Grumpy Old Fan | Used universes
Scott Lobdell, are you listening?
We're coming up on the one-year anniversary of the New 52, and I anticipate doing the usual examinations of what worked and what didn't. Until then, however, this preliminary post will try to organize my general impressions.
I have tried to keep an open mind about the various changes, but apparently I keep coming back to the New 52-niverse's lack of meaningful fictional history. Much of this comes from the five-year timeline, but a good bit of it is due to storytelling styles. While origin stories can generate a nominal setting, including a regular supporting cast, many of the New-52 books held off for various reasons ' like readers pretty much knowing the origins at the outset ' and with today's practical concerns, many books spent their first 12 issues on extended arcs.
For the past couple of weeks I've been talking about this as a function of 'idea generation,' but I think it is a more elemental concept. Specifically, it seems like I have been conditioned to expect a certain amount of continuity in a modern shared universe. Furthermore (and more troubling), I suspect the simple acknowledgment of preexisting continuity helps mitigate whatever weaknesses may exist in the stories themselves.
Before getting too negative generally, though, let's talk about particular titles. I am reading exactly half of the original New 52 books: Action Comics, All-Star Western, Animal Man, Aquaman, Batgirl, Batman, Batman & Robin, Batwing, Batwoman, Catwoman, DC Universe Presents, Demon Knights, Detective Comics, Firestorm, Flash, Frankenstein, Green Lantern, GL Corps, I, Vampire, Justice League, Justice League Dark, Stormwatch, Supergirl, Superman, Swamp Thing and Wonder Woman.
Of that original group, I read six titles which have since been canceled: Blackhawks, JLI, Men of War, OMAC, Resurrection Man and Static Shock. However, I've since been getting Batman Incorporated, Earth 2, Worlds' Finest and Dial H; and I expect to try Sword of Sorcery as well.
That's 32 out of 52, which seems like a decent amount, if a little on the high side. Generally, I like the books with which I have stuck. Today's question, though, is whether I like a book more if it creates an engaging environment.
Naturally, this requires divulging another Ancient Memory. This week we go back some 24 years, to the spring of 1988, when I was a college freshman. While taking a break from studying for finals, I decided to pop over to the convenience store across the street from my dorm. There, on impulse, I bought a copy of The Amazing Spider-Man #300. I wasn't a Marvel Zombie by any means, but I remembered writer David Michelinie from Iron Man and of course I'd heard of Todd McFarlane. I liked the issue well enough to stick with ASM for the next couple of years, until McFarlane left and I decided I'd rather get Walt Simonson's Fantastic Four.
Now, besides the book's own merits, what I liked about ASM was that sense of jumping into a moving stream. I hadn't read ASM since #202 or so, and a lot had happened, including the Wedding and the black costume. Issue 300 (the conclusion of Venom's introductory arc) had Spidey go back to the red-and-blues, but he was still married, he'd had a slight change in employment (including publishing a book of photos), and there were various other tweaks to his status quo and that of the Marvel Universe as a whole. For example, I hadn't seen Four Freedoms Plaza or the Thing's more-pointy look until the FF's ASM #300 cameo ' and by the time I started reading Fantastic Four in early 1990, Ben would be completely human and his girlfriend would be all orange and rocky.
Since this is nominally a DC column, how are those changes different from the New-52's mélange of relaunches? Well, for one thing, at the time they seemed relatively organic, at least in the sense that they tended to come out of extended storylines. (Bear with me, because my Marvel knowledge is not that great.) Maybe the symbiote-costume started off as a Secret Wars stunt (I really have no idea), but by the time I got to the books, these changes had been around for a while. Furthermore ' and I know this may make the case for Marvel NOW! (!!) ' the notion that these were the same characters helped sell the updates. To me it was like '70s DC, with Anchorman Clark, the Batcave under the Wayne Foundation, and the Teen Titans as high-school graduates. New opportunities to learn some secret knowledge, and especially to build on one's existing secret-knowledge base, can be very alluring.
By contrast, the opportunity to get in on the ground floor has its own appeal, which is not necessarily identical. I've written before about how the 1986-87 DC relaunches pretty much shaped what I've bought ever since, but there's no escaping it: That's when I started buying the Superman books, Wonder Woman, Justice League and Flash regularly. That sort of habit can easily become self-reinforcing ' I buy Flash because I have gotten comfortable with buying Flash ' but again, for the most part I've never been disappointed/upset/bored enough to drop any of them. Indeed, the New 52 revamps of Wonder Woman and Flash have been fairly successful, such that (except for the one thing) I'm not sure I'd trade them for more traditional versions.
Not so, however, with Superman and Justice League. We've read about George Pérez's frustrations working on Superman Vol. 3, but it may be more illustrative to see what sorts of stories Byrne told in his first 11 months on the Vol. 2 relaunch. Note that I'm not counting his six issues of Man of Steel, which basically reintroduced significant characters and situations, because the New 52 book has pretty much just jumped into present-day stories. Anyway, Pérez's first six issues had Superman fight (and then escape the influence of) an elemental-type extraterrestrial who turned into an evil Man of Steel. After that, Dan Jurgens, Keith Giffen and Jésus Merino did two issues with WildStorm villain Helspont, Jurgens and Merino did two issues with new villain Anguish, and Issue 11 continued that arc's Russian-sub subplot (sorry). In 1986-87, though, Byrne's No. 1 featured Metallo (picking up from a cameo in Man of Steel); No. 2 was the famous 'Luthor scoffs at The Secret' issue; No. 3 was the start of an inter-title Apokolips crossover; Nos. 4-7 introduced new villains (Nos. 5-6 was a two-parter); No. 8 was a Legion of Super-Heroes crossover regarding the 'Superboy question'; No. 9 featured the Joker; No. 10 was a one-off 'powers gone wild' story; and No. 11 reintroduced Mr. Mxyzptlk.
The point is not exactly that Byrne was doing a lot of world-rebuilding. Rather, it's that he was telling a lot of one- and two-issue stories (crossovers notwithstanding) and playing with the book's focus accordingly. Byrne's Issue 4 featured Jimmy Olsen, Nos. 5-6 had a pulpish, ancient-astronaut feel, and No. 2 and No. 10 were Luthor-driven (although No. 2 had a lot of Lana Lang as well). Those different kinds of stories allowed readers to see Superman in a range of situations, and from there to get a good sense of both Superman's versatility and the book's scope. (To be honest, I'm not sure there was all that much to Byrne's Superman characterization, but for that there was always Marv Wolfman and Jerry Ordway's Adventures of Superman.) I got the sense that George Pérez wanted the Superman of 2011-12 to have a certain depth and complexity, but it sounds like that got lost in a muddle of editorial interference and action-heavy plotting. Similarly, Dan Jurgens and Keith Giffen are no slouches when it comes to writing the Man of Steel, but Giffen's gone already and Jurgens is headed out the door to make room for Scott Lobdell. In short, after a year I don't have a real handle on the Superman in Superman. Things are a bit better in Action Comics under writer Grant Morrison, but only now is that book settling into a comfortable month-to-month groove. Ironically, its focus may have jumped around a little too quickly ' from the first 'Springsteen Supes' arc to the issues with the Legion and now with Clark's 'death' and the Captain Comet/Susie Tompkins material ' like Morrison is throwing the high heat right past the reader. Still, I have a better sense of where Morrison wants to take Superman, even if he benefits from being in the driver's seat.
But I begin to digress. Most of the A-list books are like Action in that they have established their new status quos pretty definitely. I mentioned Flash and Wonder Woman already, and Scott Snyder on Batman has done a good job making the Court of Owls feel like it's been a credible behind-the-scenes menace. Similarly, with Green Lantern and Aquaman, Geoff Johns is working the characters' mythologies at appropriate stages. On GL, he's trying to distill eight years' worth of stories into something which will inform a relatively-simple rebellion against the Guardians, and on Aquaman, he's in the early stages of something which could conceivably last several years itself.
I think that's what frustrates me about his Justice League. Not to rehash last week's post unnecessarily, but it just feels like Johns isn't taking full advantage either of the characters' own backgrounds or of the DC Universe as a whole. Clearly part of that is the need to make the book accessible, part of it is the 'newness' of the Leaguers' revised backgrounds, and part of it is the desire to create something new (as opposed to another Starro or Despero story). Nevertheless, of all the books in DC's lineup, Justice League is the one best-suited for a global perspective on the entire shared universe, and now it feels hobbled by self-imposed restrictions.
Thankfully, a number of New 52 books are filling that void, particularly the period pieces All Star Western and Demon Knights, the Vertigo-esque JL Dark and Frankenstein, the alternate-history Earth 2 and Worlds' Finest, and the eco-centric Animal Man and Swamp Thing. Because each of these treats the DC Universe (or some part of it) appropriately as an unreal setting, each therefore adds to the DCU's overall complexity. For example, the main Justice League's brief appearance (and quick defeat) in the first issue of JL Dark gave readers a quick and dirty justification for the book's existence, and showed dramatically there are some things the regular League just can't handle. The same goes for cameos from the likes of Superman and the Flash in Animal Man and Swamp Thing. I like how the New 52 has a handful of different environments, from medieval times to the Old West and into parallel Earths and the 31st Century, but I wish each book did its part to build up its own particular atmosphere.
In that respect, I suppose it's not so much that I appreciate a nominal amount of continuity, but that the book feels like it takes place somewhere vibrant. Again, I think a lot of New-52 books do fairly well in that department ' but as a whole, the New 52 shared universe doesn't yet seem cohesive. To be clear, this is a minor complaint, and I'd rather have 52 well-written and well-drawn books, with robust creative viewpoints and energetic storytelling, than 52 parts of a cohesive whole. Still, in light of the end of the pre-Flashpoint DCU, a little more coordination would make the New 52 go down easier.
Maybe it's just me, but without the sense that they're all working together ' even if it's just the acknowledgment that they mostly share the same planet ' the New-52 books don't feel as sustainable as their predecessors did. I can see a number of New 52 books working just as well under the pre-Flashpoint continuity: certainly the Green Lantern and Bat-books, most of the 'Vertigo-ized' titles, and perhaps the ex-WildStorm titles. However, when it's something explicitly different, like Superman, what I've read of Teen Titans, or Justice League, that difference not only stands out, it seems to highlight the book's lack of grounding. I don't have a good sense of Superman's Superman, or the New-52 League or Titans, because I know they're supposed to be all-new versions and they haven't convincingly stepped into their predecessors' boots.
Accordingly, as we gear up for the year in review, that will probably be in the back of my mind. It's a criticism which no doubt comes from decades' worth of habits and expectations, and it may not be entirely fair, but there it is.
Now I just have to find time to get caught up on the books I do read.
- August 9, 2012 @ 03:00 PM by Tom Bondurant
- Tagged: Amazing Spider-Man, comic books, Dan Jurgens, David Michelinie, DC Comics, DC Comics: The New 52, Fantastic Four, Geoff Johns, George Perez, grumpy old fan, John Byrne, justice league, superman, The Flash, Todd McFarlane, Walter Simonson, Wonder Woman
15 Comments
Great article.
In my opinion, DC has a lot of problems right now.
´
We've had enough of the 'Mafia' (Harras/Lee/Johns/DiDio)
I think you've nailed the issue squarely in the last paragraph. New 52 hasn't sold itself very well, at least so far. The pre-Flashpoint DCU was cohesive and every book was like a corner of it. Now the books are all like varying impressions of what it's *supposed* to be, or used to be, or is about to be, or something. It isn't nearly as satsifying. (That said, the pre-Flashpoint DCU had problems too, mostly a lack of focus and too many team books.)
I appreciate DC's efforts and do not begrudge the company for trying to lure new readers. But I've discovered the New 52 isn't for me because of that lack of history.
After sampling I'd say about half of the titles the books I've stuck with are Demon Knights and All Star Western ' the titles that conceivably could be published in the old DCU because they take place in the past.
There's a way to engage new readers and hook them on the richness of a shared universe and a shared history. James Robinson does it quite well. I'd say Morrison and Waid and Busiek do, too.
I was too young to pay attention to editorial decisions/market decisions back in the mid-1980s but I've read many post-Crisis DCs. And some ' like Hawkworld ' were so well done that I was able to get over the changes in continuity/history.
But others I could never enjoy, such as Superman, BECAUSE so much of what I loved about that character had been jettisoned during Crisis.
And that's what's happened with much of the New 52. I know longer feel any attachment to these characters because in many cases I just don't know them anymore. And when they're reintroduced I don't like what I see or don't see why the changes make them any more interesting/marketable (I'm looking at you, Challengers of the Unknown).
And I know that makes me sound like an old fogey (I'm 37). But at the same time writers have proven time and time again that fresh stories for new AND old readers are possible. You can introduce the newbies to characters and concepts and still throw some Easter eggs and bits of continuity to longtime fans.
I actually think Marvel has learned from DC one year later, which is why Marvel NOW is being touted as a fresh start with new creative teams BUT NOT A REBOOT.
Again, I don't begrudge DC. And I greatly appreciate the variety of titles on the shelves, even if I'm not buying most of them. It's great to have war and western and fantasy and horror books alongside DC's superhero fare.
But I feel DC could have enjoyed the same success by shaking up creative teams, introducing new titles/concepts and making a major marketing push BUT not jettisoning its history.
Also the upcoming DC projects I'm most looking forward to are New 52-free ' Simonson's 'Judas Coin' and Kubert's anthology series which will include some new Hawkman stories.
Agree with you that one thing Byrne successfully did was a lot of single- or two-part stories. I'll say this for the man: that was one thing he used to do really well, was to write a single issue story that would occasionally drop a plot thread which would be followed upon in a later issue. Overall, you had the contentment of a 'done in one' comic, but still some plot elements driving you onto the next issue.
Case in point: I remember that Joker issue of Superman really being a two-story comic: the main portion being Superman vs. the Joker, but also the short backup of 'Metropolis: 900 Miles.' The short was a great story about Lex Luthor being a jerk who messed with random people just for fun, but also ending with him saying 'And now back to Metropolis to proceed with Project Overload!' The latter portion being continued with the aforementioned 'Superman's out of control' story in the following issue. You don't need to read the next issue after, but Byrne dropped an incentive to do so in one comment from Lex.
Contrast that with today's books with their multi-part storylines. I'm reading the new WORLD's FINEST and finding it not necessarily reader-friendly: it's four straight issues of Huntress and Power Girl fighting the same villain in what really should have been one or two issues. It's fine for me, as I bought all four issues at the same time. A new reader off the street could either be frustrated that he has to get the next issue to complete the story, or else be annoyed if he came in too late.
I'm a DC guy, and as much as I hate saying it, the New 52 leaves me feeling like I'm at a party I wasn't invited to. The story's just aren't clicking for me, and I can't seem to get a handle on who these people are. Flash started out strong, but after the fourth issue it feels like the continuing narrative has stalled. Green Lantern felt like it started out at issue 68 instead of 1, and Justice League has just been blah. Batman has been the strongest book in the line, I think.
Marvel has my attention for bringing in these strong creative teams, so I'm ready to jump ship.
It's a bit odd that GOF is taking issue with how DC's presenting its current sets of stories while Marvel is doing the EXACT SAME THING. And when Marvel finally rolls out its 'Now' books, look for the exact crap'more multi-issue storylines (Bendis excels in this'why did his first run on Ultimate Spider-Man need six damn issues to cover what Lee and Ditko did in a single issue of Amazing Fantasy?; oh, but we must never criticize how Marvel lets Bendis get away with everything he wants regardless of how many issues he takes to get to the point for that will upset the Marvel Zombies). Oh, and speaking of 'Now,' I'd like for someone to please explain how the whole idea is NOT the product of 'editorial decisions.' We just got a whole brand-new 'X-Men' number #1 a little over a year ago that was the result of that stupid Schism storyline, only for it to be completely undone with the results of the editorial-driven 'Avengers vs X-Men' directing a 'need' for a whole new #1 issue. I don't see why Marvel's cancelling 'New Mutants' (one of the three mainstream Marvel books I'm still actually buying and enjoying despite its having to suffer through EDITORIAL-driven crossover storylines like Necrosha and Schism and Fear Itself and the recent Exiled) but that just allows me the opportunity to try some other non-Marvel work.
Marvel Now won't do a damned new thing that Marvel hasn't done in the past decade except play round-robin with creators and books. Let's cancel Fraction's Defenders but put him on FF books (with shiny brand-new #1 issues) while current FF books writer Jonathan Hickman gets promoted to an Avengers book (with another shiny brand-new #1 issue). THIS is what we're supposed to consider revolutionary? (Of course, when DC cancelled some of its 52 books or had changes with its creative teams, folks were all 'we need to get rid of DiDio' or 'stop the editorial interference DC.)'
Back to you, GOF. Maybe you should take a few minutes and compare to those old Marvel books you were praising and compare them to how the same characters are being handled in the new Marvel titles. Marvel's top books were pulling crossovers (Inferno, Secret Wars II, Acts of Vengeance, Operation: Galactic Storm)'some were linewide crossovers, others were 'familywide' (ie, all the X-books or all the Spider-books or all the Avengers-related titles). Maybe you should read some of Peter David's complaints of the 'editorial' interference when he was on X-Factor in the early 90s; he'd get started on a plot and, then, within a few issues, suddenly he had to plot X-Factor into X-Cutioner's Song or Fatal Attractions. (He was somewhat more successful in keeping the Incredible Hulk book out of crossovers but other writers would involve the Hulk in their tales.) When the books weren't getting put into crossovers, the creative teams were routinely plotting one- and two-issue stories simply to avoid the upcoming crossover 'crisis' (far too often, the crossover issues seemed to come out of nowhere'very little connection to the previous or subsequent stories). As for Byrne's storytelling on Superman, I believe that was actually a part of his agreement with DC when he took over Superman'that HE set the stories on his books (Superman and Action, which had been turned into the team-up book replacing the old DC Comics Presents) and that he had approval over whether *his* books were involved in line-wide crossovers. I may be mistaken, but I believe Byrne's books were involved in exactly two linewide crossovers: Legends, which Byrne himself pencilled so he'd have some 'prior' knowledge of what to expect when doing *his* books; and Millennium which actually fits into how you approvingly explained Byrne's handling of his storytelling (what's more interesting, even Byrne's crossovers were never more than 1 or 2 issues long'aside from his pencilling of Legends and his part in plotting the resolution of the Superboy and Legion conundrum crossover in 1987's 4-issue 'The Greatest Hero of Them All' storyline which took two Legion issues and but only 1 each of Superman and Action). I'm not counting any of Byrne's mid-to-late 90s return to DC and the works he did then since you're apparently not either.
I too do wish DC hadn't opted to go through such lengthy stories when it launched the New 52 but this whole trend of extensive multipart tales is NOT solely a DC problem. Marvel excels in them. When was the last time you read a Marvel TPB collection that had more than one storyline in it? I certainly don't remember a recent volume offered by Marvel that listed four to six issues that weren't a single story (and most of the TPBs will simply pad the volume with an older story that may have some tangential connection with the more recent storyline being reprinted'and I'm not counting Marvel's Essentials or Masterworks volumes that reprint the company's 1960s and early 1970s books).
Marvel's 'Now' is just more of Marvel's recent SOP. The company has seen the reaction to DC's New 52 and decided they're going to pretty much the same thing except for launching all their books at one time. The creator shuffle? DC did it. The continuity deals? Well, please show me how Marvel's NOT going to have to figure out a way of adjusting Iron Man's history or the FF's history that justifies the need for new #1s (hint: You can't simply put a simple 'everything's still exactly the same' bandage on it and still have us accept Lee and Kirby's original Fantastic Four storyline remains valid'Ben and Reed canNOT have served in WWII; Reed canNOT want to 'beat the Russkies' into space without being 85 years old and, to the best of my memory, Reed hasn't been put into some sort of stasis or frozen or been subjected to some sort of rejuvenation beam; and, of course, Tony Stark can't have been captured by a batch of Communist-sympathetic Vietnamese since Vietnam's been fully Communist for the last 37 years unless Tony is a LOT older than we've been led to believe or Papa Stark took his toddler child with him on some bizarre sightseeing trip into potentially hostile areas during the last year or so of the Vietnam War). No. Marvel's going to'once again'try to have it both ways (they'll keep what they want and discard what they don't want, and basically to hell with fans who cry 'Foul' but go right on buying the books) and folks will let them get away with it. They'll accept that Peter Parker is just 20 years old but still managed to do everything he's done in the past 50 or so years of storytelling in just the 'last few years' because Marvel's decided that's the way it is and random 'hot Marvel writer' is telling the story with random 'hot Marvel artist''and whatever the writer decides to ignore will be 'the' official line until the NEXT 'hot Marvel writer' takes over and decides he wants to revive that ignored storyline with his 'exciting new direction.'
Oh, and one last thing that hasn't really been explained with this 'Now' deal: Since the new books aren't being released simultaneously, how will Marvel explain inconsistencies? For instance, the first issue of the brand-new Remender/Cassaday Uncanny Avengers (a 'Marvel Now' book) with a cover featuring Thor and Captain America is scheduled to come out the same week as the Bendis/Peterson Avengers #31 (and Cap is presumably featured on the cover of Avengers #32) and the week before the Fraction/Davis The Mighty Thor #21 which will then have ANOTHER issue to come out before Thor presumably becomes part of the 'Uncanny Avengers' team.
Here's a silly thought: Why don't we see how all this 'Marvel Now' BS plays out over the next year and see how much different it turns out than what Marvel's done over the past year? I feel pretty safe in expecting there to be absolutely zero difference'that every single one of the 'Marvel Now' books will prove to have no more real affect on what happens in the 'Marvel Universe' than the soon-to-be-ended books would do if they were to run for another year.
What's next?
Image Comics relaunch? New IDW relaunch? Archie Comics Now relaunch? Nu-Dark Horse relaunch?
etc.
@JosephW:
Very nice, very impressive wall of text. Any thoughts on the actual content of GOF's post? You know, about DC?
@Taichara
LMAO indeed, folk.
As far as this post goes. I've given up on fretting over the continuity of the new 52 and connecting all titles into a whole, cohesive world. I enjoy the books I enjoy and am just happy to have great stories and great art. If I get an easter egg or nice little nod to the previous DC, well that's fine and good. As long as a book can feel grounded with it's own individual sense of history I can ignore whether the universe itself does. The best stories in the DCnU are the ones that have drawn me fully in and I'll continue to read them happily whether or not I feel it's weird for Wonder Woman to be only 23.
I did give the new 52 books a try, but ultimately now I'm reading less DC than I was before (Demon Knights/Batman/Batman Incorporated/Action Comics).
Partly that is down to economic circumstances, and part of it is just down to poor story-telling. In their rush to make everything intertwined, story suffered. The example of the relaunched, George Perez written Superman (although in interviews he has suggested that the final version may not reflect what he wrote), started off with a teaser for Stormwatch. Why? It wasn't paid off in Superman and didn't help the narrative.
I read the Jim Lee/Geoff Johns Justice League hardcover, and realised that I didn't understand what the villains motivation was. So I read it again. I still don't know. He turned up for the cool splash page, and ensuing fight, but there was no good reason (if I missed something, I would be delighted if someone corrects me).
It isn't a Marvel vs. Dc things. I think that both do some solid books, but overall the focus seems to be on world building or mythology building for the next big thing, rather thank focussing on the individual books.
The New 52 has left me cold as well. I can't even muster enough concern to despise it. At this point I'm just apathetic to anything DC is doing with their universe.
Like Chris B., the DCnU just feels like an exclusionist retreat for new readers.
I think part of the problem I've had though, unlike you, GOF, is that there was too much crossover, basically 'tricking' us into buying books we wouldn't normally be reading. I didn't think the stories were strong enough, especially in light of the 'five year crunch' since as an old-time fan I had a very hard time wrapping my head around what history was present and what history had been missing for reintroduction.
On the one hand, 'All stories are still in canon,' which leads me to wonder why Captain Atom and the JL are at odds and how the JLI doesn't know each other. On the other hand, 'It's a new beginning!' so how are there five Robins under the bridge now, and where did the Hall of Justice come from (seriously, did the Nightwing-as-Bats second-string league ever exist in the new continuity? NO ONE IS TAKING CARE OF THE HALL OF JUSTICE?)
Really one of the big centerpieces of awful was the fact that a good number of the books wanted world-shaking problems on their plate (like JLI, Stormwatch, Captain Atom, even to a lesser extent, Frankenstein, Teen Titans and Legion Lost) which you'd think other heroes or teams (like the Justice League) might pick up on and want to be a part of. But while they're doing their 5-years previous super extended dance mix with Darkseid, (trying to poke his eyes out for an entire issue of the arc,) there's no indication there even IS a Justice League, except in JLDark, where they choose two of the most ill-suited members (Cyborg and Superman are going to fight a magician? Really?) to take on the threat and then completely drop it because ' because.
I dunno, all DC's titles feel like polished 90s Image comics to me. More violence and spectacle with less heroism for your $3.
There were many years when I bought EVERY DC comic, and decades where I bought most of them.
For 45 years I was a DC addict.
I'm still buying The Shade, but other than that, DC has driven me away.
nuDC will rot your mind. It's only slightly better than being a crack-head.
@Sureiachan
I line up with some of your thoughts on the DCnU but several things (crossovers, world shaking events in one book don't resonate in others) have been staples of comic book storytelling for years. The first one (crossovers) does annoy me as I don't want to have to read extra books to get a complete story. I felt the same way in 1987. The second one has no effect on me at all. I don't mind if Frankenstein's world threat doesn't blip on the JL's radar. In fact, that would lead to the sort of crossover issues I don't like in the first place. I'll take each book having its own contained story over making the whole line of books make 100% sense as happening on one world.
For the more violence and more spectacle with less heroism comment, I think it all depends on what you want to pay attention to. I like stories of heroism. It's why I like superheroes. It's also why I read Action Comics and not Red Hood and the Outlaws. I would say the Superman of Action Comics displays more heroism than he had in his monthly books in a long time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment