Sk8J

Why I'm Not Excited (and, to be honest, more than a little annoyed)by the DC ReBoot

Just so I can get this off my chest, here's my rant about the Reboot.  After this, I'm not going to add anything else to it, as I figure the issue really isn't THAT important IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

(1) SAME CREATORS, SAME TITLES...

Geoff Johns, Dan Didio, Rob Liefeld, Jim Lee, Scott Lobdell, Brett Booth, Grant Morrison, Geoprge Perez, Dan Jurgens, Paul Levitz...They're names we've been hearing for the past decade (and much, much more), whose work we've seen over and over agian for the last decade.  If you're rebooting the company to refresh the characters for a new generation of readers, does it make sense to use so many creators who were part of the last couple of generations? For many of these guys this is the second or third reboot they've been part of.  There are other people out there. Other people who are making great comics.  If you want a new collective voice, you can't keep the same individidual voices.   Who should they have hired? Here and Here for a start.

Let's nbe honest guys, 10 years in charge and sales have not improved at all...only fallen?  In no other industry would you keep hiring these same people.

(2) SALES, SALES...

Sales is a stupid metric for deciding which books don't change.  A good sdalesman can sell a crap product.  Current sales, or even recent sales, are a very limiting judge of quality.  The TRANSFORMERS Trilogy tells us that.  In the comics industry, these days, sales should not be a key indicator of anything.  When your top selling book struggles to make 100K in sales, you shouldn't think "Well, no need to change that!"  EVERY comic title is a struggling title.  There should be room to reconsider EVERY title, using sales as a metric.  There are too many potential variables.  Could the Green Lantern movie or the super-hyped Green Lantern crossovers of the past few years be an externality which have driven sales up?  What about the Christian Bale Batman movie?  Are they at all connected to sales?  Variables which may or may not influence sales.  These are things that they would know if they used other data to help guide this change. 

Has there been any information about surveys, focus groups or interviews with readers past and present to understand what works and doesn't about their characters?  I mean, IMO, Superman sales are not hurting because he is not "dark and brooding" enough.  

The really sad part...sales will spike for a while, maybe the first year (it happened with the Ultimate line) or two, and then it will taper off.  Then Didio, Johns and Lee will ask themselves, "Why?" and they won't have any answer because they chose the wrong metric to measure success.

(3) THE PUBLISHING MODEL IS FAILING

Periodicals, as a whole, are falling apart.  Sure, there have been some that stick around, but, for the most part, the periodical model is failing.  It doesn't matter how many times you put Superman in a new costume, or give him new powers, or kill him, it's not going to change the fact thatthey are a million other things competing with people's attention now.  Monthly comics, like all monthly periodicals , are going the way of the Model T.  It's time to rethink the entire monthly comic book model.

Perhaps Superman by seem more special if, instead of a half dozen 24-page comics a month, he appeared in two paperbacks a year?  Maybe Wonder woman would work as a series of short stories in a magazine?  Maybe sell comics in weekly $.50 installments instead of $3 and $4 monthlies?  It's time to go all in on experimenting with new formats if they want to save the medium.  This day and date thing is insulting?  I'm going to happily pay the same price for a digital copy of a book as I pay for a hard copy?  There is actual evidence that says that this is not the case.

(4) NO FAREWELL...

Lee and Didio keep talking about what the fans want, but I have to say, I'm a little insulted by how "thief in the night" this was.  I've been reading DC Comics for 30+ years.  LOYALLY.  I've  been there through creative ups and downs. I've seen Batman have his back broken, Superman killed, Hal go nuts and Barry die, Wally take over and Barry return.  I htink I and every other fan like me, deserves to have such a radical change be part of an EVENT.  Not just a pretty run of the mill Falsh story.  That's weak.  I want a story that DC puts together to say two things:  "Thank you for reading" and "Here's why you should keep reading."  Flashpoint is neither of those things.    It feels like they rushed it in the hopes of dodging criticism instead of giving it time and trying to build momentum and excitement.  I mean...these guys (a) owe the current readers their jobs and lifestyles and (b) know what we like...the ol kick-'splode.  The current DCU started with a bang.  Its kind of sad to watch it go out with a whimper.

So, in all, I'm not annoyed with teh change because of what they have done.  It's mostly because of what they haven't. If they're gonna change, DO IT.  Make BIG CHANGES!  Go out BIG!  This change just seems like a weak handshake.

But your solution doesn't fix what they perceive to be a problem. The writers want him alone while he is growing up so they can explore the alien/solitude angle. After reading about the same old Superman for so long, I'm intrigued by something different.

And yeah, they acknowledge that era, as it's part of their plan to go back to what they call the core of the character. I'm only saying "different" because I'm comparing it to the Superman I know.

<<Let's nbe honest guys, 10 years in charge and sales have not improved at all...only fallen?  In no other industry would you keep hiring these same people.>>

The Federal Reserve.

-J

Responding to your link about Sexism at DC, the campaign was reactionary. The numbers haven't actually changed much pre- to post-relaunch. However, Didio seemed aggressive and out-of-line to that fan when he asked "what do those numbers mean?" Also, at least the discussion is being had. Superhero comics could use more diverse talent.

Point: Proven.

Which in a way only proves your point even more, I have to think, as I watch my money disappear.

-J

Travis! Change your password! Adi has hacked your account!

<But your solution doesn't fix what they perceive to be a problem.>>

But that's not what I was addressing.

<But your solution doesn't fix what they perceive to be a problem.>>

They're taking it back to what they're familiar with and what they grew up with. And that's all well and good, but don't make that seem like it's more essential to the character than the status quo for the last 30 years. It's disrespectful to the people who created that status quo and disrespectful to the people who've enjoyed it.

Man, I'm taking on a ton of bad nerd habits.  I need to just shut up about this whole thing.

All kidding aside, all I know is that the books aren't out yet. I'm going to get some on the month late discount. I hope I will like them. If I don't, well, that's okay. I have SO! MUCH! other stuff to do and to worry about that I can't really be that bothered by DC's bi-annual reboot not being to my taste. Maybe the one that comes in 2013 will be more to my taste.

That's absolutely the right and healthy opinion on this whole thing.  And I should take a cue from your book instead of Coyle's.

OK, I guess that's fair, but to be clear the person who said the Kents are overused is not involved in the DC relaunch and I haven't heard anybody involved say that, so that's probably how I wound up talking about one thing and you were talking about something else.

As for "making it seem it's more essential," if you were talking about me and not the writers, I could care less what the essential version of Superman is. See also: disrespect/fan entitlement. 1 - I doubt the writers grew up on Golden Age, 2 - I doubt it would be a repeat of Golden Age other the basic tone and starting point, and 3 - they have every right to explore every angle of a character that's been around for so long.

Besides, everything in the previous status quo probably still happened. Just... over a weekend.

I think our difference of opinions comes down to our levels of admiration for Grant Morrison and me just not wanting to judge it until at least after the first issue or story is concluded.

I think the relaunch is hard to characterize because the opposites of your bullet points could just as well be true: DIFFERENT CREATORS, DIFFERENT TITLES / STORY, STORY... / DIGITAL IS THE FUTURE. They are throwing different ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks.

As for farewell, couldn't you argue that "going out big" is less important that starting strong? While focus the summer on the endings of various rebooted characters when they would definitely have to delete those endings so that they can use, say, the Wonder Woman and Superman stuff that they still want to use? The focus should be on the beginning, as that is what superhero franchises are about.

<They are throwing different ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks.>>

I just think those ideas are too conservative. I don't think tehy realize they are trying to save an industry here. What DC does with this move will be the template for how the comics industry works in America for a long time...or even if it does on the scale of Marvel and DC.

<As for farewell, couldn't you argue that "going out big" is less important that starting strong? While focus the summer on the endings of various rebooted characters when they would definitely have to delete those endings so that they can use, say, the Wonder Woman and Superman stuff that they still want to use? The focus should be on the beginning, as that is what superhero franchises are about.>>

If one has to preclude the other, they are the wrong people to be running this.

perpetual franchises with no endings that by necessity need to be rebooted every once in a while.

Except they don't! Marvel went 40 years without rebooting anything, most of their character still haven't been rebooted, and what reboots they have tried are much inferior to the non-rebooted stuff.

Save the industry? Marvel and DC could completely crash next year and comics would still be around forever.

But their histories are changed and ignored, characters are de-aged and never grow beyond a certain point, always going backward. It's the way the properties have to work. But yeah, no line-wide reboot-events.

Probably depends on your definition of "comics" and being "around forever."

If Marvel and DC were to vanish, I'd assume the vast majority of retail comic shops would do the same almost imediately.

I was thinking more about people who make comics being able to make money off of them. I don't see that changing with or without the existence of superhero publishers or specialty stores. But I don't know, maybe that is "the industry."

"If Marvel and DC were to vanish, I'd assume the vast majority of retail comic shops would do the same almost imediately."

I'll go a step further. Even the most diversified comic stores like the Beguiling would go under immediately. (Or at least have to shift to a "going out of business" stock sale/liquidation as part of going out of business.) Any comic book store that lost all of its Marvel and DC business would have such a large percentage of their business vanish could not stay in business, at all.

I specified on that scale.

But, as Matt said, if Martvel or DC collapsed a number of store owners would go with them.

"Marvel", not "Martvel."  Heh.

Wasn't Franklin Richards like 5 years old for 20 years?

My impression is that once Marvel cleared out the OG guys like Kirby, Dikto and Lee, everything in the MU kind of went into amber.  Under the orginators, Peter Parker went from loveless high school nerd, to college student and professional photog with a lovelife.  And after they left?  The status quo went largley unchanged for 25+ years.  Likewise with the FF - Reed and Sue got married, had a kid and... that's it - frozen for the next 25+ years.

Really, the only characters that changed at all for a looong time were the X-Men and Daredevil.

Entirely my own thoughts, someone who hasn't bought a new comic in a very long time, so there's no reason DC should be concerned with my POV - it seems that there are reasons you don't want to have Supes being a socialist instigator. Reasons you don't want him to be physically proactive politically from any position, actually. Reasons you don't want his influence to be "felt" in the day-to-day operations of an interconnected universe.

Golden-Age style Superman in the modern DCU ends up three ways:

1.) No more corrupt politicians or businessmen in 3 years or so. All the other titles are bound by this. A SINGLE BOUND.

2.) The in-universe media demonizes him, making him not the loved-by-all figure that unites everyone. He now belongs to half of us, instead of all of us.

3.) Someone points out that he's a goddamned alien. Telling us how to live our lives. That strikes no one else as utter horseshit? I mean, they're going out of their way to highlight the solitary alien thing while at the same time having him decide he should get to choose who's in charge? Jesus fucking Christ.

Now, it's possible (in fact, very likely) that after three or four issues of Superman beating up 60 year old men, he'll realize that he can't be doing this, as it makes him a bully and a little bit of a totalitarian tyrant. Odds are Batman will be the one to explain this to him. So there will be some thing where he sits on top of the Daily Planet building and he vows never to cross those lines again. Sorta like what happened in SUPERMAN #22.

It seems to me that there's a reason Golden Age Superman's exploits into Bolshevikism didn't last terribly long - pretty soon his world is dramatically different from ours, to an unrelateable degree. To that we can add in that Wonder Woman has no CEO baddies anymore, that he becomes a polarizing figure instead of an example of our best, and that in some other comics these actions would have him considered the bad guy.

To the POV that Superman did this stuff in his first appearance, and is therefore fitting for today... Batman kills a dude in his first appearance. Like, intentionally. He then says "a fitting end for his kind," or something like that. Are we just as wild to have a murderer Batman as we are to have a collectivist Superman? I doubt it.

Anyway, if they want to do a story where his villains are corporate execs, to power him down, and to have him vow not to interfere in Earthly concerns, maybe they should hire John Byrne, who already did that job - well.

-J

If Grant Morrison's Superman throws Henry Paulson and the other folks on this list one person per issue off a skyscraper, I will gladly buy all of DC's output for an entire year.

3.) Someone points out that he's a goddamned alien. Telling us how to live our lives. That strikes no one else as utter horseshit? I mean, they're going out of their way to highlight the solitary alien thing while at the same time having him decide he should get to choose who's in charge? Jesus fucking Christ.

------------------------

While that might justify getting rid of the Super-Marriage, you'd have to follow it up by turning Lois full-blown evil, as far as her turning into Superman's mortal enemy the moment she learns that he has been pulling the silver age shit that he has been doing to her for years. Possibly even go one further, having Lois take her own life just to spite Superman by way of killing herself and making the world know that she killed herself because Superman engaged in a systematic campaign of terror to protect his secret identity and basically drove her to suicide due to the sadistic way he kept gaslighting her.

Which is one of my points. If the DCU no longer has the same chumps messing everything up as we do... how long before it's unrecognizable? How long until it isn't a mirror of our own, but with costumed heroes? How long until it's totally sci-fi'd out? And since it's all connected, stories about a guy in a rubber suit beating up thugs in the alleys of Gotham loses it's luster if there are no more bad neighborhoods, no?

-J

Which means their perception of the problem is clearly not the actual nature of the problem.

And I think you and I are in sync on that last point of yours.

Does it have to be a mirror of our world in order to still have a good setting for fun stories? For the last decade, we saw some evidence that we could answer "no" and have that answer stand.

<As for "making it seem it's more essential," if you were talking about me and not the writers, I could care less what the essential version of Superman is>>

Totally meant the writers. I haven't gone that far over the edge that I've taken my irritation over this out on others. :)