Superman is suffering.

[ascended]

To be fair, DC has been doing that for a long time now. It seems that in the early 90's DC tried really hard to push new ground, bringing in new characters and whatnot. But then the 90's boom ended and they started to lean back towards nostalgia. Krypto, Kara Zor-El, the JSA, and so on. Not sure, but that was before Didio came along wasnt it? The late late 90's and early 00's?

And I think Wally is on the shelf because DC doesnt want to dilute the potency of its franchises with namesakes and legacies. Unless it involves a Robin. Added onto that the fractured Flash fanbase and the continuing cries for Wally's return...I suspect DC fears that Wally would threaten Barry's standing. Not saying they're right, I think most of us are quite happy with the Flash currently, but I think thats what DC fears. And if you try to make Wally unique (new costume, name, whatever), the outrage would triple.

And Donna.....she never had a real place to be. She literally was a editorial mistake. Unlike many of her peers, she never grew into her own role, took over for her mentor in any meaningful capacity, and never found a niche to call her own. Im sure when someone comes along who has a good story to tell and a good place for her, she'll return. And dont get me wrong, I liked Donna too. Im just saying that DC was always trying to figure out how to make her work. Thats what all the "Who IS Donna Troy?" tales came from. And with the reboot, what a perfect excuse to put her on the shelf.

[The Bat-Man]

There's a difference between a character flaw and making your characters unlikable. A flaw would be the Post Crisis Lois having issues trusting men, because of her relationship with her father making her feel inferior growing up. Thus when she sees Clark Kent land all the stories regarding Superman, it bothers her that a nobody gets all the easy stories, while she had to fight tooth and nail to get to where she's at. That's a character flaw. Having Lois as the poster child for stereotypical women, where she has to try and trick Superman into revealing himself as Clark Kent in order to marry her, and crying whenever he turns his attentions elsewhere, makes her look pathetic.

Stereotypical? Pathetic? The Post-Crisis Lois fits the negative stereotype of women as wives that have issues with men, because of their daddy issues. Pre-Crisis Lois wasn't depicted as a weak woman crying whenever Superman turns his attentions elsewhere. Lois was Clark’s independent, feisty strong-willed rival. A tough, competitive, aggressive reporter. Characters flaws can make characters unlikable at times and conflict and tension is entertaining. I don't want a squeaky clean immaculate do-gooder Lois. I happen to like Lois to be unlikeable at times, not always nice, friendly, getting along and agreeing with everyone. I like to see her portrayed with some shades of gray, and some flaws, some imperfections. The feisty Lois that doesn't have everything she wants is far more entertaining to me than the version that actually is Superman's wife and has accomplished everything she wants.

It only lasted so long because DC editorial made the mistake of dragging it out for so long. Readers like progression and intelligence in what they read. It's the same reason people liked it when Spider-Man had his own relationship with Mary Jane.

There are Spider-Man fans that didn't like Spider-Man's marriage to supermodel Mary Jane, preferring the Spider-Man and Black Cat romance which lays largely in the chase, and feeling the marriage to Mary Jane made him less of an underdog, and less relatable to younger fans. Iconically Spider-Man's appeal and success was largely due to reader identification, having problems with girls, problems with school, problems at work and poverty problems, with things such as Spider-Man trying to figure out how to raise the bus fare to get where the bad guy is, etc. The iconic Superman/Clark and Lois triangle formula lasted for decades because the writers and editors at DC then realized that it was a part of Superman's success, not a mistake. Even John Byrne's Post-Crisis Superman update from 1986 to 1988 retained the triangle where Lois is infatuated with Superman, but not Clark, and he would rather she loved him as Clark.



John Byrne's opinion of the Superman marriage: "Superman has had a habit, thru his long publishing history, of periodically turning into a middle aged guy. Basically, he turns into the people writing him. The marriage was the ultimate example of this. And it was a TERRIBLE idea."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...739&PN=0&TPN=1
John Byrne's opinion of the Spider-Man marriage: "This is something that has been especially misplaced in Spider-Man. Spider-Man was, himself, an 'escape' for Peter Parker. As the put-upon nerd, he could throw on the costume and go kick ass. The dialog balloon on that AMAZING FANTASY cover sums it up perfectly.
But as Peter's own life got better and better, Spider-Man became a BURDEN, not an escape. He didn't WANT to be Spider-Man any more, rather than looking forward to the time when he could lose himself in Spider-Man.
Why does Parker need to be grown up? Because too many of his fans, who should have stopped reading years ago, need to continue to live vicariously thru him.
This is not to say adults cannot read and enjoy Spider-Man -- my Dad used to read and enjoy the comics I would occasionally leave in the bathroom -- but they need to be read and enjoyed for WHAT THEY ARE, not what an increasingly older and shrinking audience thinks they SHOULD be.
Spider-Man's journey has been a strange one. He was created by a couple of middle-aged guys (Stan Lee, early 40s at the time, and Steve Ditko, late 30s) who tried to capture what it was like to be a teenager.
Then the torch was passed to a younger group, who tended to write Parker and his pals pretty much as themselves, 20-somethings who moved Peter further away from his high school beginnings and began to bring in issues that, it could be argued, were not properly part of the experiences of the target audience.
But, the audience, or at least a substantial part of it, was getting older, too, and Parker et al began to suffer a bit of the syndrome that seems to afflict Superman -- middle-aged guys writing about middle-aged guys for middle-aged guys.
The original audience, the audience that had made Spider-Man such a huge success in the first place (and I know, because I was part of it) were forgotten or ignored. And, 'mysteriously', sales dropped.
The final, and most devastating stage came, of course, when those shrunken sales were accepted, and even applauded. (Remember a few years back when one of the Spider-Man writers showed up in this Forum celebrating the 'huge' sales on the latest issues -- sales that would have gotten the book canceled a few years earlier? The triumph of mediocrity and diminished expectations.)"
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...149&PN=0&TPN=1
As Bob Rozakis said, "Books that were cancelled for 'low sales' just a couple of decades ago -- my own 'Mazing Man included -- would be considered top-sellers in today's market."
http://bobrozakis.blogspot.com/2011/...-relaunch.html
The successful Spider-Man TV shows and films retained the unmarried Spider-Man having problems with girls. The successful Superman TV shows and films retained the triangle with Lois. Audiences like conflicts, drama, comedy. It's all new to kids, and for older fans there is nostalgia appeal. I like seeing Lois having to struggle, having conflict, rather than happily married. The triangle contains seriousness along with comic relief. I'm not saying the marred version or the New 52 version should never have been published. I'm saying they should have been published as Elseworlds stories, rather than alienating fans of the classic Superman iconography with the triangle, etc. As Alex Ross said, "Marvel did their Ultimates by saying 'Hey, you can either jump on board, or you can read the regular stuff, it’s ok.' There’s no forced 'This is it, and this is all it’s ever going to be.' The worst part of this is that these are all fictional worlds that can be as widely inclusive or as resurrecting of old concepts and character designs as it wants to be. So, why isn’t it malleable to all the readers interests? Why not make all of that available in your library?"
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/...-kingdom-come/

[The Bat-Man]

I am aware of that quote. But do note that when he said it, it was only with the people that are now in charge who only did it because they lack original ideas. Once Levitz resigned, did it happen. DiDio himself has been accused of undoing all the progress that DC made over a thirty year period, in favor of what he felt was the iconic period of DC. Which is why Wally West, Donna Troy and so many other characters have been put into limbo and so many dead characters were brought back.

They saw the ideas DC was going with as a lot of bad ideas. There are people that felt DC had gone overboard with the adult-oriented trend catered to aging fanboys by the '90s with the Lois and Clark marriage and also felt DC had gone overboard with the grim and gritty trend by the '90s with Ron Marz turning Green Lantern Hal Jordan into a mass murderer (Green Lantern: Emerald Twilight (1994)), etc. Even Dick Giordano said, "The Dark Knight Returns additionally helped start the grim and gritty trends in comic storytelling that still exist today. That was an unintended result, and I am truly sorry it happened. Comics are much too dark today. Er – in my opinion ...I miss the heroes of yesteryear."
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment...d-gritty-trend
Alan Moore said, "It seemed that the existence of Watchmen had pretty much doomed the mainstream comic industry to about 20 years of very grim and often pretentious stories that seemed to be unable to get around the massive psychological stumbling block that Watchmen had turned out to be, although that had never been my intention with the work. When I found myself working, even remotely, under the auspices of DC, I had very different intentions. Well, maybe they were the same intentions: to do progressive comics that adults could enjoy. But by then I'd become very tired of the wave of grimness that seemed to have been unleashed by Watchmen. It was never my intention to start a trend for darkness. I'm not a particularly dark individual. I have my moments, it's true, but I do have a sense of humor. With the ABC books I was trying to do comics that would have perhaps appealed to an intelligent 13-year-old, such as I'd been, and would still satisfy the contemporary readership of 40-year-old men who probably should know better. But I wanted to sort of do comics that would be accessible to a much wider range of people, and would still be intelligent even if they were primarily children's adventure stories, such as the Tom Strong books."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2...ooks_grap.html
Frank Miller said, "Those of us who wanted to test the boundaries of what a superhero comic book could do, unfortunately broke those boundaries and the results have not all been very good. We pushed against the old walls, and they fell-but nothing much has been built to replace them. And now the roof is leaking and the sewer's backing up. I've seen all these characters of my childhood fall into disarray. Things have gotten so dreary. The heroes have gotten so ugly that even their muscles have muscles. The elegance of Gil Kane is gone. You don't see the sheer joy of Green Lantern's power ring. The magic of somebody like the Flash-somebody who's able to move so fast that you can't see him move-is gone. There's no sense of the basic wish that any of these characters have. Allow me a disclaimer: I'm talking about the overall direction I see superhero comics going, not damning each and every title out there. I'm sure there's some good stuff going on that I just haven't seen. But the trend is depressing, and dumb. Why Green Lantern became a drunk driver when he can fly always loses me. And I'm told they turned him into a mass murderer as well. The fun's gone out of it. I want to try my hand at bringing it back. Perhaps there is a touch of nostalgia in this, and if so, I'm not ashamed about it."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=192
With Hal Jordan as Green Lantern and Berry Allen as the Flash featured in Dark Knight Strikes Again (2002) by Frank Miller, JLA: Liberty and Justice (2003) by Paul Dini and Alex Ross, and DC: The New Frontier (2003) by Darwyn Cooke, leading up to the return of Hal Jordan as Green Lantern in continuity (Green Lantern: Rebirth (2004)) and Berry Allen as the Flash in continuity (Final Crisis (2008)), the wave of nostalgia spoke, I suspect, to fans wanting the classic DC heroes to return and to see a return to the lighter uplifting heroic fun of the Silver Age/Bronze Age catered to all-ages. I do have to note that the very things you are against are precisely the elements that I enjoy. We are going to have to agree to disagree. No amount of back and forth arguing is going to change the others preferences and point of view.

[Mat001]

Stereotypical? Pathetic? The Post-Crisis Lois fits the negative stereotype of women as wives that have issues with men, because of their daddy issues.

Lois's issues with her father were largely settled once she and Clark had gotten engaged. More so once she made it clear to Sam that she was going to marry Clark, despite his objections. Which in turn lead to Sam shutting his trap and attending the wedding.

Pre-Crisis Lois wasn't depicted as a weak woman crying whenever Superman turns his attentions elsewhere. Lois was Clark’s independent, feisty strong-willed rival. A tough, competitive, aggressive reporter.

You might want to look back at some of those stories, because it was there. Such as the issue where Jimmy had his three wishes and the first was the creation of a Supergirl as a companion for Superman. Much less all the other times when he wasn't involved with someone else, she'd start sobbing because Superman was interested in her.

Characters flaws can make characters unlikable at times and conflict and tension is entertaining. I don't want a squeaky clean immaculate do-gooder Lois. I happen to like Lois to be unlikeable at times, not always nice, friendly, getting along and agreeing with everyone. I like to see her portrayed with some shades of gray, and some flaws, some imperfections. The feisty Lois that doesn't have everything she wants is far more entertaining to me than the version that actually is Superman's wife and has accomplished everything she wants.

Except Lois still had a lot of ground as a reporter to cover. Such as dealing with Lex as President, a husband that was under mind control and even going to Umec to cover the war.

There are Spider-Man fans that didn't like Spider-Man's marriage to supermodel Mary Jane, preferring the Spider-Man and Black Cat romance which lays largely in the chase, and feeling the marriage to Mary Jane made him less of an underdog, and less relatable to younger fans.

Peter was attracted to Mary Jane long before her modeling career took off. As to the second part, that is still a bullshit argument. Younger fans still related to Spider-Man because he still had job problems, he still had school problems and even as a married man, he had issues within the marriage. Such as being able to spend time with MJ, wanting to have kids, dealing with her career issues, her cigarette habit and dealing with rivals that tried to move in on her.

Iconically Spider-Man's appeal and success was largely due to reader identification, having problems with girls, problems with school, problems at work and poverty problems, with things such as Spider-Man trying to figure out how to raise the bus fare to get where the bad guy is, etc. The iconic Superman/Clark and Lois triangle formula lasted for decades because the writers and editors at DC then realized that it was a part of Superman's success, not a mistake. Even John Byrne's Post-Crisis Superman update from 1986 to 1988 retained the triangle where Lois is infatuated with Superman, but not Clark, and he would rather she loved him as Clark.

As to Byrne's excuse about Superman being a middle aged guy, he was already that before he got engaged to Lois. The character's been in his thirties for years and even right now at twenty five, the majority of his readership is in their thirties and forties.

They saw the ideas DC was going with as a lot of bad ideas.

That's still an excuse. Wally's life wasn't that dark and grim except when Johns did the whole storyline with his children being killed by Zoom. Donna's storyline was only dark with the death of her husband and son, the majority of the time, not so much. Kyle's dark era only centered around the death of Alex. The majority of the time, he was a dark character. Still isn't today. Hell, there's still darkness in comics today.

[The Bat-Man]

Lois's issues with her father were largely settled once she and Clark had gotten engaged. More so once she made it clear to Sam that she was going to marry Clark, despite his objections. Which in turn lead to Sam shutting his trap and attending the wedding.

Which just goes back to what I was saying about married Lois' life being too flawless and fulfilled to be as entertaining. The Lois that doesn't have everything she wants is far more entertaining to me than the version that actually is Superman's wife and has accomplished everything she wants.

You might want to look back at some of those stories, because it was there. Such as the issue where Jimmy had his three wishes and the first was the creation of a Supergirl as a companion for Superman. Much less all the other times when he wasn't involved with someone else, she'd start sobbing because Superman was interested in her.

I'm not trying to say she never cried, she did, which emphasized the drama. It's not pathetic to cry over the apparent loss of a romantic love you were hoping to marry someday. Crying isn't a sign of weakness. It's a sign that you are human, in touch with your emotions, and courageous enough to let out your emotions instead of bottle them inside and repressing your feelings in fear of crying and being judged as weak. If you are afraid to let out your emotions and cry in times of sorrow, in times of grief, that is the true sign of weakness. I meant she wasn't always crying, and especially not when Superman showed interested in her.

Except Lois still had a lot of ground as a reporter to cover. Such as dealing with Lex as President, a husband that was under mind control and even going to Umec to cover the war.

She was still a reporter, but she didn't have the entertaining triangle issues with Superman and Clark any longer, the chase was over, she knew all of his secrets and was happily married *yawn*.

Peter was attracted to Mary Jane long before her modeling career took off. As to the second part, that is still a bullshit argument. Younger fans still related to Spider-Man because he still had job problems, he still had school problems and even as a married man, he had issues within the marriage. Such as being able to spend time with MJ, wanting to have kids, dealing with her career issues, her cigarette habit and dealing with rivals that tried to move in on her.

I'm aware that Peter was attracted to Mary Jane before her modeling career took off. The marriage made him less relatable to younger fans. One of the things that made Spider-Man so unique and successful to teenage readers was that he was a teenage superhero who wasn't the sidekick or pupil of an adult mentor hero.

As to Byrne's excuse about Superman being a middle aged guy, he was already that before he got engaged to Lois. The character's been in his thirties for years and even right now at twenty five, the majority of his readership is in their thirties and forties.

For decades DC maintained that Superman and Batman in the present were perpetually 29 years old. DC officially aged Superman and Batman from 29 to middle aged 35 year olds with Zero Hour (1994) by Dan Jurgens. DC also aged the original Teen Titans members from teens into their 20s. As John Byrne also pointed out: "Let's do the math, shall we?
Barbara was a librarian when she made her debut, so presumably not a kid. Let's say 22, just to keep the number low. Dick, meanwhile, was about 15. Not long after, Dick went off to college, so about 18 for him, making Barbara 25. Dick hung out with his contemporaries in the Titans for a few years. In that time, Donna Troy got married. Let's pretend Terry Long wasn't a total cradle robber, and that the 'Teen' in the title was no more valid than the 'Men' in X-Men. Let's also call Donna 22 by this time. So Dick is also 22, and that makes Barbara 29. When I was doing WONDER WOMAN I had occasion to ask how old Nightwing was by that point, and I was told 26, That makes Barbara 33. I introduced my own Wonder Girl, age 14.5, and as soon as I left the book DC skanked her up to about 19, so that's 4.5 more years for everyone around her, too, including Barbara and Dick. That would make Dick 30.5 and Barbara 37.5.
Bruce, Clark, Lois, Hal, Barry, and the rest of the Silver Age gang, all approximate contemporaries, started out around 20 years older than Dick, who was around 10 when he debuted as Robin. So they are all over 50 now.
See why it's a bad idea for these characters to age?"
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...352&PN=1&TPN=1
John Byrne: "Basically, if a reader has stuck around long enough to notice the characters aren't aging like s/he is, and that BOTHERS him/her, it is time to move on. Find another hobby. One more appropriate to her/his age."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...739&PN=0&TPN=2
The majority of the readership being in their 30s and 40s is a major problem for the future survival of the comics industry.

That's still an excuse. Wally's life wasn't that dark and grim except when Johns did the whole storyline with his children being killed by Zoom. Donna's storyline was only dark with the death of her husband and son, the majority of the time, not so much. Kyle's dark era only centered around the death of Alex. The majority of the time, he was a dark character. Still isn't today. Hell, there's still darkness in comics today.

There should be some darkness in comics today, but there should also be plenty of lightness to counterbalance. They should be written for general audiences of all ages, featuring the iconic versions of the superheroes with short stories that are easily accessible to new readers and they should be sold at newsstands and supermarkets and little grocery stores and book stores again. They use to be accessible to new readers and available at supermarkets. They used to have certain rules. Comic books in the '70s would have a brief description of what the characters are all about, his secret identity, his origin, and a brief recap of last issue if necessary, for a new reader like I was. They always had to assume that the reader had never read the comic book before and didn't know much about the characters. So Batman comics said on the splash page, "Orphaned as a child when his parents were killed before his eyes, Bruce Wayne trained himself to wage relentless war against crime as the dread avenger of the night...THE BATMAN." Just for the kid that this was his or her first issue of Batman. Try to make it the sort of story that everybody could read and explain who the characters are to new readers, and have a recap of the last issue if necessary, just in case somebody had never read your book before and doesn't know much about the characters. Each issue of Superman used to say, "Rocketed to Earth from the exploding planet Krypton, he now disguises himself as Clark Kent and fights for truth, justice and the American Way as Superman." We used to just have a box on the splash page to explain. And it makes it so that anybody, young or old, can pick up the book and know the characters. Even in James Bond movies they still explain to young people who he is with a scene of him in a meeting: "Bond, you're our best secret agent, double-0-seven, with a license to kill. Here's your mission, here are the devices you'll be using." And most stories didn't last longer than two-issues to keep them accessible to the new readers and to keep everyone from getting bored with the same long story arc that lasts a year.

And now, if they can find a comic book store, because you literally has to seek out a special store for them now, and they pick up the monthly books and they might want to get into them and they can't get into them because they can't tell what's going on because it's so endlessly continuity-heavy with year long story arcs and radically different versions of the characters and also if you don't like the storyline of the years arc then your not going to want to buy all the books. The audience has changed to the point where they are just pandering to the fanatical jaded longtime readers and have driven away most of the casual readers and are largely ignoring potential new readers.

And they should at least put comics in a spinner rack in at Wal-Mart next to the checkout stands. It's ridiculous that you can buy just about everything else at Wal-Mart, but not comic books. How many kids no longer have the wonderful experience of stumbling upon comics by chance and then slowly discovering the joy that good comic books can bring. They should do affordable monthly reprints of the classic comics like "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" that were easy accessible to new readers in single issues. DC books should be out in the mainstream again.

You probably disagree as usual. Again, I point out that we are going to have to agree to disagree. No amount of back and forth arguing is going to change the others preferences and point of view.

[asiansupes]

Which just goes back to what I was saying about married Lois' life being too flawless and fulfilled to be as entertaining. The Lois that doesn't have everything she wants is far more entertaining to me than the version that actually is Superman's wife and has accomplished everything she wants.



I'm not trying to say she never cried, she did, which emphasized the drama. It's not pathetic to cry over the apparent loss of a romantic love you were hoping to marry someday. Crying isn't a sign of weakness. It's a sign that you are human, in touch with your emotions, and courageous enough to let out your emotions instead of bottle them inside and repressing your feelings in fear of crying and being judged as weak. If you are afraid to let out your emotions and cry in times of sorrow, in times of grief, that is the true sign of weakness. I meant she wasn't always crying, and especially not when Superman showed interested in her.



She was still a reporter, but she didn't have the entertaining triangle issues with Superman and Clark any longer, the chase was over, she knew all of his secrets and was happily married *yawn*.



I'm aware that Peter was attracted to Mary Jane before her modeling career took off. The marriage made him less relatable to younger fans. One of the things that made Spider-Man so unique and successful to teenage readers was that he was a teenage superhero who wasn't the sidekick or pupil of an adult mentor hero.



For decades DC maintained that Superman and Batman in the present were perpetually 29 years old. DC officially aged Superman and Batman from 29 to middle aged 35 year olds with Zero Hour (1994) by Dan Jurgens. DC also aged the original Teen Titans members from teens into their 20s. As John Byrne also pointed out: "Let's do the math, shall we?
Barbara was a librarian when she made her debut, so presumably not a kid. Let's say 22, just to keep the number low. Dick, meanwhile, was about 15. Not long after, Dick went off to college, so about 18 for him, making Barbara 25. Dick hung out with his contemporaries in the Titans for a few years. In that time, Donna Troy got married. Let's pretend Terry Long wasn't a total cradle robber, and that the 'Teen' in the title was no more valid than the 'Men' in X-Men. Let's also call Donna 22 by this time. So Dick is also 22, and that makes Barbara 29. When I was doing WONDER WOMAN I had occasion to ask how old Nightwing was by that point, and I was told 26, That makes Barbara 33. I introduced my own Wonder Girl, age 14.5, and as soon as I left the book DC skanked her up to about 19, so that's 4.5 more years for everyone around her, too, including Barbara and Dick. That would make Dick 30.5 and Barbara 37.5.
Bruce, Clark, Lois, Hal, Barry, and the rest of the Silver Age gang, all approximate contemporaries, started out around 20 years older than Dick, who was around 10 when he debuted as Robin. So they are all over 50 now.
See why it's a bad idea for these characters to age?"
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...352&PN=1&TPN=1
John Byrne: "Basically, if a reader has stuck around long enough to notice the characters aren't aging like s/he is, and that BOTHERS him/her, it is time to move on. Find another hobby. One more appropriate to her/his age."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...739&PN=0&TPN=2
The majority of the readership being in their 30s and 40s is a major problem for the future survival of the comics industry.



There should be some darkness in comics today, but there should also be plenty of lightness to counterbalance. They should be written for general audiences of all ages, featuring the iconic versions of the superheroes with short stories that are easily accessible to new readers and they should be sold at newsstands and supermarkets and little grocery stores and book stores again. They use to be accessible to new readers and available at supermarkets. They used to have certain rules. Comic books in the '70s would have a brief description of what the characters are all about, his secret identity, his origin, and a brief recap of last issue if necessary, for a new reader like I was. They always had to assume that the reader had never read the comic book before and didn't know much about the characters. So Batman comics said on the splash page, "Orphaned as a child when his parents were killed before his eyes, Bruce Wayne trained himself to wage relentless war against crime as the dread avenger of the night...THE BATMAN." Just for the kid that this was his or her first issue of Batman. Try to make it the sort of story that everybody could read and explain who the characters are to new readers, and have a recap of the last issue if necessary, just in case somebody had never read your book before and doesn't know much about the characters. Each issue of Superman used to say, "Rocketed to Earth from the exploding planet Krypton, he now disguises himself as Clark Kent and fights for truth, justice and the American Way as Superman." We used to just have a box on the splash page to explain. And it makes it so that anybody, young or old, can pick up the book and know the characters. Even in James Bond movies they still explain to young people who he is with a scene of him in a meeting: "Bond, you're our best secret agent, double-0-seven, with a license to kill. Here's your mission, here are the devices you'll be using." And most stories didn't last longer than two-issues to keep them accessible to the new readers and to keep everyone from getting bored with the same long story arc that lasts a year.

And now, if they can find a comic book store, because you literally has to seek out a special store for them now, and they pick up the monthly books and they might want to get into them and they can't get into them because they can't tell what's going on because it's so endlessly continuity-heavy with year long story arcs and radically different versions of the characters and also if you don't like the storyline of the years arc then your not going to want to buy all the books. The audience has changed to the point where they are just pandering to the fanatical jaded longtime readers and have driven away most of the casual readers and are largely ignoring potential new readers.

And they should at least put comics in a spinner rack in at Wal-Mart next to the checkout stands. It's ridiculous that you can buy just about everything else at Wal-Mart, but not comic books. How many kids no longer have the wonderful experience of stumbling upon comics by chance and then slowly discovering the joy that good comic books can bring. They should do affordable monthly reprints of the classic comics like "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" that were easy accessible to new readers in single issues. DC books should be out in the mainstream again.

You probably disagree as usual. Again, I point out that we are going to have to agree to disagree. No amount of back and forth arguing is going to change the others preferences and point of view.

I agree with the comics on racks thing. they need to be back at groceries, gas stations, and Walmart. They are at Toys R' Us, though. the sad thing is that they don't sell. For one, they're like 3 or 4 dollars a pop. I think they should go with a cheaper paper for this venture and at least drop them to 2 bucks. Oh, and more diversity in the titles would help, too. I do like the whole character description thing too. Good call.

[Mat001]

Which just goes back to what I was saying about married Lois' life being too flawless and fulfilled to be as entertaining. The Lois that doesn't have everything she wants is far more entertaining to me than the version that actually is Superman's wife and has accomplished everything she wants.

Just because Lois finally confronted her father, didn't mean that it was all over in terms of having flaws. New conflicts were created by the creative teams. You had Lois deal with her husband being split into two versions of himself, being jealous of Diana, being suspicious towards Lana, being upset at Clark when she thought her father was dead, her issues with Cir-El, trying to be a mother when she was still at the height of her career and her father and sister trying to kill her husband and harm his half of the family.

I'm not trying to say she never cried, she did, which emphasized the drama. It's not pathetic to cry over the apparent loss of a romantic love you were hoping to marry someday. Crying isn't a sign of weakness. It's a sign that you are human, in touch with your emotions, and courageous enough to let out your emotions instead of bottle them inside and repressing your feelings in fear of crying and being judged as weak. If you are afraid to let out your emotions and cry in times of sorrow, in times of grief, that is the true sign of weakness. I meant she wasn't always crying, and especially not when Superman showed interested in her.

The problem is that she cried more over Superman not focusing his attention on her, than not. Really look at those 50's stories. Expressing one's feelings is one thing, but the way she was portrayed at the time, was a far cry from what she was in the early Golden Age stories and more so in the Post Crisis era.

She was still a reporter, but she didn't have the entertaining triangle issues with Superman and Clark any longer, the chase was over, she knew all of his secrets and was happily married *yawn*.

Lois had new issues to deal with. And it wasn't always a happy marriage. They had quite a few road bumps like in all marriages.

I'm aware that Peter was attracted to Mary Jane before her modeling career took off. The marriage made him less relatable to younger fans. One of the things that made Spider-Man so unique and successful to teenage readers was that he was a teenage superhero who wasn't the sidekick or pupil of an adult mentor hero.

That's what Marvel wants you to believe. The reality is that his book sold very well until Marvel started pulling shit trying to undo the marriage, like making Peter the clone and having MJ apparently be killed. That's what hurt sales on the book.

For decades DC maintained that Superman and Batman in the present were perpetually 29 years old. DC officially aged Superman and Batman from 29 to middle aged 35 year olds with Zero Hour (1994) by Dan Jurgens. DC also aged the original Teen Titans members from teens into their 20s.

I am aware of all this. You're not telling me anything I don't know. But being twenty nine is middle aged in the eyes of certain teenagers and in others, being twenty nine or thirty five doesn't matter. Being thirty five isn't middle aged. Middle age is being fifty. Superman and Batman being thirty four predated "Zero Hour" by a fair bit. The Superman writing staff already had Clark being thirty four, two years before Jurgens was approached to write "Zero Hour". The original "Teen Titans" had aged in the 60's and 70's, which allowed them to go off and have adventures, while their mentors didn't have to rely on them. Batman, in particular, moved into new territory by having Dick graduate high school and Bruce moving into the penthouse with Alfred. A dozen years later, Jason Todd was introduced, which helped kick start the legacy era of heroes.

As to the rest of your math, that doesn't hold up in the age of sliding scale timeline. Which goes back a fair bit. Hence before "Flashpoint", Bruce was thirty five and Dick was at least twenty three, Tim was seventeen and Damian was ten.

There should be some darkness in comics today, but there should also be plenty of lightness to counterbalance. They should be written for general audiences of all ages, featuring the iconic versions of the superheroes with short stories that are easily accessible to new readers and they should be sold at newsstands and supermarkets and little grocery stores and book stores again. They use to be accessible to new readers and available at supermarkets. They used to have certain rules. Comic books in the '70s would have a brief description of what the characters are all about, his secret identity, his origin, and a brief recap of last issue if necessary, for a new reader like I was. They always had to assume that the reader had never read the comic book before and didn't know much about the characters. So Batman comics said on the splash page, "Orphaned as a child when his parents were killed before his eyes, Bruce Wayne trained himself to wage relentless war against crime as the dread avenger of the night...THE BATMAN." Just for the kid that this was his or her first issue of Batman. Try to make it the sort of story that everybody could read and explain who the characters are to new readers, and have a recap of the last issue if necessary, just in case somebody had never read your book before and doesn't know much about the characters. Each issue of Superman used to say, "Rocketed to Earth from the exploding planet Krypton, he now disguises himself as Clark Kent and fights for truth, justice and the American Way as Superman." We used to just have a box on the splash page to explain. And it makes it so that anybody, young or old, can pick up the book and know the characters. Even in James Bond movies they still explain to young people who he is with a scene of him in a meeting: "Bond, you're our best secret agent, double-0-seven, with a license to kill. Here's your mission, here are the devices you'll be using." And most stories didn't last longer than two-issues to keep them accessible to the new readers and to keep everyone from getting bored with the same long story arc that lasts a year.

And now, if they can find a comic book store, because you literally has to seek out a special store for them now, and they pick up the monthly books and they might want to get into them and they can't get into them because they can't tell what's going on because it's so endlessly continuity-heavy with year long story arcs and radically different versions of the characters and also if you don't like the storyline of the years arc then your not going to want to buy all the books. The audience has changed to the point where they are just pandering to the fanatical jaded longtime readers and have driven away most of the casual readers and are largely ignoring potential new readers.

And they should at least put comics in a spinner rack in at Wal-Mart next to the checkout stands. It's ridiculous that you can buy just about everything else at Wal-Mart, but not comic books. How many kids no longer have the wonderful experience of stumbling upon comics by chance and then slowly discovering the joy that good comic books can bring. They should do affordable monthly reprints of the classic comics like "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" that were easy accessible to new readers in single issues. DC books should be out in the mainstream again.

First off, the stories are still written for all ages. But that wasn't what drove young readers off. It's the perception that reading comics makes you a nerd and a loser. A stigma that has gone on for years and will continue to do so. Then there's another factor. It's that there are other forms of entertainment such as video games, viral videos and the use of tablet technology to keep kids entertained. Animated series and feature films are readily available and allow any potential reader to skip over that and stick with that. Streaming video services like Netflix allow the younger generation to watch older films and animated series. In the age of the internet, kids can rely on Bit Torrent sites where they can read the comics for free.

And finally, getting it out there in public is not easy. The comic companies were kicked out of the Newsstand market thirteen years ago, because they were deemed not profitable enough. Something that had been ongoing since the 80's, but finally reached a climax in 1998. In 2004, the companies began to make an attempt at getting comics in the places of yesteryear like Target and Wal-Mart. It didn't work. Not because of price and content, but because of lack of interest. Here where I live, over a three year period we went from being in a local grocery store chain to one only branch carrying it. We went from Target carrying Marvel Adventures and Spider-Girl to nothing at all. Wal-greens went from having comics in their magazine rack to having none at all. But all is not lost. Toys R Us, Barnes & Noble, Hastings, military BX's and Half Price Books carry comics. The latter carrying older issues as well. DC made a deal to have all their ongoing titles available for download for tablets, laptops and desktops.

Then there's Free Comic Book Day. Kids attend the annual event and pick up comics and toys. They get to take pictures with people who dress up as comic, video game and movie characters. This past May, a young kid won a raffle here where he got an original copy of Amazing Fantasy #15. You cannot beat that at all.

[The Bat-Man]

I agree with the comics on racks thing. they need to be back at groceries, gas stations, and Walmart. They are at Toys R' Us, though. the sad thing is that they don't sell. For one, they're like 3 or 4 dollars a pop. I think they should go with a cheaper paper for this venture and at least drop them to 2 bucks. Oh, and more diversity in the titles would help, too. I do like the whole character description thing too. Good call.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Just because Lois finally confronted her father, didn't mean that it was all over in terms of having flaws. New conflicts were created by the creative teams. You had Lois deal with her husband being split into two versions of himself, being jealous of Diana, being suspicious towards Lana, being upset at Clark when she thought her father was dead, her issues with Cir-El, trying to be a mother when she was still at the height of her career and her father and sister trying to kill her husband and harm his half of the family.

Those new conflicts you sight, such as Superman spit in two with a Superman Red and Superman Blue, etc. were short term stunts in attempts to boost sales and try to top the Death of Superman, as Jon Bogdanove said in Wizard magazine #194 (2007):

The problem is that she cried more over Superman not focusing his attention on her, than not. Really look at those 50's stories. Expressing one's feelings is one thing, but the way she was portrayed at the time, was a far cry from what she was in the early Golden Age stories and more so in the Post Crisis era.

She wasn't crying more often than not. To be fair, there wasn't other love interests Superman was showing interest in during the early Golden Age stories, so she didn't have the reason to sob, unlike later stories when other love interests were introduced along with the continued triangle with Lois.

Lois had new issues to deal with. And it wasn't always a happy marriage. They had quite a few road bumps like in all marriages.

A few road bumps from some event stunts like Superman Red and Superman Blue. It was a happy marriage for the most part.

The reality is that his book sold very well

Sales that are considered "very well" today would have gotten the book canceled years ago. As John Byrne said, "The final, and most devastating stage came, of course, when those shrunken sales were accepted, and even applauded. (Remember a few years back when one of the Spider-Man writers showed up in this Forum celebrating the 'huge' sales on the latest issues -- sales that would have gotten the book canceled a few years earlier? The triumph of mediocrity and diminished expectations.)"
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...149&PN=0&TPN=1
As Bob Rozakis said, "Books that were cancelled for 'low sales' just a couple of decades ago -- my own 'Mazing Man included -- would be considered top-sellers in today's market."
http://bobrozakis.blogspot.com/2011/...-relaunch.html

Being thirty five isn't middle aged. Middle age is being fifty.

The US Census lists middle age as 35 to 54.

As to the rest of your math, that doesn't hold up in the age of sliding scale timeline. Which goes back a fair bit. Hence before "Flashpoint", Bruce was thirty five and Dick was at least twenty three, Tim was seventeen and Damian was ten.

That was John Byrne's math, hence the quotations and the link. John Byrne explained that he was told in the late '90s that Dick was 26 by that point.

[The Bat-Man]

First off, the stories are still written for all ages.

This is not all ages appropriate:
This is from the regular Catwoman comic rated "T+" for "teen plus" which DC says is "Appropriate for readers age 16":


This is from the regular Detective Comics title rated "T" for "teen" which DC says is "Appropriate for readers age 12":

[The Bat-Man]

This is from the Red Hood and the Outlaws comic rated "T" for "teen" which DC says are "Appropriate for readers age 12":

This is from the Earth 2 title rated "T" for "teen" which DC says are "Appropriate for readers age 12":

I have no problem with DC publishing some comics with some adult content, however, they should at least be labeled appropriately. Gearing standard comics such as Detective Comics, Catwoman, etc. to a wide all-ages audience (without all the long continuity-heavy story arcs and revamps and putting them on spinner racks in supermarkets) is the best way to reach that wider younger audience again that DC and Marvel had. As George Perez said in Comics Interview #50 (1987):

[The Bat-Man]

And finally, getting it out there in public is not easy. The comic companies were kicked out of the Newsstand market twenty three years ago, because they were deemed not profitable enough. In 2004, the companies began to make an attempt at getting comics in the places of yesteryear like Target and Wal-Mart. It didn't work. Not because of price and content, but because of lack of interest. Here where I live, over a three year period we went from being in a local grocery store chain to one only branch carrying it. We went from Target carrying Marvel Adventures and Spider-Girl to nothing at all. Wal-greens went from having comics in their magazine rack to having none at all. But all is not lost. Toys R Us, Barnes & Noble, Hastings, military BX's and Half Price Books carry comics. The latter carrying older issues as well. DC made a deal to have all their ongoing titles available for download for tablets, laptops and desktops.

People are less likely to pay for comics pages on their computer off of the DC site when they can rely on Bit Torrent sites where they can get the pages on their computer for free. Either way, as I said, if your computer gets a virus and crashes, you'd have lost your comic pages if their just images on your comp, without the actual physical comic books in your position. The comic book companies choose to leave the newsstand market and sell all comics through the Direct Sales Market comic shops, which keep and sell back issues, so that all sales would produce the highest possible profits for the companies without any unsold comics being returned to the publishers. Books that go unsold go back to the publisher. And that's the price publishers have to pay for mass distribution of their product in mainstream stores. As explained by John Byrne, "The greatest amount of damage to the industry was done by the Direct Sales Market, and how it shifted from being a place to pick up back issues, to being virtually the ONLY place to get comics. The Direct Sales Market is a classic example of a solution that becomes, over time, itself a problem. Conceived largely by Phil Seuling, a dealer, as a way for dealers to keep up a constant stock of back issues they could sell at conventions and thru other such venues, it ushered in the birth of comic shops, which became a place where titles which would otherwise have been canceled due to low sales could find a profit margin acceptable to the publishers. Once the 'Direct Only' titles had come into being, it did not take long for the bean counters in the business to ask themselves why ANY titles would go thru the arcane and economically marginal system that served the rest of the magazine industry, when if ALL comics were sold thru the Direct Sales Market shops, ALL sales would produce the highest possible profits for the companies. In the Direct Sales Market, after all, the most important element was NO RETURNS. As originally conceived, the Direct Sales Market didn't WANT returns, as the whole point was to build up a backlog of back issues.
But, once the decision was made to shift the majority share of the product into the Direct Sales Market, the Companies were deliberately choosing to turn a mass market product into a niche market product. The arrival of the speculators, a few years into this, created the illusion that this was a good idea, but once that bubble burst, the Companies were faced with the harsh reality -- obvious from the start to anyone who really thought it thru -- that without speculation fueling inflated sales of "hot" issues and titles, it is simply impossible to sell as much product thru X number of venues as it is thru XXXX. The profit margin is much, much higher in the Direct Sales Market than it was on the newsstand, but a higher profit margin is not much use when the number of units being sold is cut to a small fraction of what it once was."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f....asp?TID=35543
The only "DC" books selling at supermarkets and grocery stores are infantile "DC Super Friends" books published by Little Golden Books obviously made strictly for very young children.



DC comics selling at Toys R Us are the Johnny DC comics Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?, Superman Family Adventures, Eme-Comi Girls: Featuring Batgirl, pandering to one audience - little children, limits the consumers for those books. Barnes & Noble, Hastings, military BX's and Half Price Books carry the high priced TPB graphic novels aimed at the adult readers. I believe that the low sales of DC and Marvel monthlies are mostly due to four factors - the monthly content being long and gimmicky continuity-heavy story arc stunts where you are only getting a small unsatisfying part of a long story arc rather than a complete story, which is one of the biggest hurtles and turn-offs to new readers and casual readers, along with reboots radically altering iconic characters, plus too many comics they are really not for all-ages and most are not sold in mainstream stores which prevents parents from buying the majority of the comics for their kids. The vast majority of comics are pandering to one audience - the diehard aging adult readers, rather than geared to a wide all-ages audience. Plus the other comics pandering to one audience - little children, equally limits the consumers for those books. One extreme or the other.

Then there's Free Comic Book Day. Kids attend the annual event and pick up comics and toys. They get to take pictures with people who dress up as comic, video game and movie characters. This past May, a young kid won a raffle here where he got an original copy of Amazing Fantasy #15. You cannot beat that at all.

Not enough kids attend Free Comic Book Day held at the shrinking number of comic book stores. More availability is important to making comic books more accessible. DC and Marvel really should shift business practices. They really should expand the comic book marketplace again - get comics back into all the venues in which they used to be available before the Direct Sales Market shrank everything to its present closeted state. Imagine newspapers or a magazine like Time magazine being taken out of the newsstand and all the supermarkets and selling only through small, isolated specialty stores. Turning a mass market publication into a niche market publication. The average non-comic reading person doesn't know where the nearest comic shop is, and doesn't see why he or she should care. But if the comics were actually sold in places most people regularly visit such as supermarkets, then they would actually notice their existence, and then they might actually pick up one and buy one, and some who bought them might actually become regular comic book buyers. All-age comics available in supermarkets without continuity-heavy story arcs could attract people of all-age groups again.

[Auguste Dupin]

This is from the Red Hood and the Outlaws comic rated "T" for "teen" which DC says are "Appropriate for readers age 12":

This is from the Earth 2 title rated "T" for "teen" which DC says are "Appropriate for readers age 12":

I have no problem with DC publishing some comics with some adult content, however, they should at least be labeled appropriately. Gearing standard comics such as Detective Comics, Catwoman, etc. to a wide all-ages audience (without all the long continuity-heavy story arcs and revamps and putting them on spinner racks in supermarkets) is the best way to reach that wider younger audience again that DC and Marvel had. As George Perez said in Comics Interview #50 (1987):

I don't see what's so offensive about this. At 12, the "wanna have sex with me" would have make me laugh, and by that time I saw worse in Jurassic Park or Robin Hood Prince of Thieves (mmmm, the guy getting his hand cut by the muslim.....) than Wonder Woman getting stabbed.
Let's not kid ourself: most kid play GTA behind their parents' back, love it and don't turn into psychos.

[warriorfist]

John Byrne's opinion of the Superman marriage: "Superman has had a habit, thru his long publishing history, of periodically turning into a middle aged guy. Basically, he turns into the people writing him. The marriage was the ultimate example of this. And it was a TERRIBLE idea."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...739&PN=0&TPN=1
John Byrne's opinion of the Spider-Man marriage: "This is something that has been especially misplaced in Spider-Man. Spider-Man was, himself, an 'escape' for Peter Parker. As the put-upon nerd, he could throw on the costume and go kick ass. The dialog balloon on that AMAZING FANTASY cover sums it up perfectly.
But as Peter's own life got better and better, Spider-Man became a BURDEN, not an escape. He didn't WANT to be Spider-Man any more, rather than looking forward to the time when he could lose himself in Spider-Man.
Why does Parker need to be grown up? Because too many of his fans, who should have stopped reading years ago, need to continue to live vicariously thru him.
This is not to say adults cannot read and enjoy Spider-Man -- my Dad used to read and enjoy the comics I would occasionally leave in the bathroom -- but they need to be read and enjoyed for WHAT THEY ARE, not what an increasingly older and shrinking audience thinks they SHOULD be.
Spider-Man's journey has been a strange one. He was created by a couple of middle-aged guys (Stan Lee, early 40s at the time, and Steve Ditko, late 30s) who tried to capture what it was like to be a teenager.
Then the torch was passed to a younger group, who tended to write Parker and his pals pretty much as themselves, 20-somethings who moved Peter further away from his high school beginnings and began to bring in issues that, it could be argued, were not properly part of the experiences of the target audience.
But, the audience, or at least a substantial part of it, was getting older, too, and Parker et al began to suffer a bit of the syndrome that seems to afflict Superman -- middle-aged guys writing about middle-aged guys for middle-aged guys.
The original audience, the audience that had made Spider-Man such a huge success in the first place (and I know, because I was part of it) were forgotten or ignored. And, 'mysteriously', sales dropped.
The final, and most devastating stage came, of course, when those shrunken sales were accepted, and even applauded. (Remember a few years back when one of the Spider-Man writers showed up in this Forum celebrating the 'huge' sales on the latest issues -- sales that would have gotten the book canceled a few years earlier? The triumph of mediocrity and diminished expectations.)"
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...149&PN=0&TPN=1
As Bob Rozakis said, "Books that were cancelled for 'low sales' just a couple of decades ago -- my own 'Mazing Man included -- would be considered top-sellers in today's market."
http://bobrozakis.blogspot.com/2011/...-relaunch.html
The successful Spider-Man TV shows and films retained the unmarried Spider-Man having problems with girls. The successful Superman TV shows and films retained the triangle with Lois. Audiences like conflicts, drama, comedy. It's all new to kids, and for older fans there is nostalgia appeal. I like seeing Lois having to struggle, having conflict, rather than happily married. The triangle contains seriousness along with comic relief. I'm not saying the marred version or the New 52 version should never have been published. I'm saying they should have been published as Elseworlds stories, rather than alienating fans of the classic Superman iconography with the triangle, etc. As Alex Ross said, "Marvel did their Ultimates by saying 'Hey, you can either jump on board, or you can read the regular stuff, it’s ok.' There’s no forced 'This is it, and this is all it’s ever going to be.' The worst part of this is that these are all fictional worlds that can be as widely inclusive or as resurrecting of old concepts and character designs as it wants to be. So, why isn’t it malleable to all the readers interests? Why not make all of that available in your library?"
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/...-kingdom-come/

With all due to respect to Mr. Byrne- and that's a whole lot, since I enjoyed many aspects of his Supes reboot- that is just a load of crock. I am barely out of my teens and I find the marriage scenario not to be 'middle age situation for middle age guys' at all. I liked the small snippet of the triangle from the Byrne issue(s) just fine, but that doesn't mean that's only the viable way to handle the Superman/Lois/Clark dynamic. Same with the bone of contention about Spider-man and his 'marriage to a super-model' (and to a lesser extent, that he has aged into his mid/late twenties)....I enjoy both periods of stories regardless of that particular detail. I find the idea that you need characters who are similar to yourself in every facet of life in order to relate to them faintly ridiculous. if a story is good enough, I can probably relate to a single-celled amoeba just as much as I can with a down on his luck Peter Parker. In fiction, I am just as comfortable with the familiar and the exotic, the fantastic and the mundane. It's never an all or nothing scenario, especially in a place that is predicated so much on imagination.

They could have definitely handled the marriage better in some situations, but saying that the idea is inherently unworkable is just throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you are a writer and say that this very specific take on a character or concept is the absolutely correct version, barring any modification, then you are doing not only a disservice to yourself but to your peers and any and all future writers in the field. There is no limit on imagination. Any idea can be sold to the audience provided that you have the talent and ingenuity to pull off the execution.

I like Weisenger/Swan's Superman and Lee/Ditko/Romita's Spiderman as much as anyone else, but that doesn't preclude me from enjoying any subsequent works in those sandboxes that don't use the same tropes and conventions used extensively on those classics. I respect the past, appreciate the present, and am certainly optimistic about the future of comics. There may be certain works or styles or themes w/e that don't sit well with my tastes and perspective, but that doesn't mean that I would demand that those things be erased and replaced by what I like most. While I do lament being disappointed- sometimes profoundly- by some of the shortfalls of today's comics, I still prefer being surprised by new stuff that challenges my tastes and gives me a new form of entertainment that I hadn't given much thought to before. I would rather sort through dozens of appalling stuff to get those innovative books than enjoying an unending line of homogeneous, static products, no matter how good they are, for the rest of eternity.

[warriorfist]

They saw the ideas DC was going with as a lot of bad ideas. There are people that felt DC had gone overboard with the adult-oriented trend catered to aging fanboys by the '90s with the Lois and Clark marriage and also felt DC had gone overboard with the grim and gritty trend by the '90s with Ron Marz turning Green Lantern Hal Jordan into a mass murderer (Green Lantern: Emerald Twilight (1994)), etc.

With Hal Jordan as Green Lantern and Berry Allen as the Flash featured in Dark Knight Strikes Again (2002) by Frank Miller, JLA: Liberty and Justice (2003) by Paul Dini and Alex Ross, and DC: The New Frontier (2003) by Darwyn Cooke, leading up to the return of Hal Jordan as Green Lantern in continuity (Green Lantern: Rebirth (2004)) and Berry Allen as the Flash in continuity (Final Crisis (2008)), the wave of nostalgia spoke, I suspect, to fans wanting the classic DC heroes to return and to see a return to the lighter uplifting heroic fun of the Silver Age/Bronze Age catered to all-ages. I do have to note that the very things you are against are precisely the elements that I enjoy. We are going to have to agree to disagree. No amount of back and forth arguing is going to change the others preferences and point of view.

The 90s darkness thing, as many have previously documented, can be contributed to a lot of factors. Firstly, most of the writers executing those stories tried to copy the surface of Watchmen and DKR without understanding what exactly made them tick. Secondly, there was actually a major portion of the readership base that was quite young, most of them teenagers/prepubescents who had grown up watching Terminator 2 and Die Hard. They liked the sort of extreme edginess being sold to them by Image and the rest. (You can see the evidence for this as a good proportion of the readers here grew up reading the triangle era.) Thirdly, blockbusters like Death of Superman kicked off the speculator boom. Now what would you expect a business to do when one of its products has been met with such a tremendous response? Granted, the product was a steaming pile of excrement, but the market signaled that it was the right way to go, soo....

But again, some of the reactions to this Dark Age was throwing the baby along with the bathwater. I find the way Barry completely supplanted Wally in the pre-Flashpoint DCU to be utterly distasteful. With Hal, you had a legitimate gripe with some of the logical pitfalls of the Emerald Twilight event, and Johns actually brought him back in a great way and of course revitalised the franchise. Kyle Rayner didn't disappear, and went on to have his own adventures (which he is still having to this day). The idea of a Green Lantern wasn't made out to belong exclusively to one character alone: we now have five human Lanterns operating, each of them having their own compelling traits and flaws and both lackluster and fantastic showings (yeah we haven't had a whole lot of Baz, but hey give him time!)

But Barry, who had one of the greatest of comic book deaths, whose mantle was taken up by the most logical heir, and whose said heir rose up to and surpassed his mentor- that Barry came in and completely invalidated Wally West after Johns took the reins of the character. Which is baffling since the guy did so many great stories with the West character over the years. I can understand him being a greater fan of Barry than he was of Wally, but the way he neutered Wally and removed him from the board altogether is endlessly disappointing. It's like you are a history major who has this major hard-on for George Washington, and you are arguing that the ghost of Washington- or heck a time-travelling one for that, if you please- would have been the absolutely correct guy to handle the country during the Great Depression. FDR must pale in comparison to the great Founding Father, since the latter was the 'first and the best', fought two wars, and also can claim to be able to walk just fine till his death unlike his thirty-first successor. 'My Presidents were virile manly-men, not this disabled wimp who hid his ultimately fatal illness from the public! No one could possibly be better than MY Presidents, since they were so successful in their days!"

I find the desire to read stories using the same stock tropes, in the same genres and same tone to be baffling. That's applicable for something like Coke, an impulse product which can't possibly offer you more than five minutes of enjoyment. You would be called out for that sort of expectations in any other form of entertainment. Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Aerosmith get a lot of flak for releasing albums that try to emulate the tone of their greatest hits from decades ago. People riled on Superman Returns as being excessively nostalgic and not finding its own distinctive identity. Friends was uber-successful in the nineties, but see how similar current shows devoid of any originality face consistently negative reactions, while Modern Family and Community maintain a robust and strongly loyal following.

I just don't get why any purveyors of this particular entertainment medium would so richly reward works that refuse to evolve from decades-old trappings. If you like the old stuff that much, get the Essentials and Masterworks editions. Now you could complain that the Big Two don't give just recognition and promotion to those trades and hardcovers and you might have a valid argument. Regardless, there were some three or four decades of Silver Age-inspired goodness. It hasn't gone away. And short of a cataclysmic collapse of civilisation that wipes away most of information, it won't go away. Yeah, the good can't erase the bad, but the inverse is also true. Just because the Romans had a pretty tragic collapse in the 5th century doesn't wipe away all their accomplishments in their golden age.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am reminded of a tangent in Morrison's Supergods where he compared Alan Moore to a missionary:

I chose to see some writers as missionaries who attempted to impose their own values and preconceptions on cultures they considered inferior—in this case, that of the superheroes. Missionaries liked to humiliate the natives by pointing out their gauche customs and colorfully frank traditional dress. They bullied defenseless fantasy characters into leather trench coats and nervous breakdowns and left formerly carefree fictional communities in a state of crushing self-doubt and dereliction.

Frankly, the sort of thinking that espouses that Superman should be this exact, specific version forever, and that Spider-man should be a teenager forever (and that's actually not hyperbole)- I find that sort of people to be coming from the opposite extreme of the 'missionary' spectrum. It's this kind of Priest, Imam, Shaman or Druid, so utterly confident of the customs and rituals of his culture and tradition that he dismisses anything different from it. How they hope that the poor, benighted fools who approach such things with their own informed opinions (yet with fundamentally similar intentions) would stop fooling around and simply see the light. Surely, rainbows and flowers would sprout from everyone's behinds if that were to happen!

[warriorfist]

I don't see what's so offensive about this. At 12, the "wanna have sex with me" would have make me laugh, and by that time I saw worse in Jurassic Park or Robin Hood Prince of Thieves (mmmm, the guy getting his hand cut by the muslim.....) than Wonder Woman getting stabbed.
Let's not kid ourself: most kid play GTA behind their parents' back, love it and don't turn into psychos.

At least he could have brought up the Arsenal eats cat debacle.

Kids mature a lot earlier these days. Most video games are T+ these days, but that doesn't stop ten year olds from playing them. I have heard of gamer parents who actually encourage their children (as little as seven or eight years old) to play great games provided that they don't contain truly inappropriate situations (like the sex mini-game in God of War 3, which was a pretty popular and mainstream title).

Psychos were around way before VGs rose to their current level of prominence. Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper didn't need GTA IV to encourage their career aspirations, and you had people using Catcher in the Rye as justification for a murder attempt on your President.