|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 9:37:58 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 I'm going to borrow your words on that Astro City volume - proud owner, and loved it! Astro City may have been my overall favorite 90's series honestly. Part homage, part deconstruction, part just plain great storytelling.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 9:53:56 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. How influential was Schwartz to all of this? I don't understand this part clearly, I understand a little more Kahn and Levitz's roles I think.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 26, 2022 10:00:29 GMT -5
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. How influential was Schwartz to all of this? I don't understand this part clearly, I understand a little more Kahn and Levitz's roles I think. Schwartz was the editor of the Superman *and* Batman family books at the time Jenette took the helm, so controlled the destinies of both franchises. He was a hands-on editor who insisted on co-plotting his comics (to a lesser degree than he had in the Golden, Atomic and Silver Aes, but...) and, while he had been responsible for updating both characters in the late '60s/early '70s, had become hidebound in his approach to the medium.
Cei-U! I summon the short version of a more complicated answer!
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 26, 2022 10:04:04 GMT -5
Julie was 70 by this time and was enjoying his status as elder statesman. I don't know if he really cared about this kind of stuff. He famously said he never read a character/book after it was handed off to another editor.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 10:15:18 GMT -5
Amidst all this great dialogue, I missed a bit of a development with the survey data. It appears there is some separation now in the 40-49 year range, with 9 votes "bad" and 3 votes "good".
That would put these folks as being between 3-13 at the start of the series itself, and some prime younger reading years. I fit in this category myself (barely!) It gives me pause if maybe it was particularly abrupt for this age group since we were still in those formative years, or something along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 10:19:20 GMT -5
So hearing the insight on Julius Schwartz at this point, if you don't mind my continued rambling thoughts here:
Was DC really just a mess at times with trying to manage their "big name" IP characters like Superman and Batman, while also being highly innovative with the more organic modern successes like Teen Titans and Swamp Thing?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 10:21:45 GMT -5
Amidst all this great dialogue, I missed a bit of a development with the survey data. It appears there is some separation now in the 40-49 year range, with 9 votes "bad" and 3 votes "good". That would put these folks as being between 3-13 at the start of the series itself, and some prime younger reading years. I fit in this category myself (barely!) It gives me pause if maybe it was particularly abrupt for this age group since we were still in those formative years, or something along those lines. One challenge in any topic like this (and this is a great topic!) is that some of us weren’t reading certain things at the time as we were too young to appreciate them (except on a visual level). Or read them years later via reprints. I was born in 1980. I think I probably started reading DC in 1986, but at that age, I’d have not appreciated the depth and nuance. And what of WATCHMEN? Definitely would not have understood that. Read that as an adult probably around 1999-2000. When I’d have been 19-20 and hopefully able to comprehend it. But I realise that my opinion of it is based on years after the fact. With some things you had to be there. I like the Beatles, but they broke up before I was born. While I can appreciate certain songs and albums, it comes from the perspective of liking them years after the fact. While everyone’s opinion is valid, a person on this forum, who saw them in their prime, may well have a different view. Same with anything, e.g. wrestling. I was there during the Monday Night Wars, but anyone watching a documentary about them now might have a different view. I heard the word CRISIS as a kid, but I probably didn’t read it until the mid-to-late 90s. I knew the historical context, but my appreciation of it, whether more or less, is gonna be different from a person who read it and understood it in 1986.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 10:27:07 GMT -5
Amidst all this great dialogue, I missed a bit of a development with the survey data. It appears there is some separation now in the 40-49 year range, with 9 votes "bad" and 3 votes "good". That would put these folks as being between 3-13 at the start of the series itself, and some prime younger reading years. I fit in this category myself (barely!) It gives me pause if maybe it was particularly abrupt for this age group since we were still in those formative years, or something along those lines. One challenge in any topic like this (and this is a great topic!) is that some of us weren’t reading certain things at the time as we were too young to appreciate them (except on a visual level). Or read them years later via reprints. I was born in 1980. I think I probably started reading DC in 1986, but at that age, I’d have not appreciated the depth and nuance. And what of WATCHMEN? Definitely would not have understood that. Read that as an adult probably around 1999-2000. When I’d have been 19-20 and hopefully able to comprehend it. But I realise that my opinion of it is based on years after the fact. With some things you had to be there. I like the Beatles, but they broke up before I was born. While I can appreciate certain songs and albums, it comes from the perspective of liking them years after the fact. While everyone’s opinion is valid, a person on this forum, who saw them in their prime, may well have a different view. Same with anything, e.g. wrestling. I was there during the Monday Night Wars, but anyone watching a documentary about them now might have a different view. I heard the word CRISIS as a kid, but I probably didn’t read it until the mid-to-late 90s. I knew the historical context, but my appreciation of it, whether more or less, is gonna be different from a person who read it and understood it in 1986. Really good points, I'm making an assumption on the data that everyone was also a contemporary reader on that, but you're absolutely right on folks coming from different entry points. As you mention the Beatles, my son is a teenager and is a MASSIVE fan. It's his favorite group, and has influenced him as a musician. I was the exact same at this age, my Beatles records were the first I ever bought, first songs I learned on guitar etc. And yet, my parents were teenagers when the Beatles came out and it was really "their generation" originally. So I can very much relate to your example there!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 10:42:10 GMT -5
There are ancillary things connected with what we consume that only a person who was there can appreciate, whether it’s music, comics, etc. For instance, when I think about the Monday Night Wars, I can think about rushing to stores to buy wrestling magazines, starting my first job, etc. So those memories might play a part, too. With comics, I can remember reading a Batman comic in the car on the way to Butlins.
I can appreciate CRISIS (for better or worse) years after the fact, but it was no doubt different for someone who, back in the day, saw the hints in DC’s ads (I’ve seen an ad or two in recent years). Probably felt big.
I can remember contract signings in boxing and wrestling. A person watching these today for the first time might get some enjoyment, just as I can enjoy watching Rocky Marciano fights on DVD, but not in the same way, sadly. I have a Rocky Marciano DVD here, but I am sure it was much different for the person alive to look forward to his fights.
And when I think about Marvel, I think of someone who might have been a kid in 1961. Years of perhaps reading DC - and then they see FANTASTIC FOUR on the shelves. That must be special.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,709
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 26, 2022 12:16:22 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. But rebooting everything gave DC a convenient excuse to do just that - show folks the door who had been around for ages and weren't keeping up with the times. From a workers' rights perspective, its quite disturbing, but from a quality and sales perspective, it was a smart move.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Mar 26, 2022 12:53:33 GMT -5
Amidst all this great dialogue, I missed a bit of a development with the survey data. It appears there is some separation now in the 40-49 year range, with 9 votes "bad" and 3 votes "good". That would put these folks as being between 3-13 at the start of the series itself, and some prime younger reading years. I fit in this category myself (barely!) It gives me pause if maybe it was particularly abrupt for this age group since we were still in those formative years, or something along those lines. One challenge in any topic like this (and this is a great topic!) is that some of us weren’t reading certain things at the time as we were too young to appreciate them (except on a visual level). Or read them years later via reprints. I was born in 1980. I think I probably started reading DC in 1986, but at that age, I’d have not appreciated the depth and nuance. And what of WATCHMEN? Definitely would not have understood that. Read that as an adult probably around 1999-2000. When I’d have been 19-20 and hopefully able to comprehend it. But I realise that my opinion of it is based on years after the fact. With some things you had to be there. Or some of us read it at the time, but weren't old enough to have read much of what proceeded it. I was born in 1979, and started reading comics when Crisis was being published. I read Crisis at the time, but hadn't read pre-1985 back issues. Crisis felt like an amazing, sweeping journey with all these characters far beyond the limited cast of Super Friends and Super Powers cartoons. Not having been a regular reader of stories set on Earths other than Earth-1, I didn't have a great sense of loss that older fans who mourned the Multiverse might. I think it's similar to my perspective on Jean Grey/Phoenix. Although I bought one issue of Uncanny X-Men (#195) new off the racks prior to the return of Jean Grey, I didn't really start reading the X books until a few years later. Whereas I hear a lot of fans lament that her return undid the impact of the Dark Phoenix Saga, I feel like I can just accept all those events and reconcile them. I voted Good because it feels like an awesome epic story (different than lots of other epics that fall short) and brilliant art.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 13:53:38 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. Shaxper, I keep coming back to your comment on assuming it was the DC lowest point and overall familiarity, it got me thinking more on the topic as I was considering further if this might be a good topic to branch off in a separate thread on. Specifically, you mentioned both sales AND exposure, and that got the wheels turning a bit for me. On the sales part, I think yes, it was a bit where DC was creatively. Marvel was often perceived as the "cooler" line of comics, despite struggling business-wise during the 70's as well. In terms of DC "needing" to do something by the time Crisis came around, in actuality I think their bigger need in some ways was a decade earlier. At that point they were likely stuck much more creatively in the broader sense (though I do think some stuff like the Legion was really good then). But raw sales were also largely an industry-wide problem. Even before the infamous winters of 1977 and 1978 impacting distribution, the rising costs of paper and production were a factor, but also of course the decreasing number of retail outlets. And then compounding that, even on the newsstand itself, shrinking space for lower price comic books compared to higher price magazines that gave more margin to retailers. Also a reason all those "giant size" comics with also higher prices started popping up to try to adapt! This was of course not a DC specific problem, Marvel and everyone else faced it and the rest they say was history as we know how the direct market eventually became a necessity for the industry to stay alive. Yet now considering exposure...as a kid who started reading comic books in 1977 right when this was going on, the world of DC was EVERYWHERE. Newsstand sales in some ways did not reflect the reality. Tons of cartoon exposure with Super Friends picking back up in '77 and continuing on for years. New Adventures of Batman in '77 as well, older Filmation in heavy rotation in syndication (I remember watching Aquaman all the time in particular), Adam West live action Batman also still in heavy rotation, the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman series originally broadcast from '75-79, Shazam live action was from '74 to '76 and also in reruns, and the Superman movie in '78 was a huge box office success. Other merch like DC Halloween costumes were a big deal back then (much like Marvel, Star Wars, etc.) Even DC character Slurpee cups at 7-11! All this leads me to believe that there WAS a lot of exposure to and love for the classic DC characters, so while there was creative stagnation in the comic books themselves, did they miss some opportunities along the way to capitalize on their strengths. I'll give an example...instead of tinkering with the "explosion event" in '78 (which seemed to be counter to the newsstand logistics I just described), why not focus on the opportunity to invest more in the creative (and branding) side of Superman since the movie gave a huge bump to interest in the character again? And the answer might be "yes, that was the whole point in some ways of Crisis and specifically the Byrne reboot!" But my conjecture is...what if they hadn't waited 8 years and struck while the iron was hot with a blockbuster motion picture behind it? What might that have looked like. And would we have even been in that situation by the mid-80's.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 14:07:45 GMT -5
And the answer might be "yes, that was the whole point in some ways of Crisis and specifically the Byrne reboot!" But my conjecture is...what if they hadn't waited 8 years and struck while the iron was hot with a blockbuster motion picture behind it? What might that have looked like. And would we have even been in that situation by the mid-80's. Very thought-provoking!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 14:09:29 GMT -5
In fact, given some of the similarities between Byrne’s MAN OF STEEL and the 1978 film, your point about striking while the iron was hot is even more pertinent!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,709
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 26, 2022 14:26:51 GMT -5
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. Shaxper, I keep coming back to your comment on assuming it was the DC lowest point and overall familiarity, it got me thinking more on the topic as I was considering further if this might be a good topic to branch off in a separate thread on. Specifically, you mentioned both sales AND exposure, and that got the wheels turning a bit for me. On the sales part, I think yes, it was a bit where DC was creatively. Marvel was often perceived as the "cooler" line of comics, despite struggling business-wise during the 70's as well. In terms of DC "needing" to do something by the time Crisis came around, in actuality I think their bigger need in some ways was a decade earlier. At that point they were likely stuck much more creatively in the broader sense (though I do think some stuff like the Legion was really good then). But raw sales were also largely an industry-wide problem. Even before the infamous winters of 1977 and 1978 impacting distribution, the rising costs of paper and production were a factor, but also of course the decreasing number of retail outlets. And then compounding that, even on the newsstand itself, shrinking space for lower price comic books compared to higher price magazines that gave more margin to retailers. Also a reason all those "giant size" comics with also higher prices started popping up to try to adapt! This was of course not a DC specific problem, Marvel and everyone else faced it and the rest they say was history as we know how the direct market eventually became a necessity for the industry to stay alive. Yet now considering exposure...as a kid who started reading comic books in 1977 right when this was going on, the world of DC was EVERYWHERE. Newsstand sales in some ways did not reflect the reality. Tons of cartoon exposure with Super Friends picking back up in '77 and continuing on for years. New Adventures of Batman in '77 as well, older Filmation in heavy rotation in syndication (I remember watching Aquaman all the time in particular), Adam West live action Batman also still in heavy rotation, the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman series originally broadcast from '75-79, Shazam live action was from '74 to '76 and also in reruns, and the Superman movie in '78 was a huge box office success. Other merch like DC Halloween costumes were a big deal back then (much like Marvel, Star Wars, etc.) Even DC character Slurpee cups at 7-11! All this leads me to believe that there WAS a lot of exposure to and love for the classic DC characters, so while there was creative stagnation in the comic books themselves, did they miss some opportunities along the way to capitalize on their strengths. I'll give an example...instead of tinkering with the "explosion event" in '78 (which seemed to be counter to the newsstand logistics I just described), why not focus on the opportunity to invest more in the creative (and branding) side of Superman since the movie gave a huge bump to interest in the character again? And the answer might be "yes, that was the whole point in some ways of Crisis and specifically the Byrne reboot!" But my conjecture is...what if they hadn't waited 8 years and struck while the iron was hot with a blockbuster motion picture behind it? What might that have looked like. And would we have even been in that situation by the mid-80's. I can only respond to this with my own personal experience, which may not match anyone else's. I was born in '79 and was massively influenced by the multi-media exposure of DC properties by the time I was six. I watched the West/Ward reruns enthusiastically, as well as Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman, and I was a captive audience every time a Reeve Superman film was the 8 o'clock movie. I also watched Super Friends on Saturdays and collected Super Powers figures with a passion, owned coloring books, wore licensed pajamas, etc. Yet, when I turned to the spinner racks, none of it made any sense to a six year old. DC's presence in other media was predominately aimed at younger kids like myself, but the comics were written for adolescents and adults. Thus, despite my eagerly wanting to crossover into the world of comics, there was no clear entryway for me.
|
|