I hadn't planning on reviewing Marvel Studios' latest project, Wonder Man, but I find that it's been sitting with me more than I've had a MCU show sit with me for quite a while. I'm certainly familiar with Wonder Man as a character; he's been in and out of the Avengers for decades. He was never a favorite of mine, but I never disliked his character either.

The basic plot of the series is that Simon Williams, a very modestly successful actor, hears about an upcoming Wonder Man movie, reviving a franchise he loved as a kid. With the help of fellow actor Trevor Slattery, he works hard to land the lead role and not get in his own way, which is what has been the primary reason he hasn't become more successful already.

That's it. No major villains, no end of the world scenarios, no superhero origin story. One guy, trying to get his dream job.

In a lot of ways, this doesn't feel like an MCU project because of that. The past several years of movies and shows have been this interconnected web of continuity, and there was a lot cross-referencing plots and story arcs. While Wonder Man is clearly and overtly connected to the MCU -- primarily via Ben Kingsley's protrayal of Trevor -- the smaller, human nature scale of the story grounds things in a way that make it feel somewhat separate from the MCU.

What also separates the show is that there's very little in the way of super powers. They establish he does have them in the first ten minutes or so of the show, but it's something he tries hard to keep under wraps. (More on that in a bit.) The impact this has on the show is 1) I'm sure the visual effects people were relieved they didn't have another She-Hulk situation on their hands where every second the character was on-screen meant hours and hours of computer work, and 2) it more importantly puts the focus on the character development, and not the theatrics. And that they've got Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Kingsley in the two lead roles is what really sells the series.

Because of the story's focus on character, that puts the onus of success very much in the hands of Abdul-Mateen's and Kingsley's performances. They don't have special effects or even flashy costumes to hide behind; Simon is in a sweatshirt and jeans for much of the show! And they both deliver some excellent performances, especially when they're able to play off one another. The actors seem to have a chemistry as much as their characters are supposed to. Of course, Kingsley has a long enough history of great performances that I don't think anyone would doubt his abilities, but I was particularly impressed with Abdul-Mateen. His heartfelt moments were indeed quite heartfelt, but what struck me too was his ability to intentionally depict a mediocre performance. The character is an actor, so Abdul-Mateen is repeatedly required to act like he's acting. But not acting badly; he can't take it to that extreme. It has to be a performance that would work well enough to get him acting gigs with speaking roles on a TV show, but not so good that he outperforms the ostensible star of said show. It strikes me as a very fine line, and Abdul-Mateen walks it well.

This does lead me to one of the issues I had with the show, though. Namely, that there was a not insubstantial part of it that did feel a little too inside-Hollywood. Again, with Simon as a working actor, we're going to see a lot of usually-behind-the-scenes stuff like auditions and rehersals and contract discussions and such, and that's fine. But there also seemed to be a number of elements that were added in seemingly narcissistic, self-referential manner mostly for the amusement of other people who work in Hollywood. The inclusion of Joe Pantoliano, for example, doesn't add much to the story -- it does add some depth to Kingsley's character, but the one or two lines that do that don't warrant an entire third of an episode. (Pantoliano's performance is fine, by the way. The issue I have is more about the scene's inclusion in the first place, not its execution.)

That was the big stand-out in that respect but there were other lines and references I caught that felt like they were included for the sake of people who work in Hollywood, and most of the audience wouldn't catch. Beyond just phrasing and lingo to make it seem authentic. I know enough about writing and performing that I caught some of them, but I strongly suspect the whole self-tape studio sequence has slew of in-jokes that I completely missed.

Along those lines, the show overtly references -- and tries to parallel in some ways -- the movie Midnight Cowboy. While that is indeed a piece of classic cinema, do audiences today know it at all? It was an X-rated film in 1969, so to have seen it in theaters when it came out, you'd have to be at least in your 70s now. And it doesn't seem like the type of film most people would come to casually; it's not exactly an uplifting, feel-good movie so the people who seek it out are doing so for its cinematic merits, not because they want something to zone out on after a long week at work. So even with the overt references to the movie here, they seem more self-referential.

I also felt the "Doorman" episode was entirely unnecesary. There's a couple references earlier in the show about how it's almost impossible to be an actor with superpowers because of a "Doorman Clause." The "Doorman" episode explains that through a flashback with the character Doorman. While it was kind of interesting to see a D-list character like Doorman get an MCU appearance, the entire episode could've been covered with a couple of additional lines of dialogue. We didn't need an entire episode to go off on a tangent about characters that aren't involved in the main plot AT ALL.

To offer some praise in the same vein of "stuff that I expect most viewers won't catch," I quite liked how they leaned into Simon's Haitian-American background. Obviously, the comic version of the character is Caucasian, but there's never been anything about him that was strictly racially driven. So conceptually, the race-flipping for the show doesn't detract from any character elements from the comics. But what I found pleasantly surprising was some of the subtle layering that helped to round out the character. Some of it was small stuff, like when he made a casual reference to his agent about code-switching or the brief shot of family members donating clothes in a plastic barrel to send back to Haiti when they visit Simon's mother. Stuff that goes by quickly enough that it probably doesn't even register for viewers who don't get it, but will absolutely look/sound more authentic to those that do. Even the thematic notion of Simon having to keep his powers in check when he gets angry has some racial undertones to it for people of color. (Go back and read my piece on the Hulk metaphor for more on that idea.)

Despite my criticisms, though, I rather enjoyed Wonder Man overall. It's a unique take on superheroes for the MCU, and it stands out as both very much centered in the world built in and around superheroes but very grounded in its avoidance in showcasing that. A show like Daredevil is grounded in its street level realism. Daredevil has powers but they're not grand or showy, and his primary villain is basically just a mob boss. And it takes the approach that "grounded" means "gritty" -- that you're seeing the dirt and grime that inhabits the real world. Wonder Man isn't dirty like that. Simon's apartment is a little messy, but the world for him is still pretty clean superficially. At least the parts that matter; the dishes are done, they're just not put away. He's in a world where your co-workers see the nice wall of books behind you on your Zoom call, but not the absolute disorganized mess of life just off camera.

There's a lot of Hollywood shown in Wonder Man, and we all know the stereotypical artifice of that. But isn't that what we all do? We present our life's highlight reel on social media while in reality we're scrambling to get the dog walked and the car fixed and didn't-I-just-buy-AA-batteries-where-the-hell-are-they all while maintaining a day job that leaves us too exhausted to do anything over the weekend besides crashing on the couch. I think that's the grounded reality of Wonder Man. The show has some really fun moments, just like we do in life, and it's got messy family drama, just like we do in life, and it's got that one friend who does okay but just can't quite get his act together, just like we have in real life. It's a good show. It could be a bit tighter in places, but it's solid. It's more focused on character than any Marvel show since Moon Knight, I think, and definitely makes for a nice -- and unique -- addition to the MCU.

A little over a week ago, this year's Eisner Award judges announced their selections for Hall of Frame inductees. One of them was Jimmy Swinnerton, one of the early pioneers of newspaper comics. His cartoons (alternately called "California Bears", "The Little Bears" and "Little Bears and Tykes") for the San Francisco Examiner began in 1892, three years before "The Yellow Kid." He continued working in comics until 1958, and spent the next decade and half painting landscapes before his death in 1974.

In 1963, MSgt. Percy Brown Jr. interviewed Swinnerton for Armed Forces Radio. Comics fan Milt Kagen, who helped arrange the interview in the first place, saved a tape of the program. It's the only known public audio recording of Swinnerton.

People are called courageous for doing things that many others won't do. Running into burning buildings to save someone. Defending a stranger against an armed assailant. Reporting an injustice even under the threat of bodily harm. There's no end to what can be considered examples of courage. And many look to those so-called courageous people as individuals who have no fear. They're real world Green Lanterns, charging into to save the day without even the benefit of a power ring.

But that's not courage. Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is not the opposite of fear. Courage is having the inner strength to do something IN SPITE OF fear. In order to be courageous, you need to be first be fearful of something so that you can overcome that fear.

You can still be heroic without being courageous, mind you. Superman is very heroic. He goes around saving people all the time. But it's not courageous for him to stand in front of a bank robber's gun since he knows that his skin is hard enough to deflect every one of the bullets without so much as leaving a bruise. Heroism ≠ courage. And it's fear without courage that's driving a lot of our problems today.

"I don't really know any gay people. Their culture includes things I don't understand. I don't know what to say or how to act when they display those cultural touchstones that are unfamiliar to me."

"I don't really know any Black people. Their culture seems different than mine, and I do not want to risk theirs superceding mine. I'm very comfortable with my own culture, and not comfortable with theirs."

That's essentially what racism and homophobia and that kind of hatred all boils down to: a mechansim for justifying treating someone poorly because they look/act/sound a little different than what you're used to. They're reacting out of fear. They're reacting fearfully because they have no courage. They fear what they don't know or understand, and don't even have the courage to try to learn about it. They don't have the courage to say, "Just because it's different doesn't mean it's wrong." They don't have the courage to say, "Just because it's different, it doesn't invalidate my preferences."

And perhaps that's part of the problem in comics. There are so many out there that talk about heroism, but don't touch on courage. Spider-Man doesn't fear going against the Green Goblin. Batman doesn't fear confronting the Joker. Those characters are/were absolutely acting heroically, but not courageously.

I can't help but wonder, then, if we would see fewer instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. in the comics community if the stories were less focused on heroism, and more focused on courage.

Pirates: A Graphic History (But Not THAT Kind of Graphic) is the overly long title of James Silvani's latest book. He actually ran it as a Kickstarter project back in late 2024, and got the books shipped out late in 2025. The book separates fact from fiction with tendency to do so in a humorous fashion.

(Full disclosure: I backed the Kickstarter at a level that I'm actually drawn into the book itself.)

Silvani has divided the book up into three sections: History, Piracy 101/How to Pirate, and Individual Pirate Profiles. Not surprisingly, the History section covers the history of piracy dating back to the dinosaurs (well, not quite) and covers piracy all over the world, not just those who sailed in/around the Carribbean in the early 1700s. The Piracy 101 section is all about the day-to-day lives of pirates, mostly relaying how awful everything was and that the only reason a pirate would put up with that was because their other options were even more awful. And the Profiles section, of course, designates a few pages each to several of the most famous pirates throughout history.

The text is largely written independent of the art in a kind of omnsicient narrator approach. But rather than just rattling off dull dates and statistics like Ben Stein, Silvani has a fun, casual style that includes self-corrections, deliberately bad jokes, and a generally satirical tone that often mocks the actions taking place in the art. Art which, in turn, also frequently mocks the narration.

In fact, the style and general approach remind me very much of Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the World books, just with a narrower focus and on much better paper. While we don't see a narrator in the same way Gonick handled his work, there's still the sense of talking to the reader and the 'actors' in the story sometimes recognizing their role and responding to the narrator or the reader. Like Gonick, too, Silvani also includes a variety of gags in the background throughout the book; the racous partying and massive fight scenes in particular lend themselves to any number of visual Wile E. Coyote style jokes.

The actual research here is all solid to boot. I've done more than a little studying of actual piracy, and I was generally impressed with the details Silvani included. If I had to make a criticism of the content, I would say that Profiles section feels a bit too Euro-heavy. Silvani does call out, for example, Zheng Yi Sao in the History section, but she's only given 2/3 of page there and no separate write-up in the back. The Profiles are generally the Carribbean pirates you might already be familiar with: Blackbeard, William Kidd, Anne Bonny, etc. Similarly, other non-European-born pirates are noted in the History section but aren't reflected in the Profiles. No Black Caesar or Diego de Los Reyes, or Ipseiodawas either. Obviously, there wouldn't be enough room to list EVERY pirate and I get that there are many that we simply don't know much about, but while the main book is relatively diverse, that doesn't extend to the Profiles section.

Overall, Pirates: A Graphic History (But Not THAT Kind of Graphic) is a really fun read. Plenty of solid info there if you're not already super-familiar with the topic and it's still handled in a very fun and entertaining way if you are! I'm not sure about the full breadth of distribution, but Silvani is selling the book from his website (signed!) for $30 US if you're interested. I believe all his Kickstarter ones have been sent out, so he should be able to get to 'regular' orders fairly quickly, I should think.

At the right is a copy of Fantastic Four #306. It's a fairly unremarkable issue in the grand scheme of the title. It's the FF versus Diablo and some elemental creatures he's cooked up; you can get the gist of the story from the cover pretty easily. Written by Steve Englehart with art by John Buscema and Joe Sinnott. It's not a bad story at all, but it doesn't hold any particular significance. All the creators had been working on the title for at least a few issues already, and there are no new characters introduced here. No big story revelations or anything. A decent story, but it doesn't especially stand out.

Except!

If you've looked at the cover a little more closely, you might notice that it's actually NOT from the regular Fantastic Four title. It's titled "Fantastic Four Classic and there's a note where the UPC symbol would go that says "Distributed by: So Much Fun! Inc." You might be prone to thinking, "Fantastic Four Classic?!? I've never heard of that title before! I know Marvel's done some FF reprint books but that doesn't sound familiar at all! What gives?"

Well, that's what I thought when I saw it at any rate!

To set your mind at ease, there is no Fantastic Four Classic title that you somehow missed. The "Classic" only appears on the cover, and the official indicia inside just says it's a second printing of Fantastic Four #306. So what's with the "Classic" and who is "So Much Fun! Inc."?

There's actually a bit of a mystery around this. There are, in fact, twelve different comics that seem to have a So Much Fun! distribution notice on them, and they all also have the word "classic" attached to the title on the cover. But the list of issues might surprise you. They are...

• Amazing Spider-Man #292
• Archie #282
• Batman #401
• Betty and Veronica #289
• Fantastic Four #306
• G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero #63
• Incredible Hulk #335
• Justice League of America #217
• The Man of Steel #1
• Star Trek #6
• Superman # 161
• Uncanny X-Men #221

Now you may notice that there are three different publishers at play here: Marvel, DC, and Archie. The Marvel issues all reprint stories from late 1987, the two Archie issues come from 1979 and 1980, and the DC issues range from 1963 to 1986. What gives?

Nobody seems to know a whole lot unfortunately. I'll relay what I've been to find and put out a few ideas afterwards.

So Much Fun! Inc. operated out of Massachusettes for a brief period in the late 1980s. They apparently had connections with non-comic shops that sold paper products (think: stationery and greeting cards -- like Hallmark stores but small, independently owned shops) and thought that maybe comics might sell in those venues as well. Perhaps to kids who were dragged into the store by their parents. Rather that trying to set themselves up as a regular distributor of new comics like one might for a newsstand, they instead opted for selling a bagged collection of three different comics. This is very much like those bagged sets of three issues that you might've found in drug stores in the 1970s and 1980s.

I've seen people claim the initial print run for these was 5,000 for each issue. I've seen no citations for where that number comes from though. I've also seen no details on which comics may/may not have been packed together; given that there are only two Archie books, you must've gotten at least two publishers in some bags, but I don't know if there was any rhyme or reason to how they were bagged together or if it was just random.

In doing some digging, I found So Much Fun! also produced sticker packs that were clearly aimed at kids. Rainbows and unicorns with a prism reflective effect, that kind of thing. Given that they seemed to put some degree of effort into the promotion and packaging of these stickers, my guess is that was closer to their main business venture.

If you love these stickers --
And they are the best,
We offer many others,
Collect all the rest!

(It's not good, but it required effort!)

My guess is that stickers were their primary business. Sticker collecting was definitely a big thing in the late '70s and early '80s. As the '80s wore on, though, and stickers weren't as popular, they looked for other ways to make some money that would be adjacent to sticker production. Someone almost certainly recalled those 3-comic bags from earlier and felt there was a decent overlap. They would've been in stationery stores already with a product that was aimed at a kid market. They managed to contact the "big 3" comic publishers and arranged to have small runs of existing comics printed up, presumably to be bagged (and distributed) by themselves.

For the publishers, it would've been a fairly easy request. Just run a few thousand copies of something they had already set up, and send them to a different address. What's interesting is how they interpretted the reuqest. If you look at the Marvel books, they're all virtually identical except for dropping the "Classic" and "So Much Fun" text on there. They just grabbed five of the most recent issues and they barely seemed to care beyond that; the "Classic" on the Hulk cover is just the black text over top of a heavily shadowed part of the art, so much so that you can barely even see it, much less read it! Archie put in a modicum more work by removing the "Archie Comics Group" banner and neatly replacing it with "Achie Classic Comics." Presumably they went back a few years for their issues so it wouldn't compete with what was on the stands at the time? Whether Marvel didn't think there was enough audience overlap or recognized that the small print run wouldn't impact their regular sales at all, they didn't seem to have that concern at all; they went with what was going to print at that time anyway, presumably so they didn't have to do any additional logistical work.

DC put in the most effort, reworking their cover art to update logos and remove cross-promotional banners and such. The Man of Steel issue loses it's mini-series and "comics event of the century" tag lines, the Justice League issue has the logo replaced with the then-current version, and the Superman issue updates the DC logo and re-sizes the Superman title for examples. They seem to have taken the approach that every place they appear, it should reflect on them as pristinely as possible. Presumably, given the range of issues selected for reprinting here, they put some effort into those selections as well. Digging out that 25-year-old production art for Superman was no small task, I'm almost certain.

Given the range of effort in the companies' response, I suspect no one at So Much Fun! had much knowledge about the comic book market of the late 1980s. They seem to have left many of the decisions up to the publishers and were okay with whatever the result was as long as they got some comics they could turn around and sell to stationery shops. Of course, that's almost certainly why the project failed. Well, I'm assuming it failed since there appears to have only been the one "run" of issues, and they're not that hard to come by despite the low print quantities. By 1987, comics were well into the days of the direct market and the semi-"blind bag" drug store approach was effectively dead. To my recollection, it was even starting to get difficult to find comics just on a newsstand or spinner rack by that point.

(As I think on it, I seem to recall Marvel trying the 3-comic-bag approach with their original Secret Wars comic in 1984. They had the main title available in 3-issue runs, and another two or three sets of all the other issues that directly led up it -- the ones where the different heroes find that weird structure in Central Park, wander into it, and then vanish. If those sold poorly, that might explain why Marvel put so little effort into the So Much Fun! issues -- they knew first-hand that they wouldn't sell very well.)

Anyway, as I said, those last few paragraphs are mostly speculation on my part. The books are an interesting curiosity, but probably not relevant unless you have some kind of completist mindset for them. (No judgement on my part, by the way! Whatever floats your boat is cool! They're just not for me.) But now you know what you're looking at if you happen across one of thesse "Classic" titles as you're scanning through a back issue bin and find yourself wondering what the heck you're looking at!

Here are this week's links to what I've had published recently...

Kleefeld on Comics: MLK Cartoons of Yesteryear
https://ift.tt/Zf7XKEb

Kleefeld on Comics: This Slavery Review
https://ift.tt/qsEIyKG

Kleefeld on Comics: Cleveland Scene Comics
https://ift.tt/DSL4OsU

Kleefeld on Comics: Buster Brown
https://ift.tt/F2HroC1

Kleefeld on Comics: Do You Own Your Media?
https://ift.tt/IngqRav

Back in December, I got an email notice from Amazon that said they were temporarily suspending my account because of some unspecified payment irregularities, and that I needed to prove I was who I said I was. I thought it was odd because I hadn't actually purchased anything from them that would require a payment of any sort for something like 10-12 months prior. And my account had otherwise been in good standing for at least a quarter century before that! When I tried submitting a question about what payment they were talking about, I got a generic form letter response and when I tried asking for clarification since they provided no actual details, I got a different form letter that said they weren't going answer anything because they had already addressed it in the previous email. After a week or so of trying to go through their automated hoops without gaining a single shred of additional information and submitting all the information they were requesting of me, I got another email saying that because I didn't provide the information they were asking for, they closed my account permanently with an additional note saying there is no appeals process so don't even bother trying.

As I said, I hadn't purchased anything from them for a year prior. I'd also canceled my Prime account early in 2025. Both part of a decidedly conscious effort on my part to separate myself from their influence. So I'm not mad or upset about losing the account. I'm a little annoyed that they flatly lied to me about why they were canceling my account, but clearly they found something about me and/or my account they didn't like and they actively no longer want me as a customer anyway.

That was the last week or two of 2025. However, it only just dawned on me that I will have also lost my Comixology account in the process as well. Obviously, since it took me a few weeks to even realize that, it's not a big concern either. Once Amazon purchased Comixology and tried incorporating it into their Kindle format, the user interface was so awful that I only used it when I absolutely had to. (I think the last time I'd looked at it was in early 2023 when I was an Eisner Awards judge and spent every free moment for the first part of that year reading comics.) But back before Amazon got their hands on that platform, I'd amassed a good number of comics on that account. At a rough guess, maybe 1000? 1500?

Despite Comixology originally launching in 2007, I don't think most people started really paying attention until 2010 or so when A) they launched a stand-alone app that came pre-loaded on Apple's then-brand-spanking-new iPad and B) that happened to coincide with Marvel and DC having their titles released digitally through Comixology. That's probably about when I signed up as well.

However, it was quite a while longer -- years, I think -- before I bought my first comic digitally. I snagged plenty of free ones though! A lot of titles had one or two issues for free. Marvel had a couple of massive promotions where they'd give away 500 free comics or something, in addition to for-a-while-weekly releases of some newish issues from both Marvel and DC. And there was a weird incident when they were in some agreement with Amazon, but before they were bought out, where someone at Amazon accidentally mis-maked a slew of Marvel Masterworks with a cost of zero; that only lasted for, like, a half hour before someone corrected it, but I was able to grab digital copies of something like the first fifteen years of Fantastic Four stories!

The reasons I wasn't actually buying anything, though, came out of a business model arguement people were having right at the start. Namely, that when you bought a digital comic on Comixology, you didn't own it. There was very clear language early on that you were essentially just renting the comic until such time as either A) you closed your account, or B) Comixology decided they didn't want you to have it any more for some reason. You couldn't download the issue at all, not even a DRM'd version.

In the fifteen-ish years I had a Comixology account, I think I paid for only three issues. All of which were expressly for the purpose of doing research for some articles -- two were issues that were too expensive to buy for real and hadn't been reprinted in any capacity, and one was a issue I already had, but I needed to do some research while I was travelling and didn't have access to my collection. So from a stric cost perspective, losing my Amazon account -- and those digital comics I paid for 8 or 10 years ago -- cost me only a few bucks.

I definitely have a much larger collection of digital comics that I've downloaded from other places (legally!) sitting on my hard drive. Definitely a lot more independent work there, of course, and some of them are older as I'd been looking at digital comics for more than a couple years before Comixology. Many of them are still avaiable online in various place, so I could download them again if I needed to (I seem to recall a good number of them are, in fact, public domain comics pulled from Digitial Comic Museum, now celebrating their fifteenth anniversary!) but it's not necessary. They're on my hard drive, which is backed up nightly. They're my copies, and I don't have to worry about losing them just because some nameless entity decided I wasn't an account worth having any more.

I also recently set up my own media server. I'd done a somewhat makeshift version of that with my music some time ago, just "hosting" MP3s ripped from my CD collection 15-20 years ago. But using a refurbished old laptop dedicated to hosting up files, and a relatively cheap ($150 US) 8 TB hard drive, I can throw movies and TV shows on as well. (Mostly streaming captures through legitimate sources, though there's a number of public domain works downloaded from the Internet Archive and YouTube as well.)

What's been interesting with video files is that, even in the few weeks I've been loading my system with them, I've seen several that I captured from legal sources, only to see them disappear a week or two later. Obviously due to a contract expiration, but it's another way emphasize the same point from before: that unless you have a copy of some media in your home, you don't own it. I was particularly annoyed a year and change ago when I was watching Marvel's Runaways on Disney+ when they pulled the whole series just as I finishing season 1. I checked Amazon Prime and they had only seasons 1 and 3 -- no clue why season 2 wasn't available. I did find just this past week a notice that Tubi will allegedly begin streaming it in February, but I don't know if that's necessarily the whole series or just certain seasons. If I had downloaded all of those back when I was watching it, it would've been a non-issue.

Again, my point is that we're living in an era when many of the things you've bought and paid for can be pulled out from under you with little-to-no notice. People have been warning for YEARS that any of these platforms -- for comics or music or movies -- are only as permanent as the company hosting them feels like. Maybe that is indefinitely. More than likely, probably not though. But we're fortunately at a point where you can get a good sized hard drive relatively inexpensively, so it might be worth considering hooking one up to an old laptop or something and figure out how to host all your media locally. (As long as your machine still works, it's honestly pretty easy. It took only took me several months to set mine up because I had to get an old laptop in working order in the first place. Once I got things basically working again, getting it set up to host media wasn't much more difficult than installing an app.)

I think things will only get more chaotic and unpredictable in the near future, so if you're able, I'd strongly recommend trying to get your media house in order before you lose all your music or movies or comics!