Biased interview with Supergirl screenwriter

Variety interviewed Ana Nogueira, the screenwriter of what now looks like a total botch job for a new take on Supergirl in movies. It may have been written prior to the official release of the film, but does have what to ponder, and shake heads at in disbelief and sadness. First:

Nogueira, an actor and playwright-turned-screenwriter, was originally tapped to pen a “Supergirl” script when Warner Bros. was developing the movie as a spinoff of “The Flash.” But when James Gunn and Peter Safran were named co-CEOs of DC Studios in 2022, they decided to take the DCU in a different direction — and brought Nogueira along for the ride. In fact, they were so enamored with her take on the Supergirl story — both in its original iteration and her revised pitch, based on Tom King’s “Woman of Tomorrow,” which follows Kara and a young alien girl named Ruthye (Eve Ridley) on a quest for vengeance — that Nogueira will also pen DC’s upcoming live-action “Teen Titans” movie, as well as a “Wonder Woman” film.

Notice how this sham of a trade journal's perpetuating the use of a masculine term, "actor", instead of "actress"? Well that's another problem with this day and age of Orwellian vocabulary, and it's very insulting to the intellect as much as it is to women. That aside, what was so awesome about a tale originally penned by a writer as awful as King, they just had to adapt that? And if the screenplay for Supergirl is that bad, I hesitate to think what a TT and WW movie will be like under her scripting. Now, here's what they say about the addition of Lobo to the story:

Lobo, the cigar-smoking alien bounty hunter played by Jason Momoa, was originally in the “Woman of Tomorrow” comic, but got cut from the story. Take me through the decision to add him back for the movie?

So that was brought to me. [Gunn and Safran] were like, “We want to do ‘Woman of Tomorrow,’ and we want you to find a way to put Lobo in. We think Lobo has a place in this.” I think their thinking was we know Jason Momoa is interested in this, and how can you turn that down? He’s so excellent in it, and you have to find a place when somebody is willing to go there. But at the same time, it also makes sense, because it’s intergalactic. It’s hard to bring Lobo to Earth — he’s always taken place in outer space — so they’re like, “This is an opportunity to bring in this character that would be hard to bring in.”

I knew Tom King had based the comic on “True Grit,” but originally, Lobo was the bounty hunter and Kara was the girl. Then he was like, “That doesn’t quite work.” He flipped it, and he brought in Ruthye. But when I was trying to bring in Lobo, I was like, “There is a third character in ‘True Grit’: Matt Damon’s character,” so if we follow that structure, there’s still room for this guy who is like a frenemy to the two of them. And Lobo is the ultimate frenemy.

From the panning reviews I've read so far, it looks like Lobo's only in the film to look "cool", and little else. Also, there were times in the comics of the past 4 decades where Lobo traveled to Earth, so I don't understand what's the point of this tommyrot. Besides, if they want to take creative liberties to depict Lobo journeying to Earth, they could've if they'd wanted to. That said, what's appalling in the comics is how Lobo was characterized post-Crisis, as some kind of leftover from the Soviet Union who led to the deaths of his fellow citizens on his home planet. This is why it would've been far better to leave him characterized as the Velorpian adversary he began as in the 3rd issue of Omega Men in 1983, pre-Crisis. Because how does his post-Crisis characterization truly count as a "hero"?

The film is about two young women learning to save themselves — and each other. But they also save all these other girls who’ve been kidnapped by the Brigands. How did that come to be?

So, that is not in the comic. I put it in for very boring writer reasons: in the comic, there’s this central planet where there’s been this horrific act in the past — essentially a genocide, an ethnic cleansing — and you find out that Krem was in some way involved. What’s really important about this is them coming and seeing loss that is not perfectly reflective of theirs, but just that deep pain that these girls have been through. And we also had to see that Krem is just like a total POS; that this guy is somebody that we are going to want to see meet a certain end. But I needed it to be something that was happening in the present and not the past, because in the comic, you can jump around to the past, but you can’t do that here. I needed something to feel really immediate, like there was saving to be done now.

I also wanted it to be something that specifically put our girls in jeopardy, so that they would be a target. Because otherwise, I don’t know why the Brigands would come after them. So, it’s those silly, boring writerly things that then end up leading to a larger plot. And it just tracked for me that the Brigands are an all-male race: What do they need?

Better scripting to portray them as convincing villains, and how interesting she admits, in a way, that the end result is boring. That aside, what are the chances the premise she wrote involving the "central planet" is another negative allusion to Israel and the USA, just like in the previous Superman film?

Also, if history items matter, prior to the official opening, Inverse wrote about how the Girl of Steel came to be in the Silver Age, and it also says:

It’s ironic that, despite the impetus of his origin story being his existence as the “Sole Survivor of Krypton,” Superman hasn’t been that in quite some time. Over the years DC Comics has slowly increased the number of Kryptonians who survived the destruction of their planet: General Zod was one of the first, debuting in Adventure Comics #283 in 1961, and since then they’ve added the entire city of Kandor (a population of thousands that accidentally avoided the destruction of Krypton when they were shrunken down and put in a glass enclosure by Braniac), H’el (a Kryptonian clone created by Superman’s father), and even Jor-El himself, transported through time by the machinations of Watchmen’s Dr. Manhattan (a creative decision that surely sent psychic shockwaves down Alan Moore’s spine).

Interesting there's no objective description given of what was also a recent take in the past decade on characters from the Watchmen, one that was quite pointless.

In her earliest stories, Supergirl resides at Midvale Orphanage under the secret identity of Linda Lee, only using her powers to aid Kal-El sparingly because he didn’t want her revealed to the world until she’d mastered them. Eventually she’s adopted by Fred and Edna Danvers, makes her debut as Supergirl to the world in 1962’s Action Comics #285, and graduates from high school as Linda Lee Danvers; after her college years, Linda relocated to San Francisco and took up a variety of different jobs in her off-time from superheroics, including serving as a TV news camera operator, student counseling, and even acting. The 1970s was arguably the biggest period for defining Kara as a character – along with her relocation, she also received her first major villain: Nasthalthia “Nasty” Luthor, the stubbornly loyal niece of Lex Luthor who made it her mission to discover the secret identity of her hated enemy, Supergirl.

Kara’s popularity made her a mainstay in Superman lore, earning her two solo comics as well as appearances in other Superman books, but 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths brought her character to a shocking and tragic end. Years earlier, in an attempt to reconcile the canon inconsistencies that naturally arose from decades of different writers, Kara Zor-El and the Superman of the 50s through the 80s were retroactively labeled heroes of the reality Earth-One, while the original Golden Age Superman of the 1930s and his cousin (more on her later) hailed from Earth-Two – Crisis on Infinite Earths was an attempt made by DC editorial to totally erase the Multiverse, having felt the concept ultimately created more problems than it fixed. The reality-destroying villain of Crisis, a being known as the Anti-Monitor, posed so great a threat that heroes were recruited from multiple alternate Earths to stop him; in the battle, Kara Zor-El was fatally wounded while trying to save her Superman, and when the story concluded with the establishment of a new, singular DC Comics timeline, Kara’s existence and sacrifice were erased for decades.

You can reasonably wonder why they didn't draw ideas from the Silver/Bronze Age history for Kara instead of a shoddy miniseries by an overrated writer who spends too much time writing up contrived takes on trauma. Interesting they admit it was tragic that editorial had to mandate Kara's demise in COIE, and took such a casual approach to the whole notion any character who's supposedly a burden should go nowhere but into the grave. But seriously, it's disputable the Multiverse literally made things confusing when it's 2 or more dimensions involved, and even Marvel's had their share of parallel worlds. The article also brings up Earth-2 counterpart Power Girl's history:

After CoIE, Power Girl was folded into DC’s new Prime Earth, with a fresh backstory that presented her as the long-lived descendant of an Atlantean sorcerer. Naturally, this was a disappointment to fans, so when 2005’s Infinite Crisis (a direct sequel to the original) resurrected the concept of the Multiverse, Power Girl’s origin was again retconned to reveal that she had actually always been the Supergirl of Earth-Two, and had somehow survived the destruction of her original reality; this has remained her consistent backstory to this day, a tragic recontextualization that makes her a refugee of both Krypton and Earth-Two. Adopting the name Power Girl to differentiate herself from Superman (and stand on her own with the appearance of yet another Supergirl), Kara Zor-L’s presence in pop culture has largely been relegated to countless jokes about the overtly sensual nature of her costume, but on the page she’s an incredibly intelligent and authoritative character in her own right, with years of experience as a superhero that make her a stark, mature contrast to the frequent depiction of other Supergirls as impulsive teenagers.

And here, I'm not sure fandom was ever "disappointed" with the retcon for PG, so much as with how Infinite Crisis was such a repellent tale begun with a prelude story that forcibly killed Blue Beetle Ted Kord. IIRC, Arion, Lord of Atlantis, the character created by Paul Kupperberg and Jan Duursema in 1982, was the father figure in the retcon, and funny the writer didn't take the time to make that clear. The post-Crisis retcon to PG was tame compared to what came about when Identity Crisis did in 2004. As for PG being intelligent, isn't that thanks to the best writers? Another example of how they don't have what it takes to credit whomever they thought did the best jobs in characterization when given a writing assignment. Who knows, the Inverse writers probably wouldn't even credit themselves if they got the job!

It wasn’t until 2004 that the grandmother of Supergirls finally returned, receiving a rebooted origin in the pages of Jeph Loeb’s Superman/Batman series. Her initial post-Crisis origin involved Kara (chronologically older than Kal) being sent away from Krypton at the same time as her cousin, with space shenanigans delaying her arrival for decades and causing her to meet her younger cousin in adulthood while she has the appearance of a 16 year-old girl; later comics revised this by once again having her home of Argo City survive Krypton’s original destruction, only for her parents to send her to Earth before Argo City is forcibly integrated into the Bottle City of Kandor by Braniac. Her first appearance on Earth sees Kara train with Wonder Woman and the Amazons before she’s kidnapped by Darkseid who plans on making her one of his Female Furies — after being saved by the combined might of the Trinity, the new Supergirl goes on an odyssey of self-discovery around the world, encountering Power Girl, the Teen Titans, and the Justice League before she’s transported to the 31st Century where she temporarily joins the Legion of Super-Heroes.

Since her post-Crisis debut in the early 2000s, Supergirl has gone through a few more reboots and reimaginings, but most of them use her 2004 origin as a launchpad to integrate her into whatever new confusing company-wide reboot DC Comics is going through at the time. Across 70 years and multiple different characters holding the mantle, Kara Zor-El has remained one of the most popular characters in the Superman mythos, growing far beyond her initial conception as a “female Superman” to become a character with a vast library of stories in her own right, including her brief time as a Red Lantern as well as the recent Woman of Tomorrow arc the movie is based on.

Gee, doesn't this prove how unsuccessful DiDio's supposed caring about the character was in the long run? The company wide crossovers, which they didn't bother to clearly mention, were another problem that sunk the return of Kara Zor-El, not to mention the disgraced Eddie Berganza. Some could reasonably say the heavy-handed allusions to sexuality in the 2005-11 series could reflect how corrupt Berganza was, and he definitely helped bring comicdom down the horrid levels it's at now. And here we also have an example of no objective view taken on what stories were written up in the past 2 decades, not even the Red Lantern tale that spun out of the awful Geoff Johns' run on Green Lantern. At least they admit what came since was confusing, though they don't mention it was just plain uninspired as a result of DiDio's forced darkening of the DCU.

Now onto a few more reviews of this sad catastrophe. Here's what a Forbes writer says about the film, and this one is absurd in its own bias regarding the source material:

I have not read the Tom King source material that inspired this story, Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, but I know it’s considered quite good and brilliantly drawn and inked. Supergirl is neither of those things. A dull blend of Guardians and an attempt to be Mad Max, but shot with increasingly ugly special effects that have been plaguing many blockbusters and layered on top of a script doing the original source material, and its actors, no favors.

Oh god, is this such a groaner. I've seen some of the art from the original GN, and it's some of the most dreadful, uninspired to come down the pike in the past decade, making Kara look very unappealing and sexless. Let's also not forget how King makes too much of a habit in his writing of relying on trauma themes, and coupled with that, it's exactly why the story makes for a most awful wellspring. Something tells me that, even if the reviewer did read the GN, he'd still be "diplomatic", which is pretty odd for somebody working as a professional reviewer to begin with. And yet, something also tells me that, if the screenplay were based on the writings of 20th century scribes like Otto Binder and his successors at the time, the reviewer would've been far less kind, as though relying upon a more optimistic vision in itself was a crime. And if so, that's very appalling, because it would compound the perception modern reviewers have a grudge against optimism.

There's also another review worth pondering, on 411 Mania, reminding everybody of one of the most decidedly rotten details about the previous Superman movie that's followed up on in Supergirl:

Unfortunately, Supergirl continues an ill-advised plot thread, first introduced in Superman, involving Superman’s parents. The last movie shockingly revealed that Superman’s parents sent him to Earth to conquer it and subjugate the human race.

The revelation is certainly a unique narrative choice, differing from past, more traditional interpretations of Jor-El. However, Superman failed to meaningfully flesh out that detail. Supergirl continues that plot thread to some extent, but it still doesn’t work. Basically, the new DC Universe opened a huge can of worms and has no idea how to deal with it.

It reminds me that 2 decades ago, when Dan DiDio, Eddie Berganza and Jeph Loeb launched the post-2004 take on Kara Zor-El in a new solo book, there was a storyline in issue 16 co-written by Mark Sable where it looked like Kara's father was doing terrible wrongs, which, if the following synopsis at Grand Comics Database is correct, was disgusting, because it claims Kara was forced to kill her mother and her father sent her to kill Superman?!? Well that was abominable, and so too was the premise for Jor-El in Gunn's Superman film. As a result, that's why, if Kara kills Krem in the new Supergirl followup, it not only reeks of moral hypocrisy, it perpetuates some of the most embarrassingly bad storylines to emerge when DiDio was still holding DC hostage to his whims. Also, note the continued use of "revealed", instead of "established", and that illogic is very grating.

Anyway, John Nolte at Breitbart's announced that this new take on the Maid of Might has become a global fiasco:

Supergirl didn’t just flop at the box office this weekend; it is a flop of epic proportions, an abysmal failure that will be remembered only as a failure.

With a disastrous $38 million domestic opening and an even more humiliating overseas take of $30 million, Supergirl is a bigger domestic flop than The Marvels ($46 million), The Flash ($55 million), Black Adam ($67 million), and Morbius ($39 million).

Supergirl’s global opening gross is just $68 million, which means it’s worse than notorious flops such as The Marvels (110 million), Morbius ($84 million), Birds of Prey ($81 million), and Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom ($80 million).

Get this: Supergirl’s global is not much better than Madam Web ($50 million) and Blue Beetle ($43 million).

The production and promotion budget for Supergirl is right around $250 million. That makes the break-even number at $450 to $500 million. Supergirl will be lucky to hit $200 million worldwide. Warner Bros. is looking at massive losses. [...]

Well, it certainly didn’t help as the hype machine kicked in that Supergirl star Milly Alcock — who has all the charisma of a sidewalk and the body of a 14-year-old boy — started opening her mouth about how she’s a victim of sexism and Supergirl is queer.

From what I've read of the movie to date, it doesn't sound like there's any love interest or romance in it, quite a contrast to how Kara hoped to find love with a boyfriend in the Silver Age stories. And that's another of the biggest problems with modern movies - PC mandates shun any chance of romance.

In the end, of course it's very sad the result is a movie that adds insult to injury 42 years after the failed Supergirl film of 1984 starring Helen Slater. Now, for all we know, it could take decades until they try again, and for all we know, even then it'll probably wind up being a case of "3 strikes and you're out". Sometimes, ever since the failed adaptation of Sara Paretsky's V.I. Warshawski in 1991, I've wondered if filmmakers and studios are deliberately making these lady-starring action epics bad in order to taint the source material. The new Supergirl movie could sadly be another hint at that.

Classic cars painted to resemble comic book sketches

Top Gear wrote about an exhibit of cars made to look like comics illustrations:

An artist called Joshua Vides is presenting his latest art highlighting automotive culture at LA’s Petersen Automotive Museum in a new exhibition entitled ‘Flat Out: The Art of Joshua Vides”. Tin, what it says, pretty much, on, etc.

Only this isn’t what it says on the tin, because Vides’ art isn't really going flat out. Instead, it's been made to look like a giant, real-life comic book sketch, and you’ll spend a considerable portion of your day just gawping trying to figure out how he’s done it.

According to the Petersen, Vides “painstakingly hand-paints crisp black lines onto all-white surfaces to create monochromatic graphic artwork that resembles flat comic book sketches”. So, that’ll do it.

Wow, that's pretty fancy alright. Congratulations to the guy for his marvelous nod to comicdom with this vehicular form of artwork.

The style of Barry Windsor-Smith

Cartoonist Jim Rugg wrote a review on Literary Hub of artist Barry Windsor-Smith's work on Wolverine's Weapon X story from the 1988-95 Marvel Comics Presents anthology:

Barry Windsor-Smith was one of the most popular creators at Marvel Comics. Part of his popularity was due to his style. His comics did not look like or read like other comic books. It is important to clarify that Windsor-Smith’s style was not defined exclusively by his artwork. Windsor-Smith approached storytelling very differently than the standard Marvel house style approach.

The average age of comic book readers in the 1960s was seven. The storytelling style of Marvel as well as many other comic book publishers was “show and tell.” Captions often described the drawing in the panel. This redundancy made sense for young, inexperienced readers. But by 1991, readers were older and hopefully better readers.

The 1980s saw the rise of creators who felt that comics were an art form and were not inherently limited to young readers. These creators challenged misconceptions about comics being for kids with complex, sophisticated works like Maus, Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, and Love and Rockets. The growth of storytelling in the art form meant that creators like Barry Windsor-Smith could use different techniques to engage and challenge their readers.

One of the more obvious storytelling choices in Weapon X is the lack of narrative captions. Without literal explanations, readers must pay close attention to Smith’s artwork in each panel to follow Weapon X’s story. This one choice dramatically changes the reading experience. It places much more value on the artwork. One cannot understand the story only by reading the words. The art in each panel provides critical information. In order to understand what is happening, the reader must interpret the images and the character’s dialogue. This was a radical departure from most Marvel comics of 1991. This kind of reading requires time, attention, and thought in order to process what we see and how it fits with other panels. It also creates an experience where the reader’s knowledge is similar to Logan’s—limited. We do not always know what is happening. We often piece together the story from a subjective, fragmented vantage point. At times, this effect makes Logan’s character more relatable.

Well that was then, and this is now, and while sophisticated writing/art may have been common at the time, it most unfortunately has turned into a lost art as of today, if we take Brian Bendis' writing as an example. And while Rugg may be right about how Windsor-Smith approached the writing/art in Weapon X, I'm going to have to disagree with Dark Knight Returns, if only because Frank Miller sowed the seeds that brought down the Masked Manhunter in the mainstream DCU proper over time though DKR.

And if Rugg believes what came about in the early 90s makes good art, what does he think of modern "art"? Seriously, I think anybody who can't apply an objective view to modern storytelling as much as older stuff is not providing enough to challenge the readers either. Rugg's review of Windsor-Smith's Wolverine tale from MCP is impressive, but it still doesn't substitute for explaining why modern mainstream comics aren't delivering. In fact, there's a valid argument to make that if narrative captions were thrown away by later writers, that's honestly not good, because they do still have use even in modern times, though what's really bad is when thought balloons suffer the same fate. Without those, how can you know what's on the superhero's mind? If Superman and Spider-Man were written without thought balloons, they'd be getting nowhere in past decades as a storytelling vehicle. That's why, while I don't doubt Windsor-Smith's talent in the past, narrative captions and thought balloons still shouldn't be thrown away as storytelling tools.

John Byrne pens yet another Phoenix-related story

Popverse tells the veteran artist Byrne has put together yet another story building off the Phoenix saga from X-Men, a story that was regurgitated far too many times:

It is a story that has been in the making for over 40 years. After very publicly walking away from Marvel Comics 25 years ago, John Byrne is returning to publish his own version of what happened after his iconic Dark Phoenix Saga. In his version, Jean Grey doesn’t die, and X-Men history takes a very different turn.

X-Men Elsewhen started as a webcomic that John Byrne published on his website starting in 2018, but it is set to get a physical release later this month. That release is remarkable not just because it is John Byrne returning to one of the most iconic storylines in comic book history, but also because Marvel Comics is putting its official stamp on it. They are involved as licensors while Abrams ComicArts is publishing.

The problem is that it's also one of the most way overused story premises and plotlines in publishing history, and I think Claremont himself once recycled elements from it in a Justice League tale he wrote in the 2000s for DC. Why is this such a big deal, and is fandom actually looking forward to this? There's only so many other story ideas from past history that would make great setups for a science-fantasy tale today, and this is what we keep hearing about? Sorry, but this is just insulting to the intellect when they keep regurgitating a storyline that wound up emphasizing mass death and destruction, and while the late editor Jim Shooter may have decided it better to have Jean put to death than be let off the hook for wiping out a whole alien space colony (Jean's fate was retconned 5 years later with an alien lifeform becoming the actual culprit), it doesn't explain why he approved of making Jean the scapegoat who's destined to be turned evil in the first place.

If there's any storyline the medium has to stop relying upon so heavily for a setup, it's the Phoenix Saga. It did no good in the long run for comicdom, and was the kind of tale that should've been left in the past long ago. Why Byrne himself sees this as great is beyond me.

Former director at San Francisco's Cartoon Art Museum arrested for filming people in bathroom

Some people may be familiar with Andrew Farago, who until some time ago was a curator at the San Francisco Cartoon Art Museum, and a contributing writer to the Comics Journal, who was also the kind of leftist who attacked easy targets like right-wingers and Comicsgate. Now, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, he was arrested by police for secretly filming people in his home bathroom:

Andrew Farago, an author, historian and former curator of San Francisco’s Cartoon Art Museum, was arrested on June 3 on suspicion of recording 20 people in the bathroom at the party, which had attendees including at least six children ages 3 years old or older, Berkeley Police Department spokesperson Byron White told SFGATE in an email Wednesday. According to court documents viewed by the Berkeley Scanner, Farago co-hosted the party on May 23 at his Berkeley home.

A woman at the party found Farago’s phone wrapped in a towel and aimed in a direction that would “record people’s genitalia as they used the restroom,” and video footage on the phone showed Farago setting it up, the Berkeley Police Department wrote in the documents, according to the Berkeley Scanner. [...]

White said police launched an investigation and obtained a search warrant and an arrest warrant for Farago on May 27. Officers conducted a search at his house on June 20 and seized his electronic devices, White said.

Farago’s arrest warrant included 20 counts of secretly recording someone who is undressed or in their undergarments without their consent, White said. Farago’s name does not appear in the Alameda County inmate records as of Thursday afternoon.

The 50-year-old is a notable figure in San Francisco art and pop culture, including writing comics and co-authoring a history of Batman. Farago also helped advocate for the museum to acquire a new location in 2016 after its former Mission Street location doubled in rent. The museum is now at 781 Beach St., a block from Ghirardelli Square.

Although Farago is still listed as the curator for the San Francisco Cartoon Art Museum in several places online, his name has been removed from the museum’s official site and his LinkedIn profile has been deleted.

This is very, very disgusting, and that goes without saying. I expect his book writings will be going out of print soon, and he has truly tarnished a number of projects, not the least being the very museum where he reportedly once worked, but has now hopefully been ousted after committing repugnant acts that could've endangered children. One of the worst things about this is that it may not be the first time Farago pulled such crap, and what if it turns out he did similar acts at the museum he worked for? It's enough to shudder.

I noted how he's also been a contributing writer to the Comics Journal, and 6 months ago, he wrote the following item about the late cartoonist Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, and at the time, Farago said that:

Adams spoke candidly about expected topics like cartooning, office culture, and popular entertainment, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, revealed his self-described “Libertarian leanings” as he ventured into discussions of current events and politics. Controversial and outright hateful comments were framed as “thought experiments,” such as a 2006 Dilbert Blog post that questioned historical accounts of the Holocaust or a 2011 post in which he compared adult women to “children and the mentally handicapped.” Adams offered dating advice that included “pickup artist” techniques and emotional manipulation, but the Dilbert comic strip plugged along as usual, just with more dot-com jokes and cynical takes on the economy in the wake of the 2008 crash. Most daily newspaper readers and feature editors were oblivious or indifferent to Adams and his online activity, and friends chalked up the occasional offensive newsletter or blog post to the cartoonist’s sense of humor or desire to provoke a reaction. He had been happily married since 2006, after all, and was a devoted stepfather to two children, so how much of a jerk could he really be?

Readers, especially in hindsight, felt that Dilbert’s tone shifted during the 2010s, punching down at targets, mocking and belittling societal shifts and perceived “political correctness,” with more cynical, even bitter humor than the bemused, gentle office hijinks of the strip’s first two decades. “Dilbert went from challenging the absurdities of workplace management and the abuses of late-stage capitalism to a broader distrust of all expertise, media, and institutions,” observed Rob Salkowitz in his Adams obituary for Forbes.com. “The tone became combative, the humor more hectoring. Dogbert, Dilbert’s anarchic pet who always managed to come out on top, began delivering preachy monologues more suited to the op-ed page.”

Wow, look how Farago moralizes ad nauseum, and blah, blah, blah. Now, after Farago was discovered to be as much a pervert as his fellow SF resident and leftist Gerard Jones, these kind of writings stand as meaningless. I remember when Farago signed onto a petition in favor of the Kfir Bibas family after October 7, 2023, and hoped he was at least improving over his previous attacks on petty issues like Comicsgate. But as this scandal makes clear, Farago apparently just found another cunning way to virtue signal, and seeing how he endangered children at his house party, that makes his petition signing look very hypocritical, seeing how he committed such an abomination. If that's how he's going to behave, how do we know he doesn't hold those kind of twisted visions for Jewish children too? Will he ever even apologize for his rude social media postings about Comicsgate and any other petty issue where he made denigrating comments about anybody whom he didn't agree with, conservative or otherwise? Probably not, and his fellow leftists are possibly not interested in raising such topics again.

Cosmic Book News also notes:

He received the Inkpot Award from San Diego Comic-Con in 2015 and wrote numerous books on comics and animation, including the Harvey Award-winning Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Ultimate Visual History, The Complete Peanuts Family Album, and The Art of Harley Quinn.

Will the SDCC demand he return the award? He's also humiliated a lot of notable comics franchises and kid friendly creations as a result of his actions, and what do his interviewees think now that this has been discovered? The above site also has a redacted picture indicating Farago once took a photo with a kid standing in front of him, and after this whole scandal, sane parents will hopefully keep him far away from theirs. Also, what does the Comics Journal's staff think, now that one of their writers turned out to be scummy?

Some ideologues like Farago who attacked targets like conservatives online in past years possibly did so in the hopes their leftist brethren would overlook any wrongdoings they committed like what Farago's now known to have done, and would serve as a cunning shield from scrutiny. But even that's beginning to prove ineffective, and it's to be hoped more leftists in the medium will learn some lessons from this, and stop villifying the outside while ignorning the inside. For now, it remains to be seen if Farago will go to trial and face any legal penalties for his criminal offenses. His reputation is certainly over, and it wouldn't be surprising if the books he wrote about comics history aren't the masterpieces some press sources likely want everybody to believe they are.

Comics and cartoon characters featured in illustrated history about the Declaration of Independence

The Orange County Register interviewed cartoonist R. Sikoryak about a new GN titled Declaration/Emancipation Illustrated, which builds specially on use of comics and cartoon characters for exploration of the famous moment in USA history when independence was set in motion in the 18th century:

As he worked on an adaptation of some of America’s essential documents over the past few years, cartoonist R. Sikoryak says one element of the ongoing American experiment became clear.

[...] His new book, “Declaration / Emancipation Illustrated,” combines the complete texts of the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Gettysburg Address and illustrates them with characters and scenes from comic books, comic strips and animated films and TV series, including The Simpsons, My Little Pony, Black Panther, Ziggy, the Powerpuff Girls and more.

“People identify with cartoon characters,” says Sikoryak, who skillfully takes on the styles of everything from The Family Circus to Family Guy. “I like that interplay of familiar characters with important texts.”

And sharp-eyed readers will recognize reworkings of iconic comic book panels, including “The New Teen Titans,” “The Invaders” and “The Savage Sword of Conan.”

“I was strictly using American characters, U.S. characters,” he says about some of the restrictions he gave himself for the artwork. “They’re all characters created by, or who represent America in some way. So that was the rule for the book.”

I would assume it's done under licensed permit, but this is a creative way to make use of other known creations for producing a GN about American history, and a lot more than what you see in the actual mainstream today.

Q. Your book is an illustrated version of the Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation, and Gettysburg Address. How do you describe this kind of hybrid?

I grew up making comics and reading lots of comics, and I’ve tried to find ways to take my skills and use them in an interesting way. I used to do strictly literary adaptations, where I would take novels, and I would retell them as comics in different styles, kind of like what I’m doing now,

You could call it a graphic novel, you could call it an illustrated book, but basically, I just like taking the history I love from comics and combining it with texts that I think are important or interesting for people to reevaluate in new ways.

It's certainly pleasant news in an era where patriotic values have been largely rejected by mainstream leftists who don't show any appreciation for themes like "truth, justice and the American way" in Superman, for example, and likely don't celebrate American patriotism in Captain America either.

Q. There can be a friction between people who believe that if you love something, you can also have fun with it, versus those who don’t. Is that challenging to navigate?

I have a certain earnest streak to me, and I think that comes through in the work. Certainly, I will throw in some jokes here and there, but for the most part — there’s some editorializing, I suppose, in some of the image choices — but I am really keeping the text there. I’m not commenting in the text. If you just read the text, there’s nothing in the book that isn’t in the original document.

I’m really trying to be faithful to all my sources, whether it’s what Thomas Jefferson wrote or if it’s what Seth MacFarlane drew for “Family Guy,” I’m trying to represent the perspective of both sides — or the many sides.

One of the reasons I wanted to use the different styles is because you can find a page that feels very patriotic, and it feels kind of solemn, and then there’ll be another page that’s maybe a little absurd, or a little funny, or a little ironic, but that’s the tapestry of America. I really wanted people to feel like something in this would represent them.

In the best sense of what I think the country is, it’s all these people coming together — I know some people don’t think that’s what it is — but in my estimation, it’s really about all these people coming together, that’s kind of what the book represents. You could find specific pages that are nothing but solemn, but there is a certain, I hope, thrill, or as you say, friction, in the combination of all these things next to each other.

The question is whether he ultimately respects what the Declaration of Independence was for, which is why we need to hope the part about "reevaluation" only means whether most believe it's acceptable to employ notable creations from past franchises for a new GN about an historical milestone. Same can be said about the view of "both sides" too.

If the finished product respects patriotic and civilized values, that's what'll make this an admirable project. So if Sikoryak is faithful to those beliefs, then he'll have produced something that can be a breath of fresh air in an era where patriotism's sadly been diminished by leftist ideologies, and this needs to be challenged by showing the courage to present patriotism as a positive value again.

More signs it's looking bad for the live action Supergirl film

The reviews are in, and according to Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart, even leftist trade journals like Variety are appalled with the new live action take on Supergirl, describing it as follows:

Even the left-wing Hollywood press is turning against Warner Bros’ new summer superhero tent pole, Supergirl, calling the film “super-horrendous” with the “worst script” ever.

The review by Variety’s Owen Gleiberman was quite negative ahead of the film’s worldwide debut coming up on Friday. The Hollywood newser ripped the film as “pretentious” for it’s “punk rock attitude” that is “cringe.”

Gleiberman dismissed the film, writing, “here’s the key thing to know about Supergirl, the second outing from James Gunn’s DC Studios: The entire movie thinks it’s ‘punk rock.'” And that, Gleiberman says, is “cringe.”

“The film introduces us to Kara Zor-El (Milly Alcock), who rather than being the spunky Supergirl of legend, saving earthly lives in a primary-colored spandex suit, is an interplanetary drunk in a Blondie T-shirt (how punk rock!), bopping from one arid dystopia to the next,” Gleiberman explained.

What's additionally troubling is how the Girl of Steel's depicted as a drunkard, which Culture Mix talks about some more:

Supergirl spends most of her screen time in the movie being drunk, nearly drunk, or hung over. There are multiple scenes that are meant to make Supergirl into some sort of sad superhero emo girl, who uses alcohol because she’s got inner demons about being an orphan. It’s supposed to make her look sympathetic, but her repetitive drunkenness gets tiresome to watch after a while.

When it's that heavy-handed, something is definitely wrong, right down to how they're forcing Supergirl into the darkness, instead of offering an optimistic vision of a woman who could overcome any trauma she suffered and find happiness again. If this film lacks a sense of humor to boot, that's another major error. And the filmmakers may have screwed up with the following plotlines as well:

A trio of Sklarian raiders (played by blue-costumed Clara Rosager, purple-costumed Heather Agyepong and red-costumed Alice Hewkin) suddenly invade the bus because they want to steal Ruthye’s sword. A massive fight ensues, Supergirl suddenly exerts her superpowers (because she’s on a yellow light planet), and somehow she’s able to get these Sklarian raiders to tell her where Krem is. He’s on a planet where kidnapped girls are being held captive to be forced into marriage to men. For a superhero movie aimed at families, this pedophilia/child trafficking storyline is quite disturbing and might be inappropriate for viewing by children of a certain age.

Similarly, the movie has some murder scenes that are unsettling and sends hypocritical messages about revenge killings. Several times in the movie, Supergirl gets preachy with Ruthye, by lecturing her to not be consumed by vengeful anger because it will rot her soul. Supergirl literally tells Ruthye that killing Krem won’t be the answer to help Ruthie’s emotional pain.

And that’s why it’s a letdown to see what happens to Krem, because it’s the complete antithesis of Supergirl’s moralistic lectures. Why go to the trouble of having Supergirl hold herself up as taking the “high ground,” when she stoops to the level that she does by the end of this movie? The end fate of Krem is just lazy and formulaic. This movie is really trying to be a superhero version of “Mad Max” meets “Game of Thrones,” but the nihilistic themes in “Mad Max” and “Game of Thrones” just don’t work in a “Supergirl” movie.

There's 2 things that can be said about the above: one, the chances the plotline with slave girls is a metaphor for Islam's support for child-trafficking are very slim. Two, if murder scenes are what the screeplay is built upon, that too is pretty alienating. Let's also recall James Gunn, who's one of the producers of this film, turned out to have made some very offensive jokes among other horrific deeds in the past decade, and also injected a repellent metaphor for Israel into last year's Superman film, which is why he's unqualified to explore the aforementioned themes in the movie. At the end of this review, it also notes that:

Don’t expect any mid-credits or any end-credits scenes to hint how this story might continue, because there are no mid-credits or end-credits scenes in “Supergirl,” probably because the filmmakers ran out of ideas for this underwhelming superhero movie. And there’s no better example of how far off the mark “Supergirl” is than the fact that it isn’t until about 80 minutes into this 108-minute movie before Supergirl is seen in her full iconic superhero costume. “Supergirl” spends so much time trying to prove that Supergirl has an identity crisis, the entire story loses its way in its own identity crisis that falls short of what a great “Supergirl” movie should be.

Ah, that's got to be another huge mistake the scriptwriters made: they take forever to show Kara donning her costume - which looks pretty dull in terms of color here - and only so much time depicting her as a drunkard, while her powers oscillate between stronger and weaker in ways that don't avail. The filmmakers also made the unpardonable error of adapting the script of the overrated Tom King's miniseries, and if that's how it's going to be, you can't be shocked when things go into freefall. A leading error in the film's making has to be that the screenwriters didn't have the creative autonomy to develop their own story free of editorial mandates. And it looks like we'll be seeing the sad results soon at the box office.

Once again, as in 1984, the Maid of Might and her creators (Otto Binder and Al Plastino) have been done a terrible injustice. With the worst part being that the filmmakers - and even modern comics writers - are unlikely to apologize for what they've led to, no matter the box office results.

What qualifications does Jim Lee have to say there's too much superhero content?

Popverse says the artist who's been head of DC for years now told a podcast there's too much superhero content on the market:

While speaking to the Masterplan podcast, Lee reminisces on his days as an early superhero fan in the '60s and '70s, when it was harder to keep up with comics and movie and TV adaptations were scarce at best. Though he doesn't call for any kind of reduction in superhero media, he does state his opinion that the large amount of available material makes fans more willing to dismiss material that creators truly cared about making.

"I think when you have fewer choices, you value each choice more. If you are starved of food, when you finally have a meal, it's gonna taste the best that it ever could. When you have a buffet of endless food, you eat something and go 'Meh, that's OK,' and you move onto the next thing. I think that's kind of where we're at with pop culture," Lee explains. "People put their hearts and souls into telling stories, whether it's a comic book, or a big feature film, and people just consume it and move onto the next thing, cause there's so much. In some ways there's almost too much, in my opinion."

It does seem like there has been something of a cultural shift in the attitude of fans about what they see as the waxing and waning of the relative quality of the superhero stories being told in film and TV in particular. From the perspective of someone who has covered the comic industry for nearly 20 years, that seems like the natural course of comic based media and even comic books themselves. We've all had times when we couldn't get enough of a certain character or story, and when we've felt disconnected from most of what we're reading.

Considering Lee dealt with only so much of theme himself, and yet was instrumental in its downfall, it's awfully rich of him to tell us there's too much in the ways of superherodom. In that case, why didn't he ever make a serious attempt to lend his art talents to something different?

And if we refer to modern "creators", if it's writers like Jason Aaron and Al Ewing, I wouldn't say writers like those dedicate themselves to storytelling of the talented kind. You also don't get "minor" characters by today's standards at DC in their own solo books, unless perhaps it's the SJW-pandering creations they concocted 2 decades ago, though most of those have largely vanished of late. I mention that because characters like the Silver Age Atom, Hawkman, Elongated Man and even Firestorm aren't put to use now by DC writers, if at all, and if there's any kind of moratorium imposed by editors after all the damage they caused in the past 2 decades beginning with Identity Crisis, that's wrong.

If there's any cultural shift with fandom, it's abandonment of the mainstream, because they've become the equivalent of sour milk. One can only wonder if Lee will go on to work on something non-superhero related, but after he's long proven he's a failure as a company manager, I wouldn't recommend hiring him for an indie project, no matter how talented he might still be as an artist. To be sure, there are comics fans who realize Lee's an alienating letdown, and it'd be best not to put money into his pockets anymore after he just stood by and allowed the DCU to be ruined by Dan DiDio.

Sugarcoated interview with an IDW editor who's an SJW, and has quite a double standard

Brands Untapped interviewed Heather Antos, a SJW who worked at Marvel as an editor in the past decade and was instrumental in damaging their output the woke way, and now is working at IDW, where she serves as editor on some very eyebrow raising imprints:

Heather Antos, you’ve described yourself as “taller in person, a destroyer of childhoods and a professional geek.” How tall are you?

Ha! I’m 5’10”, which is short in my family.

Is it? Gosh! And ‘destroyer of childhoods we’ll find out more about… Professional geek – lets get into that. What’s your actual job title?

I’m the Senior Group Editor at IDW Publishing. I oversee our crime imprint – which is pretty self-explanatory – and all things IDW Dark; our horror imprint.

Great remit! What kind of things does IDW Dark involve?

That involves our licensed partnerships with Paramount – Event Horizon, Twilight Zone, A Quiet Place, Smile, Sleepy Hollow. It also involves some of our historic, original creator-owned horror titles: 30 Days of Night, Locke & Key, Beneath the Trees Where Nobody Sees, The Exorcism at 1600 Penn. Over its 26 years, IDW has really made a name for itself as being a home of horror in the comic space.

Very interesting. She had a sex-negative viewpoint when she worked at Marvel - with the biggest irony being her claim of alleged admiration for Flo Steinberg, who served as one of the editors on the Marvel Swimsuit specials - yet years later at IDW, all of a sudden, Antos is quite comfortable working on stories involving violent content, horror and darkness? That she'd boast about being a "destroyer of childhoods" is certainly sad as it's insulting, because that's what she was doing at Marvel, if anywhere, and perhaps also at neo-Valiant.

Hell in space… Tell me if I’m wrong here: my memory is that they filmed a lot more foootage for the Event Horizon movie that got cut because it was too horrific. Are you, in a comic, better positioned to explore the extreme edges of that?

Yes and no. I mean, ratings still exist – so what we’re allowed to show in a comic book still matters. We can’t go too extreme or else the comic itself would need to be polybagged to stop a kid picking it up and chancing across it. So ratings still matter. Also, for licenses like Event Horizon, A Quiet Place, Smile and so on, I’m very aware that those are Paramount franchises. So what we did has to match that brand…

So to your earlier point, about stuff filmed for Event Horizon that you can’t watch today, we can’t exceed that level in the comics That’s the brand! Another example is A Quiet Place… Those films are rated PG-13, so the comics themselves need to match that in terms of language, gore, the types of scares we’re allowed to do and so on. Meanwhile, Smile is rated R – so we can go a little further.

Again, this is quite telling when somebody who had a sex-negative viewpoint at one publisher is perfectly fine working with R-rated mayhem at another. Interesting how she actually brings up concern for what children might stumble over if they picked up a comic with mature themes, which, despite the perception comics aren't read by children today, could happen. But her double-standard on sex as opposed to violence ruins whatever points she's trying to make.

I’m loving this! You were at Marvel before IDW, were you not? What were you working on there?

When the Star Wars line launched in 2015, I helped do that with Jason Aaron, John Cassaday, Kieron Gillen, Salvador Larroca, Mark Waid, Terry Dodson… That was the big, big, BIG launch; around the time that Force Awakens was coming out. I also worked on the Deadpool line around the time that movie was came out. And I co-created the character Gweenpool for Marvel while I was there as well.

And Aaron was one of the biggest SJWs they hired at the time. One could say Gillen was too, considering he wrote the storyline where Tony Stark's background was retconned so he was an adopted orphan instead of having biological parents. And seriously, Antos co-created Gwenpool? Well I'm not impressed with that either. And did she ever apologize to Jae Lee for accusing him of being a Comicsgate supporter? If she ever did, I have yet to find out. Antos later says:

So you can imagine when I learned about comics in my university years, it was just such a cool thing! To know that a group of people got to collaborate together on these projects – and that it wasn’t just superhero stuff! Because, obviously, I grew up with the same superhero TV shows and movies and all the stuff that everyone else did. But when I was in college, I took an American literature course and studied a lot of the classic Vertigo stuff.

Such as?

Oh, I was introduced to The Sandman and Transmetropolitan and Hellblazer and a lot of that material. And I was surprised to find that comics can be horror, they can be crime. They can be so many things away from what most people might assume comics are. [...]

Wonder what she thinks now that the author of the former title was accused of sexual abuse? Or that the author of Transmetropolitan was accused of taking advantage of a number of women by making empty promises he'd help them get jobs in the industry? That she sounds like she's still okay with reading those items can be telling too of where she really stands. Near the end of the interview:

Amazing. I have one last question to wrap things up, Heather… Are there any dream licenses that you’d love to work on?

Oh, there are a couple I’ll happily talk about because I’ve been very vocal about them online! First, I absolutely love Indiana Jones – it’s one of my first loves. Obviously, it’s with Disney, which is in the Marvel wheelhouse so if anything was ever going to happen with Indy, that would be where it would happen. Then, my other love – again, I’m so loud about this online – is James Bond… I absolutely love James Bond, and I don’t think the franchise has had the comic run it deserves.

If she had her way, it definitely wouldn't. As for Indy, wonder what she thinks of how the series was screwed up and totally buried by political correctness? Probably nothing much, alas.

It's interesting to note that a few years ago, according to That Park Place, Antos accused her previous employers at Marvel and Valiant of unfair treatment, suggesting she now holds a grudge against them for discontinuing her employment. Why she got a job with IDW next is mystifying, though her willingness to serve as editor of dark titles does speak volumes. At the same time, the site notes that, based on what they found being told in her business profile:

She has no other job experience aside from being an independent editor and story consultant, which she claims to have been doing since 2016.

So why'd IDW want to hire her? Considering they could be on their last legs now finance-wise, it hardly helps to employ somebody whose "talent" is very unclear. In the past decade, she did little more than work as a SJW, and this only suggests she hasn't changed. Anybody who's going to take the kind of double-standard she does is only making clear why they weren't suited to work in comicdom to begin with. Whatever she's overseeing at IDW doesn't sound appealing, and with her as one of the editors, that's why it's best not to buy what're bound to be overrated horror and crime tales anyway.

A special event for art students at a Massachussettes library

The Greenfield Recorder covered a special project aimed at encouraging children to illustrate comics at a Sunderland library:

For many young readers, comics are a gateway into storytelling. From Monday, June 22, to Friday, June 26, the Sunderland Public Library is helping children take the next step from reading comics to creating their own.

Through a week of comics programming organized in partnership with the Boston Comics Arts Foundation (BCAF), local students will learn directly from professional cartoonists while exploring the fundamentals of visual storytelling. The program features award-winning graphic novelists Jarrett J. Krosoczka and Mike Curato, who will share their experiences as creators and encourage young artists to develop their own voices.

According to Deanna Soukiasian, cartoonist and education coordinator for the Boston Comics Arts Foundation’s Mass Makes Comics initiative, the program grew from a desire to make comics education accessible to more communities.

“In the community, there’s a growing desire for kids to learn visual literacy,” Soukiasian said. “Comics are for everybody, and learning is for everybody.”

Mass Makes Comics focuses on bringing educational opportunities to underfunded communities throughout Massachusetts. By partnering with libraries, artists and families, the organization works to ensure that students who are interested in comics have access to professional instruction regardless of their background.

Well that's great they want to encourage students to try their luck in illustration. But, I hope they recognize the vitality of being a talented artist and writer too, otherwise, how does an aspiring creator expect anybody to read his or her productions? It's also worth considering that if you inject heavy-handed leftist ideology into your work, that too could discourage potential audiences. Provided all involved are willing to consider that, their project and convention should work out well enough.

Why is Absolute Batman so "addictive" to certain mainstream apologists?

Here's a writer at Dread Central who's telling why he allegedly finds Absolute Batman so "addictive":

As most of you regular readers know by now, I’m pretty obsessed with DC‘s record-breaking Absolute Batman. Not because it’s Batman. Not because it’s selling a ridiculous number of copies. Not because every issue seems to create another key appearance or first cameo for collectors to chase. I’m obsessed with it because after more than eighty years of Batman stories, writer Scott Snyder and artist Nick Dragotta somehow found a way to make the character feel new again.

The easiest explanation is Bruce Wayne himself. For decades, Batman has largely been defined by wealth. He was the billionaire who used unlimited resources to wage war on crime, and while that fantasy worked when I was younger, it feels increasingly disconnected from the world we live in now. The idea of a billionaire using his power and influence for good sounds nice, but it’s also become much harder to relate to. This version of Bruce Wayne changes that. He’s blue collar. He’s working class. He isn’t standing above Gotham looking down at its problems. He’s living inside them. He’s a product of the same broken system that created Gotham’s corruption, and he’s fighting back against it.

I'd noticed this stupid defense put to use before, and if there's anything it certainly fails to recognize, it's that there's also such a thing as wish fulfilment. Of course, the same people who apparently don't want Wayne to be a millionaire also don't want Spider-Man to be either, and no doubt, they don't even want Tony Stark to be wealthy. Why, now that I think of it, Matt Murdock as Daredevil was close to being wealthy, if only because for many years, he'd been depicted as well off enough to afford a townhouse with roof window through which he could go out to do acrobatics on his way to patrol as Hornhead. And I guess that's not acceptable to the modern SJW either, because it's all too close to being like Donald Trump, huh? I hesitate to think what they'd say about a woman being wealthy, and IIRC, Vixen's been characterized as such. What would or will they say about a heroine like her being rich?

But the more I’ve thought about Absolute Batman, the more I’ve realized Bruce Wayne is only the entry point. He’s what initially grabs you, but he’s not why you keep coming back month after month. The real magic is the world that Snyder and Dragotta are building around him, and it’s unlike anything I’ve seen in mainstream superhero comics in a very long time.

I miss the part here about merit. Even in later paragraphs, it's not clear that's what they're selling this on. It still sounds more like they're selling it on the alternate universe theme alone, along with darkness. Which is actually what's been the norm for a long time now, and if there's something that hasn't received much emphasis for years now, it's a world that's bright and optimistic, like the Fantastic Four's. So what's the writer lecturing us about anyway?

The book never sits in one place too long. It’ll give you Batman smashing someone’s face through a wall and then immediately cut to Bruce lying in his mother’s arms. It’ll introduce a major villain, answer a question that’s been hanging over the series for months, tease three new mysteries, and somehow still find time for character development. The story is constantly shifting between action, horror, mythology, mystery, and emotional drama without ever feeling bloated or unfocused. [...]

What’s remarkable is that the speed never comes at the expense of character. The same issue can swing from “really bombastic, gross, or insane action,” as Dragotta describes it, directly into deeply personal moments that remind readers why they care about these characters in the first place.

In fact, Dragotta specifically points to those quieter moments as being equally important to the series’ success. While discussing scenes involving Bruce and his mother, he explained how the goal is to create emotional recognition in the reader. “Little Bruce cuddling up to his mom and having a reader goes, yeah, that’s how I used to cuddle with my mom.”

Gee, what's being told here that couldn't be told in similar ways in the flagship comics proper? Also, despite what the columnist says, it's doubtful they made this genuinely character based. Either way, here's the stunning part that could be applied to thousands of other comics, mainstream or otherwise:

That’s the part I think most people miss when they talk about Absolute Batman.

People focus on the oversized Batman. They focus on the action. They focus on the redesigns and the shocking reveals. What makes the book special is that it never loses sight of the people underneath all of it. For every giant action sequence, there’s a character moment. For every revelation about Gotham, there’s a revelation about Bruce. The spectacle gets readers talking, but the emotional core is what keeps them invested.

The closest comparison I can make isn’t another comic. It’s prestige television. Absolute Batman doesn’t feel like a monthly comic book. It feels like a serialized series that expects you to keep up. It expects you to remember details from ten issues ago. It expects you to connect the dots. It expects you to pay attention. Most importantly, it respects the reader enough not to explain everything twice.

Sounds like he's saying it's similar to a movie, which reminds me of the time when author Sean Howe said 14 years ago that if you make the comic look more like a movie, it's a recipe for failure. Doesn't that ever occur to these media phonies? That the horror genre gets such an emphasis here also isn't encouraging, nor is the talk of "gross". How can you get emotionally invested with that kind of nasty theme running amok any more than the divisive political metaphors?

At some point, the magic usually disappears. A creator loses focus. The mythology becomes bloated. Editorial gets involved. The story starts spinning its wheels. I’ve watched it happen for most of my life. So every month when a new issue of Absolute Batman arrives, I find myself staring at it for hours before opening it.

This is getting silly now, despite how some interesting points are made on how and why storytelling goes wrong. If he's going to merely stare for hours at the book he's received, he makes himself sound like a nut. And what good does it do to bring up editorial mandates when the same writers make no attempt to complain that kind of "oversight" has to stop? Or that talent matters and can't be sabotaged by said mandates? Replacing the flagship comics with alternate universe lines doesn't improve anything. It's only defeatist, especially when the excuse is to push more political metaphors that even the mainstream lines aren't immune to. And now, they actually reveal one of the story's most eyebrow raising setups:

One of the biggest developments in the issue revolves around Bruce’s growing realization that his father’s death may not have been random at all. The implication that Scarecrow was involved changes everything, but what impressed me wasn’t the twist itself. It was the realization that evidence of this has been sitting in the series from the very beginning. This wasn’t a surprise invented halfway through the run. It feels planned. It feels intentional. It feels like another example of Snyder and Dragotta trusting that readers are paying attention.

Then comes the skyscraper scene.

Bruce is standing on the ledge of a skyscraper (that he’s building as part of his day job) when his boss arrives with a group of investors. Another figure steps onto the ledge beside him.

It’s Joker.

And for a moment, everything stops.

Not just the story. Everything.

The issue stops. The room stops. The entire universe seems to stop.

Because this isn’t just a character reveal. This is the moment where the mythology expands again. This version of Joker isn’t simply another criminal. He’s a billionaire. A manipulator. A puppet master. A man who increasingly appears to be sitting above Gotham itself, quietly pulling strings from the shadows.

Then comes the bombshell.

He tells Bruce that he made him.

That Scarecrow killing his father wasn’t random.

That Batman isn’t some outside force pushing back against Gotham’s corruption.

He’s a product of it.

He’s another piece on the board.

What makes the scene work isn’t the shock value. It’s the relationship being established between the two of them. The suggestion that they need each other. That neither can fully exist without the other. It’s one of the oldest themes in Batman mythology, yet somehow this version feels fresh. More importantly, it feels earned because the series has spent 21 issues laying track for moments exactly like this.

This doesn't sound appealing. It just sounds stupid. As for the part about a wealthy villain, that's already been noted for some time now, that this comic's take on the Clown Prince of Crime is more like an allusion to Donald Trump. And when it's told Batman was a production of corruption, I'm sorry, but that's only insulting to the intellect, and does nothing to build confidence in the story putting emphasis on a dedicated crimefighter. If this kind of premise were applied to Spider-Man, it wouldn't work there either. What's more, that whole notion the hero and villain literally "need each other" is insulting to the intellect, and reeks of moral equivalence. Seriously, do we need villains as horrific as the Joker is usually characterized as? Of course not. One sure thing: a villain that awful should not be considered more valuable than a hero.

I trust Scott Snyder and Nick Dragotta to keep building. I trust them not to waste my time. I trust them not to hit the reset button. I trust them because 21 issues in, they’ve earned it.

Forget it. Snyder didn't do anything worthwhile for Batman when he first wrote the flagship series 15 years ago, And the Absolute line only reeks of pretension. Not to mention that the whole notion hero and villain "need each other" is irritating, and quite possibly one of the biggest problems in marketing and storytelling that brought down Batman as much as Superman years before.

Live action MOTU movie continued to drop in sales

So 2 weeks into its debut, the new Masters of the Universe live action movie still plummeted in sales, as Variety reported:

“Masters of the Universe,” on the other hand, will have a harder time justifying its mega price tag. The sword-and-planet adventure dropped to No. 5 with $8.6 million from 3,677 locations. It has earned just $45.7 million in North America and $84 million worldwide and, against a nearly $200 million production budget, will leave theaters as one of the year’s biggest bombs. “Masters of the Universe” is based on the ’80s Mattel toy and cartoon, and this kind of turnout suggests the movie isn’t expanding beyond the core fanbase of older males.

Which won't include me. Why, who knows if a lot of what they perceive as a fanbase even bothered attending? Obviously, some did, but it would be silly to assume virtually all did unquestioned. This kind of popcorn fare is really no big deal, and some people who played with the toys in the 80s doubtlessly outgrew that kind of stuff long ago. If the film's story does little to prove itself worth watching no matter what age group it's supposedly aimed at, then it's not hard to guess that's another reason why even veteran toy players and cartoon watchers are uninterested.

Now, with that told, there's a certain something else I've learned about the movie from this BBC report that's decidedly troubling, and makes it additionally hard to care it's collapsed financially:

A schoolgirl said it was "great fun" to be "punched" in the stomach by Sir Idris Elba while filming for a Hollywood movie.

At 13, Delilah O'Riordan worked with Tom Hanks in Here (2024). A year later, classmates at her school in Brentwood, Essex, were shocked to see her face on the big screen yet again.

A live action remake of the 1980s cartoon, Masters of the Universe, hit UK cinemas on 5 May.

"My scene was with Idris Elba. In the scene he punched me in the stomach which was great fun. He's really lovely, and I think it was quite surreal," said O'Riordan.

"We did a few practises and he was like making jokes and things so it was really funny.

Seriously, this is sick, even if what's seen on the screen is simulated. It's not something to joke about even in cinematic terms, and that the BBC would make light of stuff like this is despicable.

And then, I also noticed this UK Guardian article written up after the box office results, where they try to make it sound like everything's hunky-dory despite the poor financial receipts:

So why then does everyone involved in this thing seem so cheerful? “Travis Knight and the entire cast and film-making team have delivered something truly special,” Amazon MGM’s Kevin Wilson gushed to Variety. “This opening is exactly the kind of critical first moment that validates our holistic distribution strategy – building awareness and engagement that will carry well beyond the theatrical window.”

Meanwhile, Knight has been talking up the possibility of sequels, after the movie appeared to introduce He-Man’s twin She-Ra in a mid-credits scene. “With every movie that I’ve ever made, I’ve always imagined where the characters go outside … the bounds of the movie,” Knight told TechRadar. “You want to tell a self-contained story, and I think we’ve done that with this movie, but there are things within the wider mythology that didn’t fit within that, and the She-Ra character was one of them.”

“Adora is also a character that carries a lot of weight with her,” he added. “A lot of people, myself included, love that character, so we wanted to give a little nod to where that could go if we were given the opportunity to tell more stories.” [...]

If weak box office no longer kills commercial movies, that may not be the worst thing ever – because Masters of the Universe actually has a bit too much going for it to be a complete dud. The existence of She-Ra really does give the project franchise potential and Knight’s film is enjoyable enough in a nostalgic sort of way. Is the idea that a modern blockbuster can survive on streaming, toys and audience goodwill alone really so terrible?

But even if all this is true, none of it magically turns a $54m opening against a $200m-plus budget into Top Gun: Maverick. A franchise still needs new fans, not just parents revisiting Eternia, and there’s little evidence just yet that Masters of the Universe has actually managed to find them.

So because they might want to spotlight She-Ra in a sequel, that justifies continuing on, despite the failure? Nope, sorry. If they have any intention of making such a sequel woke, that's why it's better, as noted before, if it all came to a halt. Mainly because all these movies based on toy merchandise have long gotten silly, and they really don't add up to escapist entertainment any more than art. I guess it's because the special effects have also long gotten tiresome, as I may have argued before, and that's why when I watch live action, I prefer dramas based on acting talent, or anything of the sort where special effects are kept to a minimum, and animation, again, makes an alternative for sci-fi with better potential. But again, Hollywood won't consider animation, and that's only bringing down variety and competition a lot more.

Veteran actor from X-Men films made offensive comments about Donald Trump and his residence

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart says veteran actor Ian McKellan, who played Magneto in the live action X-Men films in the past quarter century, is the latest performer with comics-to-movie connections who's made offensive comments about the USA president:

Disney’s Marvel film star Sir Ian McKellen is boasting about fantasizing about destroying President Donald Trump’s home at his Mar-a-Lago resort during his scenes in the upcoming superhero blockbuster, Avengers: Doomsday.

McKellen will reprise his X-Men role as Magneto, the mutant with the power over metals, in the film set to be released in December. And in comments made in Rome, the 87-year-old actor said that directors Anthony and Joe Russo told him to envision something personal when he was wreaking havoc as Magneto, according to The Guardian.

McKellen told his audience that “they got me at one point to destroy New Jersey.”

The actor then rose from his chair onstage to give a dramatic recreation of his thoughts during the scene, and said that the Russos “told me to look more furious: make it look as if you hate what you’re destroying. So, I stood there and I shouted: ‘Mar-a-Lago!'”

And the filmmakers had no complaints? Well, they have indicated they're leftists, so I guess that explains something. This does not make me look forward to watching whatever new films they're producing any more than anything else, and it says quite a bit more about the actors who were part of the X-Men movies as well. The Marvel movieverse has been on the decline for the past several years, and this kind of PR is not going to improve fortunes by much either.

Rob Liefeld whines again

Popverse says dreadful artist Liefeld is complaining that he's not listed as a writer/artist in one of Marvel's latest archives for New Mutants:

Rob Liefeld has never been shy about his opinions on... er, anything, really. But for our purposes, he's never held back on his opinions over how the work he did at Marvel has been handled by the company. Take, for example, a recent expression of his frustration regarding his work on the '90s X-Men title The New Mutants, in which Liefeld introduced perhaps his most famous creations, Deadpool and Cable. According to the seminal artist and Image Comics co-founder, a new collection of said comics miscredits him egregiously.

Liefeld's thoughts came via a social media post made June 6, in conjunction with Marvel's advertisement for an upcoming comic book omnibus. Specifically, that omnibus is The New Mutants Volume 4, which as some fans brought to Liefeld's attention, only credits him as an artist.

"Yes," said Liefeld, "despite writing the best selling issues of New Mutants ever published I am not listed [as a writer]."

But wasn't Louise Simonson the writer at the time? The only issues where he appeared to have credit as writer - or perhaps more precisely, as plotter - were the last 3, issues 98-100, and even there, it wasn't alone. It was with Fabian Nicieza. And I also noticed, interestingly enough, that issues 92 and 97 had Bob Hall and Guang Yap, respectively, credited as artists, not Liefeld. So it sounds like Liefeld's once again trying to give tabloid news sites like Popverse more material they can exploit for trivial matters, and simultaneously, Liefeld's trying to pretend he's one of the finest artists around, even though he's not. Rather hiliariously, he even admits he only "wrote" the last 3 issues in 1983-91's New Mutants:

Thus began a series of posts in which Liefeld not only voiced his annoyance of the oversight, but reminded readers of the success of the comic book the omnibus collects.

"It was through my writing that issues #98-100 sold 2.2 million copies," Liefeld said in another post. "That is more than the entire year previous to my joining. New Mutants was selling 110.000 copies in a sea of X-books selling 350k and above."

No kidding. It sold that much with his otherwise awful art? Well, I do recall the P.T. Barnum phrase "a sucker is born every minute", but even so, if anybody actually bought stories where it's not clear he was the writer per se as Nicieza was, it's a terrible shame they had to help prolong the dreadful career of such a pretentious artist.

Finally, Liefeld stepped back from his own experience to point at other artists who've conveyed their exasperation not just with the comic book industry, but with Marvel itself.

"In closing, Marvel treats creators like shit," Liefeld concluded, "They always have. Jack Kirby sued them. For two decades. The estate wants to sweep it under the rug now that they settled, but it turned Jack’s stomach. Steve Ditko sued Marvel. They can’t help but create the magic makers like shit."

Oops, did he really say "create" instead of "treat"? And since when was Liefeld a "magic maker" with that awful art of his, where he couldn't draw feet, let alone consistent panels with coherent art? Liefeld, alas, appears to be pretty arrogant, and with that kind of approach, is it any wonder he's otherwise on the sidelines now? It's a real shame Marvel had to hire him to work on at least 2 comics in their unsuccessful Heroes Reborn "experiment", which was like a textbook example of how mainstream publishers aren't marketing and selling on merit. Liefeld's only making clear he doesn't think his sloppy, derivative art is an embarrassment to the whole concept of artmaking. Yet all these pretentious news sites see fit to lavish attention on him they likely wouldn't give to writers like Chuck Dixon, or even artists like Brandon Peterson and Kirby himself, who're more talented than Liefeld ever was back in the day.

All we learn from this is that Liefeld's got a pointless grudge against Marvel, proving they shouldn't have ever done business with him in the first place. And Image shouldn't have let him take part in the company's founding.

A new book about the art of Michael Turner features some for a most inappropriate miniseries he worked on, and 3 unsuitable contributors

In this IGN article on Yahoo, it's announced that Aspen, the company originally founded by the late artist Michael Turner, worked on a crowdfunded art book featuring art he did for DC, and wouldn't you know it, one that includes some embarrassments based on what they were used for:

The late Michael Turner was undoubtedly one of the most popular comic book artists of the 2000s, with a proven track record of driving up sales on a series every time his art adorned the cover. Clover Press previously celebrated Turner's Marvel resume with The Marvel Art of Michael Turner, and now they're back with The DC Art of Michael Turner.

[...] The DC Art of Michael Turner is a 200-page 9" x 12" hardcover that reprints the artist's work on titles like Superman/Batman, The Flash, Justice League, Identity Crisis. The book includes an introduction by Ghost Machine editor-in-chief and former DC Comics Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns, as well as commentary from Jeph Loeb, Brad Meltzer, and Dan DiDio.

Turner may have been a talented artist, and some of his contributions to Image's Top Cow affiliate years ago were impressive, but what he drew for DC was all-style-no-substance, and that he would actually draw covers for Identity Crisis was disgusting and an embarrassing stain on his portfolio. I remember when Alex Ross told how he'd been asked to draw artwork for the vile miniseries that was offensive to victims of sexual assault, and in contrast to Turner, Ross wisely refused the offer. How is it Ross understood a story with a belittling structure could tarnish his resume if he'd participated, but Turner couldn't? And how come a site like Get Your Comic On is also obscuring the topics involved by putting one of the illustrations Turner did for Identity Crisis at the top of their article? Also, lest we forget, that Meltzer, Johns and DiDio gave introduction commentary for this project is also bad news. As for Loeb, his writing from the times was hardly a big deal.

What makes this additionally troubling is when a "feminist" site like Girl Talk HQ glosses over some art connected with one of the most repulsive miniseries of 2004:

In celebration of the Kickstarter campaign launch today, we are sharing some exclusive images from ‘THE DC ART OF MICHAEL TURNER’ – the artist’s iconic interpretations of Wonder Woman, which you won’t find on any other media publication!

One of those panels they highlight is a cover Turner drew for Identity Crisis, an issue where WW was made to look absurdly mechanical in-story, showing her using her lasso on an interrogated crook without actually showing her face, IIRC. That doesn't trouble them? I guess that says all you need to know about how some feminists aren't the responsible folks they'd like everybody to think they are. Oddly enough, another feminist/SJW writing for Book Riot actually woke up and recognized what was wrong with Identity Crisis 15 years afterwards, though she dampened the impact of her essay by continuing to embrace other forms of wokeness, IIRC. When will the writers for this other feminist site begin to wake up?

Comic Book Club Live also glossed over the news, and they say:

Like other volumes in The DC Art Of… line, the high-end edition will come in a 9″ x 12″ deluxe hardcover, featuring over 200 pages of art and commentary. The campaign will also feature an ashcan, a “sketchbook” edition featuring black and white art, “a Kickstarter-exclusive slipcase and dust jacket, and multiple DC Portfolio sets spotlighting Turner’s unforgettable takes on Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman, and The Flash.” In addition, Geoff Johns has provided an introduction alongside “thoughts” from Jeph Loeb, Brad Meltzer and Dan Didio. Hopefully those thoughts will come in thought bubbles, but probably not.

And that says all you need to know where they stand regarding those charlatans too. Almost a decade after the Harvey Weinstein scandal, and they're continuing to sugarcoat some of the worst stories to bring down DC/Marvel over the past quarter century. That doesn't speak well for alleged "fandom".

Turner may have some decent artwork to build an art book with, but Identity Crisis taints the covers he foolishly drew for that. I would not advise backing the crowdfunding campaign for this financially, and when it comes to his DC artwork, I don't think it amounted to much in the end. Though if it matters, it was reprehensible when DC reprinted the Superman/Batman story reintroducing Supergirl in an anthology with censored panels for the girls' rear ends, yet violence against Lois Lane went by without any opposition. This was when DiDio was still in charge, and that too says quite a bit about his MO. So why is Aspen welcoming him to provide commentary for their new art book project? He's just one more reason why not to give the book any financial backing, because what if some of the profits go into his pockets? So I'm sorry, but I would strongly advise anybody who's a realist not to give this book about Turner's DC art any money.

Turner may have been a talented artist, I won't deny that. But again, he made some very sad mistakes that make it necessary to separate art from artist and/or take it with a grain of salt when it comes to his own portfolio.

What Polygon says about MTG cards based on Marvel illustrations

Polygon wrote a fluff-coated article about several cards from a new Magic: The Gathering collaboration with Marvel, and they sugarcoated at least a few things involving history, past and present. First, what's said about Contest of Champions:

Nowadays, Marvel Comics launches a new big event every year that’s all about stacking as many characters together as possible and seeing what happens. Well, it all started here. Marvel Super Hero Contest of Champions is Marvel Comics’ first-ever limited series. Published from June to August 1982, it was written by Mark Gruenwald and penciled by John Romita Jr. It introduced the concept of crossovers, events involving characters from different comic books, getting together to face a big crisis that usually has an impact on the entire Marvel continuity.

Mark Gruenwald was an ante-litteram visionary. (Just check out his Squadron Supreme run: it was one of the first politically charged big superhero comics, before that became a cool thing to do.) Contest of Champions planted the seed of what would become a standard practice for the House of Ideas, and while that series is less ambitious than Crisis on Infinite Earths, it predates DC Comics’ famous crossover event by three years.

So that's a good thing these comics were "politically charged"? And that crossovers crowded out creativity? Wow, the writer here certainly isn't approaching this from an objective viewpoint, despite any suggestions to the contrary. Contest of Champions may have been one of the first limited series they published (years later, these would be more likely to be described as miniseries), but that doesn't make it one of the best. Nor is it truly a good thing we had to see Marvel/DC destroyed creatively by only so many crossovers that came about since. What does the writer even mean by "less ambitious"? Does that mean it didn't go far enough as Crisis did by killing at least a few characters like Supergirl and 2nd Flash Barry Allen? If that's what he means, that's quite tasteless, and the worst part is that years later, Marvel did go the killing route in some way or other with a number of characters, and in cases like Scarlet Witch's, subjected her to a fate worse than death in Advengers: Disassembled. Also vital to note is that around the turn of the century, that's when keeping consistent with continuity and decent characterization began to deteriorate more than ever before in the mainstream, and it's had a disastrous effect on storytelling cohesion ever since. Now, here's something even more unworthy of a MTG card:

This is more a personal favorite than one of the all-time greats, perhaps, but it’s still a milestone in Iron Man continuity. Written by Warren Ellis with art by Adi Granov, “Extremis” is a six-issue story arc that ran in Iron Man between 2005 and 2006. It introduces the Extremis virus (also featured in the movie Iron Man 3), which upgrades Tony Stark with real superpowers, allowing him to connect to his armor and other machines through a neural interface. Extremis is perhaps the last interesting Iron Man story published (except for the magnificent miniseries Infamous Iron Man, where Doctor Doom takes the mantle of Iron Man). It transformed Tony Stark from “former alcoholic rich guy in a suit” into his modern image of a futurist, before that term was spoiled by creepy technocrats.

Seriously, I can't see what's so appealing about Ellis' writing that he has to have his story become the subject of a trading card. Also note how the columnist sugarcoats one of the modern stories where the hero's replaced by a villain in the armor, or costume. As though it weren't bad enough Spider-Man had to be mind-switched with Dr. Octopus. And doesn't giving Tony actual superpowers contradict and defeat how he was first created, as a guy whose power was the armor suits he built? That was the emphasis for many years, and coming when these "real" powers did, it was just too late to work out anyway. So why does this tale of all things need a MTG card? And then, there's Infinity Gauntlet:

Thanos and his infamous Snap in Avengers: Infinity War became the most iconic moment of the golden age of MCU movies. 27 years before Josh Brolin “blipped” half of the universe away, Jim Starlin wrote one of the most important sagas in Marvel history, bringing back the character he created two decades prior. The six-issue limited series The Infinity Gauntlet shows the outcome of Thanos’s quest to collect the Infinity Gems (shown in The Thanos Quest). The Mad Titan has obtained absolute power over creation, but will it be enough to please his cold mistress, Lady Death?

Before Hollywood success went to his head (and ruined his comic book characterizations), Thanos was one of the most fascinating Marvel characters, a villain fueled by philosophical musings and unrequited love more than lust for power or conquest. This is Starlin’s Thanos at his best, and the incredible art by George Pérez and Ron Lim brings to life an apocalyptic tale unfolding at the edge of the universe, where gods are brought to heel and a Mad Titan finally gets his wish.

I think even this crossover can be subject to some objective viewpoints. The Infinity minis may not have had as many crossover connections as others did, but IIRC, they still had some nonetheless, and that was simply appalling, because it was entirely unnecessary in order to make it a story worth reading. That said, interesting that here, the writer actually admits Thanos' characterization was ruined later on, though it'd be a lot better if somebody commenting on these topics gave more attention to heroes who underwent the same. And then, Secret Wars gets fluff-coated:

If Contest of Champions opened the door for crossovers, Secret Wars smashed those doors down. Conceived as a big marketing gambit that would tie in with a Mattel toy line and an RPG from TSR, this massive 1984-1985 event spanned over 12 issues of the main limited series and more than two dozen crossover issues of ongoing series. Written by Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Jim Shooter, with art by Mike Zeck, Bob Layton, and John Beatty, the series sees a host of heroes and villains transported to a mysterious planet dubbed Battleworld by an omnipotent entity known as the Beyonder, and forced into an all-out battle for survival.

In one of the most iconic moments in the series, the villain Molecule Man drops an entire mountain range (yup) on the heroes’ heads. The good guys barely survive in a wedge dug by Iron Man and Hulk, but the Green Goliath is carrying the entire weight of the mountains on his shoulders. To buy enough time to build a contraption to escape, Reed Richards insults Hulk since getting angrier makes him even stronger. Who else could have come up with this plan if not Marvel’s number one a-hole? It’s a pretty amazing moment and still one of Hulk’s greatest feats of strength.

That still doesn't justify the way Secret Wars was produced, as something where almost every Marvel title had to reference this story according to editorial mandate. Granted, unlike Crisis on Infinite Earths, it wasn't written for the sake of killing off any characters the editors considerd expendable, as DC did with Silver Age Supergirl. But it still has responsibility to shoulder for leading later to the disaster we see in the mainstream today, one that nobody writing these puff pieces has any intention of arguing against. And then, what does the writer say about one of Stan Lee's last creations:

Speaking of artists who loved to push the envelope, John Byrne’s run on Sensational She-Hulk in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s marked one of the few truly avant-garde moments in Marvel Comics history. Byrne took a minor character in the House of Ideas’ roster and turned it into a fourth-wall-breaking sensation. Towering over the series’ covers with a dominating, ultra-sexualized physicality, Jen Walters was threatening readers to rip up their X-Men collection if they didn’t buy her book, and openly mocking comics’ narrative tropes.

There’s no point in denying that the sexist tinges of Jen’s representation in the series were targeted at an audience of hormone-fueled, adolescent boys, but Byrne was still able to turn a relatively obscure character into one of the few culturally relevant women in Marvel Comics, at least for a while. It’s very cool that Magic’s homage to that historic run shows She-Hulk literally breaking the fourth wall.

Fascinating how the writer seems to be speaking with a forked tongue in regards to sexuality, though Byrne did have very questionable moments in his resume, including the time when he wrote a Superman story where Big Barda fell under the mind control of an alien from Apokalips named Sleez, who also brought Supes to heel, and then took them to a snuff filmmaker so he could film them engaging in sex?!? And you thought this kind of stuff was just relegated to fanfiction! That said, I think what the writer's telling about how Byrne handled Jen Walters is hypocritical, and certainly exploits it for the sake of pushing sex-negative visions simultaneously. At least the She-Hulk series Byrne launched during 1989-94 is more worthy of a MTG card than some of the above examples.

Anyway, this would've been a lot more charming news if it hadn't been for some of the more modern choices made like an Ellis story, and if it hadn't been for the realization the MTG franchise was subject to wokeification in the past decade. Who knows if they've reversed course since then? If not, that also dampens the interest.