Superman Through the Ages! Forum

There's been a lot of talk lately about DC going back to the multiverse concept, with the events of INFINITE CRISIS and the revelations of 52.

If you had told me the multiverse would be restored four or five years ago, I would have been thrilled. The biggest and most arbitrary mistake DC ever made was eliminating the multiverse, which not only created the mother of all continuity glitches, it also made for a million bad decisions: for instance, Superman no longer being the first superhero anymore.

For the most part, the reason, to me, that the singleverse was not exciting was because nobody had a vision of how to tie it all together. There were the usual (boring) explanations about how Alan Scott was connected to the Earth-1 Green Lanterns.

Even the more interesting things about the new singleverse, namely, the presence of the Fawcett and Charleston heroes rubbing shoulder to shoulder with the DC heroes, elicited a yawn: sure, there was the great Len Wein BLUE BEETLE miniseries, but then Giffen got his greasy meat hooks on the character and he was never the same again.

In other words, everything they did with the singleverse was boring.

Then came Geoff Johns and his JUSTICE SOCIETY.

He tied everything together - it was a fanboy's dream. If you haven't read Geoff Johns's JSA, do yourself a favor and pick them up in trade paperback; you won't regret it.

How does Rick Hunter factor into the early history of the JSA? The singleverse was all worth it to see Shazam as chief advisor to Khufu...who just discovered a Thanagarian crashed shuttle...to say nothing of Black Adam's participation! Phillip Jose Farmer could not have done better.

And finally, Geoff Johns used the fact the JSA were predecessors of the other teams, NOT to steal the thunder of the Silver Age heroes, but to give the JSA its own unique identity and role as elder statesmen, one that would not make sense in a multiverse. This attitude is best summarized by this quote by Black Canary:

"The world may look up to the Justice League and the Teen Titans. But the Justice League and the Teen Titans look up to US."

Without the singleverse context, the JSA just becomes "the JLA of an alternate earth."

Then you have the menaces that Geoff Johns has had the JSA fight: a young, dark and evil version of Mordru, for instance (giving the most astonishing wizard's duel of Doctor Fate's career), and a spy story featuring Submarines and Mr. Terrific vs. Kobra, to say nothing of the JSA's battles with the former Hawk, Extant, Monarch of Time...all stories not possible with a multiverse except by resorting to tacky means like inter-universe travel - which implies high-stakes and cosmic power/technology and may not be appropriate for all villains. Not to mention the awkwardness of a storybeing rewritten to take into account inter-universe distance.

The invention of a shared universe meant that Superman could fight Weather Wizard and the JLA can fight Darkseid. The invention of the multiverse means the JSA can battle Kobra's cult/spy organization.

And then we have the Antimatter Earth that Grant Morrison created, which Kurt Busiek developed and perfected in his classic but brief JLA arc - a tale not possible with Earth-3.

Alan Brennert's tales needed the multiverse to make sense. Likewise, Geoff Johns needs the singleverse. He's proven you can make the singleverse "work," and that in some ways it is an improvement over a multiverse...because everything can tie together regardless of its original dimensional location.

So my question is this: in a DC that is post-Morrison, post-Busiek, and especially, post-Johns, is it even necessarily a wise idea to bring the multiverse back? Is it even desirable at this point?

Some stories are, unfortunately, no longer possible without a multiverse. But many other kinds of stories ARE possible with a singleverse that weren't possible before - Wildcat teaching an up-and-coming Bruce Wayne to box is one.

It was a mistake to get rid of the mutiverse, yes, I'll agree. But it was a mistake to kill Barry off, too. Yet, Messner-Loebs and Baron were able to give a unique identity to Wally West so that people eventually stopped asking when Barry will come back. In other words, they created a worthy successor to Barry just as interesting to read about.

In a serial medium like comics, mistakes can't be redeemed by bringing things back the way they were, but by turning a mistake into an opportunity - something Johns's JSA has accomplished.

Messner-Loebs made me stop asking when Barry would be back, and Johns has made me stop asking when the Multiverse will be back.

I really enjoyed Johns' JSA run (warts and all). JSA mostly cleared up the whole post-crisis Hawkman fiasco while introducing Teth Adam and Khufu into the story, priceless. While Morrison introduced JLA: Earth-2, I thought Kurt Busiek really expounded on CSA in the pages of JLA. Some books were not even written by current writers. In Ostander's Suicide Squad, many villains and heroes from other universe were mixed together for action-packed stories. Denny O'Neill wrote the Question into DCU releaving him of Ditko's intentions. James Robinson integrated all the Golden Age creations together. As an example, I didn't know Red Bee was originally a Quality hero. The list goes on and on.

Now, I don't believe DC is going to split the current earth back into pre-crisis form. However, it's more than likely, the multiverse continued independent of post-crisis DCU. It's just another universe. Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-X are still out there. So, if the current JLA travels through the multiverse, there's a good chance they could run into their Earth-1 counterparts, albiet older. It gives readers an opportunity not to be stuck with one interpretation of their favorite superheroes. Currently, I'm strug-gl-ing through Trials of Shazam. I'm not enjoying the changes to the Marvel Family. Now, there's a chance Earth-S still exists! On Earth-1, the Elliots are raising Super Kid. Captain Carrot saves the day on Earth-C. Classic Ditko characters roam Earth-4.

I'm sure Morrison, Busiek, and Johns know what they are doing.  ;)     

Yes, yes, it is!

The greatest idea ever in comics is back? How can anyone not like that?

Whoa, hold up. I don't deny the multiverse is a great idea, just as I do not deny that Barry Allen was a great character. But thinking Barry was great does not mean that I want Barry to return, with everything that's happened as a consequence of his death and the way his replacement was made equally interesting (though I will admit, it gave me goose pimples to see Barry back in action again in Busiek/Perez's JLA/AVENGERS).

Barry Allen was great, but Barry Allen DIED. And the fact he died was used to propel and tell even more interesting stories about the people around him. Bringing Barry back would be a denial of the idea that life should go on, and comic characters should advance and be propelled forward by events. His return would sabotage retroactively great Wally stories where Wally tries to live up to the mentor he is suddenly without.

The multiverse is a lot like that.

Like Barry Allen, it's classic and "the original." But the singleverse is like Wally West. It was developed in a way to be of equal interest as his predecessor by Johns and others. I would certainly read a book starring Wally (as long as its not written by Mark Waid), and likewiise, the singleverse has been shown as being able to yield something besides screwups.

I guess the point I'm making here is, if they wanted to take the singleverse away in, say, 1992, when the only thing that had resulted from the merged earths was Giffen and headaches...that would have been fine by me.

But NOW, in 2007, when we've had all these clever concepts that only make sense in the context of one single universe, when so much has really been invested in a singleverse and it has been shown by Johns and others as an idea that WORKS and with a charm all its own...restoring the multiverse strikes me as a waste.

I was in favor of bringing Hal Jordan and the GLC back, because that would have been restoring something that serves a purpose. Restoring the multiverse would be a needlessly regressive act that serves NO purpose...well, except for giving Jeph Loeb a nostalgia-boner.

I long for the multiverse... continuity was tighter and you didn't have to have a "event" every 10 years to reboot the universe cause there were so many continuity problems...

The multiverse was a continuity fix, but it was a decent one. I didn't like the idea of having a Superman of Earth-2, but that's another matter.

I think the Multiverse should return, for Captain Marvel's sake. I agree with Maggin that he's a character who needs his own universe, and has trouble existing in the same one as Superman.

     How would DC returnning to the multiverse concept be a threat to the current DCU?  I doubt that DC is going to "split" the current Earth-DC into Earths 1, 2, 4, S, & X.  It's more likely that they would establish that the current DCU is either another parallel universe of the "Pre-Crisis" DC Multiverse, or that the current DCU is part of an entirely separate multiverse.  There is absolutely no guarentee that a new DC Multiverse means the return of any of the DC Multiverses seen during or before the Crisis on Infinite Earths.


     Having a parallel universe where Barry Allen is still alive as the Flash does not mean that the versions of Barry who died didn't die.  Nor does it mean that any of them have returned from the dead.


     Actually DC never really had a singleverse.  The fact that DC never "got rid" of Qward means that it still had a multiverse even after the big Crisis.  And there is that universe that the assemblers came from.  Chances are that that the current Earth-DC (as it is) will be the Earth-1 of a new DC Multiverse. 

While I'd be fine with the return of the multiverse (I agree that Capt. Marvel seems to suffer being in the same reality as Superman), I'm not sure I trust most of their current writers/editors (the ones behind such "stellar" efforts as "Infinite Crisis"/"Identity Crisis") to handle it even remotely well at all...

Captain Marvel wasn't suffering because he had to share the Earth with Superman, he was suffering because lots of bad writers had no idea what to do with him.

They still don't! See current mainstream book: Trails of crapzam!

Thankfully, Jeff Smith got his hands on him and we all will get to read a good Cap story soon :)


The return of the Multiverse will not make the current DC Earth go away, it just means that some of the old ones and new Earths will return. For example, the Kingdom Come Earth, Earth-2, maybe more.

Maybe not "bad" writers, but writers who were not suitable. Captain Marvel just cannot be taken out of his time; is that the problem? He's the 1940s big gun (even bigger than Superman for a time), with THAT being THEN, and THIS being NOW.

I never took it on, that Captain Marvel was part of the same comic book realm as Superman. That's like making Uncle Scrooge's adventures from Carl Barks (among my favourite comics) part of the same realm. (Superman visits Earth D?) It's stupid. Captain Marvel is not part of anything to do with Superman. He was a very special and charming character who belongs in a different part of your brain.

What's this disease which causes every character to be included in the "Multiverse"? It doesn't make sense to me. The multiple Earth concept is brilliant, and one of the best DC creations, but some characters, eg. Captain Marvel, should NOT be a part of it.

Call it crossover fever.

The only reason DC created Earth-S was to do that Superman vs Shazam book, which still hasn't been reprinted.

This has even more crossover possibilities:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/57581?utm_source=slate_rss_1

"The Onion" ladies and gentlemen.... :-X

I tend to agree Captain Marvel belongs on Earth-S or completely separate from DCU. That's why I am looking forward to Jeff Smith's Monster Society and any Fawcett reprints.

Post-Crisis, if you examine the integration of Charlton, Fawcett, and Quality characters into DCU, you are left with some good and some bad. As an example, Captain Marvel never seemed to work well while Black Adam fit.   

I'm actually curious what the plans by Johns, Morrison, Busiek, Simone and the rest are with regards to the multiverse, if indeed that is their plan. My intuition is that it isn't going to go back to the Pre-Crisis status quo with heroes on different earths, but that it will be something stranger and less predictable.

Best Case Scenario is a multiverse is restored, but it is a more intriguing and different kind of animal that makes different stories possible. Note their specific wording, not that the multiverse will come back, but "the multiverse still exists." What does that MEAN?

As I've never thought much of Captain Marvel, I hardly agree he needs a whole earth all to himself because he has to be the SPESHULEST. JLA/AVENGERS established that DC Earth is bigger in area than our earth, and there's room enough for both characters.

I don't blame the singleverse concept for Captain Marvel sinking instead of swimming in recent times, because Cap was floundering without direction even in the days of the multiverse (though I will admit I did enjoy the issue of DC COMICS PRESENTS with Superman and the Marvels vs. Kull).

And anyway, Black Adam seems to be doing fine at present thanks to Johns's ingenious use of him. What's Cap's problem, anyway?

Sure, I'm not the target audience for the Marvel Family and perhaps my criticism can be discounted for that reason (if you ask me the two highest points in comics history, it would be the Steve Gerber DEFENDERS and the Englehart DETECTIVE COMICS), and coming down on terminally retarded, condescending idiocy like the Goatman feels like kicking a dog because it can't do calculus.

Still, the reason I find the Marvels frustrating is not because they are choked by bad ideas that talk down to the audience...but because there are so many GOOD ideas in there that can't find expression...and that perhaps by placing them on the same grounded, science fictiony earth as the JLA and the Green Lanterns and so on, they can be developed to their full potential and played "straight."

Shazamo for example. He has a great look and terrible powers, and Thanos among others has certainly proven that an evil god can make a formidable supervillain. Shazamo has the potential to be truly terrifying an antagonist.

THIS is why I'm not 100% certain giving Cap and his buddies his own earth is good idea: place him back in his old, cartoony context and you can't utilize it all to its full potential.

Shazamo?!? Who is that?  ???

http://www.marvelfamily.com/WhosWho/default.aspx
http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/fawcett/fawcettframe.htm

Johns stuff with Black Adam just seems to be another excuse for more of his cheap gore stunts. It's like the guy really wants to be writing splatter films. Stuff like having his Black Adams new son fly through a guy complete with intestines dangling off the kids shoulder is just stupid and irresponsible. If DC wants to usher in a new age maybe the could start by showing some class. ..and I don't like that we get Isis into the DCU just so she can be Black Adam's fling. I've never been happy with having him as member of the JSA because it's just a rock stupid and nonsensical waste of a good villan.

On the issue of Captain Marvel in "cartoony" context I would agree with your point if it were being done exactly like the 40's. But I think Jeff Smith is going to be serving up some "cartoony" Captain Marvel that will be a blast to read and very preferable to the utter Iron Age BS of Trials. For playing it totally straight,  I would like to see that to but it seems like the only guys in the business capable of that are Dini and Ross on Power of Hope who can find that right balance of wonder and magic to go with the straight faced epic superhero stuff. To cut that sense off completely you basically get what we're seeing in Trials which is like having a textbook on how NOT to do Captain Marvel.

I can't believe I know something about the Marvel Family you don't!  ;D

Shazamo is also called Oggar, the evil god of magic. He was deformed by a curse, and he has cloven hooves. Oggar added his 'O' to the list of deities to be called "Shazamo."

The multiverse would not necessary if DC still produced quality kids comics.  It is a fun concept with lots of story potential and I am not against it's use in stories --a good parallel universe yarn is always a great way to develop and illustrate character.  The DC multiverse, past and present, is really only important to continuity nerds and semi-adult fanboys (unfortunately, the chief audience of modern superhero comics) and is not essential from an editorial point of view.

I love the pre-Crisis multiverse but most of it was clunky and a product of editorial laziness and commercial motivations (the buying of old companies/universes).  If, as Julian says, the current DC comics writers have reconciled the JSA with current continuity by relegating them to the past (where their comic book adventures originally took place), then it seems the problem is solved.  It doesn't mean, of course, that the current writers should be prevented from writing parallel universe stories or even from establishing entirely new parallel universe continuities.  However, if this sort of thing is done out of some sort of cynical nostalgic or marketing urge, and it shows, then why bother, artistically speaking?

I like the idea of the JSA (however reimagined and comprised) as elder statesmen and if all that is changed is that Iron Age Superman remains not the first hero (although maybe promoted to first Silver Age hero?), then who cares, really?

And Capt Marvel doesn't fit?  Like Super-Monkey says, get some good creative people on him or keep his books separate --the kids won't care that he doesn't team up with Elongated Man every other month.

Personally, I like the idea that this so-called Iron Age, post-Crisis singleverse is really another parallel world to Earth-1 and that Superman's Earth-1 adventures continue somewhere to this day....

(and yes, in a few years I might admit Grant Morrison's stories into the canon)

That's my chief concern, that the multiverse is being brought back for cynical marketing and nostalgia purposes. I would have no problem with the mutiverse being brought back several years ago, when there were so many problems with the singleverse. But now, bringing back the multiverse serves no function because the major problems created by the merged singleverse have been SOLVED, and the singleverse has, thanks to Johns, justified its existence. There's no REASON to bring the multiverse back.


Again, I don't see why Captain Marvel is entitled to such special treatment.

One of the drawbacks of a shared universe, going ALL the way back to the JSA in the 1940s, is that the self-contained role of each individual hero as the sole hope of the world is eliminated. It isn't just Captain Marvel that is weakened by being put on the same earth as Superman - ALL heroes are weakened by being put on the same earth as Superman! However, by putting all the heroes on the same earth, as they did in JSA, they gained much more than was lost.


I don't really see the problem with Black Adam being violent. In fact, if he wasn't violent, he wouldn't be characterized appropriately as a very hard-edged, might-makes-right character who is far less restrained and "clean" than the JLAers that surround him.

In other words, it's not a cheap excuse for violence because the violence has a purpose: it's characterization, Black Adam being Black Adam.

And I will admit, there is something darkly cool about Black Adam catching a suicide bomber, tearing his arm off, and saying "You have THREE more chances to tell me who hired you." ;D


Well, this is an interesting question, isn't it?

You've got a supremely powerful character like Black Adam. How do you get this character to arouse fear? One way is to not wuss out, and SHOW the absolutely terrifying consequences of such a character in battle against ordinary mortals.

One of my biggest problems is with the character of Gorilla Grodd at least prior to Johns; he's an illustration of why violence is necessary for certain KINDS villains (not all, certainly) in order to be frightening.

Grodd's a member of a savage anthropoid race. Gorillas are scary. Those suckers are BIG, fierce wild animals. When Johns showed, in an Edgar Rice Burroughs fashoin, what exactly HAPPENS when a gorilla attacks a man, suddenly, Grodd got his teeth back. This ferocity and bestial power was always a part of who his character was, but we the reader never realized it until it was depicted.

Suddenly, Grodd isn't someone to laugh at anymore.

It's no coincidence that Johns's Flash run, featuring a terrifying Grodd red in tooth and fang, preceded Grodd's promotion to "master villain" status in the League cartoon.


I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with stories that appeal to our base urges for sex and violence.

Otherwise good, decent people enjoy Tarzan's savage beast-slayings and Solomon Kane drenched in the blood of evil Bat-people, or Andy Kubert's macho man war tales, or movies where giant snakes eat teenagers. Human beings, and especially men, are attracted to violence, blood, and "sick" things and that's been true from the days of the Gladiators to P.T. Barnum to the Godfather to Geoff Johns.


Now wait, that's not the whole story. In 52, Isis isn't just introduced to be Teth Adam's booty partner. It's a very interesting scenario that they're exploring: what if a "bad boy" like Adam gets a girlfriend that is a loveable Mother Teresa type? How will the power of love transform him? And the concept is well-executed: you see Adam acting differently as a result of Isis's influence. She refuses to allow him to wipe out a cel of very bad men to teach them a lesson, for instance.

And the idea of Isis - Princess Di and Marylin Monroe rolled into one - as a beloved figure in Khandaq is an interesting one. I loved the idea Khandaq girls duplicate her fashoin sense!


If Black Adam was threatening the earth with some dubious ray, or teaming up with Sivana for "revenge" against the Marvels, that would be a waste of a good villain. What makes Black Adam different and unique, where he transcends the "mirror evil twin" villain niche is the fact he, like Namor, is a person with heroic instincts but also a degree pride and ruthlessness.

The moment where Black Adam, during his battle with the JSA, collapses because he accidentally destroyed the grave of his dead family was deeply touching. It's much more interesting than another Captain Marvel vs. Adam battle.

When I heard about Johns's "Black Reign" I was skeptical because of how it sounded like another inane KINGDOM COME type story where proactive heroes get smacked down by old school heroes or are "cursed by their own hubris" or somesuch. But to his credit, Johns didn't go for the easy way out. He did something it is very, very hard to do in superhero comics: present two contradiictory points of view, and have them both be sympathetic to the audience.


I wish Jeff Smith the best of luck, and if he can achieve the balance that would be great to see. Taking Captain Marvel's better elements and removing it from the detritus of the cartoony world that birthed him is an ideal approach.

But this really proves my point about the mutiverse's return not being a good idea: if a balance can be found for Captain Marvel, in other words stories can be told with him that are "straight" in the same vein as those of Superman or Green Lantern but still keeps true to the character's uniqueness, I don't see why he "needs" his own earth.

Real Gorillas are not like that at all. They are Herbivore (eat only plants).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

When did this happen?

The Marvel Family site doesn't seem to have Steamboat either, but DOES have Son'O"God, so it can't be a matter of worrying about offense

You can e-mail to ask him to add who you think is missing.

That's how I got him to add The Lieutenant Marvels :)

The World's Mightiest Immortal first appeared in CAPTAIN MARVEL ADVENTURES #61 (1946). He was a member of both the Cult of the Curse and the later version of the Monster Society of Evil.

I disagree.  There is nothing cool here at all.  Reading it makes me sick and is a prime example of why I avoid Johns like the plague.  I only have so much time in the day in which to do things like read comics, read books, or watch movies.  So I am very particular about what messages I choose to let in to my soul.  Everything you read effects who you are and what you think about.  So the question is - what do you want to be thinking about?  I really do not want any more images of gore or messages of violent cruelty in my brain.  Our culture is currently out of control in this regard, lost in an increasing spiral of doom.  I'd rather have uplifting messages of love and hope.


There is something fundamentally wrong with such stories.  They encourage and spread despair and loss.  Hence they are extremely irresponsible, possibly even evil.

It all depends whether or not you want your comics to reflect reality. All of you pampered, comic-reading citizens who find themselves tucked up in cosy beds at night live the lifestyle you do because other men take part in violence on your behalf. There is a price for your safety. It's a terrible price, and luckily for you, you don't have to pay it.

Back in comic-land, the greatest of the heroes, Superman, would never deliberately hurt someone in such a manner, no matter what was at stake, even the life of Lois Lane. (Or would he?)

I would share your nausea if it was, say Superman or Captain America that did the deed, because Superman and Captain America have been characterized as clean, decent people that fight with restraint. Having them interrogate a terrorist by tearing limbs off would be a grotesque mischaracterization. People would be RIGHT to complain.

But c'mon, that's Black Adam. He's a results-oriented character whose power is downright frightening.


I can't possibly deny feeling a tingle of joy at a movie as sincere, wonderful and life-affirming as Capra's IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. I feel great every time I see that movie and I doubt I'm alone. Is that what you mean by "what you let into your soul?"

But not every movie has to be IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Not every show necessarily has to be TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL. As Alfred Hitchcock once famously said (and I'm paraphrasing), "Fear, despair, and horror are all things audiences enjoy when they know they're safe." There's plenty of room for a movie like CHINATOWN as well as Capra's Christmas fllick..

I'm not comparing Black Adam to CHINATOWN. What I am saying is that a story and character can be auccessful for different kinds of reasons and for arousing different rkinds of emotions in the reader.


Superman is my all time favorite superhero because of his ingenuity and pluck and the way every problem to him has a solution, and the very uplifting sense that nothing is really impossible to him. I don't think all supercharacters need to be this way, however.

[/quote="Great Rao"]So the question is - what do you want to be thinking about?  I really do not want any more images of gore or messages of violent cruelty in my brain.  Our culture is currently out of control in this regard, lost in an increasing spiral of doom.  I'd rather have uplifting messages of love and hope. [/quote]

Does it really work that way? Isn't it possible that Tarzan beating up endangered species and Tony Soprano whacking somebody, or a giant snake eating a teenager is a harmless thrill that can be cathartic, and maybe even healthy?


Whatever you do, don't tell Roger Corman! :D

I don't think there's anything irresponsible about these stories, because these stories didn't create the human attraction and appeal for sensationalist sex and violence. It was already there and they're honest enough to say that it is.

The funny thing is, many villains in the superhero comics of the 40s (maybe not in Captain Marvel comics) were murderous torturers.  But outside of the crime and horror comics, this sort of thing wasn't as graphic or gleeful.  And I'm confused --is Black Adam being written as a superhero these days?

I admit, I really dislike gore and slasher movies. I don't see one single bit of entertainment value in such a thing. To me it's not cathartic in the least. It's just stupid, gross, and sad. Especially the trend lately with drawn out torture scenes with people begging for their life. (I have friends who get into that kind of stuff so I have seen enough to form my opinion). At the same time though, I understand that most people who watch those don't feel any actual need to emulate whats on the screen. 

Conan stuff, I can see the point there. Conan's world is rough and he lives by the sword. But Conan is very much an adults-only kind of thing and I think you can even overdo it there. The point of reading a Conan story shouldn't be just to see somebody's head fly off.


In a mainstream DC superhero comicbook I'm sorry, that has no place and there is no need to be that freakin severe to get a point across! A superhero comicbook is not a gorror comic, crime comic,  or a Conan book. If Johns wants to do stuff like that, fine! Go write one of those! Superheroes are the kind of thing that young and old alike should be able to enjoy without the writing down to either, but also better handled with class. If there MUST be goretastic superhero comics you don't do that with the likes of Captain Marvel or Superman or the rest of mainstream DC! ..and don't give me the tired old line about video games and how this is what "today's kids" are used to. No this does not mean I advocate censorship or want the Comics Code back in full force or even necessarily the return of the Silver Age.

As far as reality versus fantasy, hey go outside. It doesn't get more real than that. If I'm gonna sit down and read fantasy, I want to see something different. Maybe see a world or a future that inspires me to make my own a better one! Also let's face it, modern comics definition of reality is extremely narrow and extremely negative. All darkness and death, in the "real" world superheroes would be hated and feared, the genre rules would never work, the worlds stinks, the good guys don't actually win and so on.

Justice and hope prevailing, a colorful world of action and adventure with heroes who wear their colors and nobility proudly, now THAT is cathartic!

I don't think art or even escapist fantasy comics featuring superheroes should be restricted to teaching or creating morally emulative characters.  I do think that the superhero genre, which can hold alot and be stretched in many different ways, cannot maintain the sort of genre expectations the current so-called adult audience brings to it.  As an exercise, deconstructive or otherwise (Watchmen, Dark Knight), or a parody (Superduperman, Megaton Man, etc.) the form survives.  It is even possible to create lasting work of value doing an ersatz Shazam story (see Miracleman).  But children's characters intended as sanitized entertainment for minors mostly come off as cynical, ridiculous, cluelessly self-parodying mistakes when altered in this way.  Unfortunately, DC has an investment in these properties and (also unfortunately) the only audience for them seems to be jaded pseudo-adults and cynical teen videogamers.  Nobody tries to make a really kick-ass violent and sadistic Hardy Boys or Wind in the Willows.  Why superheroes? (because they are already predicated on violence, I guess)

Well, there were some brutal ones like Captain Nazi and Sabbac, but they were Captain Marvel Jr. Villains and his book was a bit darker than the big red cheese.

Make no mistake Johns is a gorehoud:

Quotes from a new interview, where he talks about his new takes on classic villians, see if you can see a pattern here:

Johns on Parasite:

“The Parasite leeched off of everybody in his life, and it resulted in a lot of bad things, including death and murder."

Johns on Metallo:

“Metallo’s the ultimate bully,” explains Johns. "If he can brag that he made Superman bleed—he loves that, and that’s all he really wants."

Johns on Bizarro:

"Bizarro is definitely a threat; he’s dangerous and that’s how Superman sees him. He certainly doesn’t see him as a joke or a funny character."

Johns on Bizarroworld:

“Just think ‘Dawn of the Dead,” says Johns. “Bizarroworld is a little bit more scary and creepy."

Johns on Brainiac:

"We’re trying to push him into the upper echelon of villains, and make him a really scary threat. When Brainiac shows up, it’s a very devastating thing."

Johns on Action Comics Annual:

"Art Adams is doing a four-page mini on how Superman can be killed."

Johns on Action Comics:

"We’re just gonna try and push the envelope in ideas, and if people say, ‘You can’t do that!’ we wanna do it!”



http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/003071109.cfm

At the rate that Action is currently coming out, shouldn't that be a 2008 preview? ;)

I think that if you make all the violence and sexuality that is inherent in a concept overt...ultimately you result in something much more "normal."

Here's an example of what I mean:

Tarzan and Conan the Barbarian have had truly bloodthirsty tales. One of the more over the top scenes was in RETURN OF TARZAN, where Lord Greystoke actually killed a lion by tearing it with his teeth. There's sex inherent in the Tarzan concept. Who can forget the whole "thing no primeval, red-blooded man needs a lesson in?" Ditto for Conan to the power of infinity.

Doc Savage on the other hand, hides everything under the rug. Doc uses "mercy" bullets, tries to avoid taking human life, and has nothing anywhere near resembling a sex life...all this in the context of the pulps, where the Shadow regularly opened fire with .45 automatics on roomfuls of gangsters and where Conan was crushing soft, perfumed concubines to him left and right.

Yet, more than any other character in history, Doc Savage is the victim of a lot of speculation that paint him and his world in a sinister light, and while I have always believed in buying into the world a writer creates (if the writer says his crime college rids crooks of their evil nature, that's all it is) these theories are inevitable because it's just not NORMAL for a man to not be interested in women.

The exact nature of his "crime college," for instance. In his Doc comics in the 1980s, Denny O'Neil outright said they performed lobotomies. Or the ghastly idea Doc's men are Doc's servants and they don't really think for themselves. Or the "understanding" some speculate exists between Pat and Doc.

Not that we should listen to nitwits that say these things, but my overall point here is, people don't make these kinds of speculations about Tarzan or Conan. The reason is there's an element of repression to Doc and his aides that ultimately makes the mind wander to less wholesome directions.


One value an adult audience should expect is characterization - which trumps all other values, including plot.

I'm serious. WRATH OF KHAN had plot holes you could drive a photon torpedo through yet it was wonderful and watchable because of how great the characters were.

And characterization is successful when transplanted onto superhero characters. In fact, its arguable that comics only really got readable when characters started to have definite personalities.

How does all this tie into my defense of Johns having Black Adam rip a terrorist's arm off and Gorilla Grodd? Because, as an element of their characterization, these two have an element of physical brutality. It's who they are, even if it wasn't made explicit before.

We talk about violence as if it was something separate from character, but it really isn't. The reason I enjoy Johns's tales is not only because of his gift for characterization and understanding of the characters. Violence isn't just done for violence's sake, but in service to characterization.

This is why it bothers me when people talk about violence as if its presence in and of itself has a value, when it doesn't. The only thing that makes violence work is the context.

This is why it bothered me when the usual people were hooting like howler monkeys that found a Game Boy at the sight of a pair of preview panels in Johns's ACTION COMICS...because it featured Superman losing his cool.

"That's that gore-crazed hack at it again!"

By the way, do you know what the panels turned out to be?

Superman's adopted young son was kidnapped and he's demanding an explanation from a person he believes has knowledge!

You know, I'd be a mite peevish too. It was a perfectly understandable, very human reaction. Superman is a humanitarian, but I don't understand where that makes him a robot.

This is why I don't accept reactions to something out of context as legitimate opinions. And hearing something happened without reading the comics is out of context.


Fair enough. Different people have different thresholds and preferences for violence.


I don't know, I think there's something in Conan that fundamentally appeals to the boyish, adolescent portion of the brain, with his freebooting, lack of responsibilities, prowess, and so on.

There should be a difference between an audience of "children" and "adults," and an audience of teenagers. In fact, arguably, if you want to start getting into Conan NOW, unless you're fourteen the moment has probably passed.


How the holy hell can these statements be construed to mean Johns is a gorehound? Unless of course, without ever reading a Johns comic ever, it's already been resolved he's a gore-crazed hack.

Still, even if your mind shuts down at the idea of a writer you've never read being any good...this is REALLY stretching it.

This reminds me of those hackneyed sitcom plots where a character gets it into his head that a woman is attracted to him, so everything she says, no matter how innocent, is somehow about sex.


So, Johns wants Brainiac to be written as a grandiose, scary villain? THAT INHUMAN FIEND!


...Because if a character's actions have had terrible consequences for people around him, when written by other people, somehow, this makes Johns a gorehound.

1 + 1 = 3?


Because if any horror element is ever present in a Superman story, it must be a sign of a goretastic hack, right?

By the way, nobody has gotten back to me on what exactly was so wrong with the Phantom Zone mini.


You see, now we're at a gesture level in our dialogue where any idea this writer casually mentions is Johnsbad.


How again, does this show Johns is a goretastic hack?

I will concede this statement is pretty evil, but not for the reasons you might think so.

It's evil because saying "we're trying to push the envelope and be unpredictable" is a laughable writer interview cliche.

Julian, are you actually saying that unless a guy slices up a woman and puts her in the fridge, he must be sexually repressed?  That this is somehow more "normal"?  I think that's why people are disagreeing with you.  The level of violence and gore that Johns presents is not normal - on the contrary, it seems like an unhealthy repressed fixation.

Maybe Doc is gay.  Is that normal?



I would agree. :) Not sure what you're saying, though --is this speculation wrong or misplaced?  Arguably, if Doc was a children's comic book character a la Capt. Marvel, instead of a sensational pulp magazine character marketed to adult males, I would say that non-fan speculation in new Doc adventures would not really be warranted.  As it is, everyone from Philip Jose Farmer on up has published explicit new tales of Doc, Tarzan and Conan.  And adult comedians, underground comics and Mad Magazine have had a field day with Tarzan's sexuality.



Certainly, adult readers should expect characterization.  Superman, Black Adam, and Capt. Marvel all had definite personalities for me pre-Crisis.  Heck, as I mentioned above, they even all used violence, some even killed.  Sure, these characters didn't develop very much (that is, life-changing events, or plots, didn't alter their attitudes and long-term goals except in the most minor way --I would argue you can't have character development without plot)  but they had adventures where they learned lessons and experimented with alternate ways of doing things.  They changed love interests and expanded their families.  But, true to form as branded serial adventure characters whose traditional audience cyclically evaporates every four years, they changed very little.

I would hate to discuss a comic I haven't read, since you would have to ignore my comments, so I will keep this general, and based on the new superhero comics I have read over the last 20 years (admittedly not very many):

The attempts to graft new, complex and "adult" personalities onto these characters (many of whom are already very complex --we are talking about the Clark/Superman duality here constantly) almost always fail and are almost always pathetic.  Imaginary stories and Elseworlds being some of the exceptions --where a clear end is in sight for the character and his evolution.  It may work for the new audiences I mention above, but only if they have no experience of previous incarnations of the characters.  Better to create new characters out of whole cloth.  And while you're at it, why not get rid of the genre trappings (by which I mean the chief markers --the costumes) so people will take you more seriously?  What you have left are adventure stories with fantasy or sci-fi elements, a la the X-Men movies, Heroes TV show, Dr. Who, etc.  Leave the crazy science and outright, careless fantasy to the kiddies.

Of course, there's a million billion dollars reasons not to do this --DC wants to keep the brands going, the writers want to eat, the "adult" fans need their fix: the whole system of pushers, pimps, and plantation workers would temporarily collapse if the capes were abandoned.  So they soldier on...



The context here being the type of world where thousands of psychotic superpowered types and their only slightly less psychotic adversaires have the run of a fictional universe based on all the cliches of crime melodramas and slasher films (some misguided editors idea of "reality").  Fine as parody.  Fine as a self-contained story.  But as a giant continuing shared world marketed to teens --a consumer lifestyle for crissake-- there is something very sad and not a little disturbing about that.  Plus the art is ugly.

Two things:

1) Johns never did that, so it's hardly fair to bring it up when talking about Johns. The reason it is apples to oranges, is because Ron Marz is a terrible writer that had violence against a woman for shock value whereas Johns uses violence for the purpose of characterization. Marz's girl in the fridge served no purpose. Johns's violence always serves a purpose.

2) Perhaps I didn't phrase my point clearly enough: There's nothing wrong with sex or violence if it is inherent in the concept of a character. The characters of THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION can get away with having no sexual desire, because it's an all-guy movie...you don't expect sex in that context. But Doc is a pulp hero. And as if to underscore the point, women throw themselves at Doc all the time.

This is why I said there's nothing wrong with Gorilla Grodd and Black Adam performing violent acts - because its in their nature to be brutes. But I would have a problem if Superman or Captain America did so, which Johns has never done and he's written both characters.


Here's why I disagree: because I've...y'know, READ Johns's work, I can put the actions of his characters in context.

For instance: if Johns has an unhealthy, repressed fixation with violence, why is it except for Black Adam's itchy punching fist, Johns's JSA is free of gore?

It's not because Johns hasn't had the opportunity to put some in. During the JSA's big battle with Mordru, the Dark Lord could have been melting human flesh left and right. But Johns had Mordru fight like Mordru: he defeated Canary by transforming her into an actual black canary inside a cage.

The only characters Johns has be brutal are his brutal characters. It's not like Mr. Terrific is rebuilding a T-Sphere to drill through skulls.

And then there's Superman, but whose reaction is reasonable by any definition - everyone that excoriated Johns for those panels should be ashamed of themselves for catastrophic willful ignorance and jumping to false conclusions.

Those panels didn't have any words. Clearly the problem was with the artwork that made Superman look like the hulk with a cape. He looked more like Bizarro than Bizarro!

Julian, Geoff Johns writes at least one gory panel every few issues. It's what he does. He should try his hand at the horror genre. I just finished reading his Flash run; while good I wish he would tone it back....

Off topic:

With the return to roots feel of comics, do you think we'll see pulp style superhero comics? You know with less comic panels and more written pages?      

BTW,

People seem to be missing the REAL reason why DC is introducing a new version of the Multiverse. The reason is the same as to why they got rid of the original version in the 1st place.

That is because, Marvel has a Multiverse and and it's big with their readers. I believe they call it the Marvel Omniverse or something.

I'm not certain what you mean by "adult" in this context, but I see no reason why trying to make a previously two-dimensional character three-dimensional is necessarily doomed to failure.

There was a trend in the eighties to nineties by making previously upright Silver Age characters creeps (Howard Chaykin's TWILIGHT comes to mind, as does HAWKWORLD) but this is a massive case of writers of limited abilities like Grell and Chaykin just not getting it, being dishonest to the characters, and by trying to go for shock value.


Yeah, but that's different. TARZAN is so over-the-top supermacho that, like cowboys and gladiators, he verges into unintentional gay camp.

Doc's problem is that everything about the concept comes off abnormal to many people...because it's so squeaky clean in the context of the pulps.


My response is this: costumes and crazy science can co-exist with a story being taken seriously and not talking down to the audience.

Also, it's not a slippery downward slope as you're making it out to be. Just because the Crocodile Men from Punkus, Lexor, Kanjar Ro, and the Kite-Man are appallingly lame and impossible to take seriously...does not necessarily mean ALL fantasy/science elements that we call "comic book" should be removed and are lame. Thanos sure isn't, nor is Mordru, the Dark Circle, or Atlantis or the Savage Land.

When people say something like "superhero comics are fundamentally for kids," or alternatively "superhero comics are now for adults," I'm not sure how to respond, because I've ALWAYS thought, even reading superheroes as a kid myself, that superhero comics are a challenge, and they work best when they talk up to their audience instead of talking down.

The smarter a story is, the more able adults are to appreciate it, the better off it is - EVEN if it is a children's story.

When people say "superhero comics are adults," my kneejerk response is, "What do you mean? Superhero comics, at least the good ones, always have been for adults." I'm talking about books with wild adventure fantasy, like Gerber's DEFENDERS or METAL MEN the Englehart DOCTOR STRANGE or anything by Len Wein.

Are superhero comics grown-up? Only if they do it right.


I don't think so, because the current trend in superhero comics, personified by writers like the hacktastic Warren Ellis, is to consider comics more like movies. The panels are now wide and "cinematic," and some of the more unique things comics offer, like caption boxes and thought bubbles, are not being used as often. Marvel and DC recently both got rid of their letters pages.

Though getting rid of letters pages - and the sense of community they created - is really a crying shame, as are things unique to comics like the thought bubble...the wide, cinematic panels are interesting, especially when used to give the story a big-budget, sweeping scope, as was done in Johns's JSA.

I too miss the letters pages, but being able to participate in this forum is by far a much better way to go !

While I still think Chaykin's Blackhawk and Shadow hold up fairly well as examples of this trend, I agree that much of what was done in those two series was done for shock value (in the sense that hiring Chaykin --period-- guarantees a certain take on characters).  The grim morality of Chaykin's characters (from American Flagg! number one: "cruel but fair") is consistent with the puritan attitude of most pulp and early kids' superhero comics characters.  A "real world" reading of these figures that actually worked for me at the time (the premise of the strips being "how would a superhero/adventure hero really behave in a setting more akin to a contemporary crime thriller or tv drama, all things being equal, and how can we do it while making reference to previous incarnations of the character?").

That being said, some characters have more room and continuity for this kind of treatment.  Chaykin generally chose characters who weren't archetypal superheroes (did anyone read his recent Bruce Wayne elseworlds?) --masked avengers, sci-fi heroes.  Blackhawk's origins are partly in aviation strips like Terry and the Pirates --complex serial melodramas intended for adult audiences.  What I meant by "adult" is the idea that by giving a previous whitebread Captain Wonderful character (or even a previously "bad" badguy like Blackie) a few bad habits, sometimes-crippling self-doubt, and graphic violent outbursts, you are creating 3-dimensional characters for a non-teenage audience.


Just the costumes.  And just in non-preteen "superhero" comics.  I love the absurd things you mention, and can appreciate them as an adult, in the same way all age groups can watch not only silly kitsch intended solely for kids but also Bug Bunny cartoons or John Ford's The Quiet Man.  The problem is balancing the two impossible things in your head at once.  I like to imagine impossible things before breakfast as much as the next fella but suspension of disbelief becomes harder in superhero comics (more than any other) the more elements we are asked to keep in the air.  He comes from Krypton? Sure.  He wears his underwear outside his pants? Okay.  He pretends to be a nerd all the while playing mindgames with his girlfriend because she has cooties?  This is getting weird ... but fascinating.  He lives at the North Pole and uses a giant key to open his giant door?  Ah, definitely a kid's comic ... but weird ... and fun! He fights bad guys for a living?  Of course!  All the bad guys are hard-ass horror-movie monsters, serial killers, and rapists with mullets, camouflage pants and spiked collars and are poorly drawn, to boot?  Gross!  This is stupid!  I'm outta here!



Agreed.  Many of the best Silver and Bronze Age stories did this.


So "always" means since 1969 or so? :) I grew up with the increasingly complex soap-opera plot juggling of those 1970s comics as well (and you're right: as an 9-year old I enjoyed the skirt-chasing of Beast and Wonder Man in the Avengers, the big government interference of Peter Gyrich (sp?), and the life-and-death decisions heroes were faced with --certainly more "adult" than the televised superheroics of Batman or The Six Milion Dollar Man) but there came a point when the degree of complexity stopped working for me and the experiment passed its sell-by date (to mix a few metaphors).  For me that coincided with my entry into adolescence --at a time when (maybe also coincidently?) superhero comics were experiencing the effect of things like Crisis, Dark Knight, etc and plunging into the post-Watchmen world of hyper-violence and deconstruction that, in the hands of lesser talents and fan-boys, could only read as derivative and over-written failures.  The decline of the superhero comic.  Hey, all art forms and genres have a decadent period before they are finally eclipsed!

 

"Omniverse" is the collective multiverses, including DC and Marvel (at least that's the way it was explained to me :P).

Marvel understands the multiverse concept and uses this device quite often. As an example, during Morrison's run on New X-men, his last arc: "Here Comes Tomorrow" was redesignated Earth-15104. If Marvel doesn't know where a storyline fits, it's retconned to another Earth. 

Don't get me wrong, I like Chaykin and I agree with what you're saying. The fault is more with the folks that had the bright idea to hire Chaykin for a project he was obviously wrong for, as he was with TWILIGHT. I was mentioning TWILIGHT in the context of a trend.


I can't believe you compared a loser like Kanjar Ro or the Crocodile Man from Punkus to early Bugs Bunny or THE QUIET MAN.

I'm not sure how to respond to something like this, because the idiocy and ridiculousness of Kite-Man should speak for itself.

The burden of proof shouldn't be on me to explain why a villain who wears a hang-glider shaped like a children's toy is a laughably terrible idea.

Okay, here goes:

I don't think any of us would be here unless we're classic comics fans. One of the most appealing things about older comics is their weird and fascinating charm.  But...at the risk of stating the obvious here...not every idea is a good idea, even if it is in a silly, or rather, playful idiom.

Hawkman and Hawkwoman, in their Silver Age incarnation, made no sense at all, but it all worked. It had a wonderful adventure spirit that made you stop asking why a guy and girl from outer space were museum curators and used things like 13th Century glaive-guisarmes instead of phaser guns. It was essentially absurd and appealing for that reason.

But underneath the B-movie Nth Metal pseudoscience there was a core of a really great adventure character. Hawkman and Hawkwoman are STRONGER, not weaker, because they aren't packing Kirby BFGs like you'd expect aliens to. The Absorbascon is over the top, but astonishing. With someone like Kite-Man, though, there's no there there.

Nothing bothers me more when people come down on some of the more fascinating and beloved elements of superhero comics as being childish or stupid. But I save my industriousness for concepts that are worthy of being defended. Just because something is from the Silver or Golden Age does not automatically make it a good idea.

There are some occasions (I'm not saying you, of course) where some Silver Age fans defend a character or concept that is absolutely lame, like the Purple Man or Bat-Mite, because they interpret an attack on this concept as being an attack on the Silver Age in general, and they defend this concept in the mistaken belief it is defending the Silver Age in general.


Though I agree with your spirit, in the interest of fairness, Superman in the 1990s did not fight any character like that. Superman in the 1990s has enough flaws that there's no need to invent any.

Anyway, in terms of hideous fashoin statements, Vartox's outfit, reminiscent of Mr. Slave from South Park, has all the nineties guys beat hands down.

Plus, Jerry Ordway did Superman in the 1990s. I wouldn't call that "badly drawn" by a long shot. Again, I agree with you about Superman in this period, but I'm not 100% comfortable with blanket generalities like that.


Though I always found Alan Moore's CAPTAIN BRITAIN fascinating (especially with art by Alan Davis, arguably the greatest artist of our generation)...it bothered me because it was very much a "DC" book, with Captain Britain as a Silver Age style white male hero. In other words it was Marvel aping DC, down to the multiverse concept: a reversal of the "natural order." DC copies Marvel, not vice-versa.

My point here is, Marvel has parallel universe stories; they're a comic staple right up there with time travel and microverses. But the multiverse as it is presently used in Marvel, in stories like the Abraxas tale in FANTASTIC FOUR, is a DC-style take - which is not fair to the Marvel Universe's identity.

Are you forgetting the second Bloodsport (racist serial-killer), revamped child-killing Toyman, and Savior (serial-killing nutbag with thought-based powers)?

OH Really, then who the heck are these people?

http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=49314&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=54074&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=109396&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=87735&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=87739&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=224217&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=51724&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=51587&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=92064&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=92069&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=92091&zoom=4
http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=92079&zoom=4

I think that covers everything he described.

Edit: Nevermind, they work now

Technically, Rampage and Demolita weren't villians and the Persuader has been around for decades.

What was really strange, was that when i first clicked on these links, an Archie comic came up.....with gasoline at $1.30 something

oh, ok, I see them now

Touche.  A poorly advised attempt to do a "timely" costume design based on a Sean Connery outfit from a sci-fi movie.  On the other hand, for sheer variety and weirdness, Vartox's costume and "patch" are unique, and are not emblematic of a culture obsessed with morbidity and violence like the fashions I described.  They are both in bad taste, but Curt Swan's Vartox displays a bad taste culled from a culture of libidinal freedom and self-expression (or at least a middle-aged corporate cartoonist's version of same).

I don't want to tar the entire Iron Age with same brush --Jerry Ordway has certainly done some charming, consistent, and relatively clean-lined art for kids comics (heck, even some of the covers by other artists that Super-Monkey linked to display great design, simple lines, etc).  And certainly previous Ages had their share of bad or ugly art --although there seemed to be more of an effort to maintain not only a "House Style" (not always for the good) but also to cultivate better and more professional cartoonists on the part of the editors.  And let's not forget the Comics Code and the idea of intended audience (not that Superman comics pre-1956 were really at the heart of the moral panic over crime comics, despite a few mentions in Seduction of the Innocent).

I think we may be speaking at cross-purposes: I'm not saying that ridiculous elements of super-hero comics (from any Age) undermine the entire concept of superhero comics or my ability to enjoy superhero comics per se.  Just that the chief visual sign of superhero comics (superhero costumes) serve to undermine more complex narratives intended for a teenage and older educated audience. 

There really is a problem with an audience that can't appreciate quality science fiction, fantasy, adventure, or crime comics (to name only a few genres) unless the characters are wearing some version of a superhero costume and the stories take place in a shared universe inhabited by similarly-clad characters.  This is the state of the traditional comic book marketplace today and for the last 30 years.  An ever-shrinking marketplace that is not renewing itself and appeals disproportionately to nostalgically conservative older readers.  Gladly, young people are still seeking out stories (science fiction, fantasy, etc) told using comics --the majority of them are just not being published by the traditional publishers or by their imitators.

Related: Thanks to film, the interweb, the early-90s comic glut, and a general culture of nerdiness, there are probably more potential superhero-literate readers in existence right now than there have been in 50 years.  That doesn't mean that the superhero comics industry should cater almost exclusively to a fan culture.  I can quote chapter and verse comics trivia (through osmosis I even know more about the Iron Age than I want to), and appreciate the few well-crafted comics that also contain a hefty dose of knowing references to Silver Age lore (whether formally deconstructive, parodic or more seemingly heartfelt as in All-Star Superman), but I don't think I should have to in order to enjoy the latest offerings from DC.  We should not be the ideal readers of this stuff.  We should be the exceptions, no? : ;)

What was that quote in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK?

"Take this watch - worthless. But bury it for a thousand years...ah!"


Yes, this is true. But the fact superheroes are so popular can't be held against them (or their fans).

It bothers me that a lot of creators (Warren Ellis, Keno Don Rosa and Scott MacLeod come to mind) have a passive-aggressive distaste for superguys because of how big the superhero genre is.


I disagree, because of how widespread so-called fan interest things like movie monsters and science fiction have become in the greater culture, comics are no longer that unique: they have to compete with X-Box and the Sci-Fi cable channel.

Compare that to the situation in the past where, if you were a science fiction fan, the only place you could get your fix for movie monsters was on late late night local shows.

In the past, the only place you could really get superheroes was in comics. Some of the superhero shows were on television (Wonder Woman, Superman) but let's face it, those shows were pretty LAME. Comics on the other hand, had an infinite special effects budget: if you wanted to get the "true" super-experience, you pick up comic books because they're the only medium that gives you "proper" superheroism.

Nowadays, however, big-budget movies can give you an experience as great as any of the comics.


I both agree and disagree. Yes, I agree in theory with the statement that there should be a comic out there for everybody.

HOWEVER, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with comics that appeal to the strengths of the fan audience. Just ask LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, TEEN TITANS, X-MEN, ALL-STAR SQUADRON, or AVENGERS.

Also, you talk about "appeal to a fan culture" as if it and widespread popularity are mutually exclusive characteristics...and they're not. Isn't there a comic that can be both for the diehards and average people? The answer is yes, and they have been:  Kurt Busiek's AVENGERS was just about the top-selling comic of its day yet it was beloved by both Average Joe Comics Reader and hardcore Avengers diehards like Yours Truly.

This is what I meant by the above.  There are more people who could appreciate superhero comics (or other media representations of superheroes) because there are more people knowledgeable about superheroes.


Both are subsets of the superhero comics fan culture.  I agree that there is nothing really wrong with both general-interest superhero comics (Busiek's Avengers, All-Star Superman) and extremely arcane fan-fic miniseries about what happened between issue 53 and 54 of some now-cancelled comic starring a group of mutant rollerskates from the Disco era that you need a decoder ring to figure out.  My point was only that it seems that simple superhero comics for kids, or teen science fiction (or fantasy, or crime, or ninja, or sports) comics would go over even bigger to an even bigger audience.

I disagree.  One of the reasons I have been disapointed with most Super-Hero films is that aside from a few enjoyable exceptions (like The Shadow or The Phantom, where the big-studio moguls weren't calling the shots) is that they have been limited by imagination.

The Fantastic Four movie didn't have an invasion of monsters from the center of the Earth, led by a myopic little man; nor an interstellar Entity trying the eat the planet - The Superman movies haven't shown Superman shrinking and dropping into an incredibly advanced miniature city (imagine that in live action!), they haven't shown any wonders inside his Fortress - we finally get to see a Fortress in a movie, and what's in it?  NOTHING!  How pointless!  Nor have they shown any intergalactic threats; no alien civilizations; no mermaid romances, nada!  The time travel has been lame - why not travel 1,000 years into the future, or into the past?  How about a million years?  How about some space exploration?  Visit another solar system or galaxy or try some dimensional travel.  Would Superman flying in space have some sort of hyperspace effect like the Millenium Falcon does?  They haven't even shown him go up against any Nazis in WWII!  At least Captain America had that much!  Where are the giant robots?  The interplanetary Zoo?  The space fleet attacking Earth? The Kryptonian Thought Beast?  Brainiac stealing New York City?  The Sun-Eater?  With all this supposedly great FX technology, they could show so many incredible things from any era or from any time or place in this Universe or any other - and what do we get?  A bald man with an inferiority complex.

No, but the Incredibles did! :)

The problem isn't awareness. because science fiction adventure is and always has been a "niche." The problem is, at the moment, comics have competition and that wasn't true even a decade ago.

What your saying is, "superhero comics are doing something wrong, because look at all these people with an interest in superheroes thanks to movies, etc."

Well, maybe. But superhero comics aren't unique as they once were and just because there's interest doesn't mean people will look at the source material. When George Pal proclaimed in the 1960s that one day, science fiction/fantasy movies would be among the highest grossing films, he was laughed at: that was the mentality until recent times. Even the over the top elements that previously only artists could show us, can now be duplicated by movie special effects budgets.

To say nothing of video games. Now people can go from reading about people bashing each other to being the person that is giving the bashings.

Comics have to compete with a science fiction saturated world where science fiction novels go to the bestseller list, and there's an entire channel exclusively for science fiction.

In summary, the profusion of science fiction in our pop culture is bad, not good for comics.

Anyway, comics fandom has to really get out of the whole "comics are threatened" mentality...because they're not: THE ONION AV CLUB gives regular coverage to ONE YEAR LATER. Roger Stern, when he first started working in comic books in the 1980s, thought comics weren't going to last for two more years, and he was off by about 25 years and counting. Superhero comics outlasted the pulp novel and the radio show. They're not going anywhere.

Yes.


I agree --I think efforts to piggyback on movie success are misguided and historically doomed to failure, the exception being the bump Batman and Superman got when successful tv shows drew kids to the newstand.  A similar effect happened in the 80s with GIJoe/Transformers and today with the cartoon network and anime/manga sales (Bleach, Naruto):
http://precur.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/twice-in-a-lifetime/

But this is tv, not movies.  Adults intrigued by superhero movies will not find cultural happiness in the traditional comic shop.  Maybe in the mass marketing DC or Marvel does to the bookstore crowd.


From the 1960s to 1977 and the dominance of the Star Wars paradigm, a short 17 years, at most.  That was 30 years ago.


Yes, sf shows up the problems in modern superhero comics --I just think there should be more sci-fi comics, considering. 


Their audience just continues to shrink and the genre becomes more decadent.

Is there really a perception that retcons nitpick and obsess over little things" Because a defining trait of a retcon is that it isn't usually done about minor details, but rather about really significant events. An example would be the Avengers making the decision to execute the Great Intelligence when he was in their power around OPERATION: GALACTIC STORM. This was obviously an out of character behavior, and it makes SENSE that it would be revealed to have been a result of Immortus's time-tampering.

I chalk up the perception that comics retcons are done over "little things" to ignorance. If you don't know who the Vision is and what has happened to him, it's hard to understand why the Byrne revelation that he was not "really" the android Human Torch is such a catastrophic one, and why the restoration of this aspect of the character's backstory by Busiek in AVENGERS FOREVER is as significant as it is.

This is not to say that there aren't retcons that work in itty-bitty details - an example that comes to mind is the retcon in UNTOLD TALES OF SPIDER-MAN that the Green Goblin revealed his secret identity to Crime-Master as "J. Jonah Jameson" (in other words, he bamboozled C.M., previously the only guy to learn the Goblin's identity before AMAZING #36).

But these little details things are never the centerpiece of an entire story.

By the way, this is not to say that retcons aren't done for petty and egotistical reasons. A classic example would be Jim Starlin causing the Thanos stories he didn't like to never happen (which in practice, meant just about most Thanos stories not written by HIM), or the unbelievably childish John Byrne, who showed the Doctor Doom that Chris Claremont used in an issue of X-MEN was merely "just a robot."


I have to agree that superhero movies have to put in more STAR WARS type stuff into their pictures. A CGI Attillan in the Himalayas would be an incredible sight. And the FF movie was a monumental letdown: it was just another actioner - I was expecting to see Vin Diesel pop up somewhere, and something like the FF deserves something far less like lazy, traditional Hollywood.

Still, this is not to say that movies haven't thus far delivered on imaginative spectacle. Superman's feats in SUPERMAN RETURNS were breathtaking.

I thought Hellboy was just like the comic.

I wasn't really picking on retcons but on retcons masquerading as comic book series nominally intended for a mass audience.  Your average retcon, in and of itself, is a value neutral storytelling device, in my opinion.  Many of the things I love about superhero comics and other serial fiction revolve around retcons (what a wonderful word!).

And yes, my perception is that retcons often do concern themselves with minor arcana or nitpicking.  And no, I don't think is always de facto a bad thing.  Busiek is the king of the retcon as fine-tuning, a mantle he has inherited from the creator of the term, Roy Thomas.  A series like Untold Tales or the Secret Years titles of both Superman and the X-Men have as much to do with tying up loose ends, continuity-wise, as they do with universe building or dealing with "the big questions".  A retcon can add to a story in a small way or a large way (Crisis and the post-Crisis "History of the DC Universe") or totally take away from or destroy a continuity (Crisis and HDCU).  Retcons can be clumsy or artful.  An insult to our intelligence, a waste of time, or a blessing for all eternity.

Your own example of the various retcons of Marvel's the Vision character is interesting.  Not exactly a minor character in terms of the Avengers, he is still no Captain America.  The revelation that Cap was, say, a Nazi agent would be a major retcon, whereas Byrne's revelation in Avengers West Coast and elsewhere that the Vision was not based on the android Human Torch from WWII (and that the Torch's story was not as simple as we had been led to believe in the pages of the Invaders and Fantastic Four) seems relatively minor by comparison  --it didn't ultimately effect how Vision felt for Wanda, etc. (I like Busiek's "have your torch and byrne it too" AF retcon that said both Torch histories happened).

And I agree that retcons can be petty --Roy the Boy had a fiefdom over retcons and WWII heroes and still maintains that most DC and Marvel superhero adventures take place in alternate universes or involve clones since he doesn't like the current stories.


 

The point is that with multiverse ALL KINDS OF PERSON would have been theirs kind of world.Those that want sense of wonder and simple clean stories could have 40s-50s versions of Superman,Batman ,Wonder Woman on earth-1 and 2,those that loves moderns and drammatics charapters could have earth DC.Could have a earth for readers that likes cartoons style charapters (like Captain Marvel) and others for more adult readers.Why i not can have my silver age style Superman? MULTIVERSE IS FREEDOM.

Carmelo, that is my new motto!

Yeah, this current continuity will remain the same.

If they "Create" or "Bring back" the other universes. It will be another universe and shouldn't affect any outcome or undo any writers writing, especially the JSA recent stuff. I love it!

I believe they already got a fuddy duddy Shazam book out there that has nothing to do with continuity. Probably the Earth S world I would assume and would assume they will say that is what it will wind up being once everything unravels.

My two cents.

If they manage to create a quality kids comic featuring shazam (and I'm not convinced Jeff Smith is the man to do it), I say set it on whatever world they can as long as it has nothing to do with current dc continuity.