|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 14:29:24 GMT -5
I, too, collected Super Powers figures with a passion (best toyline ever!). That was sort of my “gateway drug” into DC, although the annuals I bought (UK) were reprinting stuff from the late 70s/early 80s. Earliest memory is a UK annual reprinting the SUPER POWERS mini-series.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 26, 2022 16:19:26 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...? Pre-COIE, there was not much continuity at all, hence the reader complaints--readers who constantly held up Marvel as the way superhero comic universes should work (despite Marvel's problems in that regard). DC was "anything goes"--essentially whatever stuck to the wall, print it, but in the Silver and Bronze Age readers would be hard pressed to see any sound continuity between a good five titles. Bronze Age DC could not live on the few....the very few great titles and characters that blossomed in that era, while launching new, blink-and-you-missed-them titles, or maintaining "flagship" books that were not breaking creative ground, and operated as if they occupied their own universe. There's no getting around how much of a disastrous train wreck most of DC had been since the late Golden Age, and with each passing year (particularly into the Silver, after the rise of Marvel), readers were becoming more active in sending detailed, critical letters to the various creative teams, some announcing they were going to stop buying anything from DC. Thankfully, DC did not rest on "well, we've run it this way since__" or misguided senses of nostalgia when Wolfman received the greenlight to do what was needed for so long.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 26, 2022 18:48:06 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. 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. But there’s no reason to believe you couldn’t do it without blowing everything up because they’d been doing it with a number of books (NTT, Legion, Swamp Thing). You spent the money and effort to bring in Roy Thomas just a handful of years before, just to throw away the toys that brought him in. Now you can argue that Roy’s days had past and I might well not argue, but it still seems short-sighted. And ultimately they didn’t reboot everything. They half-assed and slow-played it which inevitably led to them having to continue to do half-assed reboots every half dozen years or so. Yes, there is a fair bit of hindsight involved here. But I don’t see that a lot of planning went in to the outcome of Crisis.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Mar 26, 2022 18:57:37 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. I was born in '79, began collecting comics in '88 and discovered my first comic book store in '89. If I'd been born ten years earlier, I probably would have been aware of Crisis as an event, although back in those days I only visited the comic book store during school vacations. I was more of a Marvel guy as a kid, though I do remember being into Justice League International and William Messner-Loebs' Flash. I bought a lot of back issues at secondhand book stores, but titles like New Titans, Legion of Superheroes, Swamp Thing and Crisis weren't on my radar. A lot of DC back issues cost more, especially the Baxter titles. My opinion of Crisis doesn't mean much compared to fans of Silver Age and Bronze Age DC. Supergirl and Barry Allen's deaths don't mean anything to me. Crisis didn't affect me in any way. The only attachment I have to pre-1985 DC is my love for Jonah Hex, and I only read that last year. I simply blame Crisis for the nonsense that followed. I don't know if that's fair or not. Even as a kid, I hated crossovers and the shitty tie-in issues that interrupted the ongoing stories. I actually lost interest in DC after Zero Hour, which was more of the same BS. When I do read DC books from '85, the Crisis tie-ins with the red sky are annoying. The Jonah Hex tie-in was pulled off about as well as it could be, but is absurd. Back in '85, the mentality was that people were fans of the title and would continue to read the ongoing books regardless of the creative team. These days, people collect specific runs. A lot of these runs serve as reboots for the title. Then the creator leaves, someone else comes on the book, and they reboot everything (or retcon it, if you're being cynical.) I think someone else made the same point, but there's no reason why DC couldn't have revamped their books without the need for Crisis, the same way Miller revamped Daredevil and Moore revamped Swamp Thing. I don't know how much of the post-Crisis revamps they had in mind in '85, probably not a lot, but aside from the obvious money grab, I don't see the need to reboot titles and start from issue #1 all over again every time you have a new creator shake things up.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 26, 2022 20:16:14 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)? Well, talking about Superman a complete reboot, in my opinion, was the most sensible thing to do from a business and a creative point of view because: - Superman titles , according to every source I could find, just weren't selling that much before the reboot. Why try to keep his (few) readers happy leaving the continuity intact when it was easier to attract new ones with a total wipe?
- Plus, if there was anyone who kept buying Superman, it would mean they were perfectly fine with reading pretty much the same stories and having the same creative teams on the magazines not changed literally in decades. So there would still be the risk of alienating these regular readers with a "fresh start", even keeping the continuity unchanged.
Regarding the "background characters", well, it seems to me that the most important supporting characters of the Man of Steel are back even after the reboot. Unless there are multitudes of fans complaining about the huge void left by Justin Moore, the creepy Daily Bugle's intern borderline-stalker who had an unhealthy fixation for Lois Lane In this case, I am sorry for their terrible loss. And let's not forget that DC had already tried a "Fresh Start" in 1983 with new writers (Wolfman) and major new changes in the character's status quo: the destruction of Lexor, a new body for Braniac, Vandal Savage as the new nemesis of the Man of Steel, the break up between Superman and Lois, etc etc. The result? Nobody cared. The only thing people remember from that time is Lex Luthor's new armor
and probably only because it appeared in the Super Friends cartoons. This shows how little Superman counted in the zeitgest of the time. The eternal couple was no more and no one had noticed. So what was the point of trying another "fresh start" while keeping the same continuity and hoping to have a different result? (And this isn't like the definition of insanity?) And all this if we want to see the matter exclusively from the business side. Then there is the creative matter. Superman pre-Crisis, quite simply, was an absolutely unmanageable character from a modern point of view. And we're not talking about some bizarre Silver Age episode that you might just ignore. We are talking about the monstrous moral hypocrisy of the character, which is as integral to him as the fact that he comes from Krypton. If you delete it, it's just not him anymore. Remember how the whole point of Identity Crisis was the fact that the JLA was guilty of a hideous sin by erasing Dr. Light's memory? Well, pre-crisis Superman routinely did worse at least three times before lunch. A couple of examples So, here, he wind-controlled and mind-wiped someone without his consent for the filmiest reason: he needed someone to replace him on the job. Or when he happily gave people concussions because he was needed as Superman elsewhere or when he had sex with a mind controlled poor girl (who therefore could not give true consent) without a hint of remorse or feeling sorry for her. Not to mention all the horrendous things she's done to Lois Lane over the years, always with a sadistic, satisfied smile. All things that if someone else had done them, he would have called him a criminal and thrown behind bars. But he has always felt justified in doing them. Really, the Man of Steel made hypocrisy an Olympic discipline. And to top it off, the character's era status quo made absolutely no sense. Why was he still working at the Daily Planet? The reason during the golden age was clear: working in a newspaper he could always be informed of what was happening. Post-Crisis, he could do as like Clark Kent for society that he couldn't do as Superman. But during the Bronze Age? If he was needed for some emergency he discovered it thanks to superhearing, and his work as a journalist was limited to "exclusives" (ethically questionable) about the exploits of Superman. Indeed, his work at the Daily Planet was always presented as a nuisance that hindered him in his Superhero business. Obviously the IRL reason was because Clark Kent and the Daily Planet were iconically linked, but within the stories no valid reason was given for him to continue working there. Not to mention the 6 PM news he ran. Why did he keep doing it? Of course, new writers and new editors could have retconneted all those incongruences and questionable things but at this point, wouldn't it have been easier to start from scratch? Ok, I think it's enough for now
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 26, 2022 22:28:30 GMT -5
Just from the interest of perspective... I fit in the 40-49 age (born in 1975) but didn't really read any comics until I could but them myself when I had my first job.. so 1993-4... I didn't read crisis until after experiencing Zero Hour (which confused me a bit at the time)... pretty much turned me off completely to the Silver Age of DC for a long time since they didn't 'count' anymore.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 27, 2022 5:14:15 GMT -5
And to top it off, the character's era status quo made absolutely no sense. And about things that did not make sense: why did he never reveal the truth about his secret identity to Lois Lane? We know the real life reasons: Superman enjoying ridiculing Lois Lane by making her believe she is wrong when in reality she was always right is such a classic that conceiving something different was simply unthinkable. But within the stories he never gave a real valid reason. The closest thing to a motive was "that he was doing it for her sake and didn't want to endanger her." The problem is that Lois Lane was already always in danger as she was "Superman's girlfriend". These pages are from the 1983 mini-reboot and are written by Wolfman. This, as far as I know, was the only time Lois Lane seriously cornered Superman about her responsibilities to her. And these are the best reasons for his behaviour that the more than capable author has managed to find. So he has a lot of responsibilities and therefore cannot seriously commit to her. However, this does not explain why: 1) He has always prevented her from finding out the truth about him 2) he has never refused in a clear and precise way any sentimental relationship with her 3) After this separation, he began a serious affair with Lana Lang (in the identity of Clark Kent). So, now imagine that Crisis never happened and in the late 1980s new authors arrive trying to make sense of this super-concentrate of hypocrisy, chauvinism and sexism, while at the same time having to portray the character as the purest and most noble of heroes. Simple madness. I try to imagine a conversation between a new author and the editor: NA: "But did he really abandon his cousin literally just arrived on Earth in an orphanage after she had lost her parents and all her loved ones?!? And then she exiled her to an alien planet just because she was a kid and she dared to play with Krypto?" ED.: "Yes. But he had good reasons for doing it. Remember, he is the good guy" NA: "But how can justify him!?! I think that..." ED.: "Your job is not to think, it is to write! And now hurry up, we have to attract new readers, who I don't understand why they are not already attracted to this very interesting and cool character! "
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 27, 2022 6:04:21 GMT -5
If Jerry Siegel had had his way, Superman would've revealed his true identity to Lois around 1941, but the powers-that-be at DC vetoed it... and since they were the owners of the characters, they had the final say. How different would the Big Red S's--and DC's--history have been if Siegel had prevailed?
Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2022 6:21:04 GMT -5
If Jerry Siegel had had his way, Superman would've revealed his true identity to Lois around 1941, but the powers-that-be at DC vetoed it... and since they were the owners of the characters, they had the final say. How different would the Big Red S's--and DC's--history have been if Siegel had prevailed? Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! Very interesting, I never knew that!
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 27, 2022 6:31:28 GMT -5
If Jerry Siegel had had his way, Superman would've revealed his true identity to Lois around 1941, but the powers-that-be at DC vetoed it... and since they were the owners of the characters, they had the final say. How different would the Big Red S's--and DC's--history have been if Siegel had prevailed? Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! I remember the adventures of Mr and Mrs Superman (Earth Two's Superman had married Lois Lane). While artistically they were just funny and cute stories, from a metatextual point of view they were perplexing. DC tried in every way to explain to readers why the fact that Superman did not reveal the truth to Lois Lane was the only right thing to do because otherwise the consequences would have been CATASTROPHIC, but his Earth-2 counterpart had done it and nothing bad really happened. WTF?!? DC, why couldn't you be consistent even with your own arguments?!?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,709
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 27, 2022 16:22:11 GMT -5
If Jerry Siegel had had his way, Superman would've revealed his true identity to Lois around 1941, but the powers-that-be at DC vetoed it... and since they were the owners of the characters, they had the final say. How different would the Big Red S's--and DC's--history have been if Siegel had prevailed? Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! Well some later writer always had the ability to introduce an amnesia kiss or have Superman use super ventriloquism and robots to later convince her it was all a hoax. As soon as writers are allowed to change the status quo, it also empowers later writers to change the status quo back.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 27, 2022 17:15:17 GMT -5
If Jerry Siegel had had his way, Superman would've revealed his true identity to Lois around 1941, but the powers-that-be at DC vetoed it... and since they were the owners of the characters, they had the final say. How different would the Big Red S's--and DC's--history have been if Siegel had prevailed? Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! Well some later writer always had the ability to introduce an amnesia kiss or have Superman use super ventriloquism and robots to later convince her it was all a hoax. As soon as writers are allowed to change the status quo, it also empowers later writers to change the status quo back. I'm mean, I don't know why he even bothered with all that robot stuff and whatever else. All that he needed was just his superhypnotism
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 27, 2022 17:27:24 GMT -5
As many here have already said, it is interesting how little, on a practical level, Crisis had affected the existing continuity. Only two characters (Superman and Wonder Woman) underwent a total reboot. But what about the rest? I guess if one read at the time, say, only Green Lantern, Atom or Blue Devil wouldn't even realize that the stories now unfolded in a new universe. Of course, Earth Two was gone. So what? Virtually the only magazine that suffered the consequences of that was All-Star Squadron and I'm not even sure how much. Okay, Roy Thomas could no longer use Superman, Wonder Woman or Batman, but even before Crisis their appearances in his stories were very rare. And, reading the (very interesting) codystarbuck reviews I think that probably the 80% of the Squadron adventures could have played out exactly the same way in the new Post-Crisis continuity (correct me if I'm wrong!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2022 18:00:08 GMT -5
As many here have already said, it is interesting how little, on a practical level, Crisis had affected the existing continuity. Only two characters (Superman and Wonder Woman) underwent a total reboot. But what about the rest? I guess if one read at the time, say, only Green Lantern, Atom or Blue Devil wouldn't even realize that the stories now unfolded in a new universe. Of course, Earth Two was gone. So what? Virtually the only magazine that suffered the consequences of that was All-Star Squadron and I'm not even sure how much. Okay, Roy Thomas could no longer use Superman, Wonder Woman or Batman, but even before Crisis their appearances in his stories were very rare. And, reading the (very interesting) codystarbuck reviews I think that probably the 80% of the Squadron adventures could have played out exactly the same way in the new Post-Crisis continuity (correct me if I'm wrong!) Oh my stars no, it had much much more impact than that. Earth-2 for instance was a bigger problem than All-Star Squadron...it meant the end of the annual JLA/JSA crossovers, one of the coolest concepts. It meant awesome next gen characters didn't make sense, like Power Girl and Huntress. It also meant common power heroes weren't so special anymore. It was OK for Alan and Hal GLs to team up from time to time, but actually live all the time simultaneously in the same world? Even DC couldn't figure it out. The "Last Days of the JSA" was a complete incoherent train wreck. And Infinity Inc. had to shift gears as well. By extension, it pretty much ruined the Shazam family. The Big Red Cheese was the the iconic hero of his domain, then he becomes a proxy to Superman at best, redundant at worst. How about the "mirror mirror" concept of Earth-3? How about no Superboy, no true Legion (which was a HUGE success back then coming off the Levitz/Giffen run and having gotten their own Baxter title in '84) despite the attempt to retrofit the "pocket universe" explanation, no Supergirl...which meant NO SUPERCAT!!! (I don't even know how I'm here today). Plus so many other characters that were in figurative limbo. This may be more a generational thing, or maybe just me, but the history of DC was RICH! If Gold from the Metal Men suddenly showed up in the Brave and Bold teaming up with Batman, no origin story/reboot needed. So many great characters could just pop up whether they were also in a ongoing series or not, and you didn't have to guess "is this the old them, or some new them", or worse get bogged down in modern attempts to "explain" things that didn't really need explaining. If it was confusing for newer readers, I'd argue that's more the fault of the creative teams and editorial and not the immense legacy of prior DC continuity,
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 27, 2022 18:05:08 GMT -5
If Jerry Siegel had had his way, Superman would've revealed his true identity to Lois around 1941, but the powers-that-be at DC vetoed it... and since they were the owners of the characters, they had the final say. How different would the Big Red S's--and DC's--history have been if Siegel had prevailed? Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! Precisely why I believe the "real" Superman's last appearance was in "The K-Metal from Krypton". The Big Blue Boy Scout that replaced him 'til 1986 was little more than a glorified corporate mascot.
|
|