Social media ruined art before AI did

A writer at the Frederick News-Post says social media played a part in dulling artwork well before AI ever did:

Even before artificial intelligence began delivering its tepid conglomeration of “art” and reducing us all to idiocy, social media was already working to make “art content” look depressingly bland.

I, like many in the profession of comic book art, have dabbled in social media in the vain attempt to muster likes, follows and subscribers and, ostensibly, pick up a commission or two. In reality, I’ve come to realize I was trying to beat back the yawning need for validation by turning to online strangers, while discovering that nearly every one of those strangers only wanted my work if it were free.

Curse my vanity! Damn that impostor syndrome!

Whatever I’m doing doesn’t play well with the new pantheon of algorithmic deities. I’ve failed comprehensively at building an online audience. Honestly, the effort takes time I’d rather put into the work itself. Besides, nobody needs to see my grizzled old face explaining how a pencil works. I’m better suited as an invisible author.

Anyhow, the game is rigged. The house — Meta, TikTok, X and the like — always wins.

You may reasonably detect sour grapes here. Welcome to the vineyard.

I’m writing this especially for young artists starting out because I’d like them to avoid a trap I’ve felt tugging at my own ankles: producing bland, familiar work that people quite like, then mistaking their approval for artistic progress.

Something to consider is that artists who do have talent and draw competently, whether with a cartoonish or serious style, were victimized over the past decade by people who despise creativity, beauty and hated sex-positivity. That's not all, of course. The online neo-communists also made exaggerated or outright false accusations of racism/sexism, and that's one of the reasons we arrived at the sad situation we're at now with the mainstream, if anything. Twitter/X had by far the worst examples of what also became cancel culture, something Mark Millar spoke about in the past year, and it's bound to be years before the damage is mended, if at all.

Artistic voice is that almost indefinable critical quality that sets your work apart, that fits some missing jigsaw piece in a reader’s emotions and creates frisson and resonance, scratching an itch they maybe didn’t know they had. Developing it takes time, experimentation and an embarrassing quantity of output you’d rather nobody saw.

All you’ll get from social media is an audience and a scoreboard.

Consider the sketchbook. Mine needs room for mistakes. That’s rather the point. Yet the online sketchbook tour can look like a succession of finished illustrations, each waiting patiently for its merchandise deal. Nothing ugly. Nothing unresolved. God forbid, a badly drawn hand.

Experimentation can be anathema to the demand for consistently pleasing posts. You try something unfamiliar. It looks awkward, and you haven’t yet worked out whether it’s going anywhere or if it even will. That’s normal, but it makes a poor sales pitch in a feed full of polished drawings.

If you’re starting out, the danger is abandoning that experimentation because nobody clicked “like” before you learned what it might teach you. If every piece must be worth posting, where do you put the work that helps you improve? And where, in the interminable production line of performative “content,” do you find time to get better?

I think the mistake made here, if I'm reading correctly, is asking a potentially anonymous audience to give their stamp of approval, rather than experienced teachers and art critics. Relying only on social media drones is surely worse than relying on what might also be a dishonest teacher. And rest assured, of course mistakes happen, and you can't expect to reach peak talent in a fortnight, though I should note that there's a very sick segment of society that would be more than delighted to deceive, influence and shame somebody into delivering ugly, grotesque artwork that won't please consumers at all, and otherwise end the potential artist's career much sooner than expected. That's why social media is a very poor way of finding approval.

In comics, familiar legacy characters add another distraction. Batman arrives with decades of recognition, familiarity and popularity. We know who and what that character is. Any original character faces a steep hurdle to build an audience.

If Batman brings attention, how many disappointing responses to your own creations do you tolerate before returning to the crowd-pleasing cowl? There’s nothing shameful about drawing him. But I do wonder how much work never develops because its creator decides the audience has already voted.

Then there are the recurring styles. In my feed, I keep encountering rounded “Steven Universe”-like cartoon figures, polished Disney-ish faces, manga-derived expressions and enough decorative crosshatching to suggest the comics boom inflicted some kind of 1990s Stockholm syndrome on a certain generation.

Influence is essential, and we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but the generic reward from social media audiences encourages artists to settle before those influences have been explored, questioned and absorbed into a personal visual language.

A better social media site would probably be Deviant Art, and I vaguely recall Marvel staff once said a long time ago they wanted to hire and audition artists who hosted their artwork there, but in the years since, it's pretty apparent they didn't have faith in themselves, and several years back, they hired terrible scribes, quite possibly also because they're stunningly cheap. DC followed suit. Even today, things haven't recovered much. That's why it really doesn't make much difference whether you seek a job drawing Batman, because even Batbooks are far from selling in millions today, no matter what the press says about the Absolute line, and I would think that, if some publishers wanted to, they could figure out how to promote and market a creator-owned comic without having to worry the mainstream would literally trump all attempts to interest audiences in something unrelated. The superhero genre's long been demolished by PC, and there's opportunities at this point to promote stuff that could be science-fantasy, but doesn't have to be superhero-themed in every way. That's what modern marketers are missing.

I'm sure there's what to learn from an account like this about how an aspiring artist wishes to find a career of some sort. But today's artists have to also consider that an online "audience" isn't really the way to go for seeking approval. If anything, artists who want to actually sell their work physically have to make it possible for consumers of physical media to decide with a finished product. And you need to make sure you can find decent teachers and other such specialists who can tell you whether your artwork's got potential, and encourage the artists to keep working to improve where necessary. One so-called veteran nobody should rely upon, however, is Rob Liefeld, based on how his artwork of the 1990s and 2000s was mediocre or just plain outright atrocious. And as some could tell you, he couldn't draw feet. It's a shame some publishers had to associate with such an incompetent scribe out of the notion they could actually make money based on how poor Liefeld's art was. That Capt. America illustration he turned out in the late 90s where Steve looked like a balloon was a most tellingly awful textbook example of how not to draw an admirable character. And unfortunately, there are all sorts of Liefeld-wannabes in today's industry landscape. Liefeld may try to sound like he isn't so PC himself at times on social media, but he did regrettably precipitate the modern situation back in the day, no thanks to various incompetent editors and publishers who could've avoided employing him if they wanted to.

If one's looking for talented artists and other educators who could be more reliable, they need to look for figures like J. Scott Campbell, to name but one worthwhile example. But of course, they could also look at various examples from throughout the decades to see what artists, old and new, were the most impressive, and that's another good way to develop some good skills. I hope modern artists will consider, and in addition, so long as Marvel and DC are hostage to PC and bad directions, that they'll avoid seeking jobs there at all costs. The creator-owned scene for now can have more potential, and that's where they should exercise their skills. And even consider developing projects that're built more on optimism, much like Superman and Fantastic Four.

Batman's Knightfall becomes an animated cartoon

Inverse told some history of what may be one of the better offerings of the 1990s, the time when Batman's Knightfall event introduced Bane, the hefty villain whose main achievement at the time was breaking Batman's back. A story that's now subject of animated films. The writer spoke with the animation producers, but strangely enough, neither Bane's co-creators Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan, nor any other connected writers and artists of the time are named for their jobs here. For now, let's take a look at the beginning paragraphs:

Without a doubt, the 1990s were a period of extreme transformation and experimentation for the comic book industry. And depending on who you ask, it wasn’t exactly a great one. The era was dominated by gimmicks like foil and glow-in-the-dark covers, murderous edgelord antiheroes with big guns, hundreds of pockets, and odd things strapped to their legs. This was also the era in which both DC and Marvel became increasingly aware of the spectator market of comic book purchases. DC’s 1992 stunt, The Death of Superman, was designed to sell a special edition comic book, just as much as it was designed to shake up internal narrative continuity. Similarly, in 1994, Hal Jordan went mad with grief after the destruction of his entire city and became the villain Parallax, slaughtering most of the Green Lantern Corps in the Emerald Twilight storyline.

And yet neither event was as daring and complex as the most iconic destruction of one hero from that decade: the breaking of the Bat in Knightfall, a trilogy of storylines that played out over the course of 1993 and 1994 and across no less than seven distinct DC titles. Now, 33 years after Knightfall began, and 14 years after the live-action film The Dark Knight Rises adapted aspects of the storyline, an animated DC film trilogy is faithfully bringing Knightfall to life.

If there's any problem with the 2nd paragraph, it's that it has the effect of making you wonder if the writer really does find what's told in the 1st reprehensible. And Emerald Twilight definitely was. Amazing they admit the Death and Return of Superman was a stunt, because not every mainstream news site's willing to clearly admit that. Also disturbing is that it served as a lead-in to Emerald Twilight, based on how the destruction of Coast City took place in a connecting tale.

It’s impossible to understate just how shocking Knightfall was at the time of release and also how much it permeates Batman media. It’s referenced in the Arkham games and, again, is the partial basis for 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises.

Krieg remembers working across the street from New York’s Forbidden Planet Comics, going in so broke that he’d “just read the comics from the stands.” Morales, somebody who “grew up with the story and was a fan as it was happening,” describes his reaction to joining the project as one of “amazement.” Knightfall was a turning point for the industry as much as it was a turning point for the character of Batman himself – it depicted a vision of the character on the verge of extreme burnout and exhaustion, working beyond his limits while ignoring the lingering trauma of Jason Todd’s murder and Superman’s death.

Neither of which examples are very good, because the former was a cheap way of jettisoning a character based on that he supposedly sent a rapist to his death for scaring an innocent woman into committing suicide. And the latter was just a cheap way of getting short range attention for the Man of Steel, in a year long storyline that later saw the Toyman murder Cat Grant's son. We certainly didn't need the latter example put into effect, mainly because it does leave a bad aftertaste.

If there was anything peculiar about the death of Jason Todd, it's that, if he was trying and failed to defuse a bomb left by the Joker, it didn't disintegrate Todd at all. His body, though badly scarred and dripping with blood, was still largely intact, considering that in reality, it could've been blown to smithereens if struck at close range by an explosion. Batman comics can be as surreal as their more science-fantasy emphasizing couterparts, but if "reality" is really a big deal to the higher echelons, they sure didn't follow through with it there. Though it's decidedly fortunate that, when Bane broke the Bat's back in 1993, it wasn't portrayed graphically. Today, in the Geoff Johns-influenced era, that could all turn out much differently. And back to the cartoon adaptations, there's a notable character who's also making an appearance in them:

Even with those concessions, Batman: Knightfall – Part 1 is still extremely accurate and retains a key part of the original storyline overlooked by most adaptations: Jean-Paul Valley, the replacement Batman who gets a high-tech Batsuit as an upgrade but degenerates into a savage, vicious killer in the mantle. The character debuted two years before Knightfall as an unassuming college graduate, unwittingly raised since birth by the mysterious Order of St. Dumas to become the assassin Azrael. While Bane is the villain with all the pop culture recognition, Azrael was always intended to be the storyline’s final antagonist, an ideological battle between Batman’s strict moral code and the amoral ruthlessness of the antiheroes like Spawn and Cable popular in the 90s – and the movie sets up that conflict firmly by making Jean-Paul the saga’s third main character.

Azrael is introduced in a brutal cold open where Batman catches him in the middle of murdering a gang of criminals and offers him psychological help when he realizes his troubles. According to Morales, that opening “gives you a sense of Azrael and how violent he can be, how he’s not Batman but a darker version that kills. Then it shows you Batman in his peak form before we start to take him down later. I thought it was valuable to establish that this is how good Batman is, and this is how good Azrael is.”

Wow, that's their whole idea of an achievement, huh? Interesting that Azrael's the character who kills more noticeably, and unlike Jason Todd, Valley wasn't bumped off like Todd was, though at the end of the solo series created for Azrael, Valley was put to an end, and his role was later filled by a character named Michael Lane in the mid-2000s. Some could probably wonder if the arguments against killing violent criminals symbolized with Azrael is what led to the leftist hostility against the Punisher years later, even as Wolverine continues to get a free pass on the same acts Frank Castle was depicted performing. It hasn't done mainstream superhero comics any good, of course, and we've seen the effect it's had on readership and sales since.

Much as I think Dixon and Nolan turned out a significant addition to Batman lore of the time, it doesn't sound from this interview like the cartoon producers are truly grateful to the aforementioned twosome, and at this point, what's the use of a cartoon adaptation anyway, in an era where the zygote was ruined by PC and bad management?

Why the late artist Darwyn Cooke took the job drawing Catwoman's 3rd volume

Since the subject of pretentious writer Ed Brubaker recently came up, I found this fluff-coated Popverse article from last May, telling why the late artist Darwyn Cooke accepted the assignment of drawing the Catwoman volume Brubaker wrote in the early 2000s:

Catwoman has nine lives, and one of her most notable lives was her 2001 revamp by Ed Brubaker and Darwyn Cooke. The character’s previous run had mostly portrayed her as a cunning thief in skimpy clothing, but Brubaker and Cooke gave her a new look, a new supporting cast, and a new mission as the protector of Gotham’s East End. According to Darwyn Cooke, who passed away in 2016, this was a dealbreaker for him.

“Going back to Catwoman, when I was asked if I wanted to get involved in that, I said, ‘On one condition. She has to be completely redesigned. And I have to know that the writer believes, as well as I know, that this is a book that should be aimed at women, not at teenage boys,’” Darwyn Cooke says during a panel at Toronto Fan Expo 2009.

“And I said if that’s the approach we’re going to take, then I’m happy to get involved, because this is a great character, and it gives us an opportunity to build her back up and redeem her as a person and get girls reading comics again and excited about a character that they can relate to. I’ve always felt that this is an important thing that any sort of creator should be trying to consider.”

It’s good to have nine lives, and it’s even better if one of them is penciled by Darwyn Cooke.

I think a challenging query to be raised here is - what's so wrong with writing a story appealing to teen boys? Or, who says the same approach won't appeal to teen girls as well? In hindsight, I'm really not impressed with Cooke as an artist, and IIRC, at the time this took place, DC made efforts to do away with the blue shadings from previous designs for Batman's costume, and make entirely black. Catwoman's costume underwent a similar change, of course. But was her previous outfit really skimpy? I think during the 80s, Selina Kyle had one with cleavage, but I don't recall if what she wore in the 90s drawn by Jim Balent had, so this is another unshockingly sloppy take on history.

That said, did women really flock en masse to Brubaker and Cooke's take on the Feline Fatale? Perhaps the following I found on CBR's forums from 2016 can give a clue:

I did some research on Catwoman's sales from 1994 to 2016 on comichron.com and diamondcomics.com. I've been wondering why Catwoman sales have been so low, especially why they plummeted a few issues ago since they've been the best issues I've read in many years. Now it is assumed the comic is cancelled because it was not mentioned as being included during the Rebirth event.

Catwoman vol 2 (1993-2001) maintained much, much better sales than vol 3 or vol 4. In fact, the final issue of vol 2 in 2001 (the worst selling of the series) sold almost as many copies as vol 3 issue 25 (by Brubaker) in 2003, about 26,000 copies. The 90's Catwoman never ranked below 100 in the monthly Top 100 Comics chart. It only dropped below a rank of 75 around the Fall of 2000. It almost always sold as many issues as Robin, Supergirl, Birds of Pray, often outselling them and usually outsold Wonder Woman consistently.

Volume 3, which ran from 2001-2008, did not sell near as well. Its sales dropped from 49,000 copies of issue #1 to 26,500 copies of issue #12 in only a year. It consistently ranked well under 75 on the Top 100 chart, oftentimes dropping below 100. Its final issue only sold 15,000 copies.

Volume 4, the New 52, sold a little better than vol 3. Issue #1 sold 53,670 copies, but issue #20 was down to 26,900 copies, ranking 85th on the chart and was then one of the 3 worst selling DC titles. Sales from that point on were consistent until issue 42 only sold 22,000 copies. Then issue 47, Frank Tieri's first issue, plummeted to only 15,000 copies, ranking 166 on The Top 200 chart for December 2015.

These sales figures make it pretty obvious that the stories told and the artwork used used in Vol 2 in the 90's was significantly* more desirable than that of Vol 3 & 4.

I believe there were a few problems with Vol 3 from the beginning of it. First, I believe the new costume was simply unattractive. Darwyn Cooke said he wanted to tone down Catwoman's sexiness and make her look more practical and utilitarian. And he gave her bug-eye goggles. Catwoman became the opposite of sexy and I think that was a bad idea.

Next I think focusing on Catwoman in the role of a vigilante sworn to protect Gotham's seedy East End, where she has a controversial history of working as dominatrix, probably wasn't ideal for most comic readers. I think it was too dark and controversial for general audiences to get into. This was not the Catwoman that the public was used to seeing, and not what they wanted for her comic. She has always been glamorous and sensuous. She was fun because she was naughty, but still helped people often. This new Catwoman was a complete opposite, so people didn't buy it.

Vol 4, the New 52, had prettier artwork but the same bug-eye goggles, Emma Peele outfit, and bulky boots. She was a theif again but she was younger and dumber. And she was having sex with Batman while the two of them kept their masks on in the first issue. Yeah because when you wear a mask over the top half of your face, the person you are frequently screwing will never find out your true identity. This is just bad writing, which simply got worse over the next few years and the sales kept dropping.*

It's tragic that the past few issues have such low sales, and that Catwoman won't be included in DC's Rebirth. Frank Tieri's issues have been recieving great reviews, especially issue #50.

But I hope that DC has big plans for Catwoman to make her more attractive, more exciting, and more successful.

Thoughts??

Unfortunately, as the wokeness of the past decade made clear, there was no reason for optimism, and besides, Identity Crisis also led to ruination. IIRC, there was a story with Catwoman shortly afterwards where a retcon took place claiming she'd been influenced by Zatanna, quite possibly at Batman's request, to reform Selina. In other words, according to that tale, Selina did not reform of her own accord and thinking, which makes a mockery and insult to the older works of better writers.

Cooke's claims also ring hollow when you consider that at least a few women actually worked on the Feline Fatale years earlier. For example, Mindy Newell, and then Jo Duffy, who wrote the first 14 issues of the 90s series. So Cooke and Brubaker were insulting a woman who had no issue with depicting Selina Kyle as sexy. A most disgraceful distortion Cooke pulled there, and if memory serves, Brubaker not only implausibly revived Holly Robinson, a character originally seen in Frank Miller's Year One tale from 1987, Brubaker even turned her into a lesbian for the sake of it.

Now I'll give Cooke this: he did the right thing to say he didn't want to see the kind of one-sided sexual violence seen in Identity Crisis become normalized as offensive, sensationalistic plot devices. But if he once said he didn't want to see once heterosexual characters be turned LGBT overnight, he contradicted that, in a manner of speaking, by working with a writer as overrated and exploitive as Brubaker, who did something like that, certainly in Gotham Central with Greg Rucka, where they changed the Renee Montoya character to lesbian. Cooke also continued to work with DC even after Identity Crisis came out, and it can be validly argued that in doing so, Cooke wasn't following through on his arguments convincingly. Besides, he also once led a chummy connection with the disgraced Gerard Jones, and that too doesn't reflect well on Cooke in hindsight.

Cooke may have made a few valid statements, but he was apparently an early example of a wokester, and one can only wonder what he thought of his take on Catwoman selling considerably lower than the volume drawn by Balent, and first written by Duffy. Cooke not only insulted the aforementioned two, he also insulted plenty of other, more talented artists who came before Balent, like those who drew Catwoman in the 1970s. Having artists like Cooke on the job is sadly not better at all.

And as for the mention of Frank Tieri, wasn't he the writer who derailed Wolverine in the last 2 years of the 1988-2003 series? One more reason why I'd rather not buy his take on Catwoman either.

Luton's Comicon pays tribute to Steve Dillon

Luton Today says their local convention is going to pay tribute to artist Steve Dillon, who passed away a decade ago:

Luton Comic Con 2026 will pay tribute to one of the town’s most celebrated creative talents with a special exhibition dedicated to the life and work of legendary comic book artist Steve Dillon.

The exhibition, which Luton Comic Con CIC describes as a special final tribute to Dillon’s legacy, will showcase his remarkable career and lasting contribution to the world of comics.

[...] Dillon’s professional career began when he was just 16 years old, when he was hired to work for Marvel UK’s Hulk Weekly. His early Marvel UK work included drawing Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., as well as work connected to The Hulk, before he went on to establish himself across some of the most influential British and American comics.

That's pretty interesting he had Nick Fury to his credits. But what else was he know for?

He would later become renowned for his work on titles including Judge Dredd, Hellblazer and The Punisher, as well as co-creating the acclaimed Preacher with writer Garth Ennis. His distinctive storytelling and character work made him one of the most respected British comic artists of his generation.

Would that be Ennis' take on the Punisher they're referring to? Because Ennis set in motion the destruction of Frank Castle, turning it into a political mess 2 decades ago, and his take is something to admire? Though it does make me wonder what the late Gerry Conway might've thought of it.

Whatever the quality of Dillon's art, the sad part's that he was apparently one of a whole ocean of scribes who veered to the darkness, as his resume suggests. So what's so "remarkable" about that? I don't see it. There's bound to be only so many artists and writers who dealt more with the bright side - and Superman's building on that angle - who don't get as much attention as artists like Dillon may be getting (Al Plastino, for example). Seriously, it's time to give them more spotlight too.

Johnny Cash's evangelical comic from the Bronze Age

Relevant magazine wrote about a Christian-themed comic produced by singer Johnny Cash in 1976, illustrated by Al Hartley, who'd worked for Archie for 3 decades or so:

In 1976, at the height of his fame, Cash handed his life story to a 32-page evangelical comic book. It was called ‘Hello, I’m Johnny Cash,’ it cost less than fifty cents, and it was drawn by a man who spent three decades drawing Archie.

Z2 Comics is reissuing it for its 50th anniversary, on September 23.

The original came from Spire Christian Comics, an imprint of the religious publisher Fleming H. Revell, which spent the ’70s turning testimonies into newsprint — ‘The Cross and the Switchblade,’ ‘God’s Smuggler,’ ‘The Hiding Place.’ The script was by Billy Zeoli, an evangelical film producer who ran Gospel Films and sent Gerald Ford a weekly devotional the entire time Ford was in the White House. [...]

The book does not sand the story down. There’s a panel of Cash backstage surrounded by women, thinking “IT’S GONNA BE TOUGH LIVIN’ A CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THIS BUSINESS!!!” There’s the word DECEPTION in red across a spilled pill bottle. There’s a phone call where June Carter tells him she has thrown his pills away and he asks what he’s supposed to do now, and she tells him to read the Gideon Bible in his room, and he asks her to read hers to him instead. Philippians 4:13 runs across a close-up of his eyes. He takes more pills on the next page anyway, and there’s a police car.

The last page has him in a boat with June and their son, holding up a fish, over Proverbs 22:6. [...]

The reissue runs $9.99, limited to 1,000 copies, with new covers by Chip Kidd and Tim Bradstreet and an essay by comics writer Alex Segura. [...]

That they're charging even close to 10 dollars for this is the only problem here, because if this isn't something book length, why force anybody to pay even that much for a story that's just 32 pages? That's decidedly unfair to anybody who thinks this makes a worthy read. Stories like this, biographical or otherwise, are unlikely to be published today by the majors, based on all the PC that's brought down entertainment and morale, and charging $10 for something short is no improvement.

Rolling Stone has a surprising thing to tell about Cash's history though:

Johnny Cash was a lot of things — devout Christian, country superstar, anti-Vietnam activist, variety show host. But folks might not remember him as the writer and star of his own comic book, Hello, I’m Johnny Cash. Now, that little-known comic is getting a 50th-anniversary rerelease from Z2 Comics, set to come out on Wednesday, Sept. 23, which is Local Comic Store Day.

Wow, depending how you view this, it's rather surprising a guy who's said to be pious would oppose a war against communism at the time. If he didn't denounce the Viet Cong, that's honestly a problem, because we shouldn't devalue the lives of innocent foreigners, and it was the failure to destroy the commie HQ in northern Vietnam that made the war a big loss, and one that leftists exploited for destroying morale ever further.

I think Judeo-Christian-themed comics like these, along with biographical ones, can have potential, but that doesn't mean we should approve of people taking lenient views on how to deal with barbarism that grows overseas. That's also what led to tragedies like September 11, 2001, and importing bad ideologies like Islam to the USA only made the situation worse. I'm sure Cash was a talented musician in his time. But it's a shame he had to be the kind of guy who may have catered to the wrong crowd regarding how to wage a war against tyrants. That didn't improve the situation in the long run at all.

A lawsuit was filed against Ed Brubaker, but because of the politics involved, judgement should be withheld for now

Brubaker, a comics writer who's been in the business for 35 years, may be one of the most left-wing around, and overrated. But the following news on Deadline about a sexual/racial harassment lawsuit that's been filed against him contains clues why it may not be a good idea to take it at immediate face value:

What may or may not have gone down on Prime Video‘s upcoming Criminal now looks set to end up in a California courtroom.

“This action arises from the sustained sexual, racial, national origin, and religious harassment that Plaintiff ljaaz Noobu, a Sri Lankan American filmmaker with fourteen years of experience in the film industry, endured while working on the production of the forthcoming television series Criminal,” states a 12-claim complaint filed earlier this week in L.A. Superior Court. [...]

“Hired in February 2023 as a production assistant to showrunner and Executive Producer Ed Brubaker, Plaintiff came to the production eager to contribute his talent and technical knowledge to a marquee project, the pretty plainspoken jury trial-seeking document from Burbank attorney Fahim Rahman says. “Instead, he was subjected to a workplace made toxic and abusive by the very individuals entrusted with authority over it.”

With claims that Noobu was subjected to cracks about rape and “demeaning stereotypes” for being the only Muslim on set and asked by Brubaker if the PA was a supporter of Hamas, the suit seeks a variety of unspecified damages. Also named in the complaint as defendants alongside Brubaker are Amazon Services, MGM, Criminal EP Phillip Barnett and others as defendants.

Now, Brubaker is but one of many pretentious scribes in today's landscape, and in hindsight, I don't like his Batman work from the early 2000s. But when I noticed the plaintiff's an Islamic adherent, I had to give pause to taking the claims at face value, realizing it's possible this could be trumped up accusations. That doesn't mean it's impossible for a non-Muslim leftist to abuse a Muslim though, recalling there was an incident in NYC over 15 years ago where a leftist attacked a Muslim cab driver, and a few years ago, a Pakistani Muslim in Seattle, Washington, nearly had his son taken from him for the sake of "transing". But it's clear in the long run that negativity from leftists towards Islamists is rare, especially based on where they're going now with choosing political candidates.

I do wonder however, what Brubaker thinks of Hamas? Or the plaintiff himself? That's what isn't clear from this article. Somehow, it's scarier to think what Brubaker could think, based on any leftist credentials he retains. But if it turns out the plaintiff comes within even miles of supporting such a repulsive bunch, then I'm not sympathetic to him.

For now, we'll have to withhold judgement and let any ensuing trial determine whether the accusations are factual or false. However this turns out though, I'm not interested in Brubaker's resume.

An upcoming comics art festival in Los Angeles

The Hollywood Reporter announced there's a special convention taking place in the next 2 months in Los Angeles, primarily for artists. Unsurprisingly, the guests include at least a few pretentious modern scribes:

The world of comic art is being elevated to new heights thanks to the medium’s prominence in the new Lucas Museum of Narrative Arts.

Now, two comic art representatives are launching a two-day fete that seeks to keep the art form’s momentum away from the days of hunched-over collectors thumbing through unprotected pages in Tupperware crates in the basements of bargain hotels.

Taking place Nov. 7 and Nov 8 at Los Angeles’ gilded and storied Biltmore Hotel, the inaugural ICON Festival of Comic & Narrative Art will be a two-day celebration of original art by some of the most popular and influential contemporary comic book artists working in the medium.

Superstar artists Nick Dragotta, who currently pencils the industry’s top-selling Absolute Batman for DC, Daniel Warren Johnson, the Eisner-winner behind last year’s Absolute Batman Annual no. 1 and the recent Transformers for Image, and Invincible artist Ryan Ottley will be among those on hand to take part of the show, which will also feature a significant exhibition of more than 100 original works by Alex Ross, the celebrated comic painter.

What's so special about the artists who've worked on DC's Absolute line that isn't so special about those who could be working far more on independent productions? Dragotta and Johnson are actually pretty obvious choices, IMO. As for Ross, I don't deny he's talented in his own way, and he did make a statement I appreciate years ago, but even he doesn't feel like a big deal. Certainly not in an era where the comics he admires were ruined by Orwellianism.

Tickets – VIP, two-day, and one-day passes – go on sale today. The VIP package will include a signed giclee of a new Ross painting of an angel representing the Biltmore Hotel and meant to channel Old Hollywood. Ross is the artist whose seminal work Marvels and Kingdom Come opened doors for painted comics. His latest work, the ambitious graphic novel Marvel Dimensions (Abrams Comics Arts), hit stores last week.

“This is not your usual comic book event,” he said in a statement. “This is a luxury event, being held where the Academy Awards were first conceived.”

Maybe that's just the problem. Wouldn't that suggest this is for wealthy collectors, not for the middle-class buyer who may not be able to afford what they're offering? And Dimensions, as noted before, is just a modern retelling of the Golden Age Human Torch origins through a forced lens of darkness. What do we need that kind of angle for? Ross is actually undermining his previous objections to what Identity Crisis was built upon by going through with a project hinging on darkness.

If this turns out to be another excuse for speculators to rummage through and lap up as many supposedly valuable items as possible, it'll only continue to confirm what's wrong with conventions like these, and make a mockery of those centered around artists. Those who consider themselves talented shouldn't participate in something that's more about sales than storytelling value.

Michigan specialty store worries about tariffs for Canadian-printed items

Fox47-New10 tells of a specialty store in Lansing, MI whose manager is worried about a subject previously spoken about by NPR for an Ohio shop:

Flowers said they are concerned the U.S.-Canada trade war will drive up the price of comic books. Almost all of the comic books are printed and imported from Canada.

“The idea of comics increasing in price to me is just... would be ridiculous,” Flowers said.

Comic books are not currently included in Canada’s tariffs. Marcus Embry, manager at Summit Comics and Games in Lansing, said he knows that could change at any time.

“In the meantime, we’re just keeping our fingers crossed, hoping we’ll be able to continue providing that service for our guests without, you know, without having to up the price on them,” Embry said.

Embry said Summit’s comic distributor has not yet increased the price for Canadian-made books. He said the trade war is one of several factors he is watching that could affect prices.

“There are so many elements out there that affects, you know, how things have to be priced that this is kind of just another one of those. It’s certainly something to keep an eye on,” Embry said.

Embry said Summit is committed to keeping its books as affordable as possible for customers so more people can enjoy their stories.

Once again, I just don't understand why these same merchants don't argue whether trying to get comics printed and delivered cheaper in the USA proper is something the publishers could work upon. Not a word to that effect. And that's a problem. If we keep relying on "foreign" services, it's always bound to get out of hand at some point anyhow. One more reason it's disappointing any complaints about the costs of printing and distribution in the USA do not show up in these discussions. Why won't specialty store managers ever raise the issues? It's completely valid, and if they want to, they can argue in favor of getting domestic printers to start offering less expensive alternatives. The time has come, and I hope some store proprietors will begin to talk about it.

For Spider-Man's 1000th issue, Aunt May forgets who Peter Parker is

Comic Book Club tells the premise of the thousandth issue for Amazing Spider-Man:

In the cliffhanger of the last issue of Amazing Spider-Man, Peter Parker’s beloved Aunt May had a stroke. Well, thanks to a new preview from Marvel of Amazing Spider-Man #1000, we know what’s happened: she’s forgotten Peter Parker.

Alongside the preview pages, which include an appearance by May’s biological son Cormac, who has been appearing recently in the series, we’re also getting covers for the second printing, which will arrive on October 28 with pencilled versions of the covers by Pepe Larraz and John Romita Jr. (check out if the controversial cover looks better without the coloring). That’s because the issue has already sold over 400,000 copies to comic book stores [...]

Spider-Man faces his greatest fear and his most frightening new villain in decades… RAVAGE! Plus, some of the greatest creative minds on Earth honor one thousand issues of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! NOAH HAWLEY (Alien: Earth, Fargo, LEGION) makes his comic book debut, Frank Miller and Peach Momoko collaborate for the first time, Stuart Immonen and Brian Michael Bendis return to Spider-Man together, and some of the best ASM creators return to the title!

It's much too late for introducing new relatives of the Parkers to the title, and with Bendis aboard, something's obviously wrong. Even Miller's involvement does nothing to improve what's clearly just more publicity stunts. I don't know if Mary Jane Watson shows up, but if Bendis and/or Miller are allowed to script a story where MJ appears, it's only plain dismay.

Just like it's long too late for there to have been a 1000th Superman issue, it's too late for a 1000th Spidey issue, and besides, what are the chances they'll soon be resetting it to a number one, as became a sad staple in the years since a number of Marvel titles were first relaunched in 1998? The customers have hopefully long learned why it doesn't pay to buy all these brand new relaunch premieres that won't amount to much on the speculator market.

Film director defends comic adaptations

Variety reports film director Chloe Zhao, who worked on the unsuccessful Eternals movie, and is insisting on defending them as a form of entertainment:

When Chloé Zhao was growing up, she dreamed not of directing movies but becoming a manga artist.

“But I wasn’t very good at drawing. I wasn’t up to standard,” she said with a laugh during a wide-ranging masterclass presented by Cartier on Friday afternoon at the Venice Film Festival. “I wanted to tell stories. I didn’t think cinema was an option for me.”

Of course, Zhao found her way into film and directed acclaimed movies such as 2020’s Oscar-winning “Nomadland” and 2025’s Shakespearean drama “Hamnet.” She was eventually able to meld her passions with 2021’s Marvel adaptation “Eternals,” which starred Gemma Chan, Richard Madden, Kumail Nanjiani, Brian Tyree Henry, Barry Keoghan, Salma Hayek and Angelina Jolie and revolved around an immortal alien race sent to protect Earth from evil beings.

“I loved doing it,” she said of directing the movie. “For any of you who love anime, I know you know this was a girl’s dream come true. Comic books are the western equivalent of [manga]. They are very different, but I live in the west, and that’s what I had access to.”

Although superhero movies have waned in popularity since the pandemic — even “Eternals” fell short of box office expectations with $400 million globally against a $200 million-plus budget — Zhao sees the value in all forms of entertainment. That’s unlike, say, Martin Scorsese, who has infamously likened Marvel movies to “theme parks.”

“I do feel it’s important to not write off stories because we don’t consider them high art,” she said. “The purpose of storytelling for me, humbly, is to create containers for people … to try to process what they need to process. Archetypes are such a great way to do it — and we see them in myths — is because it’s something we all share.”

The problem is that political correctness has long taken over - even the Eternals movie had its own share of that - and it's drained the adaptations of whatever potential they had. If Zhao's creative license was restricted, that also says something about the film she directed, which was one of the first serious failures for modern comic adaptations to screen.

And since manga came up, it's vital to recall there've been at least a few Hollywood adaptations that were failures too, like the Saint Seiya film. That one, IIRC, wasn't even released with much fanfare. Some mangakas are also against following certain "western" principles. For all we know, the least successful adaptations of manga could've precipitated the failure of USA comics movies. Another problem is that the adaptations only seem to build on action and comedy themes, not unlike how animation is marketed in the west. If Hollywood's not willing to try out projects based on comics and manga emphasizing drama and romance, it just illustrates the failure of the western film industry to expand beyond certain themes and be more creative, not to mention give the audience something that could be more challenging.

So what's the use of defending comics-based live action films if they're going to remain so PC, and not expand to more challenging themes? There's whole shiploads of independent comics out there too that could serve as a wellspring, and they eschew all that for the sake of adapting mainstream comics that've been throughly ruined over the past quarter century. Indeed, what good does it do to watch live action adaptations when the original comics are being destroyed? If the original comics are turned stale, it just makes a mockery out of the idea to adapt them in the first place.