Came across former
Aquaman/JLA assistant editor Valerie D'Orazio's blog and found her comments on the current state of DC pretty interesting.
Some excerpts:
QuoteMarvel's secret to success was not that they had violence, or grit, or adult situations, or "filth florin flith." Marvel's secret to success is that their characters are, essentially, underdogs. Well-written underdogs, freaks, weirdos and outcasts. What better type of character to appeal to teenagers? Further, Marvel superheroes are not just flawed to be flawed, but have their flawedness organically built into their backstories and characterizations.
By contrast, the serious personality flaws imposed on some DC characters in Didio's regime -- such as sociopath/killer Max Lord, sociopath/killer Superboy, "bad girl" Supergirl, rapist Dr. Light, cruelly unethical Leslie Thompkins, and amoral JLA -- have been superimposed, artifically added, uneccessary. They are "filth florin filth," what DC thought Marvel did to attract readers.
Now, what Jenette Kahn & Paul Levitz understood 20 years ago was that DC was not Marvel. They didn't even want DC to be Marvel. Instead, they concentrated on how to make the company even more unique. And that produced "Watchmen," Vertigo Comics, "The Dark Knight Returns," and a lot more...
[SNIP!]
... another aspect of "Countdown" that irks me is the sheer *preciousness* of it. It is a project that reeks of being too in love with *precious* concepts like Pied Piper & Trickster as "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern" and Jimmy Olsen as the key to the DC Universe. These are precious, fan-fictiony sorts of plotlines that even hard-core DC continuity fans have a hard time swallowing...
[SNIP!]
... Gimmicks like "Female Robin," "Identity Crisis," "the great Giffen JLA massacre," "All-Star Batman," etc alienate long-time readers, drive parents away from the titles, and scoop up great short-term dividends.
The question is, what strategy is best for DC? Short-term "slash and burn" or longterm investment in old & new readers? Yes, killing off Kirby's New Gods in a much-hyped series will give you initial high sales. But then, you've slashed-and-burned your history. What do you do when your short-term is up?
The whole Identity-Crisis/Infinite Crisis/52/Countdown complex is a short-term enterprise that started out cool and interesting and went on too damn long. The fatal flaw with "Countdown" was that Didio did not realize his own short-term strategy, that he mistook it for something longterm.
Read the whole entry here (http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2007/08/countdown-to-change-after-reading.html).
Note: It's worth noting that D'Orazio didn't leave DC on good terms, since she was very much opposed to the decision to portray Dr. Light's sexual assault on Sue Dibny on-panel in
Identity Crisis (where she was an assistant editor) and she was also very critical of DC's handling of certain female characters. So while there's probably an element of "taking the piss out of a former employer" in her post, it's also not the case that she's just another fanboy (or fangirl, in this case) on a comics rant.
Yup, I've been saying the same thing for years. DC keeps trying to mimic Marvel's approach, and the only result is that they've lost their own strengths and unique identity. It's a real shame.
I can definitely agree with with her that Marvel is a lot more appealing to newer readers. DC complicates itself with all this multiverse mumbo-jumbo which pretty much leaves new readers looking like this: :wacko: :blink: :mellow: :huh: Wasn't the point of Infinite Crisis to simplify things and to help bring aboard new readers? Then at the end of 52 they bring back the multiverse to further complicate things :doh:. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I'm only reading Countdown right now so when a future DC titles interests me I won't be totally confused as to what's going on because I missed out on Countdown.
Truthfully, I kind of think both companies are fumbling with a majority of their books right now. They both still have some "must read" titles and events, but I honestly feel their selling themselves and their fans short right now...........eh, now I'm just ranting.....sorry. :banghead:
Seems a bit weird to point to Watchmen, Vertigo, DKR as "good" but to criticize the current comics as "too nasty" (and yes I'm paraphrasing heavily).
The "serious personality flaws" imposed on Watchmen's characters? Sociopath/killer the Comedian/Dr. Manhatten/Ozymandias/Rorschach, rapist the Comedian, amoral Dr.Manhatten etc. And Vertigo and DKR are hardly Julius Schwarz.
And if they try to revisit and build on past DC history its too "precious" and "fanboy-centric".
Seems like they can't win with her...
I think both big companies are pursuing short term strategies. I think that they always have. If cowboys are popular, we get cowboy comics, if kung fu movies are in, we get kung fu superheroes. They throw stuff out and if it sells they throw lots more (see new avengers, mighty avengers, young avengers, avengers initiative, avengers illuminati etc etc etc, or the eleventy billion xmen titles that have blighted the racks for the last 20 years).
Yes, countown is dragging a bit, but nowhere near as much as Bendis' glacially slow avengers rubbish. But rubbish sells. So thats what we get, and while it sells we'll get bucketfulls more.
Quote from: tommyboy on August 21, 2007, 04:10:03 PM
Seems a bit weird to point to Watchmen, Vertigo, DKR as "good" but to criticize the current comics as "too nasty" (and yes I'm paraphrasing heavily).
The "serious personality flaws" imposed on Watchmen's characters? Sociopath/killer the Comedian/Dr. Manhatten/Ozymandias/Rorschach, rapist the Comedian, amoral Dr.Manhatten etc. And Vertigo and DKR are hardly Julius Schwarz.
And if they try to revisit and build on past DC history its too "precious" and "fanboy-centric".
Seems like they can't win with her...
I might be reading things wrong here but I think her point was that Max Lord, Supergirl, Superboy, and Dr. Light weren't created with those personality flaws in mind, which makes their recent addition feel artificial and forced. The Watchmen, despite their roots in the Charlton characters, were meant from the outset to be grittier, darker takes on the superhero archetypes, so that feeling of attributes just being pasted on isn't there (and you could say the same for a good number of Vertigo characters/titles). I think the issue here is not that DC is doing dark and violent stories (since they've done them before and they can obviously do them well, as in the aforementioned Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns), but they're doing it using characters that weren't intended for that type of setting.
QuoteI think both big companies are pursuing short term strategies. I think that they always have. If cowboys are popular, we get cowboy comics, if kung fu movies are in, we get kung fu superheroes. They throw stuff out and if it sells they throw lots more
True. The creative short-sightedness and opportunism has resulted in a North American comics landscape full of superheroes and little else in terms of material (yes yes, I know there are good non-superhero "indie" comics out there but I'd go so far to say that a great majority of "indie" books are masturbatory vanity pieces in serious need of better art, proofreading, and editing), so much so that another industry collapse similar to what happened during the late 1990s (but in a smaller scale) could happen once the mainstream media's current infatuation with superheroes dies down.
Quote from: zuludelta on August 21, 2007, 04:37:19 PM
I might be reading things wrong here but I think her point was that Max Lord, Supergirl, Superboy, and Dr. Light weren't created with those personality flaws in mind, which makes their recent addition feel artificial and forced. The Watchmen, despite their roots in the Charlton characters, were meant from the outset to be grittier, darker takes on the superhero archetypes, so that feeling of attributes just being pasted on isn't there (and you could say the same for a good number of Vertigo characters/titles). I think the issue here is not that DC is doing dark and violent stories (since they've done them before and they can obviously do them well, as in the aforementioned Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns), but they're doing it using characters that weren't intended for that type of setting.
But the Watchmen characters always WERE intended to be spins on existing characters and archetypes, so all the "flaws" WERE added to existing characters. They were not "new" characters in any sense, any more than Dr. Light et al were. And isn't it a staple of comics post the 1980s to reinvent "harmless" characters as bad-bottoms, who we now are supposed to "take seriously"? It's usually accepted, if not applauded, and the tactic itself is not bad, though it's execution can be.
Now, I'm not arguing that Countdown is better than Watchmen or Sandman, but at least it feels like there IS a direction, a plan that DC is following, though people may dislike the multiverse.
Although it seems odd to me that DC is again criticized for an explicit Multiverse being too complex for new readers, but Marvel gets away with having 616 (and its multiversal counterparts as seen in Exiles, what if) etc, not to mention the Ultimate Universe, Manga Marvel, Max versions, etc etc. Again, it seems like one rule for DC and another for Marvel. Don't try to tell me that a reader looking at spider-man, Ultimate spider-man, spider-man Adventures, Manga spider-man isn't as confused as one trying to fathom DC's 52.
Quote from: tommyboy on August 21, 2007, 05:01:13 PM
Now, I'm not arguing that Countdown is better than Watchmen or Sandman, but at least it feels like there IS a direction, a plan that DC is following, though people may dislike the multiverse.
Although it seems odd to me that DC is again criticized for an explicit Multiverse being too complex for new readers, but Marvel gets away with having 616 (and its multiversal counterparts as seen in Exiles, what if) etc, not to mention the Ultimate Universe, Manga Marvel, Max versions, etc etc. Again, it seems like one rule for DC and another for Marvel. Don't try to tell me that a reader looking at spider-man, Ultimate spider-man, spider-man Adventures, Manga spider-man isn't as confused as one trying to fathom DC's 52.
It seems a lot of people I know dislike DC just because it
is DC and for no other reason.
Quote from: tommyboy on August 21, 2007, 05:01:13 PM
Although it seems odd to me that DC is again criticized for an explicit Multiverse being too complex for new readers, but Marvel gets away with having 616 (and its multiversal counterparts as seen in Exiles, what if) etc, not to mention the Ultimate Universe, Manga Marvel, Max versions, etc etc. Again, it seems like one rule for DC and another for Marvel. Don't try to tell me that a reader looking at spider-man, Ultimate spider-man, spider-man Adventures, Manga spider-man isn't as confused as one trying to fathom DC's 52.
The key difference, I think, is that DC is making a huge production out of having the multiverse, the whole conceit of Final Crisis and Countdown is built around the concept, giving the impression (whether right or wrong) that the structural details of what was once a convenient macguffin to explain multiple versions of the same characters are being treated with the same level of importance as the characters and stories themselves. There seems to be a serious disconnect between editorial and their readers. The Countdown series, meant to showcase the multiverse, has been losing store orders at an alarming rate (around a 15% drop-off between the months of May and June). Maybe readers like the multiverse, maybe they don't, who knows? What's clear though is that the idea of having a story about the multiverse as the centerpiece of a weekly series hasn't caught on, at least not enough to get people to buy the single issues.
I'm not going to out and out say that Marvel is doing a better job reconciling their multiple continuities (the last thing I want to happen is for this thread to devolve into a Marvel vs. DC arena) because what they've done is basically sidestep the issue (which does seem like a more tenable solution if DC's current approach is the alternative), but at least they haven't invested in a weekly event that seems to be on the decline sales-wise.
Quote from: tommyboy on August 21, 2007, 05:01:13 PM
Although it seems odd to me that DC is again criticized for an explicit Multiverse being too complex for new readers, but Marvel gets away with having 616 (and its multiversal counterparts as seen in Exiles, what if) etc, not to mention the Ultimate Universe, Manga Marvel, Max versions, etc etc. Again, it seems like one rule for DC and another for Marvel. Don't try to tell me that a reader looking at spider-man, Ultimate spider-man, spider-man Adventures, Manga spider-man isn't as confused as one trying to fathom DC's 52.
Yes, anyone would be confused by the multiverse EXCEPT with marvel, you quickly understand that something that happens in the manga or ultimate universe has no baring on the main universe and vice versa (excluding what if... and exiles in
rare cases). So Spider-man being a teenaged kid with a werewolf girlfriend in the ultimate universe and having dated kitty has no effect on 616 spider-man. However with DC, all those worlds/universe had an effect on each other and characters began to crossover, die off, meet, and replace each other like crazy at one point, but that's just my opinion.
I don't dislike DC, but I don't like it much either. I find it hard to keep up or even jump into a story sometimes just because of all the things I
thought I knew have been rewritten or retconned out of continuity (IE: Lex Luther) in the past few years.
I'm more than willing to give DC a shot, but I'm waiting on
Final Crisis to roll through and do whatever good or bad deeds it can do before I jump in again. But in reality, it'd be hard for a new reader to jump into any comic book, unless it's a new hero or whatever, without feeling lost unless they did research. You can't just jump into the middle of a story and think you know what's going on, so it's kinda the same deal with comics.
And...I'm rambling. End post.
[EDIT: This was written before tommy's last post]
Quote from: tommyboy on August 21, 2007, 05:01:13 PM
But the Watchmen characters always WERE intended to be spins on existing characters and archetypes
For about five minutes, maybe, until Dick Giordano pointed out (and Moore & Gibbons agreed) that the story would pretty much ruin the Charlton characters for any future use, and they went with new characters instead. Which ultimately made the story better, and freed Moore to do whatever he needed to do without having to worry about the long-term impact on Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, et. al.
QuoteAnd isn't it a staple of comics post the 1980s to reinvent "harmless" characters as bad-bottoms, who we now are supposed to "take seriously"?
Yes, it has become the default mode for superhero comics. Which is what the blogger (and I) are complaining about. It's repetitious, boring, and ill-suited to the classic DC characters.
QuoteAgain, it seems like one rule for DC and another for Marvel.
Which is exactly the point being made: What works for Marvel will not necessarily work for DC, and vice-versa.
Funny, I never had a problem with multiple universes. Then again, while I just did miss "Flash of Two Worlds", I did have a front row seat to the first JLA/JSA team up.
I don't think it's the proliferation of universes that is the problem; mostly it was just four or five that had all that much contact beyond a single story here and there. I bet most people follow that many different TV shows and don't find it confusing. I never heard of anyone having trouble keeping DC, Marvel, AGC, Harvey, MLJ, Western/Dell.Gold Key, Charlton, IW Supercomics, Gilberton, or any other comic company separate from the other. If you htink about it, each one counts as a separate universe, except for Western etc., and it counts as a whole BUNCH of universes (Disney, WB, MGM, Walter Lantz, Terrytoons, etc.).
It isn't so much the concepts, as they way they are handled. I gotten very few mainstream comics over the past few years, instead concentrating on getting older books that I read and enjoyed. Very few comics are aimed at my demographic, and haven't been for decades. And most companies are into short term strategies. Stan Lee was the first to figure out that he could write a comic book that didn't talk down to the reader, and possible keep them reading beyon the four or five years that was average, but still they figure that they can repeat stuff every few years and no one will notice except a few weirdos like me who have been reading the stuff since 1962.
And you can repeat yourself, without being repetitive. J.W. Campbell liked to publish "humanity uber alles" stories in Astounding/Analog. He published a lot of these stories, by Poul Anderson, G.R. Dickson, Eric Frank Russle, Robert Siverberg, and just about every other SF writer he could coax a story out of. But when you read Dickson's "Hour of the Horde", you can't tell that it's the same as Russel's "The Space Willies". That is because they aren't the same; they are two completely different treatments of a similar concept.
I think that the problem with both Marvel and DC is that they are trying to duplicate the success Marvel had, and the people running the show, by and large, haven't a clue as to how to do it. They are trying to do what they THINK Stan, Roy, Marv, Tony, David, Chris, Don, Archie, and other writers did, but instead of "doing" what they did (writing stories with new (for comics) concepts, putting new twists on old concepts, giving the reader action, adventure, entertainment), they are only making badly processed carbon copies. Yes, garbage sells, but you have to do new, ENTERTAINING garbage, or people will spend their hard earned money on DVD's, music downloads, movie tickets, or something else.
Regarding The Watchmen, Alan Moore didn't exactly come up with those character flaws out of whole cloth and stick them on the original Charlton characters. Most of them, he changed the backgrounds so much that the characters no longer had the original personalities of the source material. In some ways, especially Rorschach, he took some of the characteristics and pushed them as far as he could. Still, Captain Atom is NOT Dr. Manhattan, and neither Ted Kord nor any of the Dan Garettt Blue Beetles are either of the Niteowls.
I think the differece between DKR and Watchmen on the one hand, and many superhero tales now (from either company) is that while the former two were dark they had a comic, that is to say a happy ending. Batman comes back to life at the end of DKR, to continue his fight for justice, to teach others to do the same (I am discounting the sequal at the moment). In Watchmen, Nite Owl finds love, Silk Spectre finds forgiveness, The Comedian is redeemed (as much as he can be), Dr. Manhatten finds interest in life, and the world is at peace. Even Rorshach, it is hinted, might find justice. This doesn't overlook the fact that these endings are taited with ambivalence, but, by the same token, the amibivalence doesn't negate the fact that these are comic, in the traditional literary use of the term.
I find that stories now aere less comic in this sense. Was any character the better for Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis or Civil War? Has anybody been truly redeemed (Watchmen) or renewed(DKR)? Have the hereoes stopped a real threat to humanity? In Identity crisis, heroes were defending themselves from attack by villians (yes civilians got killed, but they were family of the heroes - not the faceless masses doomed to be wiped out of existence by the Anti-Monitor or Thanos or even by something as mundane as an atomic war between the US and the Soviets (again Watchmen and DKR). In Infinite Crisis, if Alex Luthor succeeded in reboot in the universe or multiverse or whatever - doesn't that mean, that evey body in existance is rebooted along with it? and Civil War - its heroes fighting heroes, over the possible threat that they might pose.
I don't think that comics need to have a silly or sappy happy ending. I didn't like the giffen era JLI. But the essential fantasy is to have the power to overcome the terrible and the tragic. That is what seems to be lost, in my opinion.
Deadpool and Squirrel Girl are the only reasons Marvel is beating DC. duh :P
Maybe the reason DC is having a hard time keeping up with Marvel is their inability to put out movies. I mean look at Marvel, good or bad they have been cranking out movie after movie. At the very least it makes people aware of the characters. DC has only been able to put out Superman Returns and Batman. All their other "projects" have been either sheleved or are in pre-production hell, which is sad since DC is connected to WB so it's not like they have to convince a studio to buy the property to maybe make a movie of it. Not saying it's the sole reason but it could be a contributing factor to why they are losing the teen demographic.
Good point. It might be more a matter of what DC's 'not doing' rather than what their doing wrong.
Heh. Very interesting- I don't agree at all, I think Marvel is the one tearing down its history for short term sales success (They've destroyed the very essence of their characters(Pete and Tony being the most egregious examples), the very thing that made them possible to exist as long term successes) with Civil War and the fallout from that. I do realize, that this is a minority opinion, not borne out by current sales. However, I remain convinced that as those who have become attached to the characters go back and read earlier appearances one of two things will happen:
1) They will get so disgusted as to how Marvel ruined their characters, they will stop buying Marvel
2) They will demand Marvel return to the core essence of those characters- leading to Marvels own versions of Infinite Crisis, et al.
I see DC as more a case of realizing what didn't work(Bart as the Flash- Bleech) Jettisoning it as fast as possible and returning to the core of what made their characters great. Did they have to go to a dark place to do that? Sure. But the Dark place was only a stop on the journey, not the destination.
Overall, Civil War/The initiative have caused me to STOP buying a great many Marvel titles and Infinite Crisis/52/Countdown have caused me to START buying a great many DC titles. So at least in my case, its clear which company is making the right moves.
(Now, I dont deny that they're a great deal of milking going on- I have no interest in Arena, for example; but I factored that out as both side are equally guilty of it.)
Just my opinion here but . . . in the past few years, I have gone from getting at least four Marvel titles and five DC titles per month to getting two DC titles and NO Marvel titles.
The reason is simple: Marvel is butchering their characters for the sole reason of a quick buck. I mean I use to be able to pick up Amazing spider-man and The Uncanny X-men and Captain America and find stories that were actually enjoyable with characters who I enjoyed following the stories of. However, the X titles have gone downhill ever since the Onslaught storyline (at least for me) and even bringing on celebrity fan-boy Joss Whedon couldn't make me want to pick that title up again. spider-man? A lot of people are going to probably balk at me for saying this but: THE CLONES WON! Ok, I am a little cynical there but it seems like everytime spider-man starts to get my interest again then something happens to quickly kill that thought. I keep feeling like we're going to get a really bad punchline any minute that says all of it has been a bad dream involving another Spidey clone. As for Cap . . . to say I was super eager when Caap was being sent over to the Marvel Knights imprint is an understatement. For a while, my main titles were Captain America, Daredevil, Elektra, and Amazing spider-man so that should make some sense. Howevevr, it doesn't seem that Marvel as a company . . . especially with Joe Q. at the helm cares about Captain America as a property and this is clearly evident by recent events.
Contrasting that with DC, the only reason I am not getting more DC titles right now is money. Well, money and the fact that I don't get to the comic shop as often as I would like so I am keeping the pull bin light. However, I've yet to be letdown by any Batman and Detective Comics story arc since before the "No Man's Land" saga. And knowing that DC seems to be heading in the direction of moving Bats toward a mix of the Silver Age of the 70s and the darker age of the late 80s and early 90s, I'm even more confident in the quality of those titles. The ability for DC to present a front as a company that says to their fan base that not only do they have a direction for their company but they are going to try to harness the best out of the past 30 years of so to continue the development of those characters and their stories does set them apart from Marvel. For the first time in that long, I think DC is on the track to making good on that goal. We will see in time, though.
Quote from: JKCarrier on August 21, 2007, 07:23:33 PM
Quote from: tommyboy on August 21, 2007, 05:01:13 PM
But the Watchmen characters always WERE intended to be spins on existing characters and archetypes
For about five minutes, maybe, until Dick Giordano pointed out (and Moore & Gibbons agreed) that the story would pretty much ruin the Charlton characters for any future use, and they went with new characters instead. Which ultimately made the story better, and freed Moore to do whatever he needed to do without having to worry about the long-term impact on Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, et. al.
Five minutes, five picoseconds, five centuries, doesn't matter. The Watchmen characters, the whole Watchmen concept was to take the existing superhero paradigm and archetypes and put a darker, more realistic spin on them. That is a fact, and one that contradicts the bloggers thesis that 80s = good, now = bad because now has darker characteristics "forced" onto existing characters.
Does anyone really think that Max Lord, Superboy Prime or Doctor Light were such brilliant, important characters that they should be forever sacrosanct?
Quote from: JKCarrier on August 21, 2007, 07:23:33 PM
QuoteAnd isn't it a staple of comics post the 1980s to reinvent "harmless" characters as bad-bottoms, who we now are supposed to "take seriously"?
Yes, it has become the default mode for superhero comics. Which is what the blogger (and I) are complaining about. It's repetitious, boring, and ill-suited to the classic DC characters.
Max Lord was always a shady character who bordered on villainy, Superboy Prime was pretty much nothing, Dr.Light was a joke. I'm not sure that "classic" covers any of them. And again, why is DKR's homicidal maniac Joker acceptable, but nothing in IC is?
Quote from: JKCarrier on August 21, 2007, 07:23:33 PM
QuoteAgain, it seems like one rule for DC and another for Marvel.
Which is exactly the point being made: What works for Marvel will not necessarily work for DC, and vice-versa.
So when Stan Lee copied the Justice League to create the Fantastic Four that didn't work?
When DC looked at the success of Xmen and revamped the Teen Titans under Wolfman/Perez that didn't work?
Both companies have always copied what was successful for the other company, and sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn't, but there is no inviolable law of physics that says neither can be infuenced by the other. And anyway, IC and recent DC editorial dictates actually seem to be moving DC away from the direction Marvel is moving in. I wouldn't say we are back to the Silver Age, but things are not as dark as they were in the years leading up to IC.
Quote from: doctorchallenger on August 21, 2007, 08:21:07 PM
.. Was any character the better for Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis or Civil War? Has anybody been truly redeemed (Watchmen) or renewed(DKR)? Have the hereoes stopped a real threat to humanity? In Identity crisis, heroes were defending themselves from attack by villians (yes civilians got killed, but they were family of the heroes - not the faceless masses doomed to be wiped out of existence by the Anti-Monitor or Thanos or even by something as mundane as an atomic war between the US and the Soviets (again Watchmen and DKR). In Infinite Crisis, if Alex Luthor succeeded in reboot in the universe or multiverse or whatever - doesn't that mean, that evey body in existance is rebooted along with it? and Civil War - its heroes fighting heroes, over the possible threat that they might pose.
I don't think that comics need to have a silly or sappy happy ending. I didn't like the giffen era JLI. But the essential fantasy is to have the power to overcome the terrible and the tragic. That is what seems to be lost, in my opinion.
Who was better or redeemed by Infinite Crisis?
Batman came out of IC as a more stable, lighter, more sociable character than the borderline sociopathic paranoid twisted Uber loner he was before.
Superman found a renewed sense of purpose and hope in IC
Wonder Woman found a new direction and strength.
Booster Gold went from an ineffectual one-joke character to a credible superhero
The JLA was reformed better and truer to its original conception than at any time since Morrison was writing.
The entire DCU is now more open to stories of whimsy and wonder than at any time since the original CoIE.
The ORIGINAL LSH is back, for set's sake!
As to what threat was averted in IC, lets ignore the obvious destruction of the whole planet and look at the war the supervillains of the DCU launched under the control of the Society.
Edit: found a way to say what I said in a lot less words. Ugh, I hate lengthy posts and avoid them whenever possible.
I think the point being made is not that DC tried to copy Marvel and that is bad because marvel is bad. DC tried to imitate marvel in some aspects and simply failed, they where way off the mark. And as the blog author say's, DC focused on the sensationalism instead of the character behind marvel. They exagerated the violence and the adult themes while not doing a thing about making the characters interesting. That's what makes books like the Irredimable Ant Man great (lots of character) and books like a lot of the old Rob Liefeld stuff bad, pure violence with no character. I mention Rob Liefeld since DC fans are inable to admit anything is wrong in their company but hate Liefeld, so they might be able to agree indirectly. And while most comic fans can take things with a grain of salt (its just comics) you see a lot of people from the other camp saying how evil Tony Stark is the end of marvel or captain dying is the end of marvel. Hardly...
But yeah, when it comes to comics and especially DC I feel the internet is full of "hamburger experts" who refuse to eat anything that's not a happy meal.
Just reminding everybody to take a few deep breaths before posting... my "Marvel vs. DC" sense is tingling here :)... not that I want any self-censorship going on, but we all know that "my brand is better than your brand" posts don't really lead anywhere we want to go.
Quote from: tommyboy on August 22, 2007, 03:38:15 AMAnd again, why is DKR's homicidal maniac Joker acceptable, but nothing in IC is?
DKR and Watchmen seem to be referenced quite a bit as instances where DC has done dark and gritty particularly well and I don't dispute that at all. My stand on the topic of dark, violent, gritty, and "adult" superhero comics is that they're entertaining material if done well (Watchmen is one of my favourites of all-time, and I read Punisher MAX), but my own response to IC was that it was a poorly handled attempt at a decidedly more mature-themed superhero story.
The blogger does give off mixed signals (she praises Watchmen and DKR but seems to paint all other recent dark and gritty DC comics with the same brush) and she's clearly convinced that the problem is with editorial and managerial handling at DC. I think it's more of a problem with the actual execution and the writing talent that they have onboard.
I wouldn't mind a darker, grittier DC universe at all but the comics have to sell me on the idea, and they just aren't working for me. At the same time, I'm not sure if a return to the somewhat naive (for lack of a better term) disposition of the Silver Age is a good alternative, as it would just be more recycling in an already incestuous creative field. I don't know what the fix is (aside from the ridiculous solution of adjusting my own personal tastes to suit the current DC material) but I do know that the last DCU-branded contemporary material I sincerely enjoyed were the Teen Titans and JLU cartoons, and these were neither grim and gritty reinterpretations of established characters nor projects that relied too heavily on nostalgia to deliver engaging, and more importantly, entertaining superhero-based entertainment.
Quote from: lugaru on August 22, 2007, 04:09:28 AMI mention Rob Liefeld since DC fans are inable to admit anything is wrong in their company but hate Liefeld, so they might be able to agree indirectly.
OH NOES!!! You just offended the Liefeld contingent! How many posts before a proxy defender raids this thread?!? :lol:
Quote from: tommyboy on August 22, 2007, 03:38:15 AM
Five minutes, five picoseconds, five centuries, doesn't matter. The Watchmen characters, the whole Watchmen concept was to take the existing superhero paradigm and archetypes and put a darker, more realistic spin on them. That is a fact, and one that contradicts the bloggers thesis that 80s = good, now = bad because now has darker characteristics "forced" onto existing characters.
The Watchmen were not pre-existing characters. They are loosely inspired by the Charlton heroes, but they are not the same. By creating new characters, Moore could tell a story with a beginning, middle, and END, without having to worry about whether the characters could be used again. Likewise, DKR was a "What If", set in the future, so that Miller could write an apocalyptic final battle that could never happen in regular continuity. In a finite story, you can do pretty much anything you want; with an ongoing franchise, you have to have at least some concern for the ongoing viability of the characters. The "concept" of Watchmen is that superheroes could never exist in the real world -- they would either be ineffectual losers (Rorschach, Nite Owl), or gods who lose touch with humanity (Dr. Manhattan; see also, Miracleman). DKR is much the same: Batman realizes that he can no longer exist in a darker, grittier, world, and so reinvents himself as a plainclothes guerrilla fighter (never mind the sequel). DC is trying to cash in on the success of those books by applying the same approach to their regular line, but it doesn't work, because the logical end result is: Superheroes can't exist in the real world. Which is fine for a finite story, but you can't build an ongoing franchise around it.
QuoteAnd again, why is DKR's homicidal maniac Joker acceptable, but nothing in IC is?
Because DKR is a one-off "What If", not "The blueprint for the whole DC line".
QuoteSo when Stan Lee copied the Justice League to create the Fantastic Four that didn't work?
Lee and Kirby were told to imitate JLA, but they didn't. The books are nothing alike. They took the vague concept of "a team of superheroes" and came up with something brilliantly original.
QuoteWhen DC looked at the success of Xmen and revamped the Teen Titans under Wolfman/Perez that didn't work?
Not for me, it didn't. That one WAS a blatant rip-off, and pretty much marks the "jump the shark" moment when DC gave in to their Marvel-envy.
(Incidentally, this isn't a zero-sum game... just because I'm criticizing DC doesn't mean I think Marvel is awesome and perfect. They're making plenty of boneheaded moves too. The Spider-Man franchise, for instance, is a train wreck. And while there was the nugget of an interesting idea behind Civil War, the results have been awful.)
JKC,
In what sense can the Watchmen characters be thought of as "new"? Do you really believe that Alan Moore couldn't do better than to rip-off the Charlton heroes if he wanted "new" characters? They wanted to use existing characters because of the extra impact it gave the story, just like DKR is about Batman because if Miller made up a new character for it, the story loses most of its impact.
And I think that your distinction of "self-contained" Watchmen or "what-if" DKR are a bit disingenuous, or at least confusing. ALL comic books are finite, self-contained stories, no matter how long lived they are. Watchmen was 12 issues, others have hundreds of issues, but all COULD be regarded as a "single self contained story", so that distinction doesn't hold for me. As for DKR as "what if?", so Detective Comics is a documentary based on real, true events?
I think it perfectly fair to say Watchmen and DKR are much better comics than the current attempts to revisit those themes, that you like them more than Infinite Crisis etc.
But I find these convoluted "rules" by which people attempt to draw lines around what is or is not acceptable as subject matter, themes or approaches to mainstream characters to be bizarre. It's OK in DKR because that is "imaginary", and its OK in Watchmen because its "self contained", but DKR isn't "self-contained", so why is it exempt from the criticism the current DC comics get? And Watchmen isnt a "what if" so why is it exempt?
There are no categories of comics where it's OK for a writer to do X but not Y. There is good writing and bad writing, and there is writing we subjectively enjoy or otherwise. I might feel some writers write badly, but aknowledge that others enjoy them, and thats OK.
It's valid for those writers to do what they do, and it's valid for DC's writers to follow some of the same themes that Moore, Miller and Gaiman introduced, because Grodd knows, every other comics company has been for the last twenty years.
Likewise I dont think that "Marvel has to do comics of type X and DC has to do comics of type Y because otherwise it doesn't work". I find that absurd, and have yet to see any facts or reasoning that supports or documents what sort of story cannot be written about Batman but is OK for spider-man, or vice versa. That sort of reductive pigeon-holing is part of the reasons why the super hero genre has often been a stunted, narrow, repetetive genre. And its exactly what hundreds of creators have tried to break away from, and should continue to do so.
Yes, there have been mis-steps, mistakes and errors of taste and judgement by DC in the past five years or so. But for me personally, I'm now interested in the JLA, JSA, LSH and Teen Titans where six years ago I wasn't, particularly. both companies put out some books I like at the moment, and some I dislike, and even more that I simply ignore. I dont think that now is either a new golden age, nor is it necessarily Ragnarok for comics.
Quote from: tommyboy on August 22, 2007, 08:14:30 AM
There are no categories of comics where it's OK for a writer to do X but not Y. There is good writing and bad writing, and there is writing we subjectively enjoy or otherwise...
... Likewise I dont think that "Marvel has to do comics of type X and DC has to do comics of type Y because otherwise it doesn't work".
I certainly agree with you on these points. Still, DC's current creative direction has led to stories that just aren't very appealing to me personally, and I'm perceiving an air of homogeneity in the greater in-continuity DCU (although what I see as bland homogeneity is most probably perceived as a sense of consistency by the people who currently enjoy the books DC publishes). I guess we just expect different things from our comics-reading experiences.
Quote from: tommyboy on August 22, 2007, 08:14:30 AM
JKC,
In what sense can the Watchmen characters be thought of as "new"?
In the sense that they didn't exist before Moore & Gibbons created them.
QuoteDo you really believe that Alan Moore couldn't do better than to rip-off the Charlton heroes if he wanted "new" characters?
Moore does this sort of thing all the time. Tom Strong is inspired by Doc Savage. Greyshirt is The Spirit with the serial numbers filed off. Top 10 is jam-packed with "homage" characters.
QuoteAnd I think that your distinction of "self-contained" Watchmen or "what-if" DKR are a bit disingenuous, or at least confusing. ALL comic books are finite, self-contained stories, no matter how long lived they are.
When I talk about a finite story, I mean one that has a definite ending. The ongoing frachise books don't have an ending. Even if the series is cancelled, the characters are killed off, etc., you know they'll eventually turn up again. If Watchmen or Dark Knight had been awful, it would have had no impact beyond those books. But something like Identity Crisis has repercussions that negatively impact the entire DC line. It took DC a decade to reverse the damage done to Hal Jordan by "Emerald Twilight". 20 years later, the Legion is still struggling from having their history yanked out from under them by Byrne's Superman reboot. That doesn't mean that franchise writers shouldn't try bold things, but they should be aware that if they screw up, it affects multiple titles over a long period, because of the way these shared universes work.
QuoteBut I find these convoluted "rules" by which people attempt to draw lines around what is or is not acceptable as subject matter, themes or approaches to mainstream characters to be bizarre.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not laying down rules in the sense of "Thou shalt never try this". I'm looking at the flow of sewage coming from the DC offices and trying to figure out where they went wrong. This is diagnostics, not prior restraint. They tried it, it's not working for me, now I want them to try something else instead.
Quote from: JKCarrier on August 22, 2007, 09:54:25 AM
You misunderstand my point. I'm not laying down rules in the sense of "Thou shalt never try this". I'm looking at the flow of sewage coming from the DC offices and trying to figure out where they went wrong. This is diagnostics, not prior restraint. They tried it, it's not working for me, now I want them to try something else instead.
Which is fair enough.
(Even though it has worked for me, to some extent).
You see......when I conquer the earth I shall make myself head of Marvel and DC, then all of these problems will go away........
Anyroad, you all have heard my thoughts on these issues enough to be tired of them. Suffice to say that I think a few rules would stand them in good stead, provided they were the right ones.
Quote from: tommyboy on August 22, 2007, 08:14:30 AM
In what sense can the Watchmen characters be thought of as "new"? Do you really believe that Alan Moore couldn't do better than to rip-off the Charlton heroes if he wanted "new" characters? They wanted to use existing characters because of the extra impact it gave the story ...
And yet, they chose not to do that.
And you know what? I think Watchmen is vastly
better for not being about Captain Atom, the Question, Blue Beetle, and a bunch of lesser-known Charlton characters. That's because the Watchman characters were allowed to breathe and develop on their own without the unecessary baggage of the Charlton heroes hanging over their heads.
Going with the Charlton heroes would have introduced uneeded complications. For one thing, you'd get tons of fanboy complaints--"Captain Atom can't grow to be 500 feet tall, clone himself, or create life," "There was no Charlton superhero group in the 40s," "Charlton never actually published Phantom Lady," etc. Some of those complaints would have been nitpicks, but others would have been valid: the Watchmen characters had very different personalities. In the Charlton-verse Ted Kord wasn't middle-aged and plagued with self-doubt, Captain Atom wasn't emotionless and all-powerful, and the Question wasn't a mental case, etc. Going with new characters gave Moore latitude the reader would never have granted him with established characters while still drawing on the reader's recognition of certain superhero archetypes. (It also allowed him to add in other archetypes he couldn't have used going the straight Charlton route, e.g. the Nick Fury-inspired Comedian.)
For an example of how using Charlton characters would have made Moore's work harder, take Adrian Veidt, the crux of the plot. In the story, Adrian is the world's smartest man, and he's fabulously wealthy, famous and successful. He's Harrison Ford, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, and David Beckham all rolled into one.
His character wouldn't have worked nearly as well if Watchmen had used Charlton characters. That's because Adrian would instead have been Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt. There's a couple of problems with that. First, no one knows who Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt is. Second and more importantly,
even people who do know don't care about Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt. Using a pre-existing character just wouldn't have any impact: fanboys would have said, "Why are they using that fourth stringer, and why are better-known guys like Blue Beetle and Question having such a hard time with him?"
Here's a cool interview with Moore on the evolution of the Watchmen idea (at one point he wanted to use the MLJ characters!)
http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html
And info on Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt:
http://www.toonopedia.com/t-bolt.htm
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 22, 2007, 10:22:30 AM
You see......when I conquer the earth I shall make myself head of Marvel and DC, then all of these problems will go away........
Anyroad, you all have heard my thoughts on these issues enough to be tired of them. Suffice to say that I think a few rules would stand them in good stead, provided they were the right ones.
That and Superman will fight the hulk annually.
All I've got to add is the idea that people kept saying "I'm boycotting marvel because this or that ritch detailed character is acting out of character". And obviosly that's not what most people are doing since sales still beat DC 10 out of 12 months. On the other hand when a DC character goes psycho people seem to say "well, after all these years I feel like I never knew him, I guess this is what he was all along".
Haha, not me Lugaru, I've dropped every DC and Marvel book except Aquaman and JLU.........and it kills me! They're both badly mismanaging their respective charges........although Marvel does have an entire line of Marvel Adventures comics, and I am seriously considering picking them up......if only their Avengers line had Giant MAN instead of Giant Woman...........
Quote from: lugaru on August 24, 2007, 04:39:01 AM
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 22, 2007, 10:22:30 AM
You see......when I conquer the earth I shall make myself head of Marvel and DC, then all of these problems will go away........
Anyroad, you all have heard my thoughts on these issues enough to be tired of them. Suffice to say that I think a few rules would stand them in good stead, provided they were the right ones.
That and Superman will fight the hulk annually.
All I've got to add is the idea that people kept saying "I'm boycotting marvel because this or that ritch detailed character is acting out of character". And obviosly that's not what most people are doing since sales still beat DC 10 out of 12 months. On the other hand when a DC character goes psycho people seem to say "well, after all these years I feel like I never knew him, I guess this is what he was all along".
that's not what you're saying at all. it sounds more like you are trying start up a "my company is better that your company" arguement. The biggest reason that Marvel does outsell DC like you mentioned has nothing to do with the writing or the art of the comic, it's the marketing. Marvel does a better job of marketing a wider variety of their characters and titles to a larger audience. They manage to get more out there into the mainstream market. Even when movies like Daredevil, Blade, Ghost Rider, and Elektra "flop", they still get exposure to mainstream audiences that they didn't have previously. What happens then? Marvel can draw up interest for their comics and increase their profit through liscensing. Another factor: One of the most recent times I went to the comic shop I get my comics from, the owner agressively tried to shove an assortment of Marvel titles onto me as though he was getting some sort of incentive to push the sales of those comics.
No one is going to make a valid arguement that either company is without flaws. Rather those flaws are related to the handling of characters, issues with the way characters get handled in marketing, or the general business practice of the company, both companies have their flaws. However, for all that being said, Marvel still has an editor who allows writers to take certain liberties with characters and with content that really was unnecessary. And I am not including the work of Brian Bendis in that thought. And as someone who grew up as a fan of Captain America, spider-man and Daredevil, I personally find Quesada's handling of those properties (not to mention Bendis' writing of Daredevil and spider-man and for that matter his writing of Cap in New Avengers as being the equivalent of casting of Keanu Reeves as John Constantine).
I am equally disturbed by several things with DC. However, this is more from things that arose during the 90s and not anything recent. I stuck with the Batman and Detective Comics titles through the Cataclysm storyline and No Man's Land storyline and I still wonder sometimes why I did. It is also from DC's penchance to say they are promoting their big three but no even making it to their third. They seem to have a marketing department that doesn't know how to promote certain DC properties rather than one that promotes characters badly.
Slightly off topic and responding to an earlier comment about movies and marketing, but I'd love to see more DC-inspired movies. DC is more than just Superman and Batman, just as Marvel is more than X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man.
The big problem is likely going to be brand-recognition among younger viewers/readers. It seems like every little kid (and adult) on the planet knows -something- about Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man even if they've never read the comic books or seen the movies. So those are naturals from a marketing perspective.
Justice League just doesn't have that same level of recognition, and that's a shame. But Flash and Green Lantern are both well-known enough to pull off as movies, and I think they should. I'd go see Flash just for the F/X, and they could take GL in a SciFi direction that would work.
Wonder Woman is also a major, known character but it's going to be hard to get past a preconception of Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman in the minds of guys my age and aside from that the level of recognition isn't going to be very high. The only road to take with her, marketing-wise, is extreme butt-kicking babe with a lot of skin showing. And that has its' own problems.
Another problem is that WW doesn't have a terribly marketable insignia to plaster all over items like the rest of the major characters (Big-S, Bat, Spider, Lightning Bolt, Green Lantern, etc), and you won't get it without breaking her "classic" look.
The other real issue is that the really marketable heroes ALSO have VERY recognizable Rogues' Galleries. DC needs to really hype some of the other heroes' bad guys and make them more marketable. Think Batman and a number of bad guys come to mind, though Joker is at the top of the list. Think Spider-Man and you get a long, long list of bad guys. Think X-Men and you get Magneto, which explains why all of the X-Men movies have him in it. Think Superman and the name Lex Luthor comes up, which is why (nearly) all of the Superman movies feature Lex Luthor as the bad guy. Think Flash and you get... uh. Okay, try Green Lantern. Hm. See what I mean?
Quote from: BlueBard on August 24, 2007, 10:30:04 AM
Slightly off topic and responding to an earlier comment about movies and marketing, but I'd love to see more DC-inspired movies. DC is more than just Superman and Batman, just as Marvel is more than X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man.
The big problem is likely going to be brand-recognition among younger viewers/readers. It seems like every little kid (and adult) on the planet knows -something- about Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man even if they've never read the comic books or seen the movies. So those are naturals from a marketing perspective.
Justice League just doesn't have that same level of recognition, and that's a shame. But Flash and Green Lantern are both well-known enough to pull off as movies, and I think they should. I'd go see Flash just for the F/X, and they could take GL in a SciFi direction that would work.
Wonder Woman is also a major, known character but it's going to be hard to get past a preconception of Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman in the minds of guys my age and aside from that the level of recognition isn't going to be very high. The only road to take with her, marketing-wise, is extreme butt-kicking babe with a lot of skin showing. And that has its' own problems.
Another problem is that WW doesn't have a terribly marketable insignia to plaster all over items like the rest of the major characters (Big-S, Bat, Spider, Lightning Bolt, Green Lantern, etc), and you won't get it without breaking her "classic" look.
The other real issue is that the really marketable heroes ALSO have VERY recognizable Rogues' Galleries. DC needs to really hype some of the other heroes' bad guys and make them more marketable. Think Batman and a number of bad guys come to mind, though Joker is at the top of the list. Think Spider-Man and you get a long, long list of bad guys. Think X-Men and you get Magneto, which explains why all of the X-Men movies have him in it. Think Superman and the name Lex Luthor comes up, which is why (nearly) all of the Superman movies feature Lex Luthor as the bad guy. Think Flash and you get... uh. Okay, try Green Lantern. Hm. See what I mean?
have to agree with you and diagree with you on a few points here:
- Wonder Woman does have an emblem just not one that she wears on her actual uniform. The WW emblem has been used to market some Wonder Woman merchidise in the past. Here is a version of it: http://www.buckleshop.com/gt24_small.jpg (http://www.buckleshop.com/gt24_small.jpg)
- Flash, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman all have at least somewhat of a Rogue Gallery. The Flash's even have formed a group called The Rogues. Flash has Captain Cold, Heatwave, Professor Zoom, The Reverse Flash, Trickster, Mirror Master, The Pied Piper to name a few. Green Lantern has Sinestro, Hector Hammond, Star Sapphire, Eclipso, Effigy and Parralax amongst others. Granted the only Wonder Woman ones I can think of are Cheetah, Ares, Circe, and Giganta. I do get your point but it may be stretching it a bit to say that none of them are memorable. The bigger problem with The Flash's Rogue Gallery is that none of his villains could really sustain a movie as a one main villain of the film without looking cheesy and getting perhaps a bit trite without some liberties being taken with the character. This would raise the ire of fanboys everywhere.
- However, I think you're dead on over all. That was my point in my last point. DC doesn't do as much to market their characters as Marvel does and they should be. This is one of the major short comings of DC as a company and it translates to their comic sales. The "brand recognition" of a character or group of characters will help boost the sales. It will also help sell merchandise and bring the company profit.
- No, I don't think the Lynda Carter would be a hinderance to the preconception or image of Wonder Woman anymore than Adam West playing Batman. I could go out and cast Wonder Woman TODAY if I was asked to and do a job on it that would make you forget Lynda Carter all together if the rest of the story elements were in place.
- And no, you don't have to make Wonder Woman the "extreme butt-kicking babe with a lot of skin showing". You could argue that it would help. It's defeinitely been a part of her costume over the years. However, it can be gotten around. As for the extreme butt-kicking part, Woman Woman should be shown as being a warrior and a fighter but also be shown as more than that.
- By that same regards, Green Latern would need to be an almost epic sci-fi military/space film on some levels, particularly with regards to FX.
- The Flash, while being FX laden, would be what? A crime drama? Straight up action? What? That's one of the inherent problems with doing a Flash film.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 24, 2007, 12:26:15 PM
Have to agree with you and diagree with you on a few points here:
- Wonder Woman does have an emblem just not one that she wears on her actual uniform. The WW emblem has been used to market some Wonder Woman merchidise in the past. Here is a version of it: http://www.buckleshop.com/gt24_small.jpg (http://www.buckleshop.com/gt24_small.jpg)
- Flash, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman all have at least somewhat of a Rogue Gallery. The Flash's even have formed a group called The Rogues. Flash has Captain Cold, Heatwave, Professor Zoom, The Reverse Flash, Trickster, Mirror Master, The Pied Piper to name a few. Green Lantern has Sinestro, Hector Hammond, Star Sapphire, Eclipso, Effigy and Parralax amongst others. Granted the only Wonder Woman ones I can think of are Cheetah, Ares, Circe, and Giganta. I do get your point but it may be stretching it a bit to say that none of them are memorable. The bigger problem with The Flash's Rogue Gallery is that none of his villains could really sustain a movie as a one main villain of the film without looking cheesy and getting perhaps a bit trite without some liberties being taken with the character. This would raise the ire of fanboys everywhere.
- However, I think you're dead on over all. That was my point in my last point. DC doesn't do as much to market their characters as Marvel does and they should be. This is one of the major short comings of DC as a company and it translates to their comic sales. The "brand recognition" of a character or group of characters will help boost the sales. It will also help sell merchandise and bring the company profit.
- No, I don't think the Lynda Carter would be a hinderance to the preconception or image of Wonder Woman anymore than Adam West playing Batman. I could go out and cast Wonder Woman TODAY if I was asked to and do a job on it that would make you forget Lynda Carter all together if the rest of the story elements were in place.
- And no, you don't have to make Wonder Woman the "extreme butt-kicking babe with a lot of skin showing". You could argue that it would help. It's defeinitely been a part of her costume over the years. However, it can be gotten around. As for the extreme butt-kicking part, Woman Woman should be shown as being a warrior and a fighter but also be shown as more than that.
- By that same regards, Green Latern would need to be an almost epic sci-fi military/space film on some levels, particularly with regards to FX.
- The Flash, while being FX laden, would be what? A crime drama? Straight up action? What? That's one of the inherent problems with doing a Flash film.
WW's Emblem... yes, now that I see a picture of it, I recognize it. But back to my point that it isn't universally recognizable to anyone but comic book fans.
Rogues' Galleries... Never said they weren't memorable... I said recognizable, as in mass-market recognizable. To work in a feature film, you need to have either an original villain with 'oomph', a villain that's immediately associated with the hero across generations of fans, or an original take on a villain that's less recognizable and really good casting. (such as Ras Al Ghul/Liam Neeson in Batman Begins).
Of course, a recognizable Rogues' Gallery can also be a curse... like the Batman movies that threw in villains just for the heck of it with big-name stars badly cast and implausible storylines trying to ride along on fanboy recognition, if not fanboy appeal.
The 'formula' of super-hero films tends to involve origin fairly heavily, at least in the first film. GL tends to suffer in that regard. You have to pick one, first of all. Hal, Guy, or Kyle? Or do you blend the three? Not insurmountable, you just have to make it more interesting than an alien handing a guy a ring so you need a writer that 'gets' the character.
I'd love to know who you'd cast as Wonder Woman. She has to be buff, built, beautiful and a good actress. And let's not forget presence.
A Flash film... Hm. Well, he's the Fastest Man Alive, literally lightning fast. If you really take that to its' logical extension, then nobody can lay a glove on him mano y mano or it's not really believable. Or you have to tone down the speed angle a tad. The bad guys have to be really, really smart and it has to come down to Flash being smarter and more resourceful than the bad guys. I'd say a blend of crime drama and scifi action would fit, with the right story.
Oh, for the record... I don't consider Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman a hindrance to a proper modern portrayal. True the TV series was a bit on the campy side, but the woman herself was believable in the role, both in looks and in presence. The problem will be finding someone that makes me forget all about Lynda Carter. But then I don't suppose Hollywood is too worried about that.
The first thing I would do is cast Lynda Carter as Hippolyta. Then, cast an unknown as Wonder Woman. The biggest issue with casting Wonder Woman is that Warner Brother might be afraid of casting a "buff, built female" in the role because they'd be afraid of her being perceived as beautiful or not. I'd start with some open auditions outside of LA and I would definitely look at some more European flavored actresses. As for villains, I would use Circe and Artemis, with Artemis being betrayed by Circe in the end and indirectly helping Diana but not joining her. You could reference Ares but only in that he is The God of War.
To me, The GL film would be the easiest of the films to do. Well, once you decided how to handle the issue of there being so many "recognizable Green Lanterns", it would be. True, Hal was first but as many people probably know John Stewart from the series and Kyle Rayner from more recent comics, not to mention Alan Scott. Guy Gardner would barely become a factor.
That would make The Flash the hardest of the films to make.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 24, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
To me, The GL film would be the easiest of the films to do. Well, once you decided how to handle the issue of there being so many "recognizable Green Lanterns", it would be. True, Hal was first but as many people probably know John Stewart from the series and Kyle Rayner from more recent comics, not to mention Alan Scott. Guy Gardner would barely become a factor.
on that note to me a gl movie should always focus on hal, at least for the set up his story works best as an origin with abin sur. at the end while saying goodbye to the mandatory love interest. have kilowog appear via the ring telling him he has to transport some new recruits to Oa, then having cameos of guy, kyle and john. then the sequal could have any of them or even better become an army type movie with them as a unit
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on August 24, 2007, 03:28:52 PM
even better become an army type movie with them as a unit
I absolutely love that idea :wub:
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 24, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
The first thing I would do is cast Lynda Carter as Hippolyta.
To me, that's almost a no-brainer. It's always nice when a new version of something makes a respectful nod to a previous *good* version of it, such as having Lou Ferigno in the Hulk movie, and most of the surviving cast members of Lost In Space appear in it's new movie (having Adam West, Burt Ward, or any other member of that series in any Batman movie would *not* be a good example). It helps tie it in with some people, it tends to make the fanboys happy, it's good for trivia, and it can be good PR.
Quote from: Mr. HamrickTo me, The GL film would be the easiest of the films to do. Well, once you decided how to handle the issue of there being so many "recognizable Green Lanterns", it would be. True, Hal was first but as many people probably know John Stewart from the series and Kyle Rayner from more recent comics, not to mention Alan Scott. Guy Gardner would barely become a factor.
I have to go with TUE on this one; The first movie should focus on Hal. He's a *much* more recognizable Lantern (I doubt you could find a comic reader that *doesn't* know who he is, but knows of *other* Lanterns). I think mashing them together would be a bad idea. Any subsequent movies (one can hope ^_^) could be about Hal, or another Lantern, or feature one or more other Lanterns, with Hal in the background somehow (mentor/leader position?)
Quote from: Mr. HamrickThat would make The Flash the hardest of the films to make.
I disagree. I do agree that Flash has few, if no, regular foes that could carry a movie. However, a couple easy options come to mind. As much as I hate to mention it, it might be best to have a main villain directing one or two minor (from the movie's standpoint) villains. There's no need to have a *huge* throwdown at the end.....he can always capture & incarcerate one or two on his way to tracking down the "mastermind". As you pointed out, it would have to be an intelligence thing, which brings to mind Gorilla Grodd. Granted, making the whole intelligent, talking, mentally powered gorilla idea work in the first movie, with no real intro, is a bit of an obstacle. Another option could be Abra-Kadabra (I think that was the name of the "magician" from the future....can't be bothered to look it up at the moment). The whole future aspect almost automatically implies access to vast amount of intel, as well as plenty of time (no pun intended) to gather info & plan the "gig". Boomerang, Cold, and/or Mirror Master all come to mind to work with/for the former, while Professor Zoom almost seems an obvious choice for the latter, as well as giving Flash more of a physical challenge. Whether to feature it as a Barry movie or a Wally movie is almost a toss-up at this point. I think you'd get about 50/50 recognition with either one. But I think the whole "speed force" thing should be left out, at least at first......it's maybe a bit too much to ask casual movie goers to absorb some sort of Unified Theory of Speedsters. ;)
While I have not enjoyed it when DC has killed off characters for no reason, it is in my opinion, that DC has been doing a better job this past year.
-MJB
Quote from: Panther_Gunn on August 24, 2007, 06:34:12 PM
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 24, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
The first thing I would do is cast Lynda Carter as Hippolyta.
To me, that's almost a no-brainer. It's always nice when a new version of something makes a respectful nod to a previous *good* version of it, such as having Lou Ferigno in the Hulk movie, and most of the surviving cast members of Lost In Space appear in it's new movie (having Adam West, Burt Ward, or any other member of that series in any Batman movie would *not* be a good example). It helps tie it in with some people, it tends to make the fanboys happy, it's good for trivia, and it can be good PR.
I don't have a problem with the voices in the Batman animated series.
Well Amazons Attack is really striving to bring DC's average down. Sinestro Corps seems all right, but AA was a steaming pile.
my two cents:
lets just forget about AA and prepare ourselves for gail Simone's run
looks like the real aquaman is coming back :)
today's titans was good {now if they could just bring back conner )
I have faith in Mc Duffie :thumbup:
I hope everybody dies in titans east special (except cyborg )
give me back my batgirl (cassie)
but overall I things are finally getting better
Didn't Blade start the new trend of comic movies? And how many people do you think heard of Marvel Comics Blade before that movie? It was a very well done movie which let word of mouth get around to everyone.
Alright...I'm going to jump on the board here with a bit of history that might be consiered in the vein of this thread. If one can remember back to teh Golden Age of Comics, ye'll notice that DC's original Batman carried a gun and often slaughtered his villians in less than two or three episodes, Superman was known to be a racist and slightly less than stable mentally, the Joker was a true homicidal killer before becoming a clown, and Wonder Woman usually was just a reason to wrap women in ropes. As for Marvel, Captain America and Bucky often slaughtered random Nazis with machine guns, Namor drowned dozens with water and the Human Torch burned criminals to death. So really the idea of Dr Light as a rapist, Maxwell Lord as a sociopath and Superboy as a nut job is really nothing new. Just a retread of the old when ye really get down to it on all sides. Okay...that's my history lesson and all I will say on DC and Marvel anymore...because if I say more...well...it would be a major rant that would piss half of everyone off!
Quote from: Deaths Jester on August 31, 2007, 09:30:04 AM
DC's original Batman carried a gun and often slaughtered his villians
I can think of exactly 3 golden age stories where Batman uses a gun:
Against vampires (Detective #32)
To destroy a death-ray machine (Detective #33)
Against giant mutants (Batman #1)
Batman does kill a number of enemies in the first year or two, but every example I can recall is clearly a case of self-defense, rather than "slaughter".
QuoteSuperman was known to be a racist and slightly less than stable mentally
I would like to see a citation on that one. It's true that a lot of comics had an unfortunate tendency to demonize the Japanese during World War II.
Your other examples are more-or-less true, though somewhat hyperbolic. In any event, I'm not sure how the existence of sadism and racism in some '40s comics somehow excuses similar excesses in the 21st century.
Superman #1, he yanks a bad guy out of his plane and pitches him over the horizon. I don't know if you can consider him as unstable because of this, but he certainly acted as though he was above the law. he was much more of a Nietzschean vision of the Ubermensch in his early appearences. This makes sense as Seigel was very influenced by the work of Philip Wylie. as far as racism, I don't know if could be considered any more or less racist then the white mainstream of American thought at the time. You have to remember that the most positive image of any non-caucasian was Crimson Avenger's side kick, Wing or the Blackhawk's Chop-Chop. There is a Slam Bradley story I've seen by Seigel and Schuster where Slam is tossing around a bunch of Chinese, portrayed in very stereotypical "coolie" garb. I don't know if there were similar stories in Superman.
The comics came under criticism very early, way before Fredric Wertham jumped on board, and the industry tempered the more "Nietzschean" elements by the time of the start of the war. This was particularly true of DC, because the owner Harry Donenfeld wanted to distance DC from his pulp business which was particularly lurid and under heavy criticism. True the industry tended to de-humanize the Japanese more then the Germans or Italians, but this too was largely consistant with the tenor of the times. Not that it makes it right.
For a good account, I highly recommend Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow.
Quote from: doctorchallenger on August 31, 2007, 02:10:50 PMTrue the industry tended to de-humanize the Japanese more then the Germans or Italians, but this too was largely consistant with the tenor of the times. Not that it makes it right.
I've always attributed this to factors. One: As white European-Americans we identified culturally much more closely with Germans, Italians, what-have-you, while the Japanese where different enough for the xenophobia to set in that much easier. (This has already been eluded to.) Secondly, I think that because the Japanese where more different "racially" it made them much easier to characterize. Not that the other Axis powers didn't get their fair share of this too, but not generally to the same extent.
One thing that's bothering me with the current DC direction is how much they've mishandled the Wildstorm imprint. The supposed "relaunch" is horrible... Wetworks is slated to be canceled along with the Christos Gage-penned Stormwatch:PHD and the WildCATs and Authority relaunches have been a joke (it's going to be a year before we see the second issues of what were supposed to be bimonthly comics in the first place!) and they lost their best-selling Wildstorm book, Garth Ennis' and Darick Robertson's The Boys, to rival publisher Dynamite Press because DC higher-ups couldn't stomach a little hard-edged satire and parody going their way. I can understand canceling books due to low sales, but Wetworks and Stormwatch:PHD weren't really given a chance because DC is somehow allergic to promoting DC/Wildstorm books, even within the DCU and Vertigo lines, while on the other hand, multiple full-page ads of DC's latest event books clutter the confines of what few Wildstorm books get published.
They've also recently fired (for unclear and dubious reasons) line editor Scott Dunbier (who's been with WS since the Image Comics days, a huge creators' rights advocate, and all-around nice guy), the guy who engineered the agreement which allowed for the carrying over of Alan Moore's America's Best Comics titles after the DC/Wildstorm merger, even after Moore had sworn never to produce anything for DC again. It just seems that DC is content to cut all ties with the old "independent" Wildstorm and let all these properties languish while they continue to strip the Wildstorm books of anything that made them unique and appealing and shoehorn the Wildstorm universe into their contrived multiverse event nonsense.
Quote from: Uncle Yuan on August 31, 2007, 03:43:11 PM
Quote from: doctorchallenger on August 31, 2007, 02:10:50 PMTrue the industry tended to de-humanize the Japanese more then the Germans or Italians, but this too was largely consistant with the tenor of the times. Not that it makes it right.
I've always attributed this to factors. One: As white European-Americans we identified culturally much more closely with Germans, Italians, what-have-you, while the Japanese where different enough for the xenophobia to set in that much easier. (This has already been eluded to.) Secondly, I think that because the Japanese where more different "racially" it made them much easier to characterize. Not that the other Axis powers didn't get their fair share of this too, but not generally to the same extent.
That pretty much sums up my prespective on the subject too. And yeah, 'superman' was involved in some pretty racist issues according to the covers galleries I've seen but that has little to do with supes and a lot to do with the times. Jaysus, I've seen some Popeye cartoons (anti-japanese again, of course) that made me blanch.
ZULU: I always considered that one of the coolest things (besides vertigo) that DC had going for it was wildstorm. Ugh, if they integrate it (some choice of words after the racism talk, I know) into their mainstream continuity the same thing will happen as when they purchased milestone. Are any of those caracters still around? And in the sense of fairness, the same could be said for Marvel and Malibu comics.
Is that why we haven't seen the last issue of Planetary yet?
Quote from: lugaru on September 08, 2007, 10:03:51 PM
ZULU: I always considered that one of the coolest things (besides vertigo) that DC had going for it was wildstorm. Ugh, if they integrate it (some choice of words after the racism talk, I know) into their mainstream continuity the same thing will happen as when they purchased milestone.
They've already integrated the Wildstorm Universe into the multiverse... the whole point of the
Captain Atom: Armageddon mini-series was to show that the Wildstorm characters inhabited just another world in the DC multiverse (well, that and to show that DC's "second-class Superman" could beat the stuffing out of the strongest Wildstorm characters... really, the whole point of it all seemed to be to neuter the Wildstorm characters and show how much cooler and more powerful the DC characters are).
QuoteAnd in the sense of fairness, the same could be said for Marvel and Malibu comics.
I don't think you can realistically compare the DC/Wildstorm situation with Marvel's acquisition of the Malibu characters. It was pretty clear back then that Marvel didn't have any real plans to push Malibu, they were just after the top-secret "Malibu colouring process" technology (which, as far as i can tell, was just a a couple of early Photoshop nerds, before digital colouring became the industry standard :lol:). DC, at least for the first couple of years after their acquisition of Wildstorm, looked like they were setting it up as a venue for intelligent mature-readers superhero stories (what with
The Authority, Deep Sleeper, WildCATs 3.0, etc.)
Quote from: bredon7777 on September 08, 2007, 10:14:57 PM
Is that why we haven't seen the last issue of Planetary yet?
Maybe. Or it could just be because Ellis is taking his sweet time with it.