I'm done with DC.

[Tanuki Tales]

So, I just found out that hasdcdonesomethingstupidtoday.com existed today. Thinking this a humourous source of potential lel, lol and hue hue, I went reading and started on their top 7 list for 2013 (http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/features/125284-7-biggest-has-dc-done-something-stupid-today-stories-of-2013.html).

Between using Twilight as literal material, shooting down Kamandi because it wouldn't appeal to 45 year old men and being completely unable to handle criticism, I'm officially done. I'll still purchase anything from before Flashpoint, but that's it.

[The Glyphstone]

It's too bad no one operates hasmarveldonesomethingstupidtoday.com, just for contrast on how often the timer gets reset.

[Metahuman1]

...


Well, we knew DC had serious, serious editorial issues.


And yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing a Marvel version of this site.

[Karoht]

I read through that list.
Some of those things I disagreed with as stupid but... those items were outnumbered 2.5 to 1 by the end of the page, so I no longer feel like listing them or arguing them, save one point in particular.
Wow, telling people to not even ASK for interviews because they don't like satire/criticism? Sad. Very sad. Oh well, we can just leave it to the internet to come up with all the satire/criticism they want. Which they can. And probably will. All this guy did was stop one group from making a buck off it. I'm going to hedge a bet that they'll report flag spam someone's youtube channel next.

Yeah I've been pretty disappointed in DC, mostly since the last few Batman films, Return of Superman and Man of Steel. Their portrayal of female characters isn't exactly good these days (in no way am I excusing any other companies on this either), not that it was ever great. I dunno, the whole company strikes me as archaic and backwards lately, while other companies continue to prove that there is still plenty of new ground to be broken.

I too would like to see a marvel version of the site. If for no other reason than funzies, nevermind providing a basis of comparison. Would need a bunch of other sites in there as well.
Also, the basis of 'stupid' might need to be better spelled out. One might argue that the recent Marvel films are a sellout, ergo 'stupid,' despite their obvious commercial success.

[BRC]

Lets walk through the 7

1: Villain's Month 3D covers
Gimmicky and poorly executed it looks like, but I wouldn't call that "Stupid" by itself. They screwed up yes, but having some sort of special gimmick cover isn't a bad idea in of itself, and the exact chain of events that led to the screw-up are going to be too arcane and hidden for me to understand.
2:Harly Quinn Art Contest
This one I can easily declare "Stupid". Having the contest itself isn't a bad idea, but deciding that the contest should involve drawing contextless nudity and attempted suicide is in very poor taste. Somebody should have said "hold on, couldn't we have them draw her in ANY OTHER SITUATION", and somebody should have listened to them.
3: Screwing over subscribers
Not sure about this one. It sounds a grinchy of them, but it's not necessarily a Stupid decision, especially if the subscriber agreement is specifically for regularly-priced issues.
4: Comics aren't for kids.
It's one thing to say "Comics are not only for kids" or "THIS comic is not for kids". But specifically saying "We publish comics for 45 year olds" is stupid.
That said, that line didn't come from an official spokesperson, but from a disgruntled artist. I can't really call this one DC doing something stupid. Assuming Paul Pope was telling the truth with his quote, that is one editor saying something stupid in a private conversation, not a decision made by DC Comics.

5: Twilight-like superman/wonderwoman
Making a superman/wonderwoman book could theoretically work, so I'm not calling that Stupid. Announcing it was based on a work of fiction that is overwhelmingly popular with one demographic, and overwhelmingly hated by several others...call that a wash. .5 Stupid.

6: Batwoman Controversy
Very, Very stupid, and exemplifying what's gone wrong with DC recently. They had a beloved creative team making a great book, and they drive them away in the name of some stupid editorial mandate against Superhero's having happy personal lives, causing a PR mess in the process.
7: Blacklisting, has that ever worked? Really, Ever?

Final Tally
3.5 out of 7, exactly 50/50 Stupid/Not-Stupid by my count.

[Tanuki Tales]

The really stupid thing about the contest is the fact the winner was someone already working for them.

[Anteros]

This is silly. DC is an enormous company with hundreds (thousands?) of employees and dozens of different creative teams. You could take literally any company of a similar size in the entire world, blow every tiny thing you don't like about it out of proportion and make a web site.

Also, why would the company agree to an interview with a "new source" :smallsigh: that exists solely for the purpose of criticizing them? Anything they said, even meaning it in a positive manner would be twisted and blown out of proportion in order to cause controversy. No intelligently lead company in the world would agree to that.

BRC, I'm going to respond to you here. If I don't respond to a specific point, just assume I agree with you. :smallsmile:


Lets walk through the 7

4: Comics aren't for kids.
It's one thing to say "Comics are not only for kids" or "THIS comic is not for kids". But specifically saying "We publish comics for 45 year olds" is stupid.
That said, that line didn't come from an official spokesperson, but from a disgruntled artist. I can't really call this one DC doing something stupid. Assuming Paul Pope was telling the truth with his quote, that is one editor saying something stupid in a private conversation, not a decision made by DC Comics.


I agree with you here. One random person saying something in a private conversation is not the same as making an official statement saying the same thing.


5: Twilight-like superman/wonderwoman
Making a superman/wonderwoman book could theoretically work, so I'm not calling that Stupid. Announcing it was based on a work of fiction that is overwhelmingly popular with one demographic, and overwhelmingly hated by several others...call that a wash. .5 Stupid.


I don't think it's stupid to model one story after another story that was insanely popular. It's very easy to take the aspects of Twilight that appealed to teens, yet leave out the stalking and unhealthy relationship that made it so disturbing to others.



6: Batwoman Controversy
Very, Very stupid, and exemplifying what's gone wrong with DC recently. They had a beloved creative team making a great book, and they drive them away in the name of some stupid editorial mandate against Superhero's having happy personal lives, causing a PR mess in the process.


As for this...read the article. The guy is literally complaining about the fact that he had an editor and couldn't do whatever he wanted. I'm not saying anything about the quality of the comic, or whether it would be better without an editor...but getting angry with a major comic company for having editors who do their job because "IT'S MY STORY, NOT THEIRS!" is ridiculous.



7: Blacklisting, has that ever worked? Really, Ever?


Yes. Yes it does. And virtually every successful company in the world does it. It may not make the blacklisted party go away...but it does minimize the damage they can do. When is the last time you saw Obama give an interview on Fox news? Or a meat company interviewed by a Peta spokeman? It's not going to happen because these organizations have an agenda to make the interviewee look bad, and there is no reason to give them ammunition.

[SeeDarkly_X]

http://hasmarveldonesomethingstupidtoday.com/ does exist... but I'd be willing to believe someone at DC (or a DC fan that really hates Deadpool?) set it up, only to leave the counter set at 0, even though the news it links to is months old and essentially only calls a variant cover featuring Deadpool in a banana suit as the "stupid thing" Marvel did. Looks like the domain is owned by someone in Canada.

On being done:
I had the same moment with DC months ago. I gave them more than a fair chance to keep me as a costumer. As a long time collector of Teen Titans and Legion titles, my disappointment with the cancellation of the latter and the horrible premise, writing, and direction of the former was not something I could ignore.

The final straw for me was Villains Month. Specifically because they featured Deathstroke on the Titan's title, as if to indicate there was or would be something to tie them together in the New 52 Universe... but it was a mislead. They essentially used the recognition of the tie between the Titans & Deathstroke (having failed to keep his own title running) in the pre52 stories to legitimize putting a throwaway story in the title which served no purpose.
It didn't set up anything for a future story. It didn't reveal any connection between the team and Wilson. It created hype and expectation for something they never intended to do. Platforming Deathstroke in the Titans title was a marketing strategy. And they got a spike in sales for it. Too bad it made Teen Titans #24 the last comic I've purchased from DC Comics.
Even if I had stayed on the book, it is due unsurprisingly for cancellation soon anyway.

And the shame of that is I didn't WANT to stop being their costumer, but they no longer produce anything I want to buy from them. It's frustrating and a little sad. I've collected Legion of Superheroes all my life. I was there for the beginning of Dial H for Hero (I even submitted a number of heroes for the stories with those mail-in forms they had in the back of the book,) and the New Teen Titans... All cancelled under DC's mismanagement of the New 52.
And while I've always been more of a Marvel collector, those were my DC mainstays. I really miss what I used to enjoy in them but I have no hope they can or will ever make me interested in their comics enough to buy them again. (And I even have friends who consider me the "Blue Lantern" of our gatherings... if that tells you how much hope I've lost.)

[Anteros]

I take it you weren't around for the days in comics when Wolverine was on every single cover? I understand the frustration, and honestly it's a valid complaint...but comic book companies have been doing this for a long, long time.

[Karoht]

This is silly. DC is an enormous company with hundreds (thousands?) of employees and dozens of different creative teams. You could take literally any company of a similar size in the entire world, blow every tiny thing you don't like about it out of proportion and make a web site.Except DC's screw ups are not little. They lost a heck of a lot of money on the 3D covers debacle. Not many companies are pulling anything on the scale of the Harley Quinn issue. Not many companies are that blatantly insensitive, though I could name a few, that's true.
Then again, you'll notice that some of us have also requested a similar counter for Marvel, and other comic companies, to keep things in perspective.


Also, why would the company agree to an interview with a "news source" :smallsigh: that exists solely for the purpose of criticizing them? Anything they said, even meaning it in a positive manner would be twisted and blown out of proportion in order to cause controversy. No intelligently lead company in the world would agree to that.Being open to criticism is exactly what intelligent companies do. Closing the dialogue by not allowing criticism is what draconian companies do.
Not allowing criticism (or being closed minded to it) means they are in favor of biased review, which only hurts the customers. It also says they aren't interested in genuine feedback, no matter what the source.
If they are closed minded to Satire, that's almost worse. It says that a company has no sense of humor about itself. This from a company who brought us a guy flying around in his underwear and can throw a planet like a baseball, a man who dresses like a bat, a cosmic nightlight, and Aquaman. I mean, if you can't have a sense of humor about that? How closed minded can they be?

[BRC]

Except DC's screw ups are not little. They lost a heck of a lot of money on the 3D covers debacle. Not many companies are pulling anything on the scale of the Harley Quinn issue. Not many companies are that blatantly insensitive, though I could name a few, that's true.
Then again, you'll notice that some of us have also requested a similar counter for Marvel, and other comic companies, to keep things in perspective.

Being open to criticism is exactly what intelligent companies do. Closing the dialogue by not allowing criticism is what draconian companies do.
Not allowing criticism (or being closed minded to it) means they are in favor of biased review, which only hurts the customers. It also says they aren't interested in genuine feedback, no matter what the source.
If they are closed minded to Satire, that's almost worse. It says that a company has no sense of humor about itself. This from a company who brought us a guy flying around in his underwear and can throw a planet like a baseball, a man who dresses like a bat, a cosmic nightlight, and Aquaman. I mean, if you can't have a sense of humor about that? How closed mindedcan they be?
Plus, it's a matter of being newsworthy.

Lets say DC granted The Outhousers and interview.
The Outhousers asks pointed questions about stupid things DC has done, the DC representative dodges the questions and answers back with boilerplate slogans and platitudes.

That's not a story, that's business as usual.

"DC REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM CRITICAL SOURCES", IS very much a story.


I think part of the issue is that DC has worked to rebuild itself with a very strong editorial voice, so when DC screws up, it's DC Comics that has screwed up.
Marvel at least gives the appearance of a much lighter hand. When Marvel screws up, usually a specific creator or editor or something can take the blame, rather than the company as a whole.

DC has also been in the news a lot more, what with the New 52 and everything. Plus they have a bit higher name recognition.

[MLai]

Yes. Yes it does. And virtually every successful company in the world does it. It may not make the blacklisted party go away...but it does minimize the damage they can do. When is the last time you saw Obama give an interview on Fox news? Or a meat company interviewed by a Peta spokeman? It's not going to happen because these organizations have an agenda to make the interviewee look bad, and there is no reason to give them ammunition.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/03/transcript-full-interview-between-president-obama-and-bill-oreilly/

[Man on Fire]

It's too bad no one operates hasmarveldonesomethingstupidtoday.com, just for contrast on how often the timer gets reset.

Marvel is generally better at keeping these kinds of mess-ups secret. Not that they don't happen, I'm pretty sure they do, but they know how to not let it get to the press.

[Anteros]

DC would very likely accept critical articles from a legitimate news source without blacklisting them. They've done it thousands of times before. They would also be very likely to accept an interview with a legitimate company who writes satire, although I doubt they would see it as worth their time.

What they should not, and will never do is accept an interview with a "company" whose primary purpose is to make them look bad. Why would they want to give such a company business or ammunition? They could go into an interview and say all the right things, answer every question correctly, but this page would still find a way to twist them into a negative light.

They are not unbiased.
They are not a news source.
They are a smear campaign.

You're acting like DC is blacklisting legitimate news outlets because they don't like the articles they write...but that's not what happened at all.

Don't get me wrong. I haven't purchased a comic book in 10 years. If you want to stop reading DC for whatever reason, I won't argue. However, treating what is obviously a smear campaign as an authentic source of reporting leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/03/transcript-full-interview-between-president-obama-and-bill-oreilly/

Putting aside the fact that he spent the entire interview attacking the credibility of the news organization, why don't you compare that with the number of interviews he's done with other outlets? What's the ratio? Something like 300:1?

If you really want to discuss this aspect we'll have to talk in PMs. It's against board rules to discuss politics, and I apologize for bringing it up. It was just an easy example and not intended to be expounded on.

[Spiryt]

I don't understand comics etc. I guess, not familiar with most of this, but most of those 'failures' sound like extreme No Storie too me....

I mean, yeah, I guess some of it sucks, but then ignoring the stuff that sucks, like 'Twilight story' and moving on would be perfect course of action.

[BRC]

DC would very likely accept critical articles from a legitimate news source without blacklisting them. They've done it thousands of times before. They would also be very likely to accept an interview with a legitimate company who writes satire, although I doubt they would see it as worth their time.

What they should not, and will never do is accept an interview with a "company" whose primary purpose is to make them look bad. Why would they want to give such a company business or ammunition? They could go into an interview and say all the right things, answer every question correctly, but this page would still find a way to twist them into a negative light.

They are not unbiased.
They are not a news source.
They are a smear campaign.

You're acting like DC is blacklisting legitimate news outlets because they don't like the articles they write...but that's not what happened at all.

Don't get me wrong. I haven't purchased a comic book in 10 years. If you want to stop reading DC for whatever reason, I won't argue. However, treating what is obviously a smear campaign as an authentic source of reporting leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I think "Smear Campaign" is a little much. Looking at the Outhousers it seems to be Newsertainment. DC has opened itself up to have fun poked at it. I'm not sure of it's readership, but I could see DC arguing that they don't have to give interviews to it's writers.

They don't have to give interviews to anybody.

That said, there is a line that gets crossed when you say "We won't give you interviews because you say mean things about us". When you admit that you consider good press a prerequisite for granting access.

Especially in the age of the internet. What really makes Comic Book Resources more "Legitimate" a news source than The Outhousers. It's not like, say, The New York Times vs The Podunk Weekly Ranter. They're both websites. It's hard to quantify what makes one a legitimate news source.

It also implies a troublesome official policy. It means that there is a "Price" for Access, and that anybody else who has access is paying that price.

[SeeDarkly_X]

I take it you weren't around for the days in comics when Wolverine was on every single cover? I understand the frustration, and honestly it's a valid complaint...but comic book companies have been doing this for a long, long time.
(Full Disclosure: I'm not a fan of Wolverine. Don't hate the character, just not a fan. That said & using your example of Wolverine...)
Yes, I was around for the the first Wolverine #1.
Yes, I have seen numerous variant covers featuring him.
Yes, I have seen him APPEAR as a guest or as PART of a story in a book not affiliated with him generally.
Yes, I've even seen a villain of Wolverine's take over his title to carry on a story relevant to him.
What I've never seen is a story about Wolverine completely take over a title with no reference to the featured characters of that title or the on-going story it is telling.

And honestly... I couldn't care less about variant covers and who is featured on them for whatever celebratory construct they come up with to sell an additional book. Good for them if it works and keeps them in business.
Personally, where comics are concerned, I spend the money I do on the story of characters I've grown to care about. I'll even grit my teeth through bad artists if the story is compelling enough (Peter David's first run on X-Factor comes to mind.)

What DC did in the instance of Deathstroke in the Teen Titans title was betray a trust that the title purchased would be about (or in any way relevant to) the characters and story expected of that title. It's an important distinction.
It's also singular among many, many, many other complaints about their practices in the era of New 52.

[Anteros]

I think "Smear Campaign" is a little much. Looking at the Outhousers it seems to be Newsertainment. DC has opened itself up to have fun poked at it. I'm not sure of it's readership, but I could see DC arguing that they don't have to give interviews to it's writers.

They don't have to give interviews to anybody.

That said, there is a line that gets crossed when you say "We won't give you interviews because you say mean things about us". When you admit that you consider good press a prerequisite for granting access.

Especially in the age of the internet. What really makes Comic Book Resources more "Legitimate" a news source than The Outhousers. It's not like, say, The New York Times vs The Podunk Weekly Ranter. They're both websites. It's hard to quantify what makes one a legitimate news source.

It also implies a troublesome official policy. It means that there is a "Price" for Access, and that anybody else who has access is paying that price.

Again. There have been literally thousands of negative articles published about DC, their staff, and their stories over the years. DC still works with the vast majority of those companies, and allows them to interview. When you cross the line between objective reporting that may happen to be negative at times, over to intentionally bashing your target for more views, you cannot be surprised when they blacklist you. They gave up their "right" to interviewing the company at the exact moment they gave up their objectivity.



(Full Disclosure: I'm not a fan of Wolverine. Don't hate the character, just not a fan. That said & using your example of Wolverine...)
Yes, I was around for the the first Wolverine #1.
Yes, I have seen numerous variant covers featuring him.
Yes, I have seen him APPEAR as a guest or as PART of a story in a book not affiliated with him generally.
Yes, I've even seen a villain of Wolverine's take over his title to carry on a story relevant to him.
What I've never seen is a story about Wolverine completely take over a title with no reference to the featured characters of that title or the on-going story it is telling.

And honestly... I couldn't care less about variant covers and who is featured on them for whatever celebratory construct they come up with to sell an additional book. Good for them if it works and keeps them in business.
Personally, where comics are concerned, I spend the money I do on the story of characters I've grown to care about. I'll even grit my teeth through bad artists if the story is compelling enough (Peter David's first run on X-Factor comes to mind.)

What DC did in the instance of Deathstroke in the Teen Titans title was betray a trust that the title purchased would be about (or in any way relevant to) the characters and story expected of that title. It's an important distinction.
It's also singular among many, many, many other complaints about their practices in the era of New 52.

I misunderstood your complaint. I thought you were simply upset about Deathstroke being on the cover. I didn't realize the entire book was about him.

Apologies.

[SeeDarkly_X]

I misunderstood your complaint. I thought you were simply upset about Deathstroke being on the cover. I didn't realize the entire book was about him.

Apologies.

No apologies needed. Happy to clarify. And you're not entirely wrong: I certainly expected that, with Deathstroke on the cover, it would lead to some interesting connection to or story about him AND the Titans. The cover absolutely created an expectation and the content under it failed to satisfy that expectation.

And that is almost a perfect analogy of current DC business practices.
A lot of show and gimmicks on the surface, but a lot of disappointment once you're under the cover. :smallannoyed:

[Friv]

What they should not, and will never do is accept an interview with a "company" whose primary purpose is to make them look bad. Why would they want to give such a company business or ammunition? They could go into an interview and say all the right things, answer every question correctly, but this page would still find a way to twist them into a negative light.

I think you have your cause and effect backwards. The "How Many Days Since DC Did Something Wrong" was created as a response to the blacklist; the site only became really hostile to DC after they got blacklisted for having been critical in the past.

And DC does, in fact, have a storied history of trying to shut down all criticism of them (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/04/23/publishers-pr-reporters-and-jounalism-comics-in-2013/) by various websites and press groups.

[Darth Credence]

SeeDarkly_X: for Deathstroke, I think there is a simple explanation you are missing. The point of the villain issues was to showcase an important villain - whether it be a new villain, one crucial to Forever Evil, or just someone they had a good story to go with - and they put those villains in the best book for the purpose. What book would you have preferred Deathstroke to be in? He was originally introduced in Teen Titans, so that seems like the place to give him his shot for villains month. In addition, that was the second TT of the month - Trigon was the .1 issue.

As to everything else in here, I think it boils down to the "blacklisting". I read the write up on the site linked, and even though it was written by them I don't think it makes them look like a website that I would want to deal with if I was DC. They mention how they couldn't get interviews with DC, and how they were denied when they went through proper channels. That reads a lot like 'we pissed DC off so much that they wouldn't talk to us when we finally decided to start going through proper channels to get interviews.'

Why does anyone take the words of the people at this site as being true? Everything I see there seems to be a group of petty people who thought that because they had a website, they deserved special treatment at comic book events. When they didn't get special treatment, they decided to start to be ***** about the whole thing. DC was probably the first company to tell them where to stick it, and so they got dinged with the "days since" bit. The writing I have read on the site is basically crap, the satire is not funny at all (I just read a Hayden Pantierre bit and a Constantine bit, and not a laugh to be found), and they don't have any news that is not available at a dozen better organized, better looking sites. I think it seems pretty clear that the site only stays relevant at all because they are able to tap into some DC hate.

[Anteros]

It's a snark website. Virtually everything they do is overwhelmingly negative because that's what gets them traffic and thus money. They may have not singled DC out until after they were blacklisted, but their history of never saying anything positive about them, under any circumstances was certainly well established before then.

If DC is blacklisting legitimate journalists then that's bad. Blacklisting overwhelmingly negative people who seem to have a vendetta against them is perfectly understandable.


SeeDarkly_X: for Deathstroke, I think there is a simple explanation you are missing. The point of the villain issues was to showcase an important villain - whether it be a new villain, one crucial to Forever Evil, or just someone they had a good story to go with - and they put those villains in the best book for the purpose. What book would you have preferred Deathstroke to be in? He was originally introduced in Teen Titans, so that seems like the place to give him his shot for villains month. In addition, that was the second TT of the month - Trigon was the .1 issue.

As to everything else in here, I think it boils down to the "blacklisting". I read the write up on the site linked, and even though it was written by them I don't think it makes them look like a website that I would want to deal with if I was DC. They mention how they couldn't get interviews with DC, and how they were denied when they went through proper channels. That reads a lot like 'we pissed DC off so much that they wouldn't talk to us when we finally decided to start going through proper channels to get interviews.'

Why does anyone take the words of the people at this site as being true? Everything I see there seems to be a group of petty people who thought that because they had a website, they deserved special treatment at comic book events. When they didn't get special treatment, they decided to start to be ***** about the whole thing. DC was probably the first company to tell them where to stick it, and so they got dinged with the "days since" bit. The writing I have read on the site is basically crap, the satire is not funny at all (I just read a Hayden Pantierre bit and a Constantine bit, and not a laugh to be found), and they don't have any news that is not available at a dozen better organized, better looking sites. I think it seems pretty clear that the site only stays relevant at all because they are able to tap into some DC hate.

I wish I could give you a gold star for this post.

[Avilan the Grey]

Two things:

DC seems to have a lack of understanding of modern issues.
See for example Amanda Waller's change:


From this:
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110427032913/marvel_dc/images/thumb/5/59/Amanda_Waller_009.jpg/500px-Amanda_Waller_009.jpg

To this:
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/main/sites/default/files/wheel/images/WallerNow.jpg

For no other reason than "Let's make her sexy and six feet tall while we're rebooting things anyway".

Or the Harley Quinn scandal.

Or the refusal to let Batwoman's wedding be published.

Or you know Starfire.

Or Harley Quinns new "uniform". Etc.

One that bothers me personally is the return of the blonde Hippolyta. But that's just a personal thing (She's GREEK, not Penny's mom from BBT).

[SeeDarkly_X]

SeeDarkly_X: for Deathstroke, I think there is a simple explanation you are missing. The point of the villain issues was to showcase an important villain - whether it be a new villain, one crucial to Forever Evil, or just someone they had a good story to go with - and they put those villains in the best book for the purpose. What book would you have preferred Deathstroke to be in? He was originally introduced in Teen Titans, so that seems like the place to give him his shot for villains month. In addition, that was the second TT of the month - Trigon was the .1 issue.


Nope. That point was not missed; if anything, it's part of the problem.
Trigon was made relevant to the New 52 Titans, so that was fair and appropriate (wasn't a great story, but it was fairly placed.)

Again, Deathstroke is only relevant to the PRE-52 Titans. They didn't make any effort be creative and make a new connection. They simply relied on that previous association to help sell the book. And it worked for them. But it was a deceit at worst, mismanagement at best.
They could have, as easily, put Deathstroke's V.M. special in Green Arrow (as he is currently recognized on the Arrow series.) Or possibly any other book he had ACTUALLY APPEARED IN!

What they were doing with Deathstroke couldn't even keep his own book from cancellation... why the hell use the only book he might be appropriately put in and NOT INCORPORATE him into the New 52 story of it?

[BRC]

Two things:

DC seems to have a lack of understanding of modern issues.
See for example Amanda Waller's change:


From this:
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110427032913/marvel_dc/images/thumb/5/59/Amanda_Waller_009.jpg/500px-Amanda_Waller_009.jpg

To this:
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/main/sites/default/files/wheel/images/WallerNow.jpg

For no other reason than "Let's make her sexy and six feet tall while we're rebooting things anyway".

Or the Harley Quinn scandal.

Or the refusal to let Batwoman's wedding be published.

Or you know Starfire.

Or Harley Quinns new "uniform". Etc.

One that bothers me personally is the return of the blonde Hippolyta. But that's just a personal thing (She's GREEK, not Penny's mom from BBT).

Poking around a bit (finding an interview on CBR), it looks like the idea was to recast her as a Nick-Fury type figure, a bad ass Commando Superspy who could wade into the fray if need be (The fact that "Supermodel" was the character design they felt best represented this shouldn't be surprising)

Which isn't a bad idea for a character, but it's not Amanda Waller. The point of Amanda Waller was to demonstrate different types of power. She was powerful not because she could punch you in the face, but because of her willpower, her intelligence, and the resources she commanded.
She wouldn't kick you in the face. She didn't NEED to. She was the woman you called when you needed somebody to stand up to Superman, she was the woman who could keep Supervillains in line.

Her character design really established that. In a world of supermodels she was instantly recognizable. In a world where everybody is ranked by their ability to kick people in the face, a character whose power is NOT Face-Kicking based is kind of terrifying. She didn't NEED to be a pinnacle of physical fitness.

Recasting her as a generic superspy was pointless in that regard.

Oracle was kind of a similar case, although they kept the Superheroine-Required 10/10 body, they just put her in a wheelchair. She was the Intellectual superhero, she defeated her enemies with information, rather than Violence.

But, alas, the New 52 has no place for non-violence based solutions. Amanda Waller can't be the woman who commands supervillains to do good, she must be a superspy.

[Tanuki Tales]

Wasn't Amanda Waller also an Ex-Marine? Being intellectually terrifying and still being able to physically hand someone their head, without looking like a supermodel, was something I always liked.

[The Glyphstone]

Wasn't Amanda Waller also an Ex-Marine? Being intellectually terrifying and still being able to physically hand someone their head, without looking like a supermodel, was something I always liked.

That's not anywhere in her Wiki biography I can find. A widow from the Chicago projects, got a doctorate in political science, became a congressional aide and eventually got put in charge of the Suicide Squad.

[SeeDarkly_X]

That's not anywhere in her Wiki biography I can find. A widow from the Chicago projects, got a doctorate in political science, became a congressional aide and eventually got put in charge of the Suicide Squad.

That's her Pre52 bio...
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Amanda_Waller_%28New_Earth%29
vs. the New 52 where things have changed and the ex-Marine line might track with her story from Team 7...
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Amanda_Waller_%28Prime_Earth%29

[The Glyphstone]

That's her Pre52 bio...
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Amanda_Waller_%28New_Earth%29
vs. the New 52 where things have changed and the ex-Marine line might track with her story from Team 7...
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Amanda_Waller_%28Prime_Earth%29

Yeah, but weren't we discussing the pre-52 Waller anyways? The one that was...big boned, and not a supermodel? If supermodel Waller is also ex-Marine Waller, that kinda defeats the purpose.

[Tanuki Tales]

I could have sworn I saw a page before with her in fatigues and acting in the position of a drill sergeant or something similar. But I guess I'm just misremembering.

[The Glyphstone]

I could have sworn I saw a page before with her in fatigues and acting in the position of a drill sergeant or something similar. But I guess I'm just misremembering.

This (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Amanda_Waller_Prime_Earth_005.jpg) and This (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Amanda_Waller_Prime_Earth_006.jpg) are kinda Marine-y. But This (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Amanda_Waller_%28Prime_Earth%29/Images?file=Amanda_Waller_011.jpg) was her first Nu52 appearance.

[SeeDarkly_X]

I could have sworn I saw a page before with her in fatigues and acting in the position of a drill sergeant or something similar. But I guess I'm just misremembering.

It's entirely possible that scene is as you remember it without her having to be an ex-Marine. Fatigues aren't exactly hard to come by and she might have just felt comfortable in them.
And it's entirely possible that not every detail of both histories is in the available wikis. :smalltongue:

But her physical transformation has also made its way into other media over time.

From Smallville:
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Amanda_Waller_%28Smallville%29
to Green Lantern:
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Amanda_Waller_%28Green_Lantern_Movie%29
to Arrow:
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Amanda_Waller_%28Arrow%29

...she's dropped many sizes in a deliberate process of re-imaging the character.

[Tanuki Tales]

This (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Amanda_Waller_Prime_Earth_005.jpg) and This (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Amanda_Waller_Prime_Earth_006.jpg) are kinda Marine-y. But This (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Amanda_Waller_%28Prime_Earth%29/Images?file=Amanda_Waller_011.jpg) was her first Nu52 appearance.

No, I was thinking of the short, squat Waller.

And I know she didn't have to be an ex-Marine to wear fatigues, it's just what my faulty memory was telling me. :smalltongue:

[Pronounceable]

The problem (http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-marvel-golden-age-silver-age-comics-history/) with DC is that it doesn't even like itself, yet tries to get you to like it.

We like Marvel because they do Spidey/X-Dudes/FF/Avengers/etc, while we like Superman/Batman/WW/Flash/etc in spite of DC.

[Kitten Champion]

I think DCs management style is largely responsible for my dislike of the New 52, which would have been my jumping on point for their company's comics. Bland conformity, confusing continuity hang ups, and just a lack of creativity to make me interested in the universe as a whole.

The things like the 3D covers debacle, the blackout of some of the nerd press, unwillingness to ship a slightly heavier comic to their loyal subscribers, are irrelevant to me. The Twilight-like relationship controversy is just fuelled by the negative connotation of those trite novels, but melodrama is hardly Stephanie Meyers' innovation and remarkable to her works. Marvel and DC have done soap opera romances worse than her at times and for a lot longer.

The rest speak to the core problem with DC. A PR gaffe over the Harley Quinn contest is far less problematic (resolved with an apology, stupid but forgotten by tomorrow if they had gotten in front of it) than the fact that they awarded a professional artist who had already worked for them in the end of their aspiring artist competition. Compound that with the "only for 45 year olds" remark, established artists being kicked off like a goddamn reality show (which could be cool idea -- not sure if telegenic though) the moment they deviate or fall down, and you've got a creative philosophy that is entirely too insular and safe.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think DCs management style is largely responsible for my dislike of the New 52, which would have been my jumping on point for their company's comics. Bland conformity, confusing continuity hang ups, and just a lack of creativity to make me interested in the universe as a whole.

The things like the 3D covers debacle, the blackout of some of the nerd press, unwillingness to ship a slightly heavier comic to their loyal subscribers, are irrelevant to me. The Twilight-like relationship controversy is just fuelled by the negative connotation of those trite novels, but melodrama is hardly Stephanie Meyers' innovation and remarkable to her works. Marvel and DC have done soap opera romances worse than her at times and for a lot longer.

The rest speak to the core problem with DC. A PR gaffe over the Harley Quinn contest is far less problematic (resolved with an apology, stupid but forgotten by tomorrow if they had gotten in front of it) than the fact that they awarded a professional artist who had already worked for them in the end of their aspiring artist competition. Compound that with the "only for 45 year olds" remark, established artists being kicked off like a goddamn reality show (which could be cool idea -- not sure if telegenic though) the moment they deviate or fall down, and you've got a creative philosophy that is entirely too insular and safe.

To me their biggest gaffe was the whole "let's not publish Batwoman's gay wedding because... um... um... no reason?" (but being adamant about it to the point where both writers quit the title in protest, because that publicity is so much better than actually publish the wedding?)

The rest is stupid. That is STUPID.

Anyway, my point is that the management at DC seems, genuinely, stuck in the 90ies.

Also, I forgot Oracle. The fact that they were caught off guard when people with disabilities got FURIOUS when they "cured" her (because people in wheelchairs don't read comics?) to the point that Gail took the job of writing her as Batgirl mostly to try to salvage Barbara's reputation (outright stating "I don't know what they were thinking, but at least they let me write her and not anybody else").

[Friv]

To me their biggest gaffe was the whole "let's not publish Batwoman's gay wedding because... um... um... no reason?" (but being adamant about it to the point where both writers quit the title in protest, because that publicity is so much better than actually publish the wedding?)

They had a reason. It was a dumb, dumb reason, but it was a reason.

The reason was, "Married characters are old and boring, and we don't want our readers to feel like the characters are old and boring, so all marriages in DC are hereby verboten forever."

[Avilan the Grey]

They had a reason. It was a dumb, dumb reason, but it was a reason.

The reason was, "Married characters are old and boring, and we don't want our readers to feel like the characters are old and boring, so all marriages in DC are hereby verboten forever."

"...Just like in Twilligt!!!" :smallsigh:

Of course that's not the impression they gave (not to mention the reasoning is BAD and STUPID as such).

[Aotrs Commander]

They had a reason. It was a dumb, dumb reason, but it was a reason.

The reason was, "Married characters are old and boring, and we don't want our readers to feel like the characters are old and boring, so all marriages in DC are hereby verboten forever."

"After all, we're writing for 45 year-olds; if they're still reading our crap at that age, they can't possibily be married!"

[Tanuki Tales]

"After all, we're writing for 45 year-olds; if they're still reading our crap at that age, they can't possibily be married!"

Oh the Animation Age Ghetto. I wish that you used blue text, but I could see them thinking that.

Because we all know that sequential graphic storytelling can never be a respectable medium to convey stories for people of all ages.

[Talya]

The only real DC universe is Bruce Timm's DC Animated Universe. It's the one true canon and the only DC worth watching/reading.

Everything else is just derivative crap. :smallbiggrin:

(Except for Arrow. It's derivative, but not crap.)

[BRC]

The only real DC universe is Bruce Timm's DC Animated Universe. It's the one true canon and the only DC worth watching/reading.

Everything else is just derivative crap. :smallbiggrin:

(Except for Arrow. It's derivative, but not crap.)

Arrow is what I call a "Adapference", in that it's largely an original (If highly derivative) work that just makes a lot of references to the source material.
I would argue it's in places a step beyond, say, the Nolanverse in terms of differing from source material.

For example, in the comics Malcolm Merlyn is an assassin/mercenary archer.

In Arrow there is a megalomaniac billionaire who ALSO happens to be a badass archer/martial artist...named Malcolm Merlyn.

In The Comics there is a mind-bending aristocrat named Count Vertigo.
In Arrow there is a drug dealer who sells a drug called Vertigo, and is known as "The Count".


Nolanverse Batman generally kept the characters true to form. Scarecrow was a psychiatrist who developed a fear-inducing toxin, The Joker was an insane murderer who killed for amusement, Ras Al Ghul sought to save the world from itself. They scaled down the more fantastical elements.


Which isn't to say I dislike Arrow, it's a great show, but it's more a show that features a lot of references to the comics then it is an adaptation.

[Jayngfet]

Actually season 2 brought Merlyn a little closer to comic form.

Vertigo is barely a thing, and one of the least popular villains besides.

[BWR]

The only real DC universe is Bruce Timm's DC Animated Universe. It's the one true canon and the only DC worth watching/reading.

Everything else is just derivative crap. :smallbiggrin:

(Except for Arrow. It's derivative, but not crap.)

While I love the DCAU, BTBATB and Young Justice both manage to outshine it (not by much, but they manage it).

[Tanuki Tales]

While I love the DCAU, BTBATB and Young Justice both manage to outshine it (not by much, but they manage it).

Those are some mighty big words you're saying.

[Anteros]

"After all, we're writing for 45 year-olds; if they're still reading our crap at that age, they can't possibily be married!"

I would venture that most 45 year olds who still read comics do so as an escape from their normal life. In that sense, relating the characters to them in such a way may actually be a bad thing when it comes to creating appeal.

[Talya]

While I love the DCAU, BTBATB and Young Justice both manage to outshine it (not by much, but they manage it).

Not even close!

(Continuity is the big thing DCAU had going for it... 5 different inter-connected TV series about different characters is what I loved. Plus...they invented Harley Quinn.)

[comicshorse]

The reason was, "Married characters are old and boring, and we don't want our readers to feel like the characters are old and boring, so all marriages in DC are hereby verboten forever."

Wasn't that the reason Marvel had for 'One More Day' and getting rid of Spiderman's marriage to Mary Jane

[BRC]

I would venture that most 45 year olds who still read comics do so as an escape from their normal life. In that sense, relating the characters to them in such a way may actually be a bad thing when it comes to creating appeal.
I would argue against that Venture. Comics are by no means a uniquely juvenile pastime. They're no more inherently Escapist than books, movies, TV, or video games.
Superhero Comics are probably more escapist, but still.


Wasn't that the reason Marvel had for 'One More Day' and getting rid of Spiderman's marriage to Mary Jane
Personally, the "No Marriage" thing sounds like a general direction that DC made a company-wide policy in order to avoid accusations of homophobia.

I get the appeal of No Weddings as a general policy. For all they are touted, Weddings make bad superhero story arcs. You can't really justify having a Wedding happen without spending at least an issue on it, but unless you've got the audience really invested in the relationship it's not going to do much. Meanwhile it causes stability, and if down the road you want to put the character in a different relationship you have to deal with getting them out of their marriage somehow, or making them unfaithful.

That said, there should be room for exceptions. Aquaman should be married to whatshername (Queen of Atlantis). I wouldn't say they need to rush into getting Lois and Clark married though. But as a general rule I don't really disagree with telling creators not to have characters married.

The issue is that with Batwoman the editors Okayed the engagement, but NOT the Marriage. And then, so it didn't look like they were trying to stop a gay wedding, they revealed that NOBODY is married.

[Tanuki Tales]

Wasn't that the reason Marvel had for 'One More Day' and getting rid of Spiderman's marriage to Mary Jane

They had Northstar get married....so...don't know what you're saying here in context to DC not wanting a same sex marriage to happen in their comics.

Edit: One More Day was also one man's petty tantrum against what he didn't like about Spider-man. Just like he went on a "no-smoking" campaign, except when it served to tell his own "Woe is me!" story.

[comicshorse]

They had Northstar get married....so...don't know what you're saying here in context to DC not wanting a same sex marriage to happen in their comics.


I wasn't saying anything about that
I was responding to Friv's post (which is about marriage in general):

The reason was, "Married characters are old and boring, and we don't want our readers to feel like the characters are old and boring, so all marriages in DC are hereby verboten forever."
and pointing out that Marvel had done exactly the same stupid thing

[BRC]

I wasn't saying anything about that
I was responding to Friv's post :

and pointing out that Marvel had done exactly the same stupid thing

Marvel went through a convoluted and much-hated plotline to end one marriage.

DC is preemptively banning ALL marriages.

Those are two very different things.

[comicshorse]

Marvel went through a convoluted and much-hated plotline to end one marriage.

DC is preemptively banning ALL marriages.

Those are two very different things.

I'd say they're different scales of the same thing

And just out of curiosity how many Marvel characters are actually married compared to DC

[Tanuki Tales]

Marvel went through a convoluted and much-hated plotline to end one marriage.


Quesada specifically, not Marvel as a whole. Mind you, he was a big enough dog at the time that it was nearly synonymous, but as mentioned, DC is the one that's worked hard to be seen as one legionous entity, while Marvel is more little ego islands bobbing in a vast production sea.

[comicshorse]

little ego islands bobbing in a vast production sea.

I love that phrase and must try and work it into conversation some time :smallcool:

[BRC]

I'd say they're different scale of the same thing

They're motivated by a similar sentiment, the idea that a married character is static and therefore boring, but they are very different.

What Marvel did was an incredibly poorly handled reversal of a SINGLE Marriage. That was motivated by Joe Queseda's dislike of Peter Parker and Mary Jane being Married.

DC has banned all marriages.

It's the difference between throwing away a pair of pants, and declaring that you will never wear pants again.

[HandofShadows]

One that bothers me personally is the return of the blonde Hippolyta. But that's just a personal thing (She's GREEK, not Penny's mom from BBT).

Surprisingly, Amazons being Blond is historicaly accurate. The have found graves from the Black Sea area containing the remains of female warriors. And many were blonds. They even tracked to were they migrated to. (Mongola). No, not kidding. :)

[Devonix]

They're motivated by a similar sentiment, the idea that a married character is static and therefore boring, but they are very different.

What Marvel did was an incredibly poorly handled reversal of a SINGLE Marriage. That was motivated by Joe Queseda's dislike of Peter Parker and Mary Jane being Married.

DC has banned all marriages.

It's the difference between throwing away a pair of pants, and declaring that you will never wear pants again.

Don't forget killing of Jean Grey to motivate the character development for Scott Summers.

[HandofShadows]

Don't forget killing of Jean Grey to motivate the character development for Scott Summers.

Not quite http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/06/origin-of-phoenix-saga.html

[Aotrs Commander]

Don't forget killing of Jean Grey to motivate the character development for Scott Summers.

I was going to say,"for the better, since Emma is a more interesting character, and for a while, Cyclops actually HAD some character to develop..." and then realised that might not even be the Jean Grey death you even meant...!

Seriously, it's less flogging the dead horse than flogging a dead horse could be said to be flogging a dead Jean...

[Kitten Champion]

And just out of curiosity how many Marvel characters are actually married compared to DC

Well, Luke Cage and Jessica Jones, Reed and Susan Richards, Black Bolt and Medusa, Brian Braddock and Meggan Puceanu. Northstar is still married to Kyle Jinadu as far as I'm aware. Not many, but enough to say they do on some level believe a comic can still be marketable even with happily married characters.

The only DC character that is married from the nu52 books I read was Animal Man, it was one of variety of reasons I enjoy that comic.

[Tanuki Tales]

I love that phrase and must try and work it into conversation some time :smallcool:

I have my moments. :smallwink:


Also:

Lots of married characters. (http://marvel.wikia.com/Category:Married_Characters)

[Aotrs Commander]

Lots of married characters. (http://marvel.wikia.com/Category:Married_Characters)

I was going through the list and seeing how many I recognised (not many... Seeing as it is listing everyone who is, and also has been (or in one case, will be) married), but then I realised there were 115 pages and gave up...!

(As there were 13 on the last page, that makes 2317 married characters. That's... Quite a lot, even considering it covers every reality...)

...

Apparently 42 of those are Susan Storm. That... is a lot of alternate Susan Storms.

...

And that's not even more of them, just the thickest cluster.

Wow...

[SeeDarkly_X]

I was going through the list and seeing how many I recognised (not many... Seeing as it is listing everyone who is, and also has been (or in one case, will be) married), but then I realised there were 115 pages and gave up...!


For the heck of it I thought I'd check the DC wikia for what they had in "Category:Married_Characters"
Interesting. Where Marvel's has 115 pages (The first of which noting 12 characters all actually in the main 616 continuity,) DC's only has 71 pages... and while I didn't scour every page I did note that in the first 20 pages, only TWO characters from the New52 continuity are listed: One, the deceased husband of Black Canary, and the other, A B-list villain/threat from another dimension that fought Vibe.

Now the status of any number of those marriages may have changed, and no wiki is devoid of certain amounts of inaccuracy... but on whatever merit it has, it IS a telling comparison.

[Jayngfet]

For the heck of it I thought I'd check the DC wikia for what they had in "Category:Married_Characters"
Interesting. Where Marvel's has 115 pages (The first of which noting 12 characters all actually in the main 616 continuity,) DC's only has 71 pages... and while I didn't scour every page I did note that in the first 20 pages, only TWO characters from the New52 continuity are listed: One, the deceased husband of Black Canary, and the other, A B-list villain/threat from another dimension that fought Vibe.

Now the status of any number of those marriages may have changed, and no wiki is devoid of certain amounts of inaccuracy... but on whatever merit it has, it IS a telling comparison.

Marrage is just a symptom of DC's even greater issue with story tone, in my opinion.

No character can be married, because that screws over story tone. But this means that every single story in the New 52 needs a comparable tone. Billy Batson and Constantine need to have the same sort of story happen to them and those are the same as the stories going on with Batman and in the Suicide squad, which also need to be identical.

Real life doesn't really work like that. Real life isn't even or fair. Some places are ridiculously campy and cartoonish, while others are hellish warzones. The story of Chuck, the dude who fixes machines at Disneyworld, is going to tell vastly different compared to the story of Jung, a dude who fixes machines in the capital of North Korea. They both have high and low points, sure, but the highs and lows aren't even remotely on the same scale. That's not to say they can't both be serious, since if Larry does a bad job the lives of a cart full of children are in danger. Or that Larry can't meet a nice girl and relax once in a while. But you go in expecting different stakes and get things handled in different ways.

But in the New 52, everything is grittyserious all the time. Billy Batson needs to be a sour jerk who gets into big flashy battles, just like Batman. Mister Freeze will murder an entire family including children for no reason, because he's a villain and every villain must be a psychotic animal. Heroes can't get married, because 90% of them are supposed to be single or loosely committed twenty-somethings or teens down on their luck in some way or another. If you read two or three New 52 comics at random, you've basically read them all.

[Avilan the Grey]

Marrage is just a symptom of DC's even greater issue with story tone, in my opinion. (stuff).

As I said, it seems to me that with New52 DC Comics fell right back into the 90ies and refuses to get out of the pool.

Rob Liefeld
Big Guns
Dark
Gritty
Sexy Women
Rob Liefeld
"Edgy"
Rob Liefeld
Depressing
Rob Liefeld
Gritty
Dark
Smaller costumes for women
Rob Liefeld

And so on.

Somebody at DC is of the right (wrong?) age that remembers the 90ies with nostalgia (something I can't get. Yes I was born in 1972 but I was still a teenager in the 90ies, and I can't muster an ounce of nostalgia for the Most Pointless Decade In History (regarading everything, from fashion to music to comics to movies)) and thought "Hey! You know what kids like? BIG GUNS AND SEXY WOMENS. And violence!" as a response to sinking sales numbers.

[Talya]

Rob Liefeld
...

"Hey! You know what kids like? BIG GUNS AND SEXY WOMENS. And violence!" as a response to sinking sales numbers.


Hey, you forgot horrible, impossible body shapes/poses, and countless pouches, pockets, and other worn container items with no apparent purpose or use whatsoever.

[Avilan the Grey]

Hey, you forgot horrible, impossible body shapes/poses, and countless pouches, pockets, and other worn container items with no apparent purpose or use whatsoever.

Having to mention that AND mention Liefeld is like having to say "Octopus AND tentacles AND big eyes". :smallbiggrin:

[comicshorse]

Hey, you forgot horrible, impossible body shapes/poses, and countless pouches, pockets, and other worn container items with no apparent purpose or use whatsoever.

And an ability to find little mounds to stand behind so you can't see their feet

[Talya]

There's a popular Skyrim mod called "Bandolier." I can't stand to use it. All the pouches and pockets make me call it the "Liefeld Mod."

[Avilan the Grey]

And an ability to find little mounds to stand behind so you can't see there feet

Snake Women do not have feet. :smalltongue:

[Mx.Silver]

Surprisingly, Amazons being Blond is historicaly accurate. The have found graves from the Black Sea area containing the remains of female warriors. And many were blonds.

While this may be true, I'm reasonably confidant DC's Amazons aren't actually based on historical depictions of the ancient Scythians to begin with...

[Guancyto]

Yeah.

Even with superhero movies getting back into vogue, they turned Superman into Batman in their pursuit of the vaguely grimserious.

The Dark Knight was pretty great. They will seriously run the superhero movie resurgence (and their comic books, I guess?) into the ground trying to make absolutely everything into the Dark Knight.

The problems with DC are editorial problems. This is, quite honestly, a really bad sign for their future. Like when a video game has deeply problematic developers (hello, SWToR!), when the driver of the van is steering off a cliff it doesn't matter what the passengers are doing.

[Talya]

The Dark Knight was pretty great. They will seriously run the superhero movie resurgence (and their comic books, I guess?) into the ground trying to make absolutely everything into the Dark Knight.


(1) Batman Begins > The Dark Knight! Not that the Dark Knight wasn't good, but I thought it got too much praise without nearly enough going to its predecessor.
(2) They will only run DC comic movies into the ground. Marvel's going in the right direction with their Avengers franchise. (Hell, even Sony and Fox have been surprisingly good with their most recent installments of Spiderman and X-Men franchise movies.) So basically, up with Disney, down with Warner Brothers.

[HandofShadows]

While this may be true, I'm reasonably confidant DC's Amazons aren't actually based on historical depictions of the ancient Scythians to begin with...

Well they are based on pupular myth and those myths are based on fact. DC getting the hair color "right" is probably an accident though. :)

[SeeDarkly_X]

I'm no real fan of Liefeld... but couple of things to note regarding him:
*Hawk & Dove - Drawn with significantly less guns, but only lasted 8 issues.
*He also quit DC on highly believable claims of frequent executive level edits of his writing. But then, every book he was on was also cancelled... some before he quit... so I don't imagine DC really shed a tear over that "loss."

Liefeld, even as awful as he may be, isn't DC's overarching problem.
If anything, he recognized the problem and got out.

[BRC]

Actually it looks more like DC's new style is copying Jim Lee, who is really really good. They're writing however is harking back to the Liefeld Days of the 90s. Everything must be Gritty, Every woman must look like a pornstar, everybody must be miserable lone wolves in an uncaring world.
The issue with art is more that they make EVERY book look the same. By mandating a house style they remove the ability of the artist to tailor their style to the story being told, making every book look, and feel, the same.

For an example of the opposite, look at Marvel.

Hawkeye is a very mundane, unglamorous book. It's about a human disaster area named Clint Barton getting beaten up and making terrible decisions. A big part of why Hawkeye works so well is because David Aja draws Clint as a normal guy.
Take a look at this page (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/boomerang1.jpg).
Compared to, lets say, this page (http://i.imgur.com/U8NvZJm.jpg) from Loki: Agent of Asgard.


Agent of Asgard is a swashbuckling Superheroic adventure. Clint there is supposed to be a Superhero, he's a threat to Loki. He's drawn with the standard issue Superhero Biceps. We wouldn't accept Hawkeye as somebody who could threaten Loki if he was drawn as some guy in a purple shirt.

In the same way, if Aja drew Clint as a paragon of physical perfection it wouldn't work as well with the story of a man whose life is falling apart due to bad decisions, and who is threatened by two-bit tracksuit wearing gangsters.
The Same Character, but drawn very differently to fit the tone of the story he's in.

Black Widow does the same thing (http://24.media.tumblr.com/22142a80dae4cbb30d04ac4f2fb3990e/tumblr_mysstnZfPv1qf4h86o2_1280.jpg). The art is washed out, evoking the poster of some 80's Spy Thriller. The art here is almost dreamlike, fitting for a book where the protagonist remains an enigma to the reader.


DC's House Style prevents the artist from setting the tone of the book, unless that tone is "Gritty Superhero Adventure"
And Hey, what do you know. EVERY New 52 Book is Gritty Superhero Adventures.

[Tanuki Tales]

Why do you think I stopped reading Deathstroke, which I had thoroughly enjoyed up to that point, when Rob Liefeld got the reigns?

Seriously, we don't need the 90s back. Some good things evolved from that era, some characters and shows I like were born because of it, but we don't need one of the worst eras of comics back.

[SeeDarkly_X]

Actually it looks more like DC's new style is copying Jim Lee, who is really really good.

Jim Lee did, in fact, redesign EVERY DC character's look for the launch of the New 52 and has doubtless directed further designs since.

I think it's important to recognize that it's not "the creative talent" that is DC's problem. Many of them, who we may have seen great things from at one time or another, are just trying to keep their paycheck by "executing format."
It's executive management and interference of that format that is the problem.

Listen to this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMK0uEUTEOc&feature=youtu.be&t=19m47s) (cued to start at 19:47; some explicit language in other sections of the podcast) of James Gunn talking about how Marvel operates within Disney and with the people making the GotG film.

It's exactly the difference. Marvel upper management stays out of the way of its creators and does the PR based on what they come up with.

DC/WB upper management influences content to invent good PR... and it fails them.

[Guancyto]

Wow, they got so stuck on gritty antiheroic loner adventure that they drove Liefeld away?

I'm... I'm actually kind of impressed. That's like drowning a fish.

Burning a fire elemental to death.

Getting so clingy that saran-wrap just needs its space.

Being such a packrat that the Dovahkiin tells you to throw some stuff away already.

Tiring out a nymphomaniac.

Getting a paranoid schizophrenic to dismiss your conspiracy theories as 'too out there.'

I can go on.

[Talya]

Tiring out a nymphomaniac.


It can be done. (Speaking from the perspective of a nymphomaniac.)

[Avilan the Grey]

Wow, they got so stuck on gritty antiheroic loner adventure that they drove Liefeld away?

I'm... I'm actually kind of impressed. That's like drowning a fish.

Burning a fire elemental to death.

Getting so clingy that saran-wrap just needs its space.

Being such a packrat that the Dovahkiin tells you to throw some stuff away already.

Tiring out a nymphomaniac.

Getting a paranoid schizophrenic to dismiss your conspiracy theories as 'too out there.'

I can go on.

Please do. I am... in mindboggled awe myself.
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/actually-im-not-even-mad-thats-amazing-meme.jpg


It can be done. (Speaking from the perspective of a nymphomaniac.)

Lot's of energy drinks...
Sorry, what?

[Jayngfet]

Well they are based on pupular myth and those myths are based on fact. DC getting the hair color "right" is probably an accident though. :)

If we're going that route it still doesn't make much sense. The actual real life groups in the area didn't dress like greeks, worshiped entirely different gods, and most strikingly, did not fly around shooting reverse death rays, as Diana is wont to do sometimes.

I have no problem with amazons as a concept being re-purposed for other stories, I mean that's happened over so many centuries some interpretations have literally become myth and folklore in their own right, but lets not pretend that anything resembling historical accuracy was ever on the table, in so much as a collection of half remembered secondhand accounts and blatant lies can be called historical.

Honestly trying to get details like this "right" has probably hurt Diana long term more than it helped, as reboot after reboot and re-imagining after re-imagining try to fiddle with who she is and confuse things to a degree the character can't afford. It's probably no coincidence that her popularity only began declining once this trend kicked off.

[Lurkmoar]

It can be done. (Speaking from the perspective of a nymphomaniac.)

*flopsweat*

... I gave up on DC waaaay back when Jason Todd was brought back to life. I still pick up old stuff I never took a shot at such as when Grant Morrison was writing Animal Man.

I still check out Marvel, but in small spurts. Hard to enjoy a play with no third act.

[Ranxerox]

DC's House Style prevents the artist from setting the tone of the book, unless that tone is "Gritty Superhero Adventure"
And Hey, what do you know. EVERY New 52 Book is Gritty Superhero Adventures.

Be fair. The New 52 also brought us O.M.A.C, Dial H and Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E.. All of which were in the own ways things of quirky beauty; none of which appeared to be jerked around much by capricious editorial decisions; and none of which sold many books. The masses just weren't interested in buying them.

I'm not trying to exonerate DC completely and lay this all on the feet of the fans, but, yes, I think that the fans need to accept some of the blame glut of "Gritty Superhero Adventures".

[Tanuki Tales]

Isn't Frankenstein basically the same before and after Flashpoint?

[Ranxerox]

The title Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E was introduced after Flashpoint. The character Frankenstein as opposed to the title didn't change much, but I don't think he worked S.H.A.D.E. previous to Flashpoint. I could be wrong about that though.

[Tanuki Tales]

The title Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E was introduced after Flashpoint. The character Frankenstein as opposed to the title didn't change much, but I don't think he worked S.H.A.D.E. previous to Flashpoint. I could be wrong about that though.

He worked for S.H.A.D.E. during Seven Soldiers of Victory.

[Jahkaivah]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/tesla_zps62fdaffd.jpeg

Agreed, AC is definitely the way to go.

[turkishproverb]

...I don't think anyone can beat Jahkaivah's post, although Edison might Electrocute an Elephant trying...

[Ranxerox]

He worked for S.H.A.D.E. during Seven Soldiers of Victory.

Thanks for the info. I didn't start to follow Frankenstein until the New 52. My point is that he was there to follow in the New 52, the book was good, and still not many people bought it.

[dps]

Between using Twilight as literal material, shooting down Kamandi because it wouldn't appeal to 45 year old men and being completely unable to handle criticism, I'm officially done. I'll still purchase anything from before Flashpoint, but that's it.

Nothing wrong with using Twilight as literal material. Packing material is about all it's fit for anyway.

Oh, you meant source material. Yeah, that's stupid.


:smallbiggrin:

[Tanuki Tales]

...I don't think anyone can beat Jahkaivah's post, although Edison might Electrocute an Elephant trying...


http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/6MccPd2MPho/hqdefault.jpg