|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2022 14:14:07 GMT -5
Here in the UK, in 1988, London Editions Magazines, an Egmont company, began publishing a fortnightly Superman reprint title, which initially reprinted Byrne’s Superman. Despite some letters requesting pre-Crisis reprints, the editor stated he’d be sticking with post-Crisis Superman. Also in 1988, LEM began reprinting a Batman title (monthly). It initially reprinted The Untold Legend of the Batman before moving to reprints of 70s stories featuring the likes of Mister Freeze, Crazy Quilt, Man-Bat, etc. However, after about 20 issues or so, the title moved away from Crisis and began reprinting Blind Justice. Years later, I read that this was a mandate from Egmont, they wanted LEM to focus only on post-Crisis stuff. In 1991, LEM began publishing a weekly reprint title called Heroes. In fact, let me share a cover: Heroes did something very novel: it reprinted pre-Crisis stuff, such as Blue Devil, the LSH, etc. Sadly, it lasted only 8 issues. Maybe at that point, there was zero appetite for UK readers (and Egmont) for anything pre-Crisis. By 1995, DC’s presence in the UK ended, and it wasn’t until 2003 that we saw a DC UK title again ( Batman Legends), published by Panini. Interestingly, until the 90s, Egmont was still publishing pre-Crisis stuff in various annuals. It all seemed a bit convoluted at times, and I sympathise with editors stuck between Egmont, who wanted to focus on post-Crisis, and readers who wanted pre-Crisis stuff. So, does this topic have a point? Well, from my perspective, it did seem like “pre-Crisis” was heretical during the periods described. Now, I get that on some level. It’d have been a little odd if each issue of the Superman reprint title had featured a Byrne story *and* a pre-Crisis story. The contrast would have been noticeable, especially as pre-Crisis Superman would say things like, “Great Rao!” And pine for his home planet. It also did create a bewildering moment or two. In the aforementioned Batman reprint, I remember how Bruce was on familiar terms with his secretary (I can’t recall her name, she had red hair and glasses) in an early issue, but a later issue showed him meeting her for the first time. So something like that might have been confusing for UK readers who perhaps hadn’t read the American issues. But, overall, there were times as a kid when it did feel like “pre-Crisis” had become a banned word - and heretical. Which is a shame because I don’t think history should be wiped out. I only discovered Blue Devil through Heroes. And while it was no doubt advisable to not mix pre-Crisis and post-Crisis Superman in the same reprint title, I think it would have been simpler for Batman to mix the two; the chronology wasn’t necessarily pedantic in the Batman title (Bruce’s secretary aside), but I found it easy to follow things. Although this topic is from the perspective of a Brit reading the UK reprints, I’d like to ask those in other countries whether there was a mandate or effort to make pre-Crisis stuff a no-no for a while. Right now, we live in an age where everything from various eras is available, either in print or digital, but I’m wondering, especially in the United States, whether there was any concerted effort to “silence” the pre-Crisis era.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 18, 2022 14:32:54 GMT -5
Although this topic is from the perspective of a Brit reading the UK reprints, I’d like to ask those in other countries whether there was a mandate or effort to make pre-Crisis stuff a no-no for a while. Right now, we live in an age where everything from various eras is available, either in print or digital, but I’m wondering, especially in the United States, whether there was any concerted effort to “silence” the pre-Crisis era. If you mean a "no-no" from American readers, I can tell you the stellar success of COIE was almost universally seen as the major statement against certain eras of pre-COIE stories, in other words, it represented the sentiments of innumerable fans. Many readers were already eager to forget the worst of the pre-COIE era (e.g., the multi-front disaster that was so much of Weisinger effect), so they did not need to "silence" it. As far as DC goes, we must remember that not all pre-COIE material was considered unworthy / ridiculous (e.g., certain early Golden Age stories, some late Silver Age runs, and a number of their landmark 70s stories), so the necessity of making a coherent comic universe did not mean all which came before was filed / tossed away.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2022 14:55:15 GMT -5
That reminds me, sort of in the same ballpark. Despite Byrne’s reboot of Superman, it did seem that WB/DC continued to put out merchandise with José Luis García-López‘s artwork.
Now, there’ll be no complaints from me, José Luis García-López is my favourite DC artist, but I’m just curious why, after doing Crisis and putting so much hype into Byrne’s reboot, they stuck with José Luis García-López on official merchandise.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 18, 2022 15:40:55 GMT -5
That reminds me, sort of in the same ballpark. Despite Byrne’s reboot of Superman, it did seem that WB/DC continued to put out merchandise with José Luis García-López‘s artwork. Now, there’ll be no complaints from me, José Luis García-López is my favourite DC artist, but I’m just curious why, after doing Crisis and putting so much hype into Byrne’s reboot, they stuck with José Luis García-López on official merchandise. Because it was a different audience. JLGL developed the DC Style Guide, with the definitive models for their characters, for use in licensing. JLGL had a classic, clean line that worked well for advertising and he was highly respected by comic artists and the Powers That Be, at DC. Merchandising was aimed at a mass audience, while comics had long ago given up on the mass audience, in favor of a fan audience, via the Direct Market. Comic sales were a fraction of what they had been when they were marketed to a mass audience; but, the terms of sale were different, making it easier to turn a profit with smaller print runs, geared towards proven fans. Merchandising went well beyond this audience, not only domestically, but internationally. These products were bought by all kinds of people, not just comic book fans. It's why those models have continued to be used, despite DC trying to shove those awful Jim Lee redesigns down the audience's throats and the movies departing from those looks for various (and often specious) reasons. Personally, I'll take a JLGL t-shirt image over anything from any other Superman artist, with the exception of Neal Adams. I have a couple of JLGL design shirts, including the Old School gangsters t-shirt, with his renditions of the Batman Rogues Gallery and one of the Joker photo-bombing Batman and Robin. JLGL's models were also used for the Legendary Super Powers cartoon show and Super Powers, Galactic Guardians, and the packaging for the Super Powers figures.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 18, 2022 17:48:20 GMT -5
John Byrne provided the following reason for his departure from Superman: J B: DC hired me to revamp Superman, and then immediately chickened out. They backed off at the first whiff of fan disapproval, which came months before anyone had actually seen the work. During the whole two years I was on the project, although nothing happened that was not approved by DC editorial, there was no conscious support. They even continued to license the "previous" Superman. At one point, Dick Giordano said "You have to realize there are now two Supermen -- the one you do and the one we license." Seemed counter-productive, to say the least, since far more people saw the licensed material. After two years of this nonsense, I was just worn down. The fun was gone. (from www.comicbookresources.com/features/byrne/)I've never really understood what Byrne meant by this. By his own admission, he presented DC with a list of "Ten unreasonable demands" when discussing what he'd change about Superman if given the opportunity and found that DC agreed to all but one idea (his plan to have Lara come to Earth with Kal-El and then die from kryptonite poisoning). From what was published, it doesn't seem as if DC stood in his way all that often. I certainly don't know what sort of discussions went on behind the scenes admittedly, but the fact that we still got Big Barda making a porno (with Mike Carlin, by his own admission, even outright refusing to print any letters criticizing the story in the relevant letter column), Superman killing The Phantom Zone villains, in addition to what were some pretty drastic changes to start with, I don't see DC "backing off at the first whiff of fan disapproval". The only signs of the "previous" Superman I saw in the pages of DC were those Jose Luis Garcia Lopez ads, but, I mean, so what? Was Byrne's Superman so totally different looking from the classic Superman that this would cause confusion? When Curt Swan drew the post-Crisis interpretation of the guy, he still retained his old style with the exception of Supe's emblem now being larger, but I wouldn't have thought that this was causing confusion and this was in the pages of the comics Byrne was spearheading. In fact, Byrne has claimed that one of his first questions when he took over Superman was what happens with Swan. He was apparently told that Swan would be looked after which put any concerns of Byrne's to rest. Strange that he'd worry about Curt Swan's prospects once he took over, but never considered that the guy (Lopez) in charge of drawing everyone for ads might still have a job - was he expecting DC to just fire him? Anyhoo... As far as DC backing off in the comics is concerned, the only time I know we got something related to the pre-Crisis Superman in the comics after Crisis, was Alan Brennert's "Should Auld Acquaintance Be Forgot?" from DC's Christmas with the Superheroes in 1989 where the original Supergirl makes an appearance without contradicting anything from Crisis. This would have been after Byrne left, but I cite it as the one time where perhaps he could very loosely argue that DC didn't support his Superman (though it would be a ridiculous argument). On the other hand, Neil Gaimen did a Superman/Green Lantern story which got canned (though it was released years later) simply because it contradicted the Post-Crisis notion that Superman and Green Lantern didn't know each other identities. Sounds like a crazy reason to throw an entire story away, but I think it sounds like a good example of the extremes DC went to to protect their new version of Superman.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2022 17:57:38 GMT -5
The only signs of the "previous" Superman I saw in the pages of DC were those Jose Luis Garcia Lopez ads, but, I mean, so what? Was Byrne's Superman so totally different looking from the classic Superman that this would cause confusion? Excellent point!
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 18, 2022 19:06:12 GMT -5
That reminds me, sort of in the same ballpark. Despite Byrne’s reboot of Superman, it did seem that WB/DC continued to put out merchandise with José Luis García-López‘s artwork. Now, there’ll be no complaints from me, José Luis García-López is my favourite DC artist, but I’m just curious why, after doing Crisis and putting so much hype into Byrne’s reboot, they stuck with José Luis García-López on official merchandise. From the 60's through the 80's, it was not an uncommon practice for DC and Marvel to use licensing art from artists no longer working on the book; John Romita's version of Spider-Man was (and in many cases) remains the standard look for the character, which was happening through the runs of Andru, McFarlane and others.
At DC, Infantino and Anderson's legendary mid 60's posters for the Batman characters were actively used on products long past that decade, and well into the same era (1970s) where Neal Adams' Batman was the other standard for licensing art. Both were still used on products into the 80s. If the artist had made what were--frankly--revolutionary and/or defining changes to a character, their version would often end up on endless products, even if their work was not in the monthly book.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2022 6:17:08 GMT -5
You know, reading the replies (thanks), it does make sense.
And I don’t know what Byrne is complaining about. I saw his artwork on a budget DVD which featured some random episodes of the Fleischer cartoons. Obviously, the distributor thought Byrne’s Superman image was suited to the disc, counter-intuitive though it was.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on May 19, 2022 11:18:17 GMT -5
I think the biggest graphic differences of Byrne's Superman from its predecessors were the slightly larger 'S', and, um, how the cape attached to the rest of the costume? And a slightly longer cape?
And even this last one pre-Crisis has not always been constant. The length practically varied from above the knee to the ankles.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on May 19, 2022 17:05:54 GMT -5
Ok, the first one is from the 1982 edition of Dc Style guide (the official guide about Dc characters for the artists and licensed products). The second one is from the 1991 edition (Both by Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez). You can't get more official than that. Note the cape's length.
|
|