The Four Color Media Monitor

Superhero Hype wrote an uncritical take on Marvel's next pointless direction with everyone's friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, where 2 different takes on Spidey are emphasized, and guess which one will be working on terra firma?

Peter Parker has had quite a few identity crises over the years. Beyond the problems caused by his double life, he’s had to contend with symbiotes controlling him and numerous clones impersonating him. Now, a new Spider-Man is about to leave everyone wondering which one is the real McCoy.

Timed to coincide with the historic 975th issue of Amazing Spider-Man, the storyline will introduce two wall-crawlers. One will be based on Earth. The other will be operating in outer space, with a cosmic costume. The one on Earth is more violent than Peter Parker, but the cosmic Spidey is running around with strange companions.

Umm, I think the time when Spidey had some kind of "cosmic adventures" in 1989 is far better, and we don't need what sounds like an attempt to compete with where DC's going with Jason Todd - who was turned into Red Hood in the mid-2000s after his resurrection in Countdown to Infinite Crisis - that led nowhere positive.

Which one's the real McCoy here? There's no point in finding out, because in the end, it's all just a lot of pencil and paper wasted on nothing, and makes clear why real Spider-fans would do well to stick with the stories leading up to the turn of the century.

Labels: bad editors, dreadful writers, marvel comics, msm propaganda, Spider-Man, violence

Some people might wonder if DC's gone miles out of their way only so often for the sake of trying to ape Marvel in questionable hiring practices, they're even willing to employ somebody who's written very offensive stories. Case in point: Gretchen Felker-Martin, the transsexual writer of the aforementioned Jason Todd series, whom the New York Post reported 3 years ago had written a repellent screed against Harry Potter author J.K Rowling:

A transgender novelist has come under fire after penning a self-confessed “depraved psychosexual horrorshow” in which J.K. Rowling is burned alive in her home.

Gretchen Felker-Martin’s debut novel, “Manhunt,” follows two trans women “attempting to survive in a world ravaged by a plague which transforms anyone with enough testosterone in their system into a shrieking monstrosity.”

They find themselves at war with “TERFs,” the derogatory acronym for so-called trans-exclusionary radical feminists — including the “Knights of J.K. Rowling.”

The protagonists then talk about “the Harry Potter lady,” referring to Rowling, 56, who has received death threats for her comments about biological sex and the transgender community.

The “Harry Potter lady … ended up being a crazy TERF, like, super intense,” Felker-Martin’s character said, saying Rowling hired military contractors and “had them all up at her castle in Scotland.”

One of the group knocked over a lamp, sparking a fire and explosion that left Rowling and the others “to burn alive, and finally the whole castle collapsed,” Felker-Martin wrote.

[...] “Manhunt” is the best-seller in Amazon’s “LGBTQ+ Horror Fiction” genre — but around a quarter of the reviews give it the lowest one-star rating, some ripping it as “rape fantasy” and “misogynistic trash.”

“A trans-identified male fetishist writes his fantasy about raping and murdering women he hates in a post-apocalyptic world,” one recent review said, insisting there is “no redeeming aspect to this story. None.”

Women’s rights campaigners have also attacked the book as dangerous.

“‘Terf’ is simply the new term for ‘witch’, making us fair game to be threatened, harassed, and yes, even killed,” Karen Varley, co-founder of Women Uniting UK, told The Times of London.

“Astonishing that any responsible publisher would publish this vile male sexual fantasy.”

Even more astonishing that DC would hire such a vile person to write comics for them just a few years after the initial controversy, in which even more chilling details turned up. It's clear DC's management has no moral backbone anymore, and their willingness to hire the disgraced Gerard Jones in the past was certainly a precursor to this current scandal. Based on these revelations, who knows what'll turn up in the Jason Todd series besides what's already been mentioned? As of now, it takes on a whole new meaning, and anybody who recognizes why Martin's screeds against Rowling are wrong will avoid buying the upcoming comic altogether. Better still, they could boycott DC's current output entirely.

When the Indonesian artist Ardian Syaf was discovered stealthing antisemitic codes into his artwork for Marvel, he was fired, and rightfully so. DC may also have distanced themselves from him, yet as this latest case makes clear, they refused to learn any lessons, and seeing that Marvel still employs Saladin Ahmed, last time I looked, it's clear they too continue failure to learn.

Labels: bad editors, Batman, dc comics, golden calf of LGBT, history, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, violence

I think I'll take the opportunity to highlight some of J. Scott Campbell's latest art, featuring 3 examples he's illustrated for the new Marvel Swimsuit Special, of Mary Jane Watson, Black Cat and Rogue:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by J Scott Campbell ♠️🎨 (@jscottcampbellart)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by J Scott Campbell ♠️🎨 (@jscottcampbellart)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by J Scott Campbell ♠️🎨 (@jscottcampbellart)

Now, let's be clear. Campbell is a talented artist alright, and still is in over 3 decades since he debuted. Which is surely also more than can be said about Frank Miller at this point, recalling I saw some Wolverine art Miller did a few years ago that was very mediocre, and I hesitate to think what he'd do if given the same assignment Campbell's gotten for the new Marvel Swimsuit Special. But as I've argued before, illustrations like these, if anything, shouldn't be put on variant covers, but rather, hung on walls in homes and galleries, and instead we have an example of something that, if bought by speculators, will quite possibly be stored away in dark vaults, almost entirely obscured from the public eye, and it could even be argued the speculators are demonstrating a form of shame that they even own this stuff if they keep it locked away from view. Why, whether or not these are mass production paintings, are they even that valuable that burglars would pilfer them? I don't think so. All I know is that it's regrettable when talented artists keep letting themselves be taken advantage of for the wrong kind of projects, and even Stanley Lau's one of those. Seriously, professional artists have to start speaking up and addressing challenging queries as to whether it sits well with them their artwork is being produced for joke marketing.

Labels: good artists, marvel comics, sales, Spider-Man, women of marvel, X-Men

A writer at ComicBook supposedly draws attention to characters in the DCU who could be the most overlooked, but leaves out quite a few that could've made more convincing choices. For now, here's what they talk about:

First and foremost, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room: ranking heroes as A, B, C, etc. is highly subjective. It’s also a great way to start a fight when people disagree on where their favorite heroes rank on various lists. That may be part of the problem here, as while people are busy fighting about the middle ground of heroes, the “established” top dogs keep getting the limelight. People generally classify A-list heroes as those getting top-billing status, like Batman. They consistently steal the show, get the highest-paid writers, and regularly obtain solo series. Meanwhile, B-list is one step down from that, they’ll still sometimes get a standalone series, but they’re not as widely known as A-listers. C-listers are a step down from that, with an even smaller chance of getting a solo series, and so on.

And this itself obscures the vital point I've made that writing and art merit are what matter, because that's how you make a character/series most enjoyable for reading pastime. Indeed, that's one of the biggest problems with this pretentious piece, though there are other troubling issues up ahead. And what a surprise that Batman's cited as the A-lister to get top billing, not Superman. Yup, they've done it again, and acted as absurd favortists, based on the storytelling angle. Oddly enough, in the following paragraph, talented writing is alluded to, but not very persuasively:

Buried inside the B and C lister stories are some true gems. Those who know how to look for it will strike gold because it’s not that well hidden. Creators want these stories to be found, while showcasing some of the best storytelling the franchise has to offer, taking bold risks with character origin stories, new arcs, and development.

While the above makes sense, the problem, as you'll soon see, is that again, the writer doesn't follow through convincingly on what he says.

Black Canary is an excellent example of this. Dinah has done everything from falling in love with a fan-favorite hero to leading an all-female team of heroes. Her story is simultaneously compelling and complicated, showcasing the messier side of superhero life. Her story may be full of retcons and changes, but one could argue that this happens because her creative team is allowed to make these executive decisions. Dinah’s story lets her shine brightly, standing out as a moral center of her small community of heroes, as she is a born leader and perpetual survivor.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is Booster Gold. He’s a total goofball, but his fans love him. He’s got a wild sense of humor with one of the brightest smiles around. Yet his stories sometimes come out of left field, surprising even his die-hard fans with their emotional depth. One needs only look at Booster’s trials with time travel (including multiple attempts to save a dear friend) to understand where this part of his story comes from.

Oh sure, BC and BG are both great examples for citation. But what about civilian co-stars? That's what doesn't seem to get attention here. No Jimmy Olsen, Sapphire Stagg-Mason, Lois Lane, Jean Loring, Sue Dibny, Doiby Dickles, Lynn Stewart-Pierce, Iris West Allen, Terry Long or Abigail Arcane. Nor for that matter do heroes like the Atom and Metamorpho, or even Hawkman. What sadly does is the work of at least 2 overrated scribes:

Every now and then, DC Comics will shock fans with a story that is out of this world. Most of the time, people attribute these stories to A-list heroes, but it’s safe to say that many belong to other heroes of the universe. For example, Animal Man (Grant Morrison) brought many real topics to the forefront, from animal rights to environmentalism. This is one example in a deep pool of options for readers.

Mister Miracle (Tom King & Mitch Gerads) took a closer look at the hero, bringing his depression and trauma to human levels, contrasting his superhero/domestic life. Doom Patrol famously brought a ragtag group of characters together, letting them tackle everything from mental health to the core of their identities and everything in between. Shade, the Changing Man (Peter Milligan & Chris Bachalo) likewise took a deep dive into the identity of the self, but with a different twist. It also looked at the nature of forgiveness and American culture. Finally, Deadman (Mike Baron & Kelley Jones) explored death, loss, and morality with a unique yet horrifying lens.

It's bad enough Morrison's work been cited as some kind of a classic, but at this point, what's especially telling is when King and Gerads' work does. Promoting their approach to writing has only worsened the situation. On the other hand, it's amazing to see that Baron's writings get attention here, but even so, that Morrison and King do ruins everything. Citing such awful writers years after DC's quality collapsed will not improve a dire situation. Nor will legitimizing King's contrived writing style that doesn't apply issues of trauma organically.

And again, there's plenty of cast members in the DCU, both superhero and civilian co-stars, who receive no mention at all. So what good does it do to make an argument about overlooked cast members when the writer won't find the time to bring them up as well? This is precisely why we've gotten so far down in terms of quality, which the writer seemingly argues over, but then spoils everything by supporting writers whose works aren't genuinely about serious quality at all.

Labels: Atom, dc comics, golden calf of death, golden calf of villainy, Hawkman and Hawkgirl, history, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, women of dc

Comic Book Movie is gushing over the announcement one of the most overrated writers in comics, TV and film is coming back to write a story featuring the superhero JMS did no favors for back in the day, and the excuse here is that it's a miniseries set in Spider-Man's past:

J. Michael Straczynski, one of the most impactful writers in Spider-Man's history, returns to the webbed wonder's world this October with Amazing Spider-Man: Torn, a five-issue limited series. Straczynski will be joined by acclaimed artist Pere Pérez (TVA).

The prolific writer is known for his influential work throughout the Marvel Universe, including one of the most celebrated runs of Amazing Spider-Man. His stint on the series eventually got bogged down in editorial interference; Spidey joined The Avengers, found himself at the centre of a convoluted crossover called "The Other," and eventually made a deal with the devil in the hugely controversial "One More Day" arc.

JMS also intended to make Peter Parker the father of Gwen Stacy's children, but was forced into pivoting to Norman Osborn (the storyline has since been retconned and forgotten about).

Despite that, fans have hoped for JMS to make his return to Spidey storytelling. Now, he's back with an unforgettable Spider-Man saga that’s perfect for all fans, but this time, he’s digging into a very different part of Spidey history...

What fans, I wonder? Not this Spider-fan, and it's insulting to the intellect when news outlets like these keep invoking "the fandom" without any hard evidence. And the site's writer weaves pure comedy gold when he acknowledges the aforementioned storylines were embarrassments, and simultaneously, I don't think "The Other" was a crossover as Avengers: Disassembled was. It was just one of several stories from Spidey at the time, and not a good one. Was Sins Past actually forgotten, though? Only in the sense it's not worth remembering, based on what an atrocity it was, and the sex scene panel between Gwen and Norman alone was embarrassingly bad, because of how forced and contrived it was. Also note how Joe Quesada, who was influential in those decisions goes unmentioned here, their admittance of editorial interference notwithstanding.

I never asked for JMS to return to Spidey any more than any other writer who's let down Marvel fandom via petty opposition to the Spider-marriage. Assigning JMS to a title set in Spidey's past is no excuse either. And anybody who continues to buy comics written by somebody as pretentious and self-important as JMS was is only furthering a sad problem in comicdom. All Marvel fans who recognize why JMS was bad for Spidey in the long run would do well to avoid whatever he has in store here at all costs.

And "influential" and "impactful"? Only in the most negative sense. Most of what JMS wrote after Spidey was even less significant, and it could be said he's long become a has-been, if he ever even was successful in comics writing before, which he decidedly wasn't.

Labels: bad editors, dreadful writers, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, Spider-Man, women of marvel

Popverse wrote a fluff-coated article about a new DC series starring Jason Todd - the very character who was resurrected nearly 2 decades after becoming a sacrificial lamb over a writer's alleged mistakes - in a new adult-oriented series where he's again depicted with the Red Hood moniker, and the Huntress is part of the cast too:

He’s been a fan-favorite character ever since returning from the grave — and this September, DC’s Red Hood is getting the comic book spotlight fans have been hoping for in an all-new, mature-rated ongoing comic book series from creators Gretchen Felker-Martin and Jeff Spokes, with letters from Becca Carey. And, unlike DC’s earlier 17+ comic books, this one is firmly set in the canonical mainstream DCU. [...]

The more astute readers might have noted the mention of a “New Orleans flavored backdrop” above; that’s because the new series takes Jason Todd out of Gotham and to the city of New Angelique — a corrupt city where he might be able to put down roots, if not for two problems: firstly, there’s a serial killer to there targeting cops that needs to be dealt with. And secondly, he’s not the only former Gotham citizen in the city, as Helena Bertinelli, AKA the Huntress has also shown up… but what is she doing there? That’s part of the mystery at the start of the series… and one that Jason is determined to solve, as quickly as possible.

"Red Hood is the in-continuity story Jason Todd fans have been waiting for,” editor Arianna Turturro shared. “It delivers high-stakes action, a gripping mystery, and raw, unapologetic storytelling. Every element of the book highlights the core aspects of Jason’s character—his difficulties with personal connections, his badass training, his brooding hotness, and his violent approach to heroism. Which means he’ll be killing people—a lot. Let me repeat myself: this is the story Jason Todd fans have been waiting for.” [...]

The series is the first ongoing comic book series for Felker-Martin, best known for their horror novels Manhunt — named as one of the 25 Most Influential Works of Postwar Queer Literature by The New York Times — and Cuckoo; it’s also Spokes’ highly anticipated follow-up to their DC Black Label series Jenny Sparks, with writer Tom King. The first issue of the run builds on that creative pedigree with variant covers from Jim Lee, Brian Bolland, Jae Lee, Kyuyong Eom, and Nick Robles, in addition to a primary cover from Spokes himself. [...]

Wow, there certainly are some left-wing folks working on the project, and associated with other notable leftists too. And this series is apparently an excuse to portray a character with Batman connections as somebody willing to use deadly force for battling crime. Next thing you know, we'll probably see this approach applied to Huntress as well. Yet if the part about personal connections says anything, it suggests Jason won't get much character development beyond the mere premise of willingness to use lethal force for the sake of depicting a Batman-connected character in such a role. Just because back in 1987, one of the writers implied Jason might've killed a violent criminal who took a fall from a building, and it was left to readers to decide if that was the case. However one looks at it, that still didn't justify turning Todd into a sacrificial lamb at the hands of the Joker out of a moral panic. But it also doesn't justify the current direction now.

I suppose it's a good question though - is Jason really a fan favorite? Well, it's hilarious they're only saying so now, considering that back in 1988, there were, most unfortunately, quite a few mental cases who voted in favor of having Todd killed in Batman's A Death in the Family storyline when Denny O'Neil decided to set up a phone-in poll to determine via readership. And some of those anti-Jason Todd jerks most likely weren't even genuine Bat-fans; they likely saw the advertisements and thought what fun it could be to influence a story where the Clown Prince of Crime would wind up causing the death of a Batman cast member. That doesn't mean Jason didn't have his fans then; there obviously were people who at least tried to swing the pendulum in a better direction. But even those folks at this point have obviously grown so weary of where DC's gone since, they're unlikely to try out this "adult" take on flagship continuity, or whatever remains of it.

But again, let's be clear. It's not the fault of a fictional character for anything they were written/drawn doing in the past that may have been a poor example. It's the fault of the writers and artists. And where the current scribes are going now, in what's likely an attempt to mimic Marvel's Punisher, is coming far too late, and while resurrection in science-fiction-based worlds is okay, that doesn't mean what the writers will do with the revived characters going forward is going to amount to anything meaningful. Based on what DC became when Dan DiDio took over their editorial and publishing, it's clear it won't.

Labels: bad editors, Batman, dc comics, golden calf of death, golden calf of LGBT, history, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, violence, women of dc

The overrated filmmaker James Gunn was interviewed by Rolling Stone (via Variety), and he claimed to know what went wrong with Marvel's output. First though, they allude to a certain scandal he had several years back:

After you temporarily got fired from Marvel for some old tweets, you’ve said a ton of friends reached out to you — and that for the first time in your life, you had a transformative experience of feeling truly loved.

There’s no doubt that without that experience, I don’t think that I would’ve written the Superman that I wrote. I definitely wouldn’t be doing this job if I didn’t get fired, but I don’t know if I’d be doing this job even if it wasn’t for that. I just don’t think that a character that pure would’ve quite appealed to me.

How did that open the door?

I don’t think that opened the door to me writing the pure Superman. That opened the door for me to stop creating so that people would like me. That’s downplaying it — so people would love me. I think on some level, everything I had done came from a pleasing place.

They must really consider a movie such a big deal, they refuse to acknowledge what Gunn was fired from Marvel for was because it was discovered he'd written tweets with jokes about sexual assault. And yet, despite that, other filmmakers forgave him. Even if Gunn has no criminal record in real life, how can we like or love him if that's what he thought was funny? That's even worse than shoehorning a scene into the Superman screenplay to serve as a subtle swipe at fandom. On which note:

One of your big innovations here is the sci-fi Silver Age Superman stuff — robots, etc. — that has never been in a live-action film.

Yeah, I think that’s the biggest tonally novel thing about this film. And it really is based on the tone of [2000s comic book series] All-Star Superman in a lot of ways. And taking that tone into a cinematic realm is not the usual thing for a superhero movie, or for any movie. So I really was thinking a lot when making the film about graphic novels more than movies.

Oh, is that the Grant Morrison-penned alternate-universe tale? One must wonder what makes Morrison's tales so special, but not those of Siegel/Shuster, Edmond Hamilton, Otto Binder, Cary Bates, Elliot Maggin, Marv Wolfman, Dan Jurgens and Louise Simonson? If all a Hollywood scribe cares about is drawing from the most recent - and doubtless the most select - they're not accomplishing much of anything. Even the Bronze Age DCU had plenty of imagination and stories worth drawing ideas from, yet all Gunn cares about is Morrison's writings, and even Tom King's? Sorry, but that's much too easy. And why does it sound like Gunn took up the project for Superman because of his previous dismissal based on the aforementioned scandal?

Fantastic Four is coming around the same time as Superman and seems to share that Silver Age, optimistic feel. It’s interesting given weird times in the world right now that seems to be the right vibe.

Maybe. But do you really think they’re alike? I’m really embracing the Silver Age of it all, but I don’t think that it’s as stylized, or at least not stylized in the same way. And it’s not as retro. There are retro-futuristic aspects, because we’ve got Daily Planet with a big fucking [globe]. And the robots, the machinery. So I can see where there’s certain similarities.

Hey look, it's fine if you want to try out anthropomorphic animals like Krypto as co-stars, among other such ideas from the Silver Age. But again, looking for opportunities to insult fandom, stealth or otherwise, is unacceptable. Based on this and any other negative buzz this new film may have received, that's why we certainly can't expect a modern classic, and it's not every modern film that can be considered on a par with Victor Fleming and Judy Garland's take on the Wizard of Oz. Now, here's where Gunn "opines" upon what went wrong with Marvel movies:

Eddie Murphy once told me that nearly every bad movie happens because of Hollywood’s habit of setting a production date before they have a finished screenplay.

Yeah, totally. Listen, you can do everything right and make a bad movie. I’m really compassionate towards people that put their all into a movie. I know some people that were my former workers at Marvel — people who made some of the worst movies. There were people that were lazy and didn’t put their time in. And then there were other directors that worked really hard and maybe didn’t have the best movie come out, but they did everything they could. But I do believe that the reason why the movie industry is dying is not because of people not wanting to see movies. It’s not because of home screens getting so good. The number-one reason is because people are making movies without a finished screenplay.

And that’s one of the biggest rules you’ve made for DC — that they have to have finished scripts.

Yeah. We just killed a project. Everybody wanted to make the movie. It was greenlit, ready to go. The screenplay wasn’t ready. And I couldn’t do a movie where the screenplay’s not good. And we’ve been really lucky so far, because Supergirl’s script was so fucking good off the bat. And then Lanterns came in, and the script was so fucking good. Clayface, same thing. So fucking good. So we have these scripts that we’ve been really lucky with or wise in our choices or whatever the combination is.

If the screenplay for Supergirl's based on King's stories, no sale here, and the Maid of Might's been slighted again, much as she was when Alex and Ilya Salkind botched the 1984 film, and the TV show on CW from the past decade turned ultra-political from its 2nd season onwards. If there's no mention of the exact structure of the screenplay for Gunn's take on Supergirl any more than Superman, how can we be sure it'll be worth it? An "unfinished" screenplay sounds too easy, though I am aware there are screenplays that can get changed halfway through filming. Predictably, this ignores the issues with wokeism in Marvel's latest output, and if you can only keep clinging to cheap arguments like unfinished scripts, that won't get anywhere fast. And then, here's something really bizarre and unexpected for a modern Hollywooder:

What did you experience? What did you see?

I mean it’s really — it’s long, but my whole life is based on that fucking whatever that was. I have no clue how long it was. Maybe it was an hour, maybe it was seven hours. But, yeah, it was really just aligning a lot of the things I believed about myself, about finishing what you start, about it’s not my business whether people think of my shit — my business is doing what I do, and that’s it. It was my faith in God, which is a big part of who I am. And yet at the same time, I don’t think God really cares whether you believe in him or not. But I heard “Finish what you start.” That was like hearing the voice of God as if it was completely outside of me.

Wow, a guy who's rather obviously a leftist actually believes in God? He actually follows monotheism? But, based on his questionable conduct over the years, that's why even this can be called into question as potential virtue-signaling.

There’s a controversial Seventies issue of the comic book where it shows that Superman basically uses super-hypnotism to change people’s perception of him in the glasses — it was an idea sent in by a fan that has been mostly ignored since.

Something like that! I only know it from [DC Comics writer] Tom King. The first time we met was at Peter [Safran’s] house. We had this sort of writers group come in. One of those people was Tom King, and he was the most helpful. I’m like, “I just don’t know how to fucking deal with the glasses thing, because it bothers the fuck out of me.” All that little stuff that people are like, “It’s a fantasy, just let it go.” I’m like, “No, I have to explain everything.” Everything for me has to come from a place where I believe it, as outlandish as it is. With Rocket, I could not just make it a talking raccoon. It had to have a real foundation for where he came from and how he came to be. And I needed to believe that.

Sounds like he's doing everything he can to make King look good, and maybe that's a form of virtue-signaling too. And what's this, he has problems with Clark Kent wearing glasses when not in blue costume? I'm not sure why somebody who made live action cartoons like the Scooby Doo adaptations has a problem with Superman's plainclothes glasses. Could it be Gunn's not so fond of surrealism, as his comment suggests?

What were some of the other things you felt you needed to explain to make this Superman work?

There are things that I know I don’t explain that I don’t even want to say out loud! But I wanted Superman to be vulnerable. I see the online things “Who would beat whom?” — Homelander or Superman or fucking whatever, Adam Warlock or Brightburn, and I’m like, “This is the fucking stupidest fucking conversation.” Like, so then whoever would win this fight means that they’re the best? Because I’ll just go out and write God Man, who can destroy you with a wink. And I win. I win all the fights forever. But I didn’t want a Superman who could punch planets. And also we’re creating a whole universe now, so what’s a girl with wings gonna do in the face of that? So he’s a little less powerful. [Green Lantern] Guy Gardner’s pretty fucking powerful. They’re all pretty powerful.

Honestly, in talking to people, a lot of people are like, “I like Batman better because he can actually be beat,” and I get that. So we have a Superman that can be beat.

Oh, please. Of course Superman has been written as vulnerable and possible to "beat", but plausibility in how it's all written up matters. I do think it's odd though, that somebody who alludes to Silver Age cartoonishness suddenly has an issue with the Man of Steel slamming planets around, or moving them, an idea that may have been tried in the Silver Age (and the first Christopher Reeve film came close with reversing the earth's rotation near the end to save Lois), but was eventually downplayed or moved away from. And you thought it was weird enough if Gunn takes issue with Clark Kent's spectacles.

Over at Marvel, they’ve been pretty open about the fact that they realized what’s gone wrong over the past few years. They put out too much stuff.

And [longtime Marvel executive producer] Louis [D’Esposito] said that privately to me. I don’t even know if it’s really their fault.

They were under a corporate mandate, yeah.

That wasn’t fair. It wasn’t right. And it killed them.

Watching that, especially after being involved, are there lessons to be taken on your end?

There’s no doubt. We have to treat every project as if we’re lucky. We don’t have the mandate to have a certain amount of movies and TV shows every year. So we’re going to put out everything that we think is of the highest quality. We’re obviously going to do some good things and some not-so-good things, but hopefully on average everything will be as high-quality as possible. Nothing goes before there’s a screenplay that I personally am happy with.

But if it's woke, that's hardly a sign of ensuring "quality". And did it occur to them that making the Marvel movies since 2019 woke could be a "corporate mandate"? That part's not explored here. And then, Gunn has something to say about the Man of Steel's most notable adversary:

What was your way into Lex Luthor?

I really understand Lex. I feel like I relate to Lex way more than I wish I did. But for me, Lex looks at Superman like artists look at AI. He is the world’s greatest man in so many ways. He’s done these unparalleled things. And then you got a guy who comes in who’s done nothing to deserve the ability to fly and to smash down buildings. And he’s also extraordinarily handsome, too. And all of a sudden that’s all the world is talking about. And that sort of obsession with being replaced, with being — with your gifts not being seen or passed over — I think is what drives Lex. I relate to everything he does. He’s just meaner than I am.

Whenever somebody says he "relates" to the crooks, I find that very sad and troubling today. And it brings the person's sincerity into question. To say a somebody "relates" to a villain, but not to a heroic figure, is cause for concern. And this is why I don't look forward to superhero movies anymore. There's just so many bewildering double-standards on the part of the filmmakers, it's become only so discouraging as it's divisive.

Labels: dc comics, golden calf of villainy, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, Supergirl, Superman, women of dc

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart says Disney still remains fixated on pandering to wokeness - and gender-based blackface - in a new TV show based on the very new Marvel creation of Ironheart, one of their unsuccessful attempts to pander to diversity politics in the past decade, though it does make clear why the main character was introduced:

Disney’s upcoming super hero streaming series Ironheart, is set to bring a queer drag queen character to the Marvel universe of super heroes shows on the Children-friendly Disney+ platform.

The series, which follows Ri Ri Williams (Dominique Thorne) as she creates her ironman-like supersuit to fight evil, will also feature Marvel’s first drag queen character starring Ru Paul’s Drag Race contestant Shea Couleé, who will portray a computer hacker and drag queen codenamed “Slug.”

The drag queen, whose real name is Jaren Merrell, is a Chicago-based entertainer who competed on several seasons of Drag Race, excitedly told Entertainment Weekly that his character is a socialist-styled “Robin Hood” who steals from the “privileged” to “give back to the community.”

For a show spotlighting a black girl star, it sure is bizarre they're casting a performer who specializes in a form of blackface, and then they even pander to socialism by extension. This just makes clear what else remains wrong in how the live action Marvel movieverse is being managed. Also note how fascinating it is that characters created solely for the purpose of espousing leftist social justice propaganda in the past decade have since been put to use for the same in live action TV and films. To be sure, the comics writers and film producers had all this in mind for some time, to make use of these newer creations for what we're seeing now.

Much like the Marvel films need to be avoided now so's not to finance their propaganda, even the TV shows will have to be avoided for similar reasons. They're a sick joke now.

Labels: golden calf of LGBT, Iron Man, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, politics

One of IGN's worst writers sugarcoated the subject of the LGBT comic titled Gender Queer being "banned" from school libraries, which the worthless CBDLF is making the subject of a campaign allegedly against censorship:

Cartoonist Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer is widely regarded as one of the best and most influential graphic novel memoirs of the 21st Century. It's also among the most commonly banned books in the US, with the Los Angeles Times labeling it “the most banned book in American schools.” Fittingly, Kobabe is teaming with Oni Press for a new fundraising campaign dubbed "Fight Censorship, Read Comics." [...]

A portion of the proceeds from Fight Censorship, Read Comics will be donated to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) and the Florida Freedom to Read Project (FFTRP). The campaign features 15 different items, including T-shirts, art prints, enamel pins, keychains, and even signed and numbered editions of the Gender Queer hardcover. Preorders are open from now until August 20, with fulfillment slated to begin in September.

“The freedom to read, the freedom to access information, and the freedom to learn are some of the most vital rights in this country,” said Kobabe in a statement. “Removing books from schools and public libraries cuts off people's access to knowledge about the wider world and about their own lives within it. This is especially true when the books being removed are about minority identities, or topics less commonly portrayed in popular culture. A book that might seem pointless to one reader might be life-saving to another. Removing a book because its themes offend one reader is censorship, and must be combated at every turn. Please stand up for the freedom to read and the freedom to write!”

Just one reader? This is a whole bunch of parents who're rightfully offended something crude and smutty is being marketed to their children, often behind their backs. If it's inappropriate to be putting common pornography on school book shelves, why is LGBT propaganda like this considered okay? The way this Kobabe resorts to complaints about censorship when the same book could doubtless be bought at bookstores, both cement-based and online, is sickening. If the GN can be bought to read at home, that's not censorship. It's just a recognition that certain subjects and how they're written/filmed are inappropriate for children. There's a reason the MPAA was founded in 1968, and one of their suitability rankings for movies was the R-rating. If this GN depicts graphic sex scenes, then it's not suitable for children. We could also wonder what the author thinks is so wrong with heterosexuality, since that's what seems to be the case here too.

If Frank Miller for one is still associating with the CBDLF - tarnished as it's been for years now - despite where they're going with this latest "campaign", I'm very disappointed with him. And the CBDLF refused to represent Mike Baron in a legal suit of his of recent. So what good is it to have a legal outfit specially for comicdom if the people involved base their business entirely on their politics? Nobody with common sense should donate any money to the CBDLF, nor should they ask them to serve as representatives in legal issues if this is what they're going to represent. But IGN should also be looked upon in huge disappointment for backing their platforms hurtful to children. If there's any site about pop culture, video games or otherwise, that we don't need, it's IGN. A pure embarrassment.

Labels: censorship issues, golden calf of LGBT, libraries, moonbat artists, msm propaganda, politics