefeld was willing to say in response:

We have to be better than this. That sentiment is just ugly. https://t.co/dv26emMP7s

— robliefeld (@robertliefeld) August 26, 2020

As Breitbart notes, even the left took issue with Midler's tasteless attack on the First Lady. Liefeld's more or less a leftist himself, so if he's galled at how poor Midler's behaving, at least that's something right he's done for a change. Melania's a woman who speaks 5 languages, and Midler couldn't appreciate that? For shame.

While Liefeld's comment won't change the fact he's a poor artist, it's good if he recognizes why Midler was acting in poor form, making her a leading example of what's wrong in the entertainment business today.

Cinema Blend's superficial take on Spider-Woman's history

Cinema Blend wrote a weak history item about the first Spider-Woman, Jessica Drew, and how she came about in the late 1970s, since she may become the subject of a movie in time:

Olivia Wilde, a talented actress who made an impressive feature-length directorial debut with last year’s high school comedy Booksmart, is reportedly working out a deal to direct a movie centered on Spider-Woman for Sony. Not much else is known about the project at this time, such as which iteration of the Marvel heroine the film plans to focus on. It could be assumed that Gwen Stacy may be the star since Hailee Steinfeld’s portrayal in the Oscar-winning Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse previously sparked discussion of her own animated spinoff, but even Mary Jane Watson [has been known fight under the moniker] (https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/MaryJaneWatson_(Earth-8545) in a few alternate realities.

Assuming it was in discussion before, what if any plans to make "Spider-Gwen" the star of the show have been called off, due to the accusations leveled against co-creator Jason Latour of sexual harassment in the UK? If there really has to be a movie made based on Spider-Man's Bronze Age female counterpart, I'd say it should be based on the original, and maybe Drew's origin at the time would make for the best premise. But when they turn to how Jessica began, they become sloppy:

Created by writer Jim Mooney, illustrators Sal Buscema and Marie Severin, and Marvel's then-Editor-in-Chief Archie Goodwin, Spider-Woman made her first appearance in February 1977’s Marvel Spotlight #32. She was born Jessica Miriam Drew in London, England, to a pair of scientists whose HYDRA-funded research actually became responsible for her arachnoid abilities. Her father, Jonathan Drew, injected a young Jess with a serum made from the irradiated blood of various rare spider types hoping to cure her from a lethal exposure to uranium.

Mooney was mainly the inker of Jessica's premiere, but he was not the official writer. It was Goodwin who was. However, the story does serve as an example of a character co-developed by a woman, Severin, who worked on the original costume design.

Not mentioned, however, are behind-the-scenes decisions made with how to write the character. Although Spider-Woman's original solo series ran about 50 issues during 1978-83, it was criticized for going through several different writers, and at the end, she was killed, an editorial decision to which there was audience backlash, which thankfully led to reversal of the death shortly after in the Avengers (Ann Nocenti and Mark Gruenwald, who oversaw writing the demise, also regretted initially going in that direction), an example of respecting the audience, which DC hasn't often shown the courage to do, though in all fairness, Marvel eventually got to the point under Joe Quesada where they didn't respect the audience either.

And, even after Jessica's death at the end of her original series was reversed, she did not return to costume for at least a decade. Though she still had most of her powers, she wound up in a non-costumed co-starring role in the pages of Wolverine's first solo series, and it wasn't until Sensational Spider-Man's 1996 Annual that she made another appearance in costume again. Yet even that was squandered (Gruenwald passed away at the time, and subsequent editors didn't follow through on plans to revive her role properly), and wouldn't you know it, the writer who returned Drew to her role was the worst choice possible: Brian Michael Bendis, with all his pretensions, in the mid-2000s. Ever notice how no SJWs seem to take issue with the Avengers story he wrote where Jessica was stripped naked from 2010? Just goes to show that, when they believe a certain writer meets their political standards, they'll give him a free pass. Making Jessica a mother was decidedly not an improvement, seeing how it came about:

Like any other character in the Marvel lexicon that you can think, there are actually numerous alternate versions of Spider-Woman’s son. In the [MC2 Universe](https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/GeraldDrew(Earth-982), for instance, Gerald Drew (or “Gerry”) is given powers in a similar way to how Jessica Drew does, eventually taking over for his retired mother as the new Spider-Man. However, I would rather focus on Gerry from the Earth-616 continuity, not just because it is the primary timeline, but because I find the reinvention the character in that timeline to be much more interesting.

Born in an alien hospital inside a black hole in the midst of a Skull invasion, Gerald Drew first appeared in Spider-Woman Vol. 6 #4 in 2016 and [immediately exhibited abilities almost identical](https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/GeraldDrew(Earth-616) to his mother’s. He can climb walls and give people a good shock with his venom blasts, and even family friend Carol Danvers (yes, I mean Captain Marvel) once met her match with this unusually strong infant. That being said, he does not have much control over his powers at this time, but will surely be a force to be reckoned with and make his “spider-mom” proud when he comes of age.

Don't they mean Skrulls? Oh, who cares. While I think heroes bearing children can have its bright sides, the way it's been done in the past 2 decades has only posed the problem of all but writing the heroes into a corner. When Spider-Man's Sins Past did this, it was definitely a disaster. And if Gerald knocked Carol Danvers into the middle of next week, I'd say that was another insult to the original Ms. Marvel, no better than how she fared under writers as terrible as Kelly Sue deConnick. Speaking of which, they even had to bring up a pretty lazy moment from the CM film:

Jessica Drew does not have too many weaknesses to make special note of, outside her fear of rats, maybe. Yet, one fun bit of trivia about Spider-Woman worth mentioning is an unusual allergy of hers.

You may recall from the 2019 Captain Marvel movie a cat named Goose that appears normal until it reveals tentacles that protrude from its mouth, and Goose also turned out to be the reason for Nick Fury’s (Samuel L. Jackson) eye patch. This is an alien species known as Flerken, one of which Carol Danvers kept as a pet, but much to the chagrin of her friend Jessica Drew, due to the allergic reaction it causes her. I want to see a crossover with Spider-Woman and Captain Marvel more than ever now just for this reason.

Making an alien cat's attack on cinematic Nick the reason he had to wear a patch, instead of losing his eye in warfare, was quite a cop-out, yet the columnist's too politically correct to admit it, just like they won't admit the CM movie was overrated because of all the PC elements it was built on.

Like every other fictional character, whatever's done with Spider-Woman is the writer/artist/editor's responsibility, and I think it's a shame that Jessica Drew, just like Ms. Marvel, wasn't handled as well as she could've been in past decades, all because the people in charge had to make slapdash decisions how to deal with them, and by the time something better could've been done, all the wrong people like Bendis had made their way into comicdom, and otherwise ruined them. Just like, if recent indications of where Marvel's going with their movieverse says something, a film starring Spider-Woman could easily turn out to be dreadful. And it's equally a shame Cinema Blend won't comment on past decision making, to determine what was done right or wrong, and how it could be handled better today either. Which won't happen under Marvel's current management.

Daily Beast says DC Fan Dome was more funeral than festivity

A columnist for the Daily Beast says he thought DC's online convention, substituting for the physical, was big disappointment. He first begins by describing what it was like attending a convention affiliated with a specialty magazine that folded nearly a decade ago:

A few years back, I covered Wizard World East in downtown Philadelphia, one of several annual comic conventions in the roving franchise of the now-defunct Wizard magazine. As festivals go, it was fairly straightforward—a full floor in the Pennsylvania Convention Center packed with booths, novelty t-shirts, and a rotating cast of stars—nearly identical to the Wizard Worlds in a dozen other cities, or most major comic gatherings. Any charm stemmed from the event’s semi-chaotic idiosyncrasies: vendors peddling real katanas, as security confiscated fake ones downstairs; two dozen 14-year-olds dressed as slightly different versions of Spider-man; an Alex Jones-looking ventriloquist who never mentioned magic, but told jokes like, “I just ate a clownfish. It tasted funny.”

Since he brings up Wizard, which had tremendous faults when still in business, not the least being their knee-jerk approach to the Big Two (they were entirely on Joe Quesada's side when he erased the Spider-marriage), what's really galling to think about now is that, if they were still in publication, chances are very high they'd succumb to a sex-negative social justice agenda, and they'd be pushing for replacing established white heroes with POC and LGBT casts just as horribly as any other politically correct news source seen today. They may not have been as sex-negative in their approach as some of today's news sites can be, but if Wizard's staff could shamelessly claim Marvel would be laughing all the way to the bank after making Peter Parker do a deal with Mephisto to get Mary Jane Watson out of the picture, it's a foregone conclusion they'd adapt all the PC tactics seen today, including the political ones (I don't think they ever had any objections to turning Captain America into Blame-America propaganda after 9-11 either), and all without actually condemning jarring violence, sexism and misogyny becoming too rampant in entertainment.

The part about security personnel confiscating toy swords even as real ones are being sold on the upper floors actually confirms what a hypocitical joke some of these conventions were. Besides, while I can understand if they wouldn't want real firearms brought to the cons, it doesn't mean real blades should be either, and indeed, I think it'd be better if they weren't. Now let's see what they say about this whole Fan Dome production on the web:

The ethos of the original comic conventions—non-profit organizations created mainly for fans to meet their favorite creators—has long been overrun by the high-budget, corporate productions now held every year. But unlike the crowded melees where multiple universes convene, the Fan Dome focused on just one, lending it the air of an extended infomercial. In an unambiguous way, it was; the free event was peppered with promotions. In lieu of the standard spread of costumes, DC released a filter for Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat, assigning attendees one of fourteen characters. Even the most basic expectation of a comic convention—in person interaction with writers—proved impossible, supplanted by a pre-recorded show, looping three times for different time zones. The monolithic corporate consistency zapped even the mildest serendipity from wherever it might have remained.

The stiltedness of the Fan Dome, of course, is not entirely its fault. Social distancing has turned the multi-billion dollar convention industry into a plotless redux of Snow Crash or Ready Player One. But if the Fan Dome felt singularly funereal, that’s because it was. Just 12 days before the convention aired, WarnerMedia announced massive layoffs across its companies, primarily in its DC arms. DC Comics was cut by a third; the majority of employees at the streaming service DC Universe were let go. The merch manufacturer DC Direct was killed off entirely. The steady stream of programming on Saturday resembled the New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane’s description of Suicide Squad: “more of a package, a conceptual wheeze, or a half-developed pitch than a plausible story.”

For anybody in the know over the last 20 years, this should be no surprise if the online convention was such a disappointment. When story merit collapses and they keep the IP around for little more than adapting to other mediums like films and games, what's there to look forward to in an online convention any more than the real deal? That DC tolerated Eddie Berganza's offenses for about 2 decades only compounds the discouragement.

There may be real conventions coming again in the following year, certainly as soon as vaccines and other medicines for treating Coronavirus are found. But if this serves as an example of where we're at, it's still going to be mighty disappointing even then.

Specialty store in Erie, Pennsylvania succeeds in keeping business going despite pandemic

Here's an article on the Erie Times-News spotlighting a comics and games store in the northern Pennsylvania district, Books Galore, that's been able to keep their business going well enough despite what Covid19's led to:

A loyal customer base, a dedicated staff of six, financial help through the federal Paycheck Protection Program and an industry grant: They all combined to help the shop survive during and after the statewide shutdown of all non-life-sustaining businesses that started on March 19.

Books Galore offered curbside service at the end of May as restrictions eased. It welcomed mask-wearing customers inside the store on July 1, five days after Erie County entered the green phase on Pennsylvania’ reopening scale.

Business has recovered, Books Galore’s manager Cole Schenley said.

Sales in July, he said, “were a couple of hundred dollars better than in January,” two months before the COVID-19 outbreak hit.

“That’s pretty good,” Schenley said. “We’re taking it a day at a time. I am pleasantly surprised at how well things have gone.” [...]

The PPP loan helped Books Galore get by. So did a $1,800 grant that Books Galore received from the Book Industry Charitable Foundation, which includes the Comicbook United Fund. [...]

Customers returned, eager to get comics that many had pre-ordered but could not read during the shutdown. Books Galore runs a club in which staff put members’ comics in folders for pickup. [...]

Even before the pandemic, Schenley said, the comics industry was fighting digital competition. He said Books Galore’s foot traffic has stayed strong.

“It is not the easiest business,” Schenley said. “But people still like physical stuff. We still have collectors and kids who like to get comics.”

I think it's great when a store's business can survive such a dire period. And I like physical books too, as they're much easier to read than an e-book on computer screens. But at the end of the article, there's one more little thing noted that, again, troubles me:

And the comics create an energy all their own. Schenley, a Batman fan, likes to talk about how the comics keep the customers coming back. The medium is built to foil the boredom and anxiety that the pandemic has wrought.

If the guy said he was a Superman fan, would the paper have mentioned this? Or, why must they always bring up so monumentally obvious a choice? Most of the people doing the writing on Batman these past several years, like Scott Snyder and Tom King, are little different from Brian Bendis in terms of contempt for the audience, so what's the use of bringing that up either? You'd think nobody was even a Spider-Man fan from reading these articles, since they don't specify whether the managers or their customers are big fans of those franchises either. I've lost count of how many mainstream articles I've read to date over the past decade citing Batman as the gigantically big thing above all else, and wonder how many more I'll find doing the same. This is simply not helpful, and in fact, it obscures a lot of smaller publishers and titles from various genres that could be just as enjoyable, maybe more so.

Also, I'm sure serial fiction has its advantages to foil boredom and anxiety, but only if the writing and art are good, to say nothing of the editing. So if the Big Two's titles are still selling laughable sales numbers at worst, you can't say their output's foiling much of anything but itself.

Some history of a 1980 Comics Annual from Canada

A writer at the Free Press of London, Ontario gives some history of a special Comics Annual published in Canada, considered an important part of their own heritage:

The annual was created by Hamilton’s Potlatch Publications, a boutique publisher that appears to still exist, if the internet can be trusted. Potlatch originally intended to put out a new Comics Annual every year, plans which did not materialize. [...]

The 128-page anthology contains a number of sci-fi and fantasy tales, some as brief as a page long, others extending to a dozen pages.

Looking at my faded copy, many of the stories still leap off the page. In particular, Martin Springett’s The Hunter seemed like a RUSH album cover come to life. The book was a dazzling glimpse into the future of comics.

Some of the creators featured in its pages, like Ken Steacy, went on to greater fame. Steacy’s contribution, Street Noise, was the best Star Wars story that didn’t appear in the official Marvel Star Wars title. In one panel you can glimpse a giant robot crushing Luke Skywalker’s landspeeder.

What’s noticeable by its absence is any mention of superheroes. This is the part where I point out Canadian readers have traditionally shown a distrust of showy super-powered beings.

Today, they'd do better to distrust the corporate-owned mainstream in the US to deliver the goods convincingly. The anthology annual in focus here sounds similar in its content to some European comics, which don't commonly emphasize the same themes USA comics are famous for. Too bad if the Comics Annual didn't prove successful. But today, there are alternatives, like paperback and hardcover books, where artists can showcase their goods and get even wider marketing, if they're seeking more recognition for the art form.

What kind of "fans" of Venom actually want a sequel film to be R-rated?

Here's a sugarcoated piece on Screen Rant about recent efforts to turn the notable supervillain from Spider-Man's world into a more profane one:

In the months leading up to the Venom movies theatrical release in 2018, it seemed no one knew whether fans would get their wish of an R-rated Venom on the big screen. While fans may have been disappointed when the film would release under a PG-13 rating, the film still was a smash at the box office. But, knowing fans are still holding out hope that Venom 2 will see an R rating, the House of Mouse and Marvel comics have finally given Venom an ability to earn that R-rating: a potty mouth.

Gee, what kind of "fans" are we talking about? Because anybody so desperate for crudeness can't possibly be that interested in merit, and profanity alone does not a good comic or movie make. To turn Venom into more R-rated fare for the sake of rawness runs the gauntlet of making fans look...insular.

Eddie Brock and the Venom symbiote have been together a long time, but even long-lasting relationships can have surprises, like when the Venom symbiote decides to drop it's first ever cuss word. It is hard to believe the symbiote has never used foul language in the past, especially given its extensive time spent as a murderous villain and pain in the side of Spider-Man. But the symbiote does just that in Venom #27, deeming being transported to another universe's version of Earth ruled by Knull a perfect moment let out his very first profanity.

But it's not so hard to believe the writers assigned to telling stories about the symbiote never made use of raw profanity and vulgarity for over 30 years, or that the editors held back on such ideas. And if the following example is any indication:

They're still not going all the way, as all the asterisks, strudels and ampersands make clear. So why does this dopey film site think it's such a big deal? Obscured raw profanity and vulgarity has long been a common approach since the Bronze Age, even when milder forms of profanity became more accepted and noticeable, and even then, it wasn't all that frequently you'd see the milder forms either.

Come to think of it, the notion Venom and host Brock would acknowledge this as the first profane moment of the symbiote seems awfully forced too. When mainstream comics began using more profanity in the 70s, the writers usually didn't go out of their way to address the moments as though it was the first time, or was such a big deal. Certainly not if they weren't trying to break the fourth wall like She-Hulk's 2nd solo book did during its 1989-94 run. Venom was known at times for sporting a sense of black humor back in the day, and that angle worked well enough, so why these SR columnists think this is a major achievement is bewildering indeed. Mainly because, when you look closer and see no actual F-bombs or S-bombs were typed into the word balloons, you realize it's little different from past examples (i.e-the Punisher) where disguised profanity was put to use either.

And the story merit is bound to be as underwhelming as anything else Marvel's put out of recent.

Tom Taylor puts hypocritical words in the Joker's mouth

In recent times, the left's been coming up with anti-conservative use for phrases like "punch a nazi". That may not exactly be what writer/artist Tom Taylor used in Injustice: Year Zero, as reported by Men's Health, but it sure sounds built along the same lines:

As Batman's arch-nemesis and perhaps the world's most infamous fictional supervillain, the Joker is plenty evil. He's a psychopath, a murderer, and just a straight up agent of chaos. We know this—we've seen him in Batman, and The Dark Knight, Joker, and hell, even Suicide Squad. And that's not even counting the endless comic, animated series, and video game depictions of the character. But as a new DC Comics story makes patently clear, even this universally-known madman has a line he won't cross: Nazism.

"I'm an American, I [CENSORED] hate Nazis," Joker says in a panel from Injustice: Year Zero #4 teased by writer Tom Taylor. "I'm a homicidal maniac, not a traitorous bigot."

Injustice: Year Zero is a spin-off of the Injustice video game series of the same name that began back in 2013. Year Zero is a prequel story that at times flashes back to World War II. In the issue of note, the Joker and fellow supervillain Harley Quinn are being told a flashback story when the Joker shows impatience, wanting to skip to the parts where the Nazis get killed.

The same Injustice game where Superman becomes something of a deadly maniac himself, right? Ugh. And now, it looks like, if the following says something, political metaphors have gotten even worse:

The statement that anyone "hates Nazis" shouldn't be a hot take, nor should it feel politically charged. But recent years have seen the rise of white nationalism in America, and heinous incidents like the one in Charlottesville, Virginia back in 2017 brought hate groups very much back into the national spotlight.

The character of the Joker, too, has become embroiled in the ongoing discourse; when Joker was released last fall, the movie became a magnet for controversy due to many seeing it as a calling to incels, and with the potential to incite violence. Which makes it even more compelling that it was the Joker—not Lex Luthor, not Harley Quinn, and not any other super famous supervillain—who openly and unobjectionably decried Nazis.

Oh please! So now they're perpetuating that ill-advised slur "incel", they're even using a much too easy tactic of claiming the film encourages violence, without actually asking whether it's a healthy premise to spotlight a homicidal villain, or whether darkness is healthy for anybody. Another hypocrisy is that they'd never admit Antifa, now busy destroying Portland, Oregon, is basically a white hatemongering group. That aside, what they really seem unconcerned about, is whether the setup is a political metaphor for claiming conservatives, even if not National Socialists, are still deadly. But they do admit the premise by Taylor has its predecessor:

As ComicBook.com describes, the Joker previously expressed a similar sentiment in a Batman & Captain America crossover series back in 1997, when the two heroes teamed up to fight their two supervillains, Joker and Red Skull.

The series, written and illustrated by John Byrne, includes a scene where the Joker realizes that Red Skull actually believes in Nazism, and isn't just wearing the garb to seem tough. "That mask must be cutting off the oxygen to your brain," Joker told Red Skull in the series. "I may be a criminal lunatic, but I'm an American criminal lunatic."

Even if Byrne's cross-company special didn't set out to be political, I think it's honestly a tasteless premise, and considering the career the Clown Prince of Crime built up, which was just as murderous as Red Skull's, that's why the whole notion a villain like the Joker would have an issue with National Socialism is a snoozer. Not that Byrne hasn't written stories in questionable taste before, but the 1997 special has got to be one of the crummiest ideas in his portfolio by far. As this new variation on the older story is in Taylor's. Since the Joker's a violent, lethal maniac, it makes little difference whether he claims he's against nazism when he embraces the same mentalities they went by. If Bullseye from Daredevil were depicted this way, it wouldn't be any better.

And so we have here another example of why I've concluded the overemphasis on all that is part of Batman and what the Masked Manhunter's world is built on has gone way too far over past decades, and the best way to send a message is to boycott these dark-laden DC products until they cut it out. Biggest problem with stories like these is that, unlike earlier ones, they don't have what to make you think.

Canadian retailer sells old pamphlets for just a quarter to make room in his store, and Massachussettes retailer finds way to offer free comics

Saanich News in Victoria, British Columbia ran an article about a local store manager who's selling off old comics from the 70s through the 90s for just 25 cents because the Corona crisis led to crowdedness in his store inventory. Though it also notes:

He learned earlier this year – pre-COVID-19 pandemic – that the warehouse was being converted into condominiums, and by July 1 he knew he had to start lugging the boxes over to the store to sell the comics off.

Except he underestimated how much room the boxes would take up and now they line the aisles of the store.

“Today I’m putting out 5,000 Batman comics from the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s,” he said Wednesday morning, the second day of selling old comics for a quarter. “There’s a lot of nostalgic comments being thrown around.”

Pointing to the positive, Batbooks from those eras are certainly something I'd like to buy and read. But I still find it a shame when Batman continues to receive so much emphasis, while Superman gets next to nothing. There are Superman stories from those eras worth reading, yet they're obscured for the sake of the darkness's most famous representative. So too are comics starring Flash, Wonder Woman and Justice League of America, now that I think of it. And whether as pamphlets or as trades, I'd sure like to find a lot of that stuff too.

Here's another article from Western Mass News about a retailer in Easthampton, Massachussettes who's asking for food donations to help a community center, in exchange for free comics:

An Easthampton comic book shop, reduced to curbside service right now, has found a way to give back to the community and launched a drive to collect nonperishable food items in exchange for free comics.

Comics N' More is limited to curbside business during the pandemic, but now they're allowing customers to pick up their favorite reads for free while helping those in need.

Store owner Christian Reader said their annual food drive was going to look a little different this year, but they knew they still wanted to help.

"The community center still needs nonperishable goods, even with everything going on. It makes sense. So we still had all the books on order, and we had to rethink how to do an event that couldn’t have a draw," Reader explained.

They’re accepting any nonperishable food item as long as it hasn't passed its expiration date, and they’re donating all of the food items to the Easthampton Community Center.

Well that's certainly an altruistic mission they're taking, at a time when the Covid19 crisis is still posing problems for their business. They seem to be doing well in this approach so far, so congratulations to them.

Wonder Woman 1984 uses villainous take on Max Lord as a metaphor for Donald Trump

After reading this quite eyebrow raising feature on Collider, I'm not sure what's worse: turning Max Lord into a villain as seen in the past 15 years since Countdown to Infinite Crisis, or, using that same template as a political metaphor for Donald Trump and more troublingly, capitalism, which the 2nd major WW movie appears to be written as an assault on, explaining why Gal Gadot participated in a chorus for John Lennon's Imagine song on the web:

The world of 2018 feels unrecognizable from our current point in time. We were just two years into Donald Trump’s U.S. presidency which beget the immigration crisis along the Mexican-American border, talk of collusion between Trump’s election campaign and Russian officials, the public-facing resurgence of white supremacy, and the height of the #MeToo movement. Wonder Woman 1984 director Patty Jenkins was thinking about this moment on the U.K. set of her sequel to 2017’s DC Comics blockbuster—like the rest of us, blissfully unaware that in just two years time a global pandemic would force the public into quarantined isolation, dismantle the U.S. economy, and lead to a situation where a sitting president supports withholding funds for the postal service to prevent mail-in voting.

At the same time, just as Jenkins was thinking about the world of 1984 in relation to 2018, the problems of the past maintain parallels to problems of the present.

In the ‘80s, a time of excess and drive to achieve the “American Dream,” “It was like we thought for sure it could go on forever and there was going to be no price and you could just [have] exponential growth,” the filmmaker says on the set of 1984. But, as Jenkins and her characters realized, there is a price. “I think in that way, we’re talking about then and we’re also talking about right now,” she adds. “We’re talking about what we’re dealing with right now because that struggle is very much alive in our own psyche.”

So the news site scapegoats Trump over mail-in ballots for starters, and predictably would rather resort to the tired cliche of white supremacy, when bigotry comes in all races and both sexes, and anti-white racism's been on the rise of recent. But of course, these kind of people would rather remain selective in their outlook. The site goes to list what the filmmakers are saying:

First of all, why the year 1984, specifically? Might it have something to do with author George Orwell’s futuristic dystopia? “We should have that conversation after you’ve seen the film,” producer Charles Roven In any case, 1984 “was at the peak of [America’s] power and its pride,” associate producer Anna Obropta mentions. “It was everything commercialism, passion, wealth, even violence was in excess. It was a decade of greed and desire.” In simpler terms, “it was humanity at its best and at its worst,” she says.

I notice no mention of socialist structures in the original Soviet state still around at the time, until Reagan called for tearing down the Berlin Wall, which led to the USSR collapsing by the end of the decade. All they care about is allusions to capitalism? Now that's certainly troubling, though the following reveals more:

Who is the villain of this next chapter? Well, there are multiple antagonists, but the real enemy, one might argue, is capitalism. Gadot observes that Diana’s adversaries are not “obvious villains,” that she found herself rooting for them initially as much as she was rooting for Diana and Steve when reading the script. Game of Thrones’ veteran Pedro Pascal plays comic book villain Maxwell Lord, only in the context of the film he’s the president of Black Gold International. He’s the king of phony informercials. If people are chasing after dreams of wealth, power, and fame, then Max is selling those dreams. He is this “desperate, self-obsessed, fraudulent entrepreneur who runs a business selling the American Dream,” Obropta Barbara Minerva, another antagonist played by Saturday Night Live alum Kristen Wiig, is beguiled by this illusion and eventually corrupted by it. The character will begin her transformation into Cheetah, one of Diana’s most famous adversaries from comics canon, by falling victim to Max’s scheme. “At first look, it is a dream come true,” Obropta continues. Diana’s once timid, bookish gemologist friend at the museum now feels “feels physically stronger. She feels more seen and respected in the world, but her power takes a very fast, very dark turn as she transforms into this vicious and savage creature, like nothing we could have ever imagined.” Diana, meanwhile, sees all the greed and all the “bad things that that are being done in order to get to the top,” Gadot says. “I think she doesn’t like that so much: the price that people are willing to pay in order to achieve whatever it is they want to achieve. But other than this, I think [Diana] loves the ’80s. Great hair, she’s rocking the hair and styles, it’s great.”

Forget it, if this was written as a stealth assault on what the filmmakers happen to be building on at the movie theaters (assuming it's eventually released there, what with the Covid19 crisis still around), it's discouraging. From the content of this article, or lack thereof, it sounds like socialism in the USSR is being given a pass. And, there's more:

Expect parallels between Max and Trump. Photos of the fired reality TV star with a trail of bankruptcy filings adorn costume designer Lindy Hemming’s work space. “Donald Trump, of course,” she says, while discussing sketches for Max’s business attire. “Well, that’s helpful to look at, isn’t it? There is something about the period of Donald Trump and being a businessman, of being rather sleazy a little bit, and a bit goofy and a lot of talk. So that’s why he’s there. There’s more but I ought to just…” She trails off but “zip it” comes to mind.

I'll bet nobody cares Trump was more of a Democrat back in those days, and you won't hear it acknowledged anywhere in the film's promotion going forward. Here's more clues to what perspective the filmmakers took at the time they were first filming WW 1984:

While the film is set in 1984, it’s very much about what we’re going through today… or, more specifically, what we were going through around 2017-2018 at the time the movie was actually in production. As we know all too well, the world has drastically changed in the past six months alone. “It was particularly the ’80s because of the fact that that was the height of everything we’re now paying the price for,” Jenkins muses. “It was like we thought for sure it could go on forever and there was going to be no price and you could just [have] exponential growth. Then it could keep going, and all of this excess. And so I think in that way we’re talking about then and we’re also talking about right now. We’re talking about what we’re dealing with right now because that struggle is very much alive in our own psyche.”

Correction: it's all in their minds. Right down the notion we all believe capitalism has no downside, or that we thought it could keep going flawlessly for all eternity. Obama certainly proved otherwise, and Joe Biden's got connections confirming he's willing to continue the socialist legacy. If this is what they set out to do, they're not providing a much better scenario than one in Batman vs. Superman serving as a metaphor for attacking opponents of illegal immigration.

Maybe this explains, however, why the first WW movie was set during the 1st World War instead of the 2nd - because that way, they wouldn't have to concern themselves with the real evil of Germany's National Socialism. Just like they're not particularly concerned with what China's communism led to this year. So capitalism is the problem, and not socialism, in the 80s or today. Whatever merits the first WW movie had, it's turning to mush here in the second, and not just because Max Lord's been exploited as a villain here, but also because of what he's used for by extension. I don't feel encouraged to see a movie like this if that's what they're going to waste their time on. Though it explains why realists in Israel don't see Gadot as a "national treasure" (and she even violated Corona quarantine guidelines during a trip back here 2 months ago).

Chuck Dixon explains why today's writers can't do Superman justice

In this "Ask Chuck Dixon" video via Bounding Into Comics, he tells why feels the current writers assigned to Superman can't tell good stories, or more to the point, aren't:

[...] “Star Trek pretty much ruined for me the last few years. And Superman, long ago ruined. Basically when the classic guys, for me, the last classic guys, Jurgens and Ordway and Roger Stern and Butch Guice. When they left the Superman franchise it was over. I didn’t care anymore. Because they loved the character.”

Dixon then went on to detail why current creators are unable to tell good Superman stories, “The problem that Superman has, and it’s not really a problem. It’s a problem for the creators. It’s a problem for the writers. They don’t know how to write good stories about a guy who is a Boy Scout. A guy who has a moral spine, a code of behavior. He’s a gentleman. He’s a paragon of virtue. They simply do not how to write that kind of character and make it interesting.”

Dixon continued, “And yet the road map is drawn. Even though that seems like a very tight set of restrictions, it’s not. There’s a lot of room in there to tell great stories.”

Dixon then detailed that he’s struggled writing Superman in the past, but he would find ways to work it out, “And I’ve been backed into a corner on Superman stories myself with the Mort Weisinger process of what if Superman did this? Then you are like, ‘How’s he going to do this?’ Well, it’s my job to figure out how it’s going to work.”

He continued, “And I’ve been in that corner and it was tough and it was challenging, but I did it. I didn’t whine and cry and change the rules just to write my version of Superman or somehow alter Superman to my quote on quote vision.”

Dixon then states, “So, will he ever return to greatness? No. We are just going to have to remember the way he was until some other generation brings him up and takes him back to his former glory.”

“But in the minds of the general public, the people just walking around, Superman remains the same. Superman is not altered by all of these different, especially comic book version of him. Because most of the public isn’t even aware of those changes,” he adds.

And that's because Bendis, the latest pretender to the throne, would rather it remain a secret, so he could carry out his dismal approach that doesn't lead anywhere and adds nothing to Superman and his co-stars. The writers up until the early 2000s may have loved the Man of Steel, but most of their successors don't. Especially damaging, however, has been when Jurgens, who supposedly loved Superman, exploited him for a political tool pandering to - what else? - social justice propaganda. For all the pluses Jurgens may have in his resume in 40-plus years of working as an artist and writer, he also has a lot of moments where you have to take it with a grain of salt, and his most recent work, based on the politics he catered to, is particularly reprehensible. If memory serves, he was the one who really set Infinity Inc's Obsidian on the path to being depicted as homosexual in 1994, which became particularly blatant in the mid-2000s. Some "conservative" Jurgens supposedly is. Surely ironic is that he was an early example of a writer making forced and contrived changes to an established character instead of introducing new ones to fill the roles he had in mind.

But back to the main subject, if Dixon could've chosen to write Superman proper on a more regular basis (he only has a handful of Superman-related stories in his resume), and not just as a special guest in a Batbook, would he have done this? Arguably, the best way to make a difference is to practice for starters in developing the best story templates, and then auditioning to realize them as an actual published story by getting the series assignment. IMO, if Dixon had made an effort to work on as many books with an optimistic vision as he did with a darker vision like Batman, it's possible we could've seen considerably better quality as the years went by. Now, it certainly isn't possible, so long as DC and Marvel are both corporate properties. As a result, it's not just a generational problem. It's also a gatekeeping problem, when you have slimy, selfish know-it-alls imposing editorial mandates under the confidence the higher echelons will provide cover for their activities. Is it any wonder then that Batman's become the overabundant emphasis while Superman falls into serious neglect?

Declan Shalvey says nobody knows who Jack Kirby was

The Clare Echo interviewed artist and writer Shalvey, who originally came from around Ireland and of recent is working for Marvel, and he told something about artist recognition that raises eyebrows:

Declan has been working with Marvel for ten years now. Initially an illustrator, he has since moved on to write for other artists, enjoying the collaborative process that playing both artist and writer involves. Writers get much more recognition that artists, Declan posits. Everyone knows who Stan Lee is. Nobody knows who Jack Kirby is. He co-created Captain America, Fantastic Four, and X-Men. Writers could spend a week on a script and then move on to promotion work whilst an artist could be inside, working on the same project for over a month and a half. It’s difficult to build up a bibliography, he admits. Declan decided to move into writing and a deeper collaborative space when he realised that he wanted to build more stories than he was physically able to draw.

If no one knows who King Kirby was, we have the Orwellian ingrate establishment to blame. The same one who simultaneously obsess themselves with turning Captain America into an ultra-leftist mouthpiece, a Hydra-Nazi collaborator, not to mention a whole Blame America propaganda vehicle, as has been going on for nearly 2 decades now. Something Shalvey doesn't seem particularly concerned about either, and recalling he was one of several creators who threw Dynamite under the bus because they wanted to use a Comicsgate supporters illustration for Red Sonja/Vampirella, he's not making things any better if he wants a situation where you won't be known because of your politics and what movements you back. So what's his overall point about Kirby then? Mainly because nobody knows who Cap co-creator Joe Simon was either, or that he was a right-winger himself.

If Shalvey can't uphold the original visions of Kirby/Simon, it makes little sense he's ostensibly talking in the former's favor. A real shame.

CBLDF tries to rebuild their image after the Brownstein scandal, but will this new appointee be an improvement?

Publisher's Weekly wrote about what the CBLDF is doing now that director Charles Brownstein's resigned for his past sexual misconduct, and who their new interim director is:

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has appointed Jeff Trexler its interim director, effective immediately. He succeeds Charles Brownstein, who resigned from the position in June after allegations of assault leveled against him resurfaced. [...]

Trexler will oversee and update the CBLDF’s operations and its mission. He will also be charged with restoring the organization's credibility and stature in the comics community after the departure of Brownstein, who held the executive director position at CBLDF for 18 years.

Trouble is, Trexler's got some pretty questionable connections himself, namely, to Comics Beat's Heidi MacDonald, as she revealed on August 13. Although a different writer for her site posted news about the Brownstein resignation, she herself did not seem to originally address it in the several weeks after it was announced, and while she does write about it this time, she avoids any mention of her apologia from 2006. What she does tell about Trexler, however, could be cause for concern:

While the group attempts to move forward, they have named lawyer Jeff Trexler as interim director. Since Jeff is not only a longtime contributor to the Beat but has also represented me personally in several legal matters, I’ll let the PR below speak to his background and qualifications. I will say that he certainly knows the law, ethical standards and comics, and if the CBLDF is to be relevant to today’s industry and regain the trust of the community, it’s a solid first step — but only a first step.

Yeah, I'll bet. Why should we fully trust somebody who's been employed by a such a dishonest propagandist? She'll certainly need his counsel if the Whisper Network faces legal action over their shady activities. Or, if he doesn't want his credibility questioned, he'd do well to distance himself from MacDonald for a change, because her past conduct, right down to her aforementioned apologia for Brownstein 14 years back, is embarrassing.

As a result, there's no telling if Trexler will have much luck in restoring CBLDF's reputation. Non-Profit Quarterly said:

CBLDF’s board nonresponse has alienated supporters and highlighted concerns with the organization’s structure, policies, and procedures. Three board members have retired or resigned since Brownstein’s departure: Paul Levitz, a former president and publisher at DC Comics; Jeff Abraham, president of Penguin Random House Publisher Services; and Katherine Keller, a librarian at the University of Nevada Las Vegas’s College of Education.

Even now, the response has been wanting. The June press release regarding Brownstein’s resignation was formal and rote, omitting Brownstein’s reasons for leaving. Subsequent press releases sought to address what CBLDF itself characterized as “stilted and clumsy” communications. Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, CBLDF President Christina Merkler’s attempt to explain the board’s inaction reads more like an abdication of responsibility than an admission of failure [...]

But even with a leadership change, rebuilding trust in CBLDF will be an uphill climb. The organization has seen an exodus of comics professionals and individual supporters who’ve publicly disavowed it. Corporate members, including publishers Boom! Studios and Dark Horse Comics, have dropped from the organization’s website.

“I’m feeling pretty pessimistic about the CBLDF’s ability to change,” said comics artist Tyler Crook. “I think our industry might be better served with a new organization built on stronger foundations and with a stronger moral compass.”

While Merkler argues the current board had no knowledge of the allegations toward Brownstein nor the use of nondisclosure agreements to gag former employees, it doesn’t absolve them of complicity. Further, Merkler’s statements to the Hollywood Reporter claiming innocence due to board members’ limited level of engagement diminish the value of the nonprofit’s board of directors.

All valid arguments, I'd say. It reminds me of Temple University's board of trustees, who were accused of failure to take action against Bill Cosby after Andrea Constand went public with her accusations against him. And there's a vital point to make that having a woman as president of an outfit does not guarantee they'll act responsibly. Just look at how things turned out in Germany under Angela Merkel. Or what it was like in Britain when Theresa May was premier. So if Merkler bears any accountability on her part for failing to get rid of Brownstein when they had the chance, this should be no surprise. Women can be just as Orwellian double-thinking in their conduct as men, and just as desensitized to violence. Only a good education teaching responsibility and altruism ensures a safer workplace.

Maybe Trexler will try and make things better at the organization, and he'll even keep afar from MacDonald in the future. But if not, the chances of the CBLDF collapsing are much higher.

The experiences of somebody who went to the Warren Ellis forums

The Comics Journal interviewed somebody who had some familiarity with the forums run by Warren Ellis, (the interviewer himself also went there), that shed light on what only now begins to draw notice, including from somebody else mentioned in the interview who's virtue-signaling:

Hi, Laurenn thanks for speaking with us. It’s wild! So, can you describe what your relationship with the WEF was? My recollection that the WEF had women moderators who were called the “filthy assistants.” (It was a comic book reference that perhaps lands differently now). Were you one of the “filthy assistants?” How far did you go beneath the surface of how things operated on the WEF, back in the day?

Laurenn McCubbin: I was never an FA, but I was friends with a couple of FA’s - I became closer friends with some of them right after the recent Ellis news came out. I didn’t really know much about the workings of the WEF, or any of the satellite forums.

Do you remember what your feelings were like at the time, when it came to the WEF and how younger women were being treated there? I’m asking because there was recently a sharply-written twitter thread that people noticed from G. Willow Wilson, which begins: “I don’t know how anybody who hung around any of the late 90’s-mid 00’s Ellis forums can profess to be surprised. It wasn’t even a secret.”

I hated the WEF. I hated the vibe. I barely ever went over there. The constant forum threads of men encouraging women to post photos of themselves flicking off the cameras were pretty creepy, there was a lot of little things that creeped me out, but more than anything, I just despised how they talked about comics. I always got this impression that everyone on that forum felt like comics history hadn’t happened yet-- comics had just been waiting for *them* to show up. The idea of comics being this great, weird thing that existed before us and will exist after us… it felt to me like that forum had no conception of that. And so, the way that exact attitude of “this is all for me; this is mine!” is now revealed to have this ugly sexual component…!

To me, the normality was that the WEF was “familiar” - I have never been a part of any kind of scene that didn’t have weirdo power dynamics and posturing, along with all of the good stuff that brought you into that scene.

I mean, seriously - from 6th grade mean girl clubs to being in the punk scene to doing stand up comedy to being a gallery artist - all of these groups of people have the same dynamics, just with different clothes on and different stakes. It gets fucked up when those stakes become about who gets work, but it’s all very, very similar.

The WEF was great for me - I met people who are still my best and closest friends, my career got a jumpstart, there were funny, fun times. The WEF sucked for me sometimes, too - I fought with shitty dudes (as I have in every scene ever), I was treated abusively by someone I thought loved me, I ignored bad behavior because I was suffering from the consequences of my own bad behavior…

It was special, and yet nothing new. It was a place and a time.

So the interviewee didn't think it was that bad, even though poor behavior was allowed there, right down to potential lawbreaking? While it wouldn't be a good idea if she took up what the left now calls "wokeness", that doesn't mean what was encouraged on the WEF should be regarded as acceptable, and decidedly, it wasn't. But why only now is it being noticed? Did even Wilson write on Ellis' dumb forums? That even a propagandist like her would only say so now just attests to her own hypocrisy, and the interviewer, come to think of it, is probably engaging in the same if he thinks Wilson makes the best "witness" to cite.

They're right about "filthy assistant" taking a whole new meaning now: I just realized, it's synonymous with "slutty", though a lot ruder when you think about it. Channon Yarrow, the tall employee for Spider Jerusalem, was a former stripper, which certainly explains why Spider was depicted using the now tasteless figure of speech for her.

I went to comic book conventions between roughly 2000-ish and 2009. And I feel like I picked up on an energy that there were already women back then who were exhausted having to deal with how Warren Ellis was treating the women around him.

Though I should say: I misheard a lot of things; I misunderstood things; I’m in my own head a lot; a lot of things that you hear at comic conventions are total nonsense. So I can't know what to trust of what I heard.

Plus, I had a extra-weird situation back then, because there were occasionally these people who thought I was just skipping through life super-excited to hear about their disgruntlement with comics. There was a type of Comics Person who would love to tell me how they (secretly) thought a Warren Ellis or a Whoever was super-overrated, like I couldn’t wait to hear that! And I’d always just be sitting there, feeling like, “You know what I think the greatest is? This macaroni and cheese.” Or “I live inside my own heart, Matt Damon.”

I fucking love Macaroni and Cheese.

The women who knew about Ellis were already talking to each other, but no one knew the astonishing scope. It was understood that he was “digitally promiscuous” which never sat right with me, but I never said anything about it because who was I to say, really?

I thought that it was shitty that he cheated on his partner (and I call utter bullshit on him saying they had an open relationship), but I didn’t do anything about it. I comforted the women I knew who got used by him, but I didn’t go around waving a torch and demanding his head.

I admire the hell out of the women & NB people who have put the work in to out him as an abuser, and they have my complete support. I mean, even the way they have framed what they wanted out of this whole thing is amazing - not cancellation, but recognition.

Even so, it's unclear how many will care to buy and read his books now, or how well the stories'll age as a result. That said, if Ellis was just promiscuous in a digital sense, that's hardly a problem. If he did cheat on a partner and nobody argued about it...well, that's the left-wing for you. They don't think it's a problem until they decided it suddenly is (and if Bill Clinton's the issue, they still don't), hence, the figure of speech called "wokeness".

On which note, there's hints by the interviewer of the Ellis forum serving as an early example for "wokeness", if people posting messages at the forum didn't think there'd been any comics history begun. This could strongly suggest how we got to a point where established white superheroes, men and women alike, must suddenly be changed in terms of skin color or sexual orientation, and left-wing politics must go on display at all costs, sans argument. The latter is something Ellis had his share of in some way or other in his past writings, and Transmetropolitan was about a reporter in a future era.

One thing I don't get is, where did Warren get all the money to run those forums? It's not like I think they're that expensive to buy and run, and advertising could get them further, but still, it mystifies me. And he built on his undeserved popularity just so he could make his turf a whole big propaganda vehicle. One which is now turning against him. Ah well. Can't say I feel sorry he's now being cast aside by all the ingrates he practically cultivated. That's what comes when these people fail to realize their ideology doesn't exactly encourage loyalty for the right reasons.