|
Post by zaku on Mar 25, 2022 19:31:52 GMT -5
I would distinguish between Crisis as a comic story, and Crisis as "Reboot of the DC universe". As for the story, I personally liked it. There had been nothing like that before. About the reboot, yes, absolutely, because, let's remember that thiswas absolutely in continuity until the very last page of the very last Superman story before the reboot. Just imagine if Superman had continued as before throughout the 80s. All the new authors who would have tried their hand at the character would have enjoyed making stories like Claremont's one about the "Rape of Miss Marvel", in which they explained how many and what ways Superman was a horrible person. Or...editorial could have said, that stuff was from a bygone era and was pretty silly and we're going to ignore it. Because you can actually do that if you have any intestinal fortitude. Even if we want to ignore some of the more "dated" adventures of the character, there is an absolutely integral characteristic of Superman Pre-Crisis that one absolutely cannot ignore (because, otherwise, he would not be the same character). That is the almost sadistic pleasure with which over the years he has ridiculed, galighted Lois Lane and made her doubt her own sanity, while she had always been right. He lied to the woman he loved, while claiming to be the champion of Truth, Justice (And American Way). Without even having a valid reason to do it (why, what would have happened if Lois Lane had known the truth?!?!). I've always claimed that post-Crisis Superman was morally a better person than his pre-crisis counterpart, because he always felt guilty hiding the truth from Lois (until he revealed it to her). So, I doubt that the new writers could have completely ignored 40 years (or more) of stories centered around how many and what ways The Man Of Tomorrow used his near-divine powers to ridicule a poor mortal just because she was right. Not to mention when he got his super hero friends involved in this nonsense. "This is Bruce, oh hi Clark. If I can impersonate you for the umpteenth time? Of course! The Joker is also about to poison Gotham's water supplies, but I can't wait to get to Metropolis to be your accomplice in your mind games! This is exactly what my parents' death taught me: if a woman thinks she is right, put her back in her place! "
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 25, 2022 19:32:47 GMT -5
I would distinguish between Crisis as a comic story, and Crisis as "Reboot of the DC universe". As for the story, I personally liked it. There had been nothing like that before. About the reboot, yes, absolutely, because, let's remember that thiswas absolutely in continuity until the very last page of the very last Superman story before the reboot. Just imagine if Superman had continued as before throughout the 80s. All the new authors who would have tried their hand at the character would have enjoyed making stories like Claremont's one about the "Rape of Miss Marvel", in which they explained how many and what ways Superman was a horrible person. Or...editorial could have said, that stuff was from a bygone era and was pretty silly and we're going to ignore it. Because you can actually do that if you have any intestinal fortitude. Alas, recent decades have shown editors have a dearth of such fortitude.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 26, 2022 3:04:58 GMT -5
Or...editorial could have said, that stuff was from a bygone era and was pretty silly and we're going to ignore it. Because you can actually do that if you have any intestinal fortitude. Alas, recent decades have shown editors have a dearth of such fortitude. The fortitude of, uhm, ignoring past continuity, which was all the point of Crisis...?
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 26, 2022 4:52:08 GMT -5
I would distinguish between Crisis as a comic story, and Crisis as "Reboot of the DC universe". As for the story, I personally liked it. There had been nothing like that before. About the reboot, yes, absolutely, because, let's remember that thiswas absolutely in continuity until the very last page of the very last Superman story before the reboot. Just imagine if Superman had continued as before throughout the 80s. All the new authors who would have tried their hand at the character would have enjoyed making stories like Claremont's one about the "Rape of Miss Marvel", in which they explained how many and what ways Superman was a horrible person. Superman continuing on that idiotic, creatively challenged Weisinger method would have ended the character. He was already seen as irrelevant by some late 1960s readers, and even throughout the Bronze Age, he was still saddled with some of the same problems. Almost more than any other DC character, Superman needed COIE to give him a new, fascinating and mature life. You know, if you compare Superman's stories immediately after the Sandman Saga and before the reboot, it is incredible how little storywise and artistically was changed. Except for a few continuity details all these stories were virtually interchangeable. And really, why in the early 1980s, between Thor, Simonson, Miller's Daredevil or Wolfman's Teen Titans, readers would have to spend their money on yet another adventure about Lex Lethor trying to take over the world because he suffered from premature baldness or about how one of the most powerful beings in the universe put the same effort into saving the world and making a woman believe she was delusional? Superman needed desperately a new, fresh, start.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 7:35:05 GMT -5
Would there be any interest in building on this conversation in a second thread that would be more "road to Crisis"? I'm thinking 1976-1984 being the focus.
I've often thought about that period, starting with Jenette Kahn replacing Carmine Infantino as publisher, the "Implosion" and bad winters of the late 70's, the declining newsstand model and DC's role in promoting the direct market, the exciting successes of titles like New Teen Titans at the dawn of the 80's...culminating in the broader Baxter direct market series launches in 1984.
My point being, DC wasn't in this "static" old school mode for many titles during this era, it's not like they were completely locked in "Silver Age" storytelling more broadly by any means and in fact were a leader in the direct market. You have to hone in on specific titles like Superman (though of course notable being the historic "flagship" character) to make that association I think.
I'd love to pick the collective brains of this group not only on how they feel about those and other factors contributing to where DC was by the mid-80's (and back to how that influenced the editorial decisions around Crisis and beyond), but also some "what if things had played out differently scenarios"? One I'd personally love to explore is if Kahn had NOT replaced Carmine, and ways that could have played out differently. I've never been completely convinced DC fully thrived under her leadership, despite the positive things she did for creators and how that attracted some of the talent that realized the successes noted above. But I may be wrong in my thinking on that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 7:50:02 GMT -5
I feel like Marvel tried to pull a sort of Crisis with Onslaught, but instead of the "soft reboot" tried to do a full reboot with Heroes Reborn. I forget if they claimed the intention was always to return to the status quo with Heroes Return, but if Reborn had actually been successful, I question if they wouldn't have stuck with it. Wasn't there one point where the Ultimate universe was going to replace the main MU? maybe after Heroes Reborn was a disaster? I'm a little shaky on my knowledge of the Ultimate universe, but from a timing standpoint, Heroes Reborn was '96-97 and Ultimate Spider-Man that started that continuity wasn't until 2000 (and Heroes Return had already brought back the status quo). But based on how popular Ultimates was there for awhile, I'm curious if this at some point was the case. I couldn't Google info about this but would be curious as well if anyone knows. I do remember that they did have a "Crisis" like event for the Ultimate universe in 2009 with a metric ton of key character deaths, and I thought I read this was always the plan and that Ultimates was never supposed to be a forever thing. But then they decided to keep going through 2015 when the imprint officially ended.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 8:21:09 GMT -5
zaku - If you haven't done so already, you should really read Mark Waid's Irredeemable. Without giving anything too detailed away, it is founded very much on the classic Lois/Superman dynamic going very wrong. I don't know if it would give you some resolution or fuel your thoughts more, but it may at least give an interesting additional/alternative way of thinking about the Lois/Superman dynamic.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,709
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 26, 2022 9:01:54 GMT -5
Would there be any interest in building on this conversation in a second thread that would be more "road to Crisis"? I'm thinking 1976-1984 being the focus. I've often thought about that period, starting with Jenette Kahn replacing Carmine Infantino as publisher, the "Implosion" and bad winters of the late 70's, the declining newsstand model and DC's role in promoting the direct market, the exciting successes of titles like New Teen Titans at the dawn of the 80's...culminating in the broader Baxter direct market series launches in 1984. My point being, DC wasn't in this "static" old school mode for many titles during this era, it's not like they were completely locked in "Silver Age" storytelling more broadly by any means and in fact were a leader in the direct market. You have to hone in on specific titles like Superman (though of course notable being the historic "flagship" character) to make that association I think. I'd love to pick the collective brains of this group not only on how they feel about those and other factors contributing to where DC was by the mid-80's (and back to how that influenced the editorial decisions around Crisis and beyond), but also some "what if things had played out differently scenarios"? One I'd personally love to explore is if Kahn had NOT replaced Carmine, and ways that could have played out differently. I've never been completely convinced DC fully thrived under her leadership, despite the positive things she did for creators and how that attracted some of the talent that realized the successes noted above. But I may be wrong in my thinking on that. I'm interested, but I wonder how much of us are all that familiar with the era. I've always assumed it was sort of DC's lowest point in terms of sales and exposure until the early 1990s. Personally, I'm deeply familiar with the Batman titles and New Teen Titans during this era, and I have some familiarity with the Legion and Green Lantern (ALL of which were better Pre-Crisis), but I'm otherwise oblivious to this era.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 26, 2022 9:07:18 GMT -5
Alas, recent decades have shown editors have a dearth of such fortitude. The fortitude of, uhm, ignoring past continuity, which was all the point of Crisis...? Except it wasn’t about ignoring past continuity. It was about “fixing” problems that didn’t exist by blowing everything. Wolfman thought the multiverse was “unfriendly to readers.” So unfriendly that Marvell Cinema took the concept and fed it to millions of people forty years later. The genesis, according to Wolfman was “aletter from a fan asking why a character did not recognize Green Lantern in a recent issue despite the two having had worked together in an issue three years earlier.” The “A” answer is “we screwed up. Oops.” The actual answer is “who cares?” So instead of facing the actual problem, which was getting beaten like a red-headed step-child by Marvel in sales, and maybe working to make better comics (which they’d started to do with Swamp Thing and New Teen Titans) it was decided to just blow shit up in a splash of pretty nonsense and then proceed to continue to flounder with no actual plan and flashes of brilliance in continued general mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 26, 2022 9:19:27 GMT -5
zaku - If you haven't done so already, you should really read Mark Waid's Irredeemable. Without giving anything too detailed away, it is founded very much on the classic Lois/Superman dynamic going very wrong. I don't know if it would give you some resolution or fuel your thoughts more, but it may at least give an interesting additional/alternative way of thinking about the Lois/Superman dynamic. Proud owner of it! (And loved it!) On the same subject, this wonderful Astro City's Story
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 26, 2022 9:20:19 GMT -5
If Jenette Kahn hadn't replaced Carmine Infantino as publisher, I doubt there would be a DC Comics today. Time-Warner would've probably cancelled the line and licensed its IP to another publisher (likely Marvel).
Cei-U! I summon the uncomfortable alternative!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 9:20:51 GMT -5
Would there be any interest in building on this conversation in a second thread that would be more "road to Crisis"? I'm thinking 1976-1984 being the focus. I've often thought about that period, starting with Jenette Kahn replacing Carmine Infantino as publisher, the "Implosion" and bad winters of the late 70's, the declining newsstand model and DC's role in promoting the direct market, the exciting successes of titles like New Teen Titans at the dawn of the 80's...culminating in the broader Baxter direct market series launches in 1984. My point being, DC wasn't in this "static" old school mode for many titles during this era, it's not like they were completely locked in "Silver Age" storytelling more broadly by any means and in fact were a leader in the direct market. You have to hone in on specific titles like Superman (though of course notable being the historic "flagship" character) to make that association I think. I'd love to pick the collective brains of this group not only on how they feel about those and other factors contributing to where DC was by the mid-80's (and back to how that influenced the editorial decisions around Crisis and beyond), but also some "what if things had played out differently scenarios"? One I'd personally love to explore is if Kahn had NOT replaced Carmine, and ways that could have played out differently. I've never been completely convinced DC fully thrived under her leadership, despite the positive things she did for creators and how that attracted some of the talent that realized the successes noted above. But I may be wrong in my thinking on that. I'm interested, but I wonder how much of us are all that familiar with the era. I've always assumed it was sort of DC's lowest point in terms of sales and exposure until the early 1990s. Personally, I'm deeply familiar with the Batman titles and New Teen Titans during this era, and I have some familiarity with the Legion and Green Lantern (ALL of which were better Pre-Crisis), but I'm otherwise oblivious to this era. A little bit the gist of my thinking is that from about '76-79, it really was a low point overall (much as I have significant nostalgia with those being my prime early reading years). And then DC seemed to pick itself up in 1980, and some of those creator-friendly policies seemed to be paying off. New Teen Titans, Levitz/Giffen Legion, and by 1984 you got Alan Moore on Swamp Thing, the Baxter title releases, etc. Individual title strategies working exceedingly well in cases, but not enough to give DC an overall advantage (leading again to the strategy with Crisis and continuity rebooting). And so again looking back at the late 70's, I wonder COULD things have gone more favorably, or were the headwinds against the entire industry more of just "survive" (Marvel was in this boat as well really), and then conditions picked up when the 80's rolled around.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 26, 2022 9:33:44 GMT -5
I've often thought about that period, starting with Jenette Kahn replacing Carmine Infantino as publisher, the "Implosion" and bad winters of the late 70's, the declining newsstand model and DC's role in promoting the direct market, the exciting successes of titles like New Teen Titans at the dawn of the 80's...culminating in the broader Baxter direct market series launches in 1984. My point being, DC wasn't in this "static" old school mode for many titles during this era, it's not like they were completely locked in "Silver Age" storytelling more broadly by any means and in fact were a leader in the direct market. You have to hone in on specific titles like Superman (though of course notable being the historic "flagship" character) to make that association I think. This is exactly the point. DC’s biggest problem in this time period wasn't that it’s the multiverse was off-putting (it factored in probably less than twenty stories total a year) or that the continuity was confusing, it was that there were systemic problems within the company that needed to be addressed by management, particularly in what should have been the flagship titles, and weren’t. The company that was bringing out Moore’s Swamp Thing and New Teen Titans should have been able to modernize without blowing up everything and without scapegoating stuff that clearly wasn't the problem. Not that I’m saying New Teen Titans was a good book (I don’t think it was, though I did at the time) but it sold in near Marvel numbers. So they were able to compete if they had the will. But the will needed to include gently showing Julius Schwartz the door because his “best by” date had clearly passed. The most interesting (and perennially best-selling) stuff DC did post-Crisis had virtually no ties to the post-Crisis DCU anyway, so it really was a futile effort.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 26, 2022 9:34:15 GMT -5
Superman needed desperately a new, fresh, start. Accepting that premise, couldn't DC do that without destroying their history (and killing millions of background characters)?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 9:34:26 GMT -5
If Jenette Kahn hadn't replaced Carmine Infantino as publisher, I doubt there would be a DC Comics today. Time-Warner would've probably cancelled the line and licensed its IP to another publisher (likely Marvel). Cei-U! I summon the uncomfortable alternative! I don't think Carmine would have made it long-term, and tend to agree with that. BUT, at least from '76-78, I don't know that he would have underperformed Jenette. The "implosion" was more than just bad winters and paper shortages, impactful as those were. Also, not looking to bash Jenette overall. In my MOST pessimistic way of thinking, I feel like her results were more of a mixed bag than is sometimes attributed. It may also be she fully deserves all the credit she has received. My consideration here is more that while DC survived the late 70's and had some successes in the '80's, could a significantly different leadership approach have made them an even more viable competitor to Marvel and not getting into a situation where a Crisis type event was even needed. I'm also pondering the thought of its IP being licensed to Marvel. While my gut reaction is "thank goodness DC survived as its own imprint", I'm cautiously a little intrigued as to what that might have look like.
|
|