Anyone else getting the impression that Infinite Crisis.... [Archive]

soda

04-05-2006, 11:05 AM

Let's talk editorial policy for a moment, to me, here is the issue at hand:

- What DC has done, with OYL, 52, and IC, is a creative risk, a big creative risk, particularly risky, in my opinion, is that 52 won't have any of the DCU's "big guns". Two years ago, before countdown to infinite crisis, if you had told me that DC comics was going to publish a big event book, that would be 52 issues long, without Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman involved, and that stared (from what we're told) the elongated man, black adam, steel, the question, rene montoya, and booster gold, I would have laughed you out of the room, and told you it was doomed to failure. That's how countdown (a story staring blue beetle and booster gold) and day of vengence (a story staring a bunch of magic themed characters I'd never heard of before), and Villians united (Catman), changed the world.

In my view, DC figured out that Stan Lee was right, 40 years ago, and had been right all along, that the way to go is a shared universe, Without a truly shared universe, one that's interconnected on so many levels, there is absolutely no reason for any fan to care about any c and d-stringers in a universe. A shared universe is what makes people care, Stan Lee's marvel made you want to pick up another book by that publisher for every book you read (Lay's potato chip marketing), you read one book, thought to yourself "hey that was really cool", read another book, thought the same thing, and so on, because the universe was shared, themes events and characters in one book were translated over to other titles, this not only made it easier for someone reading one title to get into others, it also provided out-of-the-box emotional investment in the characters. Stan Lee was a genius, and a visionary, who built marvel into a force that overtook DC as the market leader. Most of the ills that marvel is going through these days (and there aren't many, business is pretty good, from what I'm hearing) are directly related to the fact that they've moved away, on an editorial level, from Stan Lee's vision. Marvel today is early silver age DC, a company with a de post facto multi-verse, that is struggling to avoid crossover mania.

To me, you only need to fix things that are broken. Wonder Woman didn't need to be restarted (for example). All my life, DC has been struggling to sell Wonder Woman, they finally get Greg Rucka on it, and the book flies off the shelf, and so, they decide to cancel it and restart it? That's a risk, to me. Doing the same with the Flash is a risk. Sitting on the status quo with both of these titles would have been the easy thing to do. Superman is the same way, all my life, Superman sold okay, but no one was chomping at the bit, desperate to read big blue. Even when Superman was launched with all new creative teams (Azz and Lee) post-Hush, there was buzz, and the book sold okay, but did anyone really care? I dropped the azz + lee run after two issues, because I didn't see the plot going anywhere (doesn't look like I was mistaken). The Superman books we have right now (all three of them), are the best superman stories I've read, in a consistent, monthly format, in my lifetime. To me, that, and going back to the 70's neal adams/denny o'neill and the 90's Paul Dini Batman are the two great creative triumphs of OYL and IC. Those are radical changes, Superman and Batman don't suck anymore, who couldn't be psyched about that?

That being said, OYL hasn't been all good:

-Supergirl is in every single freakin' book. My theory is that Supergirl and Wolverine are the same person, I'm going to start calling Kara the "wolverine of the DC universe". Legion of Superheroes was only an okay OYL titles, will probably pick up another issue, then decide to give it a long run or drop it.

- Nightwing is the new Batman. He had absolutely horrible writers One year ago, and he has bad writers OYL, he's best written (strangely enough) when he guest stars in birds of prey, when he guest stars in teen titans, and when he's in IC (he does get around, though, maybe he's wolverine too? See, though, that's the power of a shared universe). The two big OYL disappointments I had, Nightwing and Outsiders, both star Dick, a character who I absolutely adore.

- some other OYL titles (Green arrow, etc.) were only okay.

more next post...

Nick Kal

04-05-2006, 11:10 AM

What was wrong with Nightwing in his own title?

soda

04-05-2006, 12:01 PM

final point:

To me, here's the bottom line on the creative risk factor, I think that OYL has been moderately creatively risky, and more of a fine tunning, with some radical changes, and some subtle ones (Birds of Prey seems like exactly the same book). To me, that was what was needed. There have been some good things and some bad things to come out of OYL, IC and 52 thus far. However, let me concentrate on the huge big good thing that I haven't touched on yet. DC's editorial, their brain trust, right now, really does believe in the product that it's putting out there. I'm not sure marvel does. When a braintrust really believes in it's product, that's when you're more likely to see creative risk taking, that's when you're likely to see the kind of bold innovation that you want to see in comics. How do I know this? A few factors:

- My local Comic book store owner has a sales rep at DC. DC has these guys, and they call all the comic book store owners in the country to try to solicit material and to boost sales. Marvel doesn't have this guy. When the product is bad, this guy has the worst job in the industry, because he's the person shop owners complain to about editorial direction when the product stinks. When the product is good, he has the easiest job in the industry, because he can have a conversation with a shop owner that goes like this:

DC rep - hey, comic book store owner, how's it going?

Store owner - good.

DC rep - hey, just calling to check in, and to tell you that you're going to want to order more copies of the new blue beetle coming out.

Store owner - no I'm not.

DC rep - yes you are.

Store owner - yes I am, okay, put me down for 40 more copies.

DC rep - will do.

That conversation actually happened between the sales rep and my local shop owner about two weeks ago, when product confidence is high, the only sales pitch you need is "yes you are (going to buy this)".

My shop sold out of the Blue beetle book before I got there (I get to my shop every Friday), BTW.

The other big indicator that there's product confidence is that DC's "sales tools" are helping, I'm not sure about marvel's. Joe Quesada says that variant covers are a "sales tool", however, I know very few shop owners who up their orders for a comic with a variant cover. My shop owner has never once ordered a single extra comic because of a variant, as he put it, the supply of variants, for him, exceeds the demand, he's already ordering 150 copies of the book anyway, he'll get six variants with that, but there are only four people who come to our shop who are into variants and who will buy them, so he usually holds the variants for the people who he knows will want it, but he's usually sitting on a couple of variants anyway, so there's no incentive for him to order more copies to get more.

On the other hand, every single time DC has announced that X issue of a comic will be returnable, my shop owner has proceeded to order a whole bunch more issues of that comic. He ordered 30 more copies of each of the returnable issues of 52 as soon as DC said they would be returnable. That's because DC never declares something returnable that isn't a hot book, and that they don't think, in thier brain trust room, will sell out. The wonder woman sacrifice issue was returnable, do you think DC has gotten a single return of that book, ever? If I had another copy of the Wonder Woman Sacrifice issue, I sure as heck ain't returning it. Due to a Diamond screw-up, my comic book guy got 30 more issues of IC #5 two weeks ago instead of Robin, he told Diamond to go ahead and send the Robins, and to bill him for the ICs, Diamond asked him if he'd like credit for the ICs instead, he said "no, because they'll sell, I ain't returning them." That's product confidence, and consumer confidence, and that's what DC really has right now.

Shellhead

04-05-2006, 12:15 PM

In my view, DC figured out that Stan Lee was right, 40 years ago, and had been right all along, that the way to go is a shared universe, Without a truly shared universe, one that's interconnected on so many levels, there is absolutely no reason for any fan to care about any c and d-stringers in a universe. A shared universe is what makes people care, Stan Lee's marvel made you want to pick up another book by that publisher for every book you read (Lay's potato chip marketing), you read one book, thought to yourself "hey that was really cool", read another book, thought the same thing, and so on, because the universe was shared, themes events and characters in one book were translated over to other titles, this not only made it easier for someone reading one title to get into others, it also provided out-of-the-box emotional investment in the characters. Stan Lee was a genius, and a visionary, who built marvel into a force that overtook DC as the market leader. Most of the ills that marvel is going through these days (and there aren't many, business is pretty good, from what I'm hearing) are directly related to the fact that they've moved away, on an editorial level, from Stan Lee's vision. Marvel today is early silver age DC, a company with a de post facto multi-verse, that is struggling to avoid crossover mania.

I totally agree. What made me buy lots of Marvel back in the 70's was that sense of a shared universe, that any given hero or villain might show up in any given title as a guest-star or opponent. It helped that a majority of the heroes operated in and around the NYC area. It also probably helped that writers and artists often worked *at* Marvel, instead of at home and then fed-exing or emailing their completed work in. That made collaboration easier, especially when coordinating guest-shots in other titles. Somewhere along the line, Marvel lost sight of this and started do mega-crossovers instead. The simple guest-appearances and sharing of villains was better, because it kept things on a smaller and more manageable scale while still boosting sales.

Cayman

04-05-2006, 12:16 PM

Yes, it doesn't really seem like any changes that matter will come out of IC. The OYL books just aren't goig off in exciting new directions.

Cay

JulianPerez

04-05-2006, 12:18 PM

Who is it that is saying that INFINITE CRISIS didn't change anything? It, and the miniseries that preceded it, changed one thing about the DC Universe: it stopped sucking across the board.

Batjerk is outta here, the Paul Levitz story arc on JSA with the Gentleman Ghost is worth reading and lots of fun, Busiek, arguably the greatest talent of our generation, is writing both a kickass Sword and Sorcery version of Aquaman, and has finally made Superman likeable again for the first time since 1986.

While I am disappointed about the return of the multiverse not happening, the multiverse was in IC used in several important ways: the first was it was used to actually make Power Girl, previously a shrieking feminist under Gerry Conway and a wooden bore under everybody else, was truly LIKEABLE thanks to IC: she was sympathetic as being a lonely person without a past, and now that she discovers that she has one, and a family, too, we feel her joy. Ditto for the way, way cool Catman under Gail Simone, who is now officially the coolest character in the entire DC Universe. Detective Chimp as leader of a magic-using superteam? Vundebar! Tres magnifique!

Soda, I absolutely agree with everything you've typed so far. Kudos! The shared universe is absolutely the model to go, because it brings trippy characters and concepts into play. Ideas, unlike seafood, become MORE fresh if you put them on a shelf and wait a few decades. Hell, when you read a Geoff Johns book and he's stuck in there A JUPITER LIGHTNING MONSTER from (of all the things in the world) an issue of TOMMY TOMORROW, you KNOW the DCU is in good hands.

I do agree with you about some characters being overexposed. The whole "Bizarro as crazy/frightening" is now starting to feel done to death and stale. Ditto for Deathstroke the Terminator, who if he was to play God in a game of golf, the game would go to Slade...but it would be very close.

DarthAstuart

04-05-2006, 12:57 PM

i tend to agree with the posters who suggest that it's a great thing simply that the DCU is being "freshened up" with a renewed energy, exciting new creative teams, etc. i'm a big fan so far of pretty much all the OYL stuff I've read (not that I've read it all, or even close--mostly Batman stuff and Superman stuff).

BUT i think this crossover really NEEDS some kind of big, fat event-level CHANGE to truly exist as a sequel and heir to COIE. that's what COIE was all about--not just a big cosmic story involving the entire DCU, not just a refreshing and redirection of the creative style of the entire line, but also many worlds becoming one. A big, fat, massive change to the DCU.

come on. just throw me something. maybe 52 will be the place where the real changes happen--I guess a year without bats, supes, and WW is a pretty big step. (just wish they'd had the guts to do it for real with NO books featuring these characters for a year, instead of wimping out with 52 running concurrently with the OYL books.)

PatrickG

04-05-2006, 12:58 PM

Well, over at Newsarama, Didio is hinting that Superman's origin and continuity may have shifted again... And suggesting that Linda Danvers, at least as portrayed by Peter David, may never have existed.

He also suggests that characters who died pre-IC may never have died in the new continuity.

Looks like the post-IC earth may be a "greatest hits" version of Post-Crisis continuity.

Ie. The modern status quo remains the same but the "how we got here" is subject to tweaking.

Bored at 3:00AM

04-05-2006, 01:18 PM

It was stated by Didio and others, in interview after interview, that IC wasn't about sweeping changes to the DCU but about cleaning it up and polishing it off. In true internerd fashion, that was all summarily ignored for supposition about the return of the multiverse and whether or not Dick Grayson was going to be Batman and Donna Troy Wonder Woman.

Bah! Actually listening to what the creators and editors have to say is for sissies! That sort of stuff leads to cooties and moving out of parents' basements.

But, seriously, while I wasn't expecting anything on the level of Donna Troy becoming Wonder Woman or Dick Grayson becoming Batman (again), I was kinda expecting some sort of major cosmic change to the way the DCU operates in regards to parallel Earths and how the characters view their past history.

Although, again, its entirely possible the One Year Later titles are just playing coy about all this until Infinite Crisis is over. I just don't want them to go through all this and then go back to the same old, same old of nobody knowing the Golden Age Superman existed again. As clunky as the old Multiverse was, at least it gave a better approximation of DC's long history than the Post-Crisis "That never happened! This guy next existed!" way of handling things, which always rubbed me wrong and led to countless headaches on the part of creators and fans.

soda

04-05-2006, 03:43 PM

But, seriously, while I wasn't expecting anything on the level of Donna Troy becoming Wonder Woman or Dick Grayson becoming Batman (again), I was kinda expecting some sort of major cosmic change to the way the DCU operates in regards to parallel Earths and how the characters view their past history.

Although, again, its entirely possible the One Year Later titles are just playing coy about all this until Infinite Crisis is over. I just don't want them to go through all this and then go back to the same old, same old of nobody knowing the Golden Age Superman existed again.

If you're looking for a major change to how characters view their past history (ie, pre-COIE), you're probably going to get that. With all the dopleganger mania that's been going in DC, I think it's pretty obvious that the top brass of the DCU (supes, bats, and WW, amongst others) are aware of the multi-verse, and we know Powergirl is. I'm guessing that all will be revealed and there will be a real understanding of how the history of the DCU works, rather than a point of nobody knowing the golden age superman existed.

However, if your expecting the DCU to be someplace completely different post-IC, well, sorry to disappoint you. There should be new characters, and a new status-quo, but it should still be the DC universe, as a pre-IC fan would know it. In 1985, the DCU needed a major overhaul, the multi-verse had to go, and DC needed radical change. In 1985, that's what the DCU got, in COIE. In 2006, the DCU needs fine-tuning, some places need a complete overhaul (bats, aquaman), some places are fine (birds of prey), and some places need a slight adjustment, but not an overhaul (supes). In 2006, I think, the DCU pretty much got what it needed, perhaps not to the complete success of COIE, but we'll let history sort that one out.

However, here is what I will say, the major victory, to me, of IC is this: Mega-crossovers don't suck anymore. The bar has been raised, IMHO. IC has been, for this fan, very enjoyable, more enjoyable than any major crossover that I can remember for a long time (I would say the last one, that I really dug, was Kingdom come, don't know if that counts). In general, to fans of my generation (people who weren't fans when COIE hit, I started reading in 1990), there really haven't been any good mega-crossovers, there have been crossovers of varying quality. Some were decent, like knightfall, some were okay, like Bruce Wayne, fugitive, and many were downright awful, like Batman war games. I thought Identity Crisis and House of M were about the same, quality-wise, I didn't know, as a fan, that a mega-crossover could be anything but a money-sucking, collassal letdown. Then IC hit, and a mega-crossover was a money-sucking (that part will always be true), collassal very pleasant surprise (but I'm not complaining about plopping down my hard earned coin). To me, if I'm Joe Quesada, Brian Bendis, and Mark Millar and the brain trust at marvel, I have a reaction like people did in the mid-80s when watchmen hit, if I read IC, then I look at what I have planned for civil war, I'm going home at night, and whatever I wrote for civil war, I'm tearing up and redoing, because post-IC, it's not going to be good enough anymore. To me, as a marvel fan (I'm not "for" one company, and "against" the other, I believe comics are strongest when both marvel and DC are strong) this is only good for marvel and good for the industry. I want the standards of quality to go up.

Ian J.N.

04-05-2006, 04:23 PM

Yeah, I'm starting to get the "That's it?" feeling. As part of the story, COIE had a pivotal event which resulted in massive reboots throughout the DCU. In IC, the changes are smaller and only tangentially related to the main plot. Rather than institute the revamps piecemeal, DC tied them all into a single miniseries, which was smart of them. The problem with making IC the cornerstone, though, is that there needs to be that big COIE-level event which anchors all the little ones, and it doesn't seem like that's going to be the case. IC has a hollow centre.

That said, it's been an enjoyable story. You just have to put aside the "most important event ever" hype and disregard the year long buildup, because the payoff isn't going to match. I keep reading expecting a big payoff, but actually, I think we've already seen most of it. It's been diffused to us throughout the story, and in the interviews, previews and OYL titles.

DarthAstuart

04-05-2006, 05:12 PM

ultimately, maybe part of this is just a bummer for fans (like me, and I'd guess others reading this) who are spoiler addicts and can't stop reading tidbits that leak out...they've done an amazing job of keeping secrets considering the amount of material in IC, the crossovers, the specials, the OYL books...

but man. one big huge surprise that no one saw coming would just rock. maybe there will be one--hell, if the Earth-2 supes were to stick around in the DCU, that would be a pretty big thing for me.

Silvermane

04-05-2006, 06:07 PM

Yes, and it's disappointing if it's true. Without some radical changes, INFINITE CRISIS will just be another routine DC crossover series rather than the heir to CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

My sentiments exactly. So far, it looks like there won't be any real changes other than a few sensational deaths. I'm starting to smell a bait and switch... It seems a waste of a crossover event (as I've said elsewhere) to simply dust off some old unused characters and concepts for a big fight only to have the "good guys" win a fight and realize that they were right all along. I don't know. I was expecting a bit more growth in DC as well as the characters. This doesn't feel like it. Oh well, as someone said above, maybe they are holding back some major reveal for issue 7. So far, though, I am less thrilled with each new issue.

The whole thing just has the feel of an opportunity missed. Does anyone know what I'm saying?

soda

04-06-2006, 12:12 PM

The whole thing just has the feel of an opportunity missed. Does anyone know what I'm saying?

I know what your saying, and I hear that too, all the time. That IC just doesn't have that "big" single thing that changes everything (like the anti-monitor destroying the multi-verse in COIE), however, here's what all of that fails to consider: IMHO, IC Is quite possibly, the single best mega-crossover, quality-wise, of all time. I will gladly make that trade, every day of the week, and twice on sundays, I will gladly eschew the single universe-shattering event happening for a quality story that truly makes me remember it in another twenty years. Five years from now, am I going to remember "house of M"? Even though it got rid of most of the world's mutants? Probably not.

Ian J.N.

04-06-2006, 01:00 PM

I know what your saying, and I hear that too, all the time. That IC just doesn't have that "big" single thing that changes everything (like the anti-monitor destroying the multi-verse in COIE), however, here's what all of that fails to consider: IMHO, IC Is quite possibly, the single best mega-crossover, quality-wise, of all time. I will gladly make that trade, every day of the week, and twice on sundays, I will gladly eschew the single universe-shattering event happening for a quality story that truly makes me remember it in another twenty years. Five years from now, am I going to remember "house of M"? Even though it got rid of most of the world's mutants? Probably not.
As I see it, there are two ways for a comic book event to make an impact: make long lasting changes to the status quo, tell a good story. The changes that IC has made are predominantly minor, localized to individual characters (as opposed to the shared universe as a whole), and largely unrelated to the main plot. In that regard I'm disappointed that IC hasn't delivered on the promise implicit in the build-up.

The story, however, has been great. IC isn't quite as epic in scope as COIE, but it's less random and more personal, with a strong theme on the nature of heroism, and interesting meta-textual commentary about the comic book universe--how the more extreme fans see it, what DC's philosophy is, etc. It's been an enjoyable miniseries, and I can see myself re-enjoying it again, even after the dust has settled.

So ultimately, yeah, I think this has been the best crossover event DC has ever done. Maybe it doesn't have the mind-blowing changes, but we've gotten a good story, plus several companion stories to go with it. I consider IC a success.

glennsim

04-06-2006, 02:20 PM

Here's my take:

With the advent of New Earth at the end of #6, we have a new Earth with a new history. Now, that history isn't going to be radically different from what we're familiar with, but judging by the images we saw when the Earths re-merged, Superman is going to have a career as Superboy, Batman caught his parents' killer, Wonder Woman is back to being an original JLA member etc.

But there may be other changes that we don't know about and won't know about until they get referenced. The History of the DC Universe feature in 52 will probably help.

In a way, you don't really know ANYTHING about the history of New Earth, until you read about it in a comic published after IC. You can make some assumptions, but it's not a sure thing until it gets confirmed.

So unless you read it in a OYL-or-later story or 52, it doesn't count...

Which is pretty exciting, in a way.

One thing I'm not sure of is what the heroes' memories will be. I assume that something will happen in #7 that will make everyone remember the New Earth history and only the New Earth history, maybe with the exception of people like Power Girl (unless she gets yet another history on New Earth). Or they could remember a combination of all of their histories, but that seems odd.

rfahey

04-06-2006, 03:59 PM

I was hoping for some massive overpowering threat, like that in the original COIE. But I do feel that this story was much more fleshed out, and the fact that DC didn't feel it needed to destroy everything previously established and rebuild is probably a good thing. Moreover, I have to say that the first several times I read through COIE (many years after its original release), I wasn't a huge fan. It felt very poorly planned and nonsensical. Even today I think that I like it more for what it accomplished than as a standalone story. As for IC, even though the actual threat to the current universe came and went relatively quickly, it had a satisfying narrative thread complete with complex villains. I think that it will age well.

soda

04-06-2006, 04:12 PM

I think that it will age well.

To me, that's the key. I think that when people, twenty years from now, look back at this epoch in comics (turn of the century, after the industry was just recovering from what happened in the 90s), that infinite crisis will be the first, big, must read story that future generations will hear about.

Here's a funny story my local comic book guy told me, that I don't know if it's true or not. I wasn't a fan when COIE originally came out, so I couldn't tell you. He told me that at the time the original crisis came out, that what everyone was reading, and talking about at the time, was marvel's secret wars. He told me that crisis came out, and one, marvel was the dominant company of the day, so crisis wasn't as big, and second, that crisis was a long-winded, complex, silver-agey (for lack of a better word) plot. However, in the twenty years since, COIE has aged well, and risen in regard, while Secret war has gone nowhere (no one I know has a secret war trade, everyone I know has a crisis trade). I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that you never know what history will decide to glorify and what it will choose to discard, however, I feel good about IC's prospects for aging well.

Silvermane

04-06-2006, 04:26 PM

The story, however, has been great. IC isn't quite as epic in scope as COIE, but it's less random and more personal, with a strong theme on the nature of heroism, and interesting meta-textual commentary about the comic book universe--how the more extreme fans see it, what DC's philosophy is, etc.

See, I disagree and I think that's what is most disappointing. I don't think this story has been very profound at all. I inwardly groaned when in IC6, Alex informed S-P that he didn't vanish to E-P because something about him had changed and S-P saying it was because of what they made him do. So, there really are worlds where everyone is good and worlds where everyone is bad just by virtue of having been born on those worlds? It's a bit simplistic and juvenile. So what, there was no crime or no really "bad" people on E-P ever before? Doesn't make sense. I keep waiting for shades of grey to emerge, but with one issue left, I fear that all we will have is good guys versus bad guys.

Everything the writer leads us to believe is that the pocket universe guys have been wrong all along and that they are the ones that needed to learn something about the nature of heroism. Well, that's all well and good, except that if they are not the ones left standing after all of this, then why should I care? If these were just a few nutty silver-agers who can't hack it in a modern world, then why dust them off at all? Did you bring them back just to show how right you were twenty years ago when you got rid of them? (I won't even get into how contrived these characters' actions have been in order for DC to make that point).

It may seem like I am too negative, but I don't want to be. If DC has used this series to say anything meaningful so far, I've missed it. Please, someone, tell me what the nature of heroism theme is here. I want to recapture the high hopes I had for this book up until issue three came out.

soda

04-06-2006, 05:22 PM

Dude, I totally hear what you're saying.

A lot of people on this forum would tell you you're insane for not digging IC, I'm not one of those people.

A lot of people (like Jeff Krammer and Joe Rice) will tell you that IC sucks turds, and that your totally right for not liking it. I'm not one of those people either.

Bottom line is that I believe it takes all types to make the world, and that comic book fans, as a group, are amongst the most fractured, splintered, most disagreeing lot that the good Lord ever put on this earth, or any other, to break biscuit. If you can write something that 50% of the fan base likes, you take that, because that's way better than most books get these days. All of this is a just a really long-winded way of saying buy what you like, and ignore what you don't. If you're not totally into something, don't buy it, the way our industry is right now, there's too much quality out there for anyone to buy anything that they aren't totally, 100%, head over heels in love with.

Let me detour this conversation for a second, then get back to the point you raised in your post. To me, I look at the Diamond top 300 sellers every month, and you know what three books make me scratch my head to no end, that I totally don't get, 100x more than you don't get crisis?

ultimate spiderman

Amazing Spiderman

New Avengers

Uncanny xmen

I don't get those four books. I don't buy any of those four books (NOTE: will get the Brubaker run on Uncanny, though). However, every single month, those four books always manage to show up in the top twelve (or so) overall sellers in a market. Amazing Spiderman, IMHO, is the best of them, right now, and amazing has been mediocre since "sins past". Uncanny has sucked for fifteen straight years now (am excited about the brubaker run), I don't see why anyone ever buys that book, ever. New Avengers is horrible. I read the sentry arc, and it made my head hurt. What about the latest issue (that I got a peek at in the shop), Luke cage, in motown, acting tough?!? WTF. Ultimate Spiderman is nothing but talking heads, I like character pieces as much as the next guy, but talking heads twice a month, every single issue? Please. And the stories aren't even that good. I read the New Avengers Illuminati special, and I thought it was okay, but here's the thing, compare new avengers illiminati to Infinite Crisis Secret files and origins, and guess what? Both books are basically the same thing. No villians, just a bunch of guys in a room, talking, just a talking heads book, with no action. Nothing happened in either of them. But I thought Infinite Crisis SF&O was one of the best books I've ever read, and that the illiminati special was okay, above average, but it didn't change my life, or anything.

However, it takes all types to make the world. Some people dig some things, and other people dig others. I figure that all of those people who buy the four books I mentioned above can't all be buying it every month and hating it, some of them must buy it and dig it. There must be people out there who think Bendis is God's gift to comic fans. There must be people who are digging amazing spiderman, there must be people who are reading and enjoying uncanny xmen. I have no freakin' clue who they are, or why they believe this, but the numbers tell me that they're out there. Don't worry if you don't get IC, I want to assure you that's okay.

I'll get to your plot points in my next post...

soda

04-06-2006, 05:42 PM

Everything the writer leads us to believe is that the pocket universe guys have been wrong all along and that they are the ones that needed to learn something about the nature of heroism. Well, that's all well and good, except that if they are not the ones left standing after all of this, then why should I care? If these were just a few nutty silver-agers who can't hack it in a modern world, then why dust them off at all? Did you bring them back just to show how right you were twenty years ago when you got rid of them? (I won't even get into how contrived these characters' actions have been in order for DC to make that point).

I think you're missing the ying and yang that's going on here too. it's not so much that "nutty silver agers" who need to learn something, it's the heroes of the mainstream DCU who are really the people learning here, not so much the silver age characters. Here is something I would put out there, in all of IC, to me, there are only two characters, that I've seen, who are being held up as paragons of virtue in this six issue series. Those two paragons are:

Earth two Lois Lane - think about it, she's the only one of the four characters in the pocket dimension whose sane. She's going to die, and she's okay with that, she's at peace about it. Kal-L will do anything to save her, the other two (luthor and SBP) each have their own agendas.

Earth one Dick Grayson (Nightwing) - Think about this. Batman refuses Kal-L because he doesn't want to live in a world where Dick Grayson is a lesser person. Kal-L goes back to Luthor and says "I don't know if we're doing the right thing, the Dick Grayson here is such a great guy" to which Luthor replies "yeah, he's a great guy, but he's one saint in a world of sinners." When Connor Kent meets up with Dick in teen titans, he's absolutely in awe of Dick.

To me, the flawed characters are the DCU's "big three":

Batman's flaw is his paranoia.

Wonder Woman's flaw is her willingness to kill.

Superman's flaw is his weaknesses, his softness, his lack of assertiveness and ability to lead.

Kal-L's flaw is that he sees the entire world in black and white. He's the captain America of the DCU.

SuperBoy Prime's fault is that he's so blinded with a desire to get what he wants (his home and his family) that he's completely oblivious to the consequences. SBP's flaw is, essentially, that's he's a kid who never grew up.

Alexander Luthor's flaw is that he's a luthor, and that at the end of the day, when it's all said and done, he wants what all luthors want.

Please note, there is no twisting of characterization here, at all, to me, who read COIE, these character developments are all perfectly plausible. Kal-L is the DCU's captain america, in COIE, SBP is a kid in COIE, Luthor is a luthor in COIE, to me IC is a progressive character scketch, it's a very realistic portrayal of how these characters (who weren't very well developed, personality wise, in COIE) got to where they are.

The lesson on heroism is everyone teaching everyone. Batman is learning to be less paranoid, Superman is learning to be more super (for lack of a better word), in the case of clark and bruce, you see the effects OYL. We haven't seen Wonder Woman OYL, but I'm guessing she's really learning about the consequences of what she did.

It's not that the modern age character are perfect, and the silver age ones need to be put in their place, it's that the modern age characters are imperfect and are learning and growing and becoming better heroes due to what the silver age characters have let loose.

Like I said, only the E2 Lois and the E1 Nightwing are exempt. Everyone else has flaws, and makes mistakes.

Silvermane

04-06-2006, 07:35 PM

I think you're missing the ying and yang that's going on here too. it's not so much that "nutty silver agers" who need to learn something, it's the heroes of the mainstream DCU who are really the people learning here, not so much the silver age characters. Here is something I would put out there, in all of IC, to me, there are only two characters, that I've seen, who are being held up as paragons of virtue in this six issue series. Those two paragons are:

Earth two Lois Lane - think about it, she's the only one of the four characters in the pocket dimension whose sane. She's going to die, and she's okay with that, she's at peace about it. Kal-L will do anything to save her, the other two (luthor and SBP) each have their own agendas.

Earth one Dick Grayson (Nightwing) - Think about this. Batman refuses Kal-L because he doesn't want to live in a world where Dick Grayson is a lesser person. Kal-L goes back to Luthor and says "I don't know if we're doing the right thing, the Dick Grayson here is such a great guy" to which Luthor replies "yeah, he's a great guy, but he's one saint in a world of sinners." When Connor Kent meets up with Dick in teen titans, he's absolutely in awe of Dick.

To me, the flawed characters are the DCU's "big three":

Batman's flaw is his paranoia.

Wonder Woman's flaw is her willingness to kill.

Superman's flaw is his weaknesses, his softness, his lack of assertiveness and ability to lead.

Kal-L's flaw is that he sees the entire world in black and white. He's the captain America of the DCU.

SuperBoy Prime's fault is that he's so blinded with a desire to get what he wants (his home and his family) that he's completely oblivious to the consequences. SBP's flaw is, essentially, that's he's a kid who never grew up.

Alexander Luthor's flaw is that he's a luthor, and that at the end of the day, when it's all said and done, he wants what all luthors want.

Please note, there is no twisting of characterization here, at all, to me, who read COIE, these character developments are all perfectly plausible. Kal-L is the DCU's captain america, in COIE, SBP is a kid in COIE, Luthor is a luthor in COIE, to me IC is a progressive character scketch, it's a very realistic portrayal of how these characters (who weren't very well developed, personality wise, in COIE) got to where they are.

The lesson on heroism is everyone teaching everyone. Batman is learning to be less paranoid, Superman is learning to be more super (for lack of a better word), in the case of clark and bruce, you see the effects OYL. We haven't seen Wonder Woman OYL, but I'm guessing she's really learning about the consequences of what she did.

It's not that the modern age character are perfect, and the silver age ones need to be put in their place, it's that the modern age characters are imperfect and are learning and growing and becoming better heroes due to what the silver age characters have let loose.

Like I said, only the E2 Lois and the E1 Nightwing are exempt. Everyone else has flaws, and makes mistakes.

These are two excellent posts. Thanks for the response. Believe it or not, being told to chill is sometimes just what the doctor ordered. I feel better now. I do agree on Secret Files. I thought it was a fantastic read.

I only take two issues with what you've said. First, I have yet to see any of the mainstream DCU characters acknowledge even in the smallest way that they may have something to learn. Maybe it's too subtle. I would love to see one of the big three say that they see or understand or even accept some of the criticism levelled at them because from where I sit, it ain't all wrong. I just haven't seen that yet.

The other disagreement I have is with the characterization. I can see how the pre-crisis characters got to where they are in their motivations, frustrations and desires. I can see how S-P can be so blinded by his desire to go home that he will do anything necessary to get there. However, he should always believe that he is doing the right thing. I'm sorry, but S-P gleefully, maniacally and bloodthirstily grinning ear to ear in anticipation of beating people to death and enjoying it as he does in IC6, gloating that he killed Titans without even trying - that's just too far a stretch for me.

I will keep buying the book for two reasons: (1) the hope that there will be a satisfying conclusion which addresses all of my concerns and (2) I really am digging all of the little geek moments. :D

shyguy

04-06-2006, 08:24 PM

Rhydaman

04-07-2006, 04:43 AM

I inwardly groaned when in IC6, Alex informed S-P that he didn't vanish to E-P because something about him had changed and S-P saying it was because of what they made him do. So, there really are worlds where everyone is good and worlds where everyone is bad just by virtue of having been born on those worlds? It's a bit simplistic and juvenile. So what, there was no crime or no really "bad" people on E-P ever before? Doesn't make sense. I keep waiting for shades of grey to emerge, but with one issue left, I fear that all we will have is good guys versus bad guys.
Don't you have to take into account the reliability of the speaker there? S-P has clearly flipped. His view of how wonderful life on Earth Prime was is obviously rose-tinted. Or "simplistic and juvenile", if you will. That doesn't mean that the DCU as a whole contains worlds where all are bad or good simply by dint of their birth.

Silvermane

04-07-2006, 06:53 AM

Don't you have to take into account the reliability of the speaker there? S-P has clearly flipped. His view of how wonderful life on Earth Prime was is obviously rose-tinted. Or "simplistic and juvenile", if you will. That doesn't mean that the DCU as a whole contains worlds where all are bad or good simply by dint of their birth.

That's true

wolverine0815

04-07-2006, 07:53 AM

The biggest change I see is them killing Conner and possibly bringing him back as Supernova due DC's fight over Superboy. IMHO that is not a big change when you look at IC as a whole.

PatrickG

04-07-2006, 08:10 AM

Except Supernova debuts in the missing year and OYL, Conner is still considered dead by Batman, Lex Luthor and Robin.

Conner is dead.

Now... If you're following things, it seems very possible that ANOTHER Superboy is back in continuity before Conner...

Bored at 3:00AM

04-07-2006, 08:32 AM

Well, the Golden Age Batman is on the cover of the next month's issue of JSA, so I guess that answers that.

Good.

I think the single Earth has proven to be too good an idea to dump at this point, but it did leave a bunch of different characters in the lurch. It appears that this New Earth will still allow the older heroes to remember the original incarnations of Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman, even if the current history doesn't include them. Which means Power Girl doesn't have to run around pretending she's not Superman's cousin anymore.

Add into that the pretty heavy hints that the New Earth has re-incorporated Superboy, the Phantom Zone villains and Wonder Woman's membership in the original JLA, then I am a happy camper with what Infinite Crisis has accomplished. All of those seem like pretty major changes to me--and should have been made many, many years earlier in my view.

DarthAstuart

04-07-2006, 11:46 AM

i think maybe part of the reason why I'm feeling disappointed by IC in terms of big changes is that a lot of the change seems like it will actually unfold in 52. i liked soda's post above a lot, in terms of what each of the Big 3 need to learn, and certainly the OYL books I've seen seem to indicate that these characters either are learning those lessons, or are about to. Batman seems to have become more centered and Superman (well, Clark Kent, actually) is taking more initiative than ever.

But why are they doing that? Where are they learning that? They're not learning it in IC. we can only assume they'll learn it in the one year between. Is that what part of 52 is about? we've been told no Big 3 in the series, but could we see Clark, Bruce and Diana? and if not, when/where will we see these changes?

to me, it's lots of us being told "things are changing, here is how," and not enough of DC showing us through stories what has changed, is changing, or will change. i mean, say what you will about COIE, but damn, LOTS of big change IN the book and not off-panel or just in a writer's brain/philosophy.

drpblunt

04-08-2006, 07:03 AM

Tom

04-08-2006, 07:11 AM

my whole problem with IC and for that matter COIE was that they are less "stories" and more "mission statements" why did it take an entire investment of time and money to see for example batman go from batass to cool batman??

in otherwords if DC wanted to make some changes to the way these characters are portrayed just make the changes, dont tell me i have to invest time and money to buy peripherial "specials, minis etc" just to find out what DC's mission statement is for the next decade.
I don't quite understand this argument. One look at DC's sales over the last year is answer enough as to why they did it this way - like it or not, crossovers sell, and good crossovers sell big. And if all you want is for them to make whatever changes they feel they need and move on to telling good stories, then why would you feel you have to invest time and money into something you feel is unnecessary and in which you have no interest?

drpblunt

04-08-2006, 07:33 AM

I don't quite understand this argument. One look at DC's sales over the last year is answer enough as to why they did it this way - like it or not, crossovers sell, and good crossovers sell big. And if all you want is for them to make whatever changes they feel they need and move on to telling good stories, then why would you feel you have to invest time and money into something you feel is unnecessary and in which you have no interest?

ok look, i asked that question in a rhetorical sense, but thanks for the economics lesson :)

and i dont feel the need to buy all the tie in stuff (i never do in "Events")
but my point is that the industry has gotten so rediculous with the "event" stuff and with IC in particular its like using a hammer to perform brain surgury, the changes occurring seem to me to be subtle, but hey thats my opinion.

but yeah i really do understand the financial end, but my angst is strictly from the consumer end, and i dont like to "feel" forced into buying periphial products whether i have the intention of buying them or not.

Captain Manhatten

04-08-2006, 07:55 AM

Let's talk editorial policy for a moment, to me, here is the issue at hand:

In my view, DC figured out that Stan Lee was right, 40 years ago, and had been right all along, that the way to go is a shared universe, Without a truly shared universe, one that's interconnected on so many levels, there is absolutely no reason for any fan to care about any c and d-stringers in a universe. A shared universe is what makes people care, Stan Lee's marvel made you want to pick up another book by that publisher for every book you read (Lay's potato chip marketing), you read one book, thought to yourself "hey that was really cool", read another book, thought the same thing, and so on, because the universe was shared, themes events and characters in one book were translated over to other titles, this not only made it easier for someone reading one title to get into others, it also provided out-of-the-box emotional investment in the characters. Stan Lee was a genius, and a visionary, who built marvel into a force that overtook DC as the market leader. Most of the ills that marvel is going through these days (and there aren't many, business is pretty good, from what I'm hearing) are directly related to the fact that they've moved away, on an editorial level, from Stan Lee's vision. Marvel today is early silver age DC, a company with a de post facto multi-verse, that is struggling to avoid crossover mania.

I know that, in the 1980s, Jim Shooter tried to maintain tight editorial reins at Marvel, to maintain continuity. Problem was, we were moving into an era where the writers were becoming stars and sometimes prima donnas and he lost a lot of writers over it. But that aside, I think there is a BIG difference between having a continuity that makes you want to buy another book which in turn makes you want to be another and then another in 1961 and trying that in 2006. The difference is about $2.87 to $3.87.

In the 1960s, comic books cost 12 cents per copy, later 15 cents. I could beg two dollars from my father and buy every comic both Marvel and DC put out every week, or at least all the ones I wanted. Sure comic books are an adult market now but, as adults, we also have many other things to worry about and that we want besides comic books. At $3.99 or so, I am not sure that a tight continuity that makes you feel you need to read a bunch of other comics is going to put them on top. For instance, outside of IC itself, I have purchased a grand total of two tie-ins. Just two issues, period. I just won't be pulled into buying a bunch of other comics I'm not into just because some story element crosses over. In fact, one of the things that had me buying more DC than Marvel after the huge price hikes was that DC comics did tend to be more self-contained. Something that was an advantage in one place and time can become a disadvantage in another.

soda

04-08-2006, 03:38 PM

Thanks for the responses, guys, sorry I've been away from this topic for awhile, My mom came home from a long trip this weekend, so I've been away from my computer for a while, but I'm back now.

I'd first like to apologize to bored at 3 AM for hijacking his thread a little bit, but this conversation is too interesting not to continue. I want to address silvermane's post first, I'll get to shyguy and captain manhattan in my next post.

I do agree on Secret Files. I thought it was a fantastic read.

To me, that was one of the great joys of IC, to read another Marv Wolfmann comic after all these years and to realize that the wolf-man's still got it. To me, the secret files took the personality shift of AL, SBP, and Kal-L, and made them plausible by showing how their time in the paradise pocket dimension affected them. To me, this was the last logical link that was needed to get from COIE to IC. Plus, it showed us another Marv Wolfman comic after all these years, I picked up the book not expecting much out of it (I knew the set up, and what it would be about), and I was blown away by how good this book was.

I only take two issues with what you've said. First, I have yet to see any of the mainstream DCU characters acknowledge even in the smallest way that they may have something to learn. Maybe it's too subtle. I would love to see one of the big three say that they see or understand or even accept some of the criticism levelled at them because from where I sit, it ain't all wrong. I just haven't seen that yet.

Okay, here's my response to this (valid critism, BTW). Comic book characters are like the Bush Administration: they never admit they were wrong, about anything, however, unlike the Bush administration, comic book characters will grow, change and evolve when something isn't working. You're never going to get that panel where the character says "I was wrong, I was wrong! I resolve to change my ways and learn the true meaning on Christmas." It's not like "A christmas carol", comic books are filled with the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Take Tim Drake, for example, if you read the last issue of Teen Titans (the first OYL issue), and you saw what Tim Drake was doing, you know where this is going, you've seen it happen a million times before, and you'll see it happen a million times again, good intentions, bad result. It's the entire premise behind Batman's spy satellite, and Charles xavier's decision to send a green, untested group of mutants to a place like krakoa to extract the x-men. good intentions, bad result. However, Batman will never say he was wrong. What will you get? You'll get something a lot more subtle, you'll get Batman having a breakdown like what happened in IC #3, that was rock-bottom, and you'll have Batman then do the right thing, and start to mend fences, starting with nightwing.

The conversation between Nightwing and Batman in IC #3 is the point where Batman has resolved that things can't keep going the way they are, and has resolved to make the changes that need to be made. So, while there's no on-camera admission by the characters, the character changes, and if you picked up the OYL batman, you'll see those changes in place. Superman's moment of truth came in IC #5, when he was fighting against his older half, you saw the internal turmoin in the "this is your life" series, you saw Kal-L judge kal-el, and there's no way that doesn't have some kind of emotional impact on Supes. again, no on-camera admission, but you know changes are going to be made.

The other disagreement I have is with the characterization. I can see how the pre-crisis characters got to where they are in their motivations, frustrations and desires. I can see how S-P can be so blinded by his desire to go home that he will do anything necessary to get there. However, he should always believe that he is doing the right thing. I'm sorry, but S-P gleefully, maniacally and bloodthirstily grinning ear to ear in anticipation of beating people to death and enjoying it as he does in IC6, gloating that he killed Titans without even trying - that's just too far a stretch for me.

this is another valid critism, to which I would counter with two points:

1) in the specific case of SBP in IC #6, remember that he's now "altered", he's no longer the person he was before, what we don't know is what happened to him when he was in the speed force. By his own admission, he was there for "years", we don't know what kind of effect all those years on a red sun planet would have on him, personality-wise, we don't know whether he was in isolation, or what. He didn't take being trapped with AL, Kal-L and lois in paradise real well, one only wonders how he took being trapped by himself on a red sun planet.

Recall that in IC #4, when the fight actually occurs with the titans, there's nothing gleefull about the killing at all, he's trying to stop himself, and he's horrified by what he's doing. He feels he was forced into it.

2) In the case of AL, and Kal-L, I feel like they're characterization is natural, Kal-L's big thing is finding a way to save Lois, but as you saw in IC #5 and IC #6, Kal-L is still basically a good person. AL is a luthor, and at the end of the day is motivated by what all luthors want, and the message seems to be that he's motivated by this whether he realizes it openly, or not.

stealthwise

04-08-2006, 03:46 PM

Take Tim Drake, for example, if you read the last issue of Teen Titans (the first OYL issue), and you saw what Tim Drake was doing, you know where this is going, you've seen it happen a million times before, and you'll see it happen a million times again, good intentions, bad result. It's the entire premise behind Batman's spy satellite, and Charles xavier's decision to send a green, untested group of mutants to a place like krakoa to extract the x-men. good intentions, bad result.

Actually, if I may interject, I can actually see Robin's efforts working out. A storyline like that would provide something different from the cliches that you point out, and would show that heroes CAN make good use of their science and powers in order to improve their situation or the world's.

soda

04-08-2006, 04:13 PM

Yeah, but people don't really read Crisis on Infinite Earths because it's good; they read it because it's a necessary read if you want to understand the history of the DC Universe. I mean, as a story, it's tedious, drawn-out, and boring. It's really not even a story so much as it is a tool to get from one place to another in terms of the stories that writers were free to create. If I had to recommend either it or Secret Wars as an entertaining read, I'd go with SW in a heartbeat. It's not read as often anymore, but that's because it doesn't really have anything to do with the Marvel Universe as it currently is.

I think Infinite Crisis will be largely the same, or maybe even less-read than COIE because it ultimately won't have had as big of an impact on the DCU. I mean, they can only harp on Wonder Woman killing Max Lord for so long before people get tired of it and/or it's written out of continutiy. And since a lot of the changes that IC is making seem to just be changing things back to the way they were before COIE, there's even less reason for people interested in DC history to pick it up. Likewise, I don't imagine that Civil War will have a huge lasting impact on the Marvel Universe, but it'll probably be a better story.

This is seriously a great post, it brings to light several very interesting things:

1) the accusation that COIE isn't "good", but that people only read it because it's "required". I've heard this argument, a lot, over the years, and there's no doubt that there's a lot of truth to it. Let's be clear: COIE is a different comic, from a different time, it's inaccesible, dense, terse, and very hard to get into. I read it, the first time, years ago when I was just starting in comics, and I remember thinking WTF? I didn't know who most of those characters were (nor did I care at the time), so I put it away, thinking I must be a bad person because I saw Jonah Hex and the Crime Syndicate of America and Lady Quark (and her husband, Lord Volt) and I didn't care. It wasn't until years later, when I read COIE, again, and reread it again, that things started to make sense, and that I found out that this really was a very good book. Not easy to get into, but Homer's Illiad, to name but one other example, is hard to get into, for a modern audience, too. Don't confuse something being "bad" quality wise, with being hard to get into. COIE is hard to get into, I'll grant you that, but it's an excellent, fulfilling read, at least it is to me, and it deserves it's place as a classic.

2) To me, I have a very, very hard time believing that Civil war will be a better story. Please, note, this isn't a knock on marvel, and this isn't about the whole marvel-dc thing, it's just a statement. I have a very hard time believing that the next big DC crossover will be as good as IC. To me, big mega-crossovers are just geometrically hard projects to get to work just right. IC is one of the few that are really clicking on all cylinders, and I have a hard time seeing anyone matching that in the near future. The history of big mega-crossovers is filled with busts, is filled with things that fans would like to forget (zero hour, war games, house of m), and is filled with a lot of half-baked ideas that didn't come close to panning out. Look at house of M, eight issues, and I could have done it in three:

issue one: world goes to white
issue two: house of M, xavier's grave shown at the end.
issue three: wanda wishes away all the mutants.

There, three issues, and I told you what took BMB eight issues. Obviously, House of M was mostly "filler", that's the way these things generally go, and that's how I think Civil War will go, but what do I know? Put another way, here's a joke at my local comic store: "yeah, if IC was House of M, it would be 52." What do we mean by that? IC is one of the tightest comics ever written, everything happens so fast, every three pages of IC is like the last three pages of the coolest comic you've ever read, it has a briskness of pace to it, it doesn't waste page space, a lot happens in a confined space. House of M was the polar opposite, five wasted issues, by my count, if IC wasted as much page space as House of M (went as far with nothing happening), it would be 52 issues long.

I don't think that IC will be a sucessor to COIE, by the way, I said above that I think COIE was actually an excellent comic, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the reason why most people read it the first time is because it's needed to understand DC continuity. The argument that's it's needed is accurate. What I think IC will be is the watchmen or DKR of it's generation, instead of the COIE, it will be the comic that people get their hands on, and that just blows people away to the point where everything changes as a result. We're already seeing the fallout of Crisis, ironically, at marvel. Look at the format for annihilation, and the illumnati one shot prior to civil war. That's how countdown to infinite crisis, and the four IC specials changed the world, that's the new industry paradigm.

soda

04-08-2006, 04:52 PM

I know that, in the 1980s, Jim Shooter tried to maintain tight editorial reins at Marvel, to maintain continuity. Problem was, we were moving into an era where the writers were becoming stars and sometimes prima donnas and he lost a lot of writers over it. But that aside, I think there is a BIG difference between having a continuity that makes you want to buy another book which in turn makes you want to be another and then another in 1961 and trying that in 2006. The difference is about $2.87 to $3.87.

In the 1960s, comic books cost 12 cents per copy, later 15 cents. I could beg two dollars from my father and buy every comic both Marvel and DC put out every week, or at least all the ones I wanted. Sure comic books are an adult market now but, as adults, we also have many other things to worry about and that we want besides comic books. At $3.99 or so, I am not sure that a tight continuity that makes you feel you need to read a bunch of other comics is going to put them on top. For instance, outside of IC itself, I have purchased a grand total of two tie-ins. Just two issues, period. I just won't be pulled into buying a bunch of other comics I'm not into just because some story element crosses over. In fact, one of the things that had me buying more DC than Marvel after the huge price hikes was that DC comics did tend to be more self-contained. Something that was an advantage in one place and time can become a disadvantage in another.

This is a seriously great post (lots of them on this thread), and one that is a valid economic concern about the state of the modern industry. I hear it all the time, comics are too expensive. While I largely agree with that, here's my take on this:

1) to me, expense in comics goes hand in hand with the shared universe. What DC is trying to do by having a shared universe is (inarguably) trying to get more of your money. There can be no argument about this. Some people will like this, some people won't. However, I believe DC chose the perfect time in history to do this. Why? Because the current state of the industry is such that, if your the type of person who isn't into the shared universe, guess what? You have plenty of quality options to take your purchasing dollars to. If your the type of person who doesn't like the shared DC universe, I have two (DC) options for you:

Jonah Hex
Detective comics

Every issue of Jonah Hex is a one-shot, and it's high quality a comic book (great writing, great art) as there is on the market right now. If you hate the inter-connected universe, and you just want one great book, get Jonah Hex. Paul Dini (the Paul Dini, one of the greatest Batman writers in history) is starting a run on Tec in July, each issue will be a standalone detective story. If your a marvel guy, get Dan Slott's thing, I bought the last issue, and found it to be very accessible. The point is that we're at a point in comic book history where we're seeing a proliferation of styles and genres that we haven't seen in this industry since the early 50s. There's something for everyone, if you're not into the shared universe, skip it, those of us who are will buy the books.

I know this sounds like a broken record, but it bears repeating: vote with your dollar, don't buy what you aren't totally in love with, there's too much good material out there for you to read a single page you aren't digging.

Here's the line, in the quoted post, that really hit home for me:

"I just won't be pulled into buying a bunch of other comics I'm not into just because some story element crosses over."

To me, that's cart before the horse. The marketing pull of the shared universe doesn't work at all if the books suck. If I read one book, think "wow that was really cool", read a shared book and think "wow that was really lame." That's the last lay's potato chip I'm going to eat. I'm not going any further if the books suck. I was originally planning to not get any of the IC specials and tie-ins, then, my comic book shop guy handed me the "day of vengence IC special". I hadn't asked for it, he just handed me the comic, and told me, "you're buying this". I said okay. I read it, and I was floored. That was one of the best comics I've ever read, I didn't know who any of those characters were, but I cared. A while later, I picked up day of vengence as a trade at wonder-con, I read it and was floored, no one told me it was that good. So now, I'm planning on picking up the shadowpact ongoing when it comes out. That's shared marketing, but if I had picked up "day of vengence IC special" and thought "this sucks" or if I had picked it up and thought "meh, this was okay, but it didn't change my life", guess what, I wouldn't have picked up the day of vengence trade, and I wouldn't be getting the shadowpact ongoing.

An example? After the day of vengence IC special was so cool, I was chomping at the bit waiting for the rann-thanagar war IC special, I got it, and it was okay. It was pretty good, but it was no better, and no more special than a hundred other books I've read. I had the chance to pick up the Rann-Thanagar war as a trade recently, but I passed, and I likely won't be getting the Ion 12 issue series coming out.

Shared marketing is only a sales pull if the stories are really cool (the Omac project IC special blew me away, I'm getting the Checkmate ongoing, and I was getting the OMAC project series as single issues, and I dug every one of them). If the stories stink, no one is going to buy something just because it crosses over, nor should anyone be expected to. That's not the point of shared universe, the point only works when the story quality is high.

soda

04-08-2006, 04:56 PM

Actually, if I may interject, I can actually see Robin's efforts working out. A storyline like that would provide something different from the cliches that you point out, and would show that heroes CAN make good use of their science and powers in order to improve their situation or the world's.

yeah, but this is a comic book, what are the chances of that happening?

stealthwise

04-08-2006, 08:45 PM

yeah, but this is a comic book, what are the chances of that happening?

Heh, no idea. Depends on how editorial wants it to go, as there's no way that they'll be able to bring back Superboy unless DC gives it the ok. Many have guessed the effort will result in a Bizarro-boy, which would be cool enough I suppose. But giving Robin a hard-fought win would really advance the character in terms of having him show initiative and succeed where his mentor has failed.

DarthAstuart

04-08-2006, 10:23 PM

this is one of the better threads in my brief time lurking here, so i have to mix it up...

It wasn't until years later, when I read COIE, again, and reread it again, that things started to make sense, and that I found out that this really was a very good book. Not easy to get into, but Homer's Illiad, to name but one other example, is hard to get into, for a modern audience, too. Don't confuse something being "bad" quality wise, with being hard to get into. COIE is hard to get into, I'll grant you that, but it's an excellent, fulfilling read, at least it is to me, and it deserves it's place as a classic.

wow, I really disagree. I think COIE is a good story that's not all that well told. And that's taking into account the perspective that it's a comic totally of its time, the mid-eighties. that's just a YMMV thing, I guess, but I really dunno about comparing it to the Illiad!

to me, it's not hard to get into because of its age or even the density of its story. it's hard to get into because after a while, it totally loses momentum and has about two or three different "endings" before the whole shebang wraps up. talk about "writing for the trade"--there wasn't a trade to write for back then, but I do think Wolfman padded out that story big-time to make it 12 issues. so to me, it's a dense story, but could use a severe streamlining, because I honestly lose the momentum pretty much every time I read it.

What I think IC will be is the watchmen or DKR of it's generation, instead of the COIE, it will be the comic that people get their hands on, and that just blows people away to the point where everything changes as a result. We're already seeing the fallout of Crisis, ironically, at marvel. Look at the format for annihilation, and the illumnati one shot prior to civil war. That's how countdown to infinite crisis, and the four IC specials changed the world, that's the new industry paradigm.

again, man, GOTTA disagree. IC is not changing industry paradigms! it is doing crossovers in some innovative ways (the four lead-in minis, the huge buildup) and to me, for the most part, it's doing it well. but that's certainly not reinventing the wheel. marvel actually built that paradigm with Secret Wars, and for the most part, with the occasional tweak or attempt to have a fresh take, the major superhero crossover is largely the same animal.

Watchmen and DKR changed comics and are true classics because in content and storytelling techniques they were truly revolutionary. the density of moore/gibbons work; the naked simplicity of miller. two very different approaches but totally new ways to create mainstream comics. layers, depth and characterization that was head and shoulders above anything marvel or DC had done before.

IC is a really fun story. I'm enjoying it mostly. But that's all it is--a really fun, really good superhero book. superhero fans and DC fans may be thinking about it for years, but it isn't reinventing any wheels, and it certainly isn't revolutionizing anything about the medium itself.

imho, of course... :)

Bored at 3:00AM

04-08-2006, 11:02 PM

I'd first like to apologize to bored at 3 AM for hijacking his thread a little bit, but this conversation is too interesting not to continue.

Hijack away, soda. My initial concerns that Infinite Crisis wasn't actually going to change anything about DC continuity seem to have been completely unfounded, so the thread is a dead end as far as I'm concerned. Feel free to have your way with this thread as you will.

Red Berens

04-09-2006, 12:22 PM

Hijack away, soda. My initial concerns that Infinite Crisis wasn't actually going to change anything about DC continuity seem to have been completely unfounded, so the thread is a dead end as far as I'm concerned. Feel free to have your way with this thread as you will.

I agree with you, Bored. I think the biggest problem is the multiverse won't be brought back, and that basically, nothing is really going to change. At least with the original Crisis, DC had a plan, a goal they wanted to accomplish. I do not see that with IC. It just seems like another big big story, that in the end doesn't really do much. Really, whats the difference between this and the Worlds at War story?

It's probably all our own faults though - we saw it as a sequel to this biggest single event in DC history, and assumed this one would be on par, if not bigger and better.

I wonder how long we'll have to wait for the next big Crisis story. One that actually does something.

IPW

04-09-2006, 12:31 PM

I agree with you, Bored. I think the biggest problem is the multiverse won't be brought back, and that basically, nothing is really going to change.

I disagree with this statement. I think DC found middle ground. True the multiverse didn't return. But there are fan, I am one of them, that didn't want it to return. There is only one Earth, but it is a "New Earth" with alot of the less silly element of the Golden and Silver Ages. Just give the creators time to explore this "New Universe" before stating nothing changed.

Bored at 3:00AM

04-10-2006, 12:26 AM

I agree with you, Bored.

You agree with me? You sure? It doesn't sound like it. Re-read the post of mine you quoted again. I said "my initial concerns that Infinite Crisis wasn't actually going to change anything about DC continuity seem to have been completely unfounded". In other words, I thought IC wasn't going to change anything, but it seems I was wrong and it appears it actually has made pretty major changes like restoring Superboy, Joe Chill, Wonder Woman's JLA history and the Phantom Zone villains.

So, I don't think you're agreeing with me here.

lawman

04-10-2006, 04:22 AM

But there may be other changes that we don't know about and won't know about until they get referenced. The History of the DC Universe feature in 52 will probably help.

In a way, you don't really know ANYTHING about the history of New Earth, until you read about it in a comic published after IC. You can make some assumptions, but it's not a sure thing until it gets confirmed.

So unless you read it in a OYL-or-later story or 52, it doesn't count...

Which is pretty exciting, in a way.
And pretty much a pain in the ass, in another way.

We went through exactly that state of "everything you know is wrong" (despite the present-day status quo being the same!) 20 years ago, after COIE, and it produced years worth of headaches. (Can anyone say "Legion?" How about "Hawkman?" "Wonder Girl?" I could keep going...) Subjecting us to it again is not progress.

And after #6, I'm leaning strongly toward the camp that feels IC as a story is all hat and no cattle, too.

I'm not going any further if the books suck. I was originally planning to not get any of the IC specials and tie-ins, then, my comic book shop guy handed me the "day of vengence IC special". I hadn't asked for it, he just handed me the comic, and told me, "you're buying this". I said okay. I read it, and I was floored. That was one of the best comics I've ever read, I didn't know who any of those characters were, but I cared. A while later, I picked up day of vengence as a trade at wonder-con, I read it and was floored, no one told me it was that good. So now, I'm planning on picking up the shadowpact ongoing when it comes out. That's shared marketing, but if I had picked up "day of vengence IC special" and thought "this sucks" or if I had picked it up and thought "meh, this was okay, but it didn't change my life", guess what, I wouldn't have picked up the day of vengence trade, and I wouldn't be getting the shadowpact ongoing.
Really? DOV Special? Okay, to each his own. I was really excited about IC at the outset -- and I must admit that the renewed editorial focus on a convincing "shared universe" is something I wholeheartedly appreciate -- but the actual execution of IC and most of the crossovers has produced little more than that "meh" from me. It doesn't have that visceral sense of high-stakes suspense that COIE had, and it's not even in the same ballpark as Watchmen or Dark Knight. Heck, despite the deeply disappointing final issue, I'd even say that I found Identity Crisis a far more emotionally compelling story than IC.

glennsim

04-10-2006, 08:29 AM

And pretty much a pain in the ass, in another way.

We went through exactly that state of "everything you know is wrong" (despite the present-day status quo being the same!) 20 years ago, after COIE, and it produced years worth of headaches. (Can anyone say "Legion?" How about "Hawkman?" "Wonder Girl?" I could keep going...) Subjecting us to it again is not progress.

When we finished the first Crisis, I found myself thinking "everything in their history counts, unless they tell us it didn't." After this one, I find myself thinking "nothing in their history counts, unless they tell us it did." Now maybe that's just a subjective perspective and it's really all the same thing. Or maybe I learned my lesson the first time and am more wary this time. But for some reason I find myself more accepting and happier with the concept this time. Maybe I just haven't seen any fallout yet on this one...

Jolly Mon

04-10-2006, 10:11 AM

I guess the problem I have is more from a story standpoint than an "end-result" standpoint. To me, the whole of this story boiling down to two pissed-off juveniles trying to get their own way is just lame. The armor SBP comes back wearing looks like the Anti-Monitor because.... he liked the style?!? That alone was a huge letdown.

lawman

04-10-2006, 01:12 PM

Yeah, I agree, I too was hoping for a more convincing motivation (and more intimidating villain) as the ultimate "big bad."

And the story's just been too compressed (which is ironic, given the total pagecount including all the buildup and crossovers)... lots of red herrings and/or interesting threads (as with SBP's armor) that just weren't followed up. (Including, for example, the destruction in Gotham City... and, as someone else noted, too little "man-on-the-street" reaction to the crisis overall. We really don't have a good sense of its total scope.)

Too many contrivances, too. With heroes teaming up all over the place as problems emerge -- some of them (e.g., Green Arrow) seeming literally to be everywhere at once! -- are we really expected to believe that when Nightwing sent out an alert, nobody was able to respond? Heck, look at the team that was able to converge on Smallville at the drop of a hat just one issue before!

soda

04-10-2006, 01:25 PM

wow, I really disagree. I think COIE is a good story that's not all that well told. And that's taking into account the perspective that it's a comic totally of its time, the mid-eighties. that's just a YMMV thing, I guess, but I really dunno about comparing it to the Illiad!

I've read Homer's Illiad seven times in my life, I consider it to be (probably) the finest book ever written in the history of human civilization. IMHO, everything that watchmen did, the Illiad did 2,700 years earlier. I'm not saying COIE is the same as the Illiad, quality wise, what I'm saying is that they're both comparably impossibly hard to get into....For a modern audience. That last qualifier is important, the Iliad was written in Greek, by the first great rock star of the modern world, Homer was a musician, not a writer, or a poet. However, it is from a foreign land, a foreign culture, and a lot of it might as well be alien to a modern audience. I read it the first time when I was in high school, and I thought it was the worst piece of garbage I'd ever read in my life. It wasn't until I reread the book, many times over the years, that I started to "get it". Taking college classes in Greek History, and reading Greek mythology, Greek plays, and learning more about the culture really helped everything make sense too. Reading COIE was almost the same experience, there are whole parts of both books that you just skip over the first time you read it, because you find the language/whatever to be that inaccessible. The first time I read the Iliad, I used to skip over the long, declarative battle-field speeches. Okay, you're going to shove a spear through that guy, we get it, could you please wrap the speech up and get on with the spear shoving already? Again, this isn't a quality comparison, this is an accessibility comparison. The Illiad is terse, weird, and very hard to get into as well, but that doesn't mean the effort wasn't worthwhile, just that it takes a lot of effort.

to me, it's not hard to get into because of its age or even the density of its story. it's hard to get into because after a while, it totally loses momentum and has about two or three different "endings" before the whole shebang wraps up. talk about "writing for the trade"--there wasn't a trade to write for back then, but I do think Wolfman padded out that story big-time to make it 12 issues. so to me, it's a dense story, but could use a severe streamlining, because I honestly lose the momentum pretty much every time I read it.

There's a guy I know who goes to my local comic book store, really cool guy, named Chris, who says the same thing about Watchmen, every time we talk. He always sits down, and convinces himself that today will be the day that he finally reads watchmen, and for some reason, he can never finish the book. He always looses interest in it, before the end. Look, I'm not saying that your critism of COIE is baseless, I too think it's a little longish, and, of course, I just spent the better part of an entire post a bit up this thread bashing BMB for padding House of M, so let he who is without sin....

In any case, while I do agree that COIE does meander a little bit, I'm not sure I agree with the "space padding accussation". Meander? I can see that, but I think that's related to space-padding. In our modern age, every time you read a marvel comic, there's some space padding for the trade. That's marvel, we're used to it, we're used to the fact that everything has to be a six or eight issue arc in order to fit nicely into a trade. However, I think that COIE meanders, not to fill space, but to make sure that every single character used has some final plot resolution, even if that resolution is just a gateway to a new status quo. I don't expect IC to go out of it's way to tie up every loose end, but in 1985, when Marv Wolfmann was trying to reinvent an entire company (as opposed to just fine tunning it, like Johns is now with IC) it was important that every character of the silver age receive some resolution. Again, you can call that comics for the sake of continuity, as opposed to entertainment, if you want, and I'm not saying that the critism is without merit, I think it has a point, but I also think that it was unavoidable.

again, man, GOTTA disagree. IC is not changing industry paradigms! it is doing crossovers in some innovative ways (the four lead-in minis, the huge buildup) and to me, for the most part, it's doing it well. but that's certainly not reinventing the wheel. marvel actually built that paradigm with Secret Wars, and for the most part, with the occasional tweak or attempt to have a fresh take, the major superhero crossover is largely the same animal.

Watchmen and DKR changed comics and are true classics because in content and storytelling techniques they were truly revolutionary. the density of moore/gibbons work; the naked simplicity of miller. two very different approaches but totally new ways to create mainstream comics. layers, depth and characterization that was head and shoulders above anything marvel or DC had done before.

You know what's funny about history? I'm a history buff, BTW, if you came to my house, and I was watching TV, chances are you'd catch me watching the history channel. The thing I've noticed about history is that no one knows what is going to be a classic for the next generation until history has it's say. People talk about how IC is missing that one major thing in it, people talk about the empty feeling, but really the reason why DKR and watchmen are classics is because when they came out, people picked up the book, read it, and went "holy crap!" DKR had that Frank Miller grim and gritty style that's been copied over and over and over again for the last twenty years. DKR is, doubtless, very cool, but if you look at it, it's really a very simplistic plot. The genesis of that plot (future batman, return of the dark knight, fight with superman) is unique in how outrageous it was, but the execution was nothing special. Watchmen is, in many ways, the polar opposite of DKR, DKR is about style, watchmen was a standard panel comic, not unlike a million other silver age comics. Watchmen, by and large, has a visual style that's just panel after panel of talking heads, with very little action going on, what makes watchmen unique is that realism of what's going on, that even though these characters are super-human, you can relate to all of them as human beings. That's something that the silver age, an era of cookie cutter, cartoonish comics, didn't really have. To a modern reader, both of these classics seem dated, because both of them were copied so many times between then and now, what people don't get is that watchmen and DKR came first, and that, when they came out, they blew people away.

To compare IC to watchmen or DKR is ludicrous. In my time as a comic reader, the only book I've ever read that compares is Kingdome come. However, here's the trick, the first time I read Watchmen, DKR, and Kingdome come, I didn't like any of the three. I read Kingdome come, and I was really confused by what was going on (I mean, I got the plot, what I didn't have was character motivation, this was 2001, when I was just getting back into comics, and I didn't have the background on the DCU). same with watchmen and DKR (for similar reasons). If you're new to the DCU, I can see how IC would have some barriers to understanding what was going on, but in my mind, it will be a classic, someday.

lawman

04-10-2006, 01:35 PM

I don't think DK or Watchmen feel dated at all.

They each blew me away from the very first issue when they first came out (1986 was a damn good year for comics!), and sustained that level of intensity right through to the very end. Their respective styles have, as you note, been "copied" many times since, but never equalled -- each stands on its own as a supremely satisfying reading experience, second-rate knockoffs notwithstanding.

COIE is slightly more a creature of its time, but still a satsifying read in its own right, IMHO... although one does have to have some familiarity with pre-Crisis DC to really appreciate it. I don't think the storytelling is significantly less sophisticated in any particular way as compared to IC.

Now, reading the 1958 Superman tales in the recent Showcase phone book... those seem dated!...

yeoman

04-10-2006, 01:49 PM

Tom

04-10-2006, 02:03 PM

Didio, of course, having giving us reason to trust his word. Oh, wait, he's flat out said he'll lie about what's going to happen.
And hey, it turn out he was right after all. There aren't going to be sweeping changes to the DCU; there isn't going to be a multiverse; Clark is still Superman; Diana is still Wonder Woman; and Bruce is still Batman.

Michael P

04-10-2006, 02:07 PM

Shellhead

04-10-2006, 02:09 PM

So far, I've been disappointed by Infinite Crisis. The 4 minis contain significant chunks of the story, but I resent the idea of spending an extra $60 just to be able to enjoy a 7-issue series. And having just finished IC #6, it looks like the payoff from this series will be minimal. I admit that I was hoping for the return of the multiverse, and that anything short of that was unlikely to make this series a worthy sequel to the original Crisis. At this point, One Year Later seems more like One Yawn Later to me.

The artwork has also been disappointing. The duelling covers between Lee and Perez was a good idea in concept, but the reality has been less than I expected from either artist. The interior work has been rough, inconsistent and a little weak on the story-telling, with random changes in facial features from panel to panel, and Power Girl's breasts also randomly changing in size.

Worst of all, Geoff Johns has not given this his best effort. He wrote some excellent Flash stories, and some really amazing JSA sagas, like Stealing Thunder and the King of Tears. But this time around, it just feels less like a story and more like a marketing brochure for DC's current product line. On this page, a couple of characters are speculating on some cosmic threat, then on the next page, other characters are fighting some menace from one of the minis, with no resolution to either scene here. Major plot points blatantly contradict each other, leading to big and somewhat messy scenes that leave me shrugging, "so what?"

To be specific, Superboy's powers seem to vary considerably from his three appearances during the first Crisis. Kal-l seens utterly blind to the consequences of his actions early in IC, then in issue #6, he seems to know exactly what the ramifications will be. Batman abruptly becomes nice again after years of dickish behavior, because why? His Brother Eye program got hijacked and then he had a brief conversation with some Superman he doesn't remember? All the Teen Titans and their allies are on super-teleporting-speed-dial for Superboy, but only two show up when founder Nightwing asks for help? Superboy rips up Lex Luthor's armor in one issue, then we see Lex hiding shortly after that battle nearby in an undamaged suit of armor?

It's just amazingly slopppy writing from a writer who used to care enough to get it right. Maybe Johns is burned out. I suspect that he had to write this with too much input from Didio and various editors, leading to lots of compromises and last-minute changes that didn't work, like Marvel's notorious Clone Saga.

DarthAstuart

04-10-2006, 03:56 PM

i think we're both pretty much on the same page here, but in the hopes of keeping this awesome thread alive...

IMHO, everything that watchmen did, the Illiad did 2,700 years earlier.

well, duh. :) one of my favorite saying is "there's nothing new under the sun." so true.

I'm not saying COIE is the same as the Illiad, quality wise, what I'm saying is that they're both comparably impossibly hard to get into....For a modern audience.

on that, I totally agree. whyat you seemed to be saying originally is that the fact that COIE is a product of its time is why it can be hard to get into, and what I was trying to say is that it's also hard to get into because it's kinda not so great in spots. but yeah, it's very inaccessible to readers who don't know a lot about continuity...

which gets to a random point that always bugs me about continuity conversations, which is that if we ever get to this totally clean & easy continuity, what's the fun/point of that?! how else do new fans (or even ignorant old fans) learn about continuity if they aren't reading something, totally confused, and yet intrigued enough to buy all the back issues and figure everything out?

In any case, while I do agree that COIE does meander a little bit, I'm not sure I agree with the "space padding accussation". Meander? I can see that, but I think that's related to space-padding. In our modern age, every time you read a marvel comic, there's some space padding for the trade. That's marvel, we're used to it, we're used to the fact that everything has to be a six or eight issue arc in order to fit nicely into a trade. However, I think that COIE meanders, not to fill space, but to make sure that every single character used has some final plot resolution, even if that resolution is just a gateway to a new status quo.

I think that's true...BUT (and there's always a but, isn't there?) I think it's also true that the story just goes on way too long. there's a couple of false endings in there (it's honestly been several months since I re-read it, and I have no brain for trivia/facts/much of anything at all, so I don't recall what exactly they are) that to me rival the end of Return of the King. as of IC #6 at least, I think it has a much tighter focus. but then, if they tacked five issues onto IC, maybe it'd have a couple of false endings too.

If you're new to the DCU, I can see how IC would have some barriers to understanding what was going on, but in my mind, it will be a classic, someday.

yes, BUT...I'm saying IC isn't a classic because the storytelling isn't as strong or as innovative as either Watchmen or DKR, and you're saying it isn't a classic YET because it's inaccessible to new readers. right? or am I missing something?

and you're right--time creates classics. but so do brilliant artists. the reason people said "holy crap" for Watchmen or DKR is, as you said, the fact that these were revolutionary pieces of comic book entertainment. (and I'll just ignore the fact that you think the storytelling in DKR is "nothing special" for the time being. :p ) i wouldn't go so far as to say they were instant classics, but they were close.

could IC become a classic in comics? maybe, i guess. it will certainly be a watershed moment in the history of DC, but that's because they created it to be. they made it an event, the story didn't.

but if it is a classic, it can never be a classic in the same way that Watchmen and DKR are classics, because those two series fundamentally changed the way comics were seen and the way comic book stories were told, at least from a perspective of the comics mainstream. if IC is ever a "classic," it will simply be a classic superhero comic, no more, and no less--several orders of magnitude down from true groundbreaking classics of an entire artform.

a comparison, to be clearer--Die Hard is a classic action movie (IMHO). Citizen Kane is a classic MOVIE. two completely different levels of classic.

soda

04-10-2006, 06:15 PM

well, duh. :) one of my favorite saying is "there's nothing new under the sun." so true.

My version of that: every modern myth is simply a re-interpretation of Homer's Illiad, and every modern adventure story is a re-interpretation of the Odyssey.

which gets to a random point that always bugs me about continuity conversations, which is that if we ever get to this totally clean & easy continuity, what's the fun/point of that?! how else do new fans (or even ignorant old fans) learn about continuity if they aren't reading something, totally confused, and yet intrigued enough to buy all the back issues and figure everything out?

There are only two possible reactions, aren't there? You either throw your hands in the air, chalk it up as too confusing, and give up, or you keep at it, persevere and understand. Which writer it is that introduces you to the story has a lot to do with it, an interesting mystery is a lot more fun to solve than one that's presented un-interestingly. Yeah, Hawkman is a mess, but if I don't care about Hawkman, why do I want to figure it out? That's why I've put in so much effort over the years to try to understand DC continuity, however, I agree that without the paradoxes, it isn't as much fun.

On the other hand, there's the marvel way (which is what I find interesting). I was reading an interview at newsarama this morning, before I went to work, in which BMB talked about the illumanti special, and he talked about marvel continuity, because several people pointed out to him that the meeting he depicts couldn't have happened when he said it did. His reply was essentially to wave his hands, and say "that's the magic of comic books". I love the marvel way, of pretending that inconvenient continuity doesn't even exist (only remember the past as you want to). Joe Quesada has said that Marvel "doesn't do crisises." and he's right, they don't pay enough attention to continuity to even acknowledge the inconsistencies that led DC to crisis.

I think that's true...BUT (and there's always a but, isn't there?) I think it's also true that the story just goes on way too long. there's a couple of false endings in there (it's honestly been several months since I re-read it, and I have no brain for trivia/facts/much of anything at all, so I don't recall what exactly they are) that to me rival the end of Return of the King. as of IC #6 at least, I think it has a much tighter focus. but then, if they tacked five issues onto IC, maybe it'd have a couple of false endings too.

You are right, there are several false endings (the anti-monitor banished to the anti-matter universe, the universe reforming, the battle in the negative matter universe, the second battle). Again, I'm not Marv Wolfmann, so I don't know what the purpose behind this all was, I can tell you this, though, the E2 Robin and Huntress apparently die well into COIE #12, and their "deaths" are pretty important, so getting all those details in might be why the book was extended. I don't know, I do think you have a point.

and you're right--time creates classics. but so do brilliant artists. the reason people said "holy crap" for Watchmen or DKR is, as you said, the fact that these were revolutionary pieces of comic book entertainment. (and I'll just ignore the fact that you think the storytelling in DKR is "nothing special" for the time being. :p ) i wouldn't go so far as to say they were instant classics, but they were close.

could IC become a classic in comics? maybe, i guess. it will certainly be a watershed moment in the history of DC, but that's because they created it to be. they made it an event, the story didn't.

but if it is a classic, it can never be a classic in the same way that Watchmen and DKR are classics, because those two series fundamentally changed the way comics were seen and the way comic book stories were told, at least from a perspective of the comics mainstream. if IC is ever a "classic," it will simply be a classic superhero comic, no more, and no less--several orders of magnitude down from true groundbreaking classics of an entire artform.

a comparison, to be clearer--Die Hard is a classic action movie (IMHO). Citizen Kane is a classic MOVIE. two completely different levels of classic.

This bothers me, and variations of this logic bother me. Here's my personal opinion (this is purely IMHO): The best comic book I've ever read is probably Kingdome come. Most people say DKR or watchmen, and while I certainly esteem both books, Kingdome come is #1, for me. I like the modified Divine Comedy (one of my fav books) that runs throughout Kingdome come. The first time I read it, I didn't get it, like I didn't get DKR or watchmen the first time, but they all grew on me. However, here's my point: part of the reason why I hold Kingdome Come in higher regard than DKR or watchmen is simply because Kingdome Come hasn't been copied so many times, by so many people, like the other two. I wasn't a fan before 1990, I don't know what watchmen and DKR were like when they were first published, before other people had duplicated it ad naseum. Here's the problem: it's hard for me to tell if Watchmen and DKR are simply the best, or just were first. In other words, when subsequent copies came out, were any of those copies actually better? (for the record, my answer, based upon what I've read is "No")

Okay, so now that I've said something border-line heretical, what's the point? The point is that this quote:

"it will certainly be a watershed moment in the history of DC, but that's because they created it to be. they made it an event, the story didn't."

is problematic for me. Yes, DC clearly made IC a big event, but which order do the cart and horse go in? Is IC an event because DC made it an event, or did DC make this a big event because the story was worthy of that distinction? We've see comic book companies make something an event because they decided it was going to be an event, whether the story quality demanded it or not ("it's summertime, time for the annual mega-crossover. What'll we do this year?") so often that we assume something is a certain just cynically. What I am saying is that, while there can be no doubt that DC did want to make this a mega-event, just the fact that they did doesn't, and shouldn't take away from the fact that IC is a very good story, on it's own merits.

Put another way, yes, Citizen Kane and Die Hard are two very different movies, however:

1) Citizen Kane isn't a perfect film. Neither is Die Hard, yes, clearly they are two very different kinds of movies, but, here's the catch, by what right does Citizen Kane get the Academy Award nomination and Die Hard not? (please note: I'm not arguing for Die Hard and against Citizen Kane, for the record, I haven't seen either movie, I'm just arguing by what right does one receive recognition as a classic and the other not?)

Here's a less extreme example. A few years ago, gladiator won the academy award (and status as an "instant classic") over a much better film "crouching tiger, hidden dragon", this year, I saw "crash", and "brokeback mountain", and I thought they were both pretty good, but "Sin City" was the best movie I saw last year. I know quite a few people, who aren't comic book fans, over at some of the movie sites I frequent, who also think Sin City was either the best film of last year, or a strong contender. I submit that it should have at least gotten a nom. The point I'm trying to make is that, yes, the gap between Die Hard and Citizen Kane is big, and no one argues that, however, to put one up for due consideration as a classic movie, period, and the other one not based upon their being "different kinds of movies", is, to me, problematic, because the logical implication is that whether or not you are eligible for status as a "classic movie, period" is a function of what type of movie you are, viz, that dramas, like citizen kane, are eligible for the title "classic movies, period", but that action movies, like Die Hard, aren't and are eligible only for the lesser classic label "classic action movie".

That's a false metric, and is reflective of an implied elitest snobbery towards things of a certain type. The Illiad is amongst the most gory, blood-filled, action books in the history of mankind. Hector and Achilles are clear templates for Superman and Batman, and if the Illiad were made today, it would be, guess what, a Rock 'n Roll song performed by the beetles, the rolling stones, areosmith, and (insert name of your favorite musician here) put together. The Illiad was, in it's own time, a pop culture sensation, that became a classic because people forgot it was a pop culture sensation, and because the culture to which it was a pop culture sensation ultimately disappeared.

stealthwise

04-10-2006, 07:26 PM

And hey, it turn out he was right after all. There aren't going to be sweeping changes to the DCU; there isn't going to be a multiverse; Clark is still Superman; Diana is still Wonder Woman; and Bruce is still Batman.

Right on. I mean, the multiverse would be cool to bring back in some form, but you really don't need it, given that you can tell any tale you want in Elseworlds form or through the Vertigo line anyways. All an Earth-2/3/131 gives you is an opportunity to screw it all up by having those characters cross over with the main DCU.

And Clark should be Superman, Diana should be Wonder Woman and Bruce should be Batman, because every other time they've tried otherwise its failed miserably.

shyguy

04-11-2006, 12:19 AM

is problematic for me. Yes, DC clearly made IC a big event, but which order do the cart and horse go in? Is IC an event because DC made it an event, or did DC make this a big event because the story was worthy of that distinction?

Well, that seems fairly easy to answer. Insofar as Infinite Crisis even has a story, it's clearly just a mishmash of various things that longtime DC fans are going to see and say "cool!" to. The most blatant example is something like Earth 2 Wonder Woman literally dropping out of the sky, talking to the other Wonder Woman, and then vanishing (it's kind of funny when you think about it), but there are other examples, too, like seeing e2 Superman again, Superboy wearing the Anti-Monitor's armor, a Superboy/Superboy fight, etc.

Basically, take a bunch of scenarios that would have made good Silver Age covers, play them out with a flimsy plot stringing them together and you have IC. All of this stuff is happening because it's cool to see a bunch of superheroes team up and fight a bad guy/ each other, not because any writer had anything fresh or interesting to say about any of the characters.

While it's true that snobbery has to be avoided when comparing comics (the last thing we want to do is sound like certain indy-comic readers who turn up their nose at superhero books), one has to choose his battles, and Infinite Crisis ain't one of 'em. To make a comparison - Watchmen was written to deconstruct superheroes (before it had been done every single month in one book or another); Infinite Crisis was written because it's cool to see Superman fighting Superman.

That doesn't mean every big event is a bad story, but most of them are. It's hard enough to tell a coherent (let alone good) story with the huge cast that most big events entail, but most of them aren't created with the purpose of telling a good story in the first place. This goes double for DC events, which usually aren't even stories so much as they're tools for changing continuity or fixing errors that past attempts at fixing continuity have created.

And it's also not to say that a comic based on the fact that it's cool to see a good artist draw a bunch of superheroes on the same page has to be bad. That's all JLA/Avengers was, and it was a blast. What was the plot behind it? I dunno, something goofy about Krona and magical whatsits - but who cares? It was cool seeing both company's Captain Marvels fighting together!

But it also can't really be denied that things like Watchmen function on a different level than things like Infinite Crisis. Especially since Infinite Crisis isn't even that good as far as big events go. Most of the important stuff is happening in other books; IC is just little glimpses at a bunch of largely-unrelated stuff that's going on all over the DCU with spotty artwork and predictable writing.

And a good example of a story that worked the other way around (i.e. someone had an idea that warranted an event) is Seven Soldiers. The strength of Grant Morrison's idea was enough to get DC to commit to a 30-issue maxiseries. While it seems fairly obvious that someone saw Infinite Crisis as a great way to build up a ton of hype, get people to buy a plethora of books that ultimately have little if any connection to the miniseries, snare in fans with a bunch of "kewl" things like the return of pre-Crisis characters and the deaths of B and C list characters, and have a convenient platform from which to launch two more hype-driven events (52 and OYL), it also seems fairly obvious that nobody was sitting around DC one day and said, "Hey, I bet a Kl