Monday, January 23, 2017 

An example of a reviewer who succumbed to SJW-ism

Here's a review I found of Tomb Raider: Lara Croft and the Frozen Omen, written by a man who buys into the whole PC viewpoint that the sexy art designs for Lara Croft in the past were "sexist":
The penciller, Randy Green also did an excellent job rendering the characters and environments of the story. Much of the criticism given to Lara Croft is that she is portrayed in a sexist light, as she is often shown with an exaggerated form of the female body. Green draws Croft in such a way that she looks more realistic, staying away from the classic and more sexist designs of the past, but his Lara is still attractive, almost like a model.
*Ahem* Artist Green's (no relation) art design isn't all that different from what any past illustrators used. That aside, this man's got some nerve tarring the reputations of the past artists he won't even name, but which anybody could find out without too much difficulty in this day and age, and then don't be shocked if SJWs would come about wanting to villify them in the worst ways possible. Even Jack Kirby wouldn't be immune to their extraordinarily negative viewpoints.

Never explained by these lemmings is how a gal is being portrayed in a "sexist" light if she knows physical combat skills, how to use hand-held weapons, has brilliant intelligence and even knows how to do mountain climbing. All these SJWs are doing is looking for every excuse in the book, every cheap trick they can exploit to accomplish their flaccid goals. If that's what they think, they shouldn't be reading any of these productions, and I have no doubt a lot of them don't anyway.

Sometimes, it's just dumbfounding how they can even have access to a computer.

Labels: ,

Saturday, January 21, 2017 

Paul Cornell's take on Vampirella sounds pretentious

And looks like it too. Cornell and his artist gave an interview to Bleeding Cool a few weeks ago where they talk about their upcoming run on Vampirella, but from what's provided, it looks more like they're still intent on belittling a famous character co-created by a woman artist (Trina Robbins):
DAN WICKLINE: Vampirella has had a rather convoluted past, with her origin changing a few different times. You seem to touch on that in the Zero issue. Who is the Vampirella we meet in this new series and how does she relate to the various incarnations that came before?

PAUL CORNELL: She’s all of them, and that’s all she knows. It’s a mystery we set up, part and parcel of how she got into our dystopian future. I think some characters have been reimagined too many times, and I wanted to do the opposite, bring it all in. She’s a tone of voice, wry and sighing and funny and slightly Goth English, and humane, ruthless, thirsty, afraid.
First, I'm beginning to find this whole "convoluted past" claim laughable at this point. If some stories from past publication are too much to get into, just follow an example Marv Wolfman went by when he wrote the New Teen Titans and don't actually mention them; let the readers decide for themselves what counts or not. Besides, some of the stories they think are convoluted probably surfaced just 2 decades ago, and if they think they should be disregarded as poor, why not just say so?

Second, it's similarly absurd to think they have to bring everything in, if that's really what they're planning on doing. All they need to do is stick by the main characteristics that work for a heroine like Vampirella, and tell a story that's self-contained with the main goal being to entertain. That way, it's not like they're contradicting anything they assume shouldn't be, and can allow the audience to judge for themselves. What so difficult about that?
DW: So far we’ve seen the one image you did of Vampirella wearing the red dress and dripping blood to the cat. Is this the Vampirella of the new series? How do you approach redesigning a character that has been around for over four and a half decades and has such an iconic look?

JIMMY BROXTON: This is more or less how she looks, the hand drawn “bat of blood” being a late addition/revision. This came from Matt and was a brilliant move. Both he and Matt wanted the new look to look more like a real outfit, rather than a “comic book ” costume, something a real woman would actually wear, albeit a kick ass sexy vampire woman. 60s fashions were definitely directly inspirational, I was keen to keep it red, and make it sexy, the previous version is cool, but quite gender neutral, our new Vampy is definitely a gal, sexy, but chic.
And I guess the tomboyish look is something a real woman would actually take up in all instances? Oh, tell us about it. And is he saying the bikini-like outfit is "gender neutral"? If so, it's enough to fall off the chair laughing. Why, even a PC design that was used a year ago didn't look "gender neutral" so much as did look very uninspired. The artwork sample they presented doesn't look particularly appealing either. Interestingly enough, look who's editor now at Dynamite:
DW: How did you guys get involved with the project? Were you approached as a team or was one of you asked and suggested the other? How did the wooing part go? And what was it that made you say yes to the series?

PC: I’m here because Matt Idelson is one of my favourite editors, and I asked for Jimmy because I immediately saw what he could bring. Matt had the setting in mind, and I liked how different it was.

JB: What Paul said! I was asked, and jumped straight in!
Oh, the same Idelson who said he didn't want to allow Clark Kent and Lois Lane to be a couple when he was working for DC several years ago, when they first pulled their New 52 crud! Yeah, I'm sure he'll make a great addition to their staff. Some of the commentors here seem to realize something's wrong with the picture, and one said:
I'll read the first issue but no interest in a politically correct Vampirella. The writers ideas seem stupid and scared.
Yup. And another said:
Didn't they do this already before and failed horribly?
I wouldn't be shocked. Sales figures could bear out this assessment. Another said:
Haven't checked out any of the been Vampi stuff but I have read all of the Master Series and enjoyed them. I don't really dig the new costumes.
And if that's what the contributors are going to concern themselves with, no wonder they're bound to fail. Still another said:
looks like they figured out how to make people care about Vampirella less.
Mm-hmm. If this how they're going to promote the book, they're not making a very convincing case at all. This certainly isn't likely to generate huge sales in pamphlets, and if they keep this up, it'll only make things worse.

Labels: , , , ,

 

A leftist-owned comics store explains why they're not worth buying at

Comics Beat fawns over a store in the DC area called Fantom Comics that's providing "safe space" for anti-Trump protestors, in a move reminiscent of liberal-dominated universities that want to make their own campuses "safe spaces":
Last week, Fantom Comics in Washington, DC announced via Facebook that they would open their doors as a safe space and rest area for those protesting the Inauguration of President-Elect Trump on Friday, or marching in the Women’s March the following day. [...]
Oh, and that's not all. There's something pretty shady about the following statement:
They even welcome Trump supporters to check out the store during inauguration weekend, as long as they are respectful to those utilizing it as a safe rest stop from their protests.
Sounds like coded dialect, meaning "don't try to persuade anybody to change their minds." Or something like that. They proceed to interview the manager:
Edie Nugent: How does the creation of a safe haven during this years’ inauguration (and related protest march) “for anyone seeking shelter, solidarity, or just a drink of water” fit in with the mission of your store?

Jake Shapiro: Many of our close friends and family of the store are worried for their safety, not just in this upcoming inauguration weekend but for the upcoming four years in our country. We pride ourselves on our diverse community, so it behooves us to stand up for those people in a time of need. We’re trying to be as inclusive as possible, though–none of our messages are anti-anything. If a family of Trump supporters wants to shop here this weekend, they’re more than welcome, as long as they’re respectful to the folks in our space.
I can't help feel they're implying Trump supporters aren't respectable at all, while ignoring that leftists make mistakes too. Isn't that awesome; pushing liberals for sainthood.
Edie Nugent: Do you have any fears about backlash resulting from publicly providing this type of space?

Jake Shapiro: Yes, we’re definitely a little worried about backlash. Not in our direct community–DC is one of the most progressive cities in the country, and went over 90% for Clinton in the election. But tourists are visiting from all over, not to mention angry people on the internet. Of course, what happened to our friends at Comet Ping Pong is always on our mind, and we know anytime we take a stance we’re going to make ourselves a target. But that risk is worth it to us, because being a positive community space for marginalized groups is more important now than ever.
Oh, just look at that, he's implying that right-wing vandals are on the warpath! Naturally, no consideration that there's vandals on the left, not the least being the Black Lives Matter nuts he's pandering to. And how is possible that conservatives aren't marginalized in any way?
Edie Nugent: Comics and cartoons have long been intertwined with politics, whether it’s political cartoons or comic books that explore the issues of the day. In your view, why are comics and political expression such a potent combination?

Jake Shapiro: Comics are a visual medium, which gives them wide appeal. They’re no better or worse than any other medium for socio-political commentary, but unlike literature or film, comics are still fighting the stereotype of being “just for kids.”
Did it ever occur to him there's liberals out there who could be major perpetuators of the stereotype? They may be no better or worse for politics, but the problem is that superhero comics in particular are clogged today with ultra-leftist propaganda - far more than ever before - that's suffocating the entertainment value out of all they were meant to be when they first began.

At least one of the commentors, himself a store manager, spotted what was wrong with the Fantom staff's declarations, and said:
Wow. When you put it this way, it doesn’t sound like Trump supporters are very welcome at all
Everyone is always welcome at my store. All viewpoints are welcome. Liberal and conservative. To say that Trump supporters need to be warned to be respectful is rather rude and not a very inclusive or tolerant remark to make at all. Why on earth would you want to alienate 50% of your potential customer base? Could you imagine the backlash you would be getting if you had said the opposite. You should sit back and think about that for a moment. Just some friendly advice from someone in the business for over thirty years in the most liberal state of all…
Bingo. All the store staff were doing was taking a partisan position, strongly hinting they don't like conservatives, and only see the right as troublemakers. Another guy said:
Love the whole “Trump supporters WATCH YOURSELVES” line.. When it’s just as likely the anti-Trump people will be violent.. but I guess the owner is saying that Anti-Trump people can be disrespectful and violent against the Trump supporters. and the Trump supporters just need to take it..

Sorry, this space doesn’t sound remotely safe to me. Why not instead of trying to scream that it’s a safe space and promoting violence against one side by implying that ONLY one side is capable of it when that is clearly not the case.. not just say “My store is for everyone. Period.”
That's an idea. Another idea for the moment is to simply vote with our wallets and not put any money into the pockets of a store ownership that's so cynically political. The store's ownership may want to consider that they might've alienated over half their customers already, and as I've indicated, no one should waste their time buying at their very unsafe haven.

Labels: ,

Friday, January 20, 2017 

Blastr covers Obama's roles in comics

The Blastr website's written up a fluff-coated article about the now former president's appearances in the four color panels and pages. Courtesy of a whole bunch of scriptwriters and editors who only cared because he's a leftist and represented all sorts of dreadful values that have only hurt America, yet the odd thing is that not all of them were as favorable as they could've been. They reference his appearances in the MCU, and oddly enough, it does look like his first appearances weren't flattering, although it's suggested the Chameleon was at fault:
But while the presidents may be the same, time in the Marvel Universe certainly isn't, and so Obama made his first appearance as the Marvel POTUS just a month after being elected. In Secret Invasion #8, readers saw the first reference to the new Commander-in-Chief ... and it wasn't under terribly flattering circumstances. While we didn't see his face, a president clearly meant to be Obama reacted to the massive alien invasion attempt that had just taken place by appointing Norman Osborn — the former Green Goblin — as the new head of S.H.I.E.L.D., or as Osborn would rename it, H.A.M.M.E.R.

Apparently wanting to score back some political points with his favorite superhero, his next major Marvel appearance was in Amazing Spider-Man #538. Taking place on Inauguration Day 2009 (and being published just a week before), the issue's backup story saw Obama arrive in Washington, D.C. to be sworn in ... only to be met by himself! As anyone who's ever read a Spider-Man story with a doppelganger in it can probably guess, the other Obama was none other than the Chameleon, and with a little help from the webslinger — who was in attendance as Peter Parker, sent there to take pictures of the historic event — the villain's plot was thwarted.
So let's get this straight. The ASM backup story ties in with the Secret Invasion crossover, and was conceived to provide clarification on what was really the case? If so, it'd be clear Secret Invasion was more like a repeat of Geoff Johns' monumentally bad 2002 Avengers story called Red Zone, where a US defense secretary named Dell Rusk (the same initials as Donald Rumsfeld) turned out to be the Red Skull. Making things worse, it was implied the Black Panther was guilty of making the poisonous serum the Red Skull was using in his plans. And Johns had the gall to depict the Skull claiming he "loved" America (reminds me that in his take on Hawkman, there was a scene where Shadow Thief claimed he liked capitalism. Seems like some leftist writers have quite a knack for making crooks spout rightist talking points). Presumably, the following Secret Invasion issues continued Chameleon's charade (and the writers):
Later that month, Obama decided to invite his aforementioned troubling appointee for a ride on Air Force One in order to discuss some of the more questionable allegations laid against the former supervillain. Pre-H.A.M.M.E.R., Osborn was in charge of the black-ops villain rehab team known as the Thunderbolts and had appeared to relapse into his Goblin persona on a few occasions while leading them. So when he boarded the world's most famous airplane to be questioned by the president and Doc Samson in Thunderbolts #128, there was only one course of action: use the T-bolts to fake an attack on the president by the Green Goblin and save the day! This story really made President Obama look like a bit of an idiot, and it didn't really get much better from there.
But if the Chameleon was impersonating Obama, then what transpired won't mean anything. However, if it was supposed to be the real Obama in a sci-fi world, then it's a pity this particular story had to be built on such cynicism.

Still, depending on one's POV, this could be two sides of the same coin: one the one hand, as a story stemming from the same mindset that drove the first Civil War, it goes by a liberal bent, yet at the same time, the writers like Bendis and Millar seemingly have no problem with depicting Obama incompetently, something they'd doubtless be more likely to do with a conservative president (to be sure, we haven't seen anything yet now that they'll be attacking Trump even worse). The politics of modern Marvel are further alluded to in the following:
Over the years, Obama appeared in too many Marvel comics to list, usually when big events went down, such as his cameos in Siege, Doomwar and Avengers vs. X-Men, but his most recent event appearance was one of his most baffling -- and probably his final Marvel appearance. In the first and last issues of last year's Civil War II event, a silhouetted Obama makes an appearance, the first time discussing with Colonel James Rhodes, aka War Machine, his potential future in politics. By the end of the event, however, Rhodey is dead, and so his second meeting is with Carol Danvers, Captain Marvel, who he congratulates on her composure in the conflict and her use of precognitive visions in stopping crimes, despite those actions having killed Rhodey. The scene plays especially weird when considering the metaphor that Marvel said they were going for was criminal profiling, which is certainly not a position that the president has been supportive of. But it only serves to reinforce that Marvel's Obama was significantly more oblivious than ours.
Again, that is strange, isn't it? If the artists and writers of the crossover voted in 2012, I'm sure they cast votes for Obama, yet they don't have an issue with making him look like he's backing all that they despise? Very weird, yet it's not likely to get any better. The irony is that Obama was oblivious to what causes Islamic terrorism during his two terms.

The following storylines from DC were certainly tilted in Obama's favor:
Even before Barack Obama made any formal appearances in the DC Universe, he became the clear inspiration for a new character: Calvin Ellis, an alternate universe's Superman, and also the President of that universe's United States. He popped up only a couple of months after our universe's first African American president's inauguration in the pages of Final Crisis #7 and was clearly a play on not only Obama, but also his message of hope, a primary theme of Superman. [...]
Ah, now this certainly does sound favorable to Obama, just like the ASM issue over at Marvel obviously was. But if Obama was oblivious to serious issues, then what hope was there in his messages anyway? The most favorable appearance in comics, however, had to be in Erik Larsen's Savage Dragon:
Despite Obama's girth of appearances in the two most popular superhero worlds, they were actually both beaten to the punch by Image Comics co-founder Erik Larsen. Savage Dragon #137 featured a cover with the titular hero giving his endorsement of the presidential candidate in September 2008. He later featured the president in a one-page strip which had Obama thank Dragon for his support and even credited him with helping him push the vote count "over the top." Larsen featured the president on multiple covers afterward, including a variant which showed Obama knocking out Osama Bin Laden, two full years before the latter's death. Another Image founder, Deadpool co-creator Rob Liefeld, put Obama in Youngblood #8, which saw the president authorizing the actions of yet another shady government-sponsored super-team. He really should stop doing that.
Gee, how come they couldn't be as favorable or inspiring when it comes to right-wing presidents? Despite bin Laden's eventual erasure, nothing was actually done to confront the root causes of terrorism, and Larsen once noted that he had a negative view of Charlie Hebdo's satires of Muhammed, making it difficult to believe he's really against censorship in superhero comics. He certainly didn't seem to understand all the pertinent issues.

And look what Antarctic Press put out at one time:
[...] Antarctic Press, the guys who started it all with Obama: The Comic Book, also published a four-issue that they clearly had no other choice but to call President Evil. It featured “Ba-rot Obama” leading the country's resistance against the zombie plague while taking on undead presidents as well as conservative talk radio hosts.
Well, I think we know where they stand. We can only wonder who those zombie presidents are too, for that matter.

In the end, none of these stories featuring Obama are any good, as they all look infested with leftist politics no matter how he comes off in illustrated format, and most of them are otherwise favorable to him far more than most right-wing presidents were depicted back in the day, or Trump's been so far too. It's just an example of how escapist entertainment's gone off the rails in favor of politics over the past 2 decades.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 18, 2017 

IGN admits Marvel's suffered from the diversity-pandering approach

Well, sort of. The IGN website's written about how the SHIELD books are the biggest victim of Marvel's arbitrary diversity tactics, but anyone who's taken a close enough look knows it's not just Nick Fury's crowd who've taken a toll from the pretentious writing that dominates their modern output:
Marvel has quite a busy spring planned when it comes to launching new comics, one being Nick Fury, the first ongoing series to focus on elite S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Nick Fury, Jr. That series has a promising creative team in writer James Robinson and artist ACO. But it also faces a massive uphill battle. Five years after his debut, the younger Nick Fury still isn't the compelling character he needs to be. This is the make or break moment for Mr. Fury.
If Robinson's the assigned writer, it certainly is an uphill battle alright. After all, he's the one who concocted the overrated take on Starman in the mid-90s, and more recently turned first Green Lantern Alan Scott homosexual for no good reason, and even retconned the Invaders with an angle that was insulting to America. That's one scripter everyone would be strongly advised to avoid. His Starman series doesn't stand the test of time either.

As for the younger Nick Fury, who's of black background, is it any surprise he's not working out? He was an early example of pandering to diversity at the expense of the original cast members, and one of many contrived and forced steps Marvel took to reflect the movies at all costs, banking on the idea nobody cares about the older stories from the Silver/Bronze Age, and won't make any effort to research Stan Lee's own creations.
I've argued before about the dangers of publishers arbitrarily changing comics to bring them more in line with other media. And as far as Marvel is concerned, no franchise has suffered more from pointless corporate synergy than the S.H.I.E.L.D. franchise. I reread Jonathan Hickman's Secret Warriors recently, which only served to reignite my frustration over how the S.H.I.E.L.D. comics have been handled since. Hickman ended that series on a nicely open-ended note. Nick Fury finally left the life of a spymaster behind him in order to "break his girl outta jail," leaving the reformed S.H.I.E.L.D. in the hands of his protege, Daisy Johnson. It was a clear case of a torch being passed and a legacy being honored.

Sadly, Marvel's subsequent S.H.I.E.L.D. stories failed to catch that baton and run with it. Instead, Marvel began a long, ponderous process of bringing the S.H.I.E.L.D. comics more in line with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Daisy was quickly ousted as Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. in favor of Maria Hill. Agent Coulson and his team made the jump from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. And a new Nick Fury appeared to replace the old one, one who bore a much closer resemblance to Samuel L. Jackson.
And this has been the problem for well over a decade. They simply must align everything with the movie visions, yet they have no qualms with rendering the original cast members in the most awful of lights. Namely, turning the real Nick Fury into a jerk, or worse, a crook, in the crossover that saw him erase Thor's "worthiness" by whispering in his ear. And even the changes to resemble the movies are superficial at worst: there's no talented writing at hand, and the changes themselves are part & parcel of the problem.
The reasoning behind this decision, presumably, was that Marvel didn't want to confuse fans of the MCU who might gravitate towards the comics. We'll ignore the fact that Marvel's movies seem to have little impact on book sales in the first place. Why would such a superficial element make any difference? Couldn't it be argued that this new Fury would only be more confusing to MCU fans? He may look like Sam Jackson, but his role within S.H.I.E.L.D. is very different from Jackson's Fury. He's a field agent, not a director, and a relatively young one at that. He's really a completely different character in every way that matters, which makes his clunky origin story all the more perplexing. Why didn't Marvel simply port Ultimate Nick Fury over to the regular Marvel U if having an MCU-friendly Fury was so important? Why didn't they allow Marcus Johnson to be his own character rather than a pale imitation of his father?
Simple: for the same reason they didn't allow Riri Williams in Iron Man to be her own, or even the new, "totally awesome Hulk" to be his own. And even the same reason they arbitrarily came up with a Muslim Ms. Marvel while putting Carol Danvers in the role of the guy who helped her get her own superpowers in the first place, Mar-Vell of the Kree. And, the reason Jane Foster was made into a new Thor instead of the pagan deity she'd loved once. Is that so hard to understand?
Plenty of good characters have overcome bad origin stories. That has yet to happen for the new Nick Fury. He's popped up in all sorts of books since the Battle Scars days, often serving as connective tissue for Marvel's shared comic book universe in the same way Fury has for the MCU. But he rarely stands out as a very deep or memorable character. [...]
Nor will he, with the way they've politicized the whole environment in the MCU. Maybe if they rebooted him as a different character with no connections to Nick Fury and as more of a civilian businessman, they could put him to better use in other stories. But with such awful editors and publishers in charge, there's no way he'll ever be put to compelling use.

That told, let's remember that it's not just the SHIELD-related products that are in bad shape today. The whole MCU is too, thanks to all the bad steps Joe Quesada and company took ever since he got his foot in the door more than 15 years ago. So long as anybody with visions as terrible as his remains in charge, repairs will be impossible.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 17, 2017 

Movie Pilot botches their argument for how Marvel should recover from the SJW-infected state

Movie Pilot's spoken about how Civil War 2 turned out to be a flop - much like anything else in sales receipts these days - with readers who're thankfully tired of Marvel/DC alike turning out company wide crossover after company wide crossover every year, often at least twice in one. But in stressing how they should recover, they cite some pretty weak, dishonest, and politicized material, they screwed up the real impact this could've had. In fact, at the beginning, they say:
Marvel's Civil War was a massively successful comic that inspired an even more successful movie.
Umm, did it sell in the absolute millions? Then please, kindly quit claiming the 2006 ultra-leftist intellect-insulter had stratospheric sales. Heck, if I were new to comics and found out what the crossover was like after seeing the movie, I'd feel depressed and/or embarrassed, because the scriptwriters sure weren't choosing the best source material.
Marvel's Civil War II was...not.

Actually, it was a disaster on the scale of the ending that saw Iron Man and Captain Marvel come to blows at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. Instead of recapturing the original arc's bold storytelling, Marvel saw a backlash from fans and critics who felt the company was just trying to cash in on another event comic.
At least they're more accurate about this part. Worst, Marvel's hack writers were doing it for practically the same reasons they did the first: as little more than leftist propaganda with which to attack the Patriot Act. Don't be shocked if they have plans to attack any policy Donald Trump wants to draft in the coming year with yet another crossover. And the first crossover was not bold if it's only intention was to depict heroes fighting each other. It wasn't even bold if it was going to connect with dozens of other Marvel ongoing series and miniseries and crowd out stand-alone storytelling.
Civil War II needed to be a win in order to keep some momentum going forward for Marvel Comics in 2017. Sadly, Brian Michael Bendis and David Marquez failed to live up to expectations, almost solely because of the tired premise: heroes fighting heroes over a philosophical debate. (Spoilers follow!)

In this case, some of Earth's Mightiest believed it was better to stop crimes before they were committed; others believed that punishing pre-crime (to borrow a phrase from Minority Report) would be unjust. This led to various characters being on either Team Iron Man or Team Captain Marvel.

It simply wasn't a fresh enough idea to warrant an event comic of this magnitude. Also, Captain Marvel was written extremely poorly and it was hard to see where she was coming from with her acting more like a villain than the wonderful person that we know she is.
First it was Iron Man depicted more like a villain, and now it's Carol Danvers, who should've remained in the Ms. Marvel role. They're correct about heroes vs heroes being done to death. But then, it already was when the first crossover came out, so why don't they think of reevaluating that for a change?

And they botch their suggestions for how to mend their image when they start citing the Muslim Ms. Marvel as an example of "great" writing:
Comic books are finally heading back in a direction where hope and compassion take center stage. Ms. Marvel does this extremely well by balancing out Kamala's duties as a superhero and as a Muslim teenager from New Jersey. By showing her struggles to maintain normalcy with her family and keep her friendships intact, it allows us to truly care about her because everyone can relate to those situations.
Yes, everyone can relate to a religion of violence, can't they? A religion that also sanctions "honor" killings when a daughter even dares suggest she's willing to do something the parents disapprove of, like dating a boy they're against. Movie Pilot's not doing any service at all if they uphold pushing propaganda down the readers' throats. If this is what it's come down to, that's just one more reason why it's ill-advised to think hope and compassion are returning, especially when it's selective at worst. At least the website admits there's too many titles and spinoff series being published:
Do the Avengers really need two different books with two different teams? Can you tell me the difference between the All-New Avengers and the Uncanny Avengers?
Indeed, there's no need. A lesson that should've been learned after sans-adjective X-Men turned out to be less successful than claimed in 1991, with huge crates of copies stacked up in many stores. Today, at nearly 4 dollars a pamphlet issue, it's even more of a ripoff than before. They also agree that replacing established heroes deliberately with new characters of different race/sexual orientation is unnecessary and doesn't improve story quality or sales:
No offense to Riri Williams, but people read an Iron Man comic to see what crazy thing Tony Stark will do next. Riri is a cool character and she would've proved popular enough to receive her own book without Tony getting sidelined. We'll see how receptive readers are to the A.I. version of him.

Marvel's capable of this. Kate Bishop's Hawkeye and Jane Foster's Thor have been well-received by both fans and critics, and Miles Morales is a breakout star...but we still have Clint Barton, Thor Odinson and Peter Parker. So, was it really necessary to kill Bruce Banner and War Machine in Civil War II?
Absolutely not. Something's certainly wrong when they're willing to wipe out a character of black background (Jim Rhodes) just as much as a character of white (or even green) background.
One hates to keep bringing up DC, but they went back to legacy characters with DC Universe: Rebirth, and that's currently working out extremely well both critically and commercially. [...]
Umm, is it? Sales certainly don't back up their claim of commercial success, and even now, artistic results are far from magnificent.

They also cite how comics are being used to sell movie tickets (but not the other way around):
This was one of the biggest complaints that fans had for Civil War II. The integrity of the story felt sacrificed in order have more connections to the heroes' on-screen counterparts. Honestly, what were the Guardians of the Galaxy doing taking part in some war on Earth when their best stories come from these epic space operas?
Which brings us back to the plague of crossovers: how do they expect moviegoers to feel up to buying any of their products, let alone comics readers, if they charge 4 dollars? Or, why should readers be encouraged to buy movies when the crossovers are such junk? And as they mentioned, the Civil War sequel was far less successful than the first, and even that was nothing to crow over.

The website makes some good points, but dampens a lot of them thanks to their leftist politics.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 16, 2017 

A comic made for the anti-Trump crowd

Fast Co-Design reports that some New Yorker propagandists have put together a negative tabloid-style comic "for the Trump age":
As the country prepares for the inauguration, many artists are making their own preparations.

For some that means community installations; for others, large-scale performances. For Françoise Mouly, the art editor of The New Yorker, and her daughter, the writer Nadja Spiegelman, protest comes in the form of Resist!, a tabloid newspaper filled with art and comics that will be distributed in Washington D.C. and across the country during the weekend of the inauguration and the Women's March on Washington. [...]

"The intimacy of hand-drawn comics combats the alienation everyone has felt after this election," Spiegelman says. "They draw someone into a personal universe of both space and time. There’s something really intimate about that that lends itself well to telling personal stories."
Oh, tell us about it. It's been more like a case of leftards shunning the right, all because the GOP candidate won. And it's worth noting that the march they're going to distribute this to has already been panned by victims of Bill Clinton, because when did the march organizers ever consider their case? Simply put, the upcoming march is all a sham. And the tabloid's content includes:
[...] pieces of visual art that are motivated by the election, but also speak to much larger issues like civil rights, immigration, and health care. (Mouly and Spiegelman have also posted hundreds more online.)
I think we can already guess where this is going. One of the illustrations in the tabloid is about Planned Parenthood, whose main specialty besides hurting minorities is wasting the taxpayers' money. If that's who they're pandering to, it's shameful.
Despite its robust online presence, Resist! is first and foremost a print artifact—which is part of the point. Mouly was inspired by the French satire magazines , Hara-Kiri, and Charlie Hebdo; Fowler drew inspiration for Resist! from countercultural newspapers that told stories the mainstream left out.
Gee, and I thought the New Yorker considered themselves the mainstream! But if they wouldn't defend the artists who drew the Danish Mohammed cartoons, then I don't see what they're getting at. All they're doing is giving everyone an idea of what Trump-bashing is yet to come, something we could all do without.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 15, 2017 

Disney really is no longer allowing artists to draw the "slave Leia" outfit

A few weeks ago, Bleeding Cool revealed that J. Scott Campbell was right - under Disney/Lucasfilm, Marvel's no longer accepting illustrations of Leia Organa from Star Wars in the slave outfit, no matter how bravely she fought back against Jabba the Hut. According to Frank Cho, a submitted illustration he offered was rejected:
Frank tells me he was told that Lucasfilm/Disney were no longer allowing artists to draw Princess Leia in the slave outfit. The “Slave Leia” or “Hutt Killer” portrayal of the character of Princess Leia in Return Of The Jedi has certainly been a controversial one over the years, albeit a look popular among cosplayers.
Cho also noted this on his Facebook page:
As I stated before, the original Star Wars variant cover with Slave Leia was rejected by Lucasfilm/Disney. It was all around miscommunication. I wasn't aware of the Lucasfilm/Disney edict of no more "Slave Leia", and Lucasfilm/Disney wasn't aware that I didn't know of this general order.
Good grief. Despite the fact that the late Carrie Fisher decided later on that the outfit did bear significance due to how she fought back against Jabba, choking him to death with the chains, Disney decided otherwise and insulted her memory by rejecting all to do with the outfit. Yet they would accept a Han Solo drawing by Cho.

What does this tell us? That the Disney Corp. today is a slave themselves...to the will of politically correct SJWs who likely don't even watch the Star Wars movies or buy any of the merchandise. And that's the problem with corporations today - they're jelly-spined and don't have what it takes to stand up to anybody wishing to make a mockery out of their properties.

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

Archives

Links

  • avigreen2002@yahoo.com
  • 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)

    blog search directory blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory Top Blogs Entertainment blogs Entertainment Blogs Entertainment Blogs Entertainment Blogs
    Entertainment blog TopOfBlogs Israel Blogs
    View My Stats Comics blog Blog Directory & Search engine blog directory
eXTReMe Tracker SpeedCounter.net - Free web counter 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.