The DC Universe: Post-FINAL CRISIS

[Buried Alien]

The FINAL CRISIS is over. Now each previous DC Universe Crisis has led to drastic changes in continuity, cosmology, and even underlying universal moods (i.e. from the "lightness" of the Silver Age to the "darkness" of the Modern Age Post-COIE).

Other than the obvious deaths and rebirths of various characters, what such paradigm shifts are we getting out of FINAL CRISIS? Has continuity been adjusted again? Exactly what worlds are a part of the Multiverse now, and how are they designated? Is it a "lighter" or "darker" DCU now than it was before FINAL CRISIS?

These are the questions that need to be explored in the months and years ahead.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[KJ_81]

I'd be all for them being explored and fleshed out.

But looking at DC's recent history, it's now just a matter of time til the next universe-changing event that alters the characters history and continuity.

I really wish they'd just stick to something. Make a decision and stick with it.


As a reader, I've lost faith in DC's ability to keep a coherent continuity, and to commit to its storylines.

Besides GL, I'm done with DC.

:/

[marshal99]

COIE was confusing for some at that time , and it created some contiunity problems for some characters but on the other hand , Final crisis opened up a can of worms that is worse than COIE ever was , now it's a incoherent load of mess. Morrison can write in his own continuity but on the overall scale , it's just a jumbled mess.

[Alex Smith]

It seemslike it is going to be largely ignored. Especially with the wish Superman made on the Miracle Machine, like nothing ever happened. Save for the last page that is.

[Choppa]

I agree that it will mostly be ignored. The only things that will seems to stick are Batman's dissapearance, the people moving over to Earth-51, and we probably won't see the Monitors again for a while.

[ShaggyB]

I agree that it will mostly be ignored. The only things that will seems to stick are Batman's dissapearance, the people moving over to Earth-51, and we probably won't see the Monitors again for a while.

im thinking earth 51 will not be mentioned anymore.

It was a poorly executed ride. Makes better sense if read together but sooo much missed potential and it does make dcu more a mess now

[Captain Smith]

Darkseid and Batman will be back doing their thing with little change in a bit.

Waste of time as compared to the COIE.

[carabas]

Only if you see these big stories as a means to an end (setting up some new status quo) rather than just big stories.

[Will.S]

The FINAL CRISIS is over. Now each previous DC Universe Crisis has led to drastic changes in continuity, cosmology, and even underlying universal moods (i.e. from the "lightness" of the Silver Age to the "darkness" of the Modern Age Post-COIE).

Other than the obvious deaths and rebirths of various characters, what such paradigm shifts are we getting out of FINAL CRISIS? Has continuity been adjusted again? Exactly what worlds are a part of the Multiverse now, and how are they designated? Is it a "lighter" or "darker" DCU now than it was before FINAL CRISIS?

These are the questions that need to be explored in the months and years ahead.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)
I don't think there have been any changes to continuity but from from what I understand there's been a major reshuffling of things as well as the Monitors not having a significant role in events anytime soon.

It's nice to see Barry and Aquaman back as well as the Question in a interesting role within the GPA and the return of the New Gods. However I can't help but think that all of that stuff is just going to go to waste by Didio's mismanagement again save for the Flash since Geoff and Ethan are working on that. It would make the most sense to me to give the Global Peace Agency concept to Rucka (and maybe a co-writer like Eric Trautman) and have Kurt Busiek come back to Aquaman.

It's a little tricker when it comes to the New Gods stuff, what I found odd was that we sort of got half and half of what we saw in the sketchbooks. We saw a mixed Darkseid design, the Super Young Team, Black Racer, Nix Uotan, and Metron but we didn't see the design tweaks for Orion, Light Ray, Big Barda, Dessad, or Granny Goodness yet since they were either inhabiting other bodies or they haven't made a full return yet.

Hopefully they will incorporate those whenever DC decides to pick up the New Gods stuff where it was left off but I don't have faith in anyone at DC to pick them up and do them right save for Morrison, Keith Giffin, or Greg Rucka. Blackest Night is also a big factor given how its the next big event and how it'll be running with the things set in motion by the DCU post Final Crisis.

[Flash's Lightning]

I don't know, I've just been disappointed with DC's direction for a while now. Final Crisis did not excite me.

Teen Titans is dying. Manhunter, Blue Beetle, Robin, Nightwing, Birds of Prey, just to name a few, have been killed, and some not even for sales reasons. Basically they were killed "just because".

Batman is being "recreated" when he didn't really need a recreation - he was doing just fine.

Superman has a decent story in New Krypton, but I have a feeling that's it for a while.

And with all that it gives me the feeling that the upcoming Green Lantern story will be a letdown as well, that it'll be mishandled by DiDio somehow.

Final Crisis really didn't change anything, it didn't even change the tone of the DCU, because they don't know what the tone of the DCU IS anymore. And for all the talk of how important the "trinity" is, where was Wonder Woman during this whole series? She shows up for TWO SECONDS?

Bah. Rant over.

[Spiffy]

They've left it open on purpose. Enough so that they can claim certain changes were a result, but they aren't forced to declare anything. There was no overt "this is the new reality" moment like with other Crisises, but the way the finale seemed to play out left open certain bits which can be interpreted that way if you want to. There are "god machines" running around, people dropping out of space and time, life and anti-life formulas, etc. DC will pick up various bits when needed and do whatever the heck they feel like, basically. That may, in many cases, include doing nothing. Or just showing a change (glub, glub, I'm Aquaman!) and not explaining it at all.

[Doug Strange]

Only if you see these big stories as a means to an end (setting up some new status quo) rather than just big stories.
Exactly. This entire thread is completely antithetical to the spirit of the work.

By obsessing, cataloging, watching everything, fandom (ie, the Monitors) is introducing an unheathly vampire taint to the DCU.

[Doug Strange]

double post

[Sean Walsh]

If I may chime in about the debate regarding Wonder Woman's usage here...

Unless I'm mistaken, she's portrayed in #7 as being the person who binds Darkseid's mortal form with her lasso (after he'd been hit by the Racer) which then leads to the loosening of the ALE's grip on 3 BILLION people. She's as vital to Darkseid's defeat as Superman was, IMHO (but with less musical melody :tongue: )

And I took the panel of her crushing of the warthog mask as a way of Morrison crushing that old Golden Age image of her as a bondage/fetish device (which her creator, William Marston, was way into and was an impetus of WW's very creation). She could've tossed it aside, but instead she took the thing that created a negative image of her and destroyed it completely. I thought that was very deliberate.

[comicstar100]

Not to sound condescending but I think the purpose of this thread was to track the changes made to the DCU in Final Crisis not our views about the story itself.

[rev sully]

I did not see any continuity changes.

There were none mentioned. It didn't work that way too. In the End it wasn't a Story about Continuity...it became something else. A story about Us in a way...about being the Watcher, the Monitor, the Source...it's great stuff. As Grant Warned in his THE FILTH, This Product Contains the Active Ingredient METAPHOR.

It was good to see the heroes pull Earth-Zero out of the Abyss than settle another world. So they were reclaiming what was theirs. Their stories. "The Story of ALL our stories", -Lois Lane, FC#7.

[Ultimate Jim]

So, everyone did end up on another Earth, not back on Earth-0? I couldn't follow that.
Also, does everyone remember what happened with Darkseid and all, or no...? I’m just wondering why no one in any of the other DC books I’m reading ever mentions the events with Darkseid. No references made, nothing– like it never happened.

[Will.S]

Exactly. This entire thread is completely antithetical to the spirit of the work.

By obsessing, cataloging, watching everything, fandom (ie, the Monitors) is introducing an unheathly vampire taint to the DCU.
I actually thought that the Monitors represented the writers more than the readers.

[heffison]

So, everyone did end up on another Earth, not back on Earth-0? I couldn't follow that.

Well, they have to end up back on their own Earth, because that's where all the bodies are for Blackest Night, right?

[40footwolf]

It didn't seem like anything at all changed.

And that's probably how it's going to be.

[JohnConstantine]

Why is everyone complaining about not knowing what the new "tone" of the DCU is (silver age - happy go lucky; Modern age - dark and "realistic")? Why does the entire DCU need to be put under on singular "tone"? In my mind to put a blanket "tone" on the DCU is silly and limiting. The only tone I'm looking for or care about are good stories. How could you possibly have Batman and Blue Beetle written with the same "tone" in mind? It seems to me it would just be some limiting parameters put on all DCU books. What if the new tone in no tone at all (Whoa nelly, that was deep, huh? I should be a philosopher)? Meaning all books are welcome to be what they want, without worrying whether its vibe fits the rest of the titles?

Also, I for one am kinda stoked that there haven't been monumental changes to DCU just for the sake of change. I got what I was looking for outta Final Crisis - A great story that didn't take place outside of continuity, yet included ALL of the DCU (even Frankenstein babay!). What I also reeeeeally dig is the fact that the "New age of mankind" (5th world?) that Metron said he was prepping earth for waaaaaaay back in Morrison's "JLA : World War III" has seem to come along (or did i just misread Final Crisis?). How often does that happen in comics? That something that's said is going to happen in the future ACTUALLY HAPPENS?

All together I was stoked with Final Crisis. It kicked Secret Invasion's @$$ thats for sure, and it actually didn't do what most comic events do, i.e. - Have a depressing ending! What's so wrong with happy endings? Not "serious" enough? Feh! If I wanted serious I would watch french movies.

With all this said it should probably be said that I would most likely enjoy a comic book adaptation of the "H" section of the phone book if it was written by Morrison. However I do agree with others on this post in that Didio is kinda wack. DCU needs a new showrunner.

[fb1990]

Shouldn't we wait for "Origins & Omens" next month before finding out whether there were any continuity changes?

[MWGallaher]

So, everyone did end up on another Earth, not back on Earth-0? I couldn't follow that.
Also, does everyone remember what happened with Darkseid and all, or no...? I’m just wondering why no one in any of the other DC books I’m reading ever mentions the events with Darkseid. No references made, nothing– like it never happened.

I think a subset of people from Bludhaven, including Kamandi, were transported to Earth-51 by Boomtube after the Checkmate plan failed. Kamandi is seen greeting the new arrivals, including Sonny Sumo, who is arriving back on his original planet. Then, after Nix Uotan remakes that Earth, the humans, except for Kamandi, have been replaced by humanoid animals (I haven't noticed anyone yet pointing out that Nix's blueprint for Earth-51 is Jack Kirby's map of "Earth A.D. ("After Disaster") from the original Kamandi comic book).

[Sizzle]

I don't think it did much. I for one, am not a fan of the multiverse. This ain't Baskin Robins.

I thought it was poorly executed. Batman did not need to suffer the fate he did. His sales were doing fine. I'm not happy Barry is back, Wally is my Flash, but if they want to try and revive the Flash franchise, they should of made Barry's return really mean something, he should of taken out Darkseid.

[vitruvian]

Some unknown number of Checkmate-related characters went to Earth-51. Not sure yet if this includes the two Atoms and Mr. Terrific; guess we'll find out if they don't show up in the main DCU.

Barry Allen is back.

Bruce Wayne is stuck in the (possibly alternate) past for a while.

The original Arthur Curry is evidently back.

Hawkman and Hawkgirl are dead (for a while).

Martian Manhunter is dead (possibly for good).

The Monitors no longer have an active (if any) role in the multiverse.

The Zoo Crew are anthropomorphic funny animals with superpowers again as opposed to realistic animals.

Some new version of the New Gods of New Genesis is developing, with the Super Young Team as the new version of the Forever People.

Ultraman of the anti-matter universe is no longer around to kick around, having been dusted after being transformed into a vampire.

3 billion people were possessed by the god of evil for subjective weeks or months, and many others were killed by them and Darkseid's other minions, yet most likely there will be few if any references to how traumatized the entire world is from these events.

Superman's going to be leaving for entirely different reasons (New Krypton) for a while.

Wonder Woman is probably going to be in a similar situation after Rise of the Olympians.

That's about it, as far as I can tell.

Oh, Tattooed Man might stay on the side of good, and the Spectre is apparently now reconciled to his role, and Vandal Savage can no longer hide the Mark of Cain.

[Ex_]

Some unknown number of Checkmate-related characters went to Earth-51. Not sure yet if this includes the two Atoms and Mr. Terrific; guess we'll find out if they don't show up in the main DCU.

Barry Allen is back.

Bruce Wayne is stuck in the (possibly alternate) past for a while.

The original Arthur Curry is evidently back.

Hawkman and Hawkgirl are dead (for a while).

Martian Manhunter is dead (possibly for good).

The Monitors no longer have an active (if any) role in the multiverse.

The Zoo Crew are anthropomorphic funny animals with superpowers again as opposed to realistic animals.

Some new version of the New Gods of New Genesis is developing, with the Super Young Team as the new version of the Forever People.

Ultraman of the anti-matter universe is no longer around to kick around, having been dusted after being transformed into a vampire.

3 billion people were possessed by the god of evil for subjective weeks or months, and many others were killed by them and Darkseid's other minions, yet most likely there will be few if any references to how traumatized the entire world is from these events.

Superman's going to be leaving for entirely different reasons (New Krypton) for a while.

Wonder Woman is probably going to be in a similar situation after Rise of the Olympians.

That's about it, as far as I can tell.

Oh, Tattooed Man might stay on the side of good, and the Spectre is apparently now reconciled to his role, and Vandal Savage can no longer hide the Mark of Cain.

DID the Hawks die? It looked like they did. Anyone know for sure?

Also, we all know that Bats and Supes will be back eventually. Am I the only one thinking it's obvious as hell that they'll both be back for their 600th issue?

[Tobias March]

Then, after Nix Uotan remakes that Earth, the humans, except for Kamandi, have been replaced by humanoid animals (I haven't noticed anyone yet pointing out that Nix's blueprint for Earth-51 is Jack Kirby's map of "Earth A.D. ("After Disaster") from the original Kamandi comic book).

Ooo nice catch. I was sure it meant something, but I didn't pick up on the reference.

[Will.S]

Ultraman of the anti-matter universe is no longer around to kick around, having been dusted after being transformed into a vampire.
That vampire look was pretty awesome, I wished he stuck around like that.

DID the Hawks die? It looked like they did. Anyone know for sure?
Well they either died or they made it to Earth 51 but I'm leaning more towards dead.

[lawman]

Exactly. This entire thread is completely antithetical to the spirit of the work.

By obsessing, cataloging, watching everything, fandom (ie, the Monitors) is introducing an unheathly vampire taint to the DCU.
Well, that's an interesting point of view. Would it somehow thrive on its own in the absence of a loyal audience, then?

[Hawkman]

DID the Hawks die? It looked like they did. Anyone know for sure?
As an unabashed Hawkman fan, even I'm thinking they did. Sadly, the two feathers at the end sort of cemented it for me. I'm hoping for some clarification in Morrison's reported interview with Newsarama next week before completely flipping out, though.:tongue: Even if it's not directly addressed there, however, I'm still clinging to the belief that this is merely the start of another plot thread involving the two, because after the Hawkman Special DiDio seemed quite adamant that the questions raised therein would be answered throughout 2009, even mentioning Blackest Night in one instance. And looking at the special again yesterday, I couldn't help but think perhaps the black-clad Hawkgirl lookalike towards its end might just be Kendra as a Black Lantern.

Of course with the whole mess the aforementioned special created, I wouldn't be surprised if DC simply decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nevertheless, I must... cling... to hope... because to be perfectly honest a Hawkman-less DCU is vastly less interesting to me than one with him in it, and I'm speaking from experience there.

[MWGallaher]

One other interesting change: the "civilian" population of the DCU is now apparently aware of the existence of parallel universes.

[Flash's Lightning]

As an unabashed Hawkman fan, even I'm thinking they did. Sadly, the two feathers at the end sort of cemented it for me. I'm hoping for some clarification in Morrison's reported interview with Newsarama next week before completely flipping out, though.:tongue: Even if it's not directly addressed there, however, I'm still clinging to the belief that this is merely the start of another plot thread involving the two, because after the Hawkman Special DiDio seemed quite adamant that the questions raised therein would be answered throughout 2009, even mentioning Blackest Night in one instance. And looking at the special again yesterday, I couldn't help but think perhaps the black-clad Hawkgirl lookalike towards its end might just be Kendra as a Black Lantern.

Of course with the whole mess the aforementioned special created, I wouldn't be surprised if DC simply decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nevertheless, I must... cling... to hope... because to be perfectly honest a Hawkman-less DCU is vastly less interesting to me than one with him in it, and I'm speaking from experience there.

It was probably just to introduce new Hawks - remember they resurrect as new hawks.

Them dying has never been a big whoop with me.

[AlistairCrane]

Only if you see these big stories as a means to an end (setting up some new status quo) rather than just big stories.

Big stories are meaningless in and of themselves unless they lead to an end. It's the end that's important, and we really didn't get a big end with lasting repercussions with Final Crisis. It just sort of...stopped.

[AlistairCrane]

Exactly. This entire thread is completely antithetical to the spirit of the work.

By obsessing, cataloging, watching everything, fandom (ie, the Monitors) is introducing an unheathly vampire taint to the DCU.

No it isn't, and that's half the problem. Morrison used his story to slam the fans who like orderly continuity (which is *extrememly* important to a shared universe maintaining its vitality). Without properly enforced continuity, the DCU will be a great big wad where nothing matters because anything can happen.

[lawman]

No it isn't, and that's half the problem. Morrison used his story to slam the fans who like orderly continuity (which is *extrememly* important to a shared universe maintaining its vitality). Without properly enforced continuity, the DCU will be a great big wad where nothing matters because anything can happen.
I basically agree with you here. Without an audience "watching," the DCU basically ceases to exist (as I noted upthread); and I'm obviously a big fan of orderly continuity, as the link in my sig makes evident.

At the same time, however, it's worth noting that a certain measure of "anything can happen" sensibility definitely serves to keep the fictional reality exciting, suspenseful, and unpredictable. I don't think any of us just want endless reiterations of familiar old stories.

It's a fuzzy line, one that perhaps comes down to how one defines "anything": where it can be either "any damn thing that happens to cross the writer's mind" (bad), or "anything that's thematically and logically consistent with the characters' history" (good).

[Doug Strange]

Well, that's an interesting point of view. Would it somehow thrive on its own in the absence of a loyal audience, then?
DC needs people to buy their comic books, not fetishize them. The crazier and more minutia obsessed the audience gets, the smaller it gets. Then when you have the actual creators being drawn from this shrinking pool of wingbats doing nothing but catering to their peers, it adds to the problem.

[Hawkman]

It was probably just to introduce new Hawks - remember they resurrect as new hawks.

Them dying has never been a big whoop with me.
Except the resurrection cycle doesn't typically take shortcuts. When they're reincarnated, they're born and live a new life all over again, from infancy to death. The last two instances--Shiera taking up residency in Kendra, and Carter being brought back on Thanagar--were exceptions to the norm. And with the way timelines work in comic books, there's no reason why DC would ever have to bring either of them back within modern continuity.

I agree the resurrection angle makes it easier to bring the Hawks back than most; you practically have a built-in excuse. But that doesn't necessarily make it an automatic. Nevertheless, because of the still-unanswered questions raised in the Hawkman Special, I'm trying to remain optimistic for the time being.

[Buried Alien]

DC needs people to buy their comic books, not fetishize them. The crazier and more minutia obsessed the audience gets, the smaller it gets. Then when you have the actual creators being drawn from this shrinking pool of wingbats doing nothing but catering to their peers, it adds to the problem.

You're talking about an extreme fringe audience, Doug. Most people who are concerned about continuity don't take it to such an extreme. Their only demand is a very reasonable one: that continuity, if used, be used well, not recklessly or sloppily. Not every story needs to be dependent on past continuity, but if someone does choose to use it for a story, he/she needs to use it in a way that enhances rather than obstructs the telling of the story. Some due attention to detail when using continuity can go a long way to making a story more meaningful.

There is nothing innately "good" or "bad" about continuity: it's like fire or water - very destructive if not harnassed and used properly, but very useful when it is.


Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[I am MODOK]

I have a whole bunch of questions about where things stand for both characters and Earths after reading issue 7. I have a whole list at my blog, but I'm wondering if Martian Manhunter could be brought back? Are the Hawks dead? If so, I assume that Black Canary and Green Arrow are dead too, right?

[Adam C]

No it isn't, and that's half the problem. Morrison used his story to slam the fans who like orderly continuity (which is *extrememly* important to a shared universe maintaining its vitality). Without properly enforced continuity, the DCU will be a great big wad where nothing matters because anything can happen.

It's interesting how you phrase that. Why is saying that overly controlled, mechanistic continuity is a bad for a story is taken as a personal swipe?

[lawman]

It's interesting how you phrase that. Why is saying that overly controlled, mechanistic continuity is a bad for a story is taken as a personal swipe?
I don't think he said that at all. "Overly controlled" and "mechanistic" are pejorative terms that you added.

What we're talking about here (I think) is merely history, logic, causality, psychological integrity. Those things are as important in a fictional reality just as much as in the real one.

One might as well argue that a "mechanistic" approach to world history, preoccupied with minutiae about what, y'know, actually happened, interferes with a more freewheeling, creative interpretation of the past.

[The Batman]

I don't think he said that at all. "Overly controlled" and "mechanistic" are pejorative terms that you added.

What we're talking about here (I think) is merely history, logic, causality, psychological integrity. Those things are as important in a fictional reality just as much as in the real one.

One might as well argue that a "mechanistic" approach to world history, preoccupied with minutiae about what, y'know, actually happened, interferes with a more freewheeling, creative interpretation of the past.

The problem with this is, of course, the assumption that the historian and the writer of superhero stories have similar responsibilities when they don't.

Edit: And yeah, I guess it's fine if you're after a simulacrum of reality from your superhero fiction, but I'm not sure that's a necessity for a good story or, really, the basis of a fair complaint.

[vitruvian]

The problem with this is, of course, the assumption that the historian and the writer of superhero stories have similar responsibilities when they don't.

Edit: And yeah, I guess it's fine if you're after a simulacrum of reality from your superhero fiction, but I'm not sure that's a necessity for a good story or, really, the basis of a fair complaint.

The level of continuity being asked for is not the obsession with minutia type, but simply the level of consistency one would typically ask for in, say, a movie or a novel; or perhaps a trilogy or slightly longer series of books or movies. Consistency, especially of basic character traits (barring actual character development shown within the context of the stories), is often essential to staying engaged with a storyline. For example, if Arthur Conan Doyle changed the essential character traits of Holmes and Watson at random between stories, the Holmes canon as a whole would not have been as well received.

It's also kind of disingenuous to ask for complete freedom from continuity when large swaths of one's story actually depend on continuity to have any meaning or resonance. The only relevance of most of the character cameos and easter eggs in FC was that these were characters that have previously shown up in DC continuity.

Finally, if the story one wants to tell does not fit within an established continuity, then just don't tell it within one. There's always Elseworlds and the like, or, gee, even original characters and worlds.

[The Batman]

The level of continuity being asked for is not the obsession with minutia type, but simply the level of consistency one would typically ask for in, say, a movie or a novel; or perhaps a trilogy or slightly longer series of books or movies.


Well, that's not the kind of sentiment that comes across when somebody compares the responsiblities of the comic book writer to those of the historian, is it?

That said, I'm not sure where Final Crisis lacks that level of consistency you mention.

[The Batman]

That, and thinking about FC some more, I think Morrison shows us that these characters can function apart from their continuity. Superman, Batman, Frankenstein, Talky Tawny - they're all interesting and fun and worthwhile even without working through the ins and outs of the last year or two's worth of their adventures.

[carabas]

Big stories are meaningless in and of themselves unless they lead to an end. It's the end that's important, and we really didn't get a big end with lasting repercussions with Final Crisis. It just sort of...stopped.Two very differenr things, leading to an end, and a means to an end.

The first here we can argue about whether or not Final Crisis had a satisfying, big finish. I think it did, you obviously didn't.

But stories as a means to an end, that's something else. That's like House Of M, where the story is largely inconsequential and the point is that the X-Men get their status quo set back a few decades. Or One More Day, where the point was not telling a good Spider-MAn story, but getting rid of the marriage no matter what the cost.

[AlistairCrane]

Two very differenr things, leading to an end, and a means to an end.

The first here we can argue about whether or not Final Crisis had a satisfying, big finish. I think it did, you obviously didn't.

But stories as a means to an end, that's something else. That's like House Of M, where the story is largely inconsequential and the point is that the X-Men get their status quo set back a few decades. Or One More Day, where the point was not telling a good Spider-MAn story, but getting rid of the marriage no matter what the cost.

Or Infinite Crisis, where the point was to get back to the Silver Age no matter what.

I don't like COIE or IC. But if you're going to bill yourself as a Crisis, like FC did, then I expect some Earth-shattering, long-lasting repercussions to be felt. This whole "Crisis" can be swept under the rug after the last page. IC at least built into 52 and Countdown.

Identity Crisis, the most superior of DC Crises, was good because although it was an intimate murder mystery, the murders had long lasting effects, as did the fates of Jean Loring and Ray Palmer.

[The Batman]

So, Batman lost in time-space, Hawkman, Hawkgirl, and Martian Manhunter dead, and the birth of the Fifth World aren't big enough repercussions?

And really, Earth-shattering repercussions would've undercut one of FC's main points: that no matter how bad things get, even if it seems that evil has won the day, don't give up hope because the superheroes, majestic and wonderful creatures that they are, will still carry the day.

[vitruvian]

Well, that's not the kind of sentiment that comes across when somebody compares the responsiblities of the comic book writer to those of the historian, is it?

That said, I'm not sure where Final Crisis lacks that level of consistency you mention.

Actually, I'm one of those who wonders what the heck people are talking about when they claim Grant isn't respectful of continuity. Not only does he include what he thinks are the niftiest parts of past continuity, he does so with complete respect for the original stories, subject to the demands of making things fit into the current storyline. I think he usually balances those concerns quite well, cf making the crazier Silver Age Batman stuff Bruce's hallucinations and thought experiments from the Black Casebook.

[The Batman]

Agreed on all points. One of the things I've enjoyed is Morrison's holistic approach to the DCU. Everything is up for grabs because, in his hands, anything's got potential. Morrison's shown the DC Universe as this wild, wonderful, disparate place and it's beautiful.

Too often, I think, when someone complains about the disrespect of continuity what they are really talking about is a disrespect of their personal-continuity.

[Adam C]

One might as well argue that a "mechanistic" approach to world history, preoccupied with minutiae about what, y'know, actually happened, interferes with a more freewheeling, creative interpretation of the past.

Speaking a historian, I cannot see how you can make such a comparison. History is about documenting and recording actual events for the sake of understanding our past. And it carries a strong moral imperative due to the fact that the past directly relates to our present, the recollection of past atrocities being only the most blatant example.

That simply does not apply to in fiction, particularly escapist fiction. Especially commercial superhero comics. Never mind that in history people die, are replaced in their institutional and historical roles, and things change. In order to keep their comics in continuous monthly publication the characters are kept in an eternal state of stasis until some change...which is later reversed to maintain them in some preferred state...until the next superficial change. And has it yielded integrity. Has it yielded consistency? No it's yielded the confusion of so-called "continuity" following Crisis on Infinite Earths (including the mess that is the histories of Hawkman and Legion of Superheroes), endless revisions to Superman's backstory which people then pretend it matters, awful schlock like Sue Dibney's rape as well as Emerald Twilight, and a welter of conflicting events and stories that couldn't possibly be properly coordinated.

What Morrison is reacting against is the insistence on continuity as popularly understood because it does distort stories unnaturally and actually ill-serves the audience in the process.

I don't think he said that at all. "Overly controlled" and "mechanistic" are pejorative terms that you added.

Which side-steps what was my main point: why is he taking a piece of fiction commenting on how fiction is written as a personal swipe?


Identity Crisis, the most superior of DC Crises, was good because although it was an intimate murder mystery, the murders had long lasting effects, as did the fates of Jean Loring and Ray Palmer.

Really? It's best because it had lasting effects, even though the story was schlocky, incredibly poorly structured (the resolution doesn't even follow from the narrative), and simply required running logic aground to accept Jean Loring's madness?

[Flash's Lightning]

The level of continuity being asked for is not the obsession with minutia type, but simply the level of consistency one would typically ask for in, say, a movie or a novel; or perhaps a trilogy or slightly longer series of books or movies. Consistency, especially of basic character traits (barring actual character development shown within the context of the stories), is often essential to staying engaged with a storyline. For example, if Arthur Conan Doyle changed the essential character traits of Holmes and Watson at random between stories, the Holmes canon as a whole would not have been as well received.

It's also kind of disingenuous to ask for complete freedom from continuity when large swaths of one's story actually depend on continuity to have any meaning or resonance. The only relevance of most of the character cameos and easter eggs in FC was that these were characters that have previously shown up in DC continuity.

Finally, if the story one wants to tell does not fit within an established continuity, then just don't tell it within one. There's always Elseworlds and the like, or, gee, even original characters and worlds.

I think here's the thing about continuity.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle kept Holmes character traits rather static, as you said, as well as those of Dr. Watson.

However, there was an inconsistency in the fact that in A Study in Scarlet, Watson was struck by a bullet in the leg (if memory serves me), while later (Sign of the Four, again if memory serves me), Watson mentions his arm hurting him.

There's two kinds of continuity nuts. Those wanting the first example I mentioned, and not caring about the second. And those not caring about the first because they're too wrapped up in the second, debating whether it was a rather heinous error, or if poor Dr. Watson has suddenly been riddled with more bullets than we previous knew of!

The trick is to not throw the normal, sane ones like me and you, into the same bucket with the other loonies.

[vitruvian]

I think here's the thing about continuity.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle kept Holmes character traits rather static, as you said, as well as those of Dr. Watson.

However, there was an inconsistency in the fact that in A Study in Scarlet, Watson was struck by a bullet in the leg (if memory serves me), while later (Sign of the Four, again if memory serves me), Watson mentions his arm hurting him.

There's two kinds of continuity nuts. Those wanting the first example I mentioned, and not caring about the second. And those not caring about the first because they're too wrapped up in the second, debating whether it was a rather heinous error, or if poor Dr. Watson has suddenly been riddled with more bullets than we previous knew of!

The trick is to not throw the normal, sane ones like me and you, into the same bucket with the other loonies.


Well, of course, the bullet wound thing was

a) a plain and simple mistake on Doyle's part (it's not easy keeping things straight once you've gone beyond a certain amount of story), and

b) an easily resolved one - there's no reason Watson couldn't have more than one war wound, is there? Problem solved!

The Doyle fanatics I know notice the issue, recognize it as an error, have *fun* debating the solution, and resolve it to their own satisfaction. Again, they can and do argue it, but they treat it as a *game* and have fun with it, they don't piss and moan about how Doyle ignored his own continuity.

Most fandoms end up having inconsistencies in the canon. Good fen plaster over those holes for themselves, so long as the writers and editors aren't so lazy as to make you feel that it's more like trying to smooth out Swiss cheese....

[TROUBLEZ]

DC needs people to buy their comic books, not fetishize them. The crazier and more minutia obsessed the audience gets, the smaller it gets. Then when you have the actual creators being drawn from this shrinking pool of wingbats doing nothing but catering to their peers, it adds to the problem.

That's funny, because I always assumed that's the audience Morrison had in mind considering he brings up all this obscure DC trivia.

If anything DC is the one failing, not the customers. Maybe DC needs to attempt to be more mainstream.

[Buried Alien]

The Doyle fanatics I know notice the issue, recognize it as an error, have *fun* debating the solution, and resolve it to their own satisfaction. Again, they can and do argue it, but they treat it as a *game* and have fun with it, they don't piss and moan about how Doyle ignored his own continuity.

Yeah, which leads to a point I want to make.

Many of our fellow comic fans who aren't interested in continuity have an inexplicable disdain towards those who do. While there are definitely fans who take continuity obssession to unhealthy extremes, there are at least as many (and I suspect more) who simply have fun with discussing continuity and exercise their own creativity to devise possible solutions. The problem is that many non-continuity fans dismiss ALL continuity fans as if they were a monolithic group of pathological obssessives.

That's not only unfair, it's inaccurate.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[carabas]

Or Infinite Crisis, where the point was to get back to the Silver Age no matter what.Eh, in what way? If you're talking about the multiverse, there are vast differences between the collected version and the single issues in regard to that. As originally printed, IC brought back nothing.

Identity Crisis, the most superior of DC Crises, Unrelated remark... I don't get how people go on and on about how Final Crisis isn't a real Crisis when Identity Skirmsh is apparently accepted as a proper Crisis.

[AlistairCrane]

Eh, in what way? If you're talking about the multiverse, there are vast differences between the collected version and the single issues in regard to that. As originally printed, IC brought back nothing.

Remember all those IC interviews with creators like Greg Rucka? They were all going on about how IC was going to lighten up the DCU (therefore making it more like its ridiculous Silver Age self). I never mentioned the multiverse, although the idea of that is tied to the Silver Age.



Unrelated remark... I don't get how people go on and on about how Final Crisis isn't a real Crisis when Identity Skirmsh is apparently accepted as a proper Crisis.

No it's not. Morrison and DiDio have gone on record that the Crisis trilogy consists of COIE, Infinite Crisis, and FC.

[carabas]

Remember all those IC interviews with creators like Greg Rucka? They were all going on about how IC was going to lighten up the DCU (therefore making it more like its ridiculous Silver Age self). I never mentioned the multiverse, although the idea of that is tied to the Silver Age.There is a terribly vast difference between lightening a universe that ha gotten just a tad too dark, and going back to the Silver age. That aside, I haven't really noticed any changes in tone between pre- and post Infinite Crisis DCU.

No it's not. Morrison and DiDio have gone on record that the Crisis trilogy consists of COIE, Infinite Crisis, and FCI just don't recall message boarders having a fit back then that IdC wasn't worthy to be called a Crisis, while lots of them now seem to think Final Crisis was not quite cosmic enough to merit being called a proper Crisis.

[AlistairCrane]

^^ Because Final Crisis was built up to be something it's not.

[carabas]

Really? It's best because it had lasting effects, even though the story was schlocky, incredibly poorly structured (the resolution doesn't even follow from the narrative), and simply required running logic aground to accept Jean Loring's madness?To me it seems perfectly clear that originally Ray Palmer was the murderer, and that DC made Metzler change his story at the mast moment. Either that or Metzler really can't writ crime stories. Jean Loring doesn't even have anything resembling a motive. And hadnwaving that and saying she was just nuts, she doesn't need a logicl motive, kinda defeats the purpose of making it a whodunnit with clues and all in the first place.

Just one look at the final page of the penultimate issue tells you all you need to know really.

[AlistairCrane]

To me it seems perfectly clear that originally Ray Palmer was the murderer, and that DC made Metzler change his story at the mast moment. Either that or Metzler really can't writ crime stories. Jean Loring doesn't even have anything resembling a motive. And hadnwaving that and saying she was just nuts, she doesn't need a logicl motive, kinda defeats the purpose of making it a whodunnit with clues and all in the first place.

Just one look at the final page of the penultimate issue tells you all you need to know really.

No, it was obvious from the beginning of the fourth issue that Jean was the killer. In a serial killer murdery mystery, the only person who's attacked by the killer and doesn't die is generally the killer. That's how I knew it was Jean.

[carabas]

Eh, Ray wants to get back together with his ex-wife. He obviously isn't going to kill her. Just scare her both to push her emotionally, and to throw any eventual suspicion away from himself.
Sometimes the survivor isn't the killer but merely the one with a connection to the killer.

[lawman]

It's also kind of disingenuous to ask for complete freedom from continuity when large swaths of one's story actually depend on continuity to have any meaning or resonance. The only relevance of most of the character cameos and easter eggs in FC was that these were characters that have previously shown up in DC continuity.
Bingo. In and of itself, FC certainly didn't do the legwork to make us care about any of its characters, or what happened to them.

Finally, if the story one wants to tell does not fit within an established continuity, then just don't tell it within one. There's always Elseworlds and the like, or, gee, even original characters and worlds.
Bingo again. Grant Morrison has certainly done many interesting "freestanding" projects before, and this story might have worked better as one.

That said, let me clarify that his use of continuity is not one of my primary complaints about FC. First and foremost, the problem is that it's simply not a well-told story. Conceptually interesting, perhaps, but poorly executed.

I am, at least, glad that Grant kept to his promise not to end the story with (yet another) reboot. All he really did was get rid of the Monitors, and that's probably a good thing. As far as continuity goes, my original remark in this thread was merely in response to the somewhat presumptuous supposition that the Monitors were symbolic stand-ins for the readership.

[lawman]

Speaking a historian, I cannot see how you can make such a comparison. History is about documenting and recording actual events for the sake of understanding our past. And it carries a strong moral imperative due to the fact that the past directly relates to our present, the recollection of past atrocities being only the most blatant example.

That simply does not apply to in fiction, particularly escapist fiction...
I don't want to argue with a historian about history. But about fiction? Sorry, but I'll have to disagree. Of course it applies. The past events of any fictional world relate directly to its present, and to our understanding thereof.

Indeed, it's especially important in "escapist" fiction like SF and fantasy, since in those contexts the "worldbuilding" is such an important part of how the story works. Not all the details the author dreams up may necessarily land on the page, but they're always implicit in the backstory, and at the very least the work itself needs to be internally consistent with what does appear in print.

Never mind that in history people die, are replaced in their institutional and historical roles, and things change. In order to keep their comics in continuous monthly publication the characters are kept in an eternal state of stasis until some change...which is later reversed to maintain them in some preferred state...until the next superficial change. And has it yielded integrity. Has it yielded consistency? No it's yielded ... a welter of conflicting events and stories that couldn't possibly be properly coordinated.
I'm honestly not sure what your point is here. I think the commercial pressure for "eternal stasis" for certain comics properties is a bad thing, creatively speaking; we can probably agree on that. However, I think the DCU as a fictional construct is something that does indeed have a coherent continuity (notwithstanding occasional SNAFUs), which should be respected unless there are compelling story reasons to change it. Visit the site linked in my sig, and my take on that should be abundantly clear.

What Morrison is reacting against is the insistence on continuity as popularly understood because it does distort stories unnaturally and actually ill-serves the audience in the process.
Okay, let's clarify a few premises here before debating any further. First: how do you consider it to be "popularly understood"? Second, why and how do you think this ill-serves audiences? Third, what exactly is your basis for saying Morrison agrees with you about this and is reacting against it in this story?


Which side-steps what was my main point: why is he taking a piece of fiction commenting on how fiction is written as a personal swipe?
Sorry, we're too many steps removed here. "He" who? I think the first poster who described FC as a "swipe" at readers actually approved of that interpretation...


Really? It's best because it had lasting effects, even though the story was schlocky, incredibly poorly structured (the resolution doesn't even follow from the narrative), and simply required running logic aground to accept Jean Loring's madness?
FWIW, I personally thought Identity Crisis was in fact a very enjoyable and well-structured story, and in particular one that really established a clear and powerful sense of reader identification with what were previously fairly C-list characters... despite the fact that the resolution of its mystery plot was, indeed, illogical and disappointing.

However, the "most superior" of DC Crises would of course have to be the original Crisis on Infinite Earths. IMHO it set the bar for Big Events. Not its fault that it's had so many inadequate imitators.

[lawman]

The Doyle fanatics I know notice the issue, recognize it as an error, have *fun* debating the solution, and resolve it to their own satisfaction. Again, they can and do argue it, but they treat it as a *game* and have fun with it, they don't piss and moan about how Doyle ignored his own continuity.

Most fandoms end up having inconsistencies in the canon. Good fen plaster over those holes for themselves, so long as the writers and editors aren't so lazy as to make you feel that it's more like trying to smooth out Swiss cheese....
Yep, it is fun (to a point). My personal favorite edition of Doyle's Holmes canon is the Baring-Gould annotated version from the '60s, precisely because he spends so much attention on pondering how to interpret these kinds of things (e.g., where did Holmes go to college?).

[MWGallaher]

To me it seems perfectly clear that originally Ray Palmer was the murderer, and that DC made Metzler change his story at the mast moment. Either that or Metzler really can't writ crime stories. Jean Loring doesn't even have anything resembling a motive. And hadnwaving that and saying she was just nuts, she doesn't need a logicl motive, kinda defeats the purpose of making it a whodunnit with clues and all in the first place.

Just one look at the final page of the penultimate issue tells you all you need to know really.
I remember a lot of complaints about Jean "not having a motive" back then. There were a lot of people arguing online that the killer has to have "means, motive, and opportunity." That's true, but in the actual construction of a mystery, the author is only obligated--at least by rules of a "fair play" mystery--to reveal 2 out of the 3, and those 2 are almost always "means" and "opportunity", because those are the two that the reader can use to identify the killer. "Motive" is usually useless as a clue, since typically multiple characters are given motives to murder. How would a reader choose whose motive is the "best"?
The standard mystery clarifies the killer's motive only after the mechanics of the murder have been deduced and exposed, and it quite often comes with information that whoever serves as the "detective" has gathered outside of the reader's purview.
While it's arguable whether IC played fair in its implication of Jean's means and opportunity, she was definitely implicated as lying in her faked assassination attempt, which pointed the finger at her early enough in the series to indicate that Meltzer had always intended her, not Ray, to be the guilty party.

[carabas]

I remember a lot of complaints about Jean "not having a motive" back then. There were a lot of people arguing online that the killer has to have "means, motive, and opportunity." That's true, but in the actual construction of a mystery, the author is only obligated--at least by rules of a "fair play" mystery--to reveal 2 out of the 3, and those 2 are almost always "means" and "opportunity", because those are the two that the reader can use to identify the killer. "Motive" is usually useless as a clue, since typically multiple characters are given motives to murder. How would a reader choose whose motive is the "best"?
The standard mystery clarifies the killer's motive only after the mechanics of the murder have been deduced and exposed, and it quite often comes with information that whoever serves as the "detective" has gathered outside of the reader's purview.
While it's arguable whether IC played fair in its implication of Jean's means and opportunity, she was definitely implicated as lying in her faked assassination attempt, which pointed the finger at her early enough in the series to indicate that Meltzer had always intended her, not Ray, to be the guilty party.eah, but, when all is said and done, and the series is over, Jean has means (albeit means that are handwaved into existance in the final issue - and even that is debatable since I can't really see Jean handling a flamethrower successfully on her first attempt, and where did she get that thing anywa)), opportunity, but no motive (being coocoo isn't motive).

Ray has all three, and has the actual brains to know how to bypass all that security.

[Seraku]

to just repeat what I posted in another thread:

it seems to me that the reason why there was only 1 (and later 52) earths was because the monitors were feeding on the multiverse as a whole and that stunted its development. with the monitors now gone the Multiverse should now grow forever.

[TROUBLEZ]

Eh, Ray wants to get back together with his ex-wife. He obviously isn't going to kill her. Just scare her both to push her emotionally, and to throw any eventual suspicion away from himself.
Sometimes the survivor isn't the killer but merely the one with a connection to the killer.

I don't know much about the Atom or his ex-wife, but didn't Jean Loring break up with Ray? Why would she resort to this elaborate plot when she's the one who ended the relationship?
I guess the, "what does logic matter, she's crazy!" argument is what the writer is falling back on, but taking into consideration all this continuity that goes with the story, it's hard to overlook.

[carabas]

I don't know much about the Atom or his ex-wife, but didn't Jean Loring break up with Ray? Why would she resort to this elaborate plot when she's the one who ended the relationship?That is right. If she wanted him back,all she needed to do was ask. Ray is the one that took that divorce hard.

I guess the, "what does logic matter, she's crazy!" argument is what the writer is falling back on, but taking into consideration all this continuity that goes with the story, it's hard to overlook.The first sixissues seem to lead up to Ray Palmer: Murderer. My guess is DC changed its mind at the last possible moment. I am not putting the blame on Meltzer for this one.

[Zombie Uatu]

I don't think FC was Morrison calling for an end to continuity. Rather, he was calling for an end to stories which, like COIE, Zero Hour, and Infinite Crisis were about continuity. That's what the Monitors represented; continuity feeding on itself, draining itself dry with constant reboots and stories which didn't really move anything forward but just led to endless derivative continuity-based stories.

After FC, we have The Blackest Night to look forward to, which will be amazing if it even lives up to a fraction of the expectation heaped upon it. After FC, we have the aforementioned change in Wonder Woman. We have a Superman who now genuinely believes anything is possible. The God of Evil is dead. The Monitors are no longer feeding off the multiverse. And if it all does get out of control again, Morrison's built-in a failsafe; Nix Uotan, Judge of All Evil, lives.

Hopefully, FC will have it's intended effect, and allow the DCU to move forward in the same way Marvel has, and start telling stories about its characters and its concepts, and not about its own history.

[lawman]

I don't think FC was Morrison calling for an end to continuity. Rather, he was calling for an end to stories which, like COIE, Zero Hour, and Infinite Crisis were about continuity. That's what the Monitors represented; continuity feeding on itself, draining itself dry with constant reboots and stories which didn't really move anything forward but just led to endless derivative continuity-based stories.
Now that, I could get behind. However, it would also require an editorial regime that was actually interested in creative forward motion. Whether DiDio's up to that remains to be seen, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Just zeroing in on the most "marketable" version of each character is a much safer course.

Hopefully, FC will have it's intended effect, and allow the DCU to move forward in the same way Marvel has, and start telling stories about its characters and its concepts, and not about its own history.
Don't give Marvel too much credit. Remember what it did to Spider-Man with BND.

[Seraku]

However, it would also require an editorial regime that was actually interested in creative forward motion

maybe I'm just being an optimist, but the fact that DiDio said yes to FC, to me atleast, shows a willingness to move forward

[Zombie Uatu]

Now that, I could get behind. However, it would also require an editorial regime that was actually interested in creative forward motion. Whether DiDio's up to that remains to be seen, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Just zeroing in on the most "marketable" version of each character is a much safer course.

Don't give Marvel too much credit. Remember what it did to Spider-Man with BND.

As another poster just said, Didio seems to have backed Final Crisis doing what it's done all the way, even if he did require rewrites (which remains unsubstantiated).

Marvel's problem in recent years has been in undoing development and resetting everything back to a perceived 'best' status quo. They did it to the X-Men, they did it to Spider-Man. Yet which franchise has achieved the most? Avengers, the one with the massive rehauls and changes. This is slightly different from DC, who had, seemingly, forgotten the idea of getting back to basics, and were instead basically recycling the idea of constantly rebooting the continuity to the point where it was the confusing reboots, not the continuity itself, which was the problem. Fingers crossed they can move forward now.

Oh, and another thing DC ought to do is stick with the big, cosmic (NOT universe changing!!!!) stories. DC's cosmic universe is something Marvel just can't compete with. Nothing wrong with a wide view and incredible things happening; it just has to be continuity between stories, not stories between continuities.

[comicstar100]

^^ Because Final Crisis was built up to be something it's not. You could say that about almost every big event.

[Seraku]

DC's cosmic universe is something Marvel just can't compete with. Marvel has a massive and diverse pantheon, they just ignore it.

[Zombie Uatu]

Marvel has a massive and diverse pantheon, they just ignore it.

Because Marvel's characters are basically better suited to more down-to-Earth, character-rather-than-concept-driven stories. On the other hand, in DC I really feel the ideas can drive the characters. Neither way is really wrong, to be honest. Marvel's soap-opera realism and DC is more high-concept. Of course there are exceptions (Batman, The Eternals), and of course there are people who prefer one over the other; that's probably why Marvel consistently outsell DC but DC still sell more comics than everyone else. It probably even explains Marvel's Hollywood success. It doesn't mean DC aren't still good at what they do, however.

Anyway, didn't mean to hijack the thread and turn it into a discussion of the relative merits of Marvel and DC, but after Final Crisis, one thing I think is the DCU has a more distinct tone and purpose than it had previously.

[Seraku]

I honestly think that with a good enough writer and editorial backing, the Marvel cosmic pantheon could wipe the floor with DC

but like I said as long as Quesada and co. are running Marvel they will never, ever in a million years even acknowledge the existance of beings like the Celestials other than "oh that yellow one is in San Francisco and stands around all day"

[TROUBLEZ]

I like Marvel's cosmic stuff. You mean like Eternity and that thing with like 3 heads, the ones that were featured in Infinity Gauntlet? Those were good times. I prefer them. They seem more like how I would imagine cosmic beings to be rather than "gods" that fly on hover pads and have pistols.

Anyway, for me Final Crisis is pretty much the last straw for me as far as following DC comics.
When they go back to focusing on individual titles and just putting good creative teams on them I'll be back.

[Seraku]

When they go back to focusing on individual titles and just putting good creative teams on them I'll be back.

I think that's what they're now planning on doing :biggrin:

[TROUBLEZ]

With what titles?

[Seraku]

speaking in general. FC put the whole multiverse cluster**** out of the way, and now the first halfo f 2009 deals with the after effects (battle for the cowl, flash rebirth)

[TROUBLEZ]

Wait, I thought that the point of IC was to bring back the multiverse? So now it's gone?

I should have typed more. Not just focus on them, but focus on the telling stories with the established concept. I don't want to read Batman where Batman's not in it, but a bunch of sidekicks doing tryouts.

JLA is rumored to be losing the big names so to me, what's the point of the book?

[Seraku]

They seem more like how I would imagine cosmic beings to be rather than "gods" that fly on hover pads and have pistols.
this post is hilarious becase Jack Kirby created both.


So now it's gone?with the monitors gone, it can now grow to an infinite size thus making it so that the writers don't have to stress over labelings and such and just worry about the stuff they're doing now.


I should have typed more. Not just focus on them, but focus on the telling stories with the established concept. I don't want to read Batman where Batman's not in it, but a bunch of sidekicks doing tryouts.well then stay out of Batman and Superman for most of 2009 then.

in the short term (2009) your interest should be proportional to how much you like Green Lantern, since he's the star of Blackest Night


JLA is rumored to be losing the big names so to me, what's the point of the book?

there was a time when JLA wasn't actually about having the big names but about having b-listers. the best JLA run ever imho was the Giffen/DeMatteis run and that didnt have Superman at all.


but anyways there will be 2 teams, one is by Robinson (Starman) and has a healthy mix of a through z listers. and the other is the McDuffie one of which we don't know what their roster will be

[TROUBLEZ]

this post is hilarious becase Jack Kirby created both.

...


with the monitors gone, it can now grow to an infinite size thus making it so that the writers don't have to stress over labelings and such and just worry about the stuff they're doing now.
so the writers won't have to worry about the multiverse because now it's even bigger?
Couldn't the writers just not use the multiverse if it was that bad of a problem? In fact, I don't even remember labeling mulit earths a problem till Countdown made all those Elseworlds tales their own Earths.


well then stay out of Batman and Superman for most of 2009 then.
I plan on it! :smile:


in the short term (2009) your interest should be proportional to how much you like Green Lantern, since he's the star of Blackest Night
Decompression is not my thing so I stopped buying GL with the Secret Origins story.




there was a time when JLA wasn't actually about having the big names but about having b-listers. the best JLA run ever imho was the Giffen/DeMatteis run and that didnt have Superman at all.
While I LOVED the JLI, I wouldn't say it's the best run. The art, humor and light heartedness of that series was it's strength, not it's b-list roster. I don't see that with JL or JLA.
Despite my opinion of Morrison's current work, the few issues I've read of his JLA run were excellent, and had an almost perfect roster.



but anyways there will be 2 teams, one is by Robinson (Starman) and has a healthy mix of a through z listers. and the other is the McDuffie one of which we don't know what their roster will be

Wow. A Justice League with z listers! Great way to get back to basics!

[Seraku]

so the writers won't have to worry about the multiverse because now it's even bigger?
Couldn't the writers just not use the multiverse if it was that bad of a problem? In fact, I don't even remember labeling mulit earths a problem till Countdown made all those Elseworlds tales their own Earths.personally I saw the whole "52 earths" thing as detrimental to it all, it was "too little". and everyone was obssessing over keeping them straight and such. now they can just let them be and go oe with their ,main universe. like Marvel does

I plan on it! I lold at the frankness of this responce
Decompression is not my thing so I stopped buying GL with the Secret Origins story.understandable.

but right now GL is on the road to Blackest Night and is going there pretty quickly showing us corps after corps.

While I LOVED the JLI, I wouldn't say it's the best run. The art, humor and light heartedness of that series was it's strength, not it's b-list roster. I don't see that with JL or JLA.
Despite my opinion of Morrison's current work, the few issues I've read of his JLA run were excellent, and had an almost perfect roster.100% agreed, loved Morrison's JLA as much as the Giffen/DM JLI


Wow. A Justice League with z listers! Great way to get back to basics!

the robinson league I would categorize as a b- to C+ roster. mcduffie is completely unknown.

all I know is that Hal Jordan is on the team and the first villain will be Prometheus, I'm sold :biggrin:

[TROUBLEZ]

personally I saw the whole "52 earths" thing as detrimental to it all, it was "too little". and everyone was obssessing over keeping them straight and such. now they can just let them be and go oe with their ,main universe. like Marvel does
I agree but the 52 Earths angle was introduced with Infinite Crisis wasn't it? And I only saw it referenced in Countdown, and mention in Sinestro Corps War. What main titles did the 52 Earths play a part? And who was obsessed with keeping them straight?


I lold at the frankness of this responce
understandable.
As much as I like DC, Marvel has the cooler universe in most peoples eyes.


but right now GL is on the road to Blackest Night and is going there pretty quickly showing us corps after corps.
That's also what killed my interest, was the whole rainbow multitude of corps. The Sinestro one was cool, because it was like the dopplegangers of the GLCorps and they came from the anti-matter universe. All this extra stuff makes me feel like the GL is alot less unique.


the robinson league I would categorize as a b- to C+ roster.
I would not classify a gorilla and the blue guy as even being c lister status. I don't even know who they are.



all I know is that Hal Jordan is on the team and the first villain will be Prometheus, I'm sold :biggrin:
Sounds like Hal Jordan and Prometheus should be appearing in JLA, not this spin-off. That's my big problem with DC right now. They seem to be spreading themselves too thin with the talent and concepts in order to put out even more titles.

Instead of putting all the heavyweights in JLA they only put a few in their then put a couple in JL, and then do the big 3 in Trinity...and to me, it comes off as all those books only being okay, instead of one really good JLA book.

[Seraku]

52 Earths angle was introduced with Infinite Crisis wasn't it?it was introduced as the pay off to 52.
As much as I like DC, Marvel has the cooler universe in most peoples eyes.indeed :frown:
I would not classify a gorilla and the blue guy as even being c lister status. I don't even know who they are.oh yeah forgot about the gorilla :biggrin:

also the blue guy is a Starman, I keep forgetting not a lot of people have read Robinson's masterpiece run.



The Sinestro one was cool, because it was like the dopplegangers of the GLCorps and they came from the anti-matter universe.that was simply their base, they weren't FROM there

Sounds like Hal Jordan and Prometheus should be appearing in JLA, not this spin-off. Hal decided he was done with the current JLA and created his own team. or at least that's what DiDio is telling us.

That's my big problem with DC right now. They seem to be spreading themselves too thin with the talent and concepts in order to put out even more titles.*coughdarkreigncough*

[TROUBLEZ]

So they introduced 52 two years ago and now they think it's a bad idea. So instead of just not referencing it, they had to make another Crisis to rectify the Crisis they just had?

About the Sinestro Corps, yeah but it was still cool that that's their base. I just think it made a great dynamic. But now you got blue lanterns, indigo lanterns, it seems like maybe a teal lantern corps will show up too!

And Hal decided he's done with the JLA? That's stupid. Why didn't they just write him as deciding that he needs to get back with the JLA. I thought that the reason was to keep Hal out of the JLA because he has enough exposure with Johns doing two titles of GL stuff. But now I see it's just a plot to do a spin off while diluting the core JLA book.

Dark Reign sounds lame. Didn't like or buy Civil War either. But yeah, your right about what I said. Both companies are doing that. Avengers is like CSI right now with Wolverine all over the place.

[Seraku]

So they introduced 52 two years ago and now they think it's a bad idea. So instead of just not referencing it, they had to make another Crisis to rectify the Crisis they just had?they made it ONLY 52 worlds which limited story potential. anyways I think after IC they planned on a trilogy but I don't think they planned it ending so soon.

About the Sinestro Corps, yeah but it was still cool that that's their base. I just think it made a great dynamic. But now you got blue lanterns, indigo lanterns, it seems like maybe a teal lantern corps will show up too!follows the visible light spectrum

ROY G. BIV


And Hal decided he's done with the JLA? That's stupid. Why didn't they just write him as deciding that he needs to get back with the JLA. I thought that the reason was to keep Hal out of the JLA because he has enough exposure with Johns doing two titles of GL stuff. But now I see it's just a plot to do a spin off while diluting the core JLA book.dunno, the given explanation is that he's pissed over the loss of Batman and MM and wants to make the league more proactive.


Dark Reign sounds lame. Didn't like or buy Civil War either. But yeah, your right about what I said. Both companies are doing that. Avengers is like CSI right now with Wolverine all over the place.the concept of DR interests me but I didn't like how SI was completely disposable and was only used as an excuse to bring about DR.

but yeah 4 avengers books is tooooooooo f***ng many.

[TROUBLEZ]

they made it ONLY 52 worlds which limited story potential. anyways I think after IC they planned on a trilogy but I don't think they planned it ending so soon.
Sooo, how did the number 52 come about? And like I said, I don't remember 52 Earths limiting or expanding potential. 52 never factored into the main titles to my knowledge.

follows the visible light spectrum
I know what Johns based it on, but it still doesn't seem like a good idea.

ROY G. BIV


dunno, the given explanation is that he's pissed over the loss of Batman and MM and wants to make the league more proactive.
How much more proactive can you get when your a superhero? It's not like the JLA is a bureaucracy or something.

[d newton]

No, it was obvious from the beginning of the fourth issue that Jean was the killer. In a serial killer murdery mystery, the only person who's attacked by the killer and doesn't die is generally the killer. That's how I knew it was Jean.
You knew who the murderer was midway through a 7 issue mini? :confused:

[Seraku]

Sooo, how did the number 52 come about? And like I said, I don't remember 52 Earths limiting or expanding potential. 52 never factored into the main titles to my knowledge.there are 52 weeks in a year

[jackolover]

I did not see any continuity changes.

There were none mentioned. It didn't work that way too. In the End it wasn't a Story about Continuity...it became something else. A story about Us in a way...about being the Watcher, the Monitor, the Source...it's great stuff. As Grant Warned in his THE FILTH, This Product Contains the Active Ingredient METAPHOR.

It was good to see the heroes pull Earth-Zero out of the Abyss than settle another world. So they were reclaiming what was theirs. Their stories. "The Story of ALL our stories", -Lois Lane, FC#7.

So, what? Earth-0 is another shift in the DCU. Can anybody state what happens on Earth-0 that is different to the pre-FC DCU?

[carabas]

There is no difference between pre- and post Final Crisis. Other than that the New Gods have got there own place now and that the Monitors are gone. Earth 0 is not another shift in the DCU.

[Seraku]

well the New Gods never actually lived IN the Earth-0 universe, that's why you can usually only get there with a boom tube.

[carabas]

I don't thi,nk that was ever really clear. At least the question as to why there is no Earth 2 or whatever versions of Darkseid or Orion regularly pops up.

[Corrina]

There is no difference between pre- and post Final Crisis. Other than that the New Gods have got there own place now and that the Monitors are gone. Earth 0 is not another shift in the DCU.

Hey, Superman wished for a happy ending. So maybe some happy stuff happened.

:thinks about the DCU for the past five years:

Naaah.....nevermind.

[jackolover]

There is no difference between pre- and post Final Crisis. Other than that the New Gods have got there own place now and that the Monitors are gone. Earth 0 is not another shift in the DCU.

Thanks carabas

[TROUBLEZ]

there are 52 weeks in a year

So they chose to have 52 parallel earths because their weekly series lasted for 52 weeks? Doesn't seem to have much thought put into it then.

But back to my question, how did these 52 Earths limit or expand story potential? I don't remember any writers being hampered by this.

So from what I'm reading, there was not much thought into creating 52 earths, but they did it anyways. They explored the 52 earths in Countdown to Final Crisis, then they said, "bad idea, there are now unknown amounts of earths!" in Final Crisis.

None of this makes sense.

[Taskmaster]

I have a whole bunch of questions about where things stand for both characters and Earths after reading issue 7. I have a whole list at my blog, but I'm wondering if Martian Manhunter could be brought back? Are the Hawks dead? If so, I assume that Black Canary and Green Arrow are dead too, right?

My biggest question is if Superman could use the wish machine couldn't he have wished everything back to before this all started? Couldn't he have wished the DCU into a Utopia? Didn't he act really irresponsibly just cherry picking what he was restoring? Meh, I supposed it was just another example of the crapfest that was Final Crisis, i'll add it to the list of things that pissed me off about the story (the non-death of the Hawks, the dropped plot threads about the GLs, the random reappearance of Aquaman, etc....)

[Seraku]

FC was a fictional story and Morrison was all "wink wink nudge nudge" by making it all end with "a happy ending" and having "to be continued" in Beyond.

wishing everything to how it was before would just invite the crisis to happen again since the monitors would be free to continue their harmful actions torwards the multiverse

[DCKar2nist]

Plus it would be an enormous cop-out and piss off a legion of already pissy comic book fans

[carabas]

My biggest question is if Superman could use the wish machine couldn't he have wished everything back to before this all started? Couldn't he have wished the DCU into a Utopia?I think that Superman i old and wise enough to realise that you can only have a Utopia if you remove the free will factor. And then he becomes the new Darkseid.

[Zombie Uatu]

So they chose to have 52 parallel earths because their weekly series lasted for 52 weeks? Doesn't seem to have much thought put into it then.

But back to my question, how did these 52 Earths limit or expand story potential? I don't remember any writers being hampered by this.

So from what I'm reading, there was not much thought into creating 52 earths, but they did it anyways. They explored the 52 earths in Countdown to Final Crisis, then they said, "bad idea, there are now unknown amounts of earths!" in Final Crisis.

None of this makes sense.

Just like there are lots subtle references to the number 24 on the TV show '24', there were lots of reference (some subtle, others not so) to the number 52 in the weekly comic '52'. Given the fact that the appearance of the different Earths in '52' was the big blow-out reveal at the end, it doesn't strike me as particularly unthoughtful that they decided to have 52, it was a nod towards the series itself and what a crazy idea it was, the fans, and the uses of the number throughout. It doesn't sound like you've read 52 - I would recommend you do before you call it's ideas weak, as it's a truly great series.

The idea that there are now infinite Earths again is something which I think has come out of fan speculation purely. Final Crisis wasn't about having an unlimited multiverse or changing continuity; it was about exactly the opposite. The idea was to actually allow the DC universe to move forward without constant stories about continuity, and to allow for more interesting concepts such as Blackest Night to be seen through without constantly worrying when the next big reboot was coming. That's the real reasoning behind the Legion involvement, I suspect; it's time for them to stop rebooting and actually go somewhere and hopefully they're going to do it with the originals.

[The Batman]

I think that Superman i old and wise enough to realise that you can only have a Utopia if you remove the free will factor. And then he becomes the new Darkseid.

That and, you know, it becomes a question of whose utopia do you wish for? Because utopia might just be different things to different people.

Also, you then get to the question of what being handed utopia would do to the human race. If Superman and his miracle machine solve all our problems for us, we never have to learn to solve them for ourselves. If we lose the chance to learn that means we might lose the opportunity to grow and mature.

You can't just wish Darkseid out of existence because, well, who knows what the ramifications for the timestream might be?

In simply wishing for the best for everyone, Superman gets to sidestep all those problems (and gets a cool Superman moment to boot).

[TROUBLEZ]

it was a nod towards the series itself and what a crazy idea it was, the fans, and the uses of the number throughout.

Only to be undone in Final Crisis.

It doesn't sound like you've read 52 - I would recommend you do before you call it's ideas weak, as it's a truly great series.
I haven't read 52 and I don't plan too. However I don't remember calling it weak. I assumed that the series was filling in for the gap of OYL on the main DCU. I thought COUNTDOWN was the story about the 52 Earths, which I thought was only okay.

Final Crisis wasn't about having an unlimited multiverse or changing continuity; it was about exactly the opposite. The idea was to actually allow the DC universe to move forward without constant stories about continuity, and to allow for more interesting concepts such as Blackest Night to be seen through without constantly worrying when the next big reboot was coming. That's the real reasoning behind the Legion involvement, I suspect; it's time for them to stop rebooting and actually go somewhere and hopefully they're going to do it with the originals.

I really doubt that since they are bringing back Barry Allen who has been gone for like 20 years, they just now are rebooting Hawkman yet again, Blackest Night deals with continuity seeds planted by Alan Moore in a GLC comic years ago.

It's also ironic that your talk about moving forward when the author of FC uses all this obscure continuity trivia to create a story. See Batman & Sons, RIP, Final Crisis, etc.

So are there still 52 Earths or not?

[Seraku]

Only to be undone in Final Crisis.Morrison was one of the 4 writers of 52 so that's why not a lot of people mind

I haven't read 52 and I don't plan too. However I don't remember calling it weak. I assumed that the series was filling in for the gap of OYL on the main DCU. I thought COUNTDOWN was the story about the 52 Earths, which I thought was only okay.you are correct. it was cowriten by Johns, Morrison, Waid and Rucka


I personally loved it, some of the stories weren't that good (STEEL) but I just loved the Black Adam and Question story arcs.

[TROUBLEZ]

Morrison was one of the 4 writers of 52 so that's why not a lot of people mind
So he had a change of heart with the 52 earths? Why introduce something you think is a bad idea? They really should coordinate things better. This whole thing is like a big mess. I me

I didn't like the Question story and wish they never would have legacied Vic but the Black Adam story was pretty cool. Wish Isis hadn't have died because she was actually the only new character introduced during that time that I actually liked.

[Seraku]

Isis came back in the newest JSA

also Morrison had Final Crisis planned out by the time he was on 52, hell he wrote a few times "Final Crisis is coming" or something along those lines

[TROUBLEZ]

Isis came back in the newest JSA

also Morrison had Final Crisis planned out by the time he was on 52, hell he wrote a few times "Final Crisis is coming" or something along those lines

That's cool about Isis. I will have to check it out.

But back to Morrison. From what I've read in this thread, he got rid of the 52 Earths because it was too limiting, supposedly, storywise. Then why did he introduce the idea, and why did DC do a Countdown to Final Crisis exploring the 52 Earths, if it was such a bad idea?

[The Batman]

Maybe Morrison was the odd man out in the fifty-two Earth's debate and is now, finally, getting his say?

[carabas]

That's cool about Isis. I will have to check it out.

But back to Morrison. From what I've read in this thread, he got rid of the 52 Earths because it was too limiting, supposedly, storywise. Then why did he introduce the idea, and why did DC do a Countdown to Final Crisis exploring the 52 Earths, if it was such a bad idea?I assume he got utvoted while working on "52", or mayb they decided to start out with a tiny 52-earths mini-multivrese to test the waters.

As for Countdown, why was anyhting done in Countdown? It's not as if Morrison was even slightly involved with that.

[lawman]

But back to Morrison. From what I've read in this thread, he got rid of the 52 Earths because it was too limiting, supposedly, storywise...
Okay, people keep saying this, but I don't see it. I've read FC #7 multiple times, and nothing in there says to me that there are now more than 52 universes on hand. What specifically leads you to conclude this? Anyone?

[Seraku]

the Monitors were feeding continuously feeding on the entire multiverse and were causing it damage. It's easily assumed that with the Monitors no longer feeding off of it regularly that it can now begin to grow.


But back to Morrison. From what I've read in this thread, he got rid of the 52 Earths because it was too limiting, supposedly, storywise. Then why did he introduce the idea, and why did DC do a Countdown to Final Crisis exploring the 52 Earths, if it was such a bad idea?

is it really that hard to imagine he might have planned it that way? also Countdown had absolutely nothing to do with Morrison, that was all DiDio and Co. mucking things up

[TROUBLEZ]

Okay, people keep saying this, but I don't see it. I've read FC #7 multiple times, and nothing in there says to me that there are now more than 52 universes on hand. What specifically leads you to conclude this? Anyone?

I'm going by what others who liked the series had said.

[TROUBLEZ]

the Monitors were feeding continuously feeding on the entire multiverse and were causing it damage. It's easily assumed that with the Monitors no longer feeding off of it regularly that it can now begin to grow.




is it really that hard to imagine he might have planned it that way? also Countdown had absolutely nothing to do with Morrison, that was all DiDio and Co. mucking things up

Well it doesn't sound like much of a plan that's all. I mean the most use I saw of the montiors was in Coutndown to Final Crisis...

Here's a better question. Is it that hard to understand there are some legitimate criticisms of Final Crisis and maybe that's why some people don't like it?

[Seraku]

huh? i'm talking about how Morrison was planning this for the past 3 years (Seven Soldiers, 52, Batman, Brave New World). where'd that come from?

[Seraku]

Okay, people keep saying this, but I don't see it. I've read FC #7 multiple times, and nothing in there says to me that there are now more than 52 universes on hand. What specifically leads you to conclude this? Anyone?

Morrison finally confirmed my theory


NRAMA: As Nix walks us through the end of the Monitors - they were the ones protecting, shepherding and monitoring the 52 worlds. Without them...what happens? As you alluded to before, does this mean the multiverse will...grow?

GM: As we saw in Superman Beyond #1, the original, infinitely vast Monitor-Mind created a ‘concept’ to contain and study the Multiverse. That concept – a structure known as the Orrery of Worlds – was designed to protect Monitor from the effects of the Multiverse, like a bandage over a wound, or, perhaps, a cage around a wild animal.

The cage is gone now, so yes...anything can happen. Watch this higher dimensional space.

[lawman]

"Anything can happen." Well, gee, Morrison being ambiguous again. Who'da thunk it? :rolleyes:

[wmerritt72]

Something I noticed in LO3W 3 that leads me to believe the Multivers in infinite now.

Brainy had stated that the tornado twins were hidden on Earth #247. So I think that is proof the multiveris is al least larger than 52 now.

[Paul McEnery]

So he had a change of heart with the 52 earths? Why introduce something you think is a bad idea? They really should coordinate things better. This whole thing is like a big mess. I me

I didn't like the Question story and wish they never would have legacied Vic but the Black Adam story was pretty cool. Wish Isis hadn't have died because she was actually the only new character introduced during that time that I actually liked.

Wait, what?

He introduced 52 earths, and we've still got 52 earths. Don't we?

[Paul McEnery]

That's cool about Isis. I will have to check it out.

But back to Morrison. From what I've read in this thread, he got rid of the 52 Earths because it was too limiting, supposedly, storywise. Then why did he introduce the idea, and why did DC do a Countdown to Final Crisis exploring the 52 Earths, if it was such a bad idea?

Oh, I see.

So we've moved from 52 earths to 52 earths that we know about.

Not seeing the problem here.

[Paul McEnery]

"Anything can happen." Well, gee, Morrison being ambiguous again. Who'da thunk it? :rolleyes:

Please tell me. What are the two possible meanings of "anything can happen"?

[Buried Alien]

Oh, I see.

So we've moved from 52 earths to 52 earths that we know about.

Not seeing the problem here.

I'm worried only that DC might blow this opportunity like they blew Hypertime.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Jonald]

In reading interviews & talking with an employee of a local comic book store owner who writes for DC (Eric Trautmann), while I am confused by a few parts of the whole FC story, it seems like they wanted to bring back the Multiverse. And now the stage is set for many supposedly very good storylines, like the Batman brand and the Superman/New Krypton brand. While it's referred to as "three crisis" (COIE, IC, & FC - Zero Hour not included), I see things as being more like two - Infinite Crisis and 52 seemed like basically tie-ins to FC. I think it was all a grand plan to try and bring back tired, crappy characters who were long forgotten, and recreate them, and to basically give the DCU more options for more minor characters, and to throw further massive curve balls at the major characters. I AM also happy that the WRITING style of DC has jumped from being "yippy-skippy" to having adult dialogue and style - it is what brought me back to comics and DC a few years back - Identity Crisis specifically was what did it. I've been re-reading COIE, which obviously was amazing, but just the way they used to write even 20 years ago: (Wonderwoman speaking) "Wonderwoman stands ready" and just so much of the overly-stoic lingo that was frankly cheesy in retrospect. I feel like the current writing style with amazing writers, and the potential storylines, the GROUNDWORK has been re-laid for the next many years for Sci-Fi writers, for mystery writers, obviously action writers, for an updated, 2000's style of writing with the Multiverse.

And with "Blackest Night" who knows, maybe Final Crisis is even more of just a tie-in to THAT and IT'LL be the ultimate crisis.

Finally (sorry for the length of this first post - I was very happy to discover this forum!), with the death of Batman I didn't feel like it was at all necessary, so I don't know what they're going to do about Bruce Wayne. At the time I first read FC #6 all I could think of, with all the new found success the Batman brand has had through their movies and the amazing return of Bruce Wayne's ability to smile in the comics (more or less) after delving into a constant state of rage & distrust, was that Grant Morrison was a Marvel Comics plant who was trying to screw DC. Wasn't happy about that, and still think it's the wrong time to have "killed" Bruce Wayne, though the current Batman stories have been pretty amazing writing with the aftermath - that line by Alfred about his son being dead was particularly powerful. I guess what I would really like to see would be a special following Bruce Wayne in his current state. I know he's likely going to be in "The Blackest Night" storyline as a Black Lantern or something, which'll probably result in his "resurrection" back on New Earth (if that's still what it's called by then), but it'd be some very interesting writing to see BRUCE WAYNE struggle with his situation. My friend and I grew up reading Marvel Comics until I realized DC was actually more the brand for adults, and I have recently converted him as well - he pointed out the obvious, that it's characters like Bruce Wayne who have so much depth and history compared to the Marvel ones that won him over.

I personally am excited about the coming times. Everything's epic, but I like that.

[Jonald]

By the way, here is an interesting interview with Grant Morrison from Newsarama:

Part 1: http://newsarama.com/comics/010928-Grant-Final-Crisis.html
Part 2: http://newsarama.com/comics/020904-Grant-FC2.html