The Four Color Media Monitor

Business Insider interviewed the overrated Tom King, who told how he first began working in comicdom, and now, regrettably, has also gone on to work in TV and film projects:

To say that Tom King has had a varied career is an understatement.

As a little boy growing up in Los Angeles, King wanted to be a comic book writer. After honing his writing skills as a young man, his dream came true when he interned for Marvel in New York.

But the bubble burst when Robert Harras, the editor in chief of Marvel at the time, told him that "comics are dead" and he should find a real job. So, he studied philosophy and history at Columbia University, and worked at the Department of Justice for over a year after he graduated in 2000.

Then, 9/11 happened. King told Business Insider he felt a call to action, which led to another career move: joining the CIA. [...]

In 2013, he wrote for the Vertigo imprint, before his first work at DC Comics, "Nightwing" — about Batman's former sidekick — was published in 2014. Since rejoining the industry, he has earned many accolades, including winning the best writer Eisner Award, considered the Oscars of comic books, in 2018 and 2019 for "Batman," "Mister Miracle," and "Swamp Thing."

"I love writing. I really liked the CIA, I very much enjoyed the work. But I thought 'I like this even more.' This feels so natural to me," he said.

What doesn't feel natural is the way he repeatedly applied themes like trauma to established characters in such contrived, blatant and forced fashion. Additionally surprising is that Harras, who wasn't considered such a great editor at Marvel, would actually tell King what he did, yet both continued their work in comicdom for years, and Harras only recently retired, if memory serves. And what did Harras do to improve comicdom's fortunes within that time? Practically nothing, and he clearly never improved DC's when he became their EIC. And then King and the news source even justify his approach with the following:

Similarly, writing is about inspiring empathy for characters, he said. His work at DC usually involves deconstructing a beloved character and presenting them from an unconventional angle.

They vehmently refuse to acknowledge this is precisely the problem, which makes their claim of promoting "empathy" farcical. King put a number of characters in horrific roles, and they expect us to be okay with that? Even if these stories weren't in what passes for "continuity" today, it still wouldn't make them acceptable. That writes from a left-wing viewpoint doesn't help matters either.

His latest series, "Black Canary: Best of the Best" is a story about motherhood through the lens of an MMA fight between the titular hero and the DC Universe's strongest fighter, Lady Shiva.

King said: "It's a story about not giving up. It's a story about an underdog who should lose, who everyone predicts should lose, and how they're beaten to the ground and beaten just to the edge of everything until nothing's left of them but their soul, and how they have to cling to that and get back up from the mat and keep fighting."

Writing a story about a hero fighting a villain is harder than fans might think. At its heart, King said, it's "about a mother and a daughter and about the greatest theme in all of DC lore, which is legacy."

He added: "The idea of what your parents give to you, what you take from them, how they shape you, how you rebel against them."

King said that his father was "out of the picture" from a young age, and he gives the impression that using his dream job to provide for his family is his way of rebelling against his upbringing.

"I'm working with the characters I had in my head as a kid, but I always see it every day as a job I need to do," he said. "I have a responsibility both to my family to sort of get my work done, and to my audience to make it as good as I can and to myself to create art I'm proud of."

If we look at this through the context of his apparent leftism, one could argue King certainly did rebel against them in some way or other. Mainly because of how his comics could very easily allude to leftist anti-war themes. And how is writing heroes fighting villains that difficult? Stan Lee did it very well back in the Silver Age, and if people like King actually believe it's got to be much more "sophisticated" than that, they really are missing the boat.

It's this balancing act that has shaped his approach to writing for HBO's upcoming "Lanterns" series, which is expected to arrive in 2026, alongside co-creators Damon Lindelof and Chris Mundy. It follows Hal Jordan (Kyle Chandler) and John Stewart (Aaron Pierre), two members of the intergalactic Green Lantern Corps, as they tackle a dark, Earth-based mystery. King said that he felt "responsibility" to the comic characters that the fans have been reading for over 60 years: "I was friends with Neal Adams, the co-creator of John Stewart, and every time I was in the room, I felt Neal yelling at me: 'Don't forget where you come from kid.'

This is another problem - writers who only care about selfish themes see themselves as "bearing responsibility" for how to write established creations. Predictably through a dark lenses. And then they justify this with the following:

And although the series features cosmic characters, it aims to engage with the audience on a real-world level.

He said: "Damon, Chris, and I came with a lot of love for the material and we wanted to do what I've always done in comics, which is take these original creations and show why they're still relevant today, and why they can speak to both the audience and the issues of everything we're dealing with." He added: "It feels like a DC renaissance. We're at the beginning of creating an entirely brilliant world."

Nope. It only feels like a new era of wokeness. That the TV show in planning follows a whole "real world" setup only makes clear what's wrong with it - the writers aren't interested in the concept of surrealism, let alone entertainment value. There's no need to wait up for this new Lanterns series to be broadcast. All that's likely to result is yet another misuse of both Hal Jordan and John Stewart.

Labels: bad editors, dc comics, Green Lantern, history, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart lets know that DC's still allowing the awful Tom Taylor to shove additional lectures into their comics, with the "World's Finest" duo now on the receiving end of Taylor's unendurable wokeness:

DC Comics is now featuring a woke Superman lecturing Batman about his “privilege” in a recent issue of the Dark Knight’s flagship series Detective Comics.

The woke-scolding is turned up to 11 in Detective Comics #1091, as extreme leftist author Tom Taylor doles out a slew of partisan talking points to his readers.

Not only does Supes castigate Bruce Wayne/Batman about his white privilege and wealth, but two other themes threaten him in the issue. Batman struggles with his mental health due to years of crime fighting and tragedy, and the creator of a youth-restoring drug intends to give her concoction to the rich so they can live long enough to see the global warming damage their wealth has caused. No, really.

As to Superman, his lecture occurs after Batman tells him that he is contemplating taking a new drug created by inventor Scarlett Scott. The drug supposedly prolongs life and gives older people the same vitality and strength that they had when they were in their 20s. But it is very expensive, so, because he is wealthy enough to afford the drug therapy, Bruce Wayne is thinking of taking the drug so that he can fight crime for an extended period of time.

Batman explains the drug to Superman and says, “I’ve been offered something. A medical breakthrough. It’s rare. Only available to a select few. It slows aging.”

“It sounds good,” Superman replies, according to Fandom Pulse.

The Man of Steel, though, catches on that Batman has some reservations about taking the drug, and then gets preachy, saying, “Ah. The guilt. Of course. Bruce, this country does many things well. But it leaves too many behind.”

Superman continues his rant with a dig at Bruce for being rich: “Your wealth and privilege already ensure you have a greater life expectancy. You can eat better. You can access the best levels of health care.”

The inventor of the drug also has an ultra-woke agenda, in Taylor’s tale. According to Batman News, Scarlett Scott tells Bruce Wayne that “her plan is to make the ultra-wealthy care about the planet more by making them live long enough to experience the consequences of their actions.”

Now considering Clark Kent's often been depicted as pretty well off himself, far from a pauper, and living along with Lois Lane in tidy apartments and other such living quarters, that's just one reason why this is supremely silly and selfish for Taylor to have Superman lecture Batman about wealth and privilege. In the Pulse entry, it also reminds what Taylor did to the Jonathan Kent character, who's a pretty recent creation:

Not only were covers unveiled where Jonathan Kent Superman was protesting against climate change to make a leftist run out of the book, but he also turned the character gay by having him make out and even, at one point, mock the Christian sacrament of marriage by implying Superman would gay marry this other boy.

“So we have a young bi guy who also is just the sweetest, most empathetic, nurturing guy who doesn’t wanna hurt anyone,” Taylor bragged about the situation to AIPT. “And I think that’s far more heroic than somebody punching a supervillain in the face.”

Does that mean the hero's wrong to sock even a villain who's physically/sexually threatening innocent women and children? What such laughable statements do is excuse the behavior of the most evil of criminals, and imply Jack Kirby and Joe Simon were wrong to depict Capt. America punching Hitler in the face on the premiere issue of Captain America Comics from 1941. Also:

In Detective Comics #1091, just two issues into his new run on the book, Tom Taylor has waded into politics again. While the word “white” seems to have been left out, the implication is clear what Tom Taylor intends from a passage where Batman is mulling over using experimental medical technology to heal a condition that’s killing him.

One would think that he’d be worried about the experimental nature itself, but no, it’s an implication of white guilt. [...]

These talking points are usually accompanied with the word “white” attached, but it appears as if DC editorial at least wanted to make it a little less on the nose with Tom Taylor stopping a comic in its tracks to lecture a reader on politics.

Regardless, this is what DC Comics hires when they put Tom Taylor on a book. Now Batman’s main title is mired with political lectures instead of being a fun book for everyone.

Something it hasn't been for over 2 decades now, ever since Chuck Dixon left and was blacklisted by Dan DiDio. That EIC Marie Javins allowed Taylor to pull even this should make clear where DC's staff still stands, and why both Superman and Batman's titles will have to be strenuously avoided from now on.

Labels: bad editors, Batman, dc comics, golden calf of LGBT, moonbat writers, politics, Superman

The UK Guardian interviewed singer Tori Amos, who knew the disgraced comics and screenwriter Neil Gaiman 3 decades ago, long before the accusations of sexual abuse against him became public. Some of her commentary is, unsurprisingly but still disappointingly, leftist:

In July, she was in the US, where she heard conversations that left her unsurprised by November’s election result. When she arrived back in the UK, her manager, John Witherspoon, told her about allegations that had been made against the writer Neil Gaiman, her close friend ever since Little Earthquakes. (She mentioned him in the song Tear in Your Hand – “If you need me, me and Neil’ll be hangin’ out with the dream king” – and they have collaborated on all sorts of projects since.)

The Gaiman allegations were made on Master, a podcast by Tortoise, the first episodes of which were released on 3 July this year. Rachel Johnson and fellow journalist Paul Caruana Galizia spoke first to two women, and eventually to five in total, who allege sexual misconduct by Gaiman. The podcast begins with a young woman called Scarlett, who had been sent to Gaiman’s house to babysit. His child turned out to be on a playdate, so Scarlett, who was 22 at the time, was alone with Gaiman. He ran her a bath and then, she alleges, sexually assaulted her within hours of first meeting him. He says he had established consent for their physical contact in the bath (in his account it was only cuddling and making out) and denies all allegations of sexual misconduct by all five women.

I ask Amos how she felt when she first heard the allegations. “Shocked,” she says. A long pause. “And if the allegations are true, that’s not the Neil that I knew, that’s not the friend that I knew, nor a friend that I ever want to know. So in some ways it’s a heartbreaking grief. I never saw that side of Neil. Neither did my crew. And my crew has seen a lot.”

She says it’s devastating for the women involved, and I ask if she has listened to the podcasts. “No,” she says. “But I’ve read …” She looks as if she’s about to cry. “He’s godfather to Tash.” Her eyes well up. She struggles to contain herself. “My manager was the one who told me, because the girls” – Tash and her cousin, Kelsey – “found out about it from a paper. Tash said, ‘Kels, we’re not telling Mom’ – they call me ‘T-Bird’, but she might have said ‘Mom’ here. But she said, ‘We’re not telling Mom right now, we’re going straight to John [Witherspoon], because we don’t know, first of all, the legality. We have to work through this, and it’s the holiday weekend [4 July is Independence Day in the US], and Mom has to work through this.’

“And so John said, ‘I will speak to her as soon as she gets off the plane,’ and that’s what happened.

“I haven’t publicly said anything because: what do I say? I didn’t hire the nannies. I wasn’t there. I’ve never met these people. And I’ve never received a letter – of the thousands of letters I’ve gotten in 33 years – I’ve never received anything that was about Neil, except praise for his work and how much his work meant to people. That’s all I ever knew.”

She looks crestfallen and hollowed out, as anyone would, but especially someone who has spent so much of their career advocating for survivors. One of the women who has made allegations against Gaiman says he mentioned Amos to her, and said he could get her full-time work on the singer’s rape helpline – a reference to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), the largest anti-sexual violence organisation in the US.

Amos was the first spokesperson for the organisation (not a co-founder, as she is often described), which was set up after a show she did in the US midwest in 1994. During her performance of Me and a Gun, “a young woman – a girl, in her teens, I believe – collapsed and was taken, of course, backstage, and I went to see her afterwards. She said to me something like: can I get a job, anything, so I don’t have to go home, because my stepfather raped me last night, and he’ll rape me tonight when I get in? And I said, naively, ‘Of course. Of course.’ And my tour manager called management back in California and said, ‘T’s made up her mind to do this. To take this girl.’ And they called back and said ‘she’ll be arrested for kidnapping’.

“And I watched that girl walk out the door. And I’ve never seen her again. Or heard from her. Nothing. Or any reference to her. And I was able to work with the women at the record label at the time – they were feminists and good women at Atlantic records – and they paired us with Scott Berkowitz, who had started the Rape Crisis idea of connecting a hotline across the country. It was a joining of forces to get that off the ground.”

Does she feel the world has improved, generally, for women in the 30 years since RAINN began? “No,” she says bluntly, before adding that there are “places for women to reach out to that were harder to find back then”. On that night in 1994, there was nowhere “to direct that young girl to, and that was the motivating factor, being so frustrated … So I think when we ask if things have improved, I think there are services that have improved, but the fact we’re looking at an administration whereby there seems to be almost a gender apartheid happening, and where misogyny is common practice … I just didn’t think, after the last four years of the Trump administration, that women would have to face this again.”

It's a real shame Donald Trump has to be dragged into these discussions ad nauseum, because it only dampens the impact when one considers say, Joe Biden's record, which is far more disturbing. Has it ever occurred to folks like Amos that failure to consider whether a leftist's capable of awful offenses is exactly why the world hasn't changed for the better? It can also be argued that failure to ask whether "male feminists" are wolves in sheep's clothing looking for perfect shields behind which to commit their crimes is another reason why nothing's improved. And hasn't Amos noticed that Trump's hired Susan Wiles as the first female White House chief of staff? This is sad. I guess we should at least be glad Amos is parting ways with Gaiman. But if she and her staff never noticed what he was doing, that's got to be because some predators do choose their targets carefully, and somebody in a position as prominent as Amos' is somebody Gaiman would surely want to steer clear of letting know he's a bad lot, because women who are in more influential positions are not easy to fool. The worst thing about some deranged people is that they can still be very cunning.

Since we're on the topic, when I'd last done research on Gaiman's past resume, while there was plenty I'd looked over that was telling of his "moral" hypocrisies, there were a few items I'd missed, (the 27th issue of Hellblazer, which also featured allusions to Gaiman's leftist politics, and maybe even some Guardians of the Galaxy issues he'd supervised because a character named Angela he'd originally developed at Image was going to appear in it, and at least a few from indie publishers), but at this point, my intellect is so insulted by his portfolio I'm not sure I want to continue looking at more, so here, I'll highlight what another blogger once said about one of his other works 5 years ago. I found another item about one of Gaiman's GNs published at Dark Horse in 2016, "How to Talk to Girls at Parties", reviewed by a New Zealand blogger, who, while she appears to be just as leftist as him and Amos, does have some interesting things to tell about its premise, which draws from a short story Gaiman wrote a decade prior to the GN's publication:

The story is set in East Croydon, told by Enn, and framed as a narrative from 30 years ago. He is a fifteen-year-old boy with all the normal concerns of a heterosexual teenager: namely how to make girls notice him when everyone seems to be attracted to his best mate, Vic. The language is either deliberately teenaged and ignorant or woefully blokey and sexist as he talks of girls as objects. Vic tells Enn, “You just have to talk to them. They’re just girls. They don’t come from another planet”, which is not bad advice, although it may also turn out not to be true.

At a party, Vic abandons him to go upstairs with the best-looking girl present (presumably for intimate encounters). Enn is despondent but forces himself to talk to three girls: Wain’s Wain, who explains that she is a second – she has six fingers on one hand – and thus not allowed to breed; a second nameless girl who claims, “I love being a tourist” and regales him with stories of “swimming in sunfire pools with whales” and learning to breathe; and Triolet, who claims to be a poem.

The story plays upon the need to belong and the fear of being an outsider, with strong implications of other-worldliness. Women are clearly from another planet – Mars and Venus anyone? When Triolet kisses him, it blows his mind. He sees “towers of glass and diamond and people with eyes of the palest green and unstoppable beneath every syllable I could feel the relentless advance of the ocean.” The drawing is of a fantasy land with bridges and turrets; minarets and spires in green and gold – a bit like The Emerald City in The Wizard of Oz.

Vic interrupts his reverie as he runs terrified from the house and Stella stands looking down at him in fury. There are suggestions that he tried to sexually assault her, although it is all rather ambiguous (The short story includes the line, “Her clothes were in disarray, and there was makeup smudged across her face, and her eyes”, which makes it less so). When Enn looks back he finds he remembers impressions of the evening rather than facts, and perhaps it is all a metaphor for the mind-altering universe of teenage hormones.

Neil Gaiman is hailed as a hero by many of my fantasy-loving friends, but I can’t help but feel there is something distasteful about this story. The pictures are beautiful but the sentiments are not. In trying to blur the lines of sexual experimentation and assault, I think this is unhelpful – especially when considering the teenage market at which it is aimed.

After what was discovered about Gaiman earlier this year, the story now stands as much more distasteful than previously thought. It won't be surprising if it goes out of print soon, assuming it's still in publication. Some of Gaiman's writings for DC/Marvel practically ran the gauntlet of minimizing the issue of sexual misconduct, and that's one of the worst things about his writings. It might even explain why in the stories I looked over, there was hardly anything that could be considered romantic, and anything that might've looked like love on the surface was soulless and empty. As a result, his stories are certainly not suitable for teens searching for positive examples of heterosexual romance in fiction. GNs like these can explain pretty much how it got to the point where the whole romance genre is in such a shambles now.

So if we've learned anything about Gaiman, it's that he has such a problem of preaching and lecturing ambiguously, and coupled with the accusations of sexual assault made by at least 5 women so far, one can say his real life antics are but one of the reasons why his work does not hold up well in hindsight.

Labels: dc comics, Europe and Asia, history, indie publishers, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, violence

ComicBook reports the Man of Steel will be shoved into a storyline soon where he'll be subject to what even Batman shouldn't have to suffer:

Things have been rather chaotic or Superman over the past few months, but somehow his life just got even more insane in just the past week. You can thank Time Trapper for that, though he is also known as the man who killed Clark previously, Doomsday. This version of Doomsday has travelled throughout time and space, and has arrived at the moment of his old self’s return. While he’s busy giving Superman some cryptic clues a to how to survive this whole thing in Superman #20, he also makes a few major revelation about Superman, including the loss of his eye by an old foe.

...It would appear then that Superman is destined to face his old foe once more, and Zod is someone more than capable of lethally injuring Superman. If things proceed like they are supposed to, Superman might be sporting an eye patch sooner than later, though that’s not even the worst thing coming Clark’s way.

Oh, no doubt about that. All this makes clear is the Batman-influenced path isn't enough; now they simply must venture into the kind of territory movies like Aliens and Predator have already built up at the expense of brighter themes. It's nothing short of an insult to the memory of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. And it's a storyline best avoided. Siegel and Shuster deserve far better than having their famous creation abused like this.

Labels: bad editors, dc comics, dreadful artists, dreadful writers, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, Superman, violence

The Hollywood Reporter talks about why they think the new TV series based on the Penguin crook from Batman's rogues gallery is so great:

Dubbed one of the best comic book shows — a claim this writer will support — the series has been compared to The Sopranos for the way it lends its crime drama tropes to prestige television and to The Watchmen for its character-driven perspective and exploration of themes dealing with class, respect and disability. Though, as with anything, there is a demographic of viewers who, since the first episode, have claimed the series is embarrassed of the comic book material, with the change of Oswald Cobblepot’s name to Oz Cobb in the series being a major sticking point, along with the character’s lack of top hat, monocle, arsenal of trick umbrellas and bird puns.

There’s an interesting discussion to be had about why this series soars, not because it undermines the Penguin’s source material and prior adaptations, but because it utilizes and consolidates them to create a unified vision of the character that is grounded in emotional logic but never forgets it’s dealing with larger-than-life characters.

Considering these are villains the series is focusing on, wow, isn't that rich. Crooks are larger than life? Please. But I won't be shocked if they'd say the same thing about Doctor Doom, a far more technology and science-based villain. Why are crooks larger than life but not heroes? But if anybody believes the show is ashamed of its source material, that's certainly something to ponder. Indeed, if they believe outlandish costumes are that much of an embarrassment in live action, then by the same logic, they're bound to be ashamed of Superman's costume too. What good does that do? The article goes on to say:

The Batman took this same approach to comic books. While Batman: Year One and Batman: The Long Halloween are obvious influences, previously cited in Christopher Nolan’s Batman Trilogy, Batman: Ego was a fresh comic book reference that dove into the psyche of Bruce Wayne/Batman and arguably had more influence on the film and characterization than anything else. I’d argue that Oz’s rejection of aesthetics associated with the Penguin of the comics has nothing to do with an embarrassment of source material, but the need for there to be an emotional justification behind it. In the same way we understand the emotional reasoning behind why a wealthy man would dress up like a bat and call himself Batman, there must be a emotional reasoning why a man which a physical disability would submit to calling himself the Penguin and wear a tuxedo and top hat. And by the end of The Penguin, we see the reasoning behind Oz moving closer to his comic book counterpart.

And why is it such a big deal we care, emotionally or otherwise, about a criminal? All that aside, it's funny the hoops and hurdles they're jumping through to justify trying not to build a surreal world where odd costumes could be worn by heroes and villains in live action. In that case, why don't they make this an animated series instead, if they really can't do emotion with surrealism simultaneously? And then, what's this:

Rather than utilizing the post-Crisis comic book origin in which Oswald is a member of one Gotham’s wealthiest and oldest families, here he is impoverished — hence the more common sounding surname Cobb rather than Cobblepot — and left to fight for scraps, whereas Bruce has everything at his disposal. Where Bruce would have likely been healthier and happier if he had siblings to rely on, Oz rejects and kills his. Bruce is a recluse who hates the public spotlight, whereas Oz loves the attention, driving around in a flashy purple sports car and drawing attention to himself. And while Batman has yet to find a Robin in this universe, Penguin finds his own equivalent in Victor Aguilar (Rhenzy Feliz) whose origin not only echoes that of second Robin Jason Todd, he’s also beaten with a crowbar later in series.

Over the course of the series, Oz brings Vic up like his would-be successor, further mirroring the role of Robin, only to brutally strangle him in the final episode, out of a fear of both loving someone else and someone else being more loved than he. Oz even has his own femme fatal in show-stealer Sofia Falcone (Christin Milioti), Selina Kyle’s half-sister who, while not drawn to Oz in a sexual way, proves to be his equal in the same way that Catwoman serves as Batman’s. What Bruce and Oz have in common is their inability to let go of their mothers, with the tragedy Martha Wayne nee Arkham defining Bruce’s quest for vengeance, and Francis Cobb (Deirdre O’Connell) being left in a vegetative state after a stroke at the end of the series, who is kept alive in a living state of hell by Oz who refuses to let her go. Even in Batman’s absence in the series, his presence is there and the series ends teasing a showdown between two boys who long for their mothers, caught in a cycle of playing dress-up.

I don't know whether scenes like the above occur in comics stories old and/or new, but if we're supposed to be sympathetic to a man who murders his brothers and sisters, to say nothing of his buddies, that's revolting. I'm sorry, but even the Godfather trilogy is no excuse for making something like this. And seriously, even if the 1988 storyline where Jason Todd perished at the hands of the Joker isn't the worst of mandates that here relied on unreliable voting measures by phone, what's so great about that either? Exploring villains' psyches has definitely gone way too far, and above all, note the telling reliance in TV shows and films like these on jarringly violent acts, as though adults literally cannot enjoy such a show without them.

And what next? Will we be seeing a TV show focused on Lex Luthor? Sorry, but even that's no substitute for focus on the lives heroes could live with family and friends. I think this Penguin show is drawing out the already overused trope that risks glamorizing villainy. At least they may not depict Cobb as a totally rich gangster. But it still doesn't compensate for the overuse of some of the most unpleasant tropes that have become far too common in modern entertainment.

Labels: Batman, dc comics, golden calf of villainy, history, msm propaganda, violence

ComicBook reviewed Jason Aaron's Absolute Superman, yet another alternate world take on classic creations, and I guess because of who the writer happens to be, that's why the specialty news site is okay with delivering political messages in the pages of such a comic:

DC’s Absolute Universe got its Superman this week with the release of Jason Aaron and Rafa Sandoval’s Absolute Superman #1 and while this new version of Superman does have some major differences from his main universe counterpart — differences that aren’t just limited to the heroic figure himself but the world he hails from and more — there are some huge similarities as well. Perhaps the largest of those similarities is just how moral and to an extent political the message conveyed by character’s story and actions are. Absolute Superman #1 gives readers who, despite not being the Man of Steel they’re familiar with, is still fighting for justice in ways they can easily recognize. [...]

While the circumstances and details of Absolute Superman’s story are different than the main universe hero readers know, fundamentally the actions of the character are not. Throughout his nearly 90-year publication history, Superman has always been protective of Earth and its people, standing up for the common man against threats — including those posed by those with great power who use it to oppress those without. Superman has always taken on threats such as fascists, racists, evil corporations, corrupt politicians and more in addition to otherworldly threats. It’s the character’s sense of justice and his strong moral code that is perhaps his most defining feature and, as such, makes him a genuine hero of the people.

Umm, more recently, Superman has not taken on serious threats like racism and fascism, because when the perpetrators are Islamists, suddenly political correctness must take hold, and when Dan Jurgens was writing the Man of Steel a number of years ago, he certainly demonstrated what side of the spectrum he was taking then. Which was victimologists using protected class status as a weapon against otherwise civilized societies. Since the time Jurgens signed onto a petition in favor of the family of the infant kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, 2023, Kfir Bibas, is it possible he's changed and reevaluated? Maybe. But if he's not willing to write any stories that serve as even a metaphor for the subject of Islamic terrorism, then Jurgens for one is demonstrating how in the long run, people like him are failing to send a message.

Most annoying about this article is how it simplifies and dumbs down its subject to make it sound like Superman's never been depicted going after common street thugs who are far from millionaires, but can still be quite murderous and racist. By that logic, even Joe Chill, the villain whom Batman later discovered was the murderer of his parents, wouldn't be a big deal. But isn't that odd how corporations are cited in the article, considering DC/Marvel have been owned by such for many years now, and in the long run, it only worked to their detriment.

And as for political messages, here's another problem: if the messages conveyed in Superman were right-wing, these same news outlets would be decrying that to no end. Today, they'd even attack writers conveying patriotic messages, regardless of whether it's in mainstream or independent productions. So it's hypocritical to defend political allusions in comicdom when they won't respect conservative-influenced messaging in sharp contrast to liberal. All that aside, any story written by a writer as awful as Aaron is bound to better avoided.

Labels: dc comics, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman, terrorism

The desecration of Bill Finger and Bob Kane's Batman continues, as Comic Book Club Live reveals what goes on in one of the latest stories:

After teasing that someone is claiming to be a secret Wayne sibling — again — Dr. Leslie Thompkins reveals to Bruce Wayne that yes, indeed, Thomas Wayne had an affair back in the day, though no baby came of it. But that’s not even the biggest twist in the issue. While investigating the death of the mayor of Gotham City, the killer is revealed as… Jim Gordon, who pulls a gun on Batman.

Well I'm not interested in seeing if this is an imposter. Mainly because DC's proven (and Marvel has too) with Identity Crisis that they're more than perfectly willing to forcibly shoehorn characters who are on the good side into horrific roles of criminals without any clear explanation, and no interest in changing a bad situation to repair it. What DC's doing now is not novel, and it's definitely not appealing. It's just blatant destruction and deconstruction of classic creations for the sake of shock value that doesn't lead anywhere but way down into the abyss. And what's been done to Bruce Wayne's father is not appealing either.

Labels: Batman, dc comics, dreadful writers, golden calf of death, golden calf of villainy, msm propaganda, violence

According to ComicBook, the pretentious editor Tom Brevoort now claims Marvel's less interested in doing crossovers - either universe-wide or with different publishers - in contrast to DC, whom he claims does:

“Marvel isn’t all that interested in doing a lot of crossovers,” Marvel Comics VP and Executive Editor Tom Brevoort explained in his Substack newsletter. “DC for the last several years has seemed much more open to doing them. But whenever Marvel does participate in one, there tends to be some reason for this internally, some objective that making a crossover helps us to achieve.”

The X-Men editor continued, “But each circumstance is different, so I can’t tell you why we do each and every one, nor which instances came from Marvel reaching out to others and which ones were the result of others reaching out to us.”

While DC has consistently published at least one intercompany crossover every year since 2015 — everything from Conan the Barbarian (Dark Horse) to Power Rangers (Boom!) and The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (IDW) — Marvel has participated in significantly fewer crossovers with outside companies. Especially when compared to the output of the ’90s and 2000s, when the Marvel Universe crossed over with the likes of X-O Manowar (Valiant) Backlash and Deathblow (Image), Witchblade (Top Cow), Invincible (Skybound), and Red Sonja (Dynamite).

If it's within their own universes, then assuming this is true, it would put DC in a bad light, compounding their own artistic bankruptcy. On which note, even if Crisis on Infinite Earths isn't the worst of the crossovers from a historical viewpoint, it did most unfortunately set a very troubling tone going forward, since only so many of the crossovers DC did turn out the following decade emphasized death, and in the case of 1993's Bloodlines, you could easily argue it emphasized sadism, what with the way the Aliens rejects were willing to murder people. Whenever DC goes that far to be so excessive, and Marvel less so, it only has the effect of making the latter look better by contrast, even if their subsequent crossovers proved to be very bad in their own way (Avengers: Disassembled, House of M and Civil War, anyone?) Not to mention that Marvel's just as guilty of turning out insufferably violent stories that rival the worst of DC's stories written for cheap sensationalism. And despite what Brevoort's telling his correspondent, Marvel just recently developed an Aliens crossover with Avengers.

If Marvel really has suddenly reevalutated universe-spanning crossovers, it's probably because the sales really are in freefall, and if it's crossovers with different publishers we're talking about here, something to consider is that their woke approach of the past decade or so may have turned off some other publishers who don't want their products subjected to the same kind of PC Marvel's going by. But DC's proven they too can be very woke, and if it discourages some fellow publishers from working with them on a crossover, concerns would be justified. One crossover they did do many years ago was with the Kuwaiti publisher of the Islamic propaganda comic The 99, and that was a major humiliation. It would be foolish to think Marvel under their current leadership couldn't still do the same. So it's only if sales really are tanking that further crossovers would be considered less worth the effort. And if more consumers are avoiding Marvel/DC's worthless modern products, that's a good thing.

Labels: bad editors, crossoverloading, dc comics, indie publishers, islam and jihad, licensed products, marvel comics, msm propaganda

Variety reported veteran actor Tom Hanks is addressing the decline of comic-based movies in a podcast interview:

Tom Hanks said on the latest episode of the “Happy Sad Confused” podcast that he’s never had a meeting with Kevin Feige about joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe, nor has he broken bread with James Gunn to talk about the new DC Universe. With that said, Hanks has never had any issues with comic book movies over the years. Although he is noticing now that audiences seem to be moving on from VFX-enhanced comic book spectacle in favor of genuine storytelling.

“Remember in the 1970s and ’80s they tried to do TV version of Captain America and Spider Man? Even Batman, the Adam West one. The technology did not exist to make it look like it did in the comic books and now it does,” Hanks said. “You can do anything at all. You can probably say Christopher Reeve’s Superman was the first one that came close because of the cutting edge of the technology to allow for wire removal. We all believed [a man could fly] when we saw it. It was quite extraordinary.

“We are now enjoying the luxury of riches and because you can make anything happen on screen now, we are being brought back to the concept of, ‘OK that’s true but what is the story?'” Hanks continued. “You can dream Lake Michigan and fill it with cuckoo clocks that form a three-headed dragon that breathes fire and destroys Chicago. You can do that. But to what purpose? What is the story and what is it going to be saying about us? There was a period of time, and I felt this way too, where we would see DC and MCU movies in order to see these better versions of ourselves. God, I feel like an X-Men sometime. I am as confused as Spider-Man. I am as angry as Batman is. I love my country as much as Captain America. We’ve been down that road. We’ve had 20 years to explore that kind of thing, and now we’re in an evolution and place where it’s: And the story is what? The theme is what? The point of this movie is what?”

What's unsurprising but sad is that he won't acknowledge the woke politics now driving the most recent batch of comics adaptations along with quite a few other blockbuster productions in Hollywood. That's one reason. But another might be that, as much as we'd all like to think more advanced FX technology is a great thing, the time has now passed, mainly because of the aforementioned PC encroachment. Besides, sometimes non-science fiction fare can make very good fare too. Trouble is, despite what Hanks tells us, chances are even the "genuine storytelling" Hanks speaks of is just as badly affected as the sci-fi.

Also, I'm not sure Hanks is convincing with his claim he loves the land he lives in as much as Capt. America when he rides on the anti-Donald Trump bandwagon. All that does is dampen his own points, and now that Trump's been reelected, Hanks would do well to avoid any political statements hurtful to conservatives, as would any of the actors who've appeared in comics-based movies.

Labels: dc comics, marvel comics, msm propaganda, technology

The Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed the overrated King, who's attending a local specialty store for election day, and the leftists leanings are made known:

Acclaimed comic book writer Tom King has never shied away from the political moment. Telling tender, mind-bending tales about immortal gods, amazon princesses and masked vigilantes, King has powerfully explored the anxiety, paranoia, misogyny, and absurdity that has defined America in the time of Trumpism.

King, known for hit comics like “The Vision”, “Mister Miracle”, “Rorschach,” and “Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow,” knows the stakes more than most.

Before shooting to comic book stardom writing “Batman” in 2016, King spent seven years in the CIA as a counterterrorism operations officer, including serving in Baghdad in 2004. The experience served as inspiration for his masterful and murky 2015 wartime crime thriller, “The Sheriff of Babylon.”

So only Trump's to blame, and leftists have no accountability on any of these subjects? It's just like them to airbrush it all out of the picture, as usual. Describing his stories as "tender" is insulting to the intellect, as is to say he's acclaimed, which is only by the leftist crowd, who never convincingly panned his horrific miniseries Heroes in Crisis, which still stands out as one of the worst exploitations of established characters to serve his pointless agendas. The only "stakes" he knows are taking apart those holding up the tables on which the classic creations he's torn down are sitting on.

While the Eisner Award winning author has never been shy about sharing his political concerns, including in 2019 when he tweeted his suspicions that Trump could be a foreign asset, his must-read comics are far from political diatribes. Like all classic comics, they glimpse the truths of our time through the struggles of the superheroes we like to think we could be.

King, 46, who lives in Washington D.C. with his wife and three children, will be appearing at Brave New Worlds comics in Old City on Election Day for a get out the vote celebration. The author will be signing books and handing free copies of his books for customers who show an “I Voted” sticker. We talked with King recently from Hollywood, where he’s currently co-writing and executive producing the upcoming HBO series, “Lanterns.” The author talked about the inherent hopefulness of comics and how Philly has the power to change the world.

Oh this is pathetic to lecture us that his comics aren't diatribes. If anything, they certainly are revolting "explorations" of trauma, and for Heroes in Crisis, the application was very forced and contrived. And that he'd attack Trump - quite possibly over the exaggerated claim of being a Russian agent - only says all we need to know why King's bad for the job. Not to mention that his Adam Strange miniseries was quite a political metaphor. As for "inherent hopefulness", that's only if you write a story that way, which Heroes in Crisis wasn't. And how can Philly change the world when officials in charge have done nothing to clean up the mess in neighborhoods like Kensington?

You’re making Philly an Election Day tradition!

King: Yeah, I did a similar event at Fat Jack’s four years ago where I just celebrated Philly’s voice in the election. You just do everything you can — and one of the few things I can do is to say thank you to voters by giving them the thing that I can give out: my time and signage. Pennsylvania is where the rubber meets the road.

No doubt, he was celebrating the beginning of 4 disastrous years for the USA under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Though based mainly on his mainstream comics writing, that's why I have no interest in his signature. And then he says:

You had just broken through to the top of the comic book industry when Trump came to power.

King: I spent my 20s in the CIA doing counterterrorism work overseas so I’m not uninvolved in government and how it works. And I live blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court are literally my neighbors. I remember walking my dog right before the [2017] inauguration, and this is one of these little absurd details that got lost in history, but they had a bunch of porta-potties and the porta-potties company was called “Don’s Johns.” And I guess the president-elect took offense to that so he had people go use a sharpie marker and cross out ‘Don’s Johns’ from all these porta-potties. Literally, the guy had censored porta-potties in my neighborhood. I remember walking past, and thinking, “Oh, this is going to be bad.”

Oh, this sounds like yet another petty rant, blaming a conservative for everything bad that allegedly happens, but never a liberal. I guess that means he's not disappointed with Biden's conduct, nor with Harris' conduct. King wrote these absurd rants of his a number of years before, so this is nothing new.

Your books are incredibly successful but you have gotten a little blowback from readers over the political bent of some stories. Like when Wonder Woman fights against a ban against all Amazons passed by a secret king of America.

King: The atmosphere right now is so bifurcated and personal that you can’t sort of help to step on that rail. Even Shakespeare, man. Look at “Macbeth.” He’s talking about the fact that they just got a Scottish king. You’ve got to write for your moment. That’s what it means to be a writer and to be alive. So to just try to ignore that to appeal to a larger base in order to make more money seems wrong to me.

Now isn't it contradictory to talk about a political bent, when here, the writer first lectured everyone that his tales aren't diatribes? Oh wait, is that because they're leftist? Now we can understand - if these were rightist stories, they would be considered diatribes. Apparently, not if they're left-wing, however. And he makes the error of indicating he doesn't care about pleasing a larger audience, since his petty leftist politics is apparently worth that much more.

What’s the balance between politics and a good superhero story?

King: You never want your comics to be your twitter feed. You never want to be lecturing somebody and being like, “This is bad, this is good, the world is black and white.” That just doesn’t make for good stories. It’s not about a lecture. It’s just about writing truth.

Writing superhero stories in the era of Trump almost seems like a political act in of itself.

King: In a superhero context, it doesn’t work. Lex Luthor is evil but he’s also super intelligent. That’s not Trump. No offense to the guy, but he’s not Lex. He’s not Doctor Doom. He doesn’t resemble anything like a superhero villain. His appeal is something else, something new, something shocking.

What he's saying here is that in his biased mindset, Trump's not intelligent enough to be compared to classic villains like Luthor and Doom. Or, in other words, King considers Trump nothing but stupid, despite all his studies in businesses that he worked in decades ago. Well how come he doesn't consider say, the Iranian ayatollahs not intelligent enough to be comparable to said supervillains? And why does he say we shouldn't turn our scripts into our X pages when he's been doing just that for some time?

Comics feel so resonant right now. They have always been such a powerful artform for political thought.

King: It’s aspirational. Like I don’t think of Wonder Woman as being very political. Someone is being terrible to women therefore Wonder Woman should fight back. That doesn’t seem like a political stance to me. That doesn’t seem left or right to me. That just seems American.

Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman aren’t inherently political. They’re inherently hopeful. All three of those characters were created in the shadow of the Nazi Party, two of them specifically by Jewish creators (Batman and Superman). So their origins are Anti-Fascist. The earliest Superman comic before we entered World War II had Superman going overseas and capturing Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. That’s baked into the pie. But it’s not political to be Anti-Nazi. We all used to agree on those ideals.

Notice how he doesn't speak of Islamic jihadists as an adversary, past or present. Should concerns about Islamofascism be a political stance? If Germany's National Socialism is a non-partisan issue, then by the same token of logic, even the dangers of the Religion of Peace shouldn't be a partisan issue either. Sure is strange somebody who wrote a WW story as a metaphor for anti-Trump viewpoints and to support illegal immigration doesn't want to take issue with Islamic regimes who oppress women and turn them into 2nd class citizens. King apparently also doesn't want to address the issue of illegal immigrants who attack women either. That he sticks with a tunnelvisioned viewpoint of western conservatives as "evil" only makes clear he's not a serious writer.

The comic book audience has grown much more diverse in recent years, everyone from indie readers to the most hardcore “Punisher” fan. It’s a big tent.

King: If I had to say the random comic book reader, there’s something about the world that alienates them. There’s something that they feel a little bit disconnected about — a little bit rebellious. They feel a little bit of otherness. That crosses all political lines. That’s what I love about comics. It speaks to kids and grown ups who do feel a little disconnected from the mainstream.

What about conservatives? Don't they feel practically ostracized and blacklisted from the mainstream? What alienates them is woke writers like King.

What’s at stake?

King: Everything’s at stake, man.

But honestly, you read Superman because you want to be like Superman. You read Batman because you want to be like Batman. Because they’re special. They’re important. They don’t accept the world the way it is. They try to change it. And I feel like voters in Pennsylvania right now have the opportunity to be like Batman, to be like Superman, like they don’t every other day of their life. If Batman and Superman were alive today they couldn’t do s--- to stop what’s coming. But a voter in Pennsylvania can, and that’s pretty cool.

And if you vote for Trump, and want to come get a comic, you’re welcome to it. It’s a celebration of democracy and the fact that Philly gets a chance to change the world.

If he's trying to pretend he's not anti-conservative, forget it, I'm not convinced. And you read Superman/Batman/whatever else because you want to be entertained and find some escapism. Which King's comics make impossible to find. Nor does his writing provide anything genuine to think about. Except that in his mindset, right-wingers in the west are the sole cause of all that's evil. That's why King's hopeless as a writer. Maybe he should consider getting into a politics instead?

Labels: Avengers, Batman, dc comics, history, indie publishers, islam and jihad, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Supergirl, Superman, terrorism, violence, Wonder Woman

The Hollywood Reporter did a fluff-coated interview with overrated horror-thriller specialist Tynion, in which they claim he's launched the hugest horror comic title in the business, "Something Is Killing The Children", which is now predictably being adapted for broadcast on Netflix. Most laughable is the sales figures:

SIKTC sells upwards of 50,000 copies a month, with Slaughter selling around 25,000, according to sources, making the franchise the highest-selling creator-owned title out there, and besting a majority of comics put out by DC and Marvel. When Penguin Random House bought Boom! earlier this year, SIKTC was a factor in the acquisition. And Netflix, meanwhile, is in the middle of developing a series adaptation, with Baran bo Odar and Jantje Friese, the German creators of buzzy cult series Dark and 1899, writing and potentially showrunning.

Whether pamphlet or paperback, this is a laugh riot, though it's pretty amazing we have here, for a change, an actual citation of sales figures, considering how sites like ICV2 stopped providing them openly a few years ago. It does say earlier that SIKTC has already sold 5 million copies worldwide, but if that's the total figure spanning over 5 years, then it's absurd to say this is a literal success. A similar point can be made about House of Slaughter, which they say sold 500,000 for its premiere, but that suggests it was store level, of course, seeing how little it sells in pamphlets since. Interesting that Boom Studios, if that's where it's published, is now owned by a publishing conglomerate, which only perpetuates the sad staple of businesses selling off to larger owners, regardless of whether they're successful or not.

The comic was also a change from your usual writing style. How so?

At the time I was writing a lot of superhero comics and specifically I was writing a lot of superhero comics that had a kind of science fiction or magical edge to them. And there was something so refreshing to the world if Something is Killing the Children, which did have these supernatural qualities to it, but it was a very grounded world.

I remember it being incredibly refreshing in writing the first few. I think it’s the second issue has a scene that takes place in an Applebee’s. And I didn’t have to explain the structure of the multiverse in exposition to make a reader understand that we were in an Applebee’s. I just had to put them in an Applebee’s.

It untapped a type of writing in me that I didn’t set out to do. The book really kind of taught me how to write it.

When he wrote superhero fare, he did so with a woke mindset, perpetuating the severe damage to first Green Lantern Alan Scott, retaining the LGBT theme James Robinson forced upon him for starters. It wouldn't be surprising if Tynion also forced such propaganda into his Batman work. So what's the use of telling us all about sci-fi and magical edge in mainstream when he dampened the impact with wokeness? On which note, there's something laughable about saying the book "taught" him how to write it up, when this is somebody who was trained upon leftist propaganda.

Is there a value in doing an ongoing series that a mini-series doesn’t have?

I’m sitting in front of a wall of comic book trades and my favorite series were always the ones that ran for volumes and volumes and volumes that I was able to follow those characters stories over the course of years. And I think the most successful comics of all time, particularly in the corner of comics in which I work, have always been those long form stories and those big runs. And that’s really what we’re trying to go after with Something is Killing the Children.

The reason I ask that question is I think we live in a time of less ongoing series and lots of mini-series, and if there’s an ongoing series that is launched, by issue 10, it’s canceled and a few months later it’s relaunched again. So that seems to be a modern publishing problem.

I do think it can be shortsighted because the thing that Something is Killing the Children proves to me is that in the modern day and age, a series can build an audience over time. I think a lot of times now everything is positioned around the launch of a big number one. When Something is Killing the Children launched, it launched very, very strongly for the market. At that time, I think we were around 40,000 copies, but once we got into the teen issues, the series had multiple issues that were breaking six figures. It is rare that a series can double its monthly audience and beat it a little bit into the series. Now we have a very healthy monthly audience for the series. I do believe that if you’re building a really, really rich world and you trust that it can find an audience that there is an audience to find.

Well it's a shame the only kind of comics anybody's willing to enable the possibility of building an audience for is horror stories. And it's almost entirely the only kind of genre anybody's willing to market seriously and convince people to take a look at. So then of course, you have whole younger generations getting sucked into the void and indoctrinated with this kind of noxious brew, while the comedy genre is almost entirely abandoned out of PC. And what good does it do for Tynion to seemingly agree that there's a recent problem Marvel/DC have succumbed to in well over a decade, when he did nothing to improve the situation either? The part about six figures isn't clear either, and if they didn't sell over a million for a single copy, that only compounds the absurdity.

The other unique aspect to the comic is that in a time where one artist can’t stay on a book for more than four or issues before bailing, Werther has stayed with it since the beginning. Which is another factor in its success. People want continuity in the books they read.

As the creators of the series me and Werther we’re not going to let anyone else write the right or draw the story of Erica Slaughter. We’ve had a lot of success with our spinoff series, House of Slaughter, but that expands the world that Erica lives in. But if you are a fan of Erica Slaughter, you will get her entire story from start to finish in the pages of Something’s Killing the Children. And I will write all of it and Werther will draw all of it. There’s no compromising on that.

Funny the interviewer should mention continuity, since the mainstream shredded it long ago, and he did nothing to respect it either. Roy Thomas' creation, Obsidian, from Infinity Inc. was an early victim of contrived and forced contradictions, and I think Tynion stuck with what Gerard Jones led to as well, which only rewards a scoundrel for the harm he caused. In which case, what's that about not compromising?

The book has unique sense of pacing…

I’ve done a lot of time in superhero comics but I came of age in the manga boom of the early two thousands. Something is Killing the Children is really the first time I was able to lean in to that kind of manga storytelling. It’s a slower, more character driven pacing. It’s a slightly more decompressed. You linger in the character moments. You’re not trying to rush to the next action scene. That is part of what I think gives Something is Killing the Children its page-turner quality.

I wouldn't be shocked if he took influences from the horror genre as employed by mangakas too. But as for character driven stories, he wasn't doing it plausibly when he wrote superhero fare, and his failure to acknowledge he made mistakes is telling.

How do you and Werther work together? How complete are your scripts?

There are a few issues that especially if something’s more action driven, sometimes I’ll do the classic Marvel Method, the plot style, and just sort of lay out the kind of key visual beats and all that. And then I’ll go back over, do the dialogue after all of the art is complete. Then other issues are very dialogue heavy so I will write out the full flow of dialogue and I’ll have very, very loose panel descriptions throughout. But really the average script that I do is kind of a blend between them.

Sorry, but even that comes off as baloney, since if he wouldn't respect continuity and/or characterization as originally developed at DC, then no chance he respects Marvel's original developments either. His refusal to admit he wronged classic creations during his time at the mainstream is what undermines his arguments, because he was part of the PC system in doing so, and won't take accountability for the wrongs he enabled while there. And I have no interest in buying the products of somebody that pretentious, who can't even rise above the cliched obsession with horror thrillers. All he and his artists are doing is flooding the market with a form of propaganda that's come at the expense of more optimistic genres along with comedy. That he seemingly has a big success with SIKTC is nothing to admire.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful writers, golden calf of LGBT, Green Lantern, indie publishers, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, sales, violence

So now, we turn to the 4th post I'm writing about the fishy and offensive elements from Neil Gaiman's comics resume. Now, I guess we'll continue with a look at some Batman-related material he wrote for Secret Origins Special in 1989, featuring the following from a framing sequence he wrote for at least a few stories inside the issue: How interesting this story has the effect of making it sound like Batman's allowed to break laws against trespassing and illegal infiltration of property without any legal opposition. Wonder if this was a hint of contempt for Bob Kane and Bill Finger's creation coming from Gaiman at the time? And here, it runs the gauntlet of making Batman sound like he's a perverted voyeur, in addition to a line implying there's been infidelity at play, which was of course the case with Gaiman, yet on its own, that's still nothing compared to the sexual assaults he was accused of. Now, for some panels involving the Riddler, in a segment Gaiman wrote: Hmm, this could probably describe Gaiman's whole career. It's nothing more than a myth that he's a "legend" of a writer, especially at this point. Well if everything's different now, it's because men like Gaiman made it so, yet in his case, without adding any sustainable substance to make age well. We also don't know anything about Gaiman coming from his own side of the spectrum, that's for sure. Wonder if the way he wrote this was meant to be a riddle about himself? And at the end of this segment, wow, those TV producers sure lack a moral backbone, don't they. Give a horrid criminal like the Riddler his own show? Time to change the channel, or turn the set off completely. Now, here's 2 panels from Secret Origins 36: Apparently, this was Gaiman's attempt to retcon the origins of both Jason Woodrue, who I think debuted first in the Silver Age Atom's stories, while Poison Ivy debuted at least a few years later in Batman's stories. Well I think it's worth disregarding Gaiman's premise here, since most of what he wrote way back when isn't a good fit for DC/Marvel anyway. Interesting he depicts Pamela Isley reading a book with a title like "Feminist Trash", since he himself has long claimed to be a male feminist. The story may be another one written with an unwise tilt in favor of the villains, and that's not good either.

Now, here's some panels from Books of Magic, where Gaiman introduced the teen Tim Hunter, who's supposedly a precursor to Harry Potter, though Gaiman's tale sure looked quite boring. It was originally published in a 4-part prestige format miniseries. From the 1st part: Wow, just what we need, regardless of whether the story was aimed at adult audiences. References to perverts, by a pervert. Not good. And tragically, a certain pervert was able to catch defenseless women in his obnoxious grasp. It should be noted Gaiman once worked with the disgraced DragonCon co-founder Ed Kramer, who was charged with child molestation, and notoriously delayed his trial, denying his victims justice for over a decade. He also later got in trouble for helping a crooked judge illegally access a court database. And after what's been discovered about Gaiman, well, he sure didn't do anything to prove himself better. And this reeks of fishy allusions to bad fanfiction, where a woman is weakened in a Mary Sue-style script. But that's no surprise at this point, is it? Next, from the 2nd issue: It's just like Gaiman to put in forced queries like the above, about whether the guy known as the Spectre is homosexual. Because that's supposedly what makes this "mature" and "adult". To ask that about an original cast member is one thing, but asking these things about an established creation is entirely another. And then we have to read about the young star wanting to get drunk on alcohol, is that it? By the way, any particular reason Boston Brand, aka Deadman, possessed a man who looks dressed as an Islamic cleric with a Turkish hat, to communicate aboard the plane? Something tells me that today, Gaiman wouldn't put the two subjects on the same page, since as previously mentioned, Islam abhors alcohol. Now here, it is surprising to see Gaiman wrote a scene where it looks like an Islamic jihadist tried to attack the Phantom Stranger. But it's important to remember that ever since, Gaiman's made a joke out of even those kind of scenes based on his modern ignorance of the Religion of Peace, and highly unlikely he'd write scenes like that today. Political correctness certainly did have some effect on various leftist authors as time went by. In the next scene, when John Constantine takes Tim to stay with Zatanna: I've seen a few panels over the years in some comics from leftist writers who must think vegetarianism is preferable to being a meat-eater. But considering what the world is like today, that's why it's hypocritical to take such an approach. And what's this here? Is Gaiman insulting Murphy Anderson's original costume design for Zee? Won't be surprising either if he was, considering how cynical his view of DC/Marvel has actually been. That a point is made about Halloween coming about does nothing to alleviate the dismay a scene like the above can make one feel either. Such a scene was undoubtably how male feminists like Gaiman try to conceal what they're really like. And towards the end, the following comes off as pretty weak: So Constantine saves the day, but Zatanna doesn't? Well that's not doing much to give anybody a chance to root for Zee. I'm sorry, but even this is very defeatist and underwhelming. Now for part 3: My my, in this panel, Mister E. is suggesting the Phantom Stranger's some kind of variation on an antisemitic stereotype, "the wandering Jew", and this is casually spoken about with no form of opposition or protest in-story. Once again, Gaiman slipped in something potentially hurtful to the community he came from, but it's uncertain he actually cares about. This sounds strangely like allusions to transsexuality. No surprise Gaiman could exploit opportunities to shoehorn something like that in, of course. Now what have we here? A man singing about Germany ruling the world? Most likely, this alludes to WW2, and that's why this comes off as very disturbing and offensive. It's the kind of moment that makes one wonder what Gaiman really thinks about...well, you get the idea. This reeks of sexist/misogynist stereotypes, and is just as bad as say, a fairy tale like Hansel and Gretel. And here, looks like we have confirmation of the prior scene featuring the woman in the red suit having once been a man. How tasteless and embarrassing. Finally, from part 4: Seriously, I don't like how Constantine is written talking to Tim in this panel. I know Constantine was written in the past as quite a cynic at times, but this is still very appalling. Fishy allusions to a woman's body parts in the above panels, and that decidedly doesn't bode well for this book either. Not to mention that, in light of the discoveries about Gaiman's dark side, they take on a whole new meaning.

Now, here's some panels from a comic published at Marvel, apparently based on stories developed by the Alice Cooper band, founded by a man with a woman's name (originally Vincent Damon Furnier). The 3-part book is titled Last Temptation, and from the 1st part, quite a telling panel we have here: I'm sure I don't need to point out how skin-crawlingly offensive this is in light of Gaiman's own violations. And then: I think the reference to prostitution here is also troubling, based on what Gaiman did in real life. The reference to suicide is just as reprehensible. And next: Hmm, now this has got to be quite telling and eyebrow raising too, considering how little respect Gaiman turned out to have for the fairer sex. Mainly because he still retained disdain for women's dignity, if anything. Reminds me of a time the Jerusalem Post columnist Ruthie Blum noted a dozen years ago that nobody's teaching kids to defend a woman's honor and dignity. Gaiman's certainly a product of the resulting moral bankruptcy. Now, here's the 2nd part: Now claims in the past that insane people were poisoning Halloween food may have been hugely exaggerated, but what business does Gaiman have addressing stuff like this? Especially considering he attacked the Comicsgate campaign without any solid evidence as to whether it was all the "fascist" movement leftists like him regrettably wanted it to be. Here's more: Well maybe the phantom spoken about here never stole children, but Gaiman certainly demeaned women via sexual assault. So what was his whole point putting in a scene that stinks of minimization of serious issues like kidnapping, and is further destroyed by his real life antics? And what's this about traps? That, tragically, is what Gaiman set for the women he violated in real life. Here we go with yet more sickness, which gives an even sicker feeling after the revelations about Gaiman's dark side. Based on Gaiman's leftist politics, this could take on a whole new meaning too, suggesting he shoehorned contempt for the USA into his script. And for all we know, this could just as well have been a stealth insult to the X-Men. Gaiman's antics make clear he doesn't respect Stan Lee's creations regardless. Now, one more panel from the 3rd part: This looks like a subtle insult to Christians, and certainly monotheistic religion in general, when it comes to Halloween. From what I know, even today, plenty of Christians still celebrate the holiday, are okay with adopting what began as a pagan ritual as something for monotheists to celebrate as well, and it serves as a lead-in to All-Saints Day. So it sure is strange Gaiman would put in such a peculiar comment as that. And all in a macabre-themed comic that hasn't aged well, and would be best forgotten. It's not a treat so much as it is an atrocious trick. Next up, here's a few panels from 1602, a comic Gaiman wrote in the early 2000s, featuring variations on Marvel heroes set in the middle ages (and it's later revealed they may be time-displaced): The use of a vulgar word in this panel, put in the mouth of Scotland's king James, is such a turnoff. This comic may not be the most profane Gaiman ever wrote, but it's still one of the most forced, contrived and downright pointless. The "she" in question appears to be this miniseries' take on Jean Grey, and she doesn't seem particularly respected as a character here (the part where she's called a "whore" is disgusting), any more than in countless other takes on the X-Men to come down the lane over the years. Interesting how Archangel's variation is scolded for being half-undressed here. There was something potentially hypocritical here, and I guess that's why I highlighted this scene. But the following is even more eyebrow raising: Wow, this looks like a nod to the premise of the Watchmen, not to mention another cliched stealth attack on conservatives. Even if George W. Bush wasn't a good president, the problem with stories like this is that they're not altruistic, fail to make clear what grounds they're built on, and just seem written up out of obsession with conservative-bashing. At worst, it perpetuated the destruction of Capt. America that began with the Marvel Knights series published in 2002, initially written by Jon Ney Rieber. And here, we have insult added to injury when Archangel is made to sound like he's homosexual, in addition to Jean Grey being disguised at one point as a man, is that it? And this was before Iceman suffered even worse abuse that'll likely never be mended. Wow, this too is pretty insulting to the intellect. Gaiman sure knew how to employ his leftist influence for the worse. This is also one of the reasons a scene in the 1st issue ostensibly alluding to antisemitic persecution by medieval Spain falls flat too.

Now here's some panels from Batman in Black & White 2 from 1996: So on the one hand, looks like there's a subtle insult to Ronald Reagan, and on the other hand, a bizarre stealth assault on France. Yes, seriously, I wouldn't be shocked if Gaiman did have it in for France, since the Joker appears to be speaking ironically when referending a country that's been victim of some of the most terrible cases of Islamofascism in history.

Next are some pages from Superman/Green Lantern: Legend of the Green Flame, a story that was originally written in the late 80s, but only published around the turn of the century, and apparently draws from the disastrous premise employed for GL in Action Comics Weekly. Meaning, of course, the time when Superman's primary title was turned weekly for about 41 issues before being shifted back to monthly (and while there was some decent stuff, like Nightwing and Black Canary entries, the GL stories were rock bottom). Let's begin with the introduction by Gaiman: It sure is strange why anybody who claims to love GL would want to build off the premises employed in ACW, since that saw one of the most offensive moments in GL writing history, starting with Katma Tui being slaughtered by Carol Ferris in Star Sapphire mode. On which note, that direction with Carol was something that should've been abandoned by the time that grimy story was published, yet the editors at the time prolonged the humiliation, and kept things up, and Christopher Priest, who scripted it, made things worse by even agreeing to write it. Editorial mandates are no excuse either. What's fascinating is that Priest had fallouts with the editors, and ultimately left by the time Action Comics left the weekly format. Yet Gaiman thinks this makes a perfect premise to build on? Please. Ah, and look here, they're alluding, in example, to the Hal Jordan/Arisia Raab affair. Which in fairness was dealt with using a specific awareness of how questionable it could be by writer Steve Englehart when he scripted GL's 2nd volume in its last years. Arisia was aged up via a subconscious wish on her GL ring, but an awareness was kept as to what age she could've been when she first debuted. Based on what offensive behavior Gaiman committed, however, that's why he decidedly had no business addressing it himself, even if the honeymoon was over by the time this story was meant to occur. Interestingly enough, I think it already was over by the time the 2nd volume ended, because, while the New Guardians may have been a mediocre short-lived series (originally part of the "New Format" imprint of the late 80s), it appeared that Arisia was already becoming a companion of sorts to Kilowog in the pages of that series, which wisely didn't mention the horror-fest in ACW. I think the allusion to GL's partnership with Green Arrow also falls flat. Also note the following panel towards the end: There's decidedly something wrong with the allusion to Michael Douglas and Glenn Close's psycho-thriller of 1987, Fatal Attraction, probably because it's like Gaiman was indirectly endorsing a film where a woman was the mental case, in order to inject a stealth insult to the women he wronged. Or, he was virtue-signaling, which is very bad too. I also decided to add the book's afterword here: Wonder what Waid thinks now that Gaiman's been exposed as a bad lot? It's annoying how Waid refers to ACW as something where lives were destroyed, because it did it in very bad taste, very offensively, and the damage may never be mended.

Now here's some pages from an Eternals miniseries Gaiman wrote at the time the Civil War crossover was occurring, where Sprite somehow erases the memories his fellow Eternals have of who exactly they are, and there is an allusion or two to that awful item in the pages of what happens to be another pointless story Gaiman brewed up. For example: Oh my god. Almost immediately out of the gate, Gaiman writes in an insult to Kirby's creation, Sersi, where she tells the other lady that a gay man likes her because she reminds him of a drag queen?!? Meaning, of course, a man dressing as a woman. Double the insult and offense to women right there. Such practices are offensive to women, and then Gaiman makes things worse by shoehorning in a statement where a lady is insulted by being told she looks like a man?!? Wha-huh? It's just plain stupefying, especially in light of what Gaiman was discovered doing behind the scenes. Here's some more: So in the former panel, Sprite says it's not like he wants to grow up like singer Michael Jackson, who was accused of child molestation, though Gaiman sure turned out to be quite a fiend in his own way when it came to women. Such hypocrisy right there. And in the latter panel, it looks like there's a stealth insult to Christianity again. Along with a superficial allusion to the subject of terrorism, which Gaiman only trivializes in any event. Because, in issues 2-3: Now isn't that odd how Chechnya turns up in passing reference here, because they're a country where Islamic terrorism has been organized, but the subject remains minimized here, even in the 3rd part, and it makes little difference whether what terrorists appear in this tale have sci-fi structures or not; it's still minimizing a serious issue from real life. Also notice in the ballroom, there's peculiar allusions to potentially underaged attendants and alcohol. Again, viewed in context of Gaiman's offenses, that's why there's something fishy about that too. It gets worse with what's in the 4th part: This is embarrassingly bad. No doubt, Gaiman was making Sersi sound like a prostitute in a most negative sense, but what's really ghastly is how it sounds like Sprite wanted to have sexual relations with her, but couldn't based on his looking like an underaged child. Let's be clear. Based on the revelations about Gaiman in real life, that's why this scene is monumentally offensive. Next, in the 5th part: And if this was an attempt to allude to communist Russia's discriminations, this doesn't work either. Mainly because it somehow seems more like a subtle attack on conservatives in the west. And then, in part 6: Yup. Just like that, Yellowjacket insists registration required for the sake of Civil War. Do tell us about it. Finally, in 7, this is most disturbing: Well, well, well. Another allusion to sexual abuse, written by somebody who's disqualified himself from addressing the issue. On the following page, Zuras breaks Sprite's neck, and IIRC, a number of years after this lethargic miniseries, Sprite was resurrected in the body of a woman. As if the groan-inducing moments weren't enough. This has to be one of the worst insults to Kirby's creations, at least a dozen years before the failed live action movie came about. Now, here's a few pages from the Batman story "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?", from around 15 years ago: On the surface, the presumed pimp may sound like he wants to coerce Catwoman/Selina Kyle into becoming a prostitute, which she actually was depicted as having once done in Frank Miller's writings in the late 80s, so depending how you view this, it can be considered strange if she's got an issue, outside of a pimp trying to force her to do his bidding. But the worse implication is that he may be threatening to sexually abuse her, and while she does take him down on the following page, it still collapses into the dust, based again, on what Gaiman did in real life. And what's this? Some kind of variation on Miller's writing Batman saying "I'm the goddamn Batman" in his earlier stories like Dark Knight Returns? Also, who is Gaiman to write about craziness, and what's his whole fascination with the Riddler anyway? Wow, is this supposed to be critique of violence? Because that too falls flat on its face coming from Gaiman, and so does the part about heroics, because even he played a part in dumbing it down, or ruining it altogether as time went by. Not to mention that Gaiman, by sharp contrast, is such a coward. Now, here's a few pages from Sandman: Overture, some sort of prequel to the 1989-96 series. And wouldn't you know it, more of a subject Gaiman's unfit to shine the shoes of turns up: On the one hand, it sounds like Morpheus is being written talking to a young girl about a subject she may be too young to comprehend, which is certainly embarrassing. On the other hand, look how it's made to look like he's running the gauntlet of barging in on a woman who's changing her clothes. Quite a stealth tactic alright. And then: Hmm, this reeks of liberal anti-war propaganda. Probably a latter day allusion to the war in Iraq from the early 2000s. Either way, such subjects are unsurprising for Gaiman, who did after all use the original 1989-96 series as a drainpipe for leftist propaganda. This might be an allusion to the Cold War, but in light of Gaiman's real life violations of women, it also lands with a thud. A most peculiar thing about this miniseries is that the profanity was milder than the rawer stuff seen in the regular series, yet it still remains quite pretentious. Lastly, here's a few panels from Amazing Fantasy 1000, an alleged tribute to Spider-Man from about 2 years ago: He may have felt sorry for Spidey, but clearly not for the ladies he violated, so this scene takes a nose dive. On the matter of Peter Parker sweating underneath his mask, if that's supposed to be an allusion to how real life can be different, it crashes down under the weight of the accusations against Gaiman. And here, the way it's set up makes it read like Gaiman was putting words in Spidey's mouth. No, Spidey didn't say Gaiman was the web-slinger's "biggest fan". It was Gaiman who did. Clearly for virtue-signaling. The way this reads out, it doesn't sound like Gaiman ever understood that Spidey's mission was to fight crime, and that can include the offensive behavior Gaiman was accused of too. I recall somebody may have said following the revelations of Gaiman's offenses that "authors create their own moral universe." Sadly, this could reflect that problem too. This is another product that's been tarnished by Gaiman's bad behavior. If Mary Jane Watson wasn't mentioned here, it's actually a fortunate thing. I hesitate to think how Gaiman would portray her if she was in this story.

In the end, I can only say that the stuff I've read written by Gaiman is some of the most pretentious leftist propaganda ever published, and even when it's not political per se, it still manages to be quite insulting to the intellect. There were a few stories where it looked like he was supposedly setting up payoffs, but never finished them. And there were others where he came off as quite the moral hypocrite alright. Some of what he wrote is even worse than what Gerard Jones did, and I don't want to read Gaiman's comics ever again, nor do I want to read any of his novels and short stories. The 3 storylines in Sandman where Morpheus was depicted being lenient on some of the grimiest criminals were some of the most insulting moments I've ever seen, ditto the parts where he forced Fury/Lyta Hall through the motions in stuff that didn't lead anywhere but down. I'm very disappointed with Gaiman as a writer, but I'm even more disappointed with him based on his vile behavior towards women in real life. I hope that someday, it'll be possible to abandon and disregard his stories as any kind of canon in the DC/Marvel universes. For now, it's fortunate he was exposed by Tortoise Media, and now, publishers and film producers are distancing themselves from him and his hypocritical works that are little more than leftist propaganda and virtue-signaling.

Labels: Batman, dc comics, golden calf of death, golden calf of LGBT, golden calf of villainy, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, Spider-Man, violence, women of dc, women of marvel