Marvel's abuse of Mary Jane Watson continues

Marvel continues to degrade the Spider-Man legacy by using Mary Jane Watson as a source of projection, and the worst part is that Popverse, unshockingly, is acting as an apologist for it. Case in point: the Death Spiral storyline, where MJ, in the Venom guise, is the one to terminate the villain Torment, with the problem being that it all sounds vaguely similar to the time when Wonder Woman broke Max Lord's neck in 2005 at the time of Infinite Crisis:

In the last few pages of The Amazing Spider-Man #27 from Joe Kelly, Carlos Gómez, Ed McGuinness, and Francesco Manna, MJ's Venom grabs the crossover's villain, Torment, dragging his body against the side of a building before throwing him down onto a roof, after he was about to hurt Aunt May and Mary Jane's own beloved aunt, Anna Watson. For context, Mary Jane's father, if we can even call him that, was an abusive man who left his daughter with emotional wounds she's bravely worked to heal in adulthood. Luckily for MJ, her Aunt Anna was able to step in as a mother figure for her. This is all to say that when Torment attacked May and Anna, he gave himself a one-way ticket to the afterlife via Venom Airlines.

Once on the roof, Torment rambled on about wanting to "help Peter" before making a threat against his life, at which point Mary Jane's Venom dropped him off the roof of the building, where he fell to his death. Now, killing someone this way is relatively tame for Venom as New York City's Lethal Protector, but it's a shocking moment for both the symbiote and MJ because they've been trying to rein in their more violent instincts. After seeing Torment dead on the sidewalk, Venom asks, "Was that you...? Or me?" implying that it's unclear whether the symbiote or Mary Jane or both of them were responsible for dropping Torment's body.

You might be wondering: Mary Jane Watson, murderer? Venom writer Al Ewing has been setting up this turn of events for MJ and the symbiote over the past year. In 2025's All-New Venom #9, MJ and Venom nearly murdered Doc Ock by drowning him in symbiote goo before Flash Thompson intervened, telling them, "That's not you. That's not either of you." After a moment, Venom said, "No. No, you're right. That's not who we want to become," before releasing Doc Ock. Sadly, with The Amazing Spider-Man #27, it seems that Mary Jane and Venom have become what they feared most.

Even if this is a murderous villain in focus who got sent to the afterlife, we're way past the point where this could've been plausible, and one of the worst things about this storyline is that the writers doubtless were banking on that it would all be divisive, not unlike the time when Jason Todd supposedly killed a rapist in Batman in the late 80s. Also note that, when a writer as woke as Ewing is involved, something is terribly wrong.

And is the columnist saying Torment is MJ's father?!? If memory serves, there was one time in past decades where the dad did appear as a broken old man, hopefully portrayed as repentant over whatever abuse he subjected MJ's family to, and if this new supervillain is the dad, they've ruined whatever perceptive impact the older Spidey story had. This also reminds me that about 26 years ago, Geoff Johns and David Goyer depicted Obsidian murdering his abusive dad in the pages of JSA, and while it may have been due to influence by a Golden Age villain named Ian Karkull, that shoddy tale still had no good impact at all. So why must we see this Spidey story as any better? It only proves Kelly's another writer who's overrated to begin with. Also, Karen Page's dad in Daredevil may have been depicted in a way vaguely similar in the late 60s (issues 56-7) that was more plausible, so this whole idea in Spider-Man isn't new so much as it's contrived and forced.

Another writer at Popverse is making things worse, lecturing that MJ is better off as Venom than as Spidey's girlfriend/wife:

Lots of people around the world relate to Spider-Man and Peter Parker, but I've come to realize that I share more of a kinship with the people around Spider-Man than the web-slinger himself. The guy frustrates me. He can be a lousy boyfriend, friend, journalist, you name it, and I hate feeling let down by his shortcomings. And this is precisely why, when I heard that it was Mary Jane Watson beneath the Venom symbiote goop, I felt an unbridled sense of joy. Oh my god, MJ can finally be free, I thought. And free she has been.

Let's be real, none of us will ever catch Mary Jane Watson slipping. Her hair is always perfect, she can rush around the city in heels without getting a single rolled ankle or blister, and she's got a rock-solid moral constitution. But that isn't all she can be. And it's this element that writer Al Ewing has been exploring with the All-New Venom and its subsequent Venom ongoing series with MJ as the symbiote's unexpected host. As Venom, Mary Jane has redefined the significance of Marvel's most popular characters while also injecting a much-needed sense of joy and whimsy where there was once only trauma and sorrow. With MJ at the symbiote reins, her character has gotten the chance to directly address the damage that the symbiote wrought on her life when Eddie Brock and Peter Parker were its hosts, while also publicly being a weird, goopy freak protecting her fellow New Yorkers. Talk about a power fantasy!

Oh my god, is this utterly stupid. On the one hand, he writes a classic putdown of a hero because being one is somehow one-dimensional compared to a villain. On the other hand, he acts like MJ as a fictional character is literally portrayed as flawless, when there were times she's been depicted as sustaining injuries (like the time in 1974 where Harry Osborn took up the Green Goblin outfit) and other accidents, and the part about "rock solid moral constitution" is nullified by the very story in issue 27. If Spidey was depicted in the past as the kind of hero who usually refrains from killing, MJ was usually depicted as more or less the same, and this pretentious tale is clearly a cheap excuse to have a co-star in Spidey's world do what he might not be written doing. Worst of all, it was, again, doubtlessly written to be divisive.

Later on, in Venom #251 by Al Ewing, Paco Medina, and Frank D'Armata, the pair disguise themselves in Iron Man armor and zip across New York City on roller skates - because MJ knows how to roller skate, of course. "You're not having fun?" Venom asks her [and by extension, the more humorless of us] when she says, "This is ridiculous." "Symbiotes don't know how to roller-skate, remember? I couldn't do this without you." Indeed, the very best symbiote shenanigans have been only possible in these books because of the woman beneath the goop.

Mary Jane Watson has been through it. From growing up with an abusive father, to having the people closest to her become supervillains and superheroes, to watching Venom transform her partner into a violent man she was afraid of, to listening to Peter Parker whinge on countless occasions, New York City is lucky that this woman hasn't been consumed by her own demons. With everything her character has gone through, why wouldn't she become a host to Venom at one point or another? As Venom, Mary Jane challenges our understanding of the symbiote-host bond, taking it from a relationship built on toxicity with nu-metal blasting in the background to a place of nuance, reflection, courage, and creativity.

But the writers involved don't. Of all the shoddy "op-eds" Popverse could've written till now, this is one of the dumbest ever. Writing merit (and art) are what make anything involving Venom work, not because there's a woman now combining with the symbiote. There's nothing creative or courageous at this point about turning MJ into another Venom host, because all these changes have only served as a pathetic excuse not to deal with more challenging issues or even develop plausible relations between heroic characters and their co-stars.

Venom is many things: an alien symbiote, a lethal protector, an antihero, a destroyer of carpets, and above all, a creature who craves companionship. As monstrous and intimidating as Venom can be, the character is driven by the fundamentally human truth that we're social creatures. For all the talk of the supposed "male loneliness epidemic" today within toxic online spheres, the Venom symbiote can and will die if it can't bond with someone. At the end of the day, even the biggest, burliest, and goopiest of us need someone whom they can confide in, even if things aren't always smooth sailing.

And frankly, with all the waffling over the state of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson's relationship (or lack thereof) at Marvel's Spider-Man office, perhaps the best thing would be for Mary Jane to cut ties with Peter entirely and fully embrace being Venom for the foreseeable future. If anything, it's a refreshing story about a woman's trauma that isn't traumatic to read. And as Venom, Mary Jane has the unexpected chance to develop into her own standalone character, no Peter Parker needed.

I think the best thing for the columnist to do is stop writing about comics altogether. Interesting he talks about a loneliness epidemic in toxic circles, because that seems to be an allusion to what PC advocates consider fans who're "obstacles" to the cruder, more degrading ideas they want to force upon corporate-owned characters, and tragically, as this Spidey tale makes clear, already have. The writer also implies MJ was never written with personal agency when she and Peter were married, and it's literally impossible. This also ignores that even recently, there were a few stories that depicted MJ working without Spidey around, and as the above makes clear, don't matter to the columnist in the slightest. The "op-ed" only perpetuates a classic propaganda cliche that a character can only work when portrayed as a villain, and that's repellent.

I also noticed another site writer was talking about how the now late Gerry Conway worked towards making Peter and MJ a couple after putting Gwen Stacy to death:

While Peter and Mary Jane had casually dated after her introduction, their relationship halted when Peter realized Gwen was the one he cared for. Peter and Gwen became an official couple, and Mary Jane began dating Peter’s roommate, Harry Osborn. However, Conway always felt MJ was the more interesting character.

“She seemed like she would be a real match for Peter on a verbal one-to-one give-and-take sort of level, and I never felt the same way about Gwen. I’m sort of the guy who never saw Gwen as a real serious match for Peter. She seemed more like Stan’s fantasy than mine. So, there I was, and I sort of put my hand up and said, ‘Well, why don’t we just kill off Gwen? That would be kind of cool. Then we could get Mary Jane into the book more.’ And there was no real serious debate about it. It was sort of like, yeah, that sounds like a good idea.”

“You have to remember that Gwen had been Peter’s serious girlfriend for about five or six years, but the book had been out for about 10. So it wasn’t like Lois Lane, who had been there all the time. Peter had several girls in his life. He had Betty Brant sort of semi-seriously. Liz Allan had been an interest at one point. Mary Jane Watson had been around. So, while Gwen was his official girlfriend, for those of us who had followed the character from the very start, she didn’t feel like she was that integral to the character. To people who had been reading the book for the last five years, she was Lois Lane.”

While I think the death of Gwen was written as well as could be expected for a story of its time, it's annoying how Conway obscured the fact that writing quality is what made MJ's assigned personality more interesting than Gwen's. But of course, was it Gwen's fault for not having a great personality? I'm as much a fan of Stan Lee as the next person, but I recognize that like me and you, he had his flaws. Yet nobody wanted to improve upon his flaws in writing, as John Byrne and Chris Claremont later did with Wolverine in X-Men when they took over for writers like Len Wein? Well that's the problem. Make Peter and MJ a couple, but that doesn't mean killing Gwen to get to that point is the sole option in the whole universe. For all we know, they could've had Gwen pair up with Flash Thompson or even a new character they could create if they'd wanted to. And to say killing Gwen would be "cool"? Seriously, that's not in good taste. Even if one can write a death scene with talent, death is not something to celebrate.

And then, as though things couldn't get more absurd, Comic Book Club says Marvel's actually celebrating 60 years since MJ officially debuted on-panel, and look who one of the writers is:

Mary Jane. Wacky Weed. Reefer. Sweet Green. Marijuana has many names, and frankly it’s disgusting that Marvel is celebrating the 60th anniversary of this DEADLY drug with… Oh, I’m sorry, I’m being told this is the anniversary of the fictional character, Mary Jane Watson. My bad!

Anywho, because Mary Jane said a thing one time 60 years ago, the publisher will release the one-shot Mary Jane: Face It, Tiger #1, a celebration of all things MJ featuring all-new stories and a glimpse of what’s to come.

In the book, you’ll get stories from J.M. DeMatteis, J. Michael Straczynski, Ann Nocenti, and Ashley Allen, alongside art from Phil Noto, Alina Erofeeva, Andrea Broccardo, and Luigi Zagaria.

JMS alone is enough to shudder at this point, and I don't like how the writer makes jokes about how MJ's name was also a slang in the past for cannabis. Even Phil Noto's reason enough to avoid this, because like JMS, he's quite a leftist too. But the former, well...after all the insults to the intellect he heaped upon the Spidey franchise in his writings, to have him return even for a single special has long become insufferable. With all the repeated damage inflicted upon Spider-Man and MJ (and even Gwen) over the past quarter century, what is there to celebrate?

Anayway, Popverse has once again proven they're one of the most bottom of the barrel news sites to come about in recent years, and if they're to be considered a successor to the now defunct Newsarama, "op-eds" like the above prove they're easily worse. How they get their funding is mystifying, seeing how they're just as loyalist to the establishment Joe Quesada was part and parcel of, and claim as they may to being Spider-fans, this proves they most definitely are not.

Even British comics are made the subject of useless auctions

ComicBook's fawning over the news a collection of British comics is being put up for auction, alongside more DC/Marvel back issues, and even harcover compilations:

Excalibur Auctions is running the massive auction of British comics, which includes thousands of popular comics, cover artwork, advertising ephemera, toys, merchandise, and fanzines. It was the collection of private collector Peter Hansen, and that collection includes a number of books that DC fans will want to take note of. Books included in the collection are Batman Double Double Comics #1 – #3, which are actually made up of unsold DC comics that were returned to publishers and rebound in groups of 4, giving the comics their name. Other Double Double Comics include Justice League, Jimmy Olson, Strange Adventures, Lois Lane, and Worlds Finest, though there are also Silver Age issues of The Brave and the Bold, The Flash, Aquaman, Detective Comics, and more. You can check out the full collection right here.

The Peter Hansen Collection of British Comics and Comic Art Is A Truly One of a Kind Auction

The Peter Hansen Collection features an array of items that Hansen had generously loaned to numerous institutions over the years, including the Cartoon Museum and the National Centre for Children’s Books. This collection was so expansive that it had to be split up into multiple sales, and that’s why it’s a truly one-of-a-kind auction and collection.

[...] There are all kinds of gems in this collection, including POW! #1 from Power Comics (Oldhams Press). The issue comes with the Spider Matic Gun and all of its Spider Disc bullets, and those are in the original press-out card as well. This is also key for Marvel fans, as it reprinted the first story of Amazing Spider-Man #1 for British readers.

There’s a host of other Marvel books in the auction as well, including a collection of 27 hardback Marvel annuals that feature The Amazing Spider-Man, Hulk, Fantastic Four, Star Wars, and The Avengers. There’s also a bound volume of Captain America that includes assorted issues, as well as a bound volume containing issues of X-Men Vol. 1, and a host of characters make their first appearances in the collected assortment.

It's very disappointing what could be the most engaging of UK comics are reduced to rotating relics on the speculator market as much as the DC/Marvel comics they speak of. Most eyebrow raising is that this private collection was put on display at some museums, yet now it may never be seen there again, and remain collecting dust in vaults. Also quite telling what's wrong with the speculator mentality is that even compilations that sound like paperback/hardcover are being sold to collectors who may not read those either. In which case, one could understandably wonder what's the use of trade collections any more than pamphlets?

Another article that's trivializing comics for the sake of meaningless auction sales.

2 more examples of news propagandists exploiting Gerry Conway's rejection of the Punisher for their own leftist agendas

It's been a week or so since veteran comics and screen writer Gerry Conway passed away, and here's 2 more examples of leftists exploiting his rejection of his own creation, Frank Castle, for the sake of tearing down on crimefighting as a vigilante, Spider-Man's being built on this theme notwithstanding. First, there's Polygon:

Over the years, the character has been fleshed out by dozens of creators, multiple films, and even a popular Netflix TV series. Details and timelines have changed, but, through it all, Frank Castle has remained solidly in the realm of antihero. With hundreds of deaths on his conscience from his time as a shell-shocked vigilante, he claims to only kill those that "deserve it." Yet, considering the pretty clear PTSD he's suffering dating back to his first appearance, let's just say that he might not be of sound mind to make those choices.

Conway himself was actively outspoken for years around the misappropriation of the Punisher's logo by deluded militants vowing to take justice into their own hands. Both on his personal social media and through various interviews, he maintained that a violent police force would have no common ground whatsoever with Frank Castle. Deluded though he may be, Castle believes himself to be a complicated necessity in a world of bright optimism. In Conway's words, “He thinks he's doing right, but we know he's doing wrong.”

All this coming from possibly the same kind of people who do virtually nothing to make the neighborhood/city safer. What exactly is so literally wrong with terminating murderers and rapists? This kind of thinking is practically what led to the demise of Jason Todd in Batman back in 1988, even though it was never clearly confirmed he'd actually thrown a rapist off the roof in a storyline from several issues prior. Simultaneously, it's bizarre and hypocritical how the same propagandists never take issue with how Wolverine's been depicted killing plenty of similar villains in past comics, and nobody utters a word about that, if at all. Even Lobo at DC never seems to undergo this kind of scrutiny.

And then, interesting how they bring up optimism; the same people who go out of their way to defend Batman's angle at all costs, along with horror movie franchises and such like Aliens, and never had any issues with DC going miles out of their way to make their universe dark as possible in the worst ways over 2 decades ago. Also, what's so inherently optimistic in a universe where the Hulk and Daredevil reside and received such an emphasis? Or the X-Men and Dr. Strange? Somehow, it doesn't sound like an accident they brought up optimism. But, why do they think that bizarre exaggeration is actually going to make a great shield for their positions, built as they are on lapses in logic?

Next, there's Popverse, who begin with the following:

In 2022, Gerry Conway recounted meeting someone with "the Blue Lives Punisher logo — you know, the blue stripe variation on it" tattooed on their arm. "And then above it," he said, "They had tattooed 'I don’t read,' and then below it, 'Punisher comics.' And I thought, yep."

Was Conway telling the truth? Or a half-truth? Since he's gone, there's no way to ascertain it now, but if he was taking things out of context or lying about the tattoo saying "I don't read Punisher comics", that was very appalling, because it suggests he was trying to make out "right-wingers" to be inherently stupid and uneducated.

Conway's April 2026 passing has left a giant hole in the comic book community, and in looking back at his legacy, it's hard not to see his relationship with Frank Castle - who he co-created with John Romita Sr. and Ross Andru in 1974 - as less than triumphant. For his entire life, Conway held that the Punisher was not created to be emulated, and that the adoption of his logo by members of the military, police, and overarching alt-right movement signaled both a deep misunderstanding of the character and a moral failing of those institutions.

I'm not here to argue that he got any of that wrong. Even if he wasn't the guy who, you know, helped created the goddamn character, I'd take a look at today's headlines and be pretty convinced of his position. But what I am here to tell you is this - that as we remember Gerry, we should not only recall his critiques of the deeply confused wannabes that wear the Punisher's symbol - we should remember the time Gerry fought back.

That moment was in part the subject of a 2022 episode of the 99% Invisible podcast, which is where I got the opening quote to this article. The show, which is a psychological deep-dive into the ways design affects our lives and culture, decided to dedicate an entire episode to the Punisher skull logo, its usages by conservative groups, and of course, the comic book history that led Conway & Co to creating it.

To truncate the (very listenable) episode, Conway speaks about making the Vietnam War an important part of Frank's past, which he calls the "fundamental social crime that we [his generation] felt that the government was perpetuating," and the bitter irony that now members of the government are putting the Punisher skull on their squad cars and humvees. And after years of witnessing them do so, Conway found a perfect opportunity to counter their misusage, and in doing so, support a movement that those tough-guy claimants couldn't stand:

Black Lives Matter.

In 2020, as the nation saw a tide of protests inspired by the murder of George Floyd, Gerry took a stand in a way that only a comics legend could. That was the "BLM Skulls for Justice campaign," in which the seminal Marvel and DC writer tried to reclaim the logo "potentially as a symbol for justice rather than for oppression. That, while The Punisher was a very problematic hero, he was trying to fight on the side of right."

The BLM Skulls for Justice campaign gave artists of color - Demonte Price, Don Nguyen, Wess Hancock, and Sam Ines, to be specific - the opportunity to rework the skull logo into a symbol that stood against the alt-right, not bolstered it. By the end of the campaign, a number of redesigned skulls adorned merch like t-shirts and hats, and perhaps most importantly, raised $75K for the LA chapter of BLM. Now let me ask you this, reader - does that mean that Conway was successful?

No, or at least not ideologically. Also note how they obscure Floyd's criminal record, in one of the saddest cliches of modern times, which is to totally distort facts for the sake of political agendas. Oddly enough, the columnist does admit it's not like Conway's "campaign" was truly successful:

That's up to the individuals who come across this article to decide, and for my part, I think the answer is somewhere in the vicinity of: "not for long." The 'I don't read Punisher comics' guy is still doing his thing, most likely, and the logo is still being used in some outrageously toxic places (for example, as a personal motif of the current FBI drinker - sorry, director). But here's why I say this story matters. When Gerry Conway had the opportunity to stay silent about an important issue, he didn't. Whether or not the proverbial needle was able to move regarding the Punisher skull, he pushed. Listen to Gerry put the idea into his own words as he wrapped up that podcast interview.

"I’ve heard one or two people on Twitter," Gerry told his interviewers, "Saying that there’s literally no way that the Punisher logo can ever be anything except a symbol of oppression. I think that’s just, you know, no, come on. But even if that were the case, sticking your finger in the eye of the bad guys is always a good deal. And putting out sweatshirts that had the BLM logo with The Punisher logo is a, you know, it’s a pretty hefty 'F- you' to people who deserve to have an 'F- you.'"

Maybe the Punisher's skull being a symbol of something decent, or at least, a symbol not to be idolized, is a battle we've lost. Symbols can go that way. But as one of the greatest Marvel Comics creators seems to indicate here, maybe we can trade that skull for a middle finger, and maybe do just as well without it.

Well that has to be one of the most vile suggestions a would-be "journalist" could possibly make. And we wonder how good manners have deteriorated for many years, as less seem to be teaching any valid etiquette today. And somebody who makes a fuss over what he claims are "important issues", yet has none when it comes to the horrors illegal immigration into the USA has resulted in, has no business claiming moral superiority, let alone reading any comics himself. Come to think of it, what if he doesn't read Punisher comics either? Don't be surprised if quite a few leftists stay away from even the modern Punisher comics being turned out by Marvel, and from what I can tell, there's probably less at this point than before anyway. Besides, the real Frank Castle's tales pretty much ended when his last solo book did in 1997. Most annoying, IIRC, is that prior to the Punisher getting his own solo books, writers like Frank Miller and Bill Mantlo expressed dislike for the character in the very pages of the comics they wrote, all without considering it's not Frank's fault for the personality components he was built upon. Remarkably, writers like Steven Grant, Mike Baron, Carl Potts and Chuck Dixon showed more respect when said solos were launched, and the stories they wrote that I read portrayed Frank as anything but an insane man who didn't make distinctions between worser and lesser evils. What Mantlo did should honestly be expunged from continuity altogether, and now that I think of it, he was one of the earliest writers who put questionable politics into some, if not all, of his writings.

I guess if there's something really sad about Conway's passing, it's what he left behind - a political agenda he did not need to build up. Like various other comics writers today, he set a poor example by going out of his way to insult entire segments of fandom who did appreciate the subsequent stories starring the Punisher, which Conway didn't even write himself. So, did he believe successive writers who took even the most perceptive approach to how Frank could be characterized were wrong? Sadly, we'll never know now, and there's no telling how much longer Marvel's going to keep trampling on Frank Castle as a fictional character for the sake of woke brownie points.

Kevin Eastman doesn't think Ninja Turtles could be produced today

Creative Bloq says Ninja Turtles co-creator Kevin Eastman doesn't think it would be possible to get it created today. Some of the parts in discussion include:

Kevin says that when he meets fans at events like MCM Comic Con, he likes to ask them who their favourite Turtle is – “you can tell a lot about someone's personality,” he says.

That's part of what's made the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles such an enduring success. The tone of the franchise has varied: the family-friendly animated series feels a world away from the edgy black-and-white comics that Kevin and Peter Laird began with ("there's a lot less murder and vengeance kind of stuff”), but the core concept remains: the team.

I guess that's the rather odd thing not everyone brings up - the comics were more adult, in contrast to the animated adaptations, and perhaps the live action movies too. But even if the more recent comics from IDW follow the playbook of the original comics, that still doesn't excuse how woke the new ones are.

Another key to the Turtles' legacy is that Kevin and Peter kept creative control. They self-published the comics, and they were personally involved in the first three movies and the first 300 cartoon episodes. That was intentional after learning from the artists who came before them.

“Pete and I were specifically influenced by Jack [Kirby] and his work at Marvel. He was doing work for hire, so he didn't get to participate in creative input or profit participation. We self-published Turtles with the full knowledge of what had happened to those giants that we stood on the shoulders of”.

In that case, why did they sell off the rights years later to companies like Viacom almost 2 decades ago? Seriously, do they really, all of a sudden, no longer care about their creations and what poor changes resulted? Come to think of it, why don't they try to buy them back? Now, about what Eastman thinks of the time when they originally created the Ninja Turtles 42 years ago:

The comics industry has changed massively since Turtles Issue 1, which was placed in comic stores via small number of sub distributors on a non-returnable basis. At that time, trade magazines like the Comic Buyer's Guide were the place to get word out, but it then depended on word of mouth.

Even the first issue did better than Peter and Kevin had hoped for, with its run of 3,000 copies allowing them to return the $1,200 loan they took from Kevin's uncle and also to pay rent for a couple of months. Would they have had such an instant success today?

“I think the Turtles would not at all have had the success it had then. The landscape has changed too much. It would be a completely different set of challenges.

“We were coming off a time in 1984 where you had the mainstream comics like Marvel and DC, the emergence of new publishers like Pacific Comics and Capital Comics, and this whole other foundation that started in the late 60s of underground comics – stuff you found mostly in head shops and intended for adults. It was a perfect storm of opportunity that gave us that foot in the door to find an audience.”

Today, there are more platforms, and Kevin welcomes the likes of Kickstarter and Indiegogo to allow self publishing both digitally and physically. But there's also more competition from other mediums.

That said, Kevin's very hopeful about the industry in general. The Last Ronin tapped into a shift towards prestige comics with mature legacy stories, and it drew a new audience not only to the Turtles but other comics too.

But what about the woke ingredients in the past number of years? What about the woke change to Splinter in a more recent film? That the old/new comics are more adult themselves is no excuse. If they're going to let the conglomerates who acquired the copyrights get away with this, and make no effort to buy back their creations, they've really let down the fandom they've had. And then Eastman actually cites Kirby as an inspiration, when here, the former, along with Peter Laird, later sold off much of the franchise? I'm sorry, it's just no use. By the way, does Eastman know Capital Comics only lasted a few years, and some of the comics they initially published, like Mike Baron's Nexus and Badger, were later transferred to First Comics for continuation?

Eastman is right there's far more competition today, and no telling if Ninja Turtles would be noticed as easily by Hollywood as it was in the late 80s. But he and Laird still made a big mistake selling off their properties to conglomeracy, and if Kirby made the same mistake with any creator-owned properties he had, that wouldn't reflect well on him either. If Eastman/Laird won't address any misuse of Ninja Turtles in the years since they sold it off, what's the point of these observations? And while it's great they got as far as they did back in the day, do they realize 3000 copies is still a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of units published in other mediums? Ninja Turtles is a great creation. But let's not delude ourselves by thinking a mere few thousand copies for a debut pamphlet is something to celebrate compared to millions for other mediums' output.

New Masters of the Universe comic will "reveal" origins of Skeletor

A writer at Slash Film talks about a new comic adapted from the old Masters of the Universe toy line and cartoon TV show of the 1980s, which is coming as a new live action movie appears to be in production:

"He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" has enjoyed a small renaissance over the past decade. ND Stevenson's animated series "She-Ra and the Princesses of Power" rebooted the female-driven "He-Man" spin-off, before Kevin Smith led a darker continuation of the original 1980s filmation cartoon: "Masters of the Universe: Revelation." (Both series streamed on Netflix.) The trend will culminate this June with a new "Masters of the Universe" live-action film, directed by Travis Knight ("Bumblebee") and starring Nicholas Galitzine as He-Man leading a cast unafraid of the franchise's "meme" status.

Mattel is betting on this movie bringing new attention to "He-Man." A new "Masters of the Universe" action figure line is underway, for one. /Film can also confirm that the company is collaborating with comic publisher Dark Horse for 12-issue comic series exploring the backstories of Eternia and its people: "Masters of the Universe: Genesis," beginning this August.

Since they mention Netflix, that's just the problem with these 2 prior items. They were woke from the start, and served as an example of what's gone wrong with all this "renaissance" of the past decade: there's no new IPs being developed, if at all. Instead, they go miles out of their way to turn older products inside out for the sake of leftist agendas. Did I mention the artwork in the She-Ra "remake" was stunningly awful? All because of apparent sex-negative hysteria, even as it served as a lesbian agenda. And this story appears to be taking the job of spotlighting the leading villain:

In past tellings, Skeletor was once a man named Keldor, the half-brother of Eternia's king (and He-Man's father) Randor. It remains to be seen how "Genesis" will iterate on this.

Why must we care? They haven't even actually told what the story's about, but if it turns out this is both as woke as the aforementioned modern cartoons, and even goes so far as to celebrate villainy, that's troubling. Indeed, why are we being asked to be excited about scripting origins for a criminal instead of a hero? Or even some civilian co-stars? That they chose a villain for the spotlight ought to be a red flag at this point. And lest we forget, "reveal" is not the best word to describe where they're going with a non-existent character regardless.

The 1980s produced some of the most memorable bad guys ever in American cartoons. There were the super-villain terrorists of Cobra and their Commander (Christopher Collins) in "G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero," as well as Megatron (Frank Welker) and his Decepticons — from the treacherous Starscream (Collins again) to the oh-so-cool Soundwave (Welker again) — in "Transformers." But of those, Skeletor (originally voiced by Alan Oppenheimer) is the most iconic, thanks to a name and design that just ooze evil camp. I'm a "He-Man" novice, but I'd recognize Skeletor anywhere.

And this sounds like more excuses to boost villainy, rather than heroes. If they really want to prove themselves capable of challenging scriptwriting, they'd develop origins for any heroic characters who may not have seen the emphasis, ditto the civilian co-stars. Similarly, the columnists writing these puff pieces would talk about how admirable the efforts were to characterize the heroes. I miss that part in the puff piece. And if that's how it's going to be, it's decidedly why it would be better to avoid the Dark Horse series and just let the whole thing sink back into the past again. That told, what's so special about kiddie cartoons, as opposed to something more sophisticated, I'll never know.

Professional artists continue to take issue with AI

Creative Bloq reports on what real life artists have to say about AI at a convention in Lake Como. Trouble is, some of those quoted are some of the most pretentious, or worked on projects that do no favors for their reputations:

The spectre of AI is creeping into every aspect of our lives, and it has felt for some time as if artists and creatives in general are on the front line. We’ve heard how comic artists such as Stanley 'Artgerm' Lau have even told us, “In the future, there will be fewer artists like me – real artists”. [...]

David Mack, artist on Daredevil and creator of his own Kabuki series, who’s been a regular at Como for many years now, had this to say about AI and how it could affect both this show and in a wider context his own work and career: “I'm just focused on my work, making my work the way I like to make it, so I don't really have an interest in using it [AI], and I just like making stuff by hand. We're not machines, we're people.”

He adds, “We can't do everything precisely. Probably because of [AI], people who make handmade art will be more in demand. That'll be a more precious commodity because not everyone can replicate it. Talking about the tactile nature of things and a real 3D material object that exists in the physical world. People like that, and that'll probably be even more treasured, in the future, if more and more people lean towards prompting things on AI to magically just make something.”

I think when somebody who worked with Brian Michael Bendis on several issues of Daredevil and Avengers is one of the interviewees, it's hard to understand why we're supposed to care, since such work is basically meaningless. Certainly it would be great if what he tells will be so in the future. But that depends on whether they're talented or just overrated. And Mack is the kind of artist who decidedly belongs in the latter category.

As for Artgerm, he may have more talent in his own way, but he's also, most unfortunately, lent said talents to covers that were stapled onto poltical propaganda. That has the effect of dampening the impact.

British artist Gary Frank, whose career has included drawing Hulk for Marvel but who has now won plaudits as artist on Image’s Hyde Street, part of Image’s Ghost Machine imprint, had his own take on AI: “I think AI is possibly something which has its uses. I don't think that any of those uses include making art, because art is a human thing. The worry I've got is not so much that AI is going to replace people like me, because I'm known and people know I'm a real person.”

He explains it's the next generation of artists who could suffer more, saying: “My worry is the next generation coming through. So we're going to have to compete with dishonest actors who are using AI to fake stuff. We've already seen a little bit of this in the comic industry with people using AI to fake covers. So it's more whether it ends up making it difficult or impossible or damaging the prospects of young people coming through.”

Oh, and isn't Ghost Machine the insufferable Geoff Johns' project? Frank may be a talented artist too, but if this is what he's turning to lately, that also sours the milk. I just don't understand why artists like these are the ones the journalists are turning to for information on the topic...or maybe I do? Is it because their politics skew left?

Now that I think of it, what newer generations of artists could have to worry about is if AI is seen as a perfect substitute for real life talent based on politics. In other words, if a right-wing artist is looking for work, and the company is left-wing managed, they'd pass over him/her and resort to AI instead if that's what it took to avoid hiring somebody whose political platforms they hated. Not that you could expect artists like the above to comment on that issue, unfortunately. But no doubt, it's a valid subject, and some people are going to have to start asking whether it could happen.

Politically obsessed British writer decided to turn back to comics reading to get his attention away from Donald Trump

Here's a writer at the UK Guardian who says he decided it was better to stop "doomscrolling" about all the stuff he didn't like to hear about Donald Trump, and turn to comics reading instead, which he had done in his youth:

I’d been a voracious comic book reader as a youth, growing up in the early 1990s on a diet of the Beano and Dandy, before graduating to The Adventures of Tintin and Asterix. From there, I moved on to my father’s 2000 AD collection – which, to a young teenager, held a rather illicit thrill due to its intensely violent strips. I then devoured anything I could get my hands on. Preacher, The Sandman, Watchmen, Batman – I’d read the lot.

But as an adult in my 30s, I wasn’t the devout reader I once had been. That changed in late 2024, when I finally decided to ditch doomscrolling. Spurred on by the online furores that surrounded the imminent second term of Donald Trump, I realised that I needed to preserve my mental health and make new routines before I became entirely consumed with fear and anger. And who knows more about self-care than your inner child?

Instead of reaching for my phone in the evenings, I picked up a comic instead. Reading them as an adult restored a sense of childlike wonder that transcended my anxieties. I found my quality of sleep started to improve. My dreams were more fanciful and less marked by the banal terrors of day-to-day life.

I began to wake up feeling revitalised, free of the residual negativity from the previous night’s miserable doomscrolling. Inspired by the colourful imagery and ideas I found in comic books, I was able to channel a newfound sense of creativity into my own work as a journalist. I also felt less of an urge to check in on work channels after I left the office, as this had become valuable comic book time.

Wow, isn't that amazing. He wisely took the path of absorbing himself in reading comics, rather than waste time railing against Trump, as appears to be the case. Too bad he wasted time on what I assume is the disgraced Neil Gaiman's oh-so masterful Sandman series, though. I would think the smart reader would set a better example by looking for archives of the Golden Age Sandman, Wesley Dodds, instead. And hopefully, they will eventually be reprinted in DC Finest archives. Simultaneously, the columnist suggests he's unfortunately the kind of reader obsessed with all that's dark, noticing all the USA-published series he cites are darkness-laden, and similar observations can be made about 2000AD. And while it may be impressive if he's willing to avoid obsessing about Trump for now, it's a shame if he's the kind of fan who thinks darkness solves everything. Though such leanings do make it worth wondering if the anti-Trump crowd really is that obsessed with darkness, selectively or otherwise.

Maybe this kind of news could present a good example of what better to do than obsess over what a right-winger supposedly did wrong while excusing all a left-winger did wrong. But the only problem of course, is that the propagandists writing such items have to reevaluate whether it's doing any good to be pushing darkness, and only embracing brightness with political strings attached. Only when they consider that, and why comedy can also make a good pastime, will anything improve.

What some specialty stores had to tell for FCBD

The Kingston Whig-Standard in Canada wrote about Free Comic Book Day, and told the following:

In Kingston, local comic retailers and educators say the day is about more than giveaways — it’s about challenging perceptions and encouraging people to explore a rich, expanding world of storytelling.

Okay, here's a challenging question: were any stories that aren't PC-influenced offered? Because that's the only way this current event will work well. But if nothing of the sort's offered, what's the use of continuing with it?

KRVN880 in Nebraska also wrote about FCBD, and says:

The free day isn’t a free for all. There’s a special selection of books just for this event.

“You’re not getting old books… we have completely brand new books,” Dame said. “Everything for Free Comic Book Day is brand new comics that were made specifically for this day from all your favorite publishers.”

Those publishers include Marvel Comics, DC Comics, and Image Comics. Many offer preview editions of upcoming series, while others release special standalone issues. Dame noted that Archie titles are a consistent favorite for kids.

The event is designed to appeal to a wide audience—from longtime collectors to families with young readers.

“Free Comic Book Day is for everybody,” Dame said. “It has stuff for the little ones and it has stuff for the big ones.”

Well sure, it can be for everybody, but when they emphasize new books rather than old, it risks suggesting the older ones aren't worth their weight compared to the new ones. Also, what if the individual pamphlets are little more than advertisements for something longer, but not better? Such is the case regarding recent fare from DC/Marvel, and quite possibly Image. Better still, just what items do they have for children, and from where? If they were dishing out stuff like this, that would be very bad, and the same could be said if they were dishing out political propaganda.

I'm sure there are some decent items that could be offered for FCBD and the recent rival event formed. But their failure to identify any of them clearly is problematic, and another reason why this is hardly an event to celebrate anymore.

William Bernhardt's history of the legal wars on Superman

Crime Reads interviewed author William Bernhardt, who's published a history book titled The Superman Wars, which is about the legal issues surrounding the history of Superman's publication:

The story of Siegel and Shuster has been told before—most notably in Brad Ricca’s 2013 book Super Boys: The Amazing Adventures of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster—the Creators of Superman. Bernhardt has updated the long-running legal battles the two men and their heirs endured over the rights to the character. The subtitle of his book is A Battle for Truth, Justice, and an American Icon. [...]

L. Wayne Hicks: What are people going to learn from your book that wasn’t in Brad Ricca’s book?

William Bernhardt: There are several things. And don’t think I’m putting down Brad’s book, because I like his book, and I like him. I thought he was a really generous guy when I interviewed him. The first thing I said was, “Are you thinking about doing a second edition or an update or anything?” He said no. I said, “Okay, I don’t want to step on your toes.”

But for one thing, his book’s about fifteen years old now, and we’ve discovered a lot since then. I’ve discovered some things since then, and others have as well. He couldn’t tell the end of the lawsuit, because that hadn’t happened yet. That didn’t happen until 2016, that it was all over. The Siegel family did not talk to him, at least not on the record, because there was pending litigation.

I did eventually get them to talk to me, which was a real treat. I dug up the bankruptcy papers and figured out what really went down, and so I’m able to explain that, and I think the other lawsuits as well, in a way that will make it more comprehensible. And at the same time, I tried to write those things so that you don’t have to go to law school to understand it. It’s going to be understandable to anybody.

I'm sure there's always room for another take on the history of the legal wars, which Siegel/Shuster's families sadly lost in the end. But I get the feeling Bernhardt won't take an objective view of later executives at Time Warner, who enabled some of the worst abuse of the Superman franchise since the turn of the century. And that's a problem, if not a new one.

LWH: Which was the bigger problem: the boys being naive, or the publishing executives being crooked?

WB: I’m going to go with the latter. Because, you know, the Major (Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson), the guy who founded the company, was perhaps not the world’s greatest businessman, but he was a writer. He understood that creatives deserve to be paid, and sometimes he was late, he didn’t pay that much, but his idea was that someday we’re going to have a breakthrough, and then I’m going to share it with everybody.

That’s what he says at the bankruptcy courts. He says, if you let this go through, these guys aren’t going to treat the creatives the way I did. And boy, was he right about that. This was such an unexpected windfall to Harry Donenfeld and Jack Liebowitz. This is what they did. They acquired other people’s companies by basically creating debt or finding people in debt, or both, and using it to take over their companies. They had no idea that just weeks, if not days, after they fully controlled the company, Superman would come out and be an immediate sensation.

Harry Donenfeld is a millionaire less than a year later. Jack is not far behind him. And they had no intention of letting go of anything. They didn’t have to. Jack’s attitude was always, “Anybody can write this stuff. If you don’t cooperate, we’ll get somebody else to do it.” To be fair, Jerry and Joe did make some real money, especially given that the Depression was going on and a lot of people weren’t making any money. They made good money in the early days. But it doesn’t last.

If the head honchos at the time were corrupt, do they believe the later conglomerate heads were any better? Because look how far the might of the Man of Steel's fallen over the past decades, artistically and financially, no thanks to their neglect/enabling. That doesn't count?

LWH: What does Superman mean to you?

WB: I loved Superman when I was a kid. Part of that was when I started reading comics, the Batman comics were trying to imitate the Adam West series, the comedy series, so they were trying to be funny, not really very successfully. That didn’t appeal to me very much, but Superman stories were more science fiction, and that’s what I liked.

There were two main magazines, Superman and Action Comics. Superman, in my era, usually told the slugfest super villain stories, but Action Comics usually told science fiction stories. He’d go up in space and encounter a world where something’s different and I loved that stuff. In time, I came to realize that over and over again, Superman has been a symbol of hope, which I think is why he continues to be meaningful to people.

As an iconic creation, yes, but the comics themselves in over 2 decades, no. That's all collapsed, courtesy of all the company managers whom I sadly suspect Mr. Bernhardt doesn't say a negative word about, and anybody who won't show the courage to do so remains unconvincing in their alleged support for Siegel and Shuster, let alone any other creators of the times.

As for what he says about Batman comics imitating the West TV show, I think they became more tongue-in-cheek by the 1950s, and it was more a case of the TV show imitating the comics, so this is definitely not the most accurate statement Mr. Bernhardt's made. One more reason I'm not sure now if his new book about Superman history will be the most straightforward take on history available.

After nearly 3 decades, Newsarama is closed down

Popverse, which, ideologically speaking, isn't all that different from Newsarama, announced the latter site's been closed down by Games Radar, the last to maintain ownership:

The storied comic news site Newsarama is seemingly defunct, after a series of layoffs by parent company Future PLC resulted in the elimination of the last dedicated person working on the website. Long-time Newsarama staff writer George Marson announced earlier this month that they had been laid off earlier this month as part of a broader round of cuts across the journalism & events corporation. [...]

Newsarama was formally launched in 1998 and quickly became one of the primary places to get news, interviews, and commentary on the North American comic book industry online. The site changed as the comics industry and the digital industries changed, and following a series of acquisitions, it was folded into the comics vertical of the website GamesRadar.com by 2018, while keeping the Newsarama branding, alongside other publications including Total Film and SFX. In the past 12 months however, the Newsarama branding on the GamesRadar.com website was largely eliminated, with the comics coverage remaining left as a secondary vertical and writing efforts minimized to focus primarily on games, film, & TV related to comics.

At its peak, Newsarama had a full-time staff of three with various additional writers, videographers, and others working in a freelance capacity. That was cut down to two by 2022, and, following his abrupt departure, co-founder Mike Doran was replaced by a general 'comics editor' that was shifted soon after to focus (in title and in work) on streaming TV & film, leaving Marston as the sole remaining Newsarama staffer until now.

Considering how biased they were towards the worst of the industry's leftists, their closure is no big loss. Unfortunately, Popverse is little more than a continuation of the same MO, perhaps even worse, and it's not like the writer's pointing out whether they made mistakes that need to be mended.

A writer at First Comics News, who used to work for Newsarama, tells the following:

Launched in 1998 by co-founders Matt Brady & Michael Doran, Newsarama quickly became a must-read destination during the early days of online comics coverage. It delivered breaking news, in-depth interviews, convention reports, and thoughtful analysis at a time when the internet was still finding its footing as a journalism platform. [...]

I had the privilege of contributing to Newsarama during its vibrant early online years. In 2004, I began producing interviews for the site. By 2005, I was regularly writing for both Newsarama and Comic Book Resources (CBR). Those were exciting times; the comics internet was exploding with new voices, and Newsarama sat at the center of it all.

Interviewing creators, covering trends, and helping to document the industry during a period of rapid change remain among my fondest memories in comics journalism. Newsarama wasn’t just a job; it was part of a community that connected fans directly with the people making the comics we loved. My time there bridged my earlier work at Silver Bullet Comic Books and led to my role as Public Relations Coordinator at Archie Comics starting in late 2005.

For close to three decades, Newsarama set the standard. It broke major stories, platformed emerging talent, and provided a professional home for writers who truly understood and cared about the medium. Many of us who built careers in this space, whether as journalists, publicists, or creators, passed through its virtual pages.

Yes, please tell us about it. There's quite a few who don't, no matter what they say. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the embarrassments seen since the early 2000s, like Avengers: Disassembled, Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, Civil War, One More/Brand New Day and Forever Evil. They never argued whether fandom should ask if it's time to boycott the Big Two, if company wide crossovers, forced villifications, forced leftist politics and forced erasure of the Spider-marriage signaled they were going way too far at the expense of talented writing and artwork.

The comics community is resilient. New voices and platforms will rise to fill the gap, First Comics News among them, where I continue the work I started decades ago. But we should take a moment to honor what Newsarama accomplished and thank the journalists, editors, and contributors who made it special.

There was nothing special in it, since the writers never took objective stances on what Marvel/DC were doing wrong. Not even Dark Horse and Image. In past years, they fluff-coated the topic of deaths in company wide crossovers, they even gushed over the worst of Green Lantern stories, sugarcoated the forced replacement of Dr. Strange with Clea using his codename (and IIRC, she was later replaced too), and made no distinction between best and worst Spider-Man writers. Some of those examples may be more recent forms of tabloid nonsense they wrote up, but with that kind of propaganda being put out, is it any wonder if nobody liked their news in the end? Yet the former contributor saw fit to fluff-coat the site's MO, serving as little more than an apologist, and if that's how it's going to be, he can't be surprised if nobody cares in the end.

Newsarama won't be missed. But it's clear Popverse and First Comics News won't be good successors, if their sugary tales say anything. I have no thanks to offer, so long as they don't focus on how it's possible for propagandists like them to make serious mistakes, much like the industry insiders.