BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

Mainstream DC Comics

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:34 / 01.06.03
I was just reading through the coverage of DC's announcements about its mainstream DC Universe comics over on The Pulse, and I started thinking about the readership of those titles. Who reads these comics besides older lifelong comics readers? You really couldn't ask for anything more bland and conservative from DC's superhero line, which makes me wonder if DC really has given up on expanding their audience in any way.

So I'm curious - does anyone here read any of DC's superhero comics that are currently being published? Why do you like them? Are any of them better than they appear to be?

Also, in a hypothetical world in which Paul Levitz and his ilk were no longer in control of the DC characters, what do you think could be done to make DC more accessable and palatable to wider audiences? Is it even possible to make the DC Universe exciting anymore?
 
 
penitentvandal
15:46 / 01.06.03
Well, they could have let Morrison write Superman...

Seriously, tho', I think DC do have some of the most interesting concepts out there, as far as superheroes go - Batman and Superman, for starters. The thing they suffer from is this annoying fanboyish obsession with continuity, continuity, continuity!! that means that no less than four titles for each character, plus spin-offs, graphic novels, trade paperbacks, et cetera, et cetera, have to be pumped out relentlessly every fuckin' month. Why? I don't recall the Greek tragedists getting together and saying, 'hmmm, Oedipus seems to be popular, let's have fifteen different bloody plays about him on every month!' Shakespeare and Jonson didn't hook up and put together the epic Iago/Volpone mini-series, did they? (though actually, in a cheesy litgeek way, Iago/Volpone does actually sound quite cool, possibly with a guest appearance from Shylock...)

This is the problem with DC. They have two of the most epic, symbolic characters in our culture. Batman and Superman are legends now, as DC never tire of reminding us. But that means that they should be used less, not more.

Here's how I'd make DC exciting: I'd fire a lot of people, first. I'd get rid of the monthly Bats/Supes titles, or at most prune them back to just one a month. Same for everyone else in the DCU. While I was at it, I'd kill a lot of the minor superhero titles. DC should be Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, the Justice League, and maybe some kind of anthology title for the minor heroes. Any spin-off books or graphic novels would be one-offs - really special pieces of work, and would have to have a bloody good concept and story to justify their existence. The monthly titles would be bigger than 22 pages as well, perhaps with back-up stories which could be vehicles for some of the spin-offs.

And that'd be it. Cut back, impose certain restrictions (only about seven titles), and give the writers and artists free rein within those restrictions. Forget all the continuity shite as well. Define the titles through mood, not what the Ventriloquist said to Bane back in Detective Comics #731, or whatever. Mood. Atmosphere.

rant ends.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:59 / 01.06.03
Well, stripping down the line makes a lot of sense, but what really matters is what you do with the characters/franchises. I think it is a good idea to have a few different versions of Superman and Batman being published - there should be Batman comics for the folks who want dark, noir Batman and Batman comics for people who want brightly colored campy Batman. There should be Superman for people who like Smallville, and Superman for people who want plain old classic Superman. Instead of having a multitude of Superman and Batman comics that all relate to one another with tight continuity, each title should be entirely independent of one another. This is a radical move - it would mean that the series would abandon the notion of continuity forever.

I think another really important thing would be to finally give people what they want from the characters instead of what DC creators think they want or keep the characters as what they've always been. Market research would be key - they need to not only meet potential audiences halfway, but bend over backwards to meet their every need.

Think about Wonder Woman, for example. Wonder Woman is a huge icon. Everyone knows who Wonder Woman is. It's an image that many young and not-so-young women relate to as The Female Superhero. But the comics have always been bogged down in convoluted Amazon/Greek God bullshit that no one gives a fuck about. The Wonder Woman concept needs to be drastically retooled so that it directly speaks to female empowerment, and also the kitsch of the old tv show. Wonder Woman should get her fucking invisible plane back! Wonder Woman should be aggressively marketed to women, and should have stories and art that would appeal to them as well. Market research should be conducted to find out exactly what people want from Wonder Woman, and what sort of alternative (read: non-comics store) retail locations may be good places to sell the comics. The format of the comics need to be reevaluated - the dimensions, the paperstock, the frequency of publication.

Green Lantern is a comic that has a large black readership, and the Green Lantern symbol has been appropriated by hip hop fans. Run with this. Make the black Green Lantern John Stewart the ONLY Green Lantern, and do everything possible to make this comic accessable and appealing to more and more black kids.

DC is owned by one of the most massive corporate conglomerates in the world, and really should try to make more of that. There's a lot of money to be made, and DC/AOL Time Warner aren't even trying.
 
 
Professor Silly
18:15 / 01.06.03
I base my comic purchases mostly on the writers. I swore up and down a while ago that I would never read another X-Men book not written by Clairmont...which I broke when I found out Morrison would write New X-Men (he easily ranks as my favorite writer...period).

That said I do have a soft spot for good Batman stories.

I really enjoyed both The Long Halloween and Dark Victory, so I've been keeping up on Loeb's current run on Batman (and I have not been disappointed in the least). What do I like about it? Well, first and foremost, the characterization seems dead on--nothing's worse than a chatty Batman with no detective skills (like in Hama's run, which I rate about as high as Austin or Lobdell's X-Men). More than that though, the current Hush storyline seems dangerous for the hero--I haven't anticipated the various twists and turn and feel genuine excitement and surprise at the end of each issue.

That's about it though. I collected most of Morrison's run on JLA, but dropped the title when he left. Based on his previous work on metaphysical stories I bought the first few issues of DeMattius' (sp?) The Spectre...and didn't care for it.

Overall I think I agree with your assessment, Flux. Most DC books seem relatively unimagined, and I do qualify as an older lifelong comic reader...so I have a different outlook than younger readers.

It would take Morrison to get me interested in Superman...or maybe Straczynski
 
 
PatrickMM
19:15 / 01.06.03
People have insulted new Marvel a lot, but overall, they've done the nearly impossible task of making a lot of the old standard superhero titles quite good. I think DC needs to follow the basic model, put good writers with bold plans on the old standards books, and make all the books relatively stand alone, and not as reliant on contiunity.

Even when I'm reading Morrison's JLA, I don't know who half the characters are, and that makes the story less interesting. Focus on a core group of characters in a team book, or the main hero in the single books, and move them forward.

I think even in the worst days of Marvel, there was some permanent change, but almost all the DC books, the status quo always seems to be the same, and that makes it uninteresting to read.

So, get quality writers on the top books, and let them move the characters forward, and make real change. Also, cut back on the space and 10,000 years into the future characters, and stick to stuff that's not neccesarily simpler, but more accessible for people who haven't been reading years of books.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:16 / 01.06.03
The idea of stripping characters back to their core concepts is an interesting one, mostly because it's always revelatory of the speaker's biases as to what constitutes the "core concepts."

When you, Flux, say that Wonder Woman needs more kitsch, instead of being "bogged down in bullshit Amazon/Greek God bullshit that no one gives a fuck about," I think it says more about your own introduction to and experiemce of the character than it does about the character itself. There are some who would argue that the Greek mythology angle is the heart and soul of the character. Are they wrong? Are they "no one"? Or are they simply speaking from their experience, their interests, their prejudices, as you speak from yours?

What's the core concept of Batman? Is it the pudgy goofus of the Adam West TV show? The gadget-laden bondage gimp of the Burton movies? The vengeful fascist of the first DARK KNIGHT series? The brooding detective of Denny O'Neill's 1970s run? There are serious arguments to be made for any of these.

You can argue that Green Lantern is an iconic character to African-American audiences. Yet the Silver Age Green Lantern was conceived as a product of a certain era—the Kennedy years—and a certain national mood, his coolness factor tied in with the coolness factor of the space race: Hal Jordan was a test pilot at a time when a test pilot was about the coolest thing a kid could imagine being.

The coolest thing a kid could imagine being. That's important, I think. It's indisputable thing that superheroes are fantasy figures not only of power, but also of coolness—and that definitions of coolness change with the times. So saying that there's any single objective vision of what constitutes the "core concept" of a character is, I think, a fallacy.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:06 / 01.06.03
When you, Flux, say that Wonder Woman needs more kitsch, instead of being "bogged down in Amazon/Greek God bullshit that no one gives a fuck about," I think it says more about your own introduction to and experiemce of the character than it does about the character itself. There are some who would argue that the Greek mythology angle is the heart and soul of the character. Are they wrong? Are they "no one"? Or are they simply speaking from their experience, their interests, their prejudices, as you speak from yours?

Well, you've got me there.

My point is, I truly believe that the focus on mythology in Wonder Woman comics is exactly why almost no one wants to read them. Let's face it, you can hardly give Wonder Woman comics away. When I say 'no one' I don't mean it literally, but anyone would concede that Wonder Woman has had poor sales figures for several decades now, and isn't selling what it could based on name brand recognition. I wouldn't recommend completely stripping the character of her mythic roots, but that part of the character probably should not be foregrounded the way it has for the past few decades. Surely it is now time for DC to admit that approach to the character has been a disaster for the franchise in economic terms.

I think you're right on, Jack - the characters really need to be updated so that they appeal to a specific target audience who will be marketed to every step of the way. It's time that these big marquee franchises catch up with modern marketing - it's not enough to make the changes, the books have to be sold too.

The idea of a 'core concept' is a fallacy to a certain degree - there is definitely a point in which Batman stops being Batman and Superman starts being something else, but the details can definitely be tweaked and the emphasis can be shifted. You're right about Green Lantern - there isn't any real core to that character other than being pure sci-fi wish fulfillment and a green power ring.

It should be a cool thing to be Green Lantern. It should be a cool thing to be any superhero. But the relative failure of Marvel's Ultimate line should be reason enough to find out what a target audience wants directly, it can't be left up to the Mark Millar's of the world to decide what the audiences want and not quite hit the mark.
 
 
Simplist
20:23 / 01.06.03
Flux, I think it would be difficult to argue that Marvel's Ultimate line has been a "failure" even in relative terms, unless you're thinking comic sales relative to movie ticket sales or some such. The titles have been consistently top 10 almost across the board, and Millar's work in particular has been mostly top 5 even. Now I suppose you could argue they've failed artistically to varying degrees, but that's a whole other topic.

Back on topic though, as others have said DC would do well to hand over the reigns to carefully selected creators. Bring in the industry's best and let them have at it. This is so obvious it feels redundant to even say it. I can't believe they haven't already been following this tack for decades, but as a friend in the industry explained to me, the traditional way of thinking was to put the quality creators on low-rent titles that wouldn't sell otherwise (ie. Morrison on Animal Man back in the 90s) and stick pliable hacks on the big name titles, as those will sell (so the thinking went) whether they're actually any good or not. It seems to be only in the last few years that this thinking has begun to break down.
 
 
moriarty
21:42 / 01.06.03
Ooooh, boy.

There's a difference between discussing the DC of the last decade or so and discussing the entirety of the history of the company. DC has not always been that conservative. In fact, it seems that every so often Marvel and DC switch off. Remember when Marvel was putting out pap and all the cool kids were reading Vertigo? Or when Marvel flooded the market with shit comics in the 70s and DC tried their hand at Kirby's Fourth World and Simonson's Manhunter? Or even the "Class of 86", when both Marvel and DC were letting some of the up and comers try their hand at experimentation? In a few years there will be a thread on Barbelith asking why Marvel can't be more like DC. In fact, there was when I first came here.

I'm far more excited by DC's line-up then Marvel's. Not that I plan on buying anything from either company, but if I did, it would be from DC. I hate to think that it's just because I'm a geezer, Flux. While I appreciate Marvel's foray into experimentation, I think DC is taking the slow and steady route. They don't need the hype because they've got the backing.

Rumour has it that DC doesn't go out of their way to make a splash because they're happy to lay low and put out high-end product without the parent company knowing any better. Any corporation worthy of the name would most likely shut down the practically non-profit print operation of a comic company and retain the merchandising rights. Watch for this when Marvel gets bought out.

I agree wholeheartedly that the line could be tightened up and that these characters could be selling more than they are. I would have to say the same applies to Marvel, though. You say Wonder Woman doesn't sell as much as it should, but then again, neither does New X-Men. Back in the day, the now defunct Dell Comics would cancel any title that sold less than 400,000 copies. The difference between Wonder Woman, New X-Men, or any title in terms of sales is practically non-existant. If you were measuring in the hundreds of thousands instead of tens of thousands, I could understand. Furthermore, Wonder Woman hasn't even had a multi-media prescence in two decades. What's the X-Men's excuse?

Oh, and Wonder Woman was never more than a medium selling comic. The only reason the title has constantly been in print is because DC must continually publish it to retain the rights.

Getting Wonder Woman back to her roots is ok by me. Frederic Wertham Slasherific Bondage Mayhem Go!

I'm not so sure about market research. I agree with it to an extent. I remember Cameron saying something along the lines that these comic companies should really stop following the whims of the creators and start filling niches that aren't being exploited, and I agree. I can see that being good for someone just starting out, but do you truly believe that half the stuff that, to use an obvious example, Morrison has written would have been published if it went through committee? I'm still waiting to see a current X-Men comic that bears even the slightest resemblance to the movies, other than the one-shot tie-ins.

PatrickMM says "and make all the books relatively stand alone, and not as reliant on contiunity" and "the status quo always seems to be the same, and that makes it uninteresting to read". It's very, very rare for a comic to be able to be less reliant on continuity and yet shake up the status quo. If you're trying to make comics that are accessible in every issue, then it defeats the purpose to continually change things and confuse the new reader with a past history. I have no preference between the Classic Marvel and Classic DC approaches. Back in the 60s you could track down the continuity driven stories of Marvel, or take it easy and read the self-contained adventures of DC. Some people preferred one over the other. Many people still do. Archie has been going 60 years with the same basic concepts, yet it still outsells every comic discussed on this message board. These aren't stupid people buying it. They're people who want some light entertainment and have no time to read a condensed history of the X-Men. On the other hand, there are people whose love of comics is that they don't know the whole story right away and so they have to delve into the past to figure it all out. It would be nice if either company could cater to all kinds of people.

Ironic that DC's devotion to continuity is based upon Marvel's success with that concept.

Sapient, there are many reasons that a creator may not be put on a high-end title. For one, many creators prefer the low-end so that they can make a mark on a title that doesn't have as prestigious a history. For instance, Frank Miller chose Daredevil over Spider-Man. Also, though it may seem that Morrison sprung upon the comic world like a superstar, the truth is that he had to make a name for himself first. The fact that Morrison and the rest of the Vertigo British Invasion were even given their own comics right from the start was a bit of a shock at the time. Like Morrison himself said, it took him twenty years to get to the point that he could work on the industry's top title.
 
 
bio k9
01:38 / 02.06.03
I wonder who reads Marvel comics (or any superhero comics) besides older lifelong comics readers. Is Marvel trying to expand their audience? The movies, videogames, toys ect are well and fine but what do they have to do with the comics? Fuck all. Is Marvel acquiring new, long term readers because of the films? I doubt it. I don't see Ult XMen becomming the talk of the playground anymore than I see Austin's Uncanny becomming a hit with the soccer mom set. The Ultimate line is selling more comics to the same old fanbase, not creating a new fanbase.

I think the best thing both companies could do would be ditch the regular monthly titles and the standard comicbook format altogether. If the comics aren't making any real money anyway, and Superman is being published so Warner can make a few bucks off of T shirts and frisbees, why not turn the comics into pop art? Different sizes, different paper stock, different everything? Get them in supermarket checkout lines, record stores and hipster boutiques. You can tell what something is by picking it up and looking at it. A serious Batman comic will have a serious feel to it. The Adam West version will look like an Adam West version. There woln't be any confusion. Make all kinds. Hell, sell a kitch WonderWoman strip to Cosmo. Let Maxim run a light bondage/tied up by nazis version.

The world can do without four different Batman, Superman or X Men comics every month. Fat, milk smelling, mamasboys like myself can find something else to do every Wednesday. And if Hot Topic and Urban Outfitters had Hulk comics in a funky little format they could probably outsell every AtomixComix shop from here to Mississippi.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
02:08 / 02.06.03
The Ultimate line is a relative failure for exactly the reason Bio K9 mentions: the stated purpose of the line was to bring in new readers from non-comics specialty shop retail outlets. On those terms, it has been a failure. Those comics sell very well, but only to existing comics specialty shop readers, and the sales figures at places like Walmart and bookshops aren't enough to mark a substantial change in readership. In many cases, those books sell the number they do at a place like Walmart because they don't have any other comics to compete with on those shelves. And even still, it's not selling in significant numbers outside of the diminished sales expectations of the current comics industry.

I'm not so sure about market research. I agree with it to an extent.... I can see that being good for someone just starting out, but do you truly believe that half the stuff that, to use an obvious example, Morrison has written would have been published if it went through committee?

Well, maybe, maybe not. But it depends on who the target market is. I think Grant Morrison does a good job writing for the target audience that he's aiming at, but the problems of getting his comics in the hands of his ideal audience is a little out of his control. I don't think that this sort of marketing-based writing is the best place for art to thrive, but plenty of excellent work comes from a similar process in film and in television. It's not entirely removed from the roots of comics heyday, either. In terms of how the freelance creators work within boundaries set out by the copyright-owning company, it isn't a far cry from how present day Marvel and DC work either.

6) Ironic that DC's devotion to continuity is based upon Marvel's success with that concept.

Ain't that the truth!

Nevertheless, I fail to see how the current incarnations of Teen Titans or The Flash, or nearly everything in the mainstream DC Universe is "high end." It mostly just seems like generic retro-80s superheroics illustrated by drab, uninspired workmanlike talent.
 
 
Simplist
04:27 / 02.06.03
The Ultimate line is a relative failure for exactly the reason Bio K9 mentions: the stated purpose of the line was to bring in new readers from non-comics specialty shop retail outlets.

In that sense you're entirely correct. Personally I don't think the current comic format is really all that exportable to other outlets, despite its newsstand sales in past eras. Non-comic readers I show the things to are usually very put off by the combination of the price and the ads inside, as well as the paucity of material per issue, ie. the average comic takes five to ten minutes to read and then it's four weeks til the next shrimpy installment. This is fine for those of us who are used to it, but for someone who's used to paying $6.95 for the average 300-500 page novel it just doesn't go over well. OTOH, people really respond well to graphic novels so they may have more of a future outside comic shops, though again, the prices always produce shocked looks.
 
 
CameronStewart
12:42 / 02.06.03
>>>It mostly just seems like generic retro-80s superheroics illustrated by drab, uninspired workmanlike talent. <<<

Hey....



  
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:52 / 02.06.03
If it means anything to you, Cameron, I really would consider your work to be an exception. And I'm not just saying that to be nice. Your art on Catwoman really is exceptional.
 
 
Persephone
13:44 / 02.06.03
Catwoman is one of the two books I read. The art is great, Cameron's and this other guy too & they have very different styles. The story is a lot more mature --by which I mean sexy-- than I thought it would be. I love how Catwoman is always taking showers. She's like the cleanest superhero in the universe. From what I'm told, I'm lucky not to know how Catwoman was previous to this. I would say that so far the main cast have been better and more interesting than the villains --from whence the plot, which is tricky. But overall, I think that Catwoman is very contemporary & fun to read and look at.
 
 
FinderWolf
14:32 / 02.06.03
H.E.R.O. (yes, a new spin on the Dial H for HERO bit) is really quite good. As is CATWOMAN, JSA (sometimes), FLASH (most of the time), and Lee & Loeb's BATMAN (not amazing but pretty darn good and lots of FUN!).

Looking forward to Greg Rucka's WONDER WOMAN - - he just might be the one person who can make WW exciting and interesting. The new artist paired with Rucka looks good too -- although I'm wondering if they ditched the very cool 'skirt instead of panties' idea they had originally said they would do.

As for the rest of the DCU, Winick wrote a decent GREEN LANTERN, now he'll write a pretty good GREEN ARROW. Raab on GREEN LANTERN is pretty weak.

And there's always WILDSTORM books like the ABC line!!

The Superman titles suck really bad. It's so sad.

The new OUTSIDERS and new TEEN TITANS books show promise.

Did I forget anything?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:39 / 02.06.03
Hunter Wolf, when I started the thread I already knew that you were a big contemporary DC fan - would you mind telling us a little more about those comics, and what you've been liking about them? A lot of the reason for starting this thread was a very genuine curiosity about these comics which I just don't get. I went through a big DC phase as a teenager, but I haven't had any interest in their mainstream comics since Keith Giffen stopped working on Justice League and the Legion.

Sometimes when I'm in the store, I look at a copy of the new Legion and vaguely want to check it out because I have a lingering affection for the Legion, but I can never bring myself to do it. It's never going to be as good as when Keith Giffen/Tom & Mary Beirbaum/Jason Pearson/Chris Sprouse were doing it, so I'm skeptical about how much I could enjoy other Legion comics.

I love how Catwoman is always taking showers. She's like the cleanest superhero in the universe.

Ha ha!
 
 
Jack Fear
15:23 / 02.06.03
It's never going to be as good as when Keith Giffen/Tom & Mary Beirbaum/Jason Pearson/Chris Sprouse were doing it...

Which is... let me guess... when you started reading it?

Not trying to be snotty here: but I think nostalgia is a far more powerful force than we give it credit for, and that it's a natural human tendency to regard the time when we first became seriously interested in pop culture as Pop Culture's Golden Age. That's what I meant by "personal experiences and biases" in my earlier post.

I would wager, for instance, that the vast majority of readers who consider Chris Claremont's take on the X-MEN as definitive actually began reading the book during his run (which, of course, was very lengthy)—and not folks who came aboard during, say, Terry Kavanagh's tenure.

The Shooter/Grell LEGION of the mid-70s was my first exposure to the title, and thus the benchmark against which I measure all other interpretations: but for me to claim that run as "definitive," as if it were a self-evident and objective fact, is to assume that my own experience is in some way universal. And that just ain't so: it's a seductive combination of ego and nostalgia at work, poisonous as mercury and hookier than smack.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:32 / 02.06.03
Yeah, and so? I was talking about my personal relationship the Legion Of Super Heroes franchise. What's the problem, exactly?
 
 
Jack Fear
15:46 / 02.06.03
A loaded phrase like "It's never going to be as good as..." gives the impression that you're assuming some objective measurement of quality beyond your personal enjoyment.

And also that you've got your mind made up about the quality of the book without actually reading it—not only in comparitive terms (which is bad enough), but in qualitative terms as well.

And that you are, y'know, mistaking personal taste for objective truth. Which is, of course, silly in any situation, but doubly silly when dealing with art, where objective standards are few and far between.

Is all.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
15:50 / 02.06.03
And here, I hated the Giffen "5 Years After" stuff on Legion since I started reading it during Paul Levitz's run.

The problem as I see it with DC is that they let a lot of their talent go to other companies. They have lost editors and creators, and with that goes a lot of why DC was publishing better comics than Marvel. In the 80's and 90's it may have been super-hero pap, but it was entertaining super-hero pap.

Now...the mainline DC books are nearly unreadable. I can't slog my way through the Superman line, JLA is pretty bad and Robin has become the worst mainstream super-hero book on the stands.

However...DC is also publshing "Sweatshop", did some great Crime Noir work on Batman, and tosses out little gems once in a while like Y:The Last Man and Doom Patrol.

The easiest way to make DC exciting again? Hire some new editors who aren't afraid to take chances. It's how Marvel became worth reading again.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:20 / 02.06.03
Fair enough, Jack. But that's definitely how I feel about the Legion, and it's probably never going to change. It doesn't have to, either - it's definitely better for things to end and for people to move on, it's probably a good thing that I really don't have much interest in reading current issues of any superhero comics from my childhood aside from my lifelong interest in the X-Men. And even still, I was pretty much over and done with the X-Men before Grant Morrison came along and sucked me back in. I think it's better for the franchises to move on to the next generation of kids who come along, which is something I really don't think DC is doing at all.

Peter Bagge's Sweatshop really is wonderful, but it's not a DC Universe comic. Any criticisms of DC that I have in this thread have nothing to do with that comic, or anything put out by Vertigo (not that Vertigo is any great shakes lately...).
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:22 / 02.06.03
Out of curiosity, what the hell is going on in Robin to make it the 'worst mainstream super-hero comic on the stands,' Solitaire Rose?
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
16:24 / 02.06.03
I don't know how it happened, but I currently buy:

JSA (very very good... again, I shock myself at this. If you've ever enjoyed a DC cartoon the likes of Superman or Batman in the 90's, then this is your comic. Lots of character development, amazing action, believe it or not, not bogged down on continuity)

Flash, Hawkman (see JSA, the connecting thread is Geoff Johns)

HERO (not bad, not amazing)

Batman (I dunno, man... I just picked up the Jim Lee/Jeph Loeb issues and I'm sunk into the Batman mire... hopefully I won't regret it).

Now I've read superhero comics since I can remember and I know what I like and what I don't. So here is my two cents:

Forget broad plans such as revolutionizing the industry or changing the face of these icons, for me the reason I loved the super hero comics when I was a kid and now is... adventure. Oh sure, we get the odd Killing Joke and Year Ones now and again, but when I see a hoard of killer gorillas attacking the Prison in Flash, I get all geeky like a ten year old. If you want to make these comics cool again, in my opinion, just write kick-ass action stories with enough development so that you care, but not so much that you worry about the writer having a life.

... end rant

By the by, I'm working on an Aquaman pitch. Think Lovecraft meets Dr Who.
 
 
LDones
16:48 / 02.06.03
As one of the closet light-DC readers on the board, I figured I wanted to say what I found interesting about them and their fictional ilk. Yes, I read Batman comics like I required them to uphold cerebral functioning when I was a wee'un in the 80's, but I don't read Batman comics (I take that back - I'm reading Loeb/Lee's run, but only for the pretty (surprisingly mature) pictures and the hope that something interesting eventually happens). I'm picky - I can't stand Loeb's Long Halloween or Dark Victory. I hear people praise Greg Rucka or Chuck Dixon and my eyes roll violently. Geoff Johns is an atrocious beardy man, and 95% of the titles DC puts out are pap. Even Morrison's Arkham Asylum bores me to tears.

But I buy Action Comics every month, provided it's written by Joe Kelly. I was so enthused with the Superman creative teams right before Our Worlds At War that I tracked down every issue of every Superman comic since Loeb & McGuiness' first issue. Loeb/McGuiness on Superman is phenomenal reading - it's fun, imaginitive, playful, exciting, vibrant. They took their time with their storylines, but I never minded - the ride was extremely fun (Mark Millar had a column on comicbookresources.com about this awhile back - I'm certain he's more articulate on the subject than I (whatever that says about me)And Our Worlds At War was a good DC storyline if you didn't buy or read any of the issues that weren't directly JLA or Superman comics (and maybe one of the Wonder Woman issues, just so you knew what the hell was going on). I still buy JLA, to see what the characters are doing, so long as it doesn't annoy the shit out of me (and Joe Kelly's pretty decent).

I read the DC comics I do because they are, to me, fine examples of imagination run wild - like I said in the Chuck Austen/Batman In Space thread, the best DC comics erect a playground for the imagination to run around in - they build a big, beautiful, hyper-kinetic, hyper-active world for a mind to examine and play in, and wherein an enormous range of stories are possible. Old Bizarro stories are phenomenal reading - simple, and elegant, and strange - light entertainment. Alan Moore's the Killing Joke is phenomenal reading - it charts a part of a character icon, stabs it in wet, sad, stone - the story may not apply to LIFE, but it's about damage, and chronicles the mythology of a great, iconic character (or two).

I love DC characters. I grew up with them, and not because I read comic books (all I EVER read was Batman, and the Brave and the Bold) - they were simply everywhere. I can trace a lot of moral structures in my psyche back to reading Brave and the Bold issues. The strong point of DC's canon is that it's more like a genuine, bonafide pantheon with it's own mythology that anything else out there in popular culture - anywhere - More than TV, more than movies, more than plain 'ol text. The 'Comics are the new mythology' line is paainfully old hat by now, but I've always found DC's line most interesting when considered in that light - the american cultural canon of pop-culture gods and godesses. It's not a new idea - Morrison was huge on it during his JLA run, and that's likely a large part of why he was able to keep things so appealing for characters that (in his own words) aren't people, they're functions.

I'm an enormous Wonder Woman fan, but I've probably never bought a single issue of the comic, or even enjoyed reading it. Wonder Woman's an icon, a fantastic one. They all are, they're huge. Why do I never buy Wonder Woman or GL comics? - because they're fucking boring. Stripping characters back to their core concepts has negligible meaning to me because the core concepts are endlessly debatable by a huge contingency of intensely devoted and/or opinionated sources. I don't give a damn about WW's Greek roots, but it amuses me when she calls on Athena for strength before stopping one of Heaven's Flaming War Galleons from falling on the planet with her bare fists. I've never read a WW or GL or Aquaman story that I enjoyed that wasn't also a JLA story. JLA could sum up in one panel an entire half-year's worth of a solo-title's continuity - and I wouldn't miss it at all.

I think focusing on marketing strategies like the ones outlined above are terrifically misguided for handling properties that are some of the greatest cultural icons on the planet. Just tell good stories. That's all it takes. Don't tell shit stories, it's as simple as that. Don't think about demographics or any bullshit like that, just make good art - tell a story you give a shit about. You read a few books by Chuck Austen, you know Chuck Austen's shit. You read 'Rock of Ages' from Morrison's JLA run and you're onto something, no matter how obscure - you know there is love and momentum and intense energy behind the work.

A big part of the problem with comics is that they genuinely require a roadmap - the general quality of stories and storytelling is piss-poor, and for every great title or run, there are hundreds of abysmal ones. People don't get into comics because they cruise in looking for something interesting and provoking to their tastes and see Pentagrammata the Spike-Nippled Sex-Witch, or any bazillion terrible pieces of storytelling and they realize how stupid it was coming into a comics shop and resolve never to do so again. I hate going to my local, but I do it, nearly every week - because I like the food for the imagination.

I was utterly out of reading comics for years (aside from a Vertigo title or two) when, on whim, I checked out some of Morrison's JLA issues at the bookstore I was then employed in (Ultra-marines storyline, I think) - and it was great and it snowballed like a bastard after that. It was energetic and intellectually bombastic enough to goad me into looking at back-issues, keeping tabs on DC continuity so I knew what was going on, checking into issue and character histories on-line. JLA then was good comics storytelling, plain and simple - It was something new. It made comics exciting, and I got a good load of people hooked on comics again off of Morrison's JLA, and then the Invisibles, and books like From Hell. Awhile back, a friend of mine actually lamented that comics had ruined film for him - the storytelling in Moore or Morrison books was so tight that he'd become spoiled - so many filmmakers seemed so much sloppier to him after reading Marvel Boy, From Hell, and Quitely's JLA Earth-2.

No one can deny that DC has put out some amazing stories with their big characters, they're just unfortunately too damn far apart - and they're very frequently (certainly in the case of Batman) in graphic novels that have no connection to continuity until after the fact.

People don't tend to key into what's next, what's coming in the world of comics, unless they're already actively doing that sort of thing on their own. You can do new things with old, iconic characters - you just have to be good, you have to have solid ideas, and you have to be able to slip it by AOL/TW.

I think the whole key to DC for me is Golden & Silver Age Superman, Jack Kirby, and Morrison's JLA, personally, but I'd have trouble explaining why in the sleepless daze-space I occupy. zoom. off to bed. Hopefully more later after my waking dream-logic is thoroughly trounced by the forces of the 'lith.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
16:51 / 02.06.03
Robin?

Currently the book is in the middle of a 5 part story where Robin goes hitchhiking to catch a Gotham criminal working as a truck driver where he has stumbled onto a "Brigadoon" type city of Amish people who draw outsiders to watch wrestling matches and Bible readings, leading up to the main attraction, a teenage boy who can't be harmed...who is then removed from the city by bikers making a movie who don't realize he can be killed outside the city.

The boy didn't know either, so he was happy to do it, and went to his flaming death chained to a motorcycle beng driven over a cliff.

This caused his sister to become "generic goo creature based on The Blob" that is devouring the Amish people.

And there is a LOT more stupidly goofy stuff (an old man with a beard and a hat who is able to find "short cuts" in the woods because he's ever-so mysterious, the trucker-criminal nearly figuring out Robin's secret identity until Robin realizes he's IN DISGUISE and not looking like Tim, Tim's Dad obsessing on the Ring operas to the point where an actual Valkyie offers to take him to his dead wife) that just doesn't fit with the character at all. I don't think I'd mind it as much if it wasn't for the fact that this is Robin, not a crappy John Constantine rip-off character of some sort.

To me, it's indicitive of the problem with DC...as I read the book, I wonder if the editor even knew what was being done, let alone approved it. It's like the early 60's stories where Batman and Robin fought aliens and ghosts, but with the added attraction of being spread out over 5 issues. Chuck Dixon's stuff was bland and he stretched subplots long past the point of caring, but his work was at least competent.

I have no idea who the current issues of Robin is for...which is too bad, since done right, it can be a solid book for teen readers like Spider-Girl is.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
16:56 / 02.06.03
"Tim's Dad obsessing on the Ring operas to the point where an actual Valkyie offers to take him to his dead wife) "

That... is the funniest thing I've read in months.
 
 
PatrickMM
18:11 / 02.06.03
It's very, very rare for a comic to be able to be less reliant on continuity and yet shake up the status quo. If you're trying to make comics that are accessible in every issue, then it defeats the purpose to continually change things and confuse the new reader with a past history.

What I meant was basically what Morrison is doing in X-Men, taking the basic concept and characterization of the character from the past, and then do stories in which important events happen that change them. In Morrison's run, we've seen Scott and Emma have an affair, Xavier regain the ability to walk, and Beast mutate into a cat. Those are things that actually changed the characters, but aren't going to be that confusing to a new reader.

Even in the worst days of X-Men, there were actual changes to the characters, and continued development of new people. In DC, it seems like the main seven haven't had any important events occur in their comic in years.

It's defenitely a difficult line. DC needs to avoid stories like the ones collected in JLA: Justice For All, where seven characters from the past come back with no explanation of who they are, and start focusing on consistent supporting casts, and the strong presence of the main character, and if you're going to bring in characters from the past, at least give a brief explanation of who they are.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
18:22 / 02.06.03
YES. The reasoning behind characters and their deadbeat supporting casts really bug me. It keeps me from ever wanting to write Batman or Superman or even Spiderman!! I mean, I'm not just writing them, but Perry White and Jimmy Friggin Olsen as well? OH and he visits his folks... and his dogs... don't forget Lois' Alien Gynocologist!

Gimme a break. Patrick is right here. I think Marvel and DC need to pick their moments on honoring the past, as bearded Geoff Johns has done. I recall reading that Rick Veitch got yelled at by a reviewer because he was doing interesting things, but 'would it please Aquaman fans?'... the last people I'd like to please are Aquaman fans. And the fans I mean are the ones who can tell you who each character is, what issue they premiered in, etc. Very very (if I can borrow the phrase from the UK) anoraky. Abd it pleases a small group who'ds buy the thing no matter what and annoys the people who want to see Aquaman kick a giant killer squid's ass!

...puff... puff... sorry, I got excited.
 
 
bio k9
19:04 / 02.06.03
Just tell good stories. That's all it takes. Don't tell shit stories, it's as simple as that.

How do you do this and still put out 100 comics every month? Something has to give. The fact that some of these characters are cultural icons makes them difficult to write. How do you write a Wonder Woman story when shes so many different things to so many different people? I think the answer is to have multiple versions of WonderWoman running around. They aren't competing for the same readers and everyone can get the version they want.
 
 
moriarty
19:38 / 02.06.03
I would agree that there are some differences between the two companies. Sometimes those differences are more proniunced, and sometimes the two companies seem very similar. In general, most of the complaints levelled at DC in this thread could be applied to Marvel as well. Maybe some of you just don't like those DC comics. Is that so bad? Flux, you've stated your dislike for DC comics repeatedly. Why do you care so much that they meet your needs if your needs are being met elsewhere? Many of the responses on this thread seem to suggest that DC should become more like Marvel. Me, I think DC is too much like Marvel as it is. This isn't a slam against Marvel, but I think it would be better if DC went back to creating good, solid, stand alone stories or very short story arcs. That way they could cater to readers who prefer those kinds of stories as well as have an easier time marketing their comics to new readers. Those readers who would like to move on to continuity driven stories could then go to Marvel.

Sometimes the supporting cast is nearly as important as the star. Spider-man wouldn't be half as fun without J. Jonah Jameson, and would people tune into Smallville if it was only about Clark and the villain of the week?

One of the problems with cutting back on titles to the barest minimum is that you would be getting rid of quirky titles and the "farm teams". On the chopping block, Catwoman and X-Statix. Comics that would have never seen the light of day include Claremont's X-Men, Moore's Swamp Thing, Gaiman's Sandman, Morrison's Animal Man. Most of those creators would never have broken into mainstream work.

Comparing Marvel's best with DC's worst is a fool's game. Can anyone here say with complete honesty that the majority of Marvel's titles are of excellent quality? I always feel stupid for entering into these discussions. It's my hope that someone will come along and, like DC in the late 30s or Marvel in the early 60s, show up both companies as dinosaurs and revitalize the industry. In fact, this may have already happened. In a fight between Marvel and DC, the winner is Manga.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:01 / 02.06.03
I really wouldn't characterize myself as a person who has ever really disliked DC. I used to be really into DC as a teenager. I have an appreciation for DC's history and continuity, but not as much affection for their characters as I have for Marvel's.
 
 
Mr Tricks
21:56 / 02.06.03
I've always been curious about the Marvel/DC swing. It's often been reflected in my buying habits...

These days I'm buying JLA & Catwoman.

For all the reasons already stated I pick up the title as well as the fact that it's one of 2 titles my girlfriend is totally into reading (Promethea being the other)

JLA is still pretty fun. The post GM era was horrid for me but between the Art & Kelly's humor the titles been over-all enjoyable.

I occasionally pick up JSA and consistantly read it in the store when it's out... but that's about it for DC heroes these days...

I just stoped reading Aquaman as it's been getting redundant. Tried the Loeb/Lee BATMAN but couldn't buy it... And while I used to pick up a fair amount of revamped Superman it didn't stick.

Rucka's Detective was pretty good too, curious about his Wonder Woman (which was also pretty enjoyable under Jeminez but it couldn't sustain)

In terms of cutting down the monthlies... it'll never happen. Why?
ADVERTISING...
They probably sell bulk adspace contracting a given ad to appear in X number of issues each month at X price. This is where the real money is made for publications... while the actual coverprice is usually covering Retailers,Distributers & Royalties.

I think the ELSEWORLDS projects and the "Adventures" line are solid directions as well as those occasional TANGENT experiments. OVERALL DC seems much more willing to try such stuff out.
They've also done quite well with Prestige format books that are out of continuity. Something marvel hasn't done since those large sized GRAPHIC NOVELS at a whopping $5.95

If DC's all up on continuity I would love for them to Go all the way with it: Establish JLA & JSA as the continuity setters while The members' individual titles get into back story and charactorization. Then have an ongoing set of mini-series presented by various creative teams that tell the tale of what going on it the "lives" of secondary charactors. That would be DC UNIVERSE stuff, then there would be a whole assortment of stand alone continuity-free products available at a variety of price ranges from 50 cent B/W pulps to $25 hard-cover "novels"
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
23:21 / 02.06.03
The thing that keeps popping into my head is that comics would sell if they weren't so married to the format they have had since the 30's.

Shonen Jump sold 10,000 copies in comic shops, but a clean quarter million in magazine shops and grocery stores. That's without any advertising. It's big enough that $5 seems like a decent price (Only comics fans would buy something for $3 that's 24 pages and black and white), can make a decent profit for the distributor (which is the main reason comics lost shelf space in the 70's) and is done in clear, readable art that tells the story instead of the "Poster page" crap that Jim Lee and his ilk seem to think is good comics.

If DC put out a comic like that, packed with ads aimed at kids, they could prolly sell that many as well, but only if they get out of the "32 pages, 7 by 11" mold.
 
 
PatrickMM
00:47 / 03.06.03
One of the problems with cutting back on titles to the barest minimum is that you would be getting rid of quirky titles and the "farm teams". On the chopping block, Catwoman and X-Statix. Comics that would have never seen the light of day include Claremont's X-Men, Moore's Swamp Thing, Gaiman's Sandman, Morrison's Animal Man. Most of those creators would never have broken into mainstream work.

When I said eliminate the odd, unknown to the mainstream characters, I meant just in unexplained cameos in JLA, etc. I'd love to see more people being given the chance to revamp a classic character, like any of those books above. The odd characters can come out in their own books, and, with the right team, these would probably end up as the best books at DC.

Awhile back, a friend of mine actually lamented that comics had ruined film for him - the storytelling in Moore or Morrison books was so tight that he'd become spoiled - so many filmmakers seemed so much sloppier to him after reading Marvel Boy, From Hell, and Quitely's JLA Earth-2.

I feel the same way. Ever since reading The Invisibles, nearly every other piece of fiction feels completely insignificant in comparison. And after reading From Hell, watching From Hell the movie was excruciating. It wasn't so much that it was bad, it was just that it was average compared to a simply incredible book. And it felt like they cut out all the best parts. Or even watching X2 versus reading Morrison X-Men. The Morrison variety felt much more fresh and cool than the movie, which felt a bit stodgy in comparison.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply