Monday, September 25, 2017 

UK Guardian wonders why comics conventions are hardly about the medium proper these days

One of the UK Guardian's writers is puzzled why today's comic conventions, even in Britain, deal very little with the actual medium today:
On the website of a recent comic con in Lancashire, the big draws were: a puppeteer who worked on Star Wars and The Dark Crystal; an actor who was in Space: 1999 and played the Stormtrooper in Star Wars who said: “These aren’t the droids we’re looking for”; a child actor who appeared in Game of Thrones. Oh, and Knight Rider’s car was there, as was The Simpsons school bus and Luke Skywalker’s Land Speeder. There was a gaming area. All of which, I hasten to add, sounds absolutely brilliant to a geek like me. And yet … this was a comic con, right? What became of the comics?

I find myself annoyed by the ever-growing number of comic cons that don’t seem to be about comics at all. The five comic creators named on the aforementioned con’s website were tucked away at the bottom: two from the Beano, one at Marvel, a Jack Kirby expert and the fifth who was more a fantasy illustrator than a comics artist. Again, all great – but isn’t it a bit disingenuous to continue to call these events comic cons?

We can probably blame San Diego for all this. The godfather of comic cons began life in 1970 and was then entirely devoted to comics, thus earning its name. Actually, it was called the Golden State Comic Minicon back then. But over the years it has morphed into a glossy, media-led event where we get first looks at huge movies and TV companies announce new series. It’s very possible now to spend a day at San Diego Comic Con without getting so much as a sniff of an actual comic.
Well if they took a closer look under a magnifying glass at the dire state of the original medium, they'd see there's not only little reason to cherish some mainstream comics, they'd also notice the publishers sold out to Hollywood, which is in dire straits of their own now as well. If you can blame the SDCC for dumbing down comics conventions, then it's only fair to figure Hollywood has some blame to shoulder for dumbing down comic books to boot.

They bring up a convention in Leeds called Thought Bubble, which is dedicated far more to the medium than some other conventions are these days:
Thought Bubble is the brainchild of Lisa Wood, an artist of some renown under the pen name Tula Lotay, who decided a decade ago to create the kind of event she’d like to attend – one focused on artists, writers and readers.

“I always think it’s really bizarre that you have all these events around the country called comic cons when they really don’t have much to do with comics,” says Wood. “People do enjoy them, and that’s great. But … I want to see writers and artists, I want to see the creators that help the medium flourish. We’ve always wanted to celebrate comics in their purest form.”
Which is surely easier in Europe with events like Angouleme's over in France, because in some parts of Europe, they embrace the art form far more enthusiastically than some in the USA do now. The lady's correct - it is ridiculous to call a comicon just that if comic books make up so little of the festival in question, if at all. If they're so much more interested in movies and music, then they should call them entertainment conventions, where anything could be put on display, but they shouldn't make fools of themselves by calling them comics conventions. I think the managers of the SDCC would do well to consider that in coming years.

And maybe the newspaper could do better by asking why the medium as a whole in the USA, if not overseas, is doing so much to alienate their audiences with awful leftist politics that, as a result, it's no wonder quite a few comicons have surely lost audience. Not to mention why superhero comics are being dumbed down so terribly. If they don't, then there's not much point complaining about comicons in name only.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, September 24, 2017 

An organized attempt to harass a video commentator at Baltimore's Comicon was discovered

A writer for PJ Media found some disturbing news about several comics writers/editors, including Mark Waid, who implied they'd want to harass, or worse, assault Richard C. Meyer of Diversity & Comics, at the comics conventions. Here's a screencap by Jon Del Arroz of a Facebook page that until now was shrouded in secrecy:

Good grief. This is absolutely stunning. B. Clay Moore, who has his own share of SJW-advocacy, is part of this revolting little clique too? As noted about the other names on the page:
Taylor Esposito is a letterer for DC Comics and is clearly seen on the not-so-secret Facebook page insinuating that critics of their comics are likely to be violent, calling them "nutjobs." Kelly Thompson of Marvel's Star Wars Phasma and IDW's infamous lady Ghostbusters joined in, claiming fear of the awful critics as the major reason she's never been to a con as a professional. B. Clay Moore, who seems to have written something a long time ago, actually suggests harassing Meyer to the point of violence.
From what I know, Meyer is an armed forces veteran. I don't know if he's still employed by the US army, but if he is, they should bear in mind that, just like there's serious penalties for assaulting police officials, there can also be the same for assaulting army officials too, and if anybody does that to a military employee, no matter the rank, they could find themselves on the receiving end of a federal prosecution. And that's why they're making comicdom look worse by running the gauntlet of inciting against critics and detractors. Del Arroz noted:
The Industry is in trouble. Unlike others they have a distribution network only meant to further Marvel/DC properties. For real change to happen, fans have to support indies.
With the possible exception of Moore's creations like Hawaiian Dick. A writer/artist who wants their own work to sell well would do well to recognize that incitement to violence can cost readership.
Meyer believes that the shift from the classic comics to the ultra-political began around 2015 — and fans have had enough.
Certainly some notorious examples turned up 2 years ago. But it's strongly advised to recall that the precursors to the current situation began as far back as 2 decades ago, with the Marvel Knights take on Captain America, the Truth: Red, White and Black miniseries and Identity Crisis making prime examples of either political or stealth politics foisted on famous creations.

Waid later apologized (half-heartedly) for his own attitude, but still got some pretty angry replies on his Facebook message (via The Outhousers). Though he seems to have largely abandoned Twitter, he still hasn't learned enough about why his approach is but one of the problems destroying comicdom today, and why his past work from the 90s has to be taken with a grain of salt.

And the "creators" who partook in that secret Facebook page have some explaining of their own to do, for the poor example they set. If they don't like what a critic is saying, just act oblivious to his/her commentaries, and don't go about making degrading comments that only make the industry's reputation worse. Why is it so hard for them to understand that?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 23, 2017 

Barberella makes a comeback after 35 years

Dynamite Comics is doing some new takes on Jean-Claude Forest's famous Barbarella comic strips, originally published between 1962-82, a metaphor for the sexual revolution of the 1960s. I have no idea at the moment what these new stories will be like, or if they're willing to try the same sense of humor found in the originals (I ounce found and laughed at a strip where it was shown the lady had sex with a robot), but I do notice that IO9/Gizmodo had Beth Elderkin, the same one who attacked Neal Adams over his illustrations of Wonder Woman from the rear, which were far from the travesty she wanted it to be, write up the news about this. And she said:
These days, Barbarella’s original intentions are sometimes lost in translation, especially given the comic and film’s focus on the male gaze, but her role as a sexually liberated icon is still just as relevant as it was half a century ago. And with the Emmy-winning series The Handmaid’s Tale giving us a taste of how dangerous a threat female sexual repression still is, having a female James T. Kirk doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
My my, do I sense some double-standards at work here? Because the male gaze is part and parcel of sexuality as much as the female gaze, whether she likes it or not, and if men cannot love and admire a woman's hod bod, than by that same token of logic, it's wrong for women to love and admire men for the same. Apparently, she simply can't keep her idiotic politics out of this subject. If Forest included the male gaze in his strips, then I'm not sure what she means by original intentions, when that was evidently just as much the idea as sexual liberation.

Also note the allusion made to a TV show based on Margaret Atwood's novel - one that concerns sexual repression of a Christian variety, which is cheap when you have Islamofascism doing much worse wherever it lurks. Of course, IO9 was also a site that failed to condemn Ardian Syaf for his offensive stealth tactics in X-Men when he was the first artist.

Again, I have no idea what the finished product will be like for these new adventures of Barbarella, but I do know that, if political correctness finds its way into them, they won't do any justice for the original strips.

Labels: , , ,


A new manga based on Dragon's Crown

MYM Buzz reported that there's a new manga coming out based on the Dragon's Crown video game, featuring a cast reminiscent of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise's casts, and Udon Entertainment is going to do the English translations.

Here's also an extra post about it from Brutal Gamer.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 

More on the Thailand manga history exhibit

Here's another article in the Thailand Nation about the manga exhibition they're holding in October to commemorate 130 years of diplomatic relations with Japan.

Labels: , , ,


Dan Jurgens is unrepentent

I looked at Jurgens' Twitter feed, and shortly after the Superman story he penned came out and angered a lot of conservatives by scapegoating Americans as hostile to immigrants and Islamists, he said:

Sigh. He's clearly unapologetic about resorting to the cheapest of stereotypes, let alone serving a leftist agenda. Beyond this, Jurgens made no serious attempt to address the points unambiguously, or explain why he thinks his approach on that subplot was justified. He may say it's "a few" people, but I sadly get the feeling he means a lot more.

There may have once been a time I tried to overlook his more idiotic steps, all because I'd assumed he was at least a responsible conservative years before, and a realist. But thinking about this, it's clear I can't do that anymore. He lent his services to some of the worst crossovers in history, such as Zero Hour, and on that note, I thought to take a look at a fluff-coated interview taken by the ComicBook website 5 years ago:
How'd you come by the gig? Was it just a question of Superman's popularity at the time?

I thought it up!

Actually, I had been talking with Mike Carlin about a project with those general broad strokes for a while. At the same time, my old pal KC Carlson, who was then an editor on staff, had some similar thoughts.

So Mike put KC and I together and Zero Hour was the result.
It doesn't make much difference who thought up such a monstrosity; it's clear Jurgens was all for it from the beginning, and that's very sad.
I know you really respect Marv Wolfman's work. How did it feel to be doing what really amounted to an unofficial sequel to his biggest, best-known work?

You're right, I do respect Marv's accomplishments a great deal. I don't know that I consider Zero Hour a sequel, however. Crisis on Infinite Earths was a great achievement that stands alone.
Oh please. By going the opposite of how Wolfman handled Barry Allen, who sacrificed himself heroically to foil the plans of the Anti-Monitor, unlike how they handled Green Lantern in their bloated 1994 crossover? If he really respected Wolfman's COIE, he'd never have gone along with the idea of turning Hal Jordan into a lethal villain, something that's discussed just as sugarly in the following paragraphs:
How did Hal Jordan become the central villain? Was that part of your original pitch, or was it a question of DC saying, "We need a place to put this guy."?

The entire Green Lantern storyline was being developed around the same time.

Anytime you're putting something like Zero Hour together you talk about a lot of ideas that never make print. In this case, we were discussing some various ideas about how to handle some of the Green Lantern stuff and the idea of using Parallax as the major villain emerged. I remember sitting in Carlin's office when we started going down that road and we called Kevin Dooley in, who was Green Lantern editor at the time. He immediately latched onto the idea and we continued to build from there. [...]

With that in mind, was that why you wanted to get the time-displaced Hal into the story? It would have seemed a bit odd to see them all coming together without him.

Exactly right. Any story of that magnitude has to have the universe's biggest characters one way or another.

With Hal, the question really came down to whether or not we wanted to make him the villain. Based on where they were taking the character it was such a natural that it was, in my mind, a no-brainer.
He spoke about all that without a single sign of regret. In a way, he's right about one thing: they went into that whole affair with no brains in sight. Nor did he display any brains with the following:
And did that make the timeline coming out of Zero Hour (in this case, a literal timeline that you had to write and draw) a little more complex?

That timeline was a tremendous amount of work! It required an overwhelming amount of back and forth-- how would it look? How would it work? Can we say this? Will that fit?

But it was definitely worth it. That fans absolutely loved it and it provided great clarity and context to the DCU. I've mentioned more than a few times that we could use something like that again.
So Jurgens disregarded any and all Green Lantern fans who took offense at their taking a bad situation to worse. Tsk tsk. The worst part is that they've had awful moments like that again even before he babbled away with that gushy nonsense (Our Worlds At War, Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, Blackest Night). I think Jurgens did make a valuable contribution to comicdom with the creation of Booster Gold, along with a few other early works like art on the Warlord, Sun Devils and Green Arrow in the 1980s, but since then, he's gone downhill with several works in his portfolio like the Armageddon crossover from 1991, and the Death of Superman "event" from 1992, suggesting he doesn't have much faith in the DCU's other creations at all, let alone respect for stand-alone storytelling, which crossovers can make impossible. At this point, after he gave telling signs of what his politics could really be, I'll really have to take a lot of his better work with a grain of salt, because he sure doesn't seem very creative as a writer most of the time, and despite earlier suggestions to the contrary, he doesn't seem like much of a realist.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 19, 2017 

Aubrey Sitterson angered sensible Americans on 9-11

This happened last week during the 9-11 Memorial, and it's very disgusting. Sitterson, the writer IDW's currently got assigned to script one of their GI Joe comics, posted some very selfish tweets that outraged quite a few caring people who were devastated by the tragedy in 2001. Here's 3 of his most telling posts:

Yikes...look who's talking. Somebody who obviously wasn't around during WW1 and WW2 in the past century, and likely never traveled to Israel when there were suicide bombings striking the place, or to France and Britain when they had terrorist attacks in more recent years. And probably wasn't even around Fort Hood in Texas when Malik Nidal Hasan murdered 13 people there. And Sitterson shamelessly claims nobody living outside of New York City has the right to feel terrible when mass murder is committed? Sick. I was already discouraged from wasting time on his output after I discovered the artwork was horrible, and this only compounds my viewpoint. He doesn't even consider that the Pentagon was also attacked at the time, or Flight 93's crash in Pennsylvania either.

Sitterson's already caused some fallout: shortly after his comments were discovered, the webmaster of YoJoe announced they won't be promoting any of IDW's Hasbro-licensed books, and reveals that Sitterson's craziness goes back quite a bit:
"Previously, the G.I.Joe community had an issue with the G.I.Joe Collectors Club and the design of a third-tier but beloved character named Salvo. A large muscular character with a big missile launcher, the club's design was more of an average person's build. The Club took this constructively critical feedback and released a figure more in line with fan expectations. This is relevant because not long after this event, Aubrey changed everything about the character when Salvo debuted in issue #3. Instead, the character was a large, woman of color. Considering that the community had just gone through an episode with this character's design, most in the G.I.Joe community felt that Aubrey's changes were less story driven, and more of a way to illicit a reaction from the core fans. And that was in fact what occurred, when people questioned why Salvo was changed, they were accused of being bigots, just for wondering why a major change to this character occurred.

"This was our introduction to his personality, of Aubrey Sitterson the Wrestling fan, with a heel persona. We get it, he likes to be tongue in cheek.

"This hit a peak in June, when a cover variant had some subtle support for Pride month. Feedback was negative not because of the subject matter but the consensus was that the art just wasn't that good. Aubrey took great offense, and began calling members homophobic or other such slurs, regardless of how clearly users would articulate their opinions that it was about the technicalities of the art, and not of the pro-LGBTQAAIP subtext.

"That didn't matter. Aubrey took screenshots out of context of long discussion threads, and labeled the G.I.Joe community as nothing but white male, Trump supporters, to his Twitter following.

From that point to September, the community at large had completely dismissed Aubrey as nothing more than an antagonist and provocateur, for the amusement of his Twitter following.

"Then the more generic but offensive Tweets began, first with the burning of people's employers in effigy, and what really set our community into full outrage was his callous comments on 9/11 followed by half-hearted backpedaling and the rest is the little drama we have today.
Wow...he sounds reminiscent of Dan Slott. And the next thing you know, Marvel will probably be scooping him up for a contract to write Captain America even after he's nullified his qualifications to work on that. I took a look at the art by Milonogiannis, and it sure looks like the character designs were deliberately meant to resemble transvestites. All that aside, the art is just plain horrible. And IDW/Hasbro allowed this ungrateful screwball to mess with their products? This is very sad. Generals Joes and Hiss Tank have also joined the boycott of Sitterson's work, and much of the rest of IDW's output. And it looks like Larry Hama's stated he's furious at Sitterson for making such nasty comments. What's really sad is that Hama apparently got cursed at himself for daring to disagree.

The good news is that IDW, after initially standing by Sitterson, seems to have listened, since they published a statement in response. Unfortunately, it also looks like some SJWs in the comics medium have decided to support Sitterson. Most likely all the people who never gave a damn about A Real American Hero until now. And that makes this whole debacle even more of a disgrace. One example of hypocrisy here is Bleeding Cool:
I have generally opposed boycotts against all sorts of people and products. If Hasbro and GI Joe fire or suspend Aubrey Sitterson from the upcoming relaunch of GI Joe in December, Scarlett’s Strike Force, it sets the most dangerous precedent and emboldens a certain section of the fanbase who, having been granted one scalp, demand another. [...]
No kidding! If you're against boycotts, how about petty censorship? I seem to remember this guy sided with Marvel after they censored Milo Manara and J. Scott Campbell, for example. And this was despite the fact the SJWs who started all that mess in the first place didn't actually seem to be calling for a clear boycott. BC is just another weak news site whose contributors can't bring themselves to take the fans' side, let alone veteran contributors with better manners than today's dismal bunch. I think a boycott of BC should be in order, because they're not helpful at all. (By the way, why does he say GI Joe and not IDW, since they're the ones holding the comics license at the moment?) The attacks on Campbell, for example, only embolden many SJWs who're unlikely to be part of any fanbase, yet it doesn't seem to matter to him.

The main reason Sitterson should be let go by IDW in the end though, is because by the end of the day, his books evidently aren't selling, and the charts show they're only selling a few thousand, so it's clear that from a business viewpoint, the book is otherwise a failure, due in part to marketing. And Sitterson's attitudes will only ensure they remain that way if they keep him on. So IDW and Hasbro are going to have to make some serious choices now. Either they distance themselves from a repellent personality who's only alienating the fanbase for the Real American Heroes, or, risk putting all their sales in the toilet over degrading politics.

It's stunning how IDW has otherwise abandoned quality of artwork and writing to writers/artists only desperate to make a name for themselves by controversy. For all we know, they could end up costing themselves the possible success they might've enjoyed earlier by trying to duplicate Marvel's SJW pandering, which does seem to be the case of recent. How can they conclude Marvel's steps were a runaway success when it should be painfully obvious they're not? I'd also suggest they'd do better by moving away from the pamphlet format and switching to trade formats instead if they want to set a better example. For now, so long as embarrassments like Sitterson are kept around, they're bound to gain more trouble than they need. I'm proud of the major GI Joe fansites for taking a firm stance on this. If only some major superhero fansites would show the same guts and announce they're boycotting Marvel and DC's output until they quit with the political correctness and SJW pandering, then there might be a better chance of improving superhero comics too.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 18, 2017 

There's still no reason to read Spider-Man

Here's a telling sign Marvel's not giving any reason to resume reading Spidey:
Marvel Comics has revealed "Venom Inc.", a new six-issue crossover storyline that will unite the publisher's Amazing Spider-Man and Venom comics this December.

Venom Inc. will kick off with a one-shot special called Venom Inc.: Alpha before moving into the pages of Amazing Spider-Man and Venom later in the month and concluding in Venom Inc.: Omega in January. The crossover will be a joint effort between ASM writer Dan Slott and Venom writer Mike Costa. [...]
When the same writers remain in the stable, on the same books, no less, it's a clear sign something still isn't right. I'd rather read the Venom stories from the late 80s-early 90s than something Slott brews up, which is bound to be as awful as his prior efforts. And it'll be no surprise if Mary Jane Watson's marriage to Peter Parker still isn't restored.

No, the Legacy initiative isn't going to change much of anything. If writers as dreadful as these are on board, then there's still perfect reason to remain off the boat.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, September 17, 2017 

Letter page from The New Guardians 6: was this what led to the mishandlings of Obsidian?

I stumbled over a back issue of The New Guardians #6, a short-lived series by 12 issues starring a few characters who first appeared in DC's Millenium crossover from 1988 (along with a handful ordinarily from the Green Lantern cast), and the letter page available proved to be quite interesting in its discussions of the first homosexual superhero they ever conceived, a character from Peru named Extrano, and also how the series was one of the earliest titles they produced dealing with AIDS. Here's the page and a half worth of letter entries, and look who the editor in charge of the correspondence was:
Yep, it was the one and only Kevin Dooley, who'd later become notorious for his horrific treatment of 2nd Green Lantern Hal Jordan in 1994, and even the story where Aquaman got his left hand mauled off by a school of piranhas. Anyway, to turn to the main subjects at hand, one correspondent at the time argued that Gregorio couldn't have gotten AIDS from scuffling with the Hemo-Goblin unless he had blood or saliva staining his hands. Maybe not, but if Extrano did get AIDS, what if it was from some other incident that I have no idea about for the moment, because I don't have any other helpful data available about this short-lived book? Dooley at least made a point of that to the conclusion-jumper, noting that the Hemo-Goblin of this story ate "with his hands", had assassinated some characters, and wiped their blood from his mouth in the premiere issue (here's another page about the debut that seems to back this up), so it sounds to me like this was an early case of social justice ranting from nearly 3 decades ago, long before the SJW abbreviation came into use. I think Jet, who sacrificed herself in this issue, was also injured by the villain, and so I'm wondering why only Extrano seemed to matter, but not her. Yeah, I know a letter column could only offer so much space alongside all those advertisements, but still...

All that aside, what's eyebrow raising is the next letter writer's comment about Roy Thomas' creation for Infinity Inc, Obsidian/Todd Rice. "Speaking of which, I always thought Obsidian might be struggling to come out of his oppressive Catholic closet. After all, if ten percent of the population is gay or bisexual, ought not ten percent of comic book heroes be gay or bi also?" he asked in parenthesis. But, as more recent studies show, less than 5 percent really are, so there's another somebody who wasted his money into social justice propaganda, and even had the gall to say children should get homosexual role models to boot! Because that's all we need, rather than simply messages about being selfless and not intentionally setting yourself apart from the rest of society by adhering to such junk science. Certainly everybody needs positive role models, but to say homosexuality in itself is, does a terrible disfavor for everybody who believes in sanity. And as for Obsidian, from what I know, he did spend time with some ladies in Infinity Inc, so to turn him homosexual out of the blue, was preposterous. On a related note, when James Robinson, David Goyer and Geoff Johns had Todd kill his stepfather and turn crazy in the pages of JSA, that too was extremely awful.

But was DC trying to be "realistic" even then, as Dooley argues in his following response? Not by a longshot, and they certainly weren't when they got around to dismantling Green Lantern several years later. And it's very sad to think how this was surely one of the earliest places where the misuse of Obsidian could've been influenced by, all because of some lone person's bizarre assumption, which, if not confirmed in-story by the original creators, does not count as established character trait. It all brings to mind an old Peanuts strip where Lucy Van Pelt said, "greed makes you do strange things". I'll say. I hesitate to think what Dooley's real view of religion is, because something tells me there's certain bad religions he's not concerned about. This also reminds me of a comment made on the old Comics Should be Good section of CBR, by somebody who said Gambit from X-Men was doomed as a character the moment the first fan letter was opened, because one reader may have suggested pairing the "Ragin' Cajun" with Rogue, and it went nowhere fast thanks to the bad scripting of writers like Scott Lobdell, who's been on the side of lefty social justice himself for quite a while. I realize that drawing ideas from reader correspondence is nothing new, but this clearly demonstrates how "inspiration" can be drawn up for all the wrong reasons.

The New Guardians may have first been launched by Steve Englehart, but was taken over after one issue by Cary Bates, in one of the last writing assignments he got at the time from DC, and from the material I've read from the title, it looks like this wasn't one of his best jobs, nor Englehart's. Worst is at least one moment of embarrassing characterization ascribed to Extrano, when he makes comments about himself like "auntie". And given that the series wound up connecting with the Invasion crossover soon after, that's why this sloppy book doesn't stand on its own well either. At least the character design for Gloss by Joe Staton was attractive. The 2nd issue also gained some notoriety for its inclusion of a villain called Snowflame whose powers were gained by the use of cocaine! I also have to take issue with the idea of making Floronic Man a hero in this series: if they kept his murder of several people in the pages of Swamp Thing from 4 years earlier canon, then it makes the rest of the cast look like dummies to be welcoming a botanic killer into their ranks. Some of the characters featured in the series later fell victim to the prevalent mindset at the time to kill off characters because supposedly nobody cared about them, and the notion that their presence in a failed series automatically justifies such idiocy. What's the use of creating new casts if they're only going to get rid of them upon determining their books were failures? And why do characters like Extrano have to remain homosexual, if they do? I may have argued this before, and I'll do so again, but that's one of the biggest problems with how these serial fiction tales are written up - gay and lesbian characters are often required to remain that way by the editors, effectively dampening creative freedom, and homosexuality cannot be depicted as a negative example.

In conclusion, this does at least demonstrate how liberalism was prevalent in those days in poor ways, and how self-centered correspondence may have wound up having a bad effect on later characterization of established characters, possibly because they were 3rd tiers, and the contributors to DC thought they could get away with it easily. Sadly, they may have figured correctly, seeing how too few objected to the mistreatment of Todd Rice in the early to mid-2000s. And now, look where all their shamelessness got them - nowhere.

Labels: , , , , , ,

About me

  • I'm Avi Green
  • From Jerusalem, Israel
  • I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.
My profile



  • Fansites I Created

  • Hawkfan
  • The Greatest Thing on Earth!
  • The Outer Observatory
  • Earth's Mightiest Heroines
  • The Co-Stars Primer
  • Comic book websites (open menu)

    Comic book weblogs (open menu)

    Writers and Artists (open menu)

    Miscellanous links (open menu)

  • GoStats charts
  • W3 Counter stats
  • Click here to see website statistics
  • blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory Top Blogs Entertainment blogs Entertainment Blogs
    Entertainment blog TopOfBlogs
    View My Stats

    Comics blog Blog Directory & Search engine blog directory eXTReMe Tracker Locations of visitors to this page

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    make money online blogger templates

Older Posts Newer Posts

The Four Color Media Monitor is powered by Blogspot and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Join the Google Adsense program and learn how to make money online.