Los Angeles comicon produces an AI-generated take on Stan Lee

Almost 7 years after Marvel's most famous writer/editor/publisher passed on, the Los Angeles Times reports the local comicon's developed an AI program with Stan Lee's image that's supposed to be able to answer any questions asked of it regarding entertainment:

Artificial intelligence and its invasiveness in our everyday lives might be endlessly discussed among academics, government officials and social media provocateurs, but Los Angeles Comic Con has injected a dose of gamma radiation and showmanship into that debate.

Stan Lee has entered the chat.

L.A. Comic Con is introducing its Stan Lee Experience, a 1,500-square-foot booth in Aisle 200 that features an AI-powered holographic image of the late comic book legend that interacts with attendees. Curious fans can ask questions of “Stan Lee” and probe dozens of years’ worth of comic book and comic book-related data that’s been fed into the AI, which has been drawn from footage, conversations and even Stan Lee’s Soapbox — where Lee would expand on happenings of the day or riff on comic book goings-on in the back pages of Marvel comics from 1967 through 1980.

[...] The hologram, at least the one on the show floor, is not really a hologram. With a box built by Proto Inc., the company that also launched an interactive mirror from “The Conjuring,” and Hyperreal, a company whose chief executive Remington Scott helped bring Gollum and Smeagol to life for Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” movies and creates realistic avatars, it is an interactive Stan Lee image that processes questions and formulates responses.

“Hologram is a technology that’s different than this. This is more of an avatar presence, or a telepresence, if you will. Unlike ChatGPT, this is not a web crawler. This is a large language model which has got guardrails on it,” says George Johnson, a member of the Hyperreal technical team.

“It’s specifically Stan’s words. Red carpet interviews, everything he wrote, like Stan’s Soapbox, but with guardrails. Meaning, if you ask him sports questions or politics questions, he’s not going to answer those. But the Stan Lee Universe is feeding us more and more stuff that we can add to the model.”

Even if they're avoiding injection of divisive politics into the program, that doesn't make this a legitimate project in every way. Considering how Stan was exploited by almost every cynical profiteer possible in the last years of his life, and they're still doing it in some ways long after, that's why this is little more than another attempt to milk Lee's legacy dry in ways that don't help it long after he's gone. Mainly because:

The Stan Lee Experience costs $15 plus service fees with tickets available for purchase via the L.A. Comic Con website. The pop culture gathering runs through Sunday at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Well, this is telling. We're supposed to pay for a conversation with an image that's based on Lee, but not the real thing? Sorry, but that's still exploiting his image for money, and little else. Whatever he thought of life, love and comicdom in his time that historians know about, it should be written about in history books, not injected so ridiculously into a machine that's not the real deal. And where were these folks when Lee's whole enterprise was being taken apart by awful successors like Joe Quesada and Bill Jemas for starters? I'm sorry, but this is no improvement.

Here's what Ars Technica has to say about the reactions, and the lack of free use for the program, which could be more costly than what the LA Times says:

Late last week, The Hollywood Reporter ran a story about an "AI Stan Lee hologram" that would be appearing at the LA Comic Con this weekend. Nearly seven years after the famous Marvel Comics creator’s death at the age of 95, fans will be able to pay $15 to $20 this weekend to chat with a life-sized, AI-powered avatar of Lee in an enclosed booth at the show.

The instant response from many fans and media outlets to the idea was not kind, to say the least. A writer for TheGamer called the very idea "demonic" and said we need to "kill it with fire before it’s too late." The AV Club urged its readers not to pay to see "the anguished digital ghost of a beloved comic book creator, repurposed as a trap for chumps!" Reactions on a popular Reddit thread ranged from calling it "incredibly disrespectful" and "in bad taste" to "ghoulish" and "so fucked up," with very little that was more receptive to the concept.

While some of the news sites cited aren't particularly appealing, the sentiment regarding Lee in itself is valid. Again, this is all stuff that should be reserved for history books and documentaries, not some superfluous technology that's just exploitation. And does the program actually avoid politics?

While a moderator at the convention will be on hand to repeat fan questions into a microphone (to avoid ambient crowd noise from the showfloor), DeMoulin said there won’t be any human filtering on what fans are allowed to ask the Lee avatar in the 15- to 20-minute group Q&A sessions. Instead, DeMoulin said the team has set up a system of "content governors" so that, for instance, "if you ask Stan what he thought of the last presidential election he's gonna say 'That's not what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the Marvel universe.'"

For topics that are Marvel-related, though, the AI avatar won’t shy away from controversy, DeMoulin said. If you ask the avatar about Jack Kirby, for instance, DeMoulin said it will address the "honest disagreements about characters or storylines, which are gonna happen in any creative enterprise," while also saying that "‘I have nothing but respect for him,’ which is I think largely what Stan would have said if he was asked that question."

[...] Throughout our talk, DeMoulin repeatedly stressed that their AI hologram wasn’t intended to serve as a replacement for the living version of Lee. "We want to make sure that people understand that we are not trying to bring Stan back from the dead," he said. "We're not trying to say that this is Stan, and we're not trying to put words in his mouth, and this avatar is not gonna start doing commercials to advertise other people's products."

But what if they do put words in his mouth? Of course, I do recall Stan was a product of his time who wouldn't criticize Marvel management under any circumstances, so I realize the program likely wouldn't offer any objective views of successive writers/artists/editors who since brought down Marvel to the bottom. (Though it's a real shame Lee wouldn't defend Frank Miller's Holy Terror GN years ago, and told the MSM just what they'd want to hear. That Miller's since capitulated doesn't change all that.) But, what if you asked the program if it believes a sex-positive viewpoint is better than a negative one? Would it all be set up to side with negativity? Would it even side with Joe Quesada on the issue of Mary Jane Watson and also Captain America? Seriously, it wouldn't be shocking if it were a biased program.

If there's any creator I found commenting on the LA comicon's project, it's Jim Zub:

This is not a celebration of the man or his work, it's souless and ghoulish in a way that's hard to comprehend. https://t.co/BPw3TVzzk2

— Jim Zub 🎲 (@JimZub) September 29, 2025

While I do think it's ill-advised to exploit Lee's image for something like this, the alleged refrain from politics notwithstanding, it could also be argued only so many Marvel stories since the early 2000s are soulless and ghoulish too. And Zub did little to improve upon that when he worked for them, because of course, he was working under the horrible mandates set up by Axel Alonso, who was EIC around the time Zub wrote Thunderbolts, and even under C.B. Cebulski, it wasn't much better. If Zub were assigned to Spider-Man, could we be surprised if he followed said mandates restricting use of Mary Jane Watson either?

All that aside, this whole issue of Lee being turned into an AI image that requires money to interact with is only perpetuates a very sad picture of how Lee was taken advantage of in the last years of his life by people who had no respect for him or his creations, and nobody should have to pay for something that could possibly turn up for use on home computers later anyway.

South Park cartoon takes a biased look at Israel post-October 7, 2023, and turns out more anti-Trump propaganda

Israel National News/JTA reports the animated comedy series South Park has perhaps unsurprisingly taken a view of Israel post-October 7, 2023, where the writers can only seem to think of attacking Benjamin Netanyahu, and not so much the jihadists who murdered and raped over 1,200 people on that repulsive day in recent history:

Television’s most irreverent cartoon has taken aim at the Gaza war, showing one of its Jewish characters flying to Israel to tell Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he is “making life for Jews miserable” by continuing to prosecute the war.

The latest episode of “South Park” depicts FCC Chairman Brendan Carr suffering from a brain-eating parasite that threatens his “freedom of speech” — a potent visual in the week following ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel over misleading comments over the identity of Charlie Kirk's assassin that Carr criticized.

But it also involves Kyle’s mom — the matriarch of the long-running Comedy Central show’s starring Jewish family— flying to Israel after learning that a prediction market app is asking for bets on the question, “Will Kyle Broflovski’s mother bomb Gaza and hit a Palestinian hospital?”

The episode, the first to tackle Gaza on a show that is famous for its rapid responses to current events, leaves no one unscathed — from non-Jews who press their Jewish friends to denounce Israel to Hollywood actors who weigh in on complex geopolitical issues. But it builds toward a denunciation of Netanyahu i[n] particular, who draws the scorn of one of the show’s most strident characters. [...]

The episode ends as Kyle’s mom bursts into Netanyahu’s office and directs her famous ire at him.

“Just who do you think you are, killing thousands and flattening neighborhoods, then wrapping yourself in Judaism like it’s some shield from criticism! You’re making life for Jews miserable and life for American Jews impossible!” she says.

This is so rock bottom, and perhaps we shoudn't be shocked that a TV show whose producers/broadcasters caved on the Danish Muhammed Cartoons episode would resort to cheaper, easier targets. That's got to be the way of people who apparently believe degradation is okay for anybody, but ultimately end up only pursuing those who're easy. Apparently, nobody on the South Park staff is interested in taking issue with Islamic sharia even in Gaza, where in the past decade, women were forced to wear burkas and niqabs. If there was no episode to date where a character of any background yells at the Hamas dictatorship that they're making life miserable for women by denying them an identity and turning them into 2nd class citizens, that says quite a bit about where the South Park producers actually stand too.

The shoddy approach to Israeli politics, as is noted in the above article, isn't the only troubling problem in South Park lately. According to Breitbart, even Donald Trump's been villified in the worst ways possible there, and it proves that, contrary to what was previously reported, they've boomeranged back to their old anti-conservative tricks again:

Comedy Central’s South Park placed a not-so-subtle pro-Jimmy Kimmel message inside the plot of this week’s episode that saw President Donald Trump nearly killing FCC chair Brendan Carr during several failed attempts to actually murder his unborn baby being carried by Satan.

“Hey Satan! You wanna get in the hot tub and smoke some cigarettes?” Trump says to a bedridden crocheting Satan while taking off his pants, exposing his comically small penis.

“Hot tubs and cigarettes are really bad for the baby,” Satan responds.

“Yeah, I know. Let’s do it anyway,” Trump says.

The bit escalates quickly with Trump setting multiple boobytraps for Satan that only Brenden Carr falls for.

This is sick. But then, what else could it be? It's shameful in the extreme how "satire" is used as a shield for such repulsive humor, and considering South Park's been around for nearly 30 years now, it's about time it was cancelled by HBO, just like the Simpsons should be cancelled by Fox. On which note, I'm glad I stopped watching the Simpsons 2 decades ago, as the humor was becoming increasingly forced and crude at the time, and they too have had their share of embarrassingly bad political moments over the years, even at Trump's expense. And the writers/producers of these animated cartoon series never seem to take issue with figures like Trump over valid issues at all. Which only additionally clarifies how pathetic Hollywood's animation industry is, much like the rest of showbiz.

Interestingly enough, in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, one of the producers, Matt Selman, claimed they'd rather stay out of these issues South Park deals with, though his response still doesn't provide any alleviation:

In the spirit of staying relevant to the moment that the show is premiering in, how is The Simpsons handling the contemporary political climate with so much scrutiny on comedy? We've seen various controversies and hubbubs surround other satirical shows like South Park and Jimmy Kimmel Live recently.

Well, when you write a show that doesn't come out until 10 months after you write it, it kind of takes the pressure off, because who knows what the f--- we're gonna be looking at in 10 months. So like South Park, they make their show in a week, and even they can't stay up to date on things. More crazy s--- goes down faster than even they can do it. And you know, Jimmy Kimmel's great, and I'm glad he is back on TV. Censorship sucks. What can I say? Censorship sucks.

But it's not our mission statement to respond to the crisis of the moment. It's more about a town of good-natured dum-dums dealing with a changing world, yet our characters never really change. The world changes around them.

That being said, does it feel like there's anything that is off-limits in a way that it wasn't before? Does the team feel any pressure to skew more or less political at this point?

I think it's about the same. We're not gonna do a big show where the president comes to town. We did do that, but he was George Bush and he'd been out of office for quite some time. And, you know, we just don't do big topical things, 'cause the topical is so chaotic and nuts. So we have to look at the bigger trends.

Ideally, I would like to think that people on both sides of our divided nation can watch The Simpsons and feel that, like America, Springfield is a town of people who are good, but easily misled. Whatever your definition of misled is, you can apply that to the show.

Well unfortunately, based on his favoratism towards Kimmel, his offensive jokes notwithstanding, it's clear the staff running the Simpsons remains firmly on the left-wing side, and wants everybody to see the right-wing as misleading, and the sole proponent of censorship. What's more, if you want to parody Bush, that's fine, because he did do things that were wrong in his time, but failure to convincingly take issue with left-wing figures for any reason ruins everything. And the Simpsons did have its political moments in more recent times, so I don't know where Mr. Selman gets off claiming it's not their mission to do political issues. The point is, some of the topics they dealt with more recently have sadly been politicized long ago, and gotten worse and more divisive since, so it's hypocritical to say it's not their "mission" when they clearly have decided otherwise.

That's why Mr. Selman's interview does nothing to convince me they're improving, and if they see fit, they'll go back to more divisive subjects yet again, sooner than we think. At 800 episodes in over 35 years, it's clear the Simpsons has been on the air far too long, and it should be put out to pasture already. Who knows if it was even worth developing as a TV show to start with?

Update: according to the BBC, a South Park episode that mocked Kirk was removed from Comedy Central after the tragedy, but remains on Paramount Plus. Perhaps it's time to stop watching those channels too?

Marvel stars not doing the brand any favors with their irresponsible political positions

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart recently told there's stars of Marvel adaptations who were actually calling for a boycott of Disney based on their dismissal of Jimmy Kimmel (whose dismissal from his TV job was sadly reversed), which was because of offensive jokes he made following the murder of Charlie Kirk:

Several Marvel stars and other Hollywood celebrities have come out to demand a boycott of Disney over ABC’s decision to suspend radical, left-wing Democrat Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show.

Last Thursday, She Hulk star Tatiana Maslany took to her social media to urge her followers to boycott Disney over Kimmel’s suspension.

The Canadian actress wrote, “Cancel your @disneyplus @hulu @espn subscriptions!” in a post featuring photos from her Disney She Hulk TV series, according to Canadian news outlet CBC.

Maslany was joined by actor Pedro Pascal, who also took to social media on Thursday to call for fans to “defend free speech” and “defend democracy,” by boycotting Disney.

So when a leftist makes atrocious "jokes" about a serious issue at the expense of the victim's family, these performers vehemently refuse to consider any more than a considerable number of others who've also lost their moral compasses. This is as humiliating as it looks, and does no favors for the Marvel franchise either. It's ironic of course that the same people employed by Disney, which owns both Marvel and the ABC network, would've called for a boycott of the company paying their salaries. Now, regrettably, they've done as they wish and reversed course on the Kimmel issue, and it's disgusting.

A number of Marvel film stars have also sided with the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas crowd, their starring in TV shows and films based on Jewish creations notwithstanding:

Richard Gere, Benedict Cumberbatch join star-studded Together for Palestine fundraiser in London

The star-studded charity concert titled Together for Palestine raised about $2 million for Gaza at London’s OVO Arena, Wembley. The event on Wednesday night featured performances and… pic.twitter.com/TBlBwNiV7R

— Iris (@streetwize) September 20, 2025

As far as I know, there's several performers who've appeared in Marvel adaptations who're giving their full backing to this horrific propaganda push, and Mark Ruffalo's easily the most well known, though Cumberbatch's participation is something I only recently discovered. And if that's how he's going to perform as well, then there's an even better reason not to waste money on the Dr. Strange movies he appeared in, the sequel which of course has already seen mediocre box office regardless, and was woke.

It was probably to be expected that these Hollyweird actors would increasingly take positions that injure the memory of comicdom's Jewish creators like Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. And what we're seeing now is only all the more reason to boycott their films and TV programs entirely. At the very least, Disney could start drafting firmer guidelines for contributors to avoid controversies. So far, however, they're not.

Garth Ennis claims violence in superhero fare lacks consequences

El Pais interviewed the overrated Ennis at the Aviles comics convention, and he continues his disdain for superhero themes about as could be expected:

“What would happen if superheroes existed in the real world?” That was the question asked of Garth Ennis, 55, at the recent 30th edition of the Avilés International Comic Book Festival. His answer was simple: “A nightmare.”

And only a nightmare, right? Nothing wonderful at all, huh? I think it's a shame he's still making a virtual career out of this, with the worst being whenever pop culture writers act as apologists for his obsessive, negative vision.

Like Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, and Warren Ellis, Ennis was one of the most illustrious writers to move from Britain to work in U.S. comics after making his name in a wildly popular weekly magazine of dark, fantastic stories: 2000 A.D., home to legendary characters like Judge Dredd. Ennis himself recalled in one of his talks in Avilés that, at the height of the publication, “250,000 copies were sold each week” — that is, a million a month.

What's the use of citing Gaiman alongside these other British scribes, after the sexual assault scandal that's since brought down his career? Is there nobody else better than that available for citation? That said, look how they note, sans irony or question, that 2000 AD was dark. That's a good thing? I'm sure decades ago, it did sell about as much as they say though, but today, it wouldn't be surprising if the sums dropped considerably.

But it was with the television adaptation of The Boys, his savage satire of the superhero genre for streaming giant Amazon Prime Video, that the popularity of his work reached an extraordinary peak. In its fourth season, The Boys drew 55 million viewers worldwide in just 39 days, according to figures released by Amazon Prime Video; the fifth and final season is expected in 2026. Why did Ennis, in a genre he isn’t particularly fond of, create his own major superhero saga — a comic spanning over 1,700 pages across 72 issues? The reason was to answer another question: what would happen if beings with near-divine powers walked among us?

Regrettably, it was little more than an excuse to wallow in smut and cheap sensationalism, and worst of all, to depict "superheroes" as extraordinarily vile figures. Do we really need that? It's a shame if it's getting any kind of audience anywhere in the world, because the tone it follows has only brought down the world ever further. And if Ennis really doesn't like the superhero genre, he'd at least have the audacity to explore a different genre. Instead, he takes an obsessive route, which is unhealthy.

"The Boys answers in a different way," he says. “My superheroes have the ego of a young pop star — but they also act as active members of society, perhaps saving the world or preventing disasters. That puts them somewhere between a pop star and a politician. Finally, they would be owned by major corporations — probably the most destructive force in human history. If superheroes could be real, Amazon and the others would have their own.”

Regrettably, saving worlds and preventing disasters isn't what the comics emphasize, as the following indicates:

Ennis takes the most terrifying implications of this hypothesis to its extreme in chapter 21 of The Boys, which he co-created with illustrator Darick Robertson. Inspired by the 9/11 attacks, the episode follows one of the planes hijacked by terrorists, which, in the world of The Boys, the superhero squad attempts to save. The carnage that unfolds — culminating in Homelander, The Boys’s version of Superman, abandoning the plane as it plummets onto a New York bridge — is unforgettable. The shocking and horrifying sequence stems from a rarely explored premise in the superhero genre: what if the person meant to be the savior is utterly useless and incompetent?

“They have no idea. They’re amateurs. They don’t have a plan. How does a plane work? Its aerodynamics? What happens if the tail falls off? [Homelander makes the insane decision to rip the tail off the plane, mid-flight, to try to save the day]. What happens, no matter how strong you are, if you don’t have any leverage? The thing is, these guys aren’t trained in combat. When the people on the plane rush at Homelander, the way he tries to get them off is like the squeals of a panicked child: ‘Get away from me, get away from me!’ But of course, with super strength, every time he pushes someone, he decapitates them. So it’s a massacre.”

I don't understand what's so great about seeing heroes of any kind fail, especially in a story that's allegedly inspired by 9-11. Worst of all, it makes the "heroes" look worse than the Islamic terrorists of al Qaeda themselves. At worst, it does something similar to Spider-Man's 9-11 issue by J. Michael Straczynski: it trivializes a serious incident for the sake of tearing down heroism and making it look bad. Have we gotten so far past 9-11 that nobody today understands what's wrong with Ennis' story, that it desecrates the memory of the victims?

One of the most distinctive traits of Ennis’s work is precisely that: raw, shocking, and visceral violence. His scripts insist that torn guts, broken bones protruding through shredded flesh, and copious blood be depicted in all their brutal detail. Unlike a movie or video game, the comic freezes a moment in time in each panel, which means that in works like his post-apocalyptic dystopia Crossed, scenes of extreme violence don’t just happen — they are fixed on the page, displayed in their full horrific glory. Unforgettable.

“Sometimes, I do it for satire. But in works like Crossed or The Boys, it’s for honesty," says Ennis. “I try to be as honest as possible about the effects of violence. I think it’s something that needs to be weighed very carefully. In most superhero comics, violence has no consequences. People kick each other, punch each other, explode each other… And nothing happens. Death doesn’t mean anything in those comics, because every time someone gets killed, you know they’re coming back."

“I prefer to show, sometimes, that the truth is that the consequences of those acts are terrible,” he continues. “That extremely horrendous things would happen. That’s why, generally, in my stories, when someone dies, they stay dead. And I think I’d like to encourage other writers to do this: to explore the consequences of violence.”

And just what kind of "honesty" is that supposed to mean? He's perpetuating the notion nobody can figure out in any way that superhero comics like Superman's were meant to be surreal in some way or other in the past, and weren't built upon repellent scenes like what Ennis puts in his shoddy tales. And what's so wrong with resurrection in science-fantasy? It's part and parcel of the whole concept, and to think there's people out there who've been trying to regulate it for goodness knows how long, which has only made things worse for any science-fiction venue. Something to also consider is that from what's described in the puff piece, it sounds more like we're being lectured that any movement by superheroes carries terrible consequences even worse than what villains do, and the Boys is less interested in condemning what criminals do than in what heroes of any sort do. It's sad to think of how many future writers will be influenced by Ennis' statements, and concern themselves more with exploring consequences of violence than in developing tasteful entertainment and giving escapism and heroism a good name. Predictably, Ennis even made sure to let know what side of the political spectrum he sticks with:

Ennis, however, views the future with deep pessimism. He has even claimed that horror has become “obsolete” since someone like Donald Trump reached the White House. From Avilés, where he received a standing ovation, he warned: “I think idealism is dying. More and more, all over the world, I think all we are left with is pure survival.”

When somebody considers Trump far more of a problem than the Islamic terrorism that's minimized in The Boys, something is terribly wrong. If anything, doesn't the bleak vision itself in the comics represent what Ennis ostensibly complains about? So why complain at all? And it's sad the crowd at Aviles buys into this whole mess and believes it's literally the best way to handle anything. It most certainly isn't. Ennis is just one of quite a few scribes who's brought down the quality of entertainment to repulsive levels, all for the sake of making heroism look worse than villainy. And here, when if he really doesn't like the superhero genre, he could've written a busload of comics about sports like basketball and soccer. Instead, he sticks with basically the same obsession, and nothing else.

College writer thinks comics movies feel like comics again

A writer at The Vidette of Illinois State University claims live action comics movies feel like comics again, and while the article's little better than most of these college publications, it does have some eyebrow raising parts:

Other films deserve to be part of that discussion, such as “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Captain America: Civil War.” While many of these films are of high quality, many don’t feel the same as reading a comic book. That probably sounds confusing at first glance, but let me explain.

Yes, these films have superheroes and feature events that are very unrealistic, but they do not make me feel immersed in the world very much. They just feel like regular movies that are carried by sheer star power, with the names of popular characters attached to them. They feel like they are just playing it safe for the general audience.

Don’t get me wrong, the general audience does matter because they contribute the most to the box office success of these movies. However, I want studios to allow directors to take creative liberties and make something as wacky or wild as the comics we love to read.

After all, these films are adapting stories where people who can fly are battling aliens, not exactly the most realistic. As a result, why would you not want to go bonkers with those types of ideas?

Well isn't that a surprise. Somebody admits live action's not the same as illustration and animation, and even I got that feeling at times watching what I did in the past, including the late Christopher Reeve's Superman films (though let me note that only the first 2 are good, and the other 2, along with the 1984 Supergirl film, were sadly botched). But perhaps more surprising is that the writer actually wants creative liberties taken with the movies. Depending how you view that part of the whole discussion, creative freedom, to say nothing of liberties, was all but taken away in the past several years for the sake of PC narratives. For Marvel, this mainly began with the Captain Marvel movie, which was based almost entirely on how Marvel mandated Carol Danvers be written since 2012, and was made even worse by forcing Islamic propaganda into a series starring a contrived successor to the role of Ms. Marvel. It's amazing any attempts to adapt such concepts to live action have largely been failures so far, and even one of the video games featuring the Muslim Ms. Marvel didn't fare so well. That shows the audience is not interested in lecture-laced propaganda.

It's also surprising the writer's okay with unrealistic ingredients, which should make clear that, if it's okay for Japan to do surreal stuff, then it's okay for even Marvel to do the same, and indeed, despite much of the absurd, lecturing propaganda of recent, they did in past decades. All that matters is whether it actually does a disfavor to certain issues and events in real life.

But with that said, here's where the article begins to turn into a farce:

The most recent examples of this are James Gunn’s “Superman” and Matt Shakman’s “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.”

Watching both of these films felt so fresh as comic books were unraveling on screen in terms of action, dialogue and even how colorful the world was. A common critique that I have seen is that these films move quickly in terms of progressing the story.

While that is true, I do enjoy that these films embraced how wacky they inherently are. That element makes them stand out amongst the many comic book films that have been releasing lately.

Well sorry to say, but if the Superman movie for starters was supposed to be surreal, it ruined everything with its appalling political metaphor for real life, and the FF movie ruined everything with both the actor playing Mr. Fantastic and the sex-swap for the Silver Surfer, changed from Norrin Radd to Shalla-Bal. On the latter, let's be clear. If Shalla-Bal matters, it's entirely possible to write up a prominent role for her in a film like this without doing it at Norrin Radd's expense. Instead, the filmmakers discarded Stan Lee's actual creation for the sake of PC pandering that hasn't improved the fortunes of these latest live action adaptations.

Science-fantasy can certainly be a great way to explore all sorts of wacky ideas, but when you let real life seep in without taking an informed and rational approach, everything's ruined. If the studios making these films still intend to go ahead with sequels to Superman, for example, despite the mediocre box office results, that will be almost amusing, in a way, because it shows they don't want to admit they made mistakes. But it certainly won't guarantee what's to come will be any better than before from an artistic perspective.

Felker-Martin still shows no remorse over incendiary media posts that led to Red Hood cancellation

Fox News recently reported that the far-left LGBT scribe Gretchen Felker-Martin, the man in a dress who got canned by DC for his offensive remarks about murder victim Charlie Kirk, is not showing any signs of being sorry for his incendiary statements on social media. And Fox, unfortunately, is running the risk of minimizing the seriousness of Felker-Martin's behavior too:

DC Comics has canceled its Batman spin-off "Red Hood" after the series’ writer mocked the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, sparking outrage online. Despite the fallout, the writer has since doubled down on her remarks.

The series was canceled by DC Comics after screenshots circulated online of inflammatory social media posts from transgender author Gretchen Felker-Martin making a joke out of the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, saying she hoped the bullet was OK after hitting Kirk, and calling him a "Nazi b----."

[...] "Two days ago, I made a glib joke about Kirk’s death. It was irresistible to me," Felker-Martin wrote on her Patreon blog in response to the fallout. "I stand by the sentiment of what I said. Kirk was evil. He can no longer hurt us, even if his cruelty will linger like a bad smell for decades to come."

Felker-Martin added in an interview with The Comics Journal that she had "no regrets" for what she said about Kirk. "I've listened to Charlie Kirk being an overt Nazi for years of my life, and I had no regrets for what I said about him."

Felker-Martin, who has been known for making a stir with her posts on social media, told The Comics Journal that her superiors at DC Comics had also expressed concern about her outspokenness online prior to the Kirk incident. The concern followed media reports exposing Felker-Martin's alleged celebration of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas massacre of over 1,000 innocent Israelis.

"Outspokeness"? Now that is such garbage. "Incendiary" and "incitement" would sum it all up far better. This is an example of how even an allegedly conservative news source like Fox has their share of writers who downplay the seriousness of such behavior, which makes them potentially worse than even the Comics Journal. Also note how they follow the PC narrative that if somebody claims to be the opposite sex, they'll use the pronouns expected. Which just makes clear how far even a supposedly right-leaning news company has fallen. It practically suggests they're not very supportive of Kirk either, since he was against this poor example.

Felker-Martin did concede in her interview with The Comics Journal that she exhibited "a moment of poor impulse control" when posting the comments about Kirk.

"I can only put it down to really just a moment of poor impulse control," she said. "Had I thought for another second, of course I would've known [that it would be a problem for DC], and naturally, as soon as I had said it, I did know."

However, in first-hand remarks on her Patreon, Felker-Martin exhibited virtually no regret for her comments.

Well it's clear somebody who's actually a he isn't sorry at all, so the Comics Journal article is hollow as a tin can. One more reason it's to be hoped this far-left agitator's career is over, and nobody with common sense will hire him anymore, for comics writing or anything else. Perhaps Kirk's widow Erika should consider suing Felker-Martin for defamation. And Mrs. Kirk should also call out the comics industry for even considering associating with these ghastly ideologues in the first place. If comics really are an overlooked medium, that's why some left-wing propagandists until now have all but gotten away with their antics, and why it shouldn't be overlooked anymore.

Kelly Thompson's Birds of Prey run cancelled

Comic Book Club Live says the Birds of Prey volume written by Kelly Thompson is being cancelled by the editors:

Birds of Prey is ending at DC Comics with December’s Birds of Prey #28. And while speculation online pointed to the series wrapping up due to writer Kelly Thompson’s schedule, she took to her newsletter to clarify that no, it wasn’t her choice to end the book.

Based on the art sample provided, coupled with how Thompson spoke about Carol Danvers in past years, it wouldn't be shocking if the run of this volume were as sexless as is strongly hinted, so this won't be missed. Birds of Prey easily lost influence over 2 decades ago, and the overrated Gail Simone, who helmed it at the time, because just as PC as Thompson is later on. So this isn't something that'll be missed, since they ruined Chuck Dixon's concept for the sake of sex-negative shoddiness. Unfortunately, however:

Though Birds of Prey is done, Thompson isn’t done with the characters — or DC Comics. She teases that she has “something else at DC that’s quite big and that I’m very excited about,” which does indeed involve a couple of characters from Birds of Prey. But she also notes that, versus the cancellation, which was not because of her workload or health, she is behind on submitting her pitch for this project. So its future is TBD — though she is committed to working on it, and with DC further.

Nobody who's a fan of Black Canary and Oracle need tune in to whatever she regrettably has in store. At this point, considering how BoP was long ruined by these ideologues, it remains to be seen if the series is done for good, because continuing it as they have till now is only prolonging a sad farce, one that also came at Dixon's expense.

The 11th Batman Day is celebrated at a Canadian store

CTV News reports the 11th year of Batman Day has come around again, and is being celebrated at a specialty store in Saskatoon:

There may not have been a Bat-Signal in the sky, but the bat was still in the spotlight Saturday as a Saskatoon comic bookstore celebrated the legendary Dark Knight.

Created in 2014 to mark Batman’s 75th anniversary, Batman Day is typically observed on the third Saturday in September. The day honours the pop culture icon known as the Caped Crusader.

“He was first created in 1939,” said Jeff Kocur, owner of Amazing Stories.

“That is now so many movies, TV shows, books, video games. He’s ingrained in culture.”

And quite often, it seems to come at Superman's expense, and even say, the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man, if it matters. Consider that Spidey's origin, though it does stem from tragedy, was never depicted as inherently bleak like Batman's is, mainly because a sense of humor was often conveyed in Spidey's adventures. Maybe that's why to date, there's never been a Spider-Man Day, let alone a Fantastic Four Day. And when Mary Jane Watson's repeatedly kept out of the main spotlight by editorial mandate, that's why Spider-Fans like myself couldn't warm to the idea.

A customer at the specialty store also said:

She also pointed out that Batman played a key role in shaping DC comics’ identity when he debuted in Detective Comics, the series that inspired the company’s name.

But the Man of Steel played no role whatsoever? Or Wonder Woman? Seriously, I find it very appalling when even 2nd and 3rd tier characters are left out of any discussion. Characters like Robin are only mentioned once, while any recurring girlfriends like Vicky Vale and Silver St. Cloud get no mention at all. Nor does a minor heroine like Spoiler/Stephanie Brown, and nobody takes issue with how DC editors did everything they could to prohibit extended merchandise or appearances in animation for Chuck Dixon's creation. Not that I think toy merchandize is the best idea, but even so, the negative mandate was a terrible example. Why, what about the mistakes made with Jason Todd post-Crisis on Infinite Earths? Even that could make a pretty good topic for history discussions.

I'm as much a Batman fan as the next person is, but as I've made clear before, the Masked Manhunter collapsed as a storytelling vehicle by the turn of the century, and never recovered as a result of the disaster that came about when Dan DiDio was editor/publisher. And the mainstream press seems uninterested in writing about that.

Pamela Anderson turning disastrous comics-to-film adaptation from 1996 into new TV show

Back in 1996, veteran actress Pamela Anderson, then riding the popularity of her role in Baywatch for 5 seasons, tried unsuccessfully to channel her popularity into films with a movie based on Dark Horse's Barb Wire, originally written by Chris Warner in 1993. The movie was a flop. Now, Entertainment Weekly's announced (via the New York Post) she and her 2 sons are going to produce a TV show based on the same property, and it remains to be seen which new actress will be cast in the role:

Pamela Anderson is revisiting the cult classic Barb Wire. And she's bringing her sons along for the ride.

Anderson and her adult sons, Brandon Thomas Lee and Dylan Jagger Lee, have formed production company And-Her-Sons Productions, whose first project will be a TV version based on the story of Dark Horse Comics' 1990s character, whom the actress played in the 1996 action flick.

A representative for Anderson confirms to Entertainment Weekly that the Baywatch alum and Brandon Thomas Lee will executive produce the project that's still in development.

Deadline was the first to report the news and noted that Anderson won't be returning to her role in the series with "a different feel" than the movie. [...]

The character Barb Wire is the creation of Chris Warner and originated in the Dark Horse Comics series, first appearing in Comics’ Greatest World: Steel Harbor in 1993. The company is also putting out a comprehensive volume collecting every main line Barb Wire comic, plus bonus material, called The Barb Wire Compendium, in February 2026.

It only became a "cult classic" based on its alleged campiness years after it went to video, where it was probably best suited. As Movieweb explains:

The 1996 movie starring Anderson is one that could have easily slipped under the radar for modern audiences, as the film was a $3.8 million box office flop on its release, but found a cult following later on home video. In the years since, the film’s reputation – and a set of dismal Rotten Tomatoes scores (28% critics, 15% audience) - has helped it mostly fade into obscurity.

When it was released, Barb Wire was labeled by many as an attempt to cash in on Anderson’s sex symbol status, and one look at her busty blonde appearance in marketing for the film did not really debunk that idea. Who will take on the role of Barb in the new series is not yet known, but several comments have already made it known that Sydney Sweeney was born for the role. Can’t imagine why they would think that.

And Collider notes:

The film took a number of liberties from the comic. Instead of the present, the film was set in the dystopian future of 2017, after the Second American Civil War; Steel Harbor was the last free city that had escaped the jackboot of the country's new rulers. Barb Wire (Anderson) runs a nightclub in Steel Harbor, and secretly aids freedom fighters who help smuggle fugitives across the border to Canada; this may be a nod to Anderson, who was born in British Columbia. One day, an old lover of hers, Axel Hood (Temuera Morrison) comes into her bar with fugitive scientist Dr. Corrina Devonshire (Victoria Rowell). They want safe passage to Canada, and Barb is going to have to use all her wits and her wiles to get them past the fascist Colonel Victor Pryzer (Steve Railsback), crooked-but-friendly local cop Willis (Xander Berkeley), and fearsome gangster Big Fatso (Andre Rosey Brown). If this all sounds familiar, it's because Barb Wire is a very loose remake of Casablanca!

Yes, but that obviously didn't improve the original film's fortunes. I think the overall budget was $17 million, including marketing costs, so less than $4 million certainly wouldn't recoup the expenses on what was clearly not a film they were investing much in. What I do know is that the "don't call me babe" tagline was heavy-handed in the movie, as this article from Slash Film makes clear:

In David Hogan's 1996 sci-fi clunker "Barb Wire," Pamela Anderson (who was fresh off a star-making stint on "Baywatch" when she made the movie) plays Barb Kopetski, a stripper and bar-owner trying to survive in a then-near-future U.S. The year is 2017, and the United States is suffering through a second Civil War. Meanwhile, Barb runs the Hammerhead, a nightclub and adult performance venue in the only free city still left in the country. Barb dances on stage but tolerates no lasciviousness; she murders a patron with her spike-heeled shoe for the temerity of calling her "babe." Barb is uncaring, unconcerned with the war, and looks out only for herself. Oh, yes, and on the side, she makes money as a bounty hunter and freelance vigilante.

This has to be what destroys the movie's rendition. A guy says what's otherwise complimentary, and we're supposed to be fine with the star terminating somebody over something so petty? What may have been an exclamation directed at crooks in the comics was turned into an early insult in the film to the whole idea of being complimentary and affectionate to women back in the day, and it could be said it did far more harm than good to relations between men and women. (Interestingly, she even made a joke with the tagline in her last Baywatch appearance at least a year afterwards.) She also kept the arm tattoo she got for the movie for nearly 15 years before getting it removed, even letting it remain visible in some of her subsequent TV performances. I honestly don't know why that was such a big deal to begin with that she risk ruining her skin over tattoos. Though it's certainly amazing she made a comeback lately, starring in movies like the Last Showgirl.

On the subject of Anderson's sex symbol status, that itself wasn't the problem. No, it was that, at least at that time, she wasn't considered a talented actress beyond what charm she could bring to the small screen as opposed to the big one. So while she may have done well enough as a co-star on Baywatch and then star of her own series, VIP, she never cemented a serious film career and ended up as one of a number of TV performers whose aspirations for film stardom never went anywhere. And the Barb Wire film surely had the unfortunate effect of dooming the comic to obscurity for years, until at least one more miniseries was produced a decade ago, and it may have been less sexy like various other stories at the time, if memory serves. And if so, they sure didn't do any favors for what new stories they'd like to do for Warner's creation. Maybe that's why you could reasonably wonder, what do they mean by a "different feel" to a TV show? Because there's no telling if this'll have any sex appeal to it, even though Anderson's outfit in the movie differed from that of the comics counterpart, which was more jeans-style.

If this new project based on the Barb Wire comic is really going ahead, we'll only be able to determine clearly if it's worth anything when it's broadcast on the airwaves. And we can only hope this time, they'll avoid mistakes like exclaiming "don't call me babe" in ways as forced as the 1996 movie did, or depicting a woman we thought we're supposed to be rooting for casually slaying a guy solely for complimenting her. And, we should hope they don't make it sexless.

New Batman volume seemingly sells huge with its premiere

The Hollywood Reporter announced a new Batman volume by writer Matt Fraction supposedly sold big upon debut, with the funny part here being that this time, they actually do offer ostensible sales figures:

The publisher announced Thursday that its Batman No. 1, a relaunch of the Caped Crusader by writer Matt Fraction and artist Jorge Jiménez, has sold over 500,000 copies.

That number puts the title as the top-selling comic of the year so far, a number that is unlikely to be topped, despite one more big publishing event on the calendar — the two-part company crossover comics involving Deadpool and, you guessed it, Batman.

DC was leading the year with another top-seller, Batman No. 158, which featured the return of DC chief Jim Lee to drawing duties in a sequel to his and writer Jeph Loeb’s now-classic Hush storyline. That comic, published in the spring, has sold over 400,000 copies.

None of this proves indefinitely that the masses actually came to buy the supplies of copies at stores, and all the titles highlighted as big sellers didn't sell a million. Why is the Hollywood Reporter keeping on with this futile charade? Fraction's also one of quite a few leftist ideologues whose works are nothing to write home about, and I'm not interested in wasting dough on his stories. Even veteran artist Lee's work hasn't been worth buying in years now, and he too is a left-leaning ideologue, regrettably enough.

Another comic at that 400,000-plus sales level was Invincible Universe: Battle Beast No. 1 from Robert Kirkman’s Skybound and Image Comics.

That's no different a sum from the rest, and chances are even that didn't actually sell beyond the store's ordering levels.

The sales success of the new Batman title continues a strong year for not just Batman but DC, which has found massive and surprise victory with its Absolute imprint, a line of comics that reinvented key heroes and their villains and that is now nearing its one-year anniversary. The line was led with, what else, Absolute Batman, written by Scott Snyder and drawn by Nick Dragotta, with the first issue selling over 200,000 in its first printing. The issue is now in its ninth (!) printing.

Almost all the Absolute titles have gone to multiple printings, with even the comics featuring lesser known heroes such as Martian Manhunter selling in the six figures with their debut issue. Sales have remained buoyant, and the entire lot has sold well into the millions copies, according to insiders.

Despite what they say, that would have to be for many individual titles combined together, and the puff piece certainly doesn't make clear if customers actually buy this stuff en masse. Also, chances are many of these titles allegedly seeing multiple print runs in pamphlets don't have as many additional copies printed up in the extra go-arounds. For all we know, that could be a just a handful, and unless it's made clear in the article, what they're lecturing here is meaningless. I think what's really sad is the continuing refusal of the press to ask whether it's time for comicdom to make the shift to paperbacks/hardcovers, yet they continue with this unintentional comedy where we're told the industry is literally doing fabulous, when it's not.

Greg Rucka claims he couldn't stand working with Dan DiDio and Geoff Johns

Comic Book Movie has some transcripted dialogue from a Word Balloon podcast, where we get another example of somebody telling us years later that all was not as rosy as previously assumed in what could be considered a relationship between leftists:

Whether it's The Punisher and Wolverine for Marvel Comics or Gotham Central and Wonder Woman for DC, writer Greg Rucka is renowned for his work in the world of superheroes.

No he isn't. No matter what he's got to say about his relations with 2-3 specific writers and editors now, he still has blame to shoulder for bringing the DCU and MCU down to the shoddy level they're at now, including, but not limited to, his writings connected to the Infinite Crisis crossover. He's even got some pretty woke writings in his portfolio that were unsurprisingly optioned for television and films. Now, here's what he told the podcast:

"That was me at my absolute lowest at DC. That was in the deep end when everybody was lying to me, using me, betraying me, abusing me," he shared. "My relationship with James [Robinson] was a bad one. He was writing whatever he wanted. We were not collaborating well. Collaborating with Sterling [Gates] was great—literally was the best thing about that period. But it was just a repeated kick between the legs."

"It was toxic when I was there and remained toxic until Dan DiDio left. It was an abusive, manipulative environment. Geoff Johns was an incredibly manipulative person to me – used me, lied to me, played me off against people. DiDio did the same thing," Rucka continued. "I was made promises repeatedly, and they were always broken."

Explaining the impact that had on him, he added, "When I left in 2009, I was mentally ill. I was severely depressed and suicidal. I nearly took my life. And that's all the direct result of the way I was treated from 2006 through 2009; it was done with malice. The people I'm speaking about are bad actors. I'm not in a place where I will ever defend them again. They did what they did with malice of forethought."

Yes, they were very bad actors themselves. The damage they did to the DCU's coherency and morale is huge. Unfortunately, even Rucka himself is a pretty bad actor, and one of the first wrongs he did when he came to work for them was retconning the Renee Montoya character into a lesbian in the Gotham Central series. It wouldn't be the last, as the Infinite Crisis crossover, and Wonder Woman 219 vol. 2, where Diana breaks Max Lord's neck to stop him from mind-controlling Superman - who only condemns her for the act and little else - was one of the worst moments in Rucka's pretentious story portfolio. And now, we're supposed to care what he thinks? Let's also consider he made leftist political statements in the past decade, and his son was involved in criminal activity a few years ago.

It's said Rucka also discusses antisemitism in the comics industry, but when he adds:

Admitting that his 2016 and 2019 returns to DC to write Wonder Woman and Wonder Comics were similarly problematic, Rucka was asked what's changed. "I'm going to be perfectly honest. It's a different company right now. The people there—it's healthy," he explained, revealing that the communication between editors has improved significantly, creating a more collaborative environment.

Really. Does that include employment of far-left extremists despite the antisemitism they espoused? Only after what Gretchen Felker-Martin wrote on social media about the tragically assassinated Charlie Kirk did the management take Martin off the payroll. Also, look at who else DC still employs who hired the "dude in a dress", as noted by Ethan Van Sciver:

Here’s the creep who hired “Gretchen.” Surprise, it’s another trans weirdo. Son of Hollywood actor John Turturro, unfortunately. “Jesus” from The Big Lebowski. Now calls himself Ariana Turturro.

He, who would like to be called “she” now works as an editor at DC, and… https://t.co/5AOHU5wzLT pic.twitter.com/0VoyjczY35

— ETHAN VAN SCIVER (@EthanVanSciver) September 11, 2025

With people like that in their employ - and Marvel doubtless has their share of such ideologues too - is it any wonder this could happen to start with? I think after this revelation, I'll have to consider actor John Turturro an embarrassment as well. If Rucka doesn't make a call for these kind of people to be removed from employment in comicdom, I see no reason to take his discussions at face value.

Rucka's just one of quite a few overrated scribes of his time, much like Johns and DiDio themselves, and a writer who takes such a woke approach to scripting cannot be expected to maintain a convincing complaint about antisemitism in the industry, let alone sexism. Let's also recall Rucka once had a a cover illustration of WW censored all because her rear end was in view, and this sure was odd considering he may have written a shower scene for WW in his initial run on the series in 2005. Not to mention that if William Marston and H.G. Peter created WW as a sex symbol, then all Rucka's doing is insulting their memory.

A guest on Pawn Stars wanted a huge amount for a graded comic bought at a garage sale

Market Realist has a story about a woman who bought a graded copy of Werewolf by Night for $15 at a garage sale, and now wants at least $52000 for selling it on the market again:

Even though it's well known that people don't get as much as they expect on "Pawn Stars," that doesn't stop people from aiming high. In many cases, seller who demand ambitious prices for their items don't budge and walk away empty-handed. This was the case with the owner of a graded "Werewolf By Night" comic book, Myia, who refused to accept anything below the appraised amount for her item. While Corey Harrison asked for a realistic price for the 'Holy Grail' of Marvel collectibles, the seller refused to go below $52,000 for the $15 item.

Myia brought an encased, graded copy of the rare comic book to Harrison's table, claiming it was something that could help her pay for college. "This is a 9.8 graded comic book of issue 32, which is the first appearance of Moon Knight," she said in her interview about the item. Right off the bat, Harrison knew that it was a great item as he asked the seller where she got it from.

Great if she bought it for so little. But why sell it to somebody who's only bound to sell in it turn to the next craver of collectibles to store in a vault, instead of trying to sell it to a museum? Another example of how unfunny a joke the speculator market really is.

And Moon Knight's debut has already been reprinted in paperback/hardcover archives like the Marvel Epic Collections, along with much of the rest of his appearances up to the mid-1990s. So what's the use of buying a back issue in the first place when if you know where to look, you'll find the same story reprinted in more ideal formats, and more comfortable to read that way? Why won't these same buyers ever consider reading's more valueable than monetary value?

Wisconsin man charged with theft of classic back issues

ABC-WISN reports a man from Milwaukee was arrested for robbing a portion of old comics from a storage:

A Milwaukee man is accused of stealing a comic book collection worth more than $10,000 from a Hartland storage unit, including a rare X-Men issue valued at $9,000.

Even in the age of e-readers and digital books, paper comic books haven't lost their allure. Mitchell George at The Turning Page comic book store in Milwaukee said Monday he can only imagine the shock a Hartland man is feeling after his comic book collection was stolen from his storage unit in Hartland, including the first issue of X-Men, No. 1, from 1963, valued at $9,000.

"Yeah, that's a big one," George said, noting the special place X-Men hold in the hearts of many comic book collectors.

"The X-Men was one of the first comics to touch on, like, social issues a little bit, all the X-Men, they get their powers being born different," George said. "A lot of the older stuff like the original X-Men and stuff, that was the first appearance of those characters, people really didn't take care of them because they didn't know they were going to be valuable or anything in the '60s and '70s, so a lot of them were destroyed, lost to time, so now all those books end up being a hundred to a thousand, to many thousands of dollars."

Trouble is, by the turn of the century, such themes were no longer explored plausibly, and now Marvel's since turned to pushing woke ideologies that don't help or suit the themes X-Men and other Marvel books dealt with in the past at all.

The victim in the Hartland case called police when he realized 20 of his valuable X-Men comics and the first five issues of Firestorm were missing after he retrieved his collection from FreeUp Storage on Highway 83.

According to the criminal complaint, he was able to identify them in listings on Facebook and eBay, which led to the storage unit manager, 32-year-old Justin Hefter Wieloch. [...]

He's now facing felony burglary and theft charges.

According to the complaint, detectives found many of the missing comics at Wieloch's Milwaukee home — but not the crown jewel, X-Men No. 1, which had already been sold.

Due to the high value of the stolen comic books, he could face more than 20 years in prison if convicted.

This sounds similar to embezzlement, since as it turns out, the storage warehouse manager is the guilty party. Fox6 has more:

Police said a search of Hefter Wieloch's home turned up all but four of the missing comic books. Investigators said the defendant ultimately got a little more than $8,000 for "X-Men #1" on ebay.

On Hefter WIeloch's cellphone, police said he texted his girlfriend, "The comic is worth enough to buy a new house." Police found pictures of the comics taken at "FreeUp Storage" on Hefter Wieloch's phone.

Very sad the man turned out to be a cheap crook unsuited to managing a storage. The ownership of FreeUp Storage announced they fired him from employment after his arrest. I'm sorry the owner of the comics had to lose at least 4 of his back issues, which the defendant would do well to pay compensation for.

That said, it's still unbelievable how many people are still investing in the speculator market instead of donating the back issues to museums and other archives that can give them the spotlight and audience they need. I really wish speculators would consider.

A comic on how to deal with law enforcement

WHYY's Billy Penn news site wrote coverage about a comic focusing on youth and law enforcement, produced by a youth support movement in Philadelphia:

Kendra Van De Water has always been passionate about helping youth.

The CEO and co-founder of YEAH Philly, Van De Water says the organization’s mission is to inform and support Black youth in West and Southwest Philadelphia who have been charged with a violent crime in the legal system. (YEAH stands for Youth Empowerment for Advancement Hangout.)

“A lot of our services are holistic support, and the goal is to help young people become self-sufficient and stay in the community with services instead of being incarcerated,” she said. “We do a whole bunch of different things, such as educational programming, skills and employment programming, our court program, which provides private representation and court advocacy, and we have a hangout space for young people to come and get support with things that they need.”

One of YEAH Philly’s newest initiatives is a comic book – but not your standard comic. Instead of superheroes and supervillains, this comic’s characters are police officers, judges and young people. Van De Water explained that it’s an attempt to explain the complexity and nuance of interacting with law enforcement and the criminal justice system in a format that youth can relate to.

“So the comic book [came from the idea that] knowing your rights with interactions and law enforcement is a lot of information,” she said. “And, oftentimes, it’s too much information for young people and for anyone, adults as well. And if you don’t know the law, or if you’re not in this work every day, you’re not always going to know what to do.

“So this is a way to help young people learn tough information and put great graphics in it, and write stories in their language.”

What I hope is that this comic project portrays law enforcement rationally, and not in some exaggerated, forced rendition that some recent entertainment productions, comics included, have been using, that depicts law enforcement as one dimensionally evil, all for the sake of bizarre leftist agendas. After all, responsibility and civility is vital for freedom and safety, and that's what youth should learn about. If this comic project by YEAH Philly follows a sensible narrative, then it'll be something to appreciate, and I wish the CEOs of the organization good luck with it.

Quincy, IL convention tries to avoid the controversy involving divisive leftist writers

The Muddy River News (Quincy, IL) covered the local Fall-Con, where conventioneers appear to be trying to stay out of the whole flap involving DC's recent employment of far-left Gretchen Felker-Martin, who was dismissed by management and had the Red Hood series cancelled after a single issue after the "dude in a dress" wrote an incendiary post on social media about the tragic murder of right-wing campaigner Charlie Kirk:

Fall-Con opened its three-day run at the Oakley-Lindsay Center Friday as word was spreading about the cancellation of the Batman spin-off comic book series “Red Hood.”

The decision came soon after comments the author, Gretchen Felker-Martin, made on social media following the assassination of Trump ally Charlie Kirk while speaking before thousands at a university in Utah.

Although the post was deleted, screen grabs continue to circulate.

The first issue of the 17+-rated comic book went on sale September 10, the same day the publisher sent a notice to retailers that said, “DC Comics cancels existing orders for Red Hood #2 and Red Hood #3, and any orders for future issues of the series.”

Comic book vendors taking part in Quincy’s weekend show told Muddy River News they’re not impacted because they deal in vintage comic books. Still, it made for some interesting conversation, although they talked with MRN on the condition of anonymity.

“I think in these cases, publishers in general don’t want to taint their brand,” said one seller of the decision. “It might be from a marketing standpoint.”

If DC management really did want to protect their reputation, they'd never have approved a story as repulsive as Identity Crisis back in 2004 that was hurtful to women and victims of sexual assault. And, they'd have taken notice of Felker-Martin's previous statements on social media long before hiring him. By failing to do so, and only distancing themselves from him following an incident as serious as the Kirk assassination, they've only proven they're not responsible, and don't uphold any lessons of past comics, not even Stan Lee's message from Spider-Man's debut that, "with great power comes great responsibility". Also, doesn't a moral standpoint count far more than marketing? And on that note, a terrible problem looks like it may be formed if we don't keep a responsible eye open:

DC is asking dealers and individuals to send the book back for a refund. But another dealer says those already out there might disappear for a while and then emerge for resale online because of the controversy.

“It could be a collectible over time and more valuable.”

Comic books have been controversial, dating back to the 50s when the industry decided to self-regulate and form the Comics Code Authority to avoid Congressional regulation. Comic books that clear this voluntary content review are denoted with a seal in the top right corner of the cover.

Through the years, certain editions have been pulled from the shelves because of artwork errors, hidden messages or controversial content, including the T+, or teens and up, Spider-Man Reign #1 in 2006, because of a panel showing a naked and elderly Peter Parker.

If memory serves, the problem with Reign is that it showed Peter being mutilated in one of the worst ways possible, and too repulsive to describe. With that told, are these convention merchants really trying to avoid the controversy even DC's guilty of causing by merely employing somebody that morally bankrupt? Why should anybody with common sense want to invest in a single comic penned by somebody as awful as Felker-Martin turned out to be? It's not that simple. By that logic, even comics penned by the disgraced Gerard Jones would be valueable based on how he turned out to be a felon who committed a grave crime. Sorry, but that risks celebrating somebody's work based on a bad reputation, and such items would only turn the speculator market into a more of a travesty than it already is.

But the comment by the aforementioned merchant suggests, disturbingly enough, that a comic penned by someone that morally bankrupt could one day end up circulating on the black market, possibly coveted by all the worst basket cases who consider extremist writers' productions something to treasure, even if it holds zero value on the speculator market. If that happens, it'll be a very dark day.

But this is the first time in recent memory that anybody in the field can recall a series being outright cancelled. And not over content, but rather a personal issue with something the writer stated elsewhere.

A spokesperson for the publisher said, “At DC Comics, we place the highest value on our creators and community and affirm the right to peaceful, individual expression of personal viewpoints. Posts or public comments that can be viewed as promoting hostility or violence are inconsistent with DC’s standards of conduct.”

An individual dealer taking part in Fall-Con says he likes the older comics because they aren’t pushing the envelope like the stories and artwork of today. But he worried that anything he said might be taken the wrong way and asked MRN not to publish his name.

“I like keeping comic books safe and simple. I like kids to enjoy it.”

Certainly, but even adults should be able to enjoy specific stories without their being exploited for the sake of repellent ideologies and politics. Somebody has to make the case that the industry today needs to cease with the far-left activism, and who knows if even these merchants have the courage to say so?

Another noted that there are plenty of comics out there that are edgy and and to some, might be objectionable. But while he might not order a series to put on display on his store shelves, he will still make individual orders if a customer requests it.

And he wondered if “Red Hood” could wind up back on the shelves. DC might have cancelled it to avoid bad publicity in the present, but it doesn’t preclude a return with different authors, one day.

“What they should have done is fire the writer and continue the series. Some say this was a knee-jerk reaction.”

I suppose it's debatable, but there are some series and projects that have been heavily tainted in some way or other, and won't make an easy sell going forward. Some could argue the 3rd Green Lantern volume is severely tarnished after the disgraced Gerard Jones was arrested nearly a decade ago on charges of child porn distribution, and said series volume certainly isn't fondly recalled or selling so well today, based on where it went next during the Zero Hour crossover. If Felker-Martin already wrote several issues of the adult series that's now bound to gather dust on the shelves, there's no way DC will be able to sell those now that it's known he wrote incitement, along with racist, antisemitic and misogynist drivel.

Hopefully, following this whole travesty, Felker-Martin's career is over. But only time will tell if the entertainment industry is going to mend fences and their MO, and ensure contributors will be vetted and instructed to avoid making divisive statements online. And if any basket cases are planning to try and make bank off something like the Red Hood premiere issue, on the black market or otherwise, then anybody who spots such behavior must sound the alarm and make sure no insane hoodlums profiteer from it. The only place where that worthless pamphlet belongs is in the paper shredder.

Yes, moviegoers are tired of superhero fare, but mainly because of the divisive PC

Statista wrote another superficial look at the collapse of superhero film fare that refuses to address whether the films in question could be woke:

According to The Numbers, adaptations of comic books and graphic novels accounted for just 15.6 and 3.2 percent of ticket sales at the North American box office in 2023 and 2024, down from 29.9 and 31.0 percent in 2021 and 2022, respectively. While some argue that this is due to “superhero fatigue” after a decade-long overabundance of DC and Marvel movies, others say it’s just “mediocre movie fatigue”, suggesting that many of the latest installments of popular comic book franchises have been lazy cash grabs.

This year’s box office performance of major comic book adaptations such as “Superman” and “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” would suggest that audiences are still open to enjoying a good superhero blockbuster. Both movies received generally positive reviews and are among the highest-grossing films of the year so far.

On the surface, they may seem as high grossing as can get, but the problem is that today, when film and marketing budgets are so staggeringly expensive, it's not always enough to recoup the heavy costs. And again, nobody in the mainstream's willing to discuss in depth whether wokery and even performers who make divisive political statements have responsibility for whatever financial damage the film's suffer. Has anybody discussed whether they believe the sex-swap for the Silver Surfer plausible enough for the Fantastic Four film or not? Or whether the political statements of its star, Pedro Pascal, cost First Steps heavily? Or whether the Superman movie suffered similar problems in-film? If not, then one can't be surprised it all went south quickly.

Sure, the mediocrity itself was a damaging factor, but that's based on the wokeness that overtook much of moviedom over the past decade, and plenty of movies fumbled as a result. Yet the news site won't acknowlege any of that either, so they can't be surprised if there'll be quite a few more films coming up soon that suffer similar problems.

More on how writer Linda Woolverton had Beauty and the Beast's Belle scripted as a feminist metaphor

Over a decade ago, the book writer Linda Woolverton, who'd been part of the production for 1991's Beauty and the Beast cartoon from Disney, was interviewed by Cartoon Research, and she told them at the time how Belle was supposed to have been characterized as a feminist metaphor/allegory. I'd first written about this a few years ago, and here's at least one more item about the film that, some time after the catastrophous live action Snow White remake, could give more to think about:

Jim Korkis: Everyone seems to love the character of Belle.

Linda Woolverton: I’m just so happy that the world has embraced Belle. In the past we’ve seen that other animated heroines were reacting to outside forces. Belle isn’t like that. She initiates action. She sets things in motion. What is great about her, I think, is that she shows us all that women don’t have to sit around and wait.

But very few embraced Snow Woke, as played by Rachel Zegler, which is easily worse than BATB, based on all the divisive politics involved, but all the same, the feminist angle the 1991 cartoon built upon obviously had some responsibility for getting us to this point years later.

JK: She certainly seems different than the classic Disney princesses.

LW: Now, I don’t want to stand here in 1992 and say I think Snow White and Cinderella were negative role models for girls, because that’s not fair. They were signs of their time. I have a daughter and when she’s old enough, I’m going to let her see those movies. I think what that will do is launch a discussion about how women have changed. Because in those movies, women didn’t go out and conquer the world. They dreamed about someone to save them from their life. Belle is different. She goes out as a woman and does it herself.

Aside from the fact that the film has made a lot of money, I feel really good about creating a character who is a positive role model for young girls, and boys, too. Because that’s the audience that’s important. They’re going to run the world one day soon. To Gaston, Belle wasn’t a person; she was a possession. And I think it’s great for little boys to see that Beauty doesn’t choose him. Not only can they look at Gaston as an example of how not to treat women, but they can hopefully be taught by the Beast, a macho guy who is comfortable with his feelings and gentleness. He could teach a lot of men, in fact, about sensitivity.

Interesting she hints she may believe Snow White and Cinderella were negative examples, but then, if we look at this through the lens created by the live action remake of the former, how can it be a good role model if Snow Woke makes the 7 dwarves do far more of the housework than she does? Why, how can it even be helpful if the dwarves are CGI-produced, to the point they look creepy? There's also moral questions one can ask as to whether women should "conquer the world", because if it's not okay for Doctor Doom to do anything like that, as recently seen in One World Under Doom, then why must it be implied women should be world conquerors, rather than world civilizers? If Russia's Catherine the Great had waged wars for bad purposes, is that acceptable? One war she worked on that had justification was that against Turkey, long itself conquered by Islam at the expense of the Greeks, Assyrians, Byzantines, Constantinople and even the Hagia Sophia cathedral. But in the long run, it's clear even she didn't do justice on that issue. Now, back to Woolverton:

JK: Do you have a feminist background?

LW: They (Disney) knew I had a feminist sensibility and they were at ease that the same accusations leveled against ‘Mermaid’ (like Ariel forsaking her family and heritage for a man) wouldn’t happen with ‘Beauty and the Beast’. I never took part in marches. I just knew I wanted to go out, very much like Belle, and do things myself. I thought I was smart enough to be able to do that.

The only thing I wrote (to describe Belle physically) was ‘she has a little wisp of hair that keeps falling in her face’. Because I wanted her not to be perfect. It was important that not every hair be in place.

Unfortunately, she possibly doesn't consider that even feminism isn't perfect, and if it becomes more about male bashing, to the point where the idea of a man defending a woman's dignity is considered taboo, that's why it's so dismaying as it's hurtful. It's also damaging when it's made to look like a man shouldn't even fall in love with a woman, let alone save her from dire predicaments, which is why Zegler's statements about the prince in Snow White were so repellent.

After the Snow Woke fiasco, it could be said that even BATB may not age well, though one must also wonder what Woolverton thinks of the live action remake, where the Beast asks Belle if she wants to take her dad's place after the Beast holds him hostage, and this makes whatever "feminist" slant it's got into far more of a terrible joke. Woolverton doesn't seem to have ever commented on that alteration, and if not, one must wonder if she really cares about her original cartoon contribution from 1991 at all.

What went wrong with how Disney approached both masculinity and femininity

A writer at the Daily Wire explains what went wrong with how Disney was approaching filmmaking in the past decade, to the point where boys for starters were driven away, and even for women, their steps were damaging:

Disney executives are now hunting for answers, considering every conceivable tactic from “splashy global adventures” to old-fashioned “treasure hunts” in an effort to lure young men between the ages of 13 and 28 back to the House of Mouse.

But for Bill Rivers, a bestselling author and former Trump admin speechwriter, the diagnosis is clear. The problem with Disney isn’t the lack of over-the-top projects. In the end, he says, Disney alienated their audience by forcing an ideology that undermined the same values it used to celebrate.

When asked for his initial reaction to Disney’s alleged “boy trouble,” Rivers blamed it squarely on the stories being told.

“It’s self-inflicted,” he told The Daily Wire via an email interview. “They’re going to have to ditch an ideology that sneered at masculinity, chivalry, righteous honor, power for noble purposes, the warrior ethos – all these things that coded as toxically male – and accept these attributes are actually good and necessary for any healthy society and worthy of exploring in entertainment.”

“This ideology was obviously anti-men,” Rivers added, “but the kicker is realizing it was also perniciously anti-women because it drove men out of the places women wanted to engage with them. Disney’s already taken the first step by recognizing they have a problem; the next step is to remain stubbornly open to stories they would have discarded as too traditional. It’s a time for tradition. Traditional stories stick around for a reason.”

A return to tradition, Rivers argues, is precisely what Disney needs to survive. “Unfortunately for Disney, it’s both,” he said when asked whether the issue was about content or a deeper cultural disconnect.

“On content, the boldest thing Disney can do right now is return to traditional storytelling – courageous heroes, nasty villains, and incredibly high stakes for believable characters who wrestle with timeless challenges like family, romance, revenge, redemption. You can tell these stories in outer space or [a] small town in Appalachia, because setting matters less than plot and character.”

The overarching failure, according to Rivers, is how Disney treated young men for years.

“Regarding Gen Z men, Disney still treats them as if they don’t matter when it pushes cash-grab reboots aimed at them and not works of art crafted for them. ‘Star Wars,’ ‘Minecraft,’ the new superhero slop – this is the warmed-over childhood content of Millennials and Gen Xers. Worse, you’ve got these ideological political messages shoved in there. It totally kills the story,” Rivers said, noting how young men “hate being told what to think.”

For decades, Rivers notes, Disney never faced this problem.

“Marvel, Star Wars, even Pirates of the Caribbean kept this 13–28 year old demographic engaged. What changed? Disney was fortunate to acquire some of the most compelling storytelling in American culture with the original Star Wars and Marvel comics. But these franchises were products of once-in-a-generation geniuses who did the creative heavy-lifting half a century ago or more. Ideological execs have squandered this inheritance for a payday or used them as a vehicle to ram political messages down their audiences’ throats. That’s propaganda, not storytelling.”

And “great storytelling,” Rivers insists, is hard to come by because the content creators have to trust their audiences to come to certain conclusions. That will never work if the studio openly despises them.

As noted, even women have been victims of all this wokeness, and some of these screenplays of recent were submerged in stuff like "girlbosses", who lacked appealing personality, were otherwise sexless, and femininity was belittled as much as masculinity. And if men could be stripped of chivalry, then women could obviously also be victim of the same in the screenplays Disney was developing. Why, do the filmmakers even have creative freedom and autonomy? If not, that's another serious mistake right there.

Unfortunately, the chances Disney will follow good advice at this point are very slim, and if they won't prove they can producer movies and TV shows devoid of wokeness, then box office receipts will continue to remain stagnant.

DC cancels adult Red Hood series after Gretchen Felker-Martin wrote obscene statements about Charlie Kirk

In an announcement that's not entirely clear about why, Popverse says DC's canceled the Red Hood comic written by the far-left extremist Gretchen Felker-Martin after the transsexual activist author wrote horrific statements about the murdered right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk:

On the same day that the first issue of the mature readers Red Hood series was released in comic book stores, DC Comics has announced that it is cancelling orders for all future issues of the series, and will additionally be offering credit for all orders placed by retailers on the first issue, including any copies that may have already been sold to customers. [...]

The second issue of Red Hood was intended for release October 2, 2025, and the third scheduled for a November 12 release. Both issues were announced with Gretchen Felker-Martin as writer, Jeff Spokes as interior artist, and Taurin Clarke as primary cover artist. Red Hood, intended as DC’s first ongoing series rated for a 17+ audience set inside the regular DC Universe, was announced in July 2025.

When contacted for reasons behind the cancellation, DC Comics provided the following statement: "At DC Comics, we place the highest value on our creators and community and affirm the right to peaceful, individual expression of personal viewpoints. Posts or public comments that can be viewed as promoting hostility or violence are inconsistent with DC’s standards of conduct."

There's no clear explanation for why this "dude in a dress" was sacked, perhaps unsurprisingly. But Israel National News has more giving clearer understanding:

In one post, Felker-Martin wrote: “Thoughts and prayers you Nazi bitch." In another, she stated: “Hope the bullet’s okay after touching Charlie Kirk.”

Shortly after the posts were made, DC announced the cancellation of Red Hood, a Batman-line book starring former Robin Jason Todd. Issue one, which was released yesterday, will be the only issue of the series to come out, and preorders of issues two and three have been cancelled. [...]

Her BlueSky account has also been suspended.

This is not the first time Felker-Martin has celebrated or defended an act of political violence and murder. She also celebrated the October 7 massacre in which 1,200 people, the majority of whom were civilians, were murdered in southern Israel, and about 250 people were taken hostage.

On October 7 itself, as the massacre was ongoing, Felker-Martin retweeted a post claiming: "Gaza has been under a naval blockade & land siege for 17 years & its 2 mil Palestinians subject to 4 large scale offensives. Any shock in response to this multi scalar attack reflects an expectation that those Palestinians die quietly and a complicity in their strangulation."

Felker-Martin herself wrote on the day of the massacre: "You cannot subject human beings to brutal conditions under which no hope for a meaningful future exists and then blame them for violent action taken to correct this state. Free Palestine."

She would go on to make numerous posts defending Hamas's right to use violence and blaming Israel for the entire conflict. She also denied the existence of Israeli civilians, claiming that "settlers are not civilians - they are an occupying force whose daily lives serve to grind out the hope, culture, and memory of those they oppress."

The resurfacing of Felker-Martin's posts defending the genocidal Hamas massacre led to calls for DC to fire her from the StandWithUs organization.

Some examples of his social media posts can also be seen here. Cosmic Book News also notes:

Felker-Martin contributed a short story in Harley Quinn #41, released in June 2024. A year later, in June 2025, DC Comics announced that she would helm a new ongoing Red Hood comic aimed at mature readers.

She is a transgender writer and uses she/her pronouns.

And is apparently a man, so again, why give any satisfaction to his delusionary visions, which are also an example of somebody who despises being born a man? Whether one's born male or female, is that something to be ashamed of?

Anyway, it's fortunate DC was willing to fire him from a writing position, but shameful a company originally founded by Jewish-Americans should have to be soiled as it was in the first place. That they were willing to hire such a creep in the first place is just the latest in a long line of offensive directions they've taken for more than 35 years already, and their artistic quality's been in the gutter since the turn of the century, so why are DC/Marvel even still in business? This latest example of hiring writers without any proper vetting just makes clear one more severe fault they have that won't be mended in a hurry.

Update: in a related subject, the Daily Caller tells how, following the Kirk tragedy, unhinged leftists are being dismissed by their employers for making offensive comments, including a video game producer.